I ,'..'¦:¦;.. ¦')'-.•. ¦./¦>,. : %Mii-f^{ -^^-Xi-^'-'V^tit' : J-d

fey A .'• -^f.iflfr^^ -- /' "^ . f-;

fAtv2S 860 sk

^','-&»^^ ^''

l%M^

DR. WILLIAM SMITH'S
DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE

COMPRISING ITS

ANTIQUITIES, BIOGRAPHY, GEOGRAPHY,
AND NATURAL HISTORY.

REVISED AKD EDITED BY

PROFESSOR H. B. HACKETF, D. D
WITH THE COOPERATIOS OF
EZRA ABBOT, LL.D.
ASSISTANT LIBBARUH OF HARVARD COLLEQB

VOLUME IV.
REGEM-MELECH to ZUZIMS.

Jerusalem.

BOSTON:
HOUGHTON, OSGOOD AND COMPANY.
€6e iliberjefitie ^rejefjsr, CambriDgc.
1880.

Entered, according fo Act of Congress, in the year 1870, by
HuED AND Houghton,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York-

RIVERSIDE, CAMBRIDGE:
STERKOTYPED AND PRINTED BY
H. O. HOUGHTON AND COMPANY.

WRITERS IN THE ENGLISH EDITION.

II. A'. Very Rev. Henry Alford, D. D., Dean of Canterbury.
II. B. Rev. Henry Bailey, B. D., Warden of St. Augustine's CoUege, Can
terbury ; late Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge.
H. B. Rev. HoRATius Bonar, D. D., Kelso, N. B. ; Author of " The Land
of Promise."
[The geographical articles, signed H. B., are 'written by Dr. Bonar : those on other Bubjectfl,
signed H. B., are written by Mr. Bailey.]
A. B. Rev. Alfred Barry, B. D., Principal of Cheltenham College ; late
Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
W. L. B. Rev. William Latham Bevan, M. A., Vicar of Hay, Brecknock
shire.
J. W. B. Rev. Joseph Williams Blakesley, B. D., Canon of Canterbury ; late
Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, Cambridge.
T. E. B. Rev. Thomas Edward Brown, M. A., Vice-Principal of King Wil
liam's College, Isle of Man ; late Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford.
R. W. B. Ven. Robert William Browne, M. A., Archdeacon of Bath, and
Canon of Wells.
E. H. B. Right Rev. Edward Harold Browne, D. D., Lord Bishop of Ely.
W. T. B. Rev. William Thomas Bullock, M. A., Assistant Secretary of the
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts.
S. C. Rev. Samuel Clark, M. A., Vicar of Bredwardine with Brobury,
Herefordshire.
F. C. C. Rev. Frederic Charles Cook, M. A., Chaplain in Ordinary to the
Queen.
G. E. L. C. Right Rev. George Edward Lynch Cotton, D. D., late Lord Bishop
of Calcutta and Metropolitan of India.
J. Ll. D. Rev. John Llewfxyn Davies, M. A., Rector of Christ Church,
Marylebone ; late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
G. E. D. Prof. George Edward Day, D. D., Yale College, New Haven, Conn.
E. D. Emanuel Deutsch, M. R. A. S., British Museum.
W. D. Rev. William Drake, M. A., Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen.
E. P E. Rev. Edward Paroissibn Eddrup, M. A., Principal of the Theolcg-
ical College, SaUsbury.
C J. E. Right Rev. Charles John Ellicott, D. D., Lord Bishop of Glouces
ter and Bristol.
F. W. F. Rev. Frederick William Farrar, M. A., Assistant Master of Har.
row School ; late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
J. F. James Fergusson, F. R. S., F. R. A. S., Fellow of the Royal Insti
tute of British Architects.
E. S. Ff. Edward Salusbury Ffoulkes, M. A., late Fellow of Jesus College.
Oxford.
VV. F Right Rev. William Fitzgerald, D. D., Lord Bishop of Killaloe. (iii

LIST OF WRITERS.

F. G.
F. W. G.
G.
H. B. H.
E. H— s.
H. H.
A. C. H.
J. A. H.
J. D. H.
J. J. H.
W. H.
J. S. H.
E. H.
W. B. j.
A. H. L.
S. L.
J. B. L.

D.

W

¦. M.

F.

M.

Oppert.

E.

R.

0.

T.

J.

0.

J.

J.

S.P.

T.

T.

p.

H.

W

. p.

E.

H.

p.

E.

S.

p.

R.

8.

p.

J.

L.

p.

Rev. Francis Garden, M. A., Subdean of Her Majesty's Chapeli
Royal.
Rev. F. William Gotch, LL. D., President of the Baptist College,
Bristol ; late Hebrew Examiner in the University of London.
George Grove, Crystal Palace, Sydenham.
Prof. Horatio Balch Hackett, D. D., LL. D., Theological Institu
tion, Newton, Mass.
Rev. Ernest Hawkins, B. D., Secretary of the Society for the Propa
gation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts.
Rev. Henry Hayman, B. D., Head Master of the Grammar School,
Cheltenham ; late Fellow of St. John's College, Oxford.
Ven. Lord Arthur Charles Hervet, M. A., Archdeacon of Sud
bury, and Rector of Ickworth.
Rev. James Augustus Hessey, D. C. L., Head Master of Merchant
Taylors' School.
Josf.ph Dalton Hooker, M. D., F. R. S., Royal Botanic Gardens,
Kew.
Rev. James John Hornby, M. A., Fellow of Brasenose College, Ox
ford ; Principal of Bishop Cosin's Hall.
Rev. William Houghton, M. A., F. L. S., Rector of Preston on the
Weald Moors, Salop.
Rev. John Saul Howson, D. D., Principal of the Collegiate Institu
tion, Liverpool.
Rev. Edgar Huxtable, M. A., Subdean of Wells.
Rev. William Basil Jones, M. A., Prebendary of York and of St.
David's ; late Fellow and Tutor of University College, Oxford.
Austen Henry Layard, D. C. L., M. P.
Rev. Stanley Leather, M. A., M. R. S. L., Hebrew Lecturer in
King's College, London.
Rev. Joseph Barber Lightfoot, D. D., Hulsean Professor of Divinity,
and FeUow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Rev. D. W. Marks, Professor of Hebrew in University College, London.
Rev. Frederick Meykick, M. A., late Fellow and Tutor of Trinity
College, Oxford.
Prof Jules Oppert, of Paris.
Rev. Edward Redman Orger, M. A., Fellow and Tutor of St.
Augustine's College, Canterbury.
Ven. Thomas Johnson Ormerod, M. A., Archdeacon of Suffolk;
late Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford.
Rev. John James Stewart Perowne, B. D., Vice-Principal of St.
David's College, Lampeter.
Rev. Thomas Thomason Perowne, B. D., Fellow and Tutor of
Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.
Rev. Henry Wright Phillott, M. A., Rector of Staunton-on-Wye.
Herefordshire ; late Student 6f Christ Church, Oxford.
Rev. Edward Hayes Plumptre, M. A., Professor of Divinity in
King's College, London.
Edward Stanley Poole, M. R. A. S., South Kensington Museum.
Reginald Stuart Poole, British Mtiseum.
Rev. J. Leslie Porter, M. A., Professor of Sacred Literature, Assem-

LIST OF WRITERS.

hlfs College, Belfast ; Author of " Handbook of Syria and Palestine,'
and " Five Years in Damascus."
C. P. Rev. Charles Pritchard, M. A., F. R. S., Hon. Secretary of the
Royal Astronomical Society ; late FeUow of St. John's CoUege, Cam
bridge.
G. R. Rev. George Rawlinson, M. A., Camden Professor of Ancient His
tory, Oxford.
H. J. R. Rev. Henry John Rose, B. D., Rural Dean, and Rector of Houghton
Conquest, Bedfordshire.
W. S. Rev. William Selwyn, D. D., Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen ;
Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity, Cambridge ; Canon of Ely.
A. P. S. Rev. Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, D. D., Regius Professor of Ecclesias
tical History, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford ; Chaplain to His
Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.
C. E. S. Prof. Calvin Ellis Stowe, D. D., Hartford, Conn.
J. P. T. Rev. Joseph Parrish Thompson, D. D., New York.
W. T. Most Rev. William Thomson, D. D., Lord Archbishop of York.
S. P. T. Samuel Prideaux Tregblles, LL. D., Author of " An Introduction
to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament," &c.
H. B. T. Rev. Henry Baker Tristram, M. A., F. L. S., Master of Greatham
Hospital.
J. F. T. Rev. Joseph Francis Thrupp, M. A., Vicar of Barrington ; late Fel
low of Trinity CoUege, Cambridge.
E. T. Hon. Edward T. B. Twisleton, M. A., late FeUow of BaUiol College
Oxford.
E. V. Rev. Edmund Venables, M. A., Bonchurch, Isle of Wight.
B. F. W. Rev. Brooke Foss Westcott, M. A., Assistant Master of Han-oi*
School ; late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
C. W. Rev. Christopher Wordsworth, D. D., Canon of Westminster.
W. A. W. William Aldis Wright, M. A., Librarian of Trinity CoUege, Cam
bridge.

WRITERS IN THE AMERICAN EDITION.
A. Ezra Abbot, LL. D., Assistant Librarian of Harvard CoUege,
Cambridge, Mass.
S. C. B. Prof Samuel Colcord Bartlett, D. D., Theol. Sem., Chicago, HI.
T. J. C. Rev. Thomas Jefferson Conant, D. D., Brooklyn, N. Y.
G. E. D. Prof George Edward Day, D. D., Yale CoUege, New Haven, Conn
G. P. F. Prof George Park Fisher, D. D., Yale College, New Haven, Conn
F. G. Prof Frederic Gardiner, D. D., Middletown, Conn.
D. R. G. Rev. Daniel Raynes Goodwin, D. D., Provost of the Univejsity oi
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
II. Prof Horatio Balch Hackett, D. D., LL. D., Theological Institu
tion, Newton, Mass.
J, H. Prof. James HadPey, LL. D., Yale College, New Haven, Conn.
F. W H. Rev. Frederick Whitmorb Holland, F. R. G. S., London.
A. H. Prof Alvah Hovey, D. D., Theological Institution, Newton, Mass.

n LIST OF WRITERS.
INrTIALS. NAUBS.
A. C. K. Prof. AsAHEL Clark Kendrick, D. D., University of Rochester, N. Y
C. M. M. Prof. Charles Marsh Mead, Ph. D., Theol. Sem., Andover, Mass.
E. A. P. Prof. Edwards Amasa Park, D. D., Theol. Seminary, Andover, Mass.
W. E. P. Rev. William Edwards Park, Lawrence, Mass.
A. P. P. Prof Andrew Preston Peabody, D. D., LL. D., Harvard College,
Cambridge, Mass.
G. E. P. Rev. George E. Post, M. D., TripoU, Syria.
R. D. C. R. Prof. Rensselaer David Chanceford Robbins, Middlebury Col
lege, Vt.
P. S. Rev. Philip Schaff, D. D., New York.
H. B. S. Prof Henry Boynton Smith, D. D., LL. D., Union Theological
Seminary, New York.
C. E. S. Rev. Calvin Ellis Stowe, D. D., Hartford, Conn.
D. S. T. Prof Daniel Smith Talcott, D. D., Theol. Seminary, Bangor, Me.
J. H. T. Prof Joseph Henry Thayer, M. A., Theol. Seminary, Andover, Mass.
.1. P. T. Rev. Joseph Parrish Thompson, D. D., New York.
C. V. A. V. Rev. Cornelius V. A. Van Dyck, D. D., Beurflt, Syria.
W. H. W. Rev. William Hayes Ward, M. A., New York.
W. F. W. Prof William Fairfield Warren, D. D., Boston Theological Sem
inary, Boston, Mass.
S. W. Rev. Samuel Wolcott, D. D., Cleveland, Ohio.
T. D. W. President Theodore Dwight Woolsey, D. D., LL. D., Yale College,
New Haven, Conn.
*j,t* The new portions in the present edition are indicated by a star (*), the edi
torial additions being distinguished by the initials H. and A. Whatever is enclosed
in brackets is also, with unimportant exceptions, editorial. This remark, however,
does not apply to the cross-references in brackets, most of which belong to the origi
nal work, though a large number have been added to this edition.

ABBREVIATIONS.

Aid. The Aldine edition of the Septuagint, 1518.
Alex. The Codex Alexandrinus (5th cent.), edited by Baber, 1816-28.
A. V. The authorized (common) EngUsh version of the Bible.
Comp. The Septuagint as printed in the Complutensian Polyglott, 1514-17, pubhshed
1522.
FA. The Codex Friderico-Augustanus (4th cent.), published by Tischendorf in
1846.
Rom. The Roman edition of the Septuagint, 1587. The readings of the Septuagint
for which no authority is specified are also from this source.
Sin. The Codex Sinalticus (4th cent.), published by Tischendorf in 1862. This
and FA. are parts of the same manuscript.
Vat. The Codex Vaticanus 1209 (4th cent.), according to Mai's edition, published
by Vercellone in 1857. " Vat. H." denotes readings of the MS. (differing
from Mai), given in Holmes and Parsons's edition of the Septuagint, 1798.
1827. " Vat.^ " distinguishes the primary reading of the MS. from " Vat' "
or " 2. m./' the alteration of a later reviser.

DICTIONARY

BIBLICAL ANTIQUITIES, BIOGRAPHY, GEOGRAPHY,
AND NATURAL HISTORY.

REGEM-MELECH
liE'GEM-MB'LECH (ty^5 D?"n [friend
ofthe king]: 'ApjSeo-eep i $aat\evsl Alex. Ap-
$€(re<rep o $.: Sogommelech). The names of
Slierezer and Regem-melecli occur in an obscure
passage of Zechariah (vii. 2). They were sent on
behalf of some of the Captivity to make inquiries
at the Temple concerning fasting. In the A. V.
the subject of the verse appears to be the captive
Jews in Babylon,' and Bethel, or " the house of
God," is regarded as the accusative after the verb
of motion. The LXX. take " the king " as the
nominative to the verb "sent," considering the
last part of the name Regem-melech as an appel-
lative and not as a proper name. Again, in the
Vulgate, Sherezer, Regem-melech, and their men,
are the persons who seut to the house of God.
The Peshito-Syriac has a curious version of the
passage: "And he sent to Bethel, to Sharezer and
liabmag; and the king sent and his men to pray
for him before the Lord:" Sharezer and Rabmag
being associated in Jer. xxxix. 3, 13. On refer
ring to Zech. vii. 5, the expression " the people of
the land " seems to indicate that those who sent
to the Temple were not the captive Jews in Baby
lon, but those who had returned to their own
country; and this being the case it is probable
that in ver. 2 " Bethel " is to be taken as the sub
ject, " and Bethel, i. e. the inhabitants of Bethel,
sent." The Hexaplar-Syriac, following the Peshito, has
" Rabmag." What reading the I.XX. had before
them it is difficult to conjecture. From its con
nection with Sherezer, the name Regem-melech
(lit. "king's friend," comp. 1 Chr. xxvii. 33), waa
probably an Assyrian title of office. W. A. W.
REGION-ROUND-ABOUT, THE (^ ire-
pix^po^). This term had perhaps originally a
more precise and independent meaning than it ap
pears to il re.ider of the Authorized Version to

In the Old Test, it is used by the LXX. as
the equivalent of the singular Hebrew word hac-
Ciccar ("ISSH, literally "the round"), a word
the topographical application of which is not clear,
but which seems in its earliest occ^irrences to de
note the circle or oasis of cultivation in which
stood Sodom and Gomorrah and the rest of the
flv© " cities of the Ciccnr 170

BEHOB
xix. 17, 26, 28, 29; Dent, xxxiv. 3). Elsewhen
it has a wider meaning, though still attached to
the Jordan (2 Sam. xviii. 23; 1 K. vii. 46; 2 Chr.
iv. 17; Neh. iii. 22, xii. 28). It is in this less
restricted sense that Trepix'^pos occurs in the New
Test. In Matt. iii. 5 and Luke iii. 3 it denotes
the populous and flourishing region which con
tained the towns of Jericho and its dependencies,
in the Jordan Valley, inclosed in the amijhitheatre
of the hills of Quarantana (see Map, vol. ii. p.
664), a densely populated region, and important
enough to be reckoned as a distinct section of Pal
estine — " Jerusalem, Judaea, and all the ari'on-
dissement" of Jordan " (Matt. iii. 5, also Luke vii.
17;. [JuB.KA, Wilderness of, Amer. ed.] It
is also applied to the district of Gennesaret, a re
gion which presents certain similarities to that of
Jericho, being inclosed in the amphitheatre of the
hills of Hattin and bounded in front by the water
of the lake, as the other was by the Jordan, and
also resembling it in being very thickly populated
(Matt. xiv. 35; Mark vi. 55; Luke vi. 17, vii. 17).
G.
REHABI'AH (n^^n"] in 1 Chr. xxiii.;
elsewhere ^n^SriT [whom Jehovah enlarges]:
'PajSiii, [Vat.] Alex. Paa;8ia, m 1 Chr. xxiii.;
'PaaPias, 1 Chr. xxiv. ; 'PaySios, Alex. PaaPias,
1 Chr. xxvi. : Roliobia, Ruhabia in 1 Chr. xxvi. ).
The only son of Eliezer, the son of Moses, and
the father of Isshiah, or Jeshaiah (1 Chr. xxiii.
17, xxiv. 21, xxvi. 25). His descendants wer*
numerous. EE'HOB (S'lrri [and 3n"l, street, marker
place]: 'Paa^S, ['Poto'jS:] Rnhob)'. 1. The father
of Hadadezer king of Zobah, whom David smote
at the Euphrates (2 Sam. viii. 3, 12). Josephus
t^Ant. vii. 5, § 1) calls him 'Apaos, and the Old
Latin Version Arachus, and Blayney (on Zech. ix.
1) thinks this was his real name, and that he was
called Rehob, or " charioteer," from the number of
chariots in his possession. The name appears to
be peculiarly Syrian, for we find a district of SjTia
called Rehob, or Beth-Rehob (2 Sam. x. 6, 8).

a Thus Jerome — " regiones in circuitu per qoM
(Gen. xiii. 10, 11, 12, medius Jordanes fiuit."

2698

EEHOB

2. CVo^p.) A Levite, or famUy of Levites, who
sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 11).
W. A. W.
RE'HOB (3'n"1 [as above]). The name of
more than one place in the extreme north of the
Holy Land.
1. ([Rom. '¦Po60; Vat.] Pao/3 ; Alex. Pow/8:
Rohob.}" The northern limit of the exploration
of the spies (Num. xiii. 21). It is specified as
being "as men come unto Hamath," or, as the
phrase is elsewhere rendered, " at the entrance of
Hamat-i, ' i. c. at the commencement of the terri
tory of that name, by which in the early books of
the Bible the great valley of Lebanon, the Bika'ah
of the Prophets, and the Buka'a of the modem
Arabs, seems to be roughly designated. This, and
the consideration of the improbability that the
spies went farther than the upper end of the Jor
dan Valley (Rob. Bibl. Res. iii. 371), seems to fix
the position of Rehob as not far from Tell el-Kady
and Banias. This is confirmed by the statement
of Judg. xviii. 28, that Laish or Dan ( Tell el-Kady)
was "in the valley that is by Beth-rehob." No
trace of the name of Rehob or Beth-rehob has yet
been met with in this direction. Dr. Robinson
proposes to identify it with Hunin, an ancient
fortress in the mountains N. W. of the plain of
Huleh, the upper district of the Jordan Valley.
But this, though plausible, has no certain basis.
To those who are anxious to extend the bound
aries of the Holy Land on tbe north and east it
may be satisfactory to know that * place called
Ruhaibeh exists in the plain of Jerud, about 25
miles N. E. of Damascus, and 12 N. of the north
ernmost of the three lakes (see the Mops of Van
de Velde and Porter).
There is no reason to doubt that this Rehob or
Beth-rehob was identical with the place mentioned
under both names in 2 Sam. x. 6, 8,'' in connection
with Maacah, which was also in the upper district
of the Huleh.
Inasmuch, however, as Beth-rehob is distinctly
stated to have been " far from Zidon " (Judg. xviii.
28), it must be a distinct place from
2. ('Paa/3: Alex. Poaifl: Rohob), one of the
towns allotted to Asher (.Josh. xix. 28), and which
from the list appears to have been in close prox
imity to Zidon. It is named between Ebron, or
Abdon, and Hammon. The towns of Asher lay
in a region which has been but imperfectly exam
ined, and no one has yet succeeded in discovering
the position of either of these three.
3. (PoaD, ['PaaiS, 'Epeii), 'Poi5/3;] Alex. Paw3,
{Poafi :] Rohob, Rnchob. ) Asher contained another
Rehob (Josh. xix. 30); but the situation of this,
like the former, remains at present unknown. One
of the two, it is difficult to say which, was allotted
to the Gershonite Levites (Josh. xxi. 31; 1 Chr.
vi. 75), and one of its Canaanite inhabitants re
tained possession (Judg. i. 31). The mention of
Aphik in this latter passage may imply that the
Rehob referred to was that of Josh. xix. 30. This,
Kusebius and Jerome ( Onomasticon, " Roob " ) con
fuse with the Rehob of the spies, and place four
Roman miles from Scythopolis. The place they
refer to still survives as Rehab, 3J miles S. of
Beisan, but their identification of a town in that

a Targum Pseudojon. ni^pvQ, t. e. TrAaTctot,
¦treets ; and Samaritan Vers. ""KHD.

REUOBOAM
position with one in the territory of Asher ig ob
viously inaccurate. G.
REHOBO'AM (D^?!!"!, enlarger of ihe
people — see Ex. xxxiv. 20,' and compare the name
Evp6S7}fios: 'Fofioiifi: Roboam), son of Solomon,
by the Ammonite princess Naamah (1 K. xiv. 21,
31), and his successor (1 K. xi. 43). From the
earliest period :>f Jewish history we perceive symp
toms that the confederation of the tribes was but
imperfectly cemented. The powerful Ephraim could
never brook a position of inferiority. Throughout
the Book of Judges (viii. 1, xii. 1) the Ephraimitea
show a spirit of resentful jealousy when any enter
prise is undertaken without their concurrence and
active participation. From them had sprung
Joshua, and afterwards (by his plaee of birth)
Samuel might be considered theirs, and though the
tribe of Benjamin gave to Israel its iirst king, yet
it was alUed by hereditary ties to the house of
Joseph, and by geographical position to the terri
tory of Ephraim, so that up to David's accession
the leadership was practically in the hands of the
latter tribe. But Judah always threatened to be a
formidable rival. During the earlier history, partly
from the physical structure and situation of its
territory (Stanley, S. tf P. p. 162), which secluded
it from Palestine just as Palestine by its geograph
ical ch.iracter was secluded from the world, it had
stood very much aloof from the nation [Judah],
and even after Saul's death, apparently without
waiting to consult their brethren, " the men of
Judah came and anointed David king over the house
of Judah " (2 Sam. ii. 4), while the other tribes
adhered to Saul's family, thereby anticipating the
final disruption which was afterwards to rend the
nation permanently into two kingdoms. But after
seven years of disaster a reconciliation was forced
upon the contending parties; David was acknowl
edged as king of Israel, and soon after, by fixing
his court at Jerusalem and bringing the Tabernacle
there, he transferred frora Ephraira the greatness
which had attached to Shechem as the ancient
capital, and to Shiloh as the seat of the^ national
worship. In spite of this he seems to have enjoyed
great personal popularity among the Ephraimites,
and to have treated many of them with special
favor (1 Chr. xii. 30, xxvii. 10, 14), j-et this roused
the jealousy of Judah, and probably led to the revolt
of Absalom. [Absalom.] Even after that peril
ous crisis was past, the old rivalry broke out afresh,
and almost led to another insun'ection (2 Sam. xx.
1, &c. ). Compare Ps. Ixxviii. GO, 67, &c. in illus
tration of these rem.arks. Solomon's reign, from
its severe taxes and other oppressions, aggra\'ated
the discontent, and latterly, from its irreligious
character, alienated the prophets and provoked the
displeasure of God. When Solomon's strong hand
was withdrawn the crisis came. Rehoboam se
lected Shechem as the place of his coronation.
probably as an act of concession to the Ephraimites, >
and perhaps in deference to the suggestions of those
old and wise counsellors of his father, whose advice
he afterwards unhappily rejected. From the present
Hebrew text of 1 K. xii. the exact details of the
transactions at Shechera are involved in a little
uncertainty. The general facts indeed are clear.
The people demanded a remission of the seven

t Here the name is written in the fuller form ol

REHOBOAM
burdens imposed by Solomon, and Rehoboam prom
ised them an answer in three days, during which
time he consulted first his father's counsellors, and
then the young men " that were grown up with
him, and which stood before him," whose answer
shows how greatly during Solomon's later years
the charaeter of the Jewish court had degenerated.
Rejecting the advice of the elders to conciliate the
people at the beginning of his reign, and so make
thera " his servants forever," he returned as his
reply, in the true spirit of an eastern despot, the
frantic bravado of his contemporaries : " My little
finger shall be thicker than my father's loins. . .
, . . .1 will add to your yoke; my father hath
ehastised }ou with whips, but I will chastise you
with scorpions'* (i. e. scourges furnished with
sharp points"). Thereupon arose the formidable
song of insurrection, heard once before when the
tribes quarreled after David's return from the war
with Absalom : —
What portion have we in David ?
What inheritance in Jesse's son ?
To your tents, 0 Israel !
Now see to thy own house, 0 David !
Rehoboam sent Adoram or Adoniram, who had
been chief receiver of the tribute during the reigns
of his father and his grandfather (1 K. iv. 6; 2
Sam. XX. 2^), to reduce the rebels to reason, but
he was stxjned to death by them ; whereupon the
king and his attendants fled in hot haste to Jerusa
lem. So far all is plain, but there is a (ioubt as to
the part which Jeroboam took in these transactions.
According to 1 Iv. xii. 3 he was summoned by the
Ephraimites from Egypt (to which country he had
fled from the anger of Solomon) to be their spokes
man at Rehoboam's coronation, and actually made
the speech in which a remission of burdens was
requested. But, in apparent contradiction to this,
we read in ver. 20 of the same chapter that after
the success of the insurrection and Rehoboam's
flight, " when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was
corae again, they sent and called him unto the con
gregation and made him king." But there is rea
son to think that ver. 3 has been interpolated. It
is not found in the LXX., which makes no mention
of Jeroboam in this chapter till ver. 20, substi
tuting in ver. 3 for " Jeroboam and all the congre
gation of Israel came and spoke unto Rehoboam "
the words, koI iKaKijo-ev 6 Kahs wphs rhv ^a(Ti.\4a
'Po^oa/A. So too Jei'oboam's name is omitted by
the LXX. in ver. 12. Moreover we find in the
LXX. a long supplement to this 12th chapter, evi
dently ancient, and at least in parts authentic, con
taining fuller details of Jeroboam's biography than
the Hebrew. [Jerobo.vm.] In this we read that
after Solomon's death he returned to his native
place, Sarira in Ephraira, which he fortified, and
lived there quietly, watching the turn of events,
till the long-expected rebellion broke out, when the
Ephraimites heard (doubtless through his own
agency) that he had returned, and invited him to
Shechem to assume the crown. From the same
supplementary narrative of the LXX. it would
appear that more than a year must have elapsed
between Solomon's death and Rehoboam's visit to
Shechem, for, on receiving the news of the former
event, Jeroboam requested from the king of Egypt

REHOBOAM

2699

o So in Latin, scorpio, according to Isidore {Origg.
V. 27), is " virga nodosa et aculeata, quia arcuato vul-
lere in corpus iofligitur " (Faceiolati^ a. v.).

leave to return to his native country. This the
king tried to prevent by giving him his sister-in-
law in marriage: but on the birth of his chik
Abijah, Jeroboam renewed his request, which waa
then granted. It is probable that during this year
the discontent of the N. tribes was making itself
more and more manifest, and that this led to Reho
boam's visit and intended inauguration.
On Rehoboam's return to Jerusalem be assem
bled an army of 180,000 men from the two faithful
tribes of Judah and Benjamin (the latter trans
ferred from the side of Joseph to that of Judah in
consequence of the position of David's capital
within its borders), in the hope of reconquering
Israel. The expedition, however, was forbidden by
the prophet Sheniaiah, who assured them that the
separation of the kingdoms was in accordance with
God's will (1 K. xii. 24): still during Rehoboam's
life- tirae peaceful relations between Israel and Judah
were never restored (2 Chr. xii. 15; IK. xiv. 30).
Rehoboam now occupied himself in strengthening
the territories which remained to him, by building
a number of fortresses of which the naraes are
given iu 2 Chr. xi. 6-10, forming a girdle of
"fenced cities" round Jerusalem. The pure wor
ship of God was maintained in Judah, and the
Levites and raany pious Israelites frora the North,
vexed at the calf-idolatry introduced by Jeroboam
at Dan and Bethel, in imitation of the Egyptian
worship of Mnevis, came and settled in the southern,
kingdom and added to its power. But Rehoboam
did not check the introduction of h&ithen abomina
tions into his capital: the lascivious worship of
Ashtoreth was allowed to exist by the side of the
true religion (an inheritance of evil doubtless left
by Solomon), "images" (of Baal and his fellow
divinities) were set up, and the worst immoralities
were tolerated (1 K. xiv. 22-24). These evils were
punished and put down by the terrible calamity of
an Egyptian invasion. Shortly before this time a
change in the ruling house had occurred hi Egypt.
The XX Ist dynasty, of Tanites, whose last king.
Pishara or Psusennes, had been a close ally of Solo
mon (1 K. iiL 1, vii. 8, ix. 16, x. 28, 29), was suc
ceeded by the XXIId, of Bubastites, whose first sov
ereign, Shishak (Sheshonk, Sesonchis, 2,ov<TaKifi)i
connected himself, as we have seen, with Jeroboam.
That he was incited by him to attack Judah ia
very probable; at all events in the 5th year of
Rehoboam's reign the country was invaded by a
host of Egyptians and other African nations, num
bering 1,209 chariots, 60,000 cavalry, and a vast
miscellaneous multitude of infantry. The hne of
fortresses which protected Jerusalem to the W. and
S. was forced, Jerusalem itself was taken, and
Rehoboam had to purchase an ignominious peace
by delivering up all the treasures with which Solo
mon had adorned the temple and palace, including
his golden shields, 200 of the larger, and 300 of the
smaller size (1 K- x. 16, 17), which were carried
before him when he visited the Temple in state.
"We are told that after the Egyptians had retired,
his vain and foolish successor comforted himself by
substituting shields of brass, which were solemnly
borne before him in procession by the body-guard,
as if nothing had been changed since his father's
time (Ewald, Geschichte des V. I. iii. 348, 464).
Shishak's success is commemorated by sculptures
discovered by ChampoIUon on the outside of tbe
great Temple at Karnak, where araong a long list
of captured towns and provinces occurs the name
Melchi Judah (kingdom of Judah). It is ftaid

2700 EEHOBOTH
that the features of the captives in these sculptures
are unmistakably Jewi.<ih (Rawlinson, Herodotus,
ii. 376, and Bampton Lectures, p. 126; Bunsen,
Egypt, iii. 242). After this great humiliation tbe
moral condition of Judah seems to have improved
(2 Chr. xii. 12), and the rest of Rehoboam's life to
have been unmarked by any events of importance.
He died B. c. 958, after a reign of 17 years, having
ascended the throne B. c. J75 at the age of 41
(1 K. xiv. 21 ; 2 Chr. xii. 13). In the addition to
the LXX. already raentioned (inserted after 1 K.
xii. 24) we read that he was 16 years old at his
accession, a raisstateraent probably founded on a
wrong interpretation of 2 Chr. xiii. 7, where he is
called " young " (i. e. new to his work, inexpe
rienced) and "tender-hearted" (3D|p-"7T^, want
ing in resolution and spirit). He had 18 wives,
60 concubines, 28 sous, and 60 daughters. The
wisest thing recorded of hira in Scripture is that
he refused to waste away his sons' energies in the
wretched existence of an Eastern zenana, in which
we raay infer, frora his helplessness at the age of
41, that he had himself been educated, but dis
persed thera in command of the new fortresses
which he had built about the country. Of his
wives, Jlahalath, Abihail, and Maachah were all
of the royal house of Jesse : Ma.achah he loved best
of all, and to her son Abijah he bequeathed his
kingdom. The text of the LXX. followed in this
article is Tischendorf s edition of the Vatican MS.
[not of the Vat. MS., but reprint of the Roman
edition of 1587], Leipsic, 1850. G. E. L. C.
REHO'BOTH (ni2n~l [streets, wide
places]; Samar. mSTlT: elipvx<'pia.' Veneto-
Gk. Ol ilKareiat : Latitude). The third of the series
of wells dug by Isaac (Gen. xxvi. 22). He celebrates
his triumph and bestows its name on the well in a
fragment of poetry of the same nature as those in
which Jacob's wives give names to his successive
children : "He called the name of it Rehoboth
(' room,' ) and said, —
( Because dot? Jehovah hath-made-room for us
And we shall increase in the land.' "
Isaae had left the valley of Gerar and its turbulent
inhabitants before he dug the well which he thus
commemorated (ver. 22). From it he, in time,
"went up" to Beer-sheba (ver. 23), an expression
which is always used of raotion towards the Land
of promise. The position of Gerar has not been
definitely ascertained, but it seems to have lain a
few miles to the S. of Gaza and nearly due E. of
Beer-sheba. In this direction, therefore, if any
where, the wells Sitnah, Esek, and Kehoboth,
should be searched for. A IVady Ruhaibeh, con
taining -the ruins of a town of the same name,
with a large well," is crossed by the road from
fChan en-Nukhl to Hebron, by which Palestine is
entered on the south. It lies about 20 railes S. W.
of Bir es-Sebn., and raore than that distance S.
of the raost probable situation of Gerar. It there-
%re seems unsafe, without further proof, to identify
it with Rehoboth, as Rowlands (in Williams' fJoly
City, i. 466), Stewart ( Tent and Khan, p. 202), and

a Dr. Robinson could not find the well. Dr. Stewart
lound it " regularly built, 12 feet in circumference,"
But "completely filled up." Mr. Rowlands desciibes
it as "an ancient well of living and good water."
Who shall decide on testimony so curiously contra-
Jtotory?

REHOBOTH, THE CITY
Van de Velde* (Memoir, p. 343) have done. At
the same time, as is adraitted by Dr. Robinson,
tJie existence of so large a place here, without any
apparent raention, is mysterious. All that can he
said iu favor of the identity of Ruhaibeh with Reho
both is said by Dr. Bonar {Deseri of Sinai, p. 316),
and not without considerable force.
The ancient Jewish tradition confined the events
of this part of Isaac's life to a rauch nanower
circle. The wells of the patrianhs were shown
near Ashkelon in the time of Origen, Antoninus
Martyr, and Eusebius (Reland, Pal. p. 589); the
Samaritan Version identifies Gerar with Ashkelon ;
Josephus (Ant. i. 12, § 1) calls it " Gerar of Pales
tine," i. e. of Pkilistia. G.
REHO'BOTH, THE CITY ("!''? nhn^,
i. <j. Rechoboth 'Ir [streets of the ciiy] ; Saraar.
marrn; Sam. vers.<= 72120 : 'PoM^ifl ir6\is;
Alex. Pou/Swj; platece diitatis). One of the four
cities built by Asshur, or by Nirarod in Asshur,
according as this difficult passage is translated.
The four were Nineveh; Rehoboth-Ir; Calah;
and Resen, between Nineveh and Calah (Gen. x.
11). Nothing certain is known of its position.
The name of Ralinbeh is still attached to two
places in the region of the ancient Mesopotamia.
I'hey lie, the one on the western, and the other on the
eastern bank of the Euphrates, a few miles below the
confluence of the Khubur. Both are said to con
tain extensive ancient remains- That on the east
ern bank bears the atfix of maVik or royal, and this
Bunsen (Bibelwerk) and KaUsch (Genesis, p. 261)
propose as the representative of Kehoboth. Its
distance from Knluh-Sherghni and Nimriid (nearly
200 miles) is perhaps an obstacle to this identifica
tion. Sir H. Rawlinson (Atheneeum, April 15,
1854) suggests Selemiyah in the imraediate neigh
borhood of Kalah, " where there are still extensive
ruins of the AssjTian period," but no subsequent
discoveries appear to have confirmed this sugges
tion. The Samaritan Version (see above) reads
Sutcan for Rehoboth ; and it is remarkable that
the name Sutcan should be found in connection
with Calah in an inscription on the breast of a
statue of the god* Nebo which Sir H. Rawlinson
disinteiTed at Nimrud (Athenantm, as above).
The Sutcan of the Samaritan Version is com
monly supposed to denote the Sittacene of the
Greek geographers (M'iner, Renlwb. "Rechoboth
Ir"). But Sittacene was a district, and not a
city as Rehoboth-Ir necessarily was, and, further,
being in southern Assyria, would seera to be too
distant from the other cities of Nirarod.
St. Jerome, both in the Vulgate and in hia
Qucestiones ad Genesim (probably frora Jewish
sources), considers Rehoboth-Ir as referring to
Nineveh, and as meaning the "streets of the
city." The reading of the Targuras of Jonathan,
Jerusalem, and Rabbi Joseph, on Gen. and 1 Chron.,
viz., Platiah, Pliitiuthn, are probably only tran
scriptions of the Greek word TrAaTeiai, which, as
found in the well-known ancient city I'latiea, is
the exact equivalent of Rehoboth. Kaplan, the
Jewish geographer (Erets Kedumim), identifies
& In his Travels Van d© Velde inclines tn place it,
or at any rate one of Isaac's wells, at .Bir ht-tc, about
six miles S. W. of BeU Jibrin (Sijr. and Pal. ii. 146).
c The Arabic translation of this version (Kuehnea'
adheres to the Hebrew text, having Rahabeli el-Mt-
dinefl.

REHOBOTH BY THE RIVER
Ra -inbeli-mallk with Rehoboth-by-the-river, in
which he is possibly correct, but considers it as
distinct from Rehoboth-Ir, which he believes to
have disappeared. G.
REHO'BOTH BY THE RIVER (Hiam
inirr : 'PomSiS — in Chr. 'Poj^iifl — •^ irapct
woTafj.6v , Alex. Poca^cad hi each : de fuvio
Rohobolli ; Ruhoboih quce juxtii ninnein sit'f
est). The city of a certain Saul or Shaul,
one of the early kings of the Edomites (Gen.
xxxvi. 37; 1 Chr. i. 48). The affix "the
river," fixes the situ.ition of Kehoboth as on the
Euphrates, emphatically " the river " to the hihalii-
tants of Western Asia. [Khek.] The name
still remains attached *d two spots ou the Euphra
tes; the one simply linhaheb. on the right bank,
eight miles below the junction of the Khabur,
and about three miles west of the river (Chesney,
Evphr., i. 119, ii. 610, and map iv.), the other
four or five miles further down on the left bank.
The latter is said to be called Raliabeh-malih, i. c.
" royal " (Kalisch, Kaplan )," and is on this ground
Identified by the Jewish commentators with the
city of Saul; but whether this is accurate, and
whether that city, or either of the two sites just
named, is also identical with Rehoboth-Ir, the city
of Nimrod, is not yet Itnown.
There is no reason to suppose that the limits of
Edora ever extended to the Euphrates, and there
fore the occurrence of the name in the lists of
kings of Edom would seem to be <* trace of
an Assyrian incursion of the same nature as that
of Cbedorlaomer and Amraphel. G.
» RE'HU, 1 Chron. i. 25 (A. V. ed. 1611).
[Reu.] RE'HXJM (fflm [compassimiate] : PeoiJ^n ;
[Vat. omits;] Alex, lepsov/ji: Rehum). 1. One
of the "children of the province" who went up
frora Babylon with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 2). In
Neh. vii. 7 he is called Nehum, and in 1 Esdr. y.
8 RoiMUs. 2. ([Vat. Paou\. Paoy/i:] Reum.) "Rehum
the chancellor," with Shimshai the scribe, and
others, wrote to Artaxerxes to prevail upon him
to stop the rebuilding of the walls aud temple
of Jerusalem (Ezr. iv. 8, 9, 17, 22). He was per
haps a kind of lieutenant-governor of the province
under the king of Persia, holding apparently the
same oflnce as Tatnai, who is described in Ezr. v.
6 as taking part in a similar transaction, and
is there called " the governor on this side the
river." The Chaldee title, C^JtO-Vi??, Wet-Wem,
lit. "lord of decree," is left untranslated in the
LXX. Ba\Ta;4, and the Vulgate Beelteem ; and
the rendering "chancellor" in the A. V. appears
to have been derived fi'om Kirachi and others, who
explain it, in consequence of its connection with
"scribe," by the Hebrew word vvhich is usually
rendered "recorder." This appears to have been
'he view taken by the author of 1 Esdr. ii. 25, 6
ypiippD Ta irpoaTriirTOvra., and by Josephus (Ant.
li. 2, § 1), (J navra ra TrpaTT6fieva ypdlpajy. The
lormer of these seems to be a gloss, for the Chaldee
Jtle is also represented by Bee\Te8/jLos.
3. {'Paovp.; [Vat. Bcurovd; I'A. Boa(rovfl;]
* The existence of the second rests but on slender
foundation. It ia shown in the map in Layard's Nineve/i
md Batnflon, aud is mentioned by tbe two Jewish au-

RBKEM 2701
Rehum.) A Levite of the family of Bani, who as
sisted in rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem (Neh.
iii. 17).
4. ('Piovp.; [Vat. Alex. FA. (joined with
part of the next word) Paovp..]) One of th»
chief of the people, who signed the covenant with
Nehemiah (Neh. x. 25).
5. (Ora. in Vat. MS.; [also om. by Rom. Alex.
F.i.i; FA.** Peoti/nO Rheum.) A priestly family
or the head of a priestly house, who went up with
Zerubbabel (Neh. xii. 3). W. A. W.
RE'I O^T [friendly, social]: [Rom. <p,,<7i;
Vat. Alex.] Piycrei:'' Rei). Aperson mentioned
(in 1 K. i. 8 only) as having, in company with
Zadok, Benaiah, Nathan, Shimei, and the raen of
David's guard, reraained firm to David's cause
when Adonijah rebelled. He is not mentioned
again, nor do we obtain any clew to his identity.
Various conjectures have been made. Jerome
( Qiuest. ffebr. ad loc. ) states that he is the same
with "Hiram the Zairite," i. e. Ira the Jairite, a
priest or prince about the person of David. Ewald
(Gesch. iii. 266 note), dwelling on the occurrence
of Shimei in the sarae list with Rei, suggests that
the two are .David's only surviving brothers, Rei
being identical with Kaddai. This is ingenious,
but there is nothing to support it, while there is
the great objection to it that the names are in the
original extremely dissimilar, Rei containing the
Ain, a letter which is rarely exchanged for any other,
but apparently never for Baleth (Gesen. T/ies. pp.
976, 977). G.
REINS, i. e. kidneys, from the Latin renes.
X. The word is used to translate the Hebrew
i^*!*^ v3, except in the Pentateuch and in Is. xxxiv.
6, where "kidneys" is employed. In the ancient
system of physiology the kidneys were believed to
be the seat of desire and longing, which accounts
for their often being coupled with the heart (Ps.
viL 9, xxvi. 2; Jer. xi. 20, xvii. 10, etc.).
2. It is once used (Is. xi. 5) as the equivalent of
^^^/r^j elsewhere translated "loins." G.
RE'KEM (Gr?]T5 [variegated garden] : 'Pokov
[Vat. PoKO/j.], 'Po;8(i/c; Alex. PoKop.: Recem).
1. One of the five kings or chieftains of Midian
slain by the Israelites (Num. xxxi. 8; Josh. xiii.
21 ) at the time that Balaam fell.
2. ('PeK6p.\ Alex. PoKop.-) One of the four
sons of Hebron, and father of Shammai (1 Chr. iL
43, 44). In the last verse the LXX. have " Jor-
koam " for " Rekem." In this genealogy it is ex-
treraely difEcult to separate the names of persons
from those of places — Ziph, Maresbah, Tappuab,
Hebron, are all names of places, as well as Maon
and Beth-zur. In Josh, xviii. 27 Rekem appears
as a town of Benjamin, and perhaps this genealogy
may be intended to indicate that it was founded by
a colony frora Hebron.
RE'KEM (Di?."!! [as above] : perhaps Ka^hv
Koi-Kaicdv, Alex. Pexep: Recem). One of the towns
of the allotment of Benjamin (Josh, xviii. 27). It
occurs between MozAH (ham-Motsa) and Ikpeeu
No one, not even Schwarz, hag attempted to iden-

thorities named above ; but it does not appear in tb«
work of Col. Chesney.
i Beading 2 for V.

2702

REMALIAH

tify it with any existing site. But may there not
be a trace of the narae in Ain Karim, the well-
known spring west of Jerusalem ? It is within a
very short distance of Motsah, provided Kutonieh
be Motsah, as the writer has already suggested. G.
REMALI'AH (^IH^'btl'l [whom Jehovah
adorns, Ges.] 'Pop.e\ias in Kings and Isaiah,
"PofieKla in Chr.; [Vat. Pop.€\M (gen.) in Is.
vii. 1 :] Romelia). The father of Pekah, captain
of Pekahiah king of Israel, who slew his mas
ter and usurped his throne (2 K. xv. 25-37, xvi.
1, 5; 2 Chr. xxviii. 6; Is. vii. 1-9, viii. 6).
RE'METH (nan [lieight ?] : 'Pe/ipids; Alex.
VapLpiaB: Rameth). One of the towns of Issachar
(Josh. xix. 21), occurring in the list next to En-
gannim, the modem Jenin. It is probably (though
not certainly) a distinct place from the Ramoth
of 1 Chr. vi. 73. A place bearing the name of
Rameh is found on the west of the track frora
Samaria to Jenhi, about 6 miles N. of the former
and 9 S. W. of the latter (Porter, Handb. p. 348 a ;
Van dp Velde, Map). Its situation, on an isolated
rocky tell in the middle of a green plain buried in
the hills, is quite in accordance with its narae,
which is probably a mere variaiion of Ramah,
" height." But it appears to be too far south to
be within the territory of Issachar, which, as far as
the scanty indications of the record can l)e raade
out, can hardly have extended below the southern
border of the plahi of Esdraelon.
For Schwarz's conjecture that Rameh is Ra-
MATHAiM-zoPHiM, see that article (iii. 2672). G.
REM'MON (I'lai, ». ». Eimraon [pame^
granate]: 'Ep^p./xdi/:" A\ex. PefifiaB: Remmm).
A town in the allotment of Simeon, one of a group
of four (Josh. xix. 7). It is the same place which
is elsewhere accurately given in the A. V. as RiM-
MON ; the inaccuracy both in this case and that of
Remmon-methoar having no doubt arisen from
our translators inadvertently following the Vulgate,
which again followed the LXX. G.
REMTMON-METH'OARClNh?);! f(B-},
i. e. Rimraon ham-meth5ar [pomegranate] : 'Pe/i-
p.U)vatl Madopao^cf ; Alex. Pefxp.avapi p.a.&apip. :
Remmon, Amlhar). A place which formed one of
the landmarks of the eastern boundary of the ter
ritory of Zebulun (Josh. xix. 13 only). It occurs
between Eth-Katsin and Neah. Methoar does not
really form a part ofthe name; but is the Pual of
¦^Sn, to stretch, and should be translated accord
ingly (as in the margin of the A. V.) — " R. which
reaches to Neah." This is the judgment of Ges-
enius, Thes. p. 1292 i(, Rodiger, ib. 1491 a; Fiirst,
Handwb. ii. 512 rr, and Bunsen, as well as of the
ancient Jewish commentator Rashi, who quotes as
his authority the Targura of Jonathan, the text of
which has however been subsequently altered, since
in its present state it agrees with the A. V. in not
translating the word. The latter course is taken
by the LXX. and Vulgate as above, and by the
Peshito, Junius and Tremellins, and Luther. The
A. V. has here further erroneously followed the
a The LXX. here combine the Ain and Rimmon of
khe A. V. into one name, and make up the four cities
If this group by Inserting a QaA;^a, of which there is

EEMPHAK
Vulgate in giving the first part of the name u
Remmon instead of Rimmon,
This Rimmon does not appear to have been
known to Eusebius and Jerome, but it is mentioned
by the early traveller Parchi, who says that it is
called Kumaneb, and stands an hour south of Sep-
phoris (Zunz's Benjamin, ii. 433). If for south
we read north, tliis is in close agreement with the
statements of Dr. Robinson (Bibl. Res. iii. 110), and
Mr. Van de Velde (.Hap; Memoir, p. 344), who
place Ruinmaneh on the S. border of the Plain of
Buttauf, 3 miles N. N. E. of Siffuneh. It ia
difficult, however, to see how this can have been on
the eastern boundary of Zebuluu.
Rimmon is not improbably identical with the
Levitical city, which in Josh. xxi. 35 appears in the
form of Dimnah, and again, in the parallel lists of
Chronicles (1 Chr. vi. 77) as Rimmono (A. V.
ElJIMON). G.
REMTHAN ('P6,u<(>iii', [Lachm. Tisch. Treg.]
'P6(j)ai/: Rempliam, Acts vii. 43): and CHIUN
(l^l'p : 'Patipav, 'Popupa, Cmnpl. Am. y. 26) have
been supposed to be names of an idol worshipped
by the Israelites in the wilderness, but seem to be
the names of two idols. The second occurs in
Amos, in the Heb. ; the first, in a quotation of that
passage in St. Stephen's address, in the Acts: the
LXX. of Amos has, however, the same name as in
the Acts, though not written in exactly the same
manner. Much difficulty has been occasioned by
this corresponding occurrence of two names so
wholly different in sound. The most reasonable
opinion seemed to be that Chiun was a Hebrew or
Semitic name, and Rempban au Egyptian equiv
alent substituted by the LXX. The former, ren
dered Saturn in the Syr., was compared with the

Arab, and Pers. , , • I ..A

' the planet Saturn,"

and, according to Kircher, the latter was found in
Coptic with the same signification; but perhaps he
had no authority for this excepting the supposed
meaning of the Hebrew Chiun. Egyptology has,
however, shown that this is not the true explana
tion. Among the foreign divinities worshipj>ed in
Egypt, two, the god RENPU, perhaps pronounced
REMPU, and the goddess KEN, occur tc^ther.
Before endeavoring to explain the p.issages in which
Chiun and Rempban are mentioned, it will be
desirable to speak, on the evidence of the monu
ments, of the foreign gods worshipped in Egypt,
particularly RENPU and KEN, and of the idolatry
of the Israelites while in that coiuitry.
Besides those divinities represented on the mon
uments of Egypt which have Egyptian forms or
names, or both, others have foreign fonns or naraes,
or both. Of the latter, some appear to have been
introduced at a very remote age. This is certainly
the case with the principal divinity of Memphis,
Ptah, the Egyptian Hephsestus. The name Ptah
is from a Semitic root, for it signifies "open," and
in Heb. we find the root HnQ, and its cognates,
"he or it opened," where.is there is no word related
to it in Coptic. The figure of this divinity is that
of a deformed pigmy, or perhaps unborn child, aud
is imlike the usual representations of divinities on

no trace in the Hebrew, but which is possibly ths
Tochen of 1 Chr. iv. S2 — in the LXX. of that passatn,
6oKKa.

REMPHAN
the monuments. In this case there can be no
doubt that the introduction took place at an ex
tremely early date, as the name of Ftah occurs in
very old tombs in the necropohs of Memphis, and
is found throughout the religious records, it is
also to be noticed that this name is not traceable
in the mythology of neighboring nations, unless
indeed it corresponds to that of the narai/coi or
naTOiKoif whose images, according to Herodotus,
were the figure-heads of Phcenician ships (iii. 37).
The foreign divinities that seem to be of later in
troduction are not found tliroughout the religious
records, but only in single tablets, or are otherwise
very rarely mentioned, and two out of their four
names are immediately recognized to be non-Egyp
tian. They are RENPU, and the goddesses KEN,
ANTA, and ASTARTA. The first and second
of these have foreign forms; the third and fourth
have Egyptian forms : there would therefore seem
to be an especially foreign character about the
former two. *
RENPU, pronounced REMPU (?),« is repre
sented as an Asiatic, with the full beard and ap
parently the general type of face given on the mon
uments to most nations east of Egypt, and to the
REBU or Libyans. This type is evidently that
of the Shemites. His hair fe bound with a fillet,
which is ornamented in front with the head of an
antelope. KEN is represented perfectly naked, holding in
both hands corn, and standing upon a lion. In the
last particular the figure of a goddess at Maltheiy-
yeh in Assyria may be compared (Layard, yineveh.,
ii. 212). From this occurrence of a similar repre
sentation, from her being naked and carrying corn,
and from her being worshipped with KHEM, we
may suppose that KEN corresponded to the Syrian
goddess, at least when the latter had the character
¦ of Venus. She is also called KETESH, which is
the name in hieroglyphics of the great Hittite town
on the Orontes. This in the present case is prob
ably a title, ntyip : it can scarcely be the name
of a town where she was worshipped, applied to her
as pei*sonifying it.
AN ATA appears to be Anaitis, and her foreign
character seems almost certain from her being
jointly worshipped with RflNPU and KEN.
ASTARTA is of course the Ashtoreth of
Canaan. On a tablet in the British Museum the principal
subject is a group representing KEN, having
KHEM on one side and RENPU on the other:
beneath is an adoration of AN ATA. On the half
of another tablet KEN and KHEM occur, and a
dedication to RENPU and KETESH.
We have no clew to the exact time of the intro
duction of these divinities into Egypt, nor except in
ons case, to any particular places of their worship.
TL*ir names occur as early as the period of the
XVIIIth and XlXth dynasties, and it is therefore
not improbable that they were introduced by the
Shepherds. ASTARTA is mentioned in a tablet
of Amenoph II., opposite Memphis, which leads to
the conjecture that she was the foreign Venus there
worshipped, in the quarter of the Phoenicians of

« In illustratioa of this probable pronunciation, we
may cite the occurrence in hieroglyphics of RENPA
Dr RANP, " youth, young, to renew ; " and, in Coptic,.
If the supposed uijfnatd O^JULIIJ, pOURJ,

REMPHAN 2703
Tyre, according to Herodotus (ii. 112). It is ob
servable that the Shepherds worshipped SUTEKH,
corresponding to SETH, and also called BAR, that
is, Baal, and that, under king APEPEE, he was
the sole god of the foreigners. SUTEKH was
probably a foreign god, and was certainly identified
with Baal. The idea that the Shepherds Intro
duced the foreign gods is therefore partly confirmed
As to RENPU and KEN we can only offer a con
jecture. They occur together, and KEN is a form
of the Syrian goddess, and also bears sonje relation
to the Egyptian god of productiveness, KHEM.
Their similarity to Baal and Ashtoreth seems
strong, and perhaps it is not unreasonable to sup
pose that they were the divinities of some tribe
from the east, not of Phcenicians or Canaanites,
settled in Egypt during the Shepherd-period. The
naked goddess KEN would suggest such worship as
that of the Babylonian Mylitta, but the thoroughly
Shemite appearance of R EN PU is rather in favor
of an Arab source. Although we have not dis
covered a Semitic origin of either name, the absence
of the names in the mythologies of Canaan and the
neighboring countries, as far as they are known to
us, inclines us to look to Arabia, of which the early
mythology is extremely obscure.
Tlie Israelites in Egypt, after Joseph's rule, ap
pear to have fallen into a general, but doubtless not
universal, practice of idolatry. This is only twice
distinctly stated and once alluded to (Josh. xxiv.
14; Ez. XX. 7, 8, xxiii. 3), but the indications are
perfectly clear. The mention of CHIUN or REM
PHAN as worshipped in the desert shows that this
idolatry was, in part at least, that of foreigners, and
no doubt of those settled in Lower Egypt. The
golden calf, at first sight, would appear to be an
image of Apis of JMemphis, or Mnevis of Heliopolis,
or some other sacred bull of Egypt; but it must be
remembered that we read in the Apocrypha of " the
heifer Baal" (Tob. i. 5j, so that it was possibly a
Phoenician or Canaanite idol. The best parallel to
this idolatry is that of the Phcenician colonies in
Europe, as seen in the idols discovered in tombs at
Camirus in Rhodes by M. Salzniann, and those
found in tombs in the island of Sardinia (of both of
which there are specimens in the British Museum),
and those represented on the coins of Melita and
the island of Ebusus.
We can now endeavor to explain the passages in
which Chiun and Rempban occur. The Masoretic
text of Amos v. 26 reads thus: " But ye bare the
tent [or ' tabernacle '] of your king and Chiun your
images, the star of your gods [or 'your god'],
which ye made for yourselves." In the LXX. we
find remarkable differences : it reads : Kal aue\d'
^ere r^u (TKtjv^u tou Mo\6xi ^al rh 6,(rrpov tov
Oeov vfJiSiU 'PaKfxiu, tous tuttous avTcov ov? eiroii^
tTUTe eauTo7s. The Vulg. agrees with the Masoretic
text in the order of the clauses, though omitting
Chiun or Rempban. " Et portastis tabernaculum
Moloch vestro, et imaginem idolorum vestrorum,
sidus dei vestri, quse feci«tis vobis." The passage
is cited in the Acts almost in the words of the
LXX. : " Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch,
and the star of your god Reniphan, figures which
ye made to worship them" {Kal auekd^ere t^v

S. pJULIlB, "a year;'- so MENNUE-U, Memphis,
iieuiSe, iieuLcji, also, n.enSe,
0ts, and L'N-NUFR, 0/i<f.iff.

2704

REMPHAN

JKfiy^v Tov Mo\6Xi Kal t^ &a'Tpoy tov Oeou
^fiiav *P€fjL<l>aVf rohs tvttovs ovs iiroffjaaTe irpoo'-
Kvvs7u avTo7s)- A slight change in the Hebrew
would enable us to read iMoloch (Malcam or Milcom)
instead of "your king." Beyond this it is ex
tremely difficult t-o explain the differences. The
substitution of Remphan for Chiun cannot be ac
counted for by verbal criticism. The Hebrew does
not seem as distinct in meaning as the LXX., and
if we may conjecturally emend it from the latter,
the last clause would be, " your images which ye
made for yourselves: " and if we further transpose
Chiun to the place of '' your god Remphan," in
the LXX., D^bD iy\^D HS would correspond
to ]m DD'^nbS n'D^O nW, but how can we
account for such a transposition as would thus be
supposed, which, be it remembered, is less likely in
the Hebrew than in a translation of a difficult pas
sage? If we compare the Masoretic text and the
supposed original, we perceive that in the former
DD^'ttb^ 1 1*^^ corresponds in position to D31D
03*^17^5 and it does not seem an unwarrantable
conjecture that ^VD having been by mistake writ
ten in ' the place of ^D*lD by some copyist,
DD'^?3v^ was also transposed. It appears to be
more reasonable to read "images which ye made,"
than "gods which ye made," as the former word
occurs. Supposing these emendations to be prob
able, we may now examine the meaning of the

The tent or tabernacle of Moloch is supposed by
Gesenius to have been an actual tent, and he com
pares the (TK7}v^ lepd of the Carthaginians (Diod.
Sic. XX. 65; Lex. s. v. H^SD). But there is
some difficulty in the idea that the Israelites car
ried about so large an object for the purpose of
idolatry, and it seems more likely that it was a
small model of a larger tent or shrine. The read
ing Moloch appears preferable to "your king;"
but the mention of the idol of the Ammonites as
worshipped in the desert stands quite alone. It is
perhaps worthy of note that there is reason for
supposing that Moloch was a name of the planet
Saturn, and that this planet was evidently sup
posed by the ancient translators to be intended by
'Chiun and Tiemphan. The correspondence of Rem
phan or Raiphan to Chiun is extremely remarkable,
and can, we think, only b^ accounted for by the
supposition that the LXX. translator or translators
of the prophet had Egyptian knowledge, and being
thus acquainted with the ancient joint worship of
Ken and Renpu, substituted tiie latter for the
former, as they may have been unwilling to repeat
the name of a foreign Venus. The star of Rem
phan, if indeed the passage is to be read so as to
connect these words, would be especially appro
priate if Remphan were a planetary god ; but the
evidence for this, especially as partly founded upon
an Arab, or Pers. word like Chiun, is not suffi-
tiently strong to enable us to lay any stress upon
the agreement. In hieroglyphics the sign for a
Btar is one of the two composing" the word SEB,
" to adore," and is undoubtedly there used in a
eymbolical as well as a phonetic sense, indicating
that the ancient Egyptian religion was partly de
rived from a S}stem of star-worship; and there are
representations on the monuments of mythical

REPETITIONS IN PRAYER
creatnres or men adoring stars (Ancient EgyptianMf
pi. 3U A.). We have, however, no positive indica
tion of any figure of a star being used as an
idolatrous object of worship. From the manner
in which it is mentioned we may conjecture that
the star of Remphan was of the same character
as the tabernacle of Moloch, an object connected
with false worship rather than an image of a false
god. According to the LXX. reading of the last
clause it might be thought that these objects were
actuaJIy images of Moloch and Remphan; but it
must be remembered that we cannot suppose an
image to hctve had the form of a tent, and that the
version of the passage in the Acts, as well as the
Masoretic text, if in the latter case we may change
the order of the words, give a clear sense. As to
the meaning of the last clause, it need only be
remarked that it does not oblige us to infer that
the Israelites made the images of the false gods,
though they may have done so, as in the case of the
golden calf: it may mean no more than that they
adopted these gods.
It is to be observed that the whole passage does
not indicate that distinct Egyptian idolatry was
practiced hy the Israelites. It is very remarkable
that the only false gods mentioned as worshipped
by them in the desert should be probably Moloch,
and Chiun, and Remphan, of which the latter two
were foreign divinities worshipped in Egypt. From
this we may reasonably infer, that while the Israel
ites sojourned in Egypt there was also a great
stranger-population in the Lower Country, and
therefore that it is probable that theu the shep
herds still occupied the land. R. S. P.
* Jablonski {Pantheon ^ffypiiorum. Prolego
mena, L.) makes Remphah the equivalent of regina
CcbU, that is Luna., whose n-oi'ship was maintained
in Egypt at an early day. His attempt, however,
to prove that this was an Egyptian divinity, in hia
learned treatise Remphah illustraius^ is not borne
out by the evidence of the monuments, the Asiatic
type of countenance being strongly marked in the
delineations of this god. He is represented brand
ishing a club. A good specimen is to be seen in
the Museum of the Louvre at Paris (Salle dea
Monuments Religieux, Armoire K), where is col
lected in one view a complete Egj-ptian Pantheon.
Movers {Die Religion der Phoniziei') finds no
trace of Remphan among the gods of Phcenieia.
He makes Moix>ch the Fire-god of the Ammonites,
whose worship was extended through Assyria and
Chaldaea — the pei-sonification of fire as the holy
and purifying element.
Count Roug6 considers Atesh or Ketesh and
Anta or AxATA to be different forms or char
acters of the same divinity, an Asiatic Venus, for
though she wears the same head-dress and diadem
as the Egyptian goddess Hathok. the Egyptians
never represented their own goddesses by an en
tirely nude figure. Both forms of this divinity
may be seen in the Lou\Te, as above. As Ajjta
she appears as the goddess of war, wielding a
battle-axe, and holding a shield and lance. Such
was also the character of Ana'itis, the war-god
dess of the Persians and old Assyrians. Accoid
ing to Movers, Astarte was a divinity of a imi-
versal character, whose worship, under varioui
names, was world-wide. J. P. T.
* REPETITIONS IN PRAYER. It u
a characteristic of all superstitious devotion t«
repeat endlessly certain words, especially the namei

RBPHAEL
ii the deities iiivoked, a practice which our Lord
designates as fiarroKoyia and iroKuKoyla, and
severely condemns (Matt. vi. 7,).
When the priests of Baal besought their God
for fire to kindle their sacrifice, they cried inces
santly for several hours, in endless repetition, 0
Baal hear us, 0 Baal hear its, 0 Baal hear us,
etc. (1 K. xviii. 26). When the Kphesian mob
was excited to madness for the honor of tlieir god
dess, for two hours and more they did nothitj^ but
screech with utmost tension of voice, Great the
Diana of ihe liphesians. Gvttit the JJ-htna of the
Ephes'mns, Great the Diana of the Ephesians,
etc., with the same endless repetition (Acts xix. 28,
39). In the same way, iu the devotions of Pagan
Rome, the people would cry out more than five
hundred times without ceasing, Audi, Ceesar,
Audi, Ceesar, Audi, Cies ir, etc. .-Vmong the
Hindoos the sacred syllable Om, Om, Om, ia re
peated as a prayer thousands of times uninterrupt
edly. So the Koraan Catholics repeat their Pater
Nosters and their Ave Marias. These single
words, with nothing else, are pronounced over and
over and over again ; and the object of the rosary
is to keep count of the number of repetitions.
For each utterance a bead is dropped, and when
all the beads are exhausted, there have been so
raany prayers.
This is the practice which our Saviour con-
derans. He condemns all needless words, whether
repetitions or not. It is folly to employ a suc
cession of synonymous terms, adding to the length
of a prayer without increasing its iervor. Such a
style of prayer rather shows a want of fervor; it
is often the result of thoughtless alfectation, sorae
tiraes of downright hypocrisy.
Eepetitions which really arise from earnestness
and agony of spirit are by no means forbidden.
We have examples of such kind of repetition in
our Saviour's devotions in Gethseraane, and in the
wonderful prayer of Daniel (ch. ix., especially ver.
19). C. E. S.
BBPH'AEL (bHQ"1 [whom God lieals]:
*Pa(^a^A: Raphael). Son of Shemaiah, the first
born of Olied-edom, and one of the gate-keepers
of the Tabernacle, " able men for strength for the
service" (1 Chr. xxvi. 7).
RE'PHAH (nST [riclies]: 'Paipii: Rapha).
A son of Ephraim, and ancestor of Joshua the son
of Nun (1 Chr. vii. 25).
RBPHA'IAH [3 syl.] (H^lOl [healed of
Jehovah]: 'PacpaK; Ahx. Pacfiaia: Raphaia). 1.
The sons of Kephaiah appear among the descend
ants of Zerubbabel in 1 Chr. iii. 21. In the
Peshito-Syriao he is made the son of Jesaiah.
2. ('Paij>a:ta. ) One of the chieftains of the tribe
of Simeon in tbe reign of Hezekiah, who headed
the expedition of five hundred men against the
Amalekites of Mount Seir, and drove them out (1
Chr. iv. 42).
3. [Vat. Paijiapa.] One of the sons of Tola,
,he son of Issachar, "heads of their father's house"
1 Chr. vii. 2).

REPHAIM, THB VALLBY OF 2706
4. [Sin. Paipatav.] Son of Binea, and de
scendant of Saul and Jonath.an (1 Chr. ix. 43).
In 1 Chr. viii. 37 he is called Kapha.
5, The son of Hur, and ruler of a portion of
Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 9). He assisted in rebuilding
tbe city wall under Nehemiah.
REPH'AIM. [Giants, vol. ii. p. 912.]
RBPH'AIM, THB VALLBY OF (pP^
D''SS"1 : rj KoiAcis Tuf Tnavoiv [Vat. T€i-]> and
[1 Chr.] rSiv rfydvTuv; k. 'Paipaiiv [Vat. -eip,
Alex, -fi!/] ; in Isaiah ipdpay^ oreped), 2 Sara. v.
18, 22, xxiii. 13; 1 Chr. xi. 15, xiv. 9; Is. xvii. 5.
Also in Josh. xv. 8, and xviii. 16, where it is trans
lated in the A. V. " the valley of the giants " (77)
'Paipaii' and 'EpieK 'Pacpa-tv, [Vat. -etv, Alex, -eip] 1
A spot which was the scene of sorae of David's
most remarkable adventures. He twice encoun
tered the Philistines there, and inflicted a destruc
tion on them and on their idols so signal that it
gave the place a new name, and impressed itself on
the popular mind of Israel with such distinctness
that the Prophet Isaiah could employ it, centuries
after, as a symbol of a tremendous impending judg
ment: of God — nothing less than the desolation and
destruction of the whole earth (Is. xxviii. 21, 22).
[Pehazim, jiouxt.]
It was probably during the former of these two
contests that the incident of the water of Beth
lehem (2 Sam. xxiii. 13, &c.) occurred. The
" hold " " (ver. 14) in whieh David found himself,
seems (though it is not clear) to have been the
cave of Adullam, the scene of the commencement
of his freebooting Ufe; but, wherever situated, we
need not doubt that it was the same fastness as
that raentioned in 2 Sam. v. IT, since, in both
cases, the same word (H ^^JSH, with the def.
article), and that not a usual one, is eraployed.
The story shows very clearly the predatory nature
of these incursions of the Philistines. It was in
"harvest time" (ver. 13). They had come to
carry off the ripe crops, for which the valley waf
proverbial (Is. xvii. 5), just as at Pas-daramim
(1 Chr. xi. 13) we find them in the parcel of
ground full of barley, at I,ehi in the field of len-
tiles (2 Sam. xxiii. 11), or at Keilah in the thresh
ing-floors (1 Sam. xxiii. 1). Their animals'' were
scattered araong the ripe corn receiving their load
of. plunder. The "garrison," or the officer" in
charge of the expedition, was on the watch in the
village of Bethlehem.
This narrative seems to imply that the valley of
Rephaim was near Bethlehem; but unfortunately
neither this nor the notice in .losh. xv. 8 and xviii.
16, in connection with the boundary line between
Judah and Benjamin, gi\es any clew to its situa
tion, still less does its connection with the groves
of mulberry trees or Baca (2 Sam. v. 23), itself
unknown. Josephus (Ani. vii. 12, § 4) mentions
it as " the valley which extends (from Jerusalera)
to the city of Bethlehem."
Since the latter part of the 16th cent.'' the
name has been attached to the upland plain which
stretches south of Jerusalem, and is crossed by the

« There is no warrant for " down to the hold " in
A. V. Had it been ^V, *' down " might have been
Idded with safety.
b This is the rendering in the ancient and trust

worthy Syriac version of the rare word rT'n (2 Sam.
xxiii. 13), rendered in our version " troop."
c Netstb. The meaning is uncertain (see vol. il.
353, note).
d According to Tohler (ToposrapMe, etc., ii. 404),
Cotowycus is the first who roflords this identification.

2706

REPHIDIM

load to Bethlehem — the eUBWah of the modem
Arabs (Tobler, Jejmsalem, etc., ii. 401). But this,
though appropriate enough as regards its prox
imity to Bethlehem, does not answer at all to the
meaning of the Hebrew word Einek, which appears
always to designate an inclosed valley, never an
open upland plain like that in question," the level
of which is as high, or nearly as high, as that of
Mount Zion itself. [Valley.] Eusebius, ( Ono
masticon, 'Pa<l)aelu and *Efi€Kpa<{>aeifi) calls it the
valley of the Philistines (Kot\a? aWotpvKeoy), and
places it " on the north of Jerusalem," in the tribe
of Benjamin.
A position N. W. of the city is adopted by
Fiirst {Ha-ndivb. ii. 383 6), apparently on the
ground of the terms of Josh. xv. 8 and xviii. 16,
which certainly do leave it doubtful whether the
valley is on the north of the boundary or the
boundary on the north of the valley ; and Tobler,
in his last investigations (Stte Wandei^ung., p. 202),
conclusively adopts the Wady der Jadn ( W.
Makhrior., in Van de Velde's map), one of the side
valleys of the great Wady Beit Eanhm, as the
valley of Rephaim. This position is open to the
obvious objection of too great distance from both
Bethlehem and the cave of Adullam (according to
any position assignable to the latter) to meet the
requirements of 2 Sam. xxiii. 13.
The valley appears to derive its name from the
ancient nation of the Eephaim. It may be a trace
of an early settlement of theirs, possibly after they
were driven from their original seats east of the
Jordan by Cbedorlaomer (Gen. xiv. 5), and before
they again migrated northward to the more secure
wooded districts in which we find them at the date
of the partition of the country among the tribes
(Josh. xvii. 15; A. V. "giants"). In this case it
is a parallel to the " mount of the Amalekites " in
the centre of Palestine, and to the towns bearing
the name of the Zemaraim, the Avim, the Ophnites,
etc., which occur so frequently in Benjamin (vol. i.
p. 277, note b). G.
REPH'IDIM (D**!?"! : 'Pa^iSe^i/ : \_Raph-
idiml ). Ex. xvii. 1, 8 ; xix. 2. The name means
"rests" or "stays; '," the place lies in the march
of the Israelites from Egypt to Sinai. The " wil
derness of Sin " was succeeded by Rephidim accord
ing to these passages, but in Num. xxxiii. 12, 13,
Dophkah and Alush are mentioned as occurring
between the people's exit from that wilderness and
their entry into the latter locality. There is noth
ing known of these two places which will enable us
to fix the site of Rephidim. [Alush ; Dophkah.]
I^epsius' view is that Mount Serial is the true
Horeb, and that R^hidim is Wady Feiran., the
well known valley, richer in water and vegetation
than any other in the peninsula (Lepsius' Tour
from Thebes io Sinai, 1845, pp. 21, 37). This
would account for the expectation of finding water
Here, which, however, from some unexplained cause
failed. In Ex. xvii. 6, "the rock in Horeb" is
Qamed as he source of the water miraculously sup
plied. Ol the other hand, the language used Ex.

u On the other hand it is somewhat singular that
the modem name for this upland plain, Buka''ah^
ihould be the same with that of the great inclosed
yalley of Lebanon, which differs from It aa widely as
jt can differ from the signifloatiou of Emek. There is
bo connection between Buk^ah and Baca ; they are
Sflsentially distinct.
A Ou this I;epBiuB remarks that Koblnson would

REPHIDIM
xix. 1, 2, seems precise, as regards the point thai
the journey from Rephidim to Si7iai was a dis*
tinct stage. The time fi*om tbe wilderness of Sin,
reached on the fifteenth day of the second month
of the Exodus (Ex. xvi. 1), to the wilderness of
Sinai, reached on the first df.y of tbe third month
(xix. 1), is from fourteen to sixteen days. This,
if we follow Num. xxxiii. 12-15, has to be dis
tributed between the four march- stations Sir,
Dophkah, Alush, and Rephidim, and their corre
sponding stages of journey, which would allow two
days' repose to every day's march, as there are four
marches, and 4 X 2 -f- ^ = 12, leaving two days
over from the fourteen. The first gi-and object
being the arrival at Sinai, the inteiTOning distance
may probably have been despatched with all possi
ble speed, considering the weakness of the host by
reason of women, etc. The name Horeb is by
Robinson taken to mean an extended range or
re2;ion, some part of which was near to Rephidim,
which he places at Wady esh-Sheikh,,^ running
from N. E. to S. W., on the AY. side of Gebel
Fureia, opposite the northern face of the modern
Horeb. [Sinai.] It joins the Wady Feiran.
The exact spot of Robinson's Rephidim is a defile
in the esh-Sheikh visited and described by Burck-
hardt {Syria, etc., p. 488) as at about five hours'
distance from where it issues from the plain Er-
Raheh, narrowing between abrupt clifi's of black
ened granite to about 40 feet in width. Here is
also the traditional "Seat of Moses" (Robinson,
i. 121). The opinion of Stanley (5. tf P. pp. 40-
42), on the contrary, with Ritter (xiv. 740, 741),
places Rephidim in Waily Feirxn, where the traces
of building and cultivation still attest the impor
tance of this valley to all occupants of the desert.'
It narrows in one spot to 100 yards, showing high
mountains and thick woods, with gardens and date-
groves. Here stood a Christian church, city and
episcopal residence, under the name of Paran, be
fore the foundation of the convent of- Mount St.
Catherine by Justinian. It is the finest valley in
the whole peninsula (Burckhardt, Arab. p. 602;
see also Robinson, i. 117, 118). Its fertility and
richness account, as Stanley thinks, for the Amal
ekites' struggle to retain possession against those
whom they viewed as intrusive aggressors. This
view seems to meet the largest amount of possible
conditions for a site of Sinai. Lepsius, too (see
above) dwells on the fact that it was of no use for
Moses to occupy any other part of the wilderness,
if he could not deprive the Amalekites of the only
spot [Feiran) which was inhabited. Stanley (41)
thinks the word describing the graund, rendered
the "hill" in Ex. xvii. 9, 10, and said adequately
to describe that on which the church of Paran
stood, affords an ai-gument in favor of the Feiran
identity. H. H.
* Upon the other hand, however, it may be
urged with much force, that since Wady Feiran
is full twehe hours' march from Jebel Musa, Rephi
dim could not have been in that valley if the iden
tity of Sinai with this mountain is maintained;

have certainly recognized the true position of Rephi
dim (i. e. at Wady Feiran)^ had he not passed by
Wady Feiran with its brook, garden, and ruins — the
most interesting spot in the peninsula — in order tc
see Snrbttt el-Cfiadem (ibid. p. 22). And Staniey ad
mits the objection of bringing the Israelites through
the most striking scerery in the desert, that of Feiran^
without any event of importance to mark it.

REPROBATE
for Rephidim was distant from Sinai but one day's
march (Ex. xix. 2; Num. xxxiii. 15), and the dis
tance frora Wady Feiran to Jebtl Muta could not
have been accoraplished by so great a multitude on
foot, in a single march. Moreover, the want of water
spoken of in Ex. xxii. 1, 2, seems to preclude the
Wady Feiran as the location of Kephidim ; for the
Wady has an almost perennial supply of water,
whereas the deficiency referred to in the narrative
seems to have been natural to the sterile and rocky
region into which the people had now corae, and it
was necessary to supply them from a supernatural
source. The location of Rephidim raust be deterrained
by that of Sinai; and the author of the above article,
in his article on SiNAT, seems to answer his own
arguments for placing Rephidim in the Wady
Feiran vvith Serbal as the Sinai, and to accept
in the main Dr. Robinson's identification of Sinai
and Horeb, which requires that Rephidira be trans
ferred to Wo.dy es-Slteykh. The weight of topo
graphical evidence and of learned authority now
favors this view. J. P. T.
* REPROBATE (DNJ?3 : &S6iciiios),incapa^
ble of endu/ring trial, or wlien tested, found un
worthy (with special reference, priraarily, to the
assay of raetals, see Jer. vi. 30), hence, in general,
corrupt, wortliless.
The word is eraployed by St. Paul, apparently
for the sake of the antithetic parallelism, 2 Cor.
xiii. 6, 7, in the merely negative sense of "'un
proved," " unattested," with reference to himself
as being left, snpposably, without that proof of his
apostleship which might be furnished by disciplinary
chastiseraents, inflicted upon oflenders through his
instrumentality. The same word, which is ordi
narily in the A. V. translated " reprobate," is ren
dered 1 Cor. ix. 27, " a castaway," and Heb. vi. 8,
" r^ected." D. S. T.
RB'SBN (IPp: Aao-ij; [Alex.] -Aao-e/*: Re-
sen) is raentioned only in Geu. x. 12, where it is
said to have been one ofthe cities built by Asshur,
after he went out of the land of Shinar, and to
have lain " between Nineveh and Calah." Many
writers have been inclined to identify it with the
Rhesina or Rhesaena of the Byzantine authors
(Aranl. Marc, xxiii. 5 ; Procop. Bell. Pers. il. 19 ;
Steph. Byz. sui voce 'Peirtva), and of Ptolemy
( Geograph. v. 18). which was near the true source
of the western Khabonr, and which is most prob
ably the modem Ras-el-ain. (See Winer's Real-
wbrlerbuch, sub voce "Kesen.") There are no
grounds, however, for this identification, except the
similarity of name (which similarity is perhaps fal
lacious, since the LXX. evidently read IDT for
"(D"l), while it is a fatal objection to the theory
that Ressena or Resina was not in Assyria at all,
but in Western Mesopotamia, 200 railes to the west
pf both the cities between which it is said to have
lain. A far raore probable conjecture was that of
Pochart (Geograph. Sacr. iv. 23), who found
Resen in the Larissa of Xenophon (Anab. iii. 4,
§ 7), which is raost certainly the modern Nimrud.
Resen, or Dasen — whichever may be the true
form of the word — raust assuredly have been in
Ms neighborhood. As, however, the Nimrud
ruins seera reajly to represent Calah, while those
apposite Mosul are the remains of Nineveh, we
«nst look for Risen in the tract lying between these

RESURRECTION

2707

two sites. Assyrian remains of some considerable
extent are found in this situation, near the modem
village of Selamiyeh, and it is perhaps the most
probable conjecture that these represent tbe Resen
of Genesis. No doubt it may be said that a " great
city," such as Resen is declared to have been (Gen.
X. 12), could scarcely have intervened between two
other large cities which are not twenty miles apart ;
and the ruins at Selaiiiiyth, it must be admitted,
are not very extensive. But perhaps we ought to
understand the phrase "a great city" relatively
— i. e great, as cities went in early times, or great,
considering its proximity to two other larger towns.
If this explanation seem unsatisfactory, we might
perhaps conjecture that originally Asshur (Kileh-
Shergliat) was called Calah, and Nimrud Resen;
but that, when the seat of empire was removed
northwards from the former place to the latter, the
name Calah was transferred to the new capital. In
stances of such transfers of name are not unfre-
quent. The later Jews appear to have identified Resen
with the Kileh-Sherghat ruins. At least the Tar
guras of Jonathan and of Jerusalem explain Resen
by Tel-Assar ("lObn or "IDSbjl), " the mound
of Asshur." G. R.
* RESH, which means " head," is the name
of one of the Hebrew letters ('^). It designates a
division of Ps. cxix. and commences each verse of
that division. It occurs in some of the other al-
phalictic compositions. [Poetey, Hebrew ;
Wkitlng.] H.
RE'SHEPH (n^T!: -Zapdrp; Alex. Paireif.:
Reseph). A son of Ephraim and brother of Rephab
(1 Chr. vii. 25).
* RESURRECTION. The Scripture doc
trines of the resurrection and of the future hfe are
closely connected ; or, rather, as we shall see in the
sequel, are practically identical.
It will be proper, therefore, to begin with the
notices and intimations of both, which are contained
in the Old Testament.
I. Resurrection in the Old Testament.
1. The passage which presents itself first for con
sideration is Ex. iii. 6, the address of God to Mo
ses at the burning bush, saying, " I am the God of
thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac,
and the God of Jacob." This text takes prece
dence of all others, inasmuch as it is expressly ap
pealed to by our Lord (Matt. xxii. 31, 32; Mark
xii. 26; Luke xx. 37) in proof of a resurrection,
and in confutation of the Sadducees, who denied it.
Now, our Lord argues that since God is not a God
of the dead but of the living, it is implied that
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still living. That
they were still living is undoubtedly a truth of fact,
and expresses, therefore, the truth of the relation of
the Diidne consciousness (so to speak) to Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, as indicated in those words.
Moreover, this argument from those words was in
accordance with the received modes of Jewish
thought. It silenced the Sadducees. It probably
has a foundation and a, force in the structure of
the Hebrew language which we cannot, easily or
fully appreciate. To us It would seem inconclu
sive as a piece of mere reasoning, especially when
we consider that the verb of existence (" ara ") ia
not expressed in the Hebrew. But it is not a pi3oe

2708

RESURRECTION

tl mere reasoning. . The recognition in the Divine
mind of the then present relation to Abraham,
Isaac, and Jaeob, as living, is declared on Christ's
authority; and the evidence of it contained in the
Hebrew text was sufficient for the rainds U> which
that evidence was addressed. A deeper insight
into the meaning of this text, and into the charac
ter of Jehovah as the ever-living God and loving
Father, would probably make clear to our own
minds more of the inherent force of this ai^raent
of our Blessed Lord in proof of the resurrection of
the dead.
2. The story of the translation of Enoch, Gen.
V. 22, 24, raanifestly implies the recognition of a
future, supramundane life, as familiar to Moses and
the patriarchs ; for, otherwise, how should we find
here, as the Apostle to the Hebrews argues, any
illustration of the second great article of faith in
God, namely, that " He is a rewarder of them that
diligently seek Him " ?
3. The rapture of Elijah, as rekted in 2 Kings ii.,
implies as certainly a recognition of the same truth.
4. The raising of thechild by lilijah, 1 K. xvii.
21-24, implies the fact, and tlie then existing Iie-
lief in tbe fact, of tbe continued existence of the
BOul after death, i. e. after its separation from tbe
body. " 0 Lord, ray God," says the prophet, " I
pray Thee, let this child's soul (tl'DS, nepkesh)
corae into hini again."
5. The sarae truth is implied in the account of
the raising of the child by Elisha, 2 K. iv. 20,
32-36. 6. Also, in the case of the dead man resusci
tated by the contact of Elisha's bones, 2 K. xiii.
21. — And these three last are illustrations also of
the resurrection of the body.
7. The popular belief among the Hebrews in the
existence and actirity of the souls or spirits of the
departed is manifest from the strong tendency
which existed among them to resort to the practice
of necromancy. See the familiar story of the witch
of Endor, 1 Sam. xxviii. See also the solemn pro
hibition of this practice, Deut. xviii. 9-11 ; where
we have expressly D^rjSn'7^ 2-'"?.'^, dm-esh
el-hammethlm, a seeker of a miraculous response
from ihe dead, — a necromancer. See also Lev.
xix. 31 and xx. 6 ; where the Israelites are forbid
den to have recoui-se to the ni3M, oboth, "such
as hava familiar spirits," according to the received
translation, but according to Gesenius, " sooth
sayers who evoke the manes of the dead, by the
power of incantations and magical songs, in order
to give answers as to future and doubtful things."
Such was the witch of Endor herself, 1 Sam. xxviii.
7. These necromancers are, under this narae, very
fi-equently referred to in the O. T. : see Isa. xix. 3
and xxix. 4; Deut. xviii. 11: 2 K. xxi. 6; 2 Chr.
xxxiii. 6, &c. In Isa. viii. 19, this word is used in
a very significant connection : " And when they
shall say unto you. Seek unto them that have fa
miliar spirits, the rTQM, and unto wizards that
peep and that mutter; should not a people seek
unto their God? for the living to ihe dead
(DTIBn-bS)? To the law and to the testi
mony." Now, it is of no consequence to our present pur
pose whether these necroraancers really had inter-
jourse with departed spirits or not, — whether the

RESURRECTION
witch ot Endor really called up the siirit of Sam
uel or not; they may all have been mere impostors,
jugglers, mountebanks ; — it is all the same to 'is ;
the practice of consulting thera and confiding in
thera proves incontestably the popular belief in tbe
existence of the spirits they were supposed to evoke.
8. The sarae belief is shown in the use of the
word Rephaim (D^KD"1), soraetiraes translated
"giants," and sometimes "the dead," but more
properly meauing Manes, or, perhaps, " the dead
of long ago:" see Isa. xiv. 9; Ps. Ixxxviii. 10:
Prov. ii. 18, ix. 18, xxi. 16; and Isa. xxvi. 14, 19.
[Glints, vol. ii. p. 912.]
9. This belief is shown also, and yet more dis
tinctly, in the popular conceptions attached to Shcol,
(ViStP, or VSEJ), i. e. Hades, the abode of the
departed. Our word grave, used in a broad and
somewhat metaphorical sense, as equivalent to the
abode of the dead in general, may often be a proper
translation of Sheol; but it is to be carefully ob
served that Sheol is never used for an individual
grave or sepulchre ; — a particular man's grave is
never called his shedl. Abraham's biirying-place
at ftlamre. or Jacob's at Shechem, was never con
founded with Slieol. However Sheol may be asso
ciated — and that naturally enough — with the
place in which the body is deposited and decays,
the Hebrews evidently regarded it aa a place where
the dead continued in a state of conscious existence.
No matter though they regarded the place as one
of darkness and gloom ; and no matter though they
regarded its inhabitants as shades ; — still they be
lieved that there was such a place, and that the
souls of the departed still existed there: see Isa.
xiv. 9, 10: "Hell (Sheol) frora beneath is raoved
for thee at thy coraing ; it stirreth up the dead for
thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath
raised up from their thrones all the kings of the
nations. All they speak and say unto thee, Art
thou also become weak as we? Art thou become
like unto us? " This raay be said to be the lan
guage of poetic iraagery and personification ; but
it unquestionably expresses prevailing popular ideas.
Jacob goes down to Sheol to his sttn mourning.
Gen. xxxvii. 35. Abraham goes to his fathers in
peace, Gen. xv. 15. -And so in general, the famil
iar phrase, " being gathered to his fathers," nieans
more than dying as they had died, or being placed
in the family tomb ; it means, johied to their com
pany and society in Shedl: see Job iii. 11-19, and
xiv. 13 ; Ps. xvi. 10, and xlix. 14, 15. For the fur
ther development of the idea, connected with the
later conception of "the bosom of Abraham," see
Luke xvi. 22. [Hell; Abrahaji's Bosom.]
10. There are many indications, in the Old Tes
tament, of the idea of a resurrection proper, of a
reunion of soul and body, and a transition to a
higher life than either that of earth or of SlieSl.
Tlie vision of the valley of the dry bones in
Ezek. xxxvii., though it may be intended merely
to syrabohze the restoration of the Jewish state,
yet shows that the notion of a resurrection of the
body, even after its decay and corruption, had
distinctly occurred to men's minds in the time of
the prophet, and was regarded neither as absurd,
nor as beyond the limits of Almighty power. It ia
even employed for the purpose of illustrating an
other grand idea, another wonderful fact.
In Isa. xxvi. 19, the prophet says : " Thy dead
men (Heb. meihim) shall live, together with mj

RESURRECTION
lead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye
>hat dwell in the dust ; for thy dew is as the dew
of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead "
(D'^SSn). Ps. xvi. 8-11: "My flesh also shaU
rest in hope; for thou wilt not leave my soul
C>tr?5) in hell (VlN^b); neither wilt thou
suffer thy Holy One to see corruption.'' Ps. xvii.
15: "I shall be satisfied when I awake in thy
lilieness." Ps. xxiii. 4: " Though I walk through
the valley of the shadow of death I will fear
no evil." Ps. Ixxiii. 24-26: "Thou shalt guide
me by thy counsel, and afterward receive me lo
glory. Whom have I in heaven but thee? and
there is none upon earth that 1 desire besides thee.
My flesh and my heart faileth, but God is the
strength of my heart, and ray portion forever."
Job xiv. 13-15 : " Oh that thou wouldest hide rae
me in the grave (Sheol), that thou wouldest keep
me secret until thy wrath be past, that thou would
est appoint rae a set ^ime and remember me! If
a man die shall he live again ? All the days of my
appointed tirae will I wait, till my change come.
Thou shall caU, and I mill answer thee,- thou shalt
have a desire to the work of thy hands.'- Job xix.
23-27 ; " Oh that my words were now written !
Oh that they were printed in a book ! that they
were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock
forever! For I know that ray Redeemer (7S3,
Goel, — who, Gesenius says, is here God himself)
liveth, and that he shall stand in the latter day
upon the earth ; and after my skin let them de
stroy this body, yet in ray flesh shall I see God."
It is true raany attempts have been made, by vary
ing translations and special interpretations, to as
sign to this passage sorae other reference than to
the resurrection of the dead. But if this last is
the natural sense of the words, — and of this every
candid reader raust judge for hiraself, — it is just
as credible as any other, for it is only begging the
question to allege that the idea of a resurrection
had not occurred at that time. Dan. xii. 2, 3 :
" And raany that sleep in the dust of the earth
shall awake, some to everlasting life, and sorae to
sharae and everlasting contempt." Here it can
hardly with any reason be doubted that a proper
resurrection of the body is meant.
11. This idea and hope of a future resurrection
was yet more distinctly developed during the period
between the close of the Canon of the Old Testa
ment and the Christian era. See 2 Mace. vii.
9, 14, 36; Wisdom, ii. 1, 23, and iii. 1-9.
12. If we compare the definition of faith in the
eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and
the stateraent of the palpable truth that he who
Cometh to God " raust believe that he is, and that
he is a rewarder of ihem thai diligently seek him,"
with the illustrations given in the rest of the chap
ter, drawn from the Old Testament, we shall see
that it must be implied in the case of all of them,
as well as of Enoch, that they looked for a future
resurrection and everlasting life. See particularly
w. 10, 13-16, 19, 26, 35.
13. Remarkable are the predictions in Ez. xxxiv.
23, 24, xxxvii. 24, 25 ; Jer. xxx. 7 ; and Hos. iii.
) ; — where, in connection with a restoration of the
Jews, we are told of " my serrant David who shall
be their prince," "David their lung, whom I will
aise up," etc. Also, the prediction in Mai. iv. f> :
"I will send you Elijah the prophet," etc., with
vhich compare Luke ix. 7, 8, 19. It seii»« that

RESURRECTION

2709

Herod, — with most other Jews, probably, — ex
pected this last prediction to be fulfilled by a literal
resurrection. The question i.s. Shall we find in
such prophecies a resunection, metempsychosis, oi
metaphor? Probably the last; see Matt. xi. 14,
Mark viii. 13; Luke i. IT: John i. 21. Thus Jobn
the Baptist was Elias, and he was not Elias : that
is to say, he was not Elias literally, but, as tht
angel said, he carae "in the spirit and power ui
Elias;" and in him Ihe prophecy \'\as properly
fulfilled, — hewas the -'Ellas which was Ir to
come." 14. There are in the Classical as well as in the
Hebrew writers, indications of the- recognition not
only of the continued existence of the souls of the
departed, but of the idea of a proper resurrection;
— showing that the thought does not strike the
unsophisticated human mind as manifestly absurd.
See Hom. JL xxi. 54, and xxiv. 756 {avaiTTii
(TovTai)- See also j^ilschylus, who uses the same
word. 15. It must be admitted, however, that with all
the distinct indications that the writers and saints
of the Old Testament looked for a future life and
a final resurrection, they very often indulge in ex
pressions of gloomy despondency, or of doubt and
uncertainty in regard to it; so that it is strictly
true, for Jews as M'ell as for Gentiles, that Ufe and
immortality are brought io Ught through ihe Gospel.
For some of those gloomy utterances see Isa.
xxxviii. 18, 19; Job xiv. 10-13; xvii. 14-16; x.
18-22; vii. 6-9; Ps. xxx. 9; xx.xix. 12, 13; xlix.
19, 20; Ixxxviii. 4-12; cii. 11. 12, 23-28; ciii.
15-17; civ. 29-31; cxliv. 3-5; cxlvi. 4-6; Eccles.
iii. 18-22; ix. 4-6, 10. But, on the other hand,
see Eccles. xii. 7, 13, 14: ''Then shall the dust
retarn to the earth as it was; and the spirit shall
return unto God that gave it." " For God shall
bring every work into judgment, with every secret
thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."
So then the soul, or spirit, neither perishes with
the body, nor is absorbed into the Deity. It con
tinues in conscious existence, a subject of reward
or punishment.
II. Resurrection in the New Testament.
1. There are five cases of the raising of dead
persons recorded in the New Testament.
(a.) The daughter of Jairus, Luke viii. 49-55;
(6.) The widow's son at Nain, Luke vii. 11-15;
(c.) Lazarus of Bethany, John xi. 1-44;
{d.) Dorcas, or Tabitha, Acts xi. 36-42;
(e.) Eutychus, Acts xx. 9-12.
2- Several other references are made, in a more
or less general way, to the power and the fact of
miraculously raising dead persons: Matt. x. 8
(text disputed); xi. 5; Luke vii. 22; John xii.
1, 9, 17; Heb. xi. 19, 35.
It is to be noted that all these cases recorded or
alluded to in the New Testament, like the cases of
miraculous resurrections in the Old Testament,
were resurrections to a natural, mortal life; yet
they imply, no less, continued existence after death ;
they prefigure, or rather, they presuppose a final
resurrection. 3. The doctrine of a final general resurrection
was the prevailing doctrine of the Jews (the Phar
isees) at the tirae of Christ and his Apostles. See
Matt, xxii.; Mark xii.; Luke xx. 33-39; John xi.
23, 24; Acts xxiii. 6-8; xxiv. 14, 15, 21; an^
xxvi. 4-8. If, then, Christ and his Ap09tie»
plainly and solemnly assert the same doctrine, w(

27 10 RESURRECTION
ire not at Uberty to give their w ords a strained or
Dietaphorical interpretation. ^V'e must suppose
them to mean what they knew they would be
understood to mean. This is especially clear in
the case of St. Paul, who had himself been edu
cated a Pharisee.
The Jews seem to have also believed in return
ing spiHis : Acts xii. 13-15; Matt, xiv, 26; Mark
vi. 49 ; Luke xxiv. 37-39 ; but neither Christ nor
his Apostles seem anywhere to have admitted or
sanctioned this opinion.
4. The resurrection of Christ is the grand pivot
of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of
the dead. Special characters of Christ's resurrec
tion are: (1.) His body rose, which had not seen
corruption. (2.) His body rose to immortal life —
"to die no more," Rom. vi. 9, 10. (3.) His body
rose a spiritual body — the same, and yet not the
same, which had been laid in the tomb, John xx.
19, 20; Luke xxiv. 13-32; Mark xvi. 12; 1 Cor.
XV.; Phil. iu. 21; 1 Pet. iii. 21, 22. (4.) It is
more consonant with the Scripture statements to
hold that his body rose a spiritual body, than that,
rising a natural, corruptible, mortal body, it was
either gradually or suddenly chanyed before or at
bis ascension. (5.) He was the first thus raised to
a spiritual, immortal life in the body, 1 Cor. xv.
20, 23; for it is to be obser\-ed that, while the rocks
were rent und thus tlie graves were opened at his
d^cifixion, yet the bodies of the saints wliich
slept did not arise and come out of their graves
until after his resurrection. They, too, seem to
have risen, not with natural bodies like Lazarus
and others, but with spiritual bodies; for they are
said to have "appeared unto many," but they do
not seem to have lived again a natural life among
men and to have died a second time. Neither were
their "appearances" the apparitions of returning
spirits ; their bodies rose and came out of their
graves — not out of "the grave," out of " ffades,^^
or '* Sheol,'^ but out of " their graves." And, like
their risen Lord, they soon disappeared from the
scenes of earth.
5. There are several uses and applications, in
the New Testament, of the words avatXTaais and
^yepffis, which seem to be substantiaUy syiion)'-
mous, differing only in the figurative form of the
common thought, and which are alike translated
"resurrection." The same is true of the verbs
from which they are derived: (1.) They seem to
import immortal Ufe, in general, in a future world.
Matt. xxii. 31, and the parallel passages in Mark
and Luke; 1 Cor. xv. 18, 19. (2.) They signify
distinctly the resurrection of the body, John v. 28,
29; xi. 23, 24; 1 Cor. xv. 35-54; and aU' the
cases where Christ's resurrection is spoken of, as
John XX. 26-29 ; Luke xxiv. 3-7 ; Matt, xxvii. 52 ;
xxvni. 13, &c., &c. ; also 1 Cor. xv. 1-23; and see
Luke xvi. 31, (3.) They refer to a spiritual and
moral resurrection. Eph. i. 20, comp. ii. 6 ; Phil.
iii. 11 (?); Col. Ui. 1; Rom. vL 4-14; &c.
But here is to be noted, that, according to the
ideas of the New Testament, as will be particu
larly seen in St. Paul's argument in 1 Cor. xv.,
the second signification is always implied in and
ryith the first, as a condition or a consequence; and
vhat the third is merely metaphorical.
6. The heathen or philosophic doctrine of im-
jQortaUty is to he carefully dietinguisbed from the
Christian doctrine of the resurrection. The ab
stract immortality of the huraan soul, its immor
ality independent of any reunion with the body,

RESURRECTION
was indeed a favorite and lofty speculation of the
ancient heathen phUosophers. But they could
ne\er demonstrate its necessary truth by reason
ing, nor establish its practical reaUty by positive
evidence. It remained, and, for aU human philos
ophy could ever do, must have continued, merely
a beautiful nsion, a noble aspiration, or, at best, a
probable presentiment.
The popular view of the Greek mind was devel
oped in the ideas of Hades, Elysium, and Tarta-
rus; and to this view may correspond also the pop
ular Hebrew conception of Sheol; from which the
veil of darkness — even for the minds of inspired
poets and prophets — was not entirely removed,
until the glorious light of the Gospel shined in
upon it. The nearest approximation of heathen
theories to the Christian doctrine of the resurrec
tion, — a kind of instinctive groping towards it,
— is found in the wide-spread philosophical and
popular notion of metempsychosis. The immor
tality which the heathen imagined and to which
they asph-ed, even in Elysiilm, was, for the most
part, a sad and sorry immortality, — an immor
tality to which they would unhesitatingly have pre
ferred this present life in the flesh, if it could have
been made permanent and raised above accident*
and pain. But their notions of metempsychosis
could have afforded them at this point but meagre
consolation. Instead of Paradise it was only an
indefinite Purgatory.
But how has the Gospel brought Ufe and im
mortality to light? By establishing as an indubi
table practical fact the resurrection of the body.
Thus the natural repugnance to annihilation, the
indefinite longings and aspirations of the human
mind, its fond anticipations of a Ufe to come, are
fully confirmed and satisfied. Immortality is no
longer a dream or a theory, but a practical, tangi
ble fact, a fact both proved and illustrated, and
therefore capable of being both confidently beUeved
and distinctly realized.
In the view of the New Testament, the immor
tality of the soul and the resuiTection of the body
always involve or imply each other. If the soul
is immortal,-the body will be raised; if the body
will be raised, the soul is immortal. The first is
implied In our Lord's refutation of the Sadducees;
the second is a matter of course. The Christian
doctrine of imniortaUty and resurrection is a con
vertible enthymenie.
And is not this plain, common-sense view of the
Scriptures, after all, nearer the most philosophic
truth, than the counter analytical abstractions?
All we need care about, it is sometimes thought
and said, is the inmiortality of the soul. Let that
be established, and we have before us all the future
Ufe that we can desire. AVhy should we wish for
the resurrection of this material incumbrance?
But, though it is sufficiently evident that the hu
man soul is somewhat distinct from the body — an
immaterial, thinking substance; and though we
can easily conceive that it is capable of conscious
ness and of internal activities, and of spiritual
inter-communion, in a state of separation from the
body; yet, inasmuch as all we have ever experi
enced, and all we thus positively know of its action
and developraent, has been in connection with and
by means of a bodily organization, — by what sort
of philosophy are we to conclude that of course
and of a certainty it wiU have no need of its bod
ily organization, either for its continued existence
or even for its full action, progress, and enjoymeoi

RESURRECTION
In a fiiture state ? How do we know that the hu-
aaan soul is not, in its very nature, so constituted
as to need a bodily organization for the complete
play and exercise of its powers in every stage of
its existence? So that it would, perhaps, be in
consistent with the wisdom of its Creator to pre
serve it in an imperfect and mutihited state, a
mere wreck and relic of itself and its noble func
tions, to aU eternity? AnJ so that, if the soul is
to be continued in immortal life, it certg,iuly is to
be ultimitely reunited to the body? Indeed, it
would be quite as philosophical to conclude that
the soul could not exist at all, or, at least, could
not act, could not even exercise its consciousness,
without the body; as' to conclude that, without
the body, it could continue in the full exercise of
its powers.
Both these conclusions are contradicted by the
Scripture doctrine of a future life. On the one
hand, the soul is not unconscious while separated
from the body, but is capable of enjoying the
blissful spiritual presence and communion of Christ;
for to be absent from the body is to be present
with the Lord, and to be thus absent, and present
with Christ, is "far better" than to be here at
home in the body; and, on the other hand, that
the full fruition, the highest expansion, the freest
activity, and the complete glorification of the soul,
are not attained until the resurrection of the body
is ev'ident from the whole tenor of evangelical and
apostolical instruction, and especiaUy from the fact
that the resurrection of the body — the redemp
tion of the body — is constantly set forth as the
highest and ultimate goal of Christian hope. As
. Christians, therefore, we should not prefer the ab
stract immortality of heathen philosophy, which,
sad and shadowy as it was, could never be proved,
to the resurrection-immortality of the Scriptures,
which is revealed to us on Divine authority, and
established by incontrovertible evidence. Nor should
we seek to complete the heathen idea by engrafting
upon it what we arbitrarily choo.se of the Scripture
doctrine. If any portion of this doctrine is to be
received, the whole is to be received ; there is the
same evidence for the whole that there is for a
part; for, if any part is denied, the authority on
which the remainder rests is annulled. At aU
events, our business here is to state, not so much
what the true doctrine is, as what the Biblical doc
trine ia.
In saying, therefore, that if the body be not
raised, there is no Scripture hope of a future life
for the soul, we do not exalt the flesh above the
spirit, or the resurrection of the body above the
immortality of the soul. We only designate the
condition on which alone the Scriptures assure us
of spiritual immortality, the evidence by which
alone it is proved. "As in Adam all die, even
so Ul Christ shall aU be made alive." Christ
brought life and immortality to light, not by au
thoritatively asserting the dogma of the immortal
ity of the soul, but by his own resurrection from
t/ie dead.
That the resurrection on which St. Paul so
earnestly insists (1 Cor. xv.) is conceived of by
him as involving the whole question of a future
Ufe must be evident beyond dispute. See particu
larly VV. 12-19, 29-32.
8. The New Testament doctrine of immortality
iS, then, its doctrine of the resurrection. And its
doctrine of the resurrection we are now prepared
ko show involves the foUowing points: —

RESURRECTION

2711

(1) The resurrection of the body;
(2) The resurrection of this same body;
(3) The resurrection in a different body;
(4) That, a resurrection yet future; and
(5) A resurrection of all men at the last day.
(1.) The New Testament doctrine of the resur
rection is the doctrine of the resurrection of the body.
That in the fifteenth chapter of his epistle to the
Corinthians, St. Paul teaches the Christiau doctrine
of immortality, we have shown above. His doc
trine is supposed by some to be too refined, as they
say, to be consistent with a proper resurrection of
the body ; and so they would contradistinguish St.
Paul's view from other and gi'osser views, whether
in the New Testament or elsewhere. But on tl e
other hand the truth seems to be that St. Paul
does not give us any special or peculiarly Pauline
view of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection,
but only a fuUer exposition and defense of it than
the New Testament elsewhere contains. The
Pauline doctrine we accept as the Christian doc
trine. And that the resurrection of which he speaks
not only impUes the immortaUty of the soul, but is,
or necessarily and priraarily implies, a resurrection
of tne body, is abundantly evident. That the
resurrection of Christ, on which his whole argu
ment is based, was a resuiTection of the body,
would seem beyond dispute. Otherwise, if Christ's
resurrection is to signify only the immortality
of his soul, what means his rising on the third
day f Did his soul become immortal on the
third day? Was his soul shut up in Joseph's
sepulchre that it should come forth thence? Did
his soul have the print of the nails in its hands
and feet? Did his soul have flesh and bones, as
he was seen to have ? Besides, if there is to be
any proper sense in the term resurrection, that
which has fallen must be that which is raised.
The resurrection, therefore, must be a resurrection
of the body. " He shall change our vile body that
it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body,
according to the working whereby he is able even
to subdue all things unto himself." The doc
trine of the resuiTection, as taught by St. Paul,
exposed hira to the mockery of the Epicureans
and Stoics ; it raust therefore have been a resurrec
tion of the body, for the immortality of the soul
would have been no theme of mockery to any
school of Greek philosophers. The immortality of
the soul, though, for want of sufficient evidence, it
raight not be believed, was never rejected as in
credible ; but St. Paul's appeal is, " why should
it seera a thing incredible with you thit God
should raise the dead? "
(2.) Moreover it is the resurrection of. this iden^
ileal body, of which the apostle speaks. The res
urrection of Christ, which is the type and first
fruits of ours, .was manifestly the resurrection of
his own body, of that very body which had been
placed in Joseph's sepulchre. Otherwise, if it
were merely the assumption of a body, of some
body as a fit covering and organ of the soul, why
is it said of his body that it saw no corruption?
And what signi6es his exhibiting to Thomas hia
hands and his side as means of his identification ?
When his disciples went to the sepulchre they
found not the body of the Lord Jesus. What had
become of it? That was the question. They felt
that question properly and sufficiently answered
when tney found that he had risen from the dead.
'•It is sown in corruption," says the Apostle;
"it is raised in incorruption." What ia raised

2712

RESURRECTION

If it be not what is sown ? and what is sown if it
be not the body ? " This corruptible,'* the Apos
tle plainly adds, '* this corruptible must put on
incorruption, and this moftal must put on im
mortality." So then, it is not the incorruptible
Boul that shall put on an incorruptible body, nor
the immortal soul that shall put on an immortal
body; hut it is this corruptible and mortal body
which is to put on — i. c, to assume, what it has
not yet and in its own nature, an incorruptible
and immortal constitution and organization, and
so be reunited to the incorruptible and immortal
BOUl. It was suggested by Locke, and is often repeated
by others, that " the resuiTection of the body,"
though confessed in the creed, is nowhere spoken
of in the Scriptures, but only " the resurrection
of the dead " ; — a statement which furnishes a re
markable iUustration of the fact that a proposition
may be verbaUy true and yet practically false.
And, indeed, it can hardly be said to be even vei'-
baUy true; for, besides the resurrection of our
Saviour's body, we read in the Scriptures that
" many bodies of saints which slept arose and came
out of their graves after his resurrection " ; and, in
general, that " our vile body shall be changed and
fashioned Uke to his glorious body."
If the resurrection imports merely the assump
tion of a body, of some body, and not of the body,
of this identical body, then why are the dead rep
resented as coming forth, coming forth from thejr
graves, coming forth from the body sown as the
plant grows up out of the earth from the seed that
has been deposited in it V What have they more
to do with their graves, or with the mass of cor
ruption which has been buried in the earth ? The
souls of the faithful departed are now with Christ;
and to what end should they be made to come
forth again from then- graves at their resurrection
upon his final appearing, — if they are then merely
to assume a body, some body, which shaU have
nofJiing to do with the body which was laid in
the tomb? " We shall all be changed," says the
Apostle. He certainly does not mean that we shaU
be changelings. He does not say that our bodies
shaU be exchanged for others, but " we shall be
changed," i. e., our bodies shaU undergo a change,
a transformation whereby from natural they shaU
beconie spiritual bodies, so that this very corrupt
ible itself shaU put on incorruption.
Thus, though it is this very mortal body, this
identical body, that shall be raised from the dead,
it yet remains true that " flesh and blood," as such
and unchanged, " cannot inherit the kingdom of
God, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."
"It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spir
itual body.'*
(3.) And this brings us to the third point,
that the resurrection of this same body is at
once a resurrection in a different body.
But some wiU say, what sort of body is a
spiritual body? Is not the expression a contra
diction in terms? The answer is, that a spurit-
ual body is a body fitted by its constitution to
be the eternal habitation of the pure and immor
tal spirit. How a body must be constituted in
order to he fitted for such a purpose, we do not
know and cannot teU. But that for anything we
do kuow or can urge to the contrary, there may be
¦uch a body — proper material body — without
»ny contradiction or absurdity, St. Paul labors to
demonstrate by a multitude of iUustrations sbow-

RESURRECTION
ing the vast diversity that exists among the
bodies with which we are actually acquainted
(1 Cor. XV. 39-44). Among all this variety of
bodies, therefore, which Almighty power is able U.
constitute, there certainly may be, and the Apostle
asserts that there certainly is, a spiritual body.
Some, supposing that the term spiritual was in
tended to describe the internal or essential consti
tution, rather than to indicate the use and purpose^
of this resurrection hod)-, have surmised that it
would consist of sorae most refined and spiritualized
kind of matter: and have suggested that it might
be of an aerial, ethereal, or gaseous nature. But aU
such speculations transcend the bounds of our
knowledge, and of our necessity ; and are apt to
end in something gross and groveUhig, or subli
mated and meaningless. The term spiritual^ as
already said, is here used by the Apostle to indi
cate, not how the resurrection body is constituted,
but that it is so constituted as to be a fit abode for
the spirit in an eternal and spiritual world.
In the contrasted expression " natural body," the
term natural {^ux>-k6s) means, in the original, an
imal or animated, psychical, ensouled, — if the word
may be allowed; which surely does not imply that
this body is composed of soul or of soul-like sub
stance, but that it is fitted to be the abode and or
gan of the animal or animating part of man, of the
sensitive soul- And thus we can understand the
pertinence of the Apostle's aUusion to Genesis, which
otherwise must seem — as it probably does to ordi
nary readers — quite irrelevant and unmeaning.
Having laid down the assertion, " there is a natu
ral body, and there is a spiritual body," he adds:
And so it is written. The first man Adam was
made a Unng soul, the last Adam was made a quick
ening spirit." Now the word which is translated
naturrd is directly derived frora that translated
soul, and thus the connection and the argument be
come plain and obvious; as if the Apostle had said,
' There is a soul-body, and there is a spiritrbody;
and so it is written, The first man Adam was made
a Uring soul, the last Adam was made a quickening
spirit." For it is to be obsen-ed that the Scriptures often
make a distinction between soul and spirit, as weU
as between soul and body. Man, according to this
Scripture philosophy, is viewed, not as bipartite
but as tripartite, not as consisting of soul and body,
but of body, soul, and spirit. So viewed, the body
is the material organization, the soul is the anim^
and sensitive part, the spirit is the rational and im
mortal, the divine and heavenly part. It is true
we are now, for the most part, accustomed to use
«mZ as synonymous with spirit, — and so the Scrip
tures more frequently do, but they recognize also
the distinction just pointed out In Scripture
phrase, the spirit is the highest part of man, the
organ of the Divinity within him, that part which
alone apprehends divine things and is susceptible
of divine influences. Hence the Apostle says, " The
natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit
of God, for they are foolishness unto him, nei:;her
can he know them because they are spirituallj dis
cerned " — where the term natural is, in the orig
inal, again i^uvi»C(Jy,7?S2/^/'?c, i. e. animal, pertaining
to the soul. There are but two other cases in which
the word is used in the New Testament, and in both
it is translated sensual: James iii. 15, " earthly,
sensual, devilish"; and Jude 19, ^^ sensual, having
not the Spirit." Thus, therefore, as the natural,
or sensual, or animal, or psychical body, or tht

RESURRECTION
•oul-body, is a body, not constituted of soul-sub
stance, bjut fitted for the use aud habitation of
the sensitive soul; so we conclude that the spirit
ual body is a body, not constituted or composed y.'f
spiritual substance — which would be a contradiC'
tion, — but a true and proper body, a material
body, fitted for the use and eternal habitation of
the immortal spirit.
The thought is sometimes suggested, in one form
or another, that these bodies of ours are vile and
worthless, and do not deserve to be raised ; and,
therefore, that the spiritual body will have nothing
to do with them. But it must be remembered
that Christianity does not teach us to despise, to
abuse, or to hate the body, vile and corruptible as
it is. That is a Manichean and heathen no
tion. It is true, our present body may be viewed
both as an organ and as an incumbrance of the
soul. So far as it is an organ it is to be re
stored; so far as it is an incumbrance it is to be
changed. This mortal is to put on immortality.
That which is sown in corruption is to be raised in
incorruption. Christ at his appearing shall "change
our vile body, that it may be fashioned Uke unto
his glorious body." That the spiritual body is to
be a modification of the natural body, being as
sumed or clothed upon it as a new aud glorious
form ; that the one is to have a real, proper, and
organic connection with the other, growing out of
it as it were; so that each person wiU have, at the
resurrection, not only a7i appropriate body, but his
t»wn body, seems sufficiently evident from the Apos
tle's whole argument (1 Cor. xv.), and particularly
from his illustration of the various plants which
grow up frora the seed cast into the ground. Each
plant has an organic connection with its seed, and
God giveth "to every seed his own body." It is
the seed itself which is transformed into the plant
which rises from it.
(4.) The resurrection of ihe body, of ihis same
body, of this same body transformed into a new and
spiritual body, is an event yet future.
" As in Adam aU die, even so in Christ shall aii
he raade alive. But," adds the Apostle, "every
man in his own order : Christ the first fruits, after
wards they that are Christ's at his coming.'' Many
men had died before Christ, men with immortal
souls, yet none had been raised from the dead to
immortal life before Him ; He is the first fruits, the
first-born, the first-begotten from the dead. Nor
is it said that any shall be raised after Him until
his coming. Then the last trumpet shall sound, and
the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we who
are aUve and remain shall be changed. If the Chris
tian doctrine of the resurrection were only this, that
at the moment of death each soul receives a spiritual
body fitted to its eternal state, why weis not Christ
raised tiU the third day ? And why does the Apostle
represent the resurrection of which he treats as
both future and simultaneous for " them that are
Christ's at his coming'''' Y Nor can we suppose the
Apostle here to teach a merely spiritual resurrec
tion, a resurrection from sin to holiness; for if so,
why does he say that it shaU take place at the
sound of the last trump ? And what would become
of the distinction made between the dead who are
to be raised, and the living who are to be changed ?
(5.) This future resurrection of the body is to
be a resurrection of all men at the last day.
This has partly appeared already under the pre
ceding heads. We have seen that this is true of
aU that are Christ's; but whether, in l«Cor. xv.,
171

RESURRECTION

2713

the Apostle teaches the final resurrection of all
mankind may be a question. He does indeed say,
" in Christ all shall be made alive," but whether
this means absolutely all, or only all who are in
Christ, may fairly be doubted. Perhaps the Apos
tle's meaning here might be thus paraphrased:
" For as, by virtue of their connection with Adam,
who, by sin, incurred the sentence of death, all men
who are in him by nature, being sinners and actu
ally sinning, die: even so, by virtue of their con
nection with Christ, who, by his righteousness, is
the restorer of life, shall all men who are vitally
united to Him by faith, be made alive, being raised
frora the dead in his glorious image." But what
ever may be the meaning of those particular words,
it is, no doubt, the doctrine of Scripture that all,
absolutely all the dead will be raised. St. Paul
himself elsewhere unequivocally declares his belief
— and declares it, too, as the common belief not
only of the Christians, but of the Jews (the Phari
sees) of his time, — that " there shall be a resurrec
tion of the dead, both of the just and unjust '* (Acta
xxiv. 15).
But it by no means follows that all will rise in
the same glorious bodies, or be admitted to the
same immortal blessedness. On the contrary, it
was expressly predicted of old that "some shall
awake to everlasting life, and some to shame and
everlasthig contempt; " — not to annihildlon as an
everlasting death opposed to the everlasting life,
but to sliame and everlasting contempt, which raust
imply continued conscious existence. And our
Lord Himself, having raade the declaration : " the
hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall
hear the voice of the Son of God, aud they that
hear shall Uve; " — which may refer, and probably
does chiefly refer, to a nior.al and spiritual resurrec
tion ; — expressly and solemnly adds : " Marvel not
at this; for the hour is coming (he does not add,
and now is), in the which all that are in the graves
shall hear his voice, and shall come forth ; they that
have done good, unto the resurrection of hfe; and
they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of
damnation " (.lohii v. 25, 28, 29).
The future bodies of the wicked may, for aught
we know, be as ignominious, hideous, and loath
some, as perfectly fitted to be instrunients and in
lets of unending and most exquisite pain and tor
ment, as the bodies of the saints shall be glorious
and happy. The Scripture doctrine contains noth
ing positive on this point. St. Paul having briefly
stated that " in Christ all shall be made alive," oven
if in this he meant to include the wicked, gives no
further account of their resurrection ; but goes on
immediately to speak of those who are Christ's at
his coming ; and thenceforth confines his attention
exclusively to them. This was natural for the Apos
tle, who nevertheless certainly believed in a resurrec
tion of the unjust as well as of the just; as it is still
for Christians, who believe the same. The special
Christian doctrine of the resurrection is a doctrine
of hope and joy ; but as such it is a doctrine in
which those who are not Christ's — who have not
the Spirit of Christ, — have no share.
This resurrection is to be one general resurrec
tion at the last day.
That such was the received doctrine in the time
of our Lord is evident from John xi. 23, 24 : " Je
sus saith unto her, thy brother shall rise again.
Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise
again in the resurrection at the last day." Our
Lord himself seems to recognize th ^ doctrine in

2714

RESUKRECTION

his frequent use of fhe phrase, " I will raise hira up
«t the last day," John vi. 39, 40, 44, 54. The
same doctrine is distinctly taught by St. Paul (1
Thess. iv. 14-18). As to the date of the coming
of the Lord, of which he speaks, and that it will
have a reference to the wicked as well as to the
¦ust, see the first ten verses of the next chapter.
See also the second epistle; particularly 2 Thess.
i. 7-10. And for tbe date, see again 2 Thess. ii.
1-5. It is erident that the day of the coming of
the I/)rd was, in St. Paul's view, in the uncertain
future. It one sense it was always ai hand., in an
other sense it was not at hand, 2 Thess. ii- 2. That
he did not presume that he himself should be alive
and remain unto the coming of the Lord, is plain
from his solemn protestation (1 Cor. xv. 31) of his
standing in such hourly jeopardy that he li\'ed in
the immediate prospect of death every day; while,
in the very same connection and chapter (1 Cor.
XV. 52) he associates himself with those who shaU
be alive at the sounding of the last trump, as he
had also done at 1 Thess. iv. 15-17. But it is not
to be forgotten that elsewhere he expressly associ
ates himself with those who wiU have departed be
fore the coming of the Lord ; — 2 Cor. iv. 14 :
* Knowing that He which raised up the Lord Jesus
shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us
wiih you;'' note also the whole context in this
and in the following chapter. Now this second
epistle to the Corinthians was written almost
immediately after the first. Nor does he after
wards betray the slightest symptom of disappoint
ment in the prospect of his approaching raartjT-
dom (2 Tim. iv. 6-8). If the Apostle had felt
that he had been grossly deluded and deceived in
regard to " that day," and "his appearing," and
been left, '• by the word of the Ixird," to lead others
into the same delusion and error, would he have
retained this triumphant confidence at the last, and
expressed it without one word of explanation or
retractation ofhis (alleged) former delusive hopes?
There is one passage in the Apocalypse which
seems inconsistent with the doctrine -of one general
resurrection at the last day (Rev. xx.). Here we
have a " first resurrection," either of all the saints
or of the martyrs only; and, after a long interval,
a general resurrection and judgment. IIow this
representation is to be interpreted is a subject of
doubt and dispute. It may be difficult to reconcile
it with the other statements of Scripture on the
same subject. But, at farthest, it would separate
into only two great portions or acts, that which is
elsewhere regarded in one point of view.
III. The Christian doctkine of the Resuh-
RECTIOX XOT IMPOSSIIJLE OK IXCKEPIHLE.
Before proceeding to defend this doctrine s^ainst
objections, it may be proper to state distinctly what
the doctrine is, and what it is not. It is, (1) that
there will be a general resurrection at the last day
of the bodies of aU mankind.
(2.) That the body in which each man wiU be
raised will be the same as that in which he had
Uved; but changed, transformed at the resurrec
tion, so as, from a natural body, to become a
spiritual body ; it wiU be at once the same and
different. Such is the doctrine; but hoto far and in what
respects the spiritual bodies will be the same as the
natural bodies — besides that they will have an
srganic connection with them ; hoto far they wiU
be Uke them in size, in forra, in organization, in

RESURRECTION
limbs, in functions; whether, e. g., they wiH hsTf
the hair, beard, nails, etc. ; how far they may be
subject to the physical laws of material things with
which we are conversant; whether they will have
the same senses as the natural bodies, or more or
less; whether they will have fixed forms, or the
power of assuming various forms; what will be
their essential constitution, or hoio they may exer
cise their functions in relation either to the spiritual
or the material world — except that they will be
real bodies ("flesh and bones"), though not cor
ruptible bodies ("flesh and blood"); the doctrine
neither affirms nor denies. These are all matters
of mere speculation. To the question, " How are
the dead raised up ? and with what bodi^ do they
come?" the Scriptures vouchsafe no further an
swer than "spiritual bodies," "Uke Christ's glori
ous body." His body retained the print of the
nails, and the rent in the side after his resurrec
tion, but it appeared also in various forms: he at«
and drank with his disciples after his resurrection,
but so did the angels eat with Abraham; that
body at length rose above tbe clouds, disappeared
from the gaze of his disciples, and ascended to the
right hand of God ; it was seen afterwards by St.
Stephen in heavenly glory, and by St. Paul in a
manifestation of overwhelming splendor. But after
all no decision is furnished hi regard to those
speculative questions; and the positive doctrine of
Scripture is left within the Umits already stated.
And now it remains to show that there is noth
ing impossible or incredible involved in this doc
trine. (1.) It is objected that a material organization
cannot possibly be made incorruptible and immor
tal, and fitted to a spiritual state and spiritual
purposes. But how does the objector know this ?
(2.) It is said to be impossible that the identical
body should be raised, because that body wiU have
gone entirely out of existence, and iu order for a
resurrection or a restoration to take place, the thing
so restored or raised must necessarily be in ex
istence. This must mean one of two things: either, that,
as a definite body, in respect to its form and
constitution, it has ceased to exist; or that, in
respect to its very substance and the material
which composed it, it has been annihilated.
The latter sense cannot be intended by an ob
jector who recognizes the law of nature, that no
particle of matter is ever lost. And according to
the former sense, the objector would make the
restoration, reconstruction, reorganization of any
body, under any circumstances, and on any hy
pothesis, a sheer absurdity; for, in order that a
body may be restored, reconstructed, reorgmizcd,
he expressly makes it necessary that it should
already exist, actually constructed and organized.
Is this self-evident? or, perhaps the position ofthe
objector comes to this: if a house, e. g., has faUen
to ruin, and you restore it as it was before, it is not
the same house; but if you restore it \\hen it is
not dilapidated, or reconstruct it without taking it
to pieces — however great the changes you may
make — it will be the sarae house. But does re
storing mean merely repairing? And do recon
structing and reorganizing mean merely changing
the existing structure and organization? If so,
these words, as well as the word " resurrection," are
coramonly used in an abusive sense, or rather with
no sense at all.
(3.) But it is thought that, even though th*

RESURRECTION
body might be restored if it were simply resolved
Into ditst, yet, inasmuch as it is resolved into
elementary principles, into oxygen and other gases,
which become mixed and confounded with the mass
of gases of the same kind, or combined variously
with gases of different kinds, it is impossible that
the same portions of these gases should be sesjre-
gated and brought together into the same body
again. This wiU require careful consideration. We take
for granted that the "elementary principles " into
which the body is said to be resolved are matter,
true and proper matter. This they certainly are
unless our metaphysical analysis is prosecuted be
yond aU our chemical tests. At all events, they
are either matter or not matter. If tbey are not
matter, then masses of matter have been anni-
hUated, If they are true and proper matter, then,
Hke all matter, they are, or consist of, material
pailicles. And the definite, identical, material
particles of a cubic inch of oxygen are no more
annihilated or absolutely lost or confounded by
being mixed with another cubic inch, or with ten
thousand cubic feet, of oxygen gas, than are the
definite identical particles of a cubic inch of dust
by being mixed with any quantity of homogeneous
dust. It is certainly assuming more than is self-
evident to say that omniscience cannot identify
thera and trace them through their new combina
tions, and that omnipotence cannot segregate them
and restore them to their former connections. It
is not here contended that this could be done by
any human power or merely natui*al process, but it
is insisted that the thing involves no contradiction,
and therefore is not absolutely impossible. The
case just stated involves precisely the pinching
point of the objection, if it pinches anywhere. For,
as to saying that one simple substance loses its
identity by entering into composition with anotiier
simple substance, that is plainly false even on nat
ural principles. Let us try a few instances.
If a certain nuraber of grains of pure copper be
combined with their definite proportion of oxygen,
and this oxyde of copper be dissolved in nitric acid,
we shall have the nitrate of copper, which may
exist in a perfectly liquid form. But hy decora-
posing this nitrate of copper the pure copper may
be reproduced — the very same copper and no other
— the identical copper with which the process was
begun. Now copper is as truly an "elementary
principle" as oxygen gas.
But gases themselves may be recovered from their
combinations as well as metals. Let a quantity
of oxygen and hydrogen be combined in due pro
portion for forming water. Let the water be de
composed by means of a quantity of potassium,
and the hydrogen wUl be liberated, the very same
hydrogen as at first; and the potash being after
wards decomposed, the original, identical oxygen
may also be recovered. If, in these processes, some
portion of the original, simple substances should
escape from us, it would only show the imperfec
tion of our manipulations, but would not in the
slightest degree affect the applicability and force of
ehe argument for the present purposes. That is a
nere business of degrees. No prindple is in
volved in the recovery of the whole, which is not
livolved in the recovery of a part. If, then, with
£>ur limited, practical powers, we can recover a part,
lurely it cannot be said to transcend the powers of
omnipotence to recover the whole.
So much for the cases of inorganic combina-

RESURRECTION 2716
tions. Now take cases which involve the organic
hifluence of the principle of life.
IjCt a quantity of calcium and a quantity of
phosphorus be respectively combined with a due
proportion of oxygen; let tlie lime be combined
with the phosphoric acid; and let this phosphate
be mixed with a soil (or, certain ingredients of a
soil) which did not before contain a particle ol
calcium or phosphorus, l^t some grains of wheat
be planted in that soil; and, by an analysis of the
product, we may obtain, in Its original simple form,
a portion at least of the identical calcium and
phosphorus with which we began, mingled, per
haps, in this case, with .i small proportion of each
of those substances derived from the seed.
One case more: A takes certain crystals of
arsenic, and, having pulverized them and combined
the metal with the proper proportion of oxygen,
mingles the poison with B's food, who swallows it
and dies. Some time after, by an analysis of the
contents and coatings of B's stomach, the arsenic
is recovered and recrystaUized. It either is or is
not the identical arsenic which A gave. If it can
be proved to the satisfaction of a jury that it is not
the same, then the evidence that A is guilty of the
alleged act of poisoning B, is not at all increased
by the detection of this arsenic in B's stomach, for
it is not the arsenic which A is alleged to have
administered, but some other.
If it be said that the arsenic as a mass is indeed
the same, but that the individual crystals are not
"identical" with those originally pulverized, the
answer is, that thus the specific point now in ques
tion is yielded, namely, that the alleged impossi
bility of the resurrection of the "identical " body
cannot arise in any degree frora the fact that tbe
simple elements, into which it has been resolved,
enter into new combinations. The whole difficulty
is carried back to the point to which we have
already referred it, namely, the fact that these
simple elements become mingled with other quan
tities of homogeneous elements. We admit, in
the case supposed, a very high degree of improba
bility that the reproduced crystals of arsenic are,
each of them, identical, as a matter of fact, with
some one of the original crystals. But can any
one pro\e that, as a matter of fact, they certainly
are not identical; still more, can he prove that it
is absolutely impossible and self contradictory that
they should be ? As to the supposition of mechan
ical marks or defects, they could not indeed be re
produced by crystallization; but the identity being
in other respects restored, they could easily be
reproduced, or very nearly approxiraated, by me
chanical means.
We plant ourselves at one of those original
crystals. It consists of certain individual and
identical, though homogeneous, particles, arranged
according to a certain law in certain definite rela
tive positions. It is dissolved; and its particles
are mingled with other homogeneous particles.
Now the question is, can it be rationally conceived
that those original particles should be segregated
from their present mixture, and restored, each and
all, to their original relative positions, and the
whole to its original form ? We freely admit that
such a result cannot be secured by any skiU of
man ; but we fearlessly assert that the accomplish
ment of such a result cannot be proved to tran
scend the power and wisdom of Almighty God,
who can identify every particle of matter wllch he
has created, and control its movements from begin-

2716

RESURRECTION

¦Eng to end according to the counsels of his own
will. We not only assert that such a result can
he conceived to be accomplished by the exercise of
miraculous power, but we assert that its actual
accomplish ment would not violate any known pos
itive laws of nature, but would be in perfect ac
cordance with them aU; and, indeed, is one of the
possible contingencies under those laws. But the
most scientific men will confess that there may be
exceptions to the recognized laws of nature, or
perhaps we should I'ather say, higher laws harmo
nizing both the rule and the exception : laws which
may transcend the scope of their loftiest general
izations. If, finally, it be insisted that, after aU, the crys
tal so reproduced, i. e. with all its original parti
cles in all their original relations, is not " identical "
with the original crystal; then the word "identi
cal" must be used in a sort of hyper-metaphysical
sense in which it is not applicable to material, vis
ible things at all. For, according to such a view,
supposuig an ultimate particle of water to consist
of a particle of ox3'gen united to a particle of hy
drogen (and the contrary cannot be proved), it
would follow that, if this particle of water be
decomposed into the two gaseous particles, the re
union of these same gaseous particles would not
reproduce -the "identical," original particle of
water, but a different one. And a fortiori it
would foUow that an ounce of water being decom
posed and the same elements reunited, or being
converted into steam, and that steam condensed.
or even being poured out of one vessel into another,
or merely shaken in the same vessel, the water
which would result and remain would not be
" identical " with the original water, but somewhat
different. Hence it would follow that, as all visi
ble material things are in a constant flux, tbe idea
of identity would be absolutely inapplicable to any-
tliing in the physical universe, except, perhaps, to
the elementary and unchangeable constituent par
ticles. Nay more, it would foUow that all such
words as reproduction, reorganization, restoration,
and even reminiscence itself, not to speak of " res
urrection," involve a logical absurdity; and not
only so, but the very terms "identical with" are
nonsensical; for, inasmuch as, in every proposition
which conveys any meaning, the predicate must be
conceived, in some respect, divei"se from the sub
ject, to assert that the one is "identical witli " the
other is a downright and palpable self-contradiction.
(4.) The general resurrection of the bodies of
aU mankind is sometimes said to be impossible, for
want of material wherewith to reconstruct them.
It has been gravely asserted that after a few gen
erations more shall have passed away, there will
not be matter enough in the whole globe of the
earth to reconstruct all the bodies of the dead.
To this it is sufficient to say that, even if such
a reconstruction as the objector presumes were ne
cessary — which it is not — there is more than
weight and mass enough of matter in ihe attnos
phere which presses upon the surface of the Brit
ish Islands, or ofthe States of New England, New
York, and New Jersey (as will be found upon a
rigid mathematical computation, allowing the pres
sure upon each square foot to be 2,000 lbs., and
the average weight of the bodies to be 75 lbs. each),
than would be necessary to reconstruct aU the bod
ies of mankind which should have existed upon
the earth more than 2,000,000 of years from this
Lime; — and that, supposing three generations in

RESURRECTION
a century all the way from Adam onwards, and I
continuous population of 1,400,000,000 of inhab
itants. (5.) It is objected that the same particles may
have constituted a part of several successive human
bodies at tlie moment of their dissolution; and
therefore it is impossible that each cf these bodies
should be raised identical with that which was dis
solved. This brings the idea of the resurrection
of the identical body nearer to an apparent contra
diction than any other form of objection that wa
know of.
There are at least two ways of answering this
objection, {a.) However likely the aUegcd fact
may be, unless its absolute certainty can be de
monstrated, there is room left for the possibiUty
of the contrary. How can we know but that God
so watches over the dust of every human body,
and so guides it in all its transmigrations that it
shall never be found to constitute a part of any
other human body when ihat body dies f Thus
tbe objection is answered by demanding proof of
the alleged fact on which it is based, {b.) As our
bodies are constantly undergoing change while we
live without being thereby desti'oyed or losing their
identity, so the "identical" body being raised, it
may undergo an instantaneous change to an indefi
nite extent. It may, therefore, be instantly di
vested of any particles which may be required for
tlie reconstruction of another body; and this last
being reconstructed, any needed particles may be
transferred to a third ; and so on, to any extent.
We have only to suppose, therefore, that the bod
ies of mankind shaU be raised successively, in the
order of their dissolution (at intervals however
small, infinitely smaU if you please, so that there
shall be a practical siraultaneousness); and though
a certain particle should have been coilimon to
every one, having passed through the whole series
in six or eight thousand, or million, of years, yet
it may be caused to circulate through the whole
number again, as they may be successively raised,
in less than the millionth part of the least assign
able instant of time; for no limit can be set to
the possible rapidity of motion. Thus the objec
tion is answered, admitting the allegation on which
it is based.
It may be said that these are violent supposi
tions. We may admit it; but at the same time
we have four things to say with that admission.
(c.) Neither of those suppositions is, like tlie cre
ation of matter /rom nothing, absolutely incon
ceivable to our minds, {b.) If the objection alleged
merely a high degree of apparent improbabUity
instead of an absolute impossibility, we should not
urge such suppositions in reply to it. (c.) Thosa
suppositions are made in answer to the objection
taken on its own principles, and entirely h^espec~
tive of what may be the actual doctrine of Sciip~
ture on this question, {d,) However violent the
suppositions suggested may be, they will answer
their present purpose of refutation, and it wiU be
seen in the sequel that we shall have no need of
them. (6.) The objector has aU along proceeded upon
the assumption, tliat the resurrection of this iden
tical body necessarily hivolves, (1) that tbe body
raised raust be identical with the body as it existed
and was constituted at ihe moment ofdtnth ; and
(2) that, in order to be thus identical, it must con
sist of the very same particles inclusively and ex
clusively, arranged in the very same positions, com*

RESURRECTION
Mnations, and relationships. We have above
ondertaken to refute the objections, even on the
idmiss-ion of both those assumptions; but now we
deny them both. And we assert that in order to
a resurrection of tlie body — of this identical body,
in a true, proper, scriptural, and "human" sense, —
it is neither necessary, in the first place, that the
body raised should be identical with the p^^ecise
body which expired ihe last breath ; nor, in the
second place, that it should be identical with any
body whatever, in so strict a sense as that de
manded. The first point can be settled at once. Here is
a man at the age of thirty years, in perfect health
ani soundness of body and raind. Before he dies,
he may lose his arms or his legs; he may become
bUnd and deaf, or a maniac; he may die in utter
decrepitude. Now, if, at the last day, the body
given him should be identical with his present
body instead of being identical with that mutilated
or decrepit frame with which he will have died,
would there be no resurrection of the body, no
resurrection of his own proper body? Would it be
a " new creation " instead of a resurrection, sira
ply because the raised body would not be identi
cal with the body precisely as it existed and was
constituted at the moment of death? Does a
man's body never become his oum until he dies —
until he loses possession of it? What becomes,
then, of all tbe horror so often expressed at the
imagined reappearance of the lame, the bUnd, the
halt, the withered, the crippled, the maniac, the
savage? Why not insist also upon the resuscitation
of the fevei"s and ague fits, the cancers and lepro
sies, the gouts and rbeuuiatisras, and all the raortal
diseases and ills the flesh was heir to at the moment
of death? In short, why not maintain that, if
the body is raised at aU, it must be, when raised, in
the very act of dying again f for the internal states
are as essential to identity as the external features I
We turn now to the second point, namely, that,
in order to a proper resurrection of the body, it is
not necessary that the body raised should be iden
tical with any former body whatever, in such a
sense as that it must consist jf precisely the same
elementary particles, neither more or less, arranged
in precisely the same positions, combinations, and
relationships. Now it is a weU -known fact, that not only does
a great change take place in our bodies between the
periods of infancy and old age, but, while we live,
they are constantly in a process of change, so that
the body which we have at one moment is not
perfectly '* identical" with that which we had at
any preceding moment;, and some physiologists
have estimated that every particle of our material
frame is changed in the course of about seven years.
From this fact it follows that no person ever wakes
with that identical body with which he went to
sleep, yet the waking man does not fail to recog
nize himself. But according to this strict notion
of identity, as often as the body sleeps, it sleeps an
eternal sleep, and the body with which a man wakes
is always a " new creation," for the body whieh
ffakes is never "identical" with that which was
lulled to slumber! Surely such absurdities will
not be maintained. We wUI suppose, therefore, the
body which rises to differ from the body which
5ved before otily to the same extent as the body
which wakes differs from the body whieh feU asleep;
viuld there then be a resurrection of tlie body in
iny proper sense? Jf so theu our proposition is

RESURRECTION 2 7 11
estabUshed and the opposite assumption is over
thrown. And, besides, a principle is thus gained
which reaches much farther than is barely neces
sary to overthrow that assumption ; for, if a slight
difference is consistent with such a practical and
substantial identity as is required for a proper res
urrection of the body, wiU any one tell us pre
cisely the Umit of this difference; except that there
must be sorae organic or real historical connection,
something continuously in common, between the
body which is raised and that which lived before?
And so much we sball certainly maintain.
Let us here amuse ourselves a moment in con
structing an hypothesis.
A distinguished physiologist, Johannes jMiiller,
has given a well-known theory of the " vital prin
ciple." " Life is a principle,'" says he, " or impon
derable matter, which is in action, in the substance
of the germ, enters into the composition of the
matter of this germ, and imparts to organic com
binations properties which cease at death." Now
the principle of animal life in man is presumed to
be distinct from the intelligent and immortal spirit
On these premises, let us suppose that, in the
economy of human nature it is so ordered that,
when the spirit leaves the body, the vital principle
is neither lost and annihilated on the one hand,
nor on the other able to keep up the functions of
the animal system, but lies dormant in con
nection with so much of the present, natural
body as constituted the seminal principle or es
sential germ of that body, and is to serve as a
germ for the future, spiritual body ; and this por
tion may be truly body, material substance, and
yet elude all possible chemical tests and sensible
observation, aU actual, physical dissolution, and aU
appropriation to any other huraan body. On the
reunion of the spirit at the appointed hour with
this dormant vital principle and its bodily germ, we
may suppose an instantaneous development of the
spiritual body in whatever glorious form shaU seem
good to infinite wisdom. Such a body, so produced,
would involve a proper resurrection of the present
body. The new body would be a continuation of
the old, a proper development from it. The germi
nal essence is the same, the vital or animal prin
ciple is the sarae, the conscious spirit is the same.
The organic connection between the two is as real
as that between any man's present body and the
seminal principle from which it was first developed
in the womb; as that between the blade of wheat
and the bare grain frora which it grew.
We throw out the above not as a doctrine, not
as a iheoiy of the resurrection, but as a mere casual
hypothesis — one among many possible hypotheses.
The part assigned in it to the " vital principle "
may be omitted, if any so prefer. And if the hy
pothesis as a whole is found not to be consistent
with a proper resurrection of the body, it is by all
means to be rejected.
(7.) It is thought quite improbable that the
sarae bodies will rise with aU their present parts,
members, organs, and appurtenances, not to say theii
pecuUar abnormal developments and defects.
We have already said, the Christian dogma of
the resurrection contains nothing definite on these
points. We have shown that such a resurrection,
in aU its details, is not absolutely impossible; but
we have shown that such a resurrection is not
necessary to the proper idea of the resurrection of
the body. We have shown that the body raised
would be the same ait the present body, if it pes-

2718

RESURRECTION

Kssed the same matter and form as the present body
possesses at any period whatever of its age. We
now 'add that the resurrection of tbe same body
does not require that the body raised shotild have
mU the matter or the precise forra of the present
body as it actuaUy existed here at any period of life.
It would be a resurrection of the body, and of the
same body, if aU the bodies of the dead should be
raised in the vigor and beauty of youth or early
manhood ; the infant being instantaneously de
veloped to such a stature, the aged restored to it,
and all deformities and defects forthwith removed.
And as to organs and menibei-s; doubtless whatever
characteristics of our present bodies will contribute
to the glory and beauty and purposes of the future
body of the Christian wiU be retained in it; and
whatever characteristics would mar that glory or
beauty or fruition, or interfere with tJiose i)urposes,
wiU be changed. It may be that the prints of the
wounds in our Saviour's hands and feet, or some
thing significantly corresponding to them, may re
main forever in his glorified body, as visible me
mentoes of his dying love, as marks of honor and
grace to excite all the redeemed and the holy to still
higher strains of love and adoration and praise.
Since we are to be comforted for our departed
friends by the assurance that " them that sleep in
Jesus God will bring with Him," it may well be
believed that we shall recognize in the future life
those whom we have loved in this; but to this end
it is not necessary that the spiritual body should
retain all or any of the Uneaments of the present
body. The beautiful plant that rises from the
grain that has been sown and has died, differs
widely in aU its external form and aspect from the
seed, yet by it we can as certainly distinguish its
kind as by the seed itself. And this system of cor
respondences may reach much further than we have
yet traced It. The spiritual body may have an
intensity and transparency of expression for the
character and individuality of the soul, such as the
brightest mortal face we ever beheld, the clearest
and most soul-expressive eye of mortal mould into
whose depths we ever gazed, could not enable us
to conceive. Then, there may be means of com
municating thought and feeling in the future
world, as far transcending all the power of the
most perfect human speech as that transcends the
inarticulate languf^e of brutes. Thus there may
be abundant means of recognition independent of
any outward identity of form.
(8.) Finally, the resurrection of the body is
thought improbable, because science, in her deepest
researches, finds no symptoms or intimations of
such an event.
It is alleged that, as far as has been ascertained
by chemical or any other physical tests, the human
body is subject to the same laws of development,
growth, and decay, while it lives; and of dissolu
tion, decomposition, and dispersion, when it dies,
as those to which the bodies of the ox and the
horse are subject. But what does this prove? Does
it prove that therefore God will not reconstruct and
reanimate the human body? Is it therefore to be
thought a thing incredible that God should raise
*,he dead ? We can see no such force of proof in
vbose facts. We are not aware that anybody has
undertaken to bring positive evidence of a resur
rection of the body from chemistry or natural phil-
Dsophy; and we cannot conceive what disproof there
.8 in the absence of proof derivable from tiiose
{uarters.

RESURRECTION
But (it is insisted) after the minutest chemical
analysis, after the most patient and thorough test
ing by aU known agents and re -agents, after the
most careful examination, and after ages of ex
perience, we have never found any more signs of a
tendency to a resurrection in tlie body of a dead
man than in that of a dead dog. And what then?
Therefore there is and can be no resurrection of the
human body ? Most lame and impotent conclusion !
A? though we already knew everything pertaining
to the powers, properties, and possibilities even of
material things; as though we were not prying
deeper and deeper into the secrets of nature every
day : as though there were not evidently dynamics
and laws at work in the material world which elude
all onr chemical tests and physical re-agents; and
as though we could see distinctly around nnd above
(he jwwer of Almighty God, which, with Vs higher,
and perchance forever inscrutable laws, presides over
and controls all the laws and functions of nature.
All positive evidence for a resurrection of the body
must be sought for in the teaching of Revelation;
and that evidence, be it more or less, is not in the
slightest degree affected by this chemico-physical
argument: it is left just as it was aud where it
was, entire and intact.
IV. History of the DocriiixE.
It remains to give a brief outline of the history
of the doctrine of the Resun'ection. as it has been
held in the Christian Church.
The ChiUarchs and Gnostics, from ihe first, held
extreme views, the former tending to an unscrip-
tural grossness of detail, and the latter to an equally
unscriptural refining away of tbe substantial fact.
Justin Martyr, Irenseus and TertuUian, inclining to
the ChiUarchs, taught a double resurrection. These
and Clemens Romanus, Athenagoras, Theophilus,
and jMinutius Felix, all believed in a proper resur
rection of the body. Origen spirituaUzed it. (See
Teller, Fides dogm. de Restii\ Cai-nis,per A priora
Secula.) Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa,
and Basil the Great, adopted in part the views of
Origen. Jerome went to an extreme against them.
Augustine ultimately opposed them, but more mod
erately. Chrysostom believed in the identity of
the body raised and the present body, but foUowed
St. Paul's exposition. Epiphanius and Theophilus
of Alexandria agreed with Jerome; but Theophilus
ordained Synesius, who could not assent to "the
prevailing notions." [Showing two things: (1)
that certain views, namely, those of Jerome, wh-e
then the prevailing views, and (2) that to accept
them was not considered (by Theophilus) essential.]
Ruffinus confessed the resurrection htijvs carnis,
and John of Jerusalem distinguished between /esA
and body, but with neither of them was Jerome
satisfied. Jerome's became the prevailing doctrine
of the Church of Rome, aud has so continued sub
stantially to the present day. The reformers gen
erally adopted the same doctrine, adhering, however,
more decidedly to the Augustmian and Paulino
representations. The Socinians, and, after them, the Unitarians,
have been inclined to deny the proper resurrection
of the body. The Swedenborgians also do the same,
holding that each soul, immediately upon death, ia
clothed with its spiritual body. Many persons in
all the Protestant communions have, in later year^
felt compelled by the presumed philosophical difls'
culties of the case, to give up the doctrine of a

REU
proper resurrection of the body, and have either
remained silent, without any avowed or definite
belief upon the subject, or, have openly sided with
the Socinians or the Swedenborgians.
The creeds and the symbols and confessions of
the Reformed Churches, however, hare remained
unchanged. • See, c. .(/. Article IV. of the Church
of Kngland, " On the Resurrection of Christ,"
which, speaking of Christ's ascension " with flesh,
hones, and all things appertaining to the perfection
of man's nature," covers nearly the whole ground
of hesitation and difficulty. See also all the three
creeds, especially the Athanasian. That of the
Apostles still confesses the Resurreciio carnis.
D. R. G.
* For the literature of this suliject, one may
consult the bibliographical appendix to W. R.
Alger's Critical History of tlie Doctrine of a
Future Lfe, Nos. 2929-31.32, and on the Resur
rection of Christ, Nos. 3133-3181. A.
RE'U (Wl [friend]: 'Pa^aD m Gen. ; [Rom.]
'Payiv [but Vat. Alex. Payau] in Chr. : Reu, [Ra-
gaii]). Son of Peleg, in the line of Abraham's ances
tors (Gen. xi. 18, 19, 20, 21 ; 1 Chr. i. 25). He lived
two hundred and thirty-nine years according to the
genealogy in Genesis. Bunsen (Bibelwerk) says
Ken is Holui, the Arabic name for lulessa, an as
sertion which, borrowed from Knobel, is utterly
destitute of foundation, as will be seen at once on
comparing the Hebrew and Arabic words. A
closer resemblance might be found between Reu
aud Rtuigce, a large town of Media, especially if
the Greek equivalents of the two names be taken.
* In 1 Chr. i. 25 the A. V. ed. 16 II, follow
ing the Bishops' Bible and the (ienevan Version,
reads Rkhu, representing the Ain by H, as in
some other cases. A.
REU'BEN (7?^N"1 [see below]: 'Poo^riv
and 'Pou^T)v; Joseph. ''Pou;3r;\oj: Pesh. Syr.
Ribil, and so also in Arab. vers, of Joshua : Ru
ben). Jacob's first-born child (Gen. xxix. 32), the
son of Leah, apparently not born till an unusual
interval had elapsed after the marriage (31 ; Joseph.
Ant. i. 19, § 8). This is perhaps denoted by the
lume itself, whether we adopt the obvious signifi
cation of its present form — reu ben, i. e. " he
hold ye, a son ! " (Gesen. Thes. p. 1 247 A) -^ or (2)
the explanation given in the text, which seems to
imply that the original form was ^''3572 ^^Nl,
vdvL beonyi, "Jehovah hath seen my ajflictiim,'''' or
(3) that of Josephus, who uniformly presents it
as Roubel, and explains it (Ani. i. 19, § 8) as the
" pity of God " — €\eov tov Qeov, as if from
bM3 ''!INT (Furst, Handwb. ii. SUa)." The no
tices of the patriarch Reuben in the book of Gen
esis and the early Jewish traditional literature are
unusually frequent, and on the whole give a fevor-

REUBBN

2719

« Redslob {Die Atttestamentl. Namen, 86) maintains
that Reubel is the original form of the name, which
was corrupted into Reuben, as Bethel into B-'itin,jLxid
Jezreel into Serin. He treats it as signifying the
" flock of Bel," a deity whose worship greatly flour
ished in the neighboring country of Moab, and who
under the name of Nebo had a famous sanctuary iu
the very territory of Reuben. In tliis case it wo-ild
ne a parallel to the title, "people of (Jhemosh," which
fl bestowed on Moab. The alteration of the obnoxious

able view of his disposition. To him, aud him
alone, the preservation of Joseph's life appears to
have been due. His anguish at the disap[)earanca
of his brother, and the frustration of his kindly
artifice for delivering him (Gen. xxxvii. 22), his
recollection of the minute details of the painful
scene many years afterwards (xiii. 22), his offer to
take the sole responsibility of the safety of the
brother who had succeeded to Joseph's place in the
faraily (xUi. 37), all testify to a warm and (for those
rough times) a kindly nature. Of the repulsive
crime which mars his history, and which turned
the blessing of his dying father into a curse — his
adulterous connection with BUhah, — we know from
the Scriptures only the fact (Gen. xxxv. 22). In
the post-bibUcal traditions it is treated either as
not having actually occurred (as in the Targum
Pseudojonathan), or else as the result of a sudden
temptation acting on a hot and vigorous nature (as
m the Testaments of ihe Twelve Patriarchs) — a
parallel, in some of its circumstances, to the in
trigue of David with Bathsheba. Some severe
temptation there must surely have been to impel
Reuben to an act which, regarded in its social rather
Jian in its moral aspect, would be peeuUarly abhor
rent to a patriarchal society, and which is specially
and repeatedly reprobated in the Law of Moses.
The Rabbinical version of the occurrence (as given
in Targ. Pseudojon.) is very characteristic, and
weU illustrates the difference between the spirit of
early and of late Jewish history. " Reuben went
and disordered the couch of Bilhah, his father's
concubine, which was placed right opposite the
couch of Leah, and it was counted unto him as if
he had lain with her. And when Israel heard it
it displeased him, and he said, * Lo! an unworthy
person shall proceed from me, as Ishmael did from
Abraham and Esau from my father.' And the
Holy Spirit answered him and said, ' All are i-ight-
eous, and there is not one unworthy among them.' "
Reuben's anxiety to save Joseph is represented as
arismg from a desire to conciliate Jacob, and his
absence while Joseph was sold from his sitting
alone on the mountiiins in penitent fasting.
These traits, slight as they are, are those of an
ardent, impetuous, unbalanced, but not ungenerous
nature; not crafty and cruel, as were Simeon and
Levi, but rather, to use the metaphor of the dying
patriarch, boiling & up like a vessel of water over the
rapid wood-fire of the nomad tent, and as quickly
subsiding into apathy when the fuel was with
drawn. At the time of the migration into Egypt ^ Reu ¦
ben's sons were four (Gen. xlvi. 9; 1 Chr. v. 3).
From them sprang the chief famiUes of the tribe
(Num. xxvi. 6-11). One of these families — that
of PaUu — becarae notorious as producing Eliab,
whose sons or descendants, Dathan and Abiram,
perished with their kinsman On in the divine ret
ribution for their conspiracy against Moses (Num.

syllable in Reu6e/ would, on this theory, find a paral
lel in the Merib6aa/ and 'Eshbaal of Saul's family, whe
became ^e'pihibosketh and ls\iboslieth..
b Such appears to be a more accurate rendering tf
the word which in the A. V. is rendered " unstable '•
(Gesen. Pent. Sam. p. 33).
c According to the ancient tradition preserved by
Demetrius (in Euseb. Prcsp. Eo. ix. 21), Reuben wai
45 years old at the time of the migration.

2720

KEUBEN

ni. 1,. xxvi. 8-11). The census at Mount Sinai
(Num. i. 20, 21, ii. 11) shows that at the Exodus
the numbers of the tribe were 46,500 men above
twenty years of age, and fit for active warlike ser
vice. In point of numerical strength, Reuben was
then sixth on the list, Gad, with 45,650 raen, being
next below. On the borders of Canaan, after the
plague which punished the idolatry of Baal-Peor,the
numbers had fallen slightly, and were 43,730 ; Gad
was 40,500 ; and the position of the two in the list
is lower than before, Ephraim and Simeon being the
only two smaUer tribes (Num. xxvi. 7, &c.).
During the journey through the wilderness the
position of Reuben was on the south side of the
Tabernacle. The " carap " which went under his
name W3S formed of his own tribe, that of Simeon «
(Leah's second son), and Gad (son of Zilpah, Leah's
slave). The standard of the camp was a deer*
with the inscription, " Hear, oh Israel! the Lord
thy God is one Lord ! " and its place in the march
was second {Targum Pseudojon. Num. ii. 10-16).
The Reubenites, like their relatives and neigh
bors on the journey, the Gadites, had niaintained
through the march to Canaan the ancient caUing
of their forefathers. The patriarchs were " feeding
their flocks " at Shechem when Joseph was sold
into Egypt. It was as men whose " trade had
been about cattle from their youth " that they
were presented to Pharaoh (Gen. xlvi. 32, 34), and
in the land of Goshen they settled " with their
flocks and herds and all that they had " (xlvi. 32,
xlvii. 1). Their cattle accompanied them in their
flight from Egypt (Ex. xii. 38), not a hoof was
left behind; and there are frequent allusions to them
on the journey (Ex. xxxiv, 3; Num. xi. 22; Deut.
viii. 13, &c.). But it would appear that the tribes
who were destined to settle in the confined territory
between the Mediterranean and the Jordan had,
during the journey through the wilderness, for
tunately reUnquiahed that taste for the .possession
of cattle which they could not have maintained
after their settlement at a distance from tlie wide
pastures of the wilderness. Thus the cattle had
come into the hands of Reuben, Gad, and the half
of Manasseh (Num. xxxii. 1), and it followed nat-
uraUy that when the nation arrived on the open
downs east of the Jordan, the three tribes just
named should prefer a request to their leader to be
allowed to remain in a place so perfectly suited to
their requirements. The part selected by Reuben
had at that date the special name of " the Mishor,"
with reference possibly to its evenness (Stanley,
S. c? P. App. § 6). Under its modern name of
the Belka it is stiU esteemed beyond all others by
the Arab sheep-masters. It is well watered, covered
with smooth short turf, and losing itself gradually
in those iUimitable wastes which have always been
and always wiU be tbe favorite resort of pastoral
nomad tribes. The country east of Jordan does
not appear to have been included in the original
land promised to Abraham. That which the spies
examined was comprised, on the east and west.

a. Reuben and Simeon are named together by Jacob
In Gen. xlviii. 6 ; and there is perhaps a trace of the
tonnectiou in the interchange of the names in Jud.
»iii. 1 (Vulg.) andix.2.
6 It is said that this was originally an ox, but
th^nged by Mnses, lest it should recall the sin of the
{Olden calf.
c A few versious have heeu bold enough to render

REUBEN
between the "coast of Jordan " and "the sea.*'
But for the pusillanimity of the greater number of
the tribes it would have been entered from the south
(Num. xiii. 30), and in that case the east of Jor
dan might never have been peopled by Israel at
all. Accordhigly, when the Reubenites and their fel
lows approach Moses with their request, his main
objection is that by what they propose they will
discourage the heaits of the children of Israel
from going over Jordan into the land which Jeho
vah had given them (Num. xxxii. 7). It is only on
their undertaking to fulfiU their part in the conquest
of the western country, the land of Canaan proper,
and thus satisfying him that their proposal was
grounded in no selfish desire to escape a full share
of the difficulties of the conquest, that Moses wiU
consent to their proposal.
The "blessing" of Reuben by the departing
Lawgiver [Deut. xxxiii. 6] is a passage which has
severely exercised translators and commentators.
Strictly translated as they stand in the received
Hebrew text, the words are as follows: ^ —
" liet Reuben live and not die,
And let his men be a number " (i. e. few).
As to the first line there appears to be no doubt,
but the second line has been interpreted in two
exactly opposite ways. 1. By the LXX. : —
" And let his men d be many iu number."
This has the disadvantage that ^^QDp is never
employed elsewhere for a large number, but always
for a sraall one (e. g. 1 Chr. xvi. 19; Job xvi. 22,
Is. X. 19; Ez. xii. 16).
2. That of our own Auth. Version : —
" And let not his men be few."
Here the negative of the firet line is presumed to
convey its force to the second, though not there
expressed. This is countenanced by the ancient
Syriac Version (Peshito) and the translations of
Junius and Trenjellius, and Schott and Winzer.
It also has the important support of Gesenius
{Thes. p. 968 a, and Pent. Sam. p. 44).
3. A third and very ingenious interpretation is
that adopted by the Veneto-Greek Vei-sion, and also
by Michaelis {Bibd fur Ungelehrien, Text), which
assumes that the vowel-points of the word I'^HD,
" his men,'' are altered to VnQ, " his dead " —
" And let his dead be few " —
as if in allusion to some recent mortality in the
tribe, such as that in Simeon after the plague of
Baal-Peor. These interpretations, unless the last should
prove to be the original reading, originate in the
fact that the words in their naked sense convey a
curse and not a blessing. Fortunately, though
differing widely in detail, they agree in general

the Hebrew aa it stands. Thus the Vulgate, Luther
De Wette, and Bunsen.
d The Alex. LXX. adds the name of Simeon (" and
let Symeou be many in number"'): but this, though
approved of by Michaelis (iu the notes to the paasaga
in his Bibd fiir Ungdehrten), on the ground that thew
is no reason for omitting Simeon, is uot supported bj
any Codex or any other Version.

REtJBEN
paeaniDg.'' The benediction of the great leader
goes out over the tribe which was about to separate
itself from its brethren, in a fervent aspiration for
its welfare through aU the risks 3f that remote and
trying situation.
Both in this and the earUer blessing of Jacob,
Reuben retains his place at the head of the family,
and it must not be overlooked that the tribe, to
gether with the two who associated thennelves
with it, actually received its inheritance I efore
either Judah or Ephraim, towhom the birthright
which Reuben had forfeited was transferred (1 Chr.
V. 1).
From this time it seems as if a bar, not only the
material one of distance, and of the in ter veiling
river and mountain-wall, but also of difference in
feeUng and habits, graduaUy grew up more nub-
Btantially between the eastern and western tribes.
The first act of the former after the completion of
the conquest, and after they had taken part in
the solemn ceremonial in the valley between Ebal
and Gerizim, shows how wide a gap already ex
isted between their ideas and those of the western
tribes. The pile of stones which they erected on the
western bank of the Jordan to mark their boun
dary — to testify to after ages that though sep
arated by the rushing river frora their brethren and
the country in which Jehovah had fixed the place
where He would be worshipped, they had stUl a
right to return to it for his worship — was erected
in accordance with the unalterable habits of Be
douin tribes both before and since. It was an act
identical with that in which I-aban and Jacob
engaged at parting, with that which is constantly
perforraed hy the Bedouins of the present day.
But by the Israelites west of Jordan, who were fast
relinquishing their nomad habits and feelings for
those of more settled permanent Ufe, this aet was
completely misunderstood, and was construed into
an attempt to set up a rival altar to that of the
Sacred Tent. The incompatibility of the idea to
the mind of the Western Israelites is shown by the
fact, that notwithstanding the disclaimer of the
2J tribes, and notwithstanding that disclaimer hav
ing proved satisfactory even to Phinehas, the author
of Joshua xxii. retains the name mizbeach for the
pile, a word which involves the idea of sacrifi!ce —
i. e. of sl'iughttr (see Gesenius, Thes. p. 402) — in
stead of applying to it the term gal, as is done in the
case (Gen. xxxi. 46) of the precisely similar "heap
of witness."^ Another Reubenite erection, which
for long kept up the memory of the presence of the
tribe on the west of Jordan, was the stone of Bohan
ben-Reuben which formed a landmark on the boun
dary between Judah and Benjamin. (Josh. xv.
6.) This was a single stoiie {Eben), not a pile,
and it appears to have stood somewhere on the road
Irom Bethany to Jericho, not far from the ruined
khan so well known to travellers.
No judge, no prophet, no hero of the tribe of
Reuben is handed down to us. In the dire ex-

REUEL

2721

t* In the Revised Translation of the Holy Scriptures
by the Rev. C. AVellbeloved and others (Loudon, 1857)
he passage is rendered —
" Mnv Renben live and not die,
ITiouglv liifi men be few."
Kn excellent evasion of the difficulty, provided it be
\dmissible as a translation.

tremity of their brethren in the north undei
Deborah aud Barak, they contented themselves
with debating the news amongst the streams ^ of
the ilishor: the distant distress of his brethren
could not move Reuben, he lingered among his
sheepfolds and preferred the shepherd's pipe*/ and
the bleating of the flocks, to the clamor of tht
trumpet and the turmoil of battle. His Individ-
ual'ty fades more rapidly than Gad's. The clever
valliut Gadites who swam the Jordan at its highest
to join the son of Jesse in his trouble (1 Chr. xii.
8-15), Barzillai, Elijah the Gileadite, the siege of
Ramoth-Gilead with its picturesque incidents, aU
give a substantial reality to the tribe and countrj
of Gad. But no person, no incident, is recorded.
to place Reuben before us in any distincter form
than as a member of the coramunity (if cora
munity it can be called) of " the Reubenites, the Ga
dites, ajid the half-tribe of Manasseh " (1 Chr. xii.
37). The very towns of his inheritance — Hesh
bon, Aroer, Kirjathaim, Dibon, Baal-nieon, Sibmah
Jazer, — are familiar to us as Moabite, and not as
Israelite towns. The city-life so characteristic of
Moabite civilization had no hold on the Reubenites.
They are most in their element when engaged in
continual broils with the children of tbe desert,
the Bedouin tribes of Hagar, Jetur, Nephish,
Nodab; driving oft' their myriads of cattle, asses,
camels; dwelling in their tents, as if to the manor
born (1 Chr. v. 10), gradually spreading over the
vast wilderness which extends from Jordan to the
Euphrates (ver. 9), and every day receding further
and further from any community of feeUng or of
interest with the western tribes.
Thus remote from the central seat of the na
tional government and of the national reUgion, it
is not to be wondered at that Reuben relinquished
the faith of Jehovah. "They went a whoring
after the gods of the people of the land whom God
destroyed before them," and the last historical
notice which we possess of them, while it records
this fact, records also as its natural consequence
that the Reubenites and Gadites, and the halt'-tribe
of Manasseh, were carried off by Pul and Tiglath-
Pileser, and placed in the districts on and about
the river Khabilr in the upper part of Mesopo
tamia — " in Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and
the river Gozan " (1 Chr. v, 26). G.
* REU'BBNITES 03?^S"^: comraonly
'Poi/jS^i/, but Josh. xxii. 1, ol viol "Pov^-fif^ Alex
01 Vov^7)viTai\ 1 Chr. xxvi. 32, "P6u^r}vi [Vat
-i/6i] : Ruben, Rmenitce), and once sing., REU'-
BENITE (1 Chr. xi. 42; LXX. oniit; Vulg.
Rubenites). Descendants of Rkubkn (Num. xxvi.
7; Deut. iii. 12, 16, iv. 43, xxix. 8; Josh. i. 12,
xn. 6, xiU. 8, xxii. 1; 2 K. x. 33; 1 Chr. v. 6, 26,
xi. 42, xii. 37, xxvi. 32, xxvu. 16). A.
REXJ'EL (bS^V"l [friend of God] : 'Pa
yovfi\' Rahuel, Raguel). The name of several
persons mentioned in the Bible.
1. One of the sons of Esau, by his wife Bashe-

j ai .
6 The "alUir'' is actually called Ed, or "witness", A. V. "bleating of the flocks *'

(Josh. xxii. 34) by the Bedouin Reubenites, just as the
pile of Jacob and Laban was called Oal-od, the he8.p
of witness.
c The word used here, peleg, seems to refer to arti
ficial streams or ditches for irrigation. [River.]
d This isEwald'a rendering (ZJtcAiw des A. B. i. 130),
,dopted by Bunsen, of the passage rendered in th«

2722

REUMAH

DQath sister of Ishmael. His sons were four —
Nahath, Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah, " dukes "
of Edom (Gen. xxxvi. 4, 10, 13. 17; 1 Chr. i. 35,
37). 2. One of the names of Moses' father-in-law
(Kx. ii. 18); the same which, through adherence
to the LXX. form, is given in another passage of
the A. V. Kaguel. Moses' father-in-law was a
Midianite, but the Midianites are in a well-known
passage fGen. xxxvii. 28) called also Ishmaclites,
and if this may be taken strictly, it is not im
possible that the name of Reuel may be a token
of his connection with the Ishmaelite tribe of that
name. There is, however, nothing to confirm this
suggestion. 3. Father of EUasaph, the leader of the tribe of
Gad, at the time of the census at Sinai (Num. ii.
14). In the parallel passages the name is given
Deukl, which is retained in this instance also by
tlie Vulgate (Duel).
4. A Benjamite whose name occurs in the gene
alogy of a certain Elah, one of the chiefs of the
tribe at the date of the settlement of Jerusalem
(1 Chr. ix. 8). G.
REU'MAH (nMSl [raised, high] : 'Peifia;
Alex. Peripa: Roma). The concubine of Nahor,
Abraham's brother (Gen. xxii. 24).
EEVBIjATION of ST. JOHN CAiroici-
\v\pis ^liodvvov: Apocalypsis Beaii Joannis Apos-
toli). The following subjects in connection with
this book seem to have the chief claim for a place
in this article: —
A. CAKONICAL AUTIIOKIIY AND AUTHOR
SHIP. B. Time and Place of Whiting.
C. Language.
D. Contents and Sthuctuee.
E. History of Intekpretation.
A. Canonical Authority and Author
ship. — The question as to tlie canonical authority
of the Revelation resolves itself into a question of
authorship. If it can Ve proved that a book, claim
ing so distinctly as this does the authority of divine
inspiration, was actually written by St. John, then
no doubt will be entertained as to its title to a
place in the Canon of Scripture.
Was, then, St. John the Apostle and Evangelist
the writer of the Revelation ? This question was
first mooted by Dionysius of Alexandria (Eusebius,
//. E. vii. 25). The doubt which he modestly
suggested has been confidently proclaimed in mod
ern times by Luther ( Vorrede auf die Offenharung,
1522 and 1534), and widely diffused through his
influence. Liicke (Einleiiung, p. 802), the most
learned and diligent of modern critics of the Reve
lation, agrees with a majority of the eminent
scholars of Germany in denying that St. John was
the author.
But the general belief of the mass of Christians
in all ages has been in favor of St. John's author
ship. The evidence adduced in support of that
belief consists of (1) the assertions of the author,
and (2) historical tradition.
(1.) The author's description of himself in the
(st and 22d chapters is certainly equivalent to an
assertion that he is the Apostle, (a.) He names
niraself simply John, without prefix or addition —
ft name which at that period, and in Asia, must
have been taken by every Christian as the designa-
ikin in the first instance of the great Apostle who

REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
dwelt at Ephesus. Doubtless there were othei
Johns among the Christians at that time, but only
arrogance or an intention to deceive could account
for the assumption of this simple style by any other
writer. He is also described as (b) a sei-vant-of
Christ, (c) one who had borne testimony as an
eye-witness of the word of God and of the testi
mony of Christ — terms which were surely designed
to identify hirii with the writer of the verses John
xix. 35, i. 14, and 1 John i. 2. He is (d) in Pat-
mos for the word of God and the testimony of
Jesus Christ : it may be easy to suppose that other
Christians of the same name were banished thither,
but the Apostle is the only John who is distinctly
named in early history as an exile at PatmOs. He
is also (c) a fellow-sufferer with those whom he
addresses, and (/) the authorized channel of the
most direct and important communication that
was ever made to the seven churches of Asia, of
which churches John the Apostle was at that time
the spiritual governor and teacher. Lastly (g) the
writer was a fellow-servant of angels and a brother
of prophets — titles which are far more suitable to
one of the chief Apostles, and far more likely to
have been assigned to him than to any other man
of less distinction. All these marks are found
united together in the Apostle John, and iu him
alone of all historical persons. We must go out
of the region of fact into the region of conjecture
to find such another person. A candid reader of
the Revelation, if previously acquainted with St.
John's other writings and life, must inevitably con
clude that the writer intended to be identified with
St. John. It is strange to see so able a critic as
Liicke (Einleiiung, p. 514) meeting this conclusion
with the conjecture that some Asiatic disciple and
namesake of the Apostle may have written the
book in the course of some missionary labors or
some time of sacred retirement in Patmos. Equally
unavailing against this conclusion is the olijection
brought by Ewald, Credner, and others, from the
fact that a promise of the future blessedness of the
Apostles is implied in xviii. 20 and xxi. 14; as if
it were inconsistent with the true, modesty and
humility of an Apostle to record — as Daniel of
old did in much plainer terms (Dan. xii. 13) — a
divine promise of salvation to himself personally.
Rather those passages may be taken as instances of
the WTiter quietly accepting as his just due sucL
honorable mention as belongs to all the Apostolit
company. Unless we are prepared to give up the
veracity and divine origin of the whole book, and
to treat the writer's account of himself as » mere
fiction of a poet trying to cover his own insignifi
cance with an honored name, we must accept that
description as a plain statement of fact, equallv
credible with the rest of the book, and in har
mony with the simple, honest, truthful character
which is stamped on the face of the whole narra
tive. Besides this direct assertion of St. John's author
ship, there is also an implication of it running
through the book. Generally, the instinct of single-
minded, patient, faithful students has led thera to
discern a connection between the Revelation and
St. John, and to recognize not merely the same
Spirit as the source of this and other books of Holy
Scripture, but also the same peculiarly -formed
human instrument employed both in producing
this book and the fourth Gospel, and in speaking
the characteristic words and performing the char.
acteristic actions recorded of St. John. This evi

REVELATION OF ST. JOHN

2723

dence is set forth at great length, and with much
force and eloquence, by J. P. Lange, in his Essay
on the Connection between the Individuality of the
Apostle John and that of the Apocalypse, 1838
(Vermischi: Schriften, ii. 173-231). After in
vestigating the peculiar features of the Apostle's
character and position, and (in reply to Liiclte) the
personal traits sliown by the writer of the Revela
tion, he concludes that the book is a myst-erious
but genuine effusion of prophecy under the New
Testament, imbued with the spirit of the Gospel,
the product of a spiritual gift so peculiar, so great
aud noble that it can be ascribed to the Apostle
liohn alone. I'he Revelation requires for its writer
St. John, just as his peculiar genius requires for
its utterance a revelation.
(2.) To come to the historical testimonies in
favor of St. John's authorship : these arc singularly
distinct and numerous, and there is very little to
weigh against them, (a.) Justin Martyr, cir. 150
A. D., says : " A man araong us whose name was
John, one of the Apostles of Christ, in a revelation
which was made to him, prophesied that the be
lievers in our Christ shall Uve a thousand years in
Jerusalem" (Tryph. § 81, p. 179, ed. Ben.), (b )
The author of the JVIuratorian Fragment, cir. 170
A. D., speaks of St. John as the writer of the
Apocal^'pse, aud describes Iiim as a predecessor of
St. Paul, i. e. as Credner and Liicke candidly in
terpret it, his predecessor in the office of .\postle.
(c.) MeUto of Sardes, cir. 170 A. D., wrote a treatise
on the Revelation of John. Eusebius (H. li. iv.
26) mentions this among the books of Melito which
had come to his knowledge; and, as he carefully
records objections against the Apostle's authorship,
it may be fairly presumed, notwithstanding the
doubts of Kleuker and Liicke (p. 514), that ICuse-
bius found no doubt as to St. John's authorship in
the book of this ancient Asiatic bishop, (d. ) 'I'he-
ophilus, bisliop of Antiooh, cir. 180, in a controversy
with Hermogenes, quotes passages out of the Rev
elation of John (Euseb. //./;'. iv. 24). (e.) Irenseus,
cir. 195, apparently never having heard a suggestion
of any other author than the Apostle, often quotes
the Ilevelation as the work of John. In iv. 20, §
11, he describes John the writer of the Revelation
as the same who was leaning on Jesus' bosom at
supper, and asked Him who should betray Hini.
The testimony of Irenasus as to the authorship of
Revelation is perhaps raore important than that
of any other writer : it mounts up into the preced
ing generation, and is virtually that of a contem
porary of the Apostle. For in v. 30, § 1, where he
vindicates the true reading (66G) of the number
of the Beast, he cites in support of it not only the
old correct copies of the book, but also the oral
testimony of tlie very persons who themselves had
seen St. John face to face. It is obvious that
Irenseus's reference for information on such a point
to those contemporaries of St. John implies his
undoubting belief that they, in common with him
self, viewed St. John as the writer of the book.
Liicke (p. 574) suggests that this view was possibly
groundless, because it was entertained before the
learned fathers of Alexandria, had set the example
of historical criticism; but his suggestion scarcely
weakens the force of the fact that such was the
»elief of Asia, and it appears a strange suggestion
»hen we remember that the critical discernment
if the Alexandrians, to whom he refers, led them
eo coincide with Ireuieus in his view. (f. ) Apol-
loniua (cir. 200) of Ephesus ( ?!, in controversy with

the Montanists of Phrygia, quoted passages out of
the Revelation of John, and narrated a miracli,
wrought by John at Ephesus (Euseb. //. E. v. 18).
(y.) Clement of Alexandria (cir. 200) quotes the
book as the Revelation of John (Siromata, vi. 13,
p. 667), and as the work of an Apostle (Pmd. ii.
12, p. 207). (A.) TertuUian (A. D. 207), in at
least oue place, quotes by name " the Apostle John
in the Apocalypse" (Adv. Marcion. iii. 14). (J.)
Hippolytus (cir. 230) is said, in the inscription on
his statue at Rome, to have composed an apology
for the Apocalypse and Gospel of St. John the
Apostle. He quotes it as the work of St. Jihn
(De Antichritto, § 36, col. 756, ed. Migne). (j.)
Origen (cir. 233), in his Commentary on St. John,
quoted by Eusebius (//. E. vi. 25), says of the
Apostle, " he wrote also the Revelation." The tes-
tunonies of later writers, in the third and fourth
centuries, in favor of St. John's authorship of the
Revelation, are equally distinct and far more numer
ous. They may be seen quoted at length hi Liicke,
pp. 628-638, or in Dean Alford's Prolegomena
(N. T., vol. iv. pt. ii.). It may suffice here to say
that they include the names of Victorinus, Meth
odius, iiphrem Syrus, Epiphanius, BasU, Hilary,
Athanasius, Gregory [of Nyssaj, Didymus, Am
brose, Augustine, and Jerome.
All the foregoing writers, testifying that the book
came from an Apostle, believed that it was a part
of Holy Scripture. But many whose extant worlis
cannot be quoted for testimony to the authorship
of the book refer to it as possessing canonical au
thority. Thus (a.) Papias, who is described by
Irenasus as a hearer of St. John and friend of Poly-
carp, is cited, together with other writers, by An
dreas of Cappadocia, in his Commentary on the
Revelation, as a guarantee to later ages of the
divine inspiration of the book (Routh, Reliq. Sacr.
i. 15; Cramer's Catena, Oxford, 1840, p. 176). The
value of this testimony has not been impaired by
the controversy to which it has given rise, in which
Ijiicke, Bleek, Hengstenberg, and Rettig have taken
difierent parts. (b.) In the Epistle from the
Churches of Lyons and Vienne, A. D. 177, inserted
m Eusebius, fJ. li. v. 1-3, several passages (e. y. i.
5, xiv. 4, xxii. 11) are quoted or referred to in the
same way as passages of books whose canonical
authority is unquestioned, (c.) Cyprian (A/)p. 10,
12, 14, 19, ed. Fell) repeatedly quotes it as a part
of canonical Scripture. Chrysostom makes no dis
tinct aUusion to it in any extant writing; but we
are informed by Suidas that he received it as canon
ical. Althougli omitted (perhaps as not adapted
for public reading in church) from the list of
canonical books in the Council of Laodicea, it was
admitted into the list of the Third Council of
Carthage, A. o. 397.
Such is the evidence in favor of St. John's
authorship and of the canonical authority of this
book. The following facts must be weighed on the
other side.
Marcion, who regarded all the Apostles except
St. Paul as corrupters of the truth, rejected the
Apocalypse and all other hooks of the N. T. which
were not written by St. Paul. The Alogi, an
obscure sect, circa 180 A. d., in their zeal against
Montanisra, denied, the existence of spiritual gifts
in the church, and rejected the Revelation, saying
it was the work, not of John, but of Cerinthus
(Epiphanius, Adv. Hmr. 11.). 'The Roman presby
ter Caius (circa 196 A. D.), who also wrote against
Montanism, is quoted by Eusebius (H. E. iii. 28)

2724

REVELATION OF ST. JOHN

RS ascribing certain Revelations to Cerinthus: hut it
\n doubted (see Kouth, Jiel. Sacr. ii. 138) whether
the Revelation of St. John is the boolt to which
Caius refers. But the testimony which is consid
ered the most . important of all in ancient times
against the Revelation is contained in a fragment
af Dionysius of Alexandria, circa 240 a. d., the
most inlluential and perhaps the ablest bishop in
that age. The passage, taken from a book On the
Promises, written in reply to Nepos, a learned
Judaizing Chiliast, is quoted by Eusebius (//. E.
vii. 25). The principal points "in it are these:
Dionysius testifies that some writere before him
altogether repudiated the Ke^ elation as a forgery
of Cerinthus; many brethren, however, prized it
v^ry highly, and Dionysius would not venture to
reject it, but received it in faith as containing
things too deep and too sublime for his understand
ing. [In his Kpistle to Hermammon (Euseb. H. E.
vii. 10) he quotes it as he would quote Holy Scrip
ture.] He accepts as true wbat is stated in the
book itself, that it was written by .'ohn, but he
argues that the way in which that name is men
tioned, and the general character of the Janguage,
are unlike what we should expect from John the
Evangelist and Apostle; that there were many
Johns in that age. He would not say that John
Mark was the writer, since it is not known that he
was in Asia. He supposes it must be the work of
some John who lived in Asia; and he observes
there are said to be two tombs in Ephesus, each of
which bears the name of John. He then points
out at length the superiority of the style of the
Gospel and the First Epistle of John to the style
of -the Apocalypse, and says, in conclusion, that,
whatever he raay think of the language, he does
not deny that the writer of the Apocalypse actually
saw what he describes, and was endowed with the
divine gifts of knowledge and prophecy. To this
extent, and no farther, Dionysius is a witness
against St. John's authorship. It is obvious that
he felt keenly the difficulty arising from the use
made of the contents of this book by certain un
sound Christians under his jurisdiction; that he
was acquainted with the doubt as to its canonical
authority which some ofhis predecessors entertained
as an inference from the nature of its contents;
that he deliberately rejected their doubt and ac
cepted the contents of the book as given by the
inspiration of God ; that, although he did not un
derstand how St. John could write in the style in
which the Revelation is written, he yet knew of no
authority for attributins it, as he desired to at
tribute it, to some other of the numerous persons
who bore the name of John. A weightier difficulty
arises from the fact that the Re^-elation is one of
the books which are absent from the ancient Peshito
version ; and the only trustworthy evidence in favor
of its reception by the ancient Syrian Church is a
single quotation which is adduced from the Syriiic
works (ii. 332 c) of Ephreni Syrus. Eusebius is
remarkably sparing in his quotations from the
* Revelation of John," and the uncertainty of his
opinion about it is best shown by his statement in
H. E. iii. 39, that " it is likely that the Revelation
was seen by the second John (the Ephesian pres
byter), if anyone is unwilling 'to believe that it
WJis seen by the Apostle." Jerome states {Ep. ad
Dardanum, etc.) that the Greek churches felt, with

a * This cannot properly be said of Cyril of Jeru-
lalem (fi. a. d. 350), who clearly repudiates it as not

respect to the Revelation, a similar doubt to thit
of the Latins respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Neither he nor his equally influential contemporary
Augustine shared such doubts. Cyril of Jerusalem,
Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret
abstained from making use of the book, sharing, il
is possible, the doubts to which Jerome refers. But
they have not gone so far as to express a distinct
opinion against it.<* The silence of these writers is
the latest evidence of any importance that has been
adduced against the overwhelming weight of the
testimony in favor of the canonical authority and
authorship of this book.
B. TiMK AM) Place of Writing. — The date
of tbe Revelation is given by the great majority of
critics as a. d. 95-97. The weighty testimony of
Irenaeus is almost sufficient to prevent any other
conclusion, tie says {Adv. llcer. v. 30, § 3): "It
{i. 6. the Revelation) was seen no very long time
ago, but almost in our own generation, at the close
of Domitian's reign." Eusebius also records as a
tradition which he does not question, that in the
persecution under Domitian, Jobn the Apostle and
Evangelist, being yet alive, was banished to the
island Patmos for his testimony of the di\ine word.
Allusions in Clement of Alexandria and Origen
point in the same direction. There is no mention
in any writer of the first three centuries of any
other time or place. Epiphanius (li. 12), obviously
by mistake, says that John prophesied in the reign
of Claudius. Two or three obscure and later au
thorities say that John was banished under Nero.
Unsupported by any historical evidence, some
commentators have put forth the conjecture that
the Revelation was written as early as the time of
Nero. This is simply their inference from the style
and contents of the book. Btit it is difficult to see
why St. John's old age rendered it, as they allege,
impossible for him to write his inspired message
with force and vigor, or why his residence in
Ephesus must have removed the Hebraistic pecu
liarities of his Greek. It is difhcult to see in the
passages i. 7, ii. 9, iii. 9, vi. 12, 16, xi. 1, anything
which would lead necessarily to the conclusion, that
Jerusalem was in a prosperous condition, and that
the predictions of its fall had not been fulfilled
when those verses were i^Titten. A more weighty
argument in favor of an early date might be urged
from a modern interpretation of xvii. 10, if that
interpretation could be established. Galba is al
leged to be the sixth kuig, the one that "is.'' In
Nero these interpreters see the Beast tliat was
wounded (xiii. 3), the Beast that was and is not,
the eighth king (xvii. 11). For some time after
Nero's death the Roman populace believed that he
was not dead, but had fled into the East, whence
he would return and regain his throne: and these
interpreters venture to suggest that the writer of
the Revelation shared and meant to express the
absurd popular delusion. Even the able and learned
Reuss {llieol. Chret. i. 443), by way of supporting
this interpretation, advances his untenable claim
to the first discovery of the name of Nero Cffisar
in the number of the beast, 666. The inconsistency
of this interpretation with prophetic analogy, with
the context of Revelation, and with the fact that
the book is of divine origin, is pointed out by
Hengstenberg at the end of his Commentary on
ch. xiii., and by EUiott, Ilorce Apoc. iv. 547.

canonical {Cate.ck. Iv. 83, al. 22).
of the N. T. pp. 898, 491 f.

See Westcc tt, Canom

REVELATION OF ST. JOHN

2725

It has been inferred from i. 2, 9, 10, that the
Revelation was written in Ephesus, immediately
ifter the Apostle's return from Patmos. But the
text is scarcely sufficient to support this conclusion.
The style in which the messages to the Seven
Churches are delivered rather suggests the notion
that tlie book was written in Ratmos.
C. Language. — The doubt first suggested by
llarenberg, whether the Revelation was written in
.\riiniaic, has met with little or no reception. The
silence of all ancient writers as to any Aramaic
original is alone a sufficient answer to the sugges
tion. Liicke (ICinleit. 4il) has also collected in
ternal evidence to show that the original is the
Greek of a Jewish Christian.
Liicke has also (pp. 448-464) examined in
minute detail, after the preceding labors of Donker-
Curtius, Vogel, Winer, Ewald, KolthofT, and Hit-
zig, the peculiarities of language which obviously
distinguish the Revelation from every other book of
the New Testament. And in subsequent sections
(pp. 680-747) he urges with great force, the differ
ence between the Revelation on one side and the
fourth Gospel and First Epistle on the other, in
respect of their style and composition and the
oiental character and attainments of the writer of
each. Hengstenberg, in a dissertation appended to
his Commentary, maintains that they are by one
writer. That the anomalies and peculiarities of
the Revelation have been greatly exaggerated by
some critics, is sufficiently shown by Hitzig's
plausible and ingenious, though unsuccessful, at
tempt to prove the identity of style and diction in
the Revelation and the Gospel of St. Mark. It may
be admitted that the Revelation has many surpris
ing grammatical peculiarities. But much of this
is accounted for by the fact that it was probably
written down, as it was seen, "in the Spirit,"
whilst the ideas, in all their novelty and vastness,
filled the Apostle's mind, and rendered him less
capable of attending to forms of speech. His
Gospel and Epistles, on the other hand, were com
posed equally under divine influence, but an influ
ence of a gentler, more ordinary kind, with much
care, after long deliberation, after frequent recol
lection and recital of the facts, and deep ponder
ing of the doctrinal truths which they involve.
L). CosTK.NTs. — The first three verees contain
the title of the book, the description of the writer,
and the blessing pronounced on the readers, which
possibly, like the last two verses of the fourth Gos
pel, may be an addition by the hand, of inspired
survivors of the writer. John begins (i. 4) with a
salutation of the Seven Churches of Asia. This,
coming before the announcement that he was in
the Spirit, looks like a dedication not merely of
the first vision, but of all the book, to those
churches. In the next five verses (i. 5-9) he
touches the key-note of the whole following book,
the great fundamental ideas on which all our notions
uf the government of the world and the Church
ire built; the Person of Christ, the redemption
wrought by Him, his second coming to judge man
kind, the painful hopeful discipline of Christians
in the midst of this present world : thoughts which
may well be supposed to have ueen uppermost in
the mind of the peraecuted and exiled Apostle even
before the Divine Inspiration came on him.
a. The first vision (i. 7-iii. 22) shows the Son
If Man with his injunction, or Epistles to the
Seven Churches. While the Apostle is pondering
^ose great truths and the critical condition of his

Church which he had left, a Divine Person resem
bling tiiose seen by Ezekiel and Daniel, and iden
tified by name and by description as Jesus, appears
to John, and witli the disciiniinating authority of a
Lord and J udge reviews tlie state of those churclies,
pronounces his decision upon their several charac
ters, and takes occasion from them to speak to all
Christians who may deserve similar encourage
ment or similar condemnation. Each of these
sentences, spoken by the Son of Man, is described
as said by the Spirit. ' Hitherto the Apostle has
been speaking primarily, though not exclusively,
to some of bia own contemporaries concerning
the present events and circumstances. Hence
forth he ceases to address them particularly. His
words are for the ear of the universal Church in
all ages, and show the significance of things which
are present in hope or fear, in sorrow or in joy, to
Christians everywhere.
b. (iv. 1-viii. 1). In the next vision, Patmos
and the Divine Person whom he saw are gone.
Only the trumpet voice is heard again caUing him
to a change of place. He is in the highest court
of heaven, and sees God sitting on his throne.
The seven-sealed book or roU is produced, and thu
slain Lamb, the Redeemer, receives it amid tho
sound of universal adoration. As the seals are
opened in order, the Apostle sees (1) a conqueror
on a white horse, (2) a red horse betokening war,
(3) the black horse of famine, (4) the pale horse
of death, (5) the eager souls of martyrs under the
altar, (6) an earthquake with universal commotion
and teiTor. After this there is a pause, the course
of avenging angels is checked while 144,000, the
children of Israel, servants of God, are sealed, and
an innumerable multitude of the redeemed of all
nations are seen worshipping God. Next (7) the
seventh seal is opened, and half an hour's silence
in heaven ensues.
c. Then (viii. 2-xi. 19) seven angels appear with
trumpets, the prayers of saints are offered up, the
earth is struck with fire from the altar, and the
seven trumpets are sounded. (1) The earth aud
(2) the sea and (3) the springs of water and (4)
the heavenly bodies are successively smitten, (5) a
plague of locusts afflicts the men who are not
sealed (the first woe), (0) the third part of men
are slain (the second woe), but the rest are im
penitent. Then there is a pause : a mighty angel
with a book appears and cries out, seven thunders
sound, but their words are not recorded, the ap
proaching completion of the mystery of God is
announced, the angel bids the Apostle eat the
book, and measure the Temple with its worshippers
and the outer court given up to the Gentiles; the
two witnesses of God, their martyrdom, resur
rection, ascension, are foretold. The approach of
the third woe is announced and (7) the seventh
trumpet is sounded, the reign of Christ is pro
claimed, God has taken his great power, the time
has come for judgment and for the destruction of
the destroyers of the earth.
The three preceding visions are distinct from one
another. Each of the last two, Uke the longer
one which follows, has the appearance of a distinct
prophecy, reaching from the prophet's time to the
end of the world. The second half of the Revela
tion (xii.-xxii.) comprises a series of visions which
are connected by various links. It may be de
scribed generaUy as a prophecy of the assaults of
the devil and his agents (^the dragon, the ten-
horned beast, the two-horned beast or false prophet

2726

REVELATION OF ST. JOHN

and the harlot) upon the Church, and their final
destruction. It appears to begin with a reference
to events anterior, not only to those which are pre
dicted in the preceding chapter, but also to the
time in which it was written. It seems hard to
interpret tbe birth of the child as a prediction, and
not as a retrospective allusion.
d. A woman (xii.) clothed with the sun is seen
in heaven, and a great) red dragon with seven
crowned heads stands waiting to devour her off
spring; her child is caught up unto God, and the
mother flees into the wilderness for 1260 days.
The persecution of the woman and her seed on
earth by the dragon, is described as the conse
quence of a war in heaven in which the dragon
was overcome and cast out upon the earth.
St. John (xiii.) standing on the sea-shore sees a
beast with seven heads, one wounded, with ten
crowned horns, rising from the water, the repre
sentative of the dragon. All the world wonder at
and worship him, and he attacks the saints and
prevails. He is followed by another two-horned
beast rising out of, the earth, who compels men to
wear the mark of tlie beast, whose number is
666. St. John (xiv.) sees the Lamb with 144,000
standing on Mount Zion learning the song of praise
of the hea\enly host. Three angels fly forth call
ing men to worship God, proclaiming the fall of
Babylon, denouncing the worshippers of the beast.
A blessing is pronounced on the faithful dead, and
the judgment of the world is described under the
image of a harvest reaped by angels.
St. John (xv., xvi.) sees in heaven the saints
who had overcome the beast, singing the song of
Moses and the I^mb- Then seven angels come out
of the heavenly temple having seven vials of wrath
which they pour out upon the earth, sea, rivers,
sun, tbe seat of the beast, Euphrates, and the air,
after which there is a great earthquake and a hail-
Btorm. One (xvii., xviii.) of the last seven angels carries
St. John into the wilderness and shows him a har
lot, Babylon, sitting on a scarlet beast with seven
heads and ten horns. She is explained to be that
great city, sitting upon seven mountains, reigning
over the kings of the earth. Afterwards St. Jolm
sees a vision of tbe destruction of Babylon, por
trayed as the burning of a great city amid the
lamentations of worldly men and the rejoicing of
saints. Afterwards (xix.) the worshippers in heaven are
heard celebrating Babylon^s fall and the approach
ing marriage-supper of the Lamb. T'he \\'ord of
God is seen going forth to war at the head of the
heavenly armies: the beast and his false prophet
are taken and cast into the burning lake, and
their worshippers are slain.
An angel (xx.-xxii. 5) binds the dragon, i. e. the
devil, for 1000 years, whilst the martyred saints
who had not worshipped the beast reign with Christ.
Then the devil is unloosed, gathers a host against
the camp of the sainte, but is overcome hy fire
from heaven, and is cast into the burning lake with
the beast and false prophet. St. John tlien wit
nesses the process of the final judgment, and sees
and describes the new heaven and the new earth,
and the new Jerusalem, with its people ai^d their
way of life.
In the last sixteen verses (xxii. 6-21) the angel
solemnly asseverates the truthfulness and impor-
Unce of the foregoing sayings, pronounces a bless

ing on those who keep them exactly, gives warn*
ing of his speedy coraing to judgment, and of the
nearness of the time when these prophecies shall
be fulfilled.
K. Ixtkkpeetatiox. — A short account of the
different directions in which attempts have been
made to interpret the Revelation, is all that can be
given in this place. The special blessing promised
to the reader of this book (i. .3), the assistance fo
common Christian experience afforded by its pre
cepts and by some of its visions, the striking im
agery of others, the tempting field which it supplies
for intellectual exercise, will always attract students
to this book and secure for it the labors of manv
commentators. Ebrard reckons that not less than
eighty systematic commentaries are worthy of note.
and states that tbe less valuable writings on this
inexhaustible subject are unnumbered, if not innu
merable. Fanaticism, t-heological hatred, and vain
curiosity, may have largely influenced theu- com
position ; but any one who will compare the neces
sarily inadequate, and sometimes erroneous, exposi
tion of early tiraes with a good modern commen
tary will see that the pious ingenuity of so many
centuries has not been exerted quite in vain.
The interval between the Apostolic age and that
of Constantine has been called tbe Chiliastic period
of Apocalyptic interpretation. The visions of St.
John were chiefly regarded as representations of
general Christian tniths, scarcely yet embodied in
actual facts, for the most part to be exempUfied or
fulfilled in the reign of Antichrist, the coming of
Christ, the millennium, and the day of judgment.
Tbe fresh hopes of the early Christians, and the
severe persecution they endured, t:iught tiient to
live in those future events with intense satisfaction
and comfort. They did not entertain the thought
of building up a definite consecutive chronological
scheme even of those symbols which some modems
regard as then already fulfilled ; although from the
beginning a connection between liome and Anti
christ was universally allowed, and parts of the
Revelation were regarded as the fiUing-up of the
great outline sketched by iJaniel and St. Paul.
The only extant systematic interpretations in
this period are the interpolated Commentary on
the Revelation by the martyr Victorinus, circ. 270
A. Ll. {Bibliotheci Pairum Maxima, iii. 414, and
Migne's Patrvlogia Latina, v. 318; the two edi
tions should be compared), and the disputed Trea
tise on Antichrist by Hippolytus (Migne's Patro-
logia GrcEca, x. 726). But the prevalent views of
that age are to be gathered also from a passage in
Justin Martyr {Trypho, 80, 81), from the later
books, especially the fifth, of Irenseus, and from
various scattered passages in TeitnUian, Origen,
and Methodius. The general anticipation of the
last days of tlie world in Lactantins, vii. 14-25,
has little direct reference to the Kevelatiou.
Immediately after the triumph of Constantme,
the Christians, emancipated from oppression and
persecution, and dominant and prosperous in their
turn, began to lose their vivid .expectation of our
Lord's speedy Advent, and their spiritual concep
tion of his kingdom, and to look upon the tem
poral supremacy of Christianity as a fulfillment of
the promised reign of Christ on earth. The Ro
man empire become Christian was regarded no
longer as the object of prophetic denunciation, but
as the scene of a millennial development. This view
however, was soon met by the figurative interpi«-
tation of the millennium as the reign of Christ ic

REVELATION OP ST. JOHIf

2727

the hearts of all true believers. As the barbarous
and heretical invaders of the falling empire ap
peared, they were regarded by the suffering Chris
tians as fulfilling the woes denounced in the Reve
lation. The beginning of a regidar chronolocjical
interpretation is seen in Berengaud (assigned by
some critics to the !)th century), who treated the
Revelation as a history of the Church from the
beginning of the world to its end. And tlie origi
nal Commentary of the Abbot Joachim is remark
able, not only for a further development of that
method of interpretation, but for the scarcely dis
guised identification of Babylon with Papal Rome,
aud of the second Beast or Antichrist with some
Universal Pontiff.
The chief commentaries belonging to this period
are that which is ascribed to Tichonius, circ. 390
A. D., printed in the works of St. Augustine; Pri-
masius, of Adrumetuui in Africa, a. d. 550, in
Migne*s Patrologia Latina, Ixviii. 1406; Andreas
of Crete, circ. 650 a. d., Arethas of Cappadocia
and QEcumenius of Tbessaly in the 10th century,
whose commentaries were published together in
Cramer's C'liena, Oxon., 1840; the Explunalio
Apoc. in the works of Bede, a, d. 735 ; the Expo-
sitio of Berengaud, printed in the works of Am
brose; the Commentary of Hay mo, a. d. 853, first
published at Cologne in 1531; a short Treatise on
the Seals by Anselni. bishop of Mavilberg, a. d.
1145, printed in D'Ach^ry's Spidlegium, L 161;
the Exposi io of Abbot .loacbirn of Calabria, A. D.
1200, printed at Venice in 1527.
In the dawn of the Refurniation, the views to
which the reputation of Abbot Joachim gave cur
rency, were Uiken up by the harbingers of the im
pending change, as by "Wickliflfe and others; and
they became the foundation of that great historical
school of interpretation, which up to this time
seems the most popular of all. It is impossible to
construct an exact classification of modern inter
preters of the Revelation. They are generally
placed in three great divisions.
«. The Historical or Continuous expositors, iri
whose opinion the Revelation is a j)rogressive his
tory of the fortunes of the Church from the first
century to the end of time. The chief supporters
of this most interesting interpretation are Mede,
Sir I. Newton, Vitringa, Bengel, Woodhouse, Fa-
ber, E. B. J'^lliott, Wordsworth, Hengstenberg,
Ebrard, and others. The recent commentary of
Dean Alford belongs mainly to this school.
b. The Pratterist expositors, who are of opinion
that the Revelation has been almost, or altogether,
fulfilled in the time which has passed since it was
written ; that it refers principally to the triumph
of Christianity over Judaism and Paganism, sig
nalized in the downfall of Jerusalem and of Rome.
The most eminent expounders of this view are
Alcasar, (irotius, Hammond, Bossuet, Calmet, Wet-
stein, Eichhorn, Hug, Herder, Ewald, Liicke, De
Wette, Diisterdieck, Stuart, Lee, and Maurice.
This is the favorite interpretation with the critics
of (jiermany, one of whom goes so far as to state
that the writer of the Revelation promised tbe
fulfillment of his visions within the space of
three years and a. half from the time in which he
HTote. c. The Futurist expositors, whose views show a
strong reaction against some extra\'agancies of the
wo preceding schools. They believe that the whole
book, excepting perhaps the first three chapters,
^fers principally, if not exclusively, to events which

are yet to come. This view, which is asserted to
be merely a revival of the primitive interpretation,
has been advocated in recent times by Dr. J. IT.
Todd, Dr. S. R. Maitland, B. Newton, C Maitland,
L \^'illiams, De Burgh, and others.
Each of these three schemes is open to objec
tion. Against the Futurist it is argued, that it i«
not consistent with the repeated declarations of a
speedy fulfillment at the beginning and end of tbe
book itself (see ch. i. 3, xxii. 6, 7, 12, 20). Chris
tians, to whom it was originally addressed, wonld
have derived no special comfort from it, had its
fulfillment been altogether deferred for so many
centuries. The rigidly literal interpretation of
Babylon, the Jewish tribes, and other symbols
which generally forms a part of Futurist schemes,
presents peculiar difficulties.
Against the Pra^terist expositors it is urged, that
prophecies fulfilled ought to be rendered so per
spicuous to the general sense of the Church as to
supply an argument against infidelity; that the
destruction of Jerusalem, having occurred twenty-
five years previously, could not occupy a large
space in a prophecy: that the supposed predictions
of the downfalls of Jerusalem and of Nero appear
from the context to refer to one event, but are by
this scheme separated, and, moreover, placed in a
wrong order i that the measuring of the temple
and the altar, and the death of the two witnesses
(ch. xi.), cannot be explained consistently with the
context. Against the Historical scheme it is urged, that
its advocates differ very widely among themselves;
that they assume without any authority that the
1260 days are so many years; that several of it?
applications — e. g. of the symbol of the ten-horned
beast to the Popes, and the sixth seal to the con
version of Constantine — are inconsistent with the
context; that attempts by some of this school to
predict future events by the help of Revelation have
ended in repeated failures.
In conclusion, it may be stated that two methods
have been proposed by which the student of the
Revelation may escape the incongruities and falla
cies of the different iiiferpretations, whilst he may
derive edification from whatever truth tbey contain
It has been suggested that the book may be re
garded as a prophetic poem, dealing in general and
inexact descriptions, much of which may be set
down as poetic imagery, mere embellishment. But
such a view would be difficult to reconcile with the
belief that the book is an inspired prophecy. A
better suggestion is made, or rather is revived, by
Dr. Arnold in his Sermons On the Inieipreiaiion
of Prophecy: that we should bear in mind that
predictions have a lower historical sense, as well as
a higher spiritual sense; that there may be one or
more than one typical, imperfect, historical fulfill
ment of a prophecy, in each of which the higher
spiritual fulfillment is shadowed forth more or less
distinctly. Mr. Elliott, in his Hm-ce Apocalypficce,
iv. 622, argues against this principle; but perhaps
not successfully. The recognition of it would pave
the way for the acceptance in a modified sense of
many of the interpretations of the Historical school,
and would not exclude the most valuable portions
of the other schemes. W. T. B.
* Literature. The most valuable Introduction
to the Apocalypse is Liicke's Veisuch einer vollstdn-
digen Einl. in die Offtnb. d. Johannes (1832),
2d ed., greatly enlarged, 2 Abth., Bonn, 1852.
Besides the Commentaries (a few of whieh will ba

2728 REA'^ELATION OF ST. JOHN
meationed lielow), and the general Introductions to
the N. T., as those of Hug, Schott, De Wette,
Credner, (juericke, Keuss (see also his art. Johan.
.ipok. in Ersch and Gruber's Allgem. EncylcUp,
Sect. II. Bd. xxii. (1842) p. 79 ff.), Bleek, and Da
vidson, the following are some of the more notice
able essays on the authorship, date, and plan of the
book: A Dlscoui-se, IJlstoricid and Critical, on ihe
Itevtlai'ums ascribed iu SI. John (by F. Abauzit),
I^nd. 1730; also, in a difierent trans., in his Mts-
rellanies (l^nd. 1774). This was reviewed by L.
TweUs, in his Cril. Examimdion of ihe Laie Neio
Test, and Version of llie N. T., in Greek and
English [Mace's], Lond. 1732, trans, in part by
Wolf in his Cwce Philol. el Ci-il. v. 387 ff. (Basil.
1741). (G, L. Oeder,) /"rci'e Uniers. iib. die sagen.
Offenb. Joh., mit Anm. von Semler, Halle, 1769.
Semler, Neue Unlers. ub. d. Apok., HaUe, 1776.
(F. G. Hartwig,) Apol. d. Apok. wida- falschen
Tadel u. fulsches Lob, 4 Thle., Chemn. 1780-83.
O. C. StoiT, Neue Apol. d. Offenb. Joh., Tiib. 1782.
Donker-Curtius, De Apoc. ab Indole, Doct. et
icriheTidi Geneve Joannis Apost. non abhwrenie,
Ultraj. 1799, Itleek, Beitrdge zur Ktit. u. Deu-
lung d. Offenb. Joh., in the Theol. Zeiischr. of
Schleiermacher, De Wette and Liicke, Heft 2 (Berl.
1820); comp. his Beitrdge zur Evangelien-KHtik
a846 ), p. 182 ff., 267 ff., and his review of Liicke in
the Theol. Slud. u. Ki-ii., 1854, Heft 4, and 1855,
Heft 1. Kolthoff, Apoc. Joanni Apost. vindicaia,
Hafn. 1834. Dannemann, IFer isi der Verfasser
d. Off'enb. Johannis f Hannov. 1841. Hitzig,
Veber Johannes Marcus u. seine Schrifien, oder
weJcher Johannes hat die Offenb. verfasst f Ziir.
1843. Neander, Planting and Training of ihe
Christian Church, p. 305 ff., Robinson's trans.,
N. Y. 1805. W. F. Itinck, Apokalypt. For-
gchungen, Ziir. 1853. K. lloelimer, Verfassei' u.
Abfassungszeit d. Joh. Apoc, HaUe, 1856. G. K.
Noyes, The Apocalypse analyzed and explained,
in the Christ. Examiner for May 1860, reprinted
in the Jourmd of Sac. Lit. for Oct. 1860. The
Apocalypse, in the Wesim. Rev. for Oct. 1861.
(S. Davidson,) The Apocalypse of St. John, hi the
National Rev. for April 1864; substantially the
same as his art. Revelation in the 3d ed. of Kitto's
Cyclip. of Bibl. Lit. R. D. C. Robbins, The
Author of the Apocalypse, in the BU/l. Sacra for
April and July, 1864. Alb. R^'viUe, La lit. apoc-
ah/ptique chez lesjuifs et les Chretiens, in the Rev.
des Deux Mondes for Oct. 1, 1866. B. Weiss,
Apokrdypiische Studien, in Theol. Stud. u. Krit.
1869, pp. 1-59, cf. p. 758 ff.
Of the multitudinous Commentaries on this tor
tured book only a few of the more remarkable can
he named here. The history of the interpretation
is given in detail by Lucke (p. 951 ff.) and after
liim by Stuart (i. 450 ff.); comp. the outline in
De Wette (Exeg. Handb.). Jos. Mede, Clavis
Apocalypiica and Comm. in Apoc. (1627, 1632), in
his Works, vol. ii. Grotius, Annot. in N. T., Par.
1644, often reprinted. Bossuet, L'Apoc. avec une
explication, Par. 1690. Vitringa, Avo/cpiffis A2}0c.
(1705), ed. alt., Amst. 1719, 4to. Daubuz, Per
petual Comm. on ihe Rev. of St. John, Lond. 1720,
foi. Sir Is. Newton, Obs. upon ihe Proph. of
.Daniel and the Apoc. of St. John, Ixind. 1733, 4to.
Lowman, Paraphrase and Notes on ilie Rev., Lond.
1737, 4to, often reprinted. Bengel, Erkldrie Of-

REZEPH
fenb. Johannis, Stuttg. 1740, 3e Aufl. 1758;
comp. his Gnomon. Herder, MAPAN A0A. Dat
Buch von d. Zukunft del Herrn, Riga, 1779
Kichhorn, Comm. in Apoc, 2 tom. Gott. 1791
comp. Christian Disciple (Bost. ) for April, 1822
and Christ. Examiner, May, 3830. J. C. Wood-
house, I The Apoc. translated, wiih Nuies, Lond
1805; also Annolcdions on Ihe Apoc (a sequel tc
Elsley and Slade). Lond. 1828. Heinrichs, Comm.
in Apoc. 2 pt. Gott. 1818-21 (vol. x. of the Test.
Nov. Edit. Kopp.). Ewald. Comm. in Apoc. exe-
geticus et ailicus, Gott. 1828; Die Johanneischen
Schrifien iibers. u. erklarl, Bd. ii. Gift. 1862.
(Important.) ZiiUig, Die Offenb. Joh. voUstdndig
erklarl, 2 Thle., Stuttg. 1834-40. Tinius, Die
Offtnb. Joh. durch JiinL, Uebers. n. Erkl. Allen
verstdndlich gemacht, Leipz. 1839. E. B. EUiott,
HorcB Apocalypiicee (1843), 5th ed., 4 vols. Lond.
1862. Moses , Stuart, Comm. on the Apocalypse, 2
vols. Andover, 1845, also reprinted in England;
perhaps his most elaborate work. De Wette, Kurze
Erkl. d. Offenb. Joh., Leipz. 1848 (Bd. iii. Th. 2
of his Exeg. Handb.), 3e AuU., bearb. von W
MoeUer, 1862. Hengstenberg, Die Off'enb. d. heil.
Joh., 2 Bde. Berl. 1849, 2e Ausg. 1861-62, trans.
by P. Fairbairn, Edin. 1851. Ebrard, Die Offenb.
Joh. erklarl, Kiinigsb. 1853 (Bd. vii. of Olshau-
sen's Bibl. Comm.). Auberlen, Der Proph. Dan
iel u. die Off'enb. Joh., Bas. 1854, 2= Aufl. 1857,
Eng. trans. Edin. 1856. Diisterdieck. Krii. exeg.
Handb. id), d. OffeiJi. Joh., Gott. 1859, 2e Aufl.
1865 (Abth. xvi. of Meyer's Kmnmentar). F. D.
Maurice, Lectures on ihe Apoc, Cambr. 1861.
Bleek, Vorlesimgen iiber die Apok., Berl. 1862.
Volkmar, Comm. zum Off'enb. Joh., Ziir. 1862.
Desprez, The Apoc. fulfilled, new ed., Lond. 1865.
We may also name the editions of the Greek Test.
by Bloomfield, Webster and Wilkinson, Alford, and
NVordsworth, who has also published a separate ex
position of the book. See further the literature
under Aktichkist.
Critical editions of the Greek text, with a new
EngUsh version and various readings, have heen
published by Dr. S. P. TregeUes (Lond. 1844)
and WiUiam Kelly (I^nd. 1800), followed by his
Lectures on the Apoc. (Lond. 1861). The Second
Epistle of Peter, the Epistles of John and Judas,
and the Revtltium : trans, from the Greek, wiih
Notes, New York (Amer. Bible Union), 1854,
4to, was prepared by the late Rev. John LiUie,
D. D.
On the theology of the Apocalypse, one may
consult the works on Biblical 'Theology by Lutter-
beck, Reuss, Messner, Lechler, .Schmid, Baur, and
Bej'schlag, referred to under JoHS, Gospel of,
vol. ii. p. 1439 a, and the recent work of B. Weiss,
Bibl. Theol. des N. T, Berl. 1868, p. 600 ff. A.
RE'ZEPH (n^'T! [stronghold, Furst]: i,
['Paipls, Vat.] 'Po<^ei;s, and 'PaipfB; " [Comp.
'Paireip, 'Paaip i Sin. in Is. Po(^es:] Reseph).
One of the places which Sennacherib mentions, in
his taunting message to Hezekiah, as having been
destroyed by his predecessor (2 K. xix. 12; Is.
xxxvii. 12). He couples it with Haran and other
weU-known Mesopotamian spots. The name ia
still a common one, Y^akut's Lexicon quoting nine
towns so caUed. Interpreters, however, are at va-

<" The Alex. MS. exhibits the same forms of the terchanged, namely, Ya4,eB in 2 Kings, Fa^n; ii
aame as the Tat. ; but by a curious coincidence in- Isaiah.

KEZIA
riance iietween the principal two of these. The
oue is a day's march west of .the Euphrates, on
the road from Racca to HUms (Gesenius, Keil,
Tbenius, Michaelis, Suppl.); the other, again, is
east of the Euphrates, near Bagdad (Hitzig). The
former is mentioned by Ptolemy (v. 15) under the
name of 'Pijo'iii^a, and appears, in the present im
perfect state of our Mesopotamian knowledge, to
be the more feasible of the two. G.
RE'ZIA (S;?! [delight]: ¦pcuni; [Vat.
Paireia:] Resia). An .Asherite, of the sons of
UUa (1 Chr. vii. 39).
RE'ZIN (T'S'l [perh. stable, firm, or p-ince,
ues.]: 'Paaira-iiv, 'Paa-iv, ['Pao-l/i, 'Poo-o-fc; Vat.
in Is. Patretif, Paffup., Pauffwv', Sin. in Is. Paatr-
aiev; Alex. Paao'iraji', exc. Is. vii. 8, Pao-Eij/:]
Rosin). I. A king of Damascus, contemporary
with Pekah in Israel, and with Jotham and Ahaz
in Judaea. The policy of Rezin seems to have been
to aUy himself closely with the kingdom of Israel,
and, thus strengthened, to carry on constant war
against the kings of Judah. He attacked Jotham
during the latter part of his reign (2 K. xv. 37 ) ;
hut his chief war was with Ahaz, whose territories
he invaded, in company with Pekah, soon after
Ahaz had mounted the throne (about n. c. 741).
The combined army laid siege to Jerusalem, where
Ahaz was, but "could not prevail against it" (Is.
vii. 1; 2 K. xvi. 5). Rezin, however, "recovered
Elath to Syria" (2 K. xvi. 6); that is, he con
quered and held possession of the celebrated town
of that name at the head of the Gulf of Akabah,
which commanded one of the most important'lines
of trade in the East. Soon after this he was
attacked by Tiglath-PUeser IL, king of Assyria, to
whom Ahaz in his distress had raade application
his armies were defeated by the Assyrian hosts ; his
city besieged and taken; his people carried away
captive into Susiana ( ? Km) ; and he himself slain
(2 K. xvi. 9; compare Tiglath-Pileser's owrn in
scriptions, where the defeat of Rezin and the de
struction of Damascus are distinctly mentioned).
This ti-eatment was probably owing to his being re
garded as a rebel ; suice Damascus had been taken
and laid under tribute by the Assyrians some
time previously (Rawlinson's Herodotus, i. 467). G. R.
2. [^Paadiv ; in Neh., Rom. 'Paaadiv, FA.
Paeaav.] One of the famUies of the Nethinim
(Ezr. ii. 48; Neh. vii. 50). It furnishes another
example of the occurrence of non-Israelite names
amongst them, which is already noticed under Me-
HUNiM [in. 1875, note a; and see Siseka]. In 1
Esdr. the name appears as Oaisan, in which the
change from R to D seems to imply that 1 Esdras
at one tiine existed in Syriac or some other Semitic
language. G.
BB'ZON (Vin [prince] : [Rom. om. ; Vat.]
'-Eirpd/A,: Alex. Pafwj/: Razon). The son of Eli-
adah, a SjTian, who, when David defeated Hadad
ezer king of Zobah, put himself at the head of a
band of freebooters and set up a petty kingdom at
Damascus (1 K. xi. 23). Whether he wag an
officer of Hadadezer, who, foreseeing the destruc
tion which David would inflict, prudently escaped
with some followers; or whether he gathered his
bund of tJie remnant of those who survived the
slaugnter, does not appeiir. The latter is more
probable. The settlement of Rezon at Damascus
could Do^ have been tiU some time after the dis-
172

RHEGITJM

2729

astrous battle in whioh the power of Hadadezer
was broken, for we are told that David at the same
time defeated the army of Damascene Syrians who
came to the relief of Hadadezer, and put garrisons
in Damascus. From his position at Damascus he
harassed the kingdom of Solomon during bis whole
reign. With regard to the statement of Nicolaus
in the 4th hook of his History, quoted by Josephus
(Ant. vii. 5, § 2), there is less difficulty, as there
seems to be no reason for attributing to it any
historical authority. He says that the name of
the king of Damascus, whom David defeated, was
Hadad, and that his descendants and successors
took the same name for ten generations. If this
be true, Rezon was a usurper, but the origin of the
story is probably the confused account of the LXX.
In the Vatican MS. of the LXX. the account of
Rezon is inserted in ver. 14 in close connection
with Hadad, and on this Josephus appears to have
founded his story that Hadad, on leaving Egypt,
endeavored without success to excite Idumea to
revolt, and then went to Syria, where he joined
himself with Rezon, called by Josephus Raazarus,
who at the head of a band of robbers was plunder
ing the country (Ant. viii. 7, § 6). It was Hadad
and not Rezon, according to the account in Jose
phus, who established hiraself king of that part
of Syria, and made inroads upon the IsraeUtes.
In 1 K. XV. 18, Benhadad, king of Damascus in
the reign of Asa, is described as the grandson of
Hezion, and from the resemblance between the
names Rezon and Hezion, when written in Hebrew
characters, it has been suggested that the latter is
a corrupt reading for the former. For this sug
gestion, however, there does not appear to be suffi
cient ground, though it was adopted both by Sir
John Marsham (Chron. Can. p. 346) and Sir Isaac
Newton (Chronol. p. 221). Bunsen (Bibelwerk, i.
cclxxi.) makes Hezion contemporary with Reho
boam, and probably a grandson of Rezon. The
name is Aramaic, and Ewald compares it with
Rezm. W. A. W.
RHB'GItrM ('P^7ioi/: Rhegium). The men
tion of this Italian town (which was situated on
the Bruttiau coast, just at the southern entrance
of the straits of Messina) occurs quite incidentally
(Acts xxviii. 13) in the account of St. Paul's
voyage from Syracuse to PuteoU, after the ship
wreck at Malta. But, for two reasons, it is worthy
of careful attention. By a curious coincidence the
figures on its coins are the very " twin-brothers "
which gave the name to St. Paul's ship. See
(attached to the article Castok and Pollux) the
coin of Bruttii, which doubtless represents the
forms that were painted or sculptured on the vessel
And, again, the notice of the intermediate position
of Rhegium, the waiting there for a southerly wind
to carry the ship through the straits, the run to
PuteoU with such a wind within the twenty-four
hours, are aU points of geographical accuracy which
help us to realize the narrative. As to the history
of the place, it was originally a Greek colony: it
was miserably destroyed by Dionysius of Syracuse:
from Augustus it received advantages which com
bined with its geographical position in making it
important throughout the duration of the Roman
empire: it was prominently associated, in the
Middle Ages, with the varied fortunes of the Greek
emperors, the Saracens, and the Romans: and
still the modem Reggio is a town of 10,000 in
habitants. Its distance across the straits from
Messina is only about six mUes, and it is web seen

2730

RHESA

from the telegraph station above that Sicilian
town.a J. s. H.
RHE'SA CPijff-tJ: Resa), son of Zorobabel in
the genealogy of Christ (Luke iii. 27). Lord A.
Hervey has ingeniously conjectured that Rhesa is
no person, but merely the title Rosh, i. e. *' Prince,"
originally attached to the name of Zerubbabel, and
graduaUy introduced as an independent name into
the genealogy. He thus removes an important ob
stacle to the reconciliation of the pedigrees in Mat^
thew and Luke (Hervey's Genealogies, etc. pp. Ill,
114, 356-360). [Genealogy of Jesus Chkist,
i. 886 a; Zekubbabel.] G.
RHONDA {'P6S7J [rose-^A]: Rhode), lit.
Rose, the name of a maid who announced Peter's
arrival at the door of Mary's house after his mirac
ulous release from prison (Acts xii. 13). [Por
ter.] RHODES {'p6Bos [rose'] : Rhodus). The his
tory of this island is so illustrious, that it is inter
esting to see it connected, even in a small degree,
with the life of St. Paul. He touched there on his
return-voyage to Syria from the third misssionary
journey (Acts xxi. 1). It does not appear that he
landed from the ship. The day before he had been
at Cos, an island to the N. W. ; and from Rhodes
he proceeded eastwards to Patara in Lycia. It
seems, from all the circumstances of the narrative,
that the wind was blowing from the N. W., as it
very often does in that part of the Levant. Rhodes
is immediately opposite the high Carian and Lycian
headlands at the S. W. extremity of the peninsula
of Asia Minor. Its position has had much to do
with its history. The outline of that history is as
follows. Its real eminence began (about 400 b. c.)
with the founding of that city at the N. E. extrem
ity of the island, which still continues to be the
capital. Though the Dorian race was originally
and firmly estabhshed here, yet Rhodes was very
frequently dependent ou others, between the Pelo-
ponneslan war and the time of Alexander's cam
paign. After Alexander's death it entered on a
glorious period, its material prosperity being largely
developed, and its institutions deserving and obtain
ing general esteem. As we approach the time of
the consolidation of the Roman power in tbe Le
vant, we have a notice of Jewish residents in Rhodes
(1 Mace. XV, 23). The Romans, after the defeat of
Antiochus, assigned, during some time, to Rhodes
certain districts on the mainland [Caria ; Lycia] ;
and when these were withdrawn, upon more mature
provincial arrangements being made, the island still
enjoyed (from Augustus to Vespasian) a consider
able araount of independence.* It is in this inter
val that St. Paul was there. Its Byzantine history
is again eminent. Under Constantine it was the
metropolis of the " Province of the Islands." It
was the last place where the Christians of the East
held out against the advancing Saracens; and sub
sequently it was once more iamous as the home and

a * Reggio is in fuU view from the harbor of Mes-
rina. The Apostle passed there in winter, probably iu
February (as Luke's notations of time indicate), and
at that season he must have seen the mountains, both
of Sicily and of the mamland, covered with snow.
The name is from p^ywixt, to break or burst through,
as if the sea had there torn off Sicily from the con-
tlnent. See Pape's Wiirterb. der Grifch. MUgennamen,
5. T. H.
b Two incidents in the life of Uerod the Great con-
DUVed with Rhodes, are well worthy of mention here

RIBLAU
fortress ofthe Knights of St. John. The mort prom
inent remains of the city and harbir are memoiiall
of those knights. The best account of Rhodes will
be found in Ross, Reisen auf den Griech. InseJn,
iii, 70-113, aud Reisen nock Kos, Ealikamasfos,
Rhodes, etc., pp. 53-80. There is a good view, as
well as an accurate delineation of the coast, in tbe
English Admiralty Chart No. 1639. Perhaps the
best illustration we can adduce here is one of the
early coins of Rhodes, with the conventional rose-
flower, which bore the name of the island on one
side, and the head of Apollo, radiated like the sun,
on the other. It was a proverb that tbe sun shone
every day in Rhodes. J- S. H.

Goin of Rhodes.

RHOD'OCUS Cp6Sokos- Rhodocus). A Jew
who betrayed the plans of his countrymen to Anti-
ochus Eupator. His treason was discovered, and
he was placed in confinement (2 Mace. xiii. 21).
B. F. W.
RHOa>US ('P(J5os: Rhodus), 1 Mace xv. 23.
[Rhodes.] RIOiAI [2 syl.] C^n*^") [whom Jehovah de-
fends]: 'Pi^d [Vat. Pei/Sa] in Sam., pejSte; Alex.
P7;;3o( [FA. PojSeioi] inChr.: Ribal). The father
of Ittai the Benjamite of Gibeah, who was one of
David's mighty men (2 Sam. xxiii. 29 ; 1 Chr. xi.
31). * RIBBAND. [Lace.]
RIB'LAH, 1. (nbnnn, with the definite
article [fertility]: BijAa^ m both MSS.: Rebla).
One of the landmarks on the eastern boundary of
the land of Israel, as specified by Moses (Nmn.
xxxiv. 11). Its position is noted in this passage
with much precision. It was immediately between
Shepham and the sea of Cinnereth, and on the
east side of the spring." Unfortunately Shepham
has uot yet been identified, and which of the great
fountains of northern Palestine is intended by " the
spring " is. uncertain. It seems hardly possible,
vrithout entirely disarranging the specification of
the boundary, that the Riblah in question can be
the same with the " Riblah in the land of Hamath "
which is mentioned at a much later period of the
history. For, according to this passage, a great
distance must necessarily have intervened betwef n
Riblah and Hamath. This will be erident from a
mere enumeration of the landmarks.
1. The north boundary: The Mediterranean,

When he went to Italy, about the close of tlie last Re
publican struggle, he found that the city had suffered
much from Cassius, and gave Uberal sums to restore it
(Joseph. Ant. xiv. 14, § 3). Here, also, after the bat*
tie of Actium, he met Augustus and seemed his favor
(ffrtU XV. 6, § 6).
c Originally it appears to have stood 'ApprfKa ; but
the 'Ap has now attached itself to the pvececling namt
— "Zeiripofiap. Can this be the Abbela of 1 Ma«v
ix. 2?

RIBLAH
Vlounl Hor, the entrance of Hamath, Zedad, Ziph-
ron, Ilazar-enan.
2. The eastern boundary commenced from Ha-
sar-enan, turning south; Shepham, Riblah, passing
east of tlie spring, to east side of Sea of Galilee.
Now it seems impossible that Riblah can be in the
land of Hamath ,<" seeing that four landmarks occur
between them. Add to this its apparent proximity
to the Sea of Galilee.
The early Jewish interpreters have felt the force
of this. Confused as is the catalogue of the boun
dary in the Targum Pseudojonathan of Num. xxxiv.,
it is plain that the author of that version considers
"the spring" as the spring of Jordan at Banias,
and Kiblah, therefore, as a place near it. With
this agrees Parchi, tbe Jewish traveller in the 13th
and 14th centuries, who expressly discriminates be
tween the two (see the extracts in Zunz's Benja
min, ii. 418), and in our own day J. D. Michaelis
(Blbel fiir Ungelehrien ; Suppl. ad Lexica, No.
2.313 ), and Bonfrerius, the learned editor of Euse-
bius's Onomasticon.
No place bearing the name of Riblah has been
yet discovered in the neighborhood of Banias.
2. Riblah in the land of Hamath (H /3"1, once
nn73"l, {. e. Riblathah: ' Ae^XoflS in both
MSS.;' [Rom. in 2 K. xxiii. 33, 'Pa^Kad/i, xxv.
6, 21, 22. 'P£;SAaea:] Reblaiha). A place on the
great road between Palestine and Babylonia, at
which the kings of Babylonia were accustomed to
remain while directing the operations of their ar
mies in Palestine and Phoenicia. Here Nebuchad-
nezaar waited while the sieges of Jerusalem and of
Tyre were being conducted by his lieutenants;
hither were brought to him the wretched king of
Judsea and his sons, and after a time a selection
from all ranks and conditions of the conquered city,
who were put to death, doubtless by the horrible
death of impaling, which the Assyrians practiced,
and the long lines of the victims to which are still
to be seen on their monuments (Jer. xxxix. 5, 6,
Iii. 9, 10, 26, 27; 2 K. xxv. 6, 20, 21). In like
manner Phar.ioh-Necho, after his successful victory
over the Babylonians at Carchemish, returned to
Riblah and summoned Jehoahaz from Jerusalem
before him (2 K. xxiii. 33).
This Riblah has no doubt been discovered, still
retaining its ancient name, on the right (east)
bank of the el-Asy (Orontes), upon the great road
which connects Baalbek and Hums, about 35 miles
N. E. of the former and 20 miles S. W. of the latter
place. The advantages of its position for the en
campment of vast hosts, such as those of Egypt and
Babylon, are enumerated bv Dr. Robinson, who vis
ited it in 1852 (Bibl. iJfs.'iii. 545). He describes
it as " lying on the banks of a mountain stream in
the midst of a vast and fertile plain yielding the
most abundant supplies of forage. From this point
the roads were open by Aleppo and the Euphrates
to Nineveh, or by Palmyra to Babylon .... by
the end of Lebanon and the coast to Palestine and
Egypt, or through the Bukaa and the Jordan
iValley to the centre of the Holy Land." It ap-
a If Mr. Porter's identifications of Zedad and Hat-
larenan are adopted, the difficulty is increased tenfold.
b The two great MSS. of the LXX. — Vattwin (Mai)
Ud Alex. — present tbe name as follows : —
2 K. xxiii. 33, 'A|3Aaa ; Ac^Aaa.
2 K. xxv. 6, 'lEpSe|3Aaeav i Ae^AaSa, I

RIDDLE 2731
pears to have been first alluded to by Buckingh*
in 1816.
Riblah is probably mentioned by Ezekiel (¦n
14), though in the present Hebrew text and A. V.
it appears as Diblah or Diblath. The change from
R to D is in Hebrew »¦ very easy one. Riblah
suits the sense of the passage very well, while on
the other hand Diblah is not known.'' [Diblath.] G.
* RICHES, Rev. xviii. 17, not plural but sin
gular: "In one bourse great riches is come tc
nought " (so also Wisd. v. 8). The original plu
ral was richessis (Fr. richesse), as in Wickhife's
version, and was generally obsolete at the time of
the translation of the A. V. It stood at first also
in Jer. xlviii. 36, but as Trench mentions (Author
ized Version, p. 60) was tacitly corrected, by
changing "is" to "are." H.
RIDDLE (niTl: aXviypa, irpSpXTi/xa: pro-
blema, propositio). The Hebrew word is derived
from an Arabic root meaning " to bend off," " to
twist," and is used for artifice (Dan. viii. 23), a
proverb (Prov. i. 6), a song (Ps. xlix. 4, Ixxviii. 2),
an oracle (Num. xii. 8), a parable (Ezr. xvii. 2),
and in general any wise or intricate sentence (Ps.
xciv. 4; Hab. ii. 6, &c.), as well as a riddle in our
sense of the word (Judg. xiv. 12-19). In these
senses we may compare the phrases o'raoip^ \6-/cxiv,
ffrpoi^dl irapa^oKwv (Wisd. viii. 8 ; Ecclus. xxxix.
2), and TrepiirKoKi] k6ya>v (Eur. Plioin. 497; Ge
sen. s. v.), and the Latin scirpus, which appears to
have been similarly used (Aul. Gell. Noct. AU. xii.
6). Augustine defines an enigma to be any " ob-
scura allegoria" (De Trin. xv. 9), and points out,
as an instance, the passage about the daughter of
the horse-leech in Prov. xxx. 15, which has been
elaborately explained by Bellermann in a mono
graph on the subject (^Enigmata Hebraica, Erf.
1798). Many passages, although not definitely
propounded as riddles, may be regarded as such,
e. g. Prov. xxvi. 10, a verse in the rendering of
which every version differs from all others. The
riddles which the queen of Sheba came to ask of
Solomon (1 K. a. 1, ^\06 ireipciaat aijrhv ev al-
viyfiua-r, 2 Chr. ix. 1) were rather "hard ques
tions " referring to profound inquiries. Solomon
is said, however, to have been very fond of the
riddle proper, for Josephus quotes two profane his
torians (Menander of Ephesus, and Dius) to authen
ticate a story that Solomon proposed numerous
riddles to Hiram, for the non-solution of which Hi
ram was obliged to pay a large fine, until he sum
moned to his assistance a Tyrian named Abdemon,
who not only solved the riddles, but propounded
others which Solomon himself was unable to an
swer, and consequently in his turn incurred the
penalty. The word atyiyfia occurs only once in
the N. T. (1 Cor. xiii. 12, " darkly," ip alriyfiaTi,
comp. Num. xii. 8; Wetstein, Jv. T. ii. 158);
but, in the wider meaning of the word, many in
stances of it occur in our Lord's discourses. Thus
Erasmus applies the term to Matt. xii. 43-45.
The object of such impUcated meanings is obvi
ous, and is well explained by St. Augustine:

2 K. xxv. 20, Ae^AaSa ; Ac^Xa^a.
2 K. xxv. 21, 'PeiSXaea ; Ae§Ka.ea.
Jer. Iii. 9, 10, 26, 27, Ae^AoSa, in both.
c * For interesting notices of this Riblah, see Dr.
Thomson's diary of a " Journey from Aleppo to Lel^
anon," Sibl. Sana, T 693 f. K.

2732

RIDDLE

RIMMON

'manifestis pascimur, obscuris exercemur" (De
Doct. Chiist. ii. 6).
\V"e know that all ancient nations, and especially
Orientals, have been fond of riddles (Ro.senmiiller,
Morgenl. iii. 68). We find traces of the custom
imong the Arabs (Koran, xxv. 35), and indeed
several Arabic books of riddles exist — as Ketdb al
Algdz in 1469, and a book of riddles solved, called
Akd al ihemin. But these are rather emblems and
devices than what we call riddles, although they
are very ingenious. l"he Persians call them Algaz
and Maamma (D'Herbelot, s. v. Algaz). They
were also known to the ancient Egyptians (Jablon
ski, Pantheon JEgypt. 48). They were especially
used in banquets both by Greeks and Romans (Mill-
ler. Dor. u. 392; Athen. x. 457; Pollux, vi. 107;
A. Gell. xviii. 2 ; Diet, of Ant. p. 22), and the kind
of witticisms adopted may be seen in the literary
dinners described by Plato, Xenophon, Athenseus,
Plutarch, and Macrobius. Some have groundlessly
'upposed that the proverbs of Solomon, Lemuel,
and Agur, were propounded at feasts, like the par
ables spoken by our Lord on similar occasions (Luke
xiv. 7, etc.).
Riddles were generally proposed in verse, like
the celebrated riddle of Samson, which, however,
was prpperly (as Voss points out, Jnstt. Oraii.. iv.
11) no riddle at all, because the Philistines did not
possess the only clew on which the solution could
depend. For this reason Samson had carefully con
cealed the fact even from his parents (Judg. xiv.
14, etc.). Other ancient riddles in verse are that
of the Sphinx, and that which is said to have
caused the death of Homer by bis mortification at
being unable to solve it (Plutarch, Vii. Hom.).
Franc. Junius distinguishes between the greater
enigma, where the allegory or obscure intimation
is continuous throughout the passage (as in Ez.
xvii. 2, and in such poems as the Syrinx attributed
to Theocritus); and the lesser enigma or {nral-
viyfia, where the difficulty is concentrated in the
peculiar use of some one word. It may be useful
to refer to oue or two instances of the latter, since
they are very frequently to be found in the Bible,
and especially in the Prophets. Such is the play
on the word D^^ ("a portion," and " Shechem,"
the town of Ephraim) in Gen. xlviii. 22 ; on I^SC
(mdtedr, " a fortified city," and Q^"11?B, Miz-
raim, Egypt) in Mio. vii. 12; on ^P.?f' (Shaked,
"an almond-tree"), and ^|2^ (shdkad, "to
hasten "), in Jer. i. 11; on HQ^'I (Dumah, mean
ing "Edom" and "the land of death"), in Is.
xxi. 11; on TlttJE?, Sheshach (meaning "Baby
lon," and perhaps " arrogance"), in Jer. xxv. 26,
U. 41.
It only, remains to notice the single instance of
a riddle occurring in the N. T., namely, ihe number
of ihe beast. This belongs to a class of riddles
very common among Egyptian mystics, the Gnos
tics, some of the Fathers, and the Jewish Cabbalists.
The latter called it Gematria (i. e. yemp.eTpia) of
which instances may be found in Carpzov (App.
Crit. p. 542), Reland (Ant. Hebr. i. 26), and some

E?n3 (ndchash), "serpent,"
one of the names of the

of the commentators on Rev. xiii. 16-18. Thn«
is made by the Jews
Messiah, because ita
numerical value is equivalent to n'^CT^; and the
names Shushan and Esther are connected together
because the numerical value of the letters com
posing them is 661. Thus the Marcosians regarded
the number 24 as sacred frora its being the sum
of numerical values in the names of two quaternions
of their .^ons, and the Gnostics used the name
Abraxas as an amulet, because its letters amount
numerically to 365. Such idle fancies are not
unfrequent in some of the Fathers. We have
already mentioned (see Cross) the mystic explana
tion by Clem. Alexandrinus of the number 318 in
Gen. xiv. 14, and by TertulUan of the niunber 300
(represented by the letter T or n a-oss) in Judg.
vii. 6, and similar instances are supphed by the
Testimonia of the Pseudo- Cyprian. The most
exact analogies, however, to the enigma on the
name of the beast, are to be found in the so-called
Sibylline verses. We quote one which is exactly
similar to it, the answer being found in the name
'Irjo-oi/s = 888, thus : I = 10-(-^ = 8-fo- = 200
-f 0 = 70 -I- i; = 400 -f- J = 200 = 888. It is
as follows, and is extremely curious :
*Hf et crapKOi^opos dmjTOii OflOLOvn€Voq €V yfj
Te'tro'epa ^lavrisVTa. i^e'pet, rd 5* a(tnova fiji' avTiS
Aitra'fav dcrrpayaAui' (?), dpid^bf £' oAoi' e^ovofiTivw'
'Oktw yap lUtvdSws, oafTO.^ SeKaSas eirt toutois,
'HS* eKaroin-aSag OKTbi ajntrrOTepoii avBpiairoti
Ovvojua &j}\w(Tei.
With examples like this before us, it would bo
absurd to doubt that St. John (not greatly re
moved in time from the Christian forgers of the
Sibylline verses) intended some name as an answer
to the number 666. The true answer must be
settled by the Apocalyptic commentators. Most
of the Fathers supposed, even as far back as Ire-
naeus, tbe name A-dreiyos to be indicated. A list
of the other very numerous solutions, proposed in
different ages, may b§ found in Elliott's Hora
Apocalypticcs, from which we have quoted several
of these instances (Hor. Apoc. iii. 222-234). F. W. F.
* RIB for EYE, Ex. ix. 32 and Is. xxviii. 25
(marg. spelt), in the oldest editions of the A. V.
H.
RIMTMON CJIH"] [pomegranate] : 'Pep/idv:
Remmon). Rimmon, a Benjamite of Beeroth, was
the father of Rechab and Baanah, the murderers
of Ishbosheth (2 Sam. iv. 2, 5, 9).
RIM'MON (T1I£"1 [pomegranate] : 'Pe/itidv:
Remmon). A deity, worshipped by the Syrians
of Damascus, where there was a temple or house
of Rimmon (2 K. v. 18). Traces of the narae of
this god appear also in the proper names Hadad-
rimmon and Tabrimmon, but its signification is
doubtful. Serarius, quoted by Selden (De dis
Syris, ii. 10), refers it to the Heb. rimmon, a
pomegranate, a fruit sacred"to Venus, who is thus
the deity worshipped under this title (compare
Pomona, from pomum). Ursinus (Arboi'etum Bibl.
cap. 32, 7) explains Rimmon as the pomegranate,

a In this passage it is generally thought that She-
lliaoh ia put for Babel, by the principle of alphabetf
sol lurersion known as the atlibash. It will be seen
khAt the passages above quoted are chiefly instances

of paronomasia. On the profbund use of this figun
by the prophets aud other writera. see Ewald, Du
Propfieten d. Alt. Bund. i. 48 ; Steintnal, Ursjfr, d
Sprache, p. 23.

RIMMON
ihe emblem of the fertilizing principle of nature,
the personified natura naturans, a symbol of fre
quent occurrence in the old religions (Balir, Sym.-
bollk, ii. 122). If this be the true origin of the
name, it presents us with a relic of the ancient
tree-worship of the East, which we know to have
prevailed in Palestine. But Selden rejects this
derivation, and proposes instead that Rimmon is
from the root 01*1, rim, " to be high," and sig
nifies "most high;" like the Phoenician Elioun,
and Heb. P"'/^. Hesychius gives 'Pafids, b
v^uTTOS 9e6s. Clericus, Vitringa, Rosenmiiller,
and Gesenius were of the same opinion.
Movers (Phon. i. 196, &c.) regards Rimmon as
the abbreviated form of Hadad-Rimmon (as Peor
for BaiJ-Peor), Hadad being the sun-god of the
Syrians. Combinhig this with the pomegranate,
which was his symbol, Hadad-Rimmon would then
be the sun-god of the late summer, who ripens the
pomegranate and other fruits, and, after infusing
into them his productive power, dies, and is
mourned with the " mourning of Hadadrimmon
in the valley of Megiddon " (Zech. xii. 11).
Between these different opinions there is no pos
sibility of deciding. The name occurs but once,
and there is no evidence on the point. But the
conjecture of Selden, which is approved by Gese
nius, has the greater show of probabiUty. W. A. W.
RIMTMON ('311S"1, i. e. Rimmono [pome
granate]: 7] 'Pefi^civ: Remmono). A city of
Zebulun belonging to the Merarite Levites (1 Chr.
vi. 77). There is great discrepancy between the
list in whioh it occurs and the parallel catalogue
of Josh. xxi. The former contains two names in
place of the four of the latter, and neither of them
the same. But it is not impossible that Dimjaah
(Josh. xxi. 35) may have been originally Rimmon,
as the D and R in Hebrew are notoriously easy to
confound. At any rate there is no reason for sup
posing that Rimmono is not identical with Rimmon
of Zebulun (Josh. xix. 13), in the A. V. Remmon-
METHOAK. The redundant letter was probably
transferred, in copying; from the succeeding word
— at an early date, since all the MSS. appear to
exhibit it, as does also the Targum of Joseph.
[Dr. Robuison inquires whether this Rimmon
raay not be the present Rummdneh, a little north
of Nazareth. See Bibl. Res. iL 340 (2d ed. ). — H.]
G.
RIM'MON niJS'! [pomegranate] : "EpajidsB,
Peiifjuiv, Alex. P€p,p.a>v; [in 1 Chr., Rom. 'Pep,-
i/dv, Vat. Psp/uaii:] Remmon). A town in the
southern portion of Judah (Josh. xv. 32), allotted
to Simeon (Josh. xix. 7; 1 Chr. iv. 32: iu the
former of these two passages it is inaccurately given
in the A. V. as Remmon). In each of the above
lists the name succeeds that of Am, also one of the
cities of Judah and Simeon. In the catalogue of
the places reoccupied by the Jews after the return
from Babylon (Neh. xi. 29) the two are joined
(PSII 1''^: LXX. oJnits: et in Remmon), aud
appear in the A. V. as En-Rimmon. There is
lothing to support this single departure of the
Ueb'rew text from its practice in the other lists
ixcept the fact that the Vatican LXX. (if the
tdition of Mai may be trusted) has joined the
names in each of tlie lists of Joshua, from which
It raay be inferred that at the time of the LXX.

rimmon; the rock 2733
translation the Hebrew text there also showed
them joined. On the other hand there does no*
appear to be any sign of such a thing in th«
.present Hebrew MSS.
No trace of Rimmon has been yet discovered in
the south of Palestine. True, it is mentioned in
the Onomasticon of Eusebius and Jerome; but
they locate it at 15 miles Tiorth of Jerusalem, ob
viously confounding it with the Rock Rimmon.
That it was in the south would te plain, even
though the lists above cited were not extant, from
Zech. xiv. 10, where it is stated to be " south of
Jerusalem," and where it and Geba (the northern
frontier of the southern kingdom) are named as
the limits of the change which is to take place in
the aspect and formation of the country. In this
case Jerome, both in the Vulgate and in his Com
mentary (in Zech. xiv. Off.), joins the two names,
and understands them to denote a hill north of
Jerusalem, apparently well known (doubtless the
ancient Gibeah), marked by a pomegranate tree
— " collis Rimmon (hoc enim Gabaa sonat, ubi
arlior malagranati est) usque ad australem plagam
Jerusalem." G.
RIM'MON PA'REZ (VT]§ IS"! [pome
granate of ihe breach or rent] : 'Pefipidiv tape's)
The name of a march-station in the wilderness
(Num. xxxiii. 19, 20). Rimmon is a common
name of locality. The latter word is the same as
that found in the plural form in Baal-Perazim,
" Baal of the breaches." Perhaps some local con
figuration, such as a " cleft," might account for its
being added. It stands between Rithmah and
Libnah. No place now known has been identified
with it. H. H.
RIM'MON, THB ROOK O'lS'in" sbO:
Tl Tvirpa TOV 'Peppdv, Joseph. Trerpa 'Pod: petra
cujus vocabulum est Remmon ; peira Remnwn).
A cliff (such seems rather the force of the Hebrew
word sela) or inaccessible natural fastness, in which
the six hundred Benjamites who escaped the slaugh
ter of Gibeah took refuge, and maintained them
selves for four months until released by the act of
the general body of the tribes (Judg. xx. 45, 47,
xxi. 13).
It is described as in the "wilderness" (midbar),
that is, the wild uncultivated (though not unpro
ductive) country which lies on the east of the
central highlands of Benjamin, on which Gibeah
was situated — between them and the Jordan Val
ley. Here the name is still found attached to a
village perched on the summit of a conical chalky
hill, visible in all directions, and commanding the
whole country (Rob. Bibl. Res. i. 440).
The hill is steep and naked, the white limestone
everywhere protruding, and the houses clinging to
its sides and forming as it were huge steps. On
the south side it rises to a height of several hun
dred feet from the great ravine of the Wculy Mnt-
yah ; while on the west side it is almost equally
isolated by a cross valley of great depth (Porter,
Handbk. p. 217; Mr. Finn, in Van de Velde,
Memoir, p. 345). In position it is (as the crow
flies) 3 miles east of Bethel, and 7 N. E. of Gibeah
( Tuleil el-Ful). Thus in every particular of name,
charaeter, and situation it agrees with the require-

a la two out of its four occurrences, the article 1«
omitted both in the Hebrew and IJXX.

2734 RING
ments of the Rock Rimmon. It was known in
the days of Eusebius and Jerome, who mention it
(Onomasticon, "Remmon") — though confounding
it with Rimmon in Simeon — as 15 Roman miles
northwards from Jerusalem. G.
RING (ny2K>: SaKTvKios: annulus). The
ring was regarded as an indispensable article of a
Hebrew's attire, inasmuch as it contained his sig
net, and even owed its name to this circumstance,
the term tabbaath being derived from a root sig
nifying " to impress a seal." It was hence the
symbol of authority, and as such was presented by
Pharaoh to Joseph (Gen. xii. 42), by Ahasuerus to
Haman (Esth. iii. 10), by Antiochus to Philip (1
Mace. vi. 15), and by the father to the prodigal
son in the parable (Luke xv. 22). It was treasured
accordingly, and became a proverbial expression for
a most valued object (Jer. xxii. 24; Hag. ii. 23;
Ecclus. xlix. 11). Such rings were worn not only
by men, but by women (Is. iii. 21; Mishn. Shabb.
p. 6, § 3), and are enumerated among the articles
presented by men and women for the service of the
Tabernacle (Ex. xxxv. 22). The signet-ring was
worn on the right hand (Jer. I. c). We may con
clude, from Ex. xxviii. 11, that the rings contained
a stone engraven with a device, or with the owner's
name. Numerous specimens of Egyptian rings have
been discovered, most of them made of gold, very
massive, and containing either a scarabseus or an
engraved stone (Wilkinson, ii. 337). The number

Egyptian Kings.

of rings worn by the Egyptians was truly remark
Hble. The same profusion was exhibited also by
the Greeks and Romans, particularly by men (Diet.
of Ant. "Rings''). It appears also to have pre
vailed among the Jews of the Apostolic age ; for in
Jam. ii. 2, a rich man is described as xpvoo^aKTv-
hios, meaning not simply " with a gold ring," as
in the A. V., but "golden-ringed" (like the
Xpv(r6x('P, "golden-handed" of Lucian, Timon,
c. 20), implying equally well the presence of several
gold rings. For the term gdlil, rendered "ring"
in Cant. v. 14, see Ornaments. W. L. B.
* RINGLEADER (Acts xxiv. 5), applied to
Paul by Tertullus in his speech before Felix, where
it stands for wpaToa-rdTiis. It implies, of itself,
nothing opprobrious, being properly a military title,
namely, of one who stands in front of the ranks
as leader. It marks a bad pretiminence here,
especially from being associated with Xotfx6s,
"plague, pest" (A. V. pestilent fellow). Ring
leader had a good or neutral sense as well as bad
in the older English writers. H.
RIN'NAH (n3"] [a cry of Joy, or wailing] :
'Ai/d; Alex. Pavviav: Rinna). One of the sons
)f Shimon in an obscure and fragmentary gene
alogy of the descendants of Judah (1 Chr. iv. 20).
In the LXX. and Vulgate he is made " the son of
tlanan," Ben-hanan being thus translated.

" nD^*^, This reading is preferred by Bochart
{^l%aleg, Iii. 10), and is connected by him with the

RITHMAH
RI'PHATH (ri5"'T [a breaking in piece$,
terror. Sin.]: 'PupdS; Alex. Piifoe in Chr.: Si.
phath), the second son of Gomer, and the brother of
Ashkenaz and Togarmah (Gen. x. 3). The He
brew text in 1 Chr. i. 6 gives the form Diphath,"
but this arises out of a clerical error similar to that
which gives the forms Rodanim and Hadad for
Dodanim and Hadar (1 Chr. i. 7, 50; Gen. xxxvi.
39). The name Ripliath occurs only in the gei>
ealogical table, and hence there is little to guide us
to the locaUty which it indicates. The name itself
has been variously identified with that of the Rhi-
psean mountains (Knobel), the river Rhebas in Bi-
thynia (Bochart), the Rhibii, a people living eastward
of the Caspian Sea (Schulthess), and the Ripheans
[Riphathaeans ?], the ancient narae of the Paphlago-
nians (Joseph. Ant. i. 6, § 1). This last view is cer
tainly favored by the contiguity of Ashkenaz and
Togarmah. The weight of opinion is, however, in
favor of the Rhipsean mountains, which Snobel
( Valkert. p. 44) identifies etymologically and geo
graphically with the Carpathian range in the N. E.
of Uacia. The attempt of that writer to identify
Riphath with the Celts or Gauls, is evidently based
on the assumption that so important a race ought
to be mentioned in the table, and that there is no
other name to apply to them ; but we have no evi
dence that the Gauls were for any lengtliened period
settled in the neighborhood of the Carpathian range.
The Rhipsean mountains themselves existed more
in the imagination of the Greeks than in reality, and
if the received etymology of that name (from finrai,
"blasts") be correct, the coincidence in sound
with Riphath is merely accidental, and no connec
tion can be held to exist between the names. The
later geographers, Ptolemy (iii. 5, § 15, 19) and
others, placed the RhipEcan range where no range
really exists, namely, about the elevated ground
that separates the basins of the Euxine and Baltic
seas. W. L. B.
RIS'SAH(nB"l [a 7-um]: [Rom. Pea-irdv,
Vat. Aeo-o-a; Alex.] Peiro-a: Ressa). The name,
identical with the word which signifies " a worm,"
is that of a march-station in the wilderness (Num.
xxxiii. 21, 22). It lies, as there given, between
Libnah and Kekelathah, and has been considered
(Winer, s. v.) identical with Rasa in the Peuiing.
liiner., 32 Roman miles from Allah (Elah), and
203 miles south of Jerusalem, distinct, however,
from the 'Prjo-ira of Josephus (Ani. xiv. 15, §
2). No site has been identified with Rissah.
H. H.
RITH'MAH (narjin [seebelow]:'Pa9o,uS:
Rethma). The name of a march-station in the
wilderness (Num. xxxiii. 18, 19). It stands there
next to Hazeroth [Hazehoth], and probably lay
in a N. E. direction from that spot, but no place
now known has been identified with it. The name
is probably connected with Qn""), Arab. |vJ*»,
commonly rendered "juniper," but more correctly
" broom." It carries the affirmative PI, common
in names of locality, and found especially among
many in the catalogue of Num. xxxiii. H. h!

names of the town Tobata and the mountain Tibium
in the N. of Asia Miuor.

RIVER
RIVER. In the sense in whioh we employ the
word, namely, for a perennial stream of considerable
lize, a river is a much rarer object in the East than
in the West. The majority of the inhabitants of
Palestine at the present day have probably never
seen one. With the exception of the Jordan and
the Litany, the streams of the Holy Land are either
entirely dried up in the summer months, and con
verted into hot lanes of glaring stones, or else re
duced to , very small streamlets deeply sunk in a
narrow bed, and concealed from view by a dense
growth of shrubs.
The cause of this is twofold : on the one hand
tha hilly nature of the country — a central mass
of highland descending on each side to a lower
level, and on the other the extreme heat of the
climate during the summer. There is little doubt
that in ancient times the country was more wooded
than it now is, and that, in consequence, the evap
oration was less, and the streams more frequent:
yet this cannot have made any very material dif
ference in the permanence of the water in the
thousands of valleys which divide the hills of Pal
estine. For the various aspects of the streams of the
country which such conditions inevitably produced,
the ancient Hebrews had very exact terms, which
they employed habitually with much precision.
1. For the perennial river, Ndhdr ("inj). Pos
sibly used of the Jordan in Ps. Ixvi. 6, Ixxiv. 15 ;
of the gi'eat Mesopotamian and Egyptian rivers
generally in Gen. ii. 10 , Ex. vii. 19 ; 2 K. xvii. 6 ;
Ez. iii. 15, &o. But with the definite article, han-
Nahar, "the river," it signifies invariably the
Euphrates (Gen. xxxi. 21; Ex. xxiii. 31; Num.
xxiv. 6 ; 2 Sam. *. 16, &c., Ac). With a few ex
ceptions (Josh. i. 4, xxiv. 2, 14, 15; Is. Iix. 19; Ez.
xxxi. 15), ndhdr is uniformly rendered "river" in
our version, and accurately, since it is never applied
to the fleetuig fugitive torrents of Palestine.
2. The term for these is nachal (vn5)i f'"'
whioh our translators have used promiscuously, and
sometimes almost alternately, " valley," "brook,"
and "river." Thus the "brook" and the "val
ley " of Eshcol (Num. xiii. 23 and xxxii. 9); the
"valley," the "brook," and the "river"' Zered
(Num. xxi. 12; Deut. ii. 13; Am. vi. 14); the
" brook" and the "river " of Jabbok (Gen. xxxii.
23; Deut. ii. 37), of Arnon (Num. xxi. 14; Deut. ii.
24), of Kishon (Judg. iv. 7; 1 K. xviii. 40). Com
pare also Deut. iii. 16, &c.°
Neither of these worcls expresses the thing in
tended; but the term "brook" is peculiarly un
happy, since the pastoral idea which it conveys is
quiiie at variance with the general character of the
wadies of Palestine. Many of these are deep ab
rupt chasms or rents in the solid rock of the hills,
and have a savage, gloomy aspect, far reraoved
from that of an English brook. For example, the
Arnon forces its way through a ravine several hun
dred feet deep and about two miles wide across the
top. The Wady Zerka, probably the Jabbok,
vhich Jacob was so anxious to interpose between
Lis family and Esau, is equally unlike the quiet
'meadowy brook" with which we are familiar.

RIVER OF EGYPT 2735
And those which are not so abrupt and savage art
in their width, their irregularity, their forlorn arid
look when the torrent has subsided, utterly unlike
"brooks." Unfortunately our language does not
contain any single word which has both the mean
ings of the Hebrew nachal and its Arabic equiva
lent wady, which can be used at once for a dry val
ley and for the stream which occasionally flows
through it. Ainsworth, in his Annotations (on
Num. xiii. 23), says that " bourne " has both
meanings; but "boui*ne" is now obsolete in Eng
lish, though still in use in Scotland, where, owing
to the mountainous nature of the country, the
"burns" partake of the nature of the wadies of
Palestine in the irregularity of their flow. Mr.
Burton (Geog. Journ. xxiv. 209) adopts the Italian
fiumara. Others have proposed the Indian term
nullah. The double application of the Hebrew
nachal is evident in 1 K . xvii. 3, where Elijah is
commanded to hide himself in (not by) the nachal
Cherith and the brink of the nachal.
3. Yebr (T^M")), a word of Egyptian origin
(see Gesen. T'Aes. p. 558), applied to the Nile only,
and, in the plural, to the canals hy which the Nile
water was distributed throughout Egypt, or to
streams having a connection with that country. It
is the word employed for the Nile in Genesis and
Exodus, and is rendered by our translators " the
river," except in the following passages, Jer. xlvi.
7, 8 ; Am. viii. 8, ix. 5, where they substitute " a
flood " — much to the detriment of the prophet's
metaphor. [See Nile, vol. iii. p. 2140 b.]
4. Yabal C^-J.-'i'^), from a root signifying tumult
or fullness, occurs only six times, in four of which
it is rendered "river," namely, Jer. xvii. 8; Dan.
viii. 2, 3, 6.
5. Peleg (i^B), from an uncertain root, prob
ably connected with the idea of the division of
the land for irrigation, is translated " river " in Ps.
i. 3, Ixv. 9 ; Is. xxx. 25 ; Job xx. 17. Elsewhere it
is rendered " stream " (Ps. xlvi. 4), and in Judg. v.
15, 16, " divisions," where the allusion is probably
to the artificial streams with which the pastoral
and agricultural country of Reuben was irrigated
(Ewald, Dichter, i. 129 ; Gesen. Thes. p. 1103 b).
6. Aphik (p^'QS). This appears to be used
without any clearly distinctive meaning. It is
probably from a root signifying strength or force,
and raay signify any rush or body of water. It is
translated "river" in a few passages: Cant. v.
12 ; Ez. vi. 3, xxxi. 12, xxxii. 6, xxxiv. 13, xxxv. 8,
xxxvi. 4, 6 ; Joel i. 20, iii. 18. In Ps. cxxvi. 4
the allusion is to temporary streams in the dry re
gions of the "south." ' G
RIVER OB EGYPT. Two Hebrew terms
are thus rendered in the A. V.
1. D']"1VH "in? : TTOTO/iiij AiyiwTOv: fluvius
Jigypti (Gen. xv. 18), " the river of Egypt," that
is, the Nile, and here — as the western border of
the Promised Land, of which the eastern border
was Euphrates — the Pelusiac or easternmost
branch.

u Jerome, in his Qifastiones in Genesim, xxvi. 19,
iiaws the foUowing curious distinction between a val-
ey and a torrent : " Et hie pro valle torrens scriptus

est, nunquam enim in valle invenitur puteus aqua
vivcB.^^ !> • It should be " river " (iroTa/jot) in both instan
ces, Kev. xii. 16, 16, and not « flotd " (A. T. ). H

2736

HIVEB OF EGYPT

pdpay^ Aiy^TTTOv, irorafihs kiyv-KTOv, 'Vivok6-
Doupa, pi.: torrens jfEgypti, riims ^gypti (Num.
Kxxiv. 5; Josh. xv. 4, 47; 1 K. viii. 65; 2 K. xxiv.
7; Is. xxvii. 12, in the last passage translated ^' the
stream of Egypt"). It is the common opinion
that this second term designates a desert stream
on the horder of Egypt, still occasionally flowing in
the valley called Wddir-l-' Areesh. The centre of
the valley is occupied by the bed of this torrent,
which only flows after rains, as is usual in the des
ert valleys. The correctness of this opinion can
only be decided by au examination of the passages
in which the term occurs, for the ancient transla
tions do not aid us. When they were made there
must have been great uncertainty on the subject.
In the TjXX. the term is translated by two literal
meanings, or perhaps three, but it ia doubtful
whether 7n5 can be rendered "river," and is once
represented by Rhinocolura (or Rhinocorura), the
name of a town on the coast, near the Wddi-
U' Areesh, to which the modern El- Areesh has suc-

This stream is first mentioned as the point where
the southern border of, the Promised Land touched
the MediteiTanean, which forraed its western bor
der (Num. xxxiv. 3-6). Next it is spoken of as in
the same position with reference to the prescribed
borders of the tribe of Judah (Josh. xv. 4), and
as beyond Gaza and its territory, the westernmost
of the Philistine cities (47). In the later history
we find Solomon's kingdom extending " from the
entering in of Hamath unto the river of Egypt "
(1 K. viii. 65), and Egypt limited in the same man
ner where the loss of the eastern provinces is men
tioned : " And the king of Egypt came not again
any more out of his land : for the king of Babylon
had taken from the river of Egypt unto the river
Euphrates all that pertained to the king of Egypt "
(2 K. xxiv. 7). In Isaiah it seems to be spoken of
as forming one boundary of the Israelite territory,
Euphrates being the bther, "from the channel of
the river unto the stream of Egypt " (xxvii. 12),
appearing to correspond to the limits promised to
Abraham. In certain parallel passages the Nile is distinctly
specified instead of "the Nachal of Egypt." In
the promise to Abraham, the Nile, " the river of
Egypt," is mentioned with Euphrates as bounding
the land in which he then was, and which was
promised to his posterity (Gen. xv. 18). Still
more unmistakably is Sbihor, which is always the
Nile, spoken of as a border of the land, iu Joshua's
description of the temtory yet to be conquered :
* This [is] the land that yet remaineth : all the
legions of the Philistines, and all Geshuri, from
the Sihor, which [is] before Egypt, even unto the
borders of Ekron northward, [which] is counted
to the Canaanite " (Josh. xiii. 2, 3).

t> Herodotus, whose account is rather obacure, says
that from Phoenicia to the borders of the city Cadytis
(probably Gaza) the country belonged to the Palsestine
ftyriauB j from Cadytis to Jenysus to the Arabian king ;
vheo to the Syrians again, as far as Lake Serbonis, near
Mount Casius. At Lake Serbonis, Egypt began. The
eastern extremity of Lake Serbonis is somewhat to the
westward of Rhinocolura, and Mount Casius is more
than halfway from the latter to Pelusium. Herodotus
Bifterwards states, more precisely, that from Jenysus to
"Lake Serbonis and Mount Casius" was three days'
loumey through a desert without water. He evidently

RIVER OF EGYPT
It must be observed that the distinctive charao-
ter of the name, " Nachal of Egypt,^' as has been
well suggested to us, almost forbids our supposing
an insignificant stream to be intended, altiough
such a stream might be of importance from posi
tion as forming the boundary.
If we infer that the Nachal of Egypt is the
Nile, we have to consider the geographical conse
quences, and to compare the name with known
naraes of the Nile. Of the branches of 'the Nile,
the easternmost, or Pelusiac, would neee^arily be
the one intended. On looking atthe map it seems
incredible that the Philistine territory should ever
have exteuded so far; the Wddi^lr-'' Areesh is dis
tant from Gaza, the most western of the Philistine
towns; but Pelusium, at the mouth and most east-
em part of the Pelusiac branch, is very remote.
It must, however, be remembered, that the tract
from Gaza to Pelusium is a desert that could never
have been cultivated, or indeed inhabited by a set
tled population, and was probably only held in the
period to which we refer by marauding Arab tribes,
which may well have been tributary to the Philis
tines, for they raust have been tributary to them or to
the Egyptians, on account of their isolated position
and the steriUty of the country, though no doubt
maintaining a half-independence.** All doubt on
this point seems to be set at rest by a passage, in
a hieroglyphic inscription of Sethee I., head ofthe
XlXth dynasty, b. c. cir. 1340, on the north wall
of the great temple of El-Karnak, which mentions
" the foreigners of the SHASU from the fort of
TARU to the land of KANANA" (SHASU
SHA'A EM SHTEM EN TARU ER PA-KAN'-
ANA, Brugsch, Geogr. Inschr. i. p. 261, No.
1265, pi. xlvii.). The identification of "the fort
of TARU" with any place mentioned by the
Greek and Latin geographers has not yet been sat
isfactorily accomplished. It appeal's, from the bas-
relief, representing the return of Sethee I. to Egypt
from an eastern expedition, near the inscription
just mentioned, to have been between a Leontop-
olis and a branch of the Nile, or perhaps canal, on
the west side of which it was situate, commanding
a bridge {Ibid. No. 1266, pi. xlviii.). The Leoiitop-
olis is either the capital of the I.eontopolite Nome,
or a town in the Heliopolite Nome mentioned by
Josephus {Ant xiii. 3, §'l). In the former case
the stream would probably be the Tanitic branch,
or periiaps the Pelusiac; in the latter, perhaps the
Canal of the Red Sea. AVe prefer the first Leon-
topolis, but no identification is necessary to prove
that the SHASU at this time extended from
Canaan to the east of the Delta (see on the whole
subject Geogr. Inschr. i. pp. 260-206', iii. pp'. 20, 21).
Egypt, therefore, in its most flourishing period,
evidently extended no further than the cast of the
Delta, its eastern boundary being probably the
Pelusiac branch, the territory of the SHASU, an
Arab nation or tribe, lying between Egypt and

makes Mount Casius mark the western boundary of tbe
Syrians ; for although the position of Jenysus is uncer
tain, the whole distance from Gaza (and if Cady ds be not
Gaza, we cannot extend the Arabian territory further
east) does not greatly exceed three days' journey (iii.
5. See Rawlinson's edit. 398-400). If we adopt Capt.
Spratt's identifications of Pelusium and Mount Casius,
we must place them much nearer together, and the
latter far to the west of the usual supposed place (SiM,
town). But in this case Herodotus would intend tht
western extremity of Lalw Serbonis, which seems un
likely.

RIVER OF EGYPT
^tns.&n. It might he supposed that at this time
fche SHASU had made an inroad into Egypt, but
it must be remembered that in the latter period of
the kings of Judah, and during the classical period,
Pelusium was the key of Egypt on this side. The
Philistines, in the time of their greatest power,
which appears to have been contemporary with the
period of the Judges, may well be supposed to
have reduced the Arabs of this neutral territory to
the condition of tributaries, as doubtless was also
done by the Pharaohs.
It must be remembered that the specification of
a certain boundary does not necessarily prove that
tbe actual lands of a state extended so far; the
limit of its sway is sometimes ratbcr to be under
stood. Solomon ruled as tributaries all the king
doms between the Euphrates and the land of the
Philistines and the border of Egypt, when the
Land of Promise appears to have been fully occu
pied (1 K. iv. 21, comp. 24). When, therefore,
it is specified that the Philistine territory as far as
the Nachal-Mizraim remained to be taken, it need
scarcely be inferred that the territory to be inhab
ited by the Israelites was to extend so far, and this
stream's being, an actual boundary of a tribe may
be explained on the same principle.
If, with the generality of critics, we think that
the Nachal-jMizraira is the Wddi-l-'' Areesh, we
must conclude that the name Shihor is also applied
to the latter, although elsewhere designating the
Nile,« for we have seen that Nachal-Mizraim and
Shihor are used interchangeably to designate a
stream on the border of the Promised Land. This
difficulty seems to overthrow the coramon opinion.
It must, however, be remembered that in Joshua
xiii. 3, Shihor has the article, as though actually
or originally an appellative, the former seeming to
be the more obvious inference from the context.
[Shihor of Egypt; Sihor.]
The word Nachal may be cited on either side.
Certainly in Hebrew it is rather used for a torrent
or stream than for a river; but the name Nachal-
Mizraim may come from a lost dialect, and the
parallel Arabic word wddee^ lS'^N t^o^S^* ^^'^-
" ^
narily used for valleys and their winter-torrents,
as in tiie case of the WadiA-^ Areesh itself, has
been employed by the Arabs in Spain for true
rivers, the Guadalquivir, etc. It may, however, be
suggested, that iu Nachal-Mizi'aira we have the
ancient forra of the Neel-Misr of the Arabs, and
that Nachal was adopted from its similarity of
sound to the original of NetAos. It may, indeed,
be objected that NeiAos is held to be of Iranian
origin. The answer to this is, that we find Javan,
we will not say the lonians, called by the very
name, HAXEN, used in the Rosetta Stone for
•* Greek" (SHAEE EN HANEN, T0I2 TE
EAAHNIK0I2 TPAMMASINJ, ia the lists of
countries and nations, or tribes, conquered by, or

RIZPAH

27S7

a There is a Shihor-Ubnath in the north of Pales
tine, mentioned in Joshua (xix. 26), and supposed to
¦orrespoud to the Belus, if its name signify " the river
df glass." But we have no ground for giving Shihor
the signification " river ; " and when the connection
of the Bgyptians, and doubtless of the Phoenician and
other colonists of northeastern Egypt, with the mauu-
focture of glass is remembered, it seems more likely
that Shihor-liboath was named from the Nile.
b We agree with Lepsius iu thi« identification ( (Jeber

subject to, the Pharaohs, as early as the reign <rf
Amenoph HI., b. c. cir. 1400.'' Au Iranian and
even a Greek connection with Egypt as early at,
the time of the Exodus, is therefore not to be
treated as an impossibility. It is, however, re
markable, that the word NeTAos does not occur in
the Homeric poems, as though it were not of
Sanskrit origin, but derived from the Egyptians oi
Phoenicians. Brugsch compai'es the Egyptian MUAW EN
KEM "Water of Egypt," mentioned in the phrase
" From the water of Egypt as far as NEHEREEN
[Mesopotamia] inclusive," but there is no internal
evidence in , favor of his conjectural identification
with the stream of Wddi-l-'' Areesh {Geog. Irischr.
i. 54, 55, pi. vii. no. 303). R. S. P.
* Dr. J. L. Porter {HandbooTc^ and Ai't. iu
Kitto's Cyclop, of Bibl. Lit.) proposes to solve the
difficulty created bythe terms Nahar-MizraiTa and
Nachat-MizTnim by making " the proper distinc
tion between the country given in covenant promise
to Abrahara, and that actually allotted to th<*
Israelites." The Nile may have been in contem
plation in the original promise, and the term
iV^a/ia?*-Mizraim- may have been 'f the designation
of the Nile in Abraham's time, before the Egyp
tian word yeor becarae known."
Nachal is comniouly used in the Hebrew Scrip
tures iu its primary meaning of a " torrent" or an
intermittent brook — as Job vi. 15, the brook that
dries away, Is. xv. 7, and Amos. vi. 14, the brook
of the desert, the wady lying between Kerek and
Gebal — and it is highly improbable that this
term would have been chosen to designate the vast
and ceaseless volume of the NUe. Robinson {Rhys.
Geog. of ihe ffoly Land, p. 123) gives his mature
opinion in favor of the rendering " torrent of
Egypt, which of old was the boundary between
Palestine and Egypt. At the present day it is
called Wady eVArish ; and comes from the passes
of Jebel ei-Tih towards Sinai, draining the great
central longitudinal basin of the desert. It reaches
the sea without a permanent stream; and is stiU
the boundary between the two countries. Near its
mouth is a small viUage, el-'Arish, on the site of
the ancient Rhinocolura, as is shown by columns
and other Roman remains."
Upon the whole the probabilities are in favor of
this identification, and the weight of authority ia
upon its side. J. P. T.
* RIVERS OF WATER. [Foot,Wateb-
IIJG WITH THE.]
RIZ'PAH (nS^n : 'Pe(r<p<i; [Alex, m 2 Sam.
xxi. 8, 'Pe<p<l>ad\] Joseph. 'Puitr(pd. Respha), con
cubine to king ISauI, and mother of his two sons
Armoni and Mephibosheth. Like many others of
the prominent female characters of the Old Testa
ment — Ruth, Rahab, .Jezebel, etc. — Rizpah would
seem to have been a foreigner, a Hivite, descended
frora one of the ancient worthies of that nation,
Ajah or Aiah,<^ son of Zibeon, whose name and
der Namen der lonier avf den Mg. Denkmalem,
Konigl. Akad. Berlin). His views have, however, been
combated by Bunsen {Egypt^s Place, iii. 60a-606),
Brugsch {Geogr. Inschr. ii. 19, pi. xiii. no. 2), and Da
Rougd {To7nbeau d^AAmes, p. 43).
c The Syriac-Peshito aud Arabic Versions, iu 2 Sam
iii., read Ana for Aiah — the name of another ancien j
Hivite, the brother of Ajah, aud equally the son of
Zibeou. But it is not fair to lay much stress on this,
as it may be only the eiror — easily made — of a care-

2738

RIZPAH

fame are preserved in the Ishmaelite record of Gen.
xxxvi. If this be the case, Saul was commencing
a practice, which .seems with subsequent kings to
have grown almost into a rule, of choosing non-
Israelite women for their inferior wives. David's
intrigue with Bathsheba, or Bath-shua, the wife of
a Hittite, and possibly herself a Canaanitess," is per
haps not a case in point; but Solomon, Rehoboam,
and their successors, seem to have had their harems
filled with foreign women.
After the death of Saul and occupation of the
country west of the Jordan by the Philistines,
Rizpah accompanied the other inmates of the royal
family to their new residence at Mahanaim ; and it
is here that her name is first introduced to us as
the subject of an accusation leveled- at Abner by
Ishbosheth (2 Sam. iii. 7), a piece of spite which
led first to Abner's death through Joab's treachery,
and ultimately to the murder of Ishbosheth him
self. The accusation, whether true or false — and
from Abner's vehement denial we should naturally
conclude that it was false — involved more than
meets the ear of a modern and, English reader.
For amongst the Israelites it was considered " as a
step to tbe throne to have connection with the
widow or the mistress of the deceased king." (See
Michaehs, Laws of Moses, art. 54.) It therefore
amounted to an insinuation that Abner was about
to make an attempt on the throne.
We hear nothing more of Rizpah till the tragic
story which has made her one of the most familiar
objects to young and old in the whole Bible (2 Sam.
xxi. 8-11). Every one can appreciate the love
and endurance with which the mother watched over
the bodies of her two sons and her five relatives, to
save them from an indignity peculiarly painful to
the whole of the ancient world (see Ps. Ixxix. 2;
Hom. JL i. 4, 5, &c., &c.). But it is questionable
whether the ordinary conception of the scene is
accurate. The seven victims were not, as the A.
y. implies, "hung;" they were crucified. The
seven crosses were planted in the rock on the top
of the sacred hill of Gibeah ; the hill which, though
not Saul's native place,* was through his long resi
dence there so identified with him as to retain his
name to the latest existence of the Jewish nation

less transcriber; or of one so amUiar with the an
cient names as to have confounded one with the
other. a Comp. Gen. xxxviii., where the "daughter of
Shua," tho Canaanitess, should really be Bath-shua.
i Saul was probably born at Zelah, where Kish's
Bepulchre, and therefore hia home, was situated.
[Zelah.] " "ITIS, 2 Sam. xxi. 6.
ll pt^n, luis-Sak.
c 1. ^."fS ; apirayrj, apwa.yp.aTa: rapintB.
2. p'lB, from p"lQ, "break:" iSiici'a: diUL-
ceratia. 3. ^t^, from ^^tE7, " waste : " oAcSpos : rapince.
i. '5^! npovopr^: prada: "prey," "spoil."
lUoOTir.] (2.) Bobber: —
1. tf^Sj P'"'*' '""» ^J2, "rob:" wpoyop^av:
I istnns. 2. Y"*"]?! P»*- <* V"]?) " l"™'^ ¦ " ^o'Mw : tore :
Ao. n. 18,' " breaker."

ROBBERY
(1 Sam. xi. 4, &c., and see Joseph. B. X T. 8, j
1). The whole or part ot this hill seems at the
time of this occurrence to have been in some special
manner 0 dedicated to Jehovah, possibly the spot
on which Ahiah the priest had deposited the Ark
when he took refuge in Gibeah during the Philis
tine war (1 Sam. xiv. 18). The victims were sacri
ficed at the beginning of barley-harvest — the sacred
and festal time of the Passover — and in the full
blaze of the summer sun tliey hung till the fall of
the periodical rain in October. During the whole
of that time Rizpah remained at the foot of the
crosses on which the bodies of her sons were ex
posed : the Mater dolorosa, if the expression may
be allowed, of the ancient dispensation. She had
no tent to shelter her from the scorching sun which
beats on that open spot all day, or from the drench
ing, dews at night, but she spread on the rocky
floor the thick mourning garment of black sack
cloth'^ which as a widow she wore, and crouching
there she watehed that neither vulture nor jack^
should molest the bodies. We may surely be justi
fied in applying to Rizpah the words with which
another act of womanly kindness was commended,
and may say, that " wheresoever the Bible shall go,
there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be
told for a memorial of her." G.
ROAD. This word occurs but once in the
Authorized Version of the Bible, namely, in 1
Sam. xxvii. 10, where it is used in the sense of
"raid" or "inroad," the Hebrew word (!3ti?S)
being elsewhere (e. g. ver. 8, xxiii. 27, xxx. 1, 14,
&c.) rendered "invade" and "invasion."
A road in the sense which we now attach to
the term is expressed in the A. V. by " way " and
"path." [Way.] G.
* ROBBERS. [Churches, Robbers of;
Thieves.] ROBBERY. « Whether in the larger sense
of plunder, or the more limited sense of theft, sys
tematically organized, robbery has ever been one of
the principal employments of the nomad tribes of
the East. From the time of Ishmael to the present
day, the Bedouin has been a " wild man," and a
robber by trade, and to carry out his objects snc-

3. D'^BS, Job xviii. 9 : Sii/iin-es : sitis. Taigmn,
with A. v., has " robbers ; " but jt is most commonly
rendered as LXX., Job v. 5, sitientes.
4. ^"TE7 : A.i)(rrn! : latro : from T7CJ. " waste."
- T '
5. nptt? : exflpds : deripiens : A. V. " spoiler."
6. 332 : /tAeVnj! : fur : A. V. " thief."
(3.) Rob : —
I* * f 3 * Slap-ira^u : depopulor.
2* ^f3 r cafiaipeta : violenter aufero.
3. "T-iy, "return," "repeat;" hence in Pi. sor.
round, circumvent (Ps. cxix. 61): tispnttjucipiai.: ar-
cumplecti; usually afllrm, reiterate assertions (Ges. p.
997). 4. yap, " cover," « hide : " jTrepi-ifu : affigo (Qei
p. 1190).
5. HDt^ : SiapTTa^to : dhripio.
6. DptI? (same as last) : wpovopieva : deprmtiM.
7. 333 : (cAenTu : furor . A. V. ¦' steal."

ROBBERY
nesfiilly, so far from being esteemed disgraceful, is
regarded as in the highest degree creditable (Gen.
xvi 12: Burckhardt, Notes on Bed. i. 137, 167).
An instance of an enterprise of -4, truly Bedouin
sharacter, but distinguished by the exceptional
features belonging to its principal actor, is seen in
the night-foray of David (1 Sam. xxvi. 6-12), with
which also we may fairly compare Hom. II. IC.
204, &c. Predatory inroads on a large scale are
seen in the incursions of the Sabseans and Chal-
daeans on the property of Job (Job i. 15, 17); the
revenge coupled with plunder of Simeon and Levi
(Gen. xxxiv. 28, 29); the reprisals of the Hebrews
upon the Midianites (Num. xxxi. 32-54), and the
frequent and often prolonged invasions of "spoil
ers " upon the Israelites, together with their re
prisals, during the period of the Judges and Kings
(Judg. ii. 14, vi. 3, 4; 1 Sam. xi., xv. ; 2 Sam.
viii., X.; 2 K. Y. 2; 1 Chr. >-. 10, 18-22). Indi
vidual instances, indicating an unsettled state of
the country during the same period, are seen in
the " liers-in-wait " of the men of Shechem (Judg.
ix. 25), and the mountain retreats of David in the
cave of Adullam, the hill of Hachilah, and the
wilderness of Maon, and his abode in Ziklag, in
vaded and plundered in Hke manner by the Amalek
ites (1 Sam. xxii. 1, 2, xxiii. 19-25, xxvi. 1, xxvii.
6-10, xxx. 1).
Similar disorder in the country, complained of
more than once by the prophets (Hos. iv. 2, vi. 9;
Mic. ii. 8), continued more or less through Mac-
cabsan down to Roman times, favored by the cor
rupt administration of some of the Roman gover
nors, in accepting money in redemption of punish
ment, produced those formidable bands of robbers,
so easily collected and with so much difficulty sub
dued, who found shelter in the caves of Palestine
and Syria, and who infested tbe country even in
the time of our Lord, almost to the very gates of
Jerusalera (Luke x. 30; Acts v. 36, 37, xxi. 38).
[JudasofGalii.ee; Caves.] In the later his
tory also of the country the robbers, or sicarii, to
gether with their leader, John of Gischala, played
a conspicuous part (Joseph. S. J. iv. 2, § 1 ; 3, § 4 ;
7, § 2).
The Mosaic law on the subject of theft is con
tained in Ex. xxii., and consists of the following
enactments : —
1. He who stole and killed an ox or a sheep, was
to restore five oxen for the ox, and four sheep for
the sheep.
2. If the 'Stolen animal was found alive the
thief was to restore double.
3. If a man was found stealing in a dwelling-
house at night, and was killed in the act, the homi
cide was not held guilty of murder.
4. If the act was committed during daylight, the
thief might not be killed, but was bound to make
full restitution or be sold into slavery.
5. If money or goods deposited in a man's house
vere stolen therefrom, the thief, when detected, was
.0 pay double: but
6. If the thief could uot be found, the master of
the house was to be examined before the judges.
7., If an animal given in charge to a man to
keep were stolen from him, i. e. through his negli
gence, he waa to make restitution to the owner.
[Oath.] There seems no reason to suppose that the law
underwent any alteration in Solomon's time, as
Uichaelis supposes; the expression in Prov. vi. 30,
U, il, that a thief detected in stealing should restore

ROGELIM

2739

sevenfold, i. e. to the full aniount, and for this pur
pose, even give all the substance of his house, and
thus in case of failure be liable to servitude (Mi
chaelis, Laws of Moses, § 284). On the other band,
see Bertheau on Prov. vi. ; and Keil, Arch. Hebr
§ 154. Man-stealing was punishable with death
(Ex. xxi. 16; Deut. xxiv. 7). Invasion of right
in land was strictly forbidden (Deut. xxvii. 17 ; Is.
v. 8; Mic. ii. 2).
The question of sacrilege does not properly come
within the scope of the present article. H. W. P.
* ROBE. [Mantle.]
ROB'OAM ('Pofiodp.: Roboam), Ecclus. xlvii.
23 ; Matt. i. 7. [Rehoboam.]
ROE, ROEBUCK (""a^, izHbi (m. ) ; H^"?^,
izebiyydh ({.): dopicdf, SSpicaii', SopKdStov: caprea,
damula). There seems to be little or no doubt
that the Hebrew word, which occurs frequently in
the 0. T., denotes some species of antelope, prob
ably the Oazella dorcas, a native of Egypt and
North Africa, or the 0. Arabica of Syria and
Arabia, which appears to be a variety only of the
dorcas. The gazelle was allowed as food (Deut.
xii. 15, 22, etc. ) ; it is mentioned as very fleet of
foot (2 Sam. ii. 18; 1 Chr. xii. 8); it was hunted
(Is. xiii. 14; Prov. vi. 5); it was celebrated for its
loveliness (Cant. ii. 9, 17, viii. 14). The gazelle
is found in F-sypt, Barbary, and Syria. Sta,nley,
(S. if P. p. 207) says that the signification of the
word .\jaIon, the valley " of stags," is still justified
by " the ga^selles which the peasants hunt 'on ita
mountain slopes." Thomson (The Land and the
Book, p. 172) savs that tbe mountains of Naphtali
" abound in gazelles to this day."

Gazelia Arabica.
The ariel gazelle (G. Arabica), which, if not ¦
difiTereut species, is at least a well-marked variety
of the doi'cas, is common in Syria, and is hunted
by the Arabs with a falcon and a greyhound ; the
repeated attacks of the bird upon the head of the
animal so bewilder it that it falls an easy prey to
the greyhound, which is trained to watch the flight
of the falcon. Many of these antelopes are also
taken in pitfalls into which they are driven by the
shouts of the hunters. The large, full, soft eye of
the gazelle has long been the theme of oriental
- W.H.
ROG'BLIM (D''^5'"l [fuller's place, Ges.].
[Rom. 'PayeKXip.; Vat.'] PwyA\iip, and so Alex.,
though once PayeXfii^: Rogelim). The residence
of Barzillai the Gileadite (2 Sam. xvii. 27, xix. 31)
in the highlands east of the Jordan. It ia mea-

2740 ROHGAH
tioned on this occasion only. Nothing is said to
^uide us to its situation, and no name at all resem
bling it appears to have been hitherto discovered on
the spot.
If interpreted as Hebrew the name is derivable
from regel, the foot, and signifies the "fullers" or
"washers," who were in the habit (as they still
are in the East) of using theu* feet to tread the
cloth which they are cleansing. But this is ex
tremely uncertain. The same word occurs in the
name Ek-rogel. G.
ROH'GAH (nSrjin, Cethih, T^\'rn, KeH
[outcries]: "Pooya.'-, Alex. Ovpaoya'' Roaga). An
Asherite, of the sons of Sharaer (1 Chr. vii. 34).
KO'IMUS i'Foifios). Rehum 1 (1 Esdr. v. 8).
The name is not traceable in the Vulgate.
ROLL (riv^Q: Ke(paKis)- A book in ancient
times consisted of a single long strip of paper or
parchment, which was usually kept rolled up on a
stick, and was unrolled when a person wished to
read it. Hence arose the term megillah, from
^a^a/,tt " to roll," strictly answering to the Latin
volumen, whence comes our volume ; hence also the
expressions, " to spread " and " roll together," ^ in
stead of "to open" and "to shut" a book. The
full expression for a book was " a roll of writing,"
or "a roll of a book" (Jer. xxxvi. 2; Ps. xl. 7;
"Ejz. ii. 9), but occasionally "roll" stands by itself
(Zech. V. 1, 2; Ezr. vi. 2). The K€<paKis of the
LXX. originally referred to the ornamental knob
(the umbilicus of the Latins) at the top of the stick
or cylinder round which the roll was wound. The
use of the term megillah impUes, of course, the ex
istence of a soft and pliant material: what this ma
terial was in the Old Testament period, we are not
informed ; but as a knife was required for its de
struction (Jer. xxxvi. 23), we infer that it was
parchment. The roll was usually vrritten on one
side only (Mishn. Erub. 10, § 3), and hence the
particular notice of one that was " written within
and without" (Ez. ii. 10). The writing was ar
ranged in columns, resembling a door in shape,
and hence deriving their Hebrew name,^ just as
"column," fi'om its resemblance to a co/uTwna or
pillar. It has been asserted that the term megillah
does not occur before the 7th cent. b. c, being
first used by Jeremiah (Hitzig, in Jer. xxxvi. 2);
and the conclusion has been drawn that the use of
such materials as parchment was not known until
that period (Ewald, Gesch. i. 71, note; Gesen.
Thes. p. 289). This is to assume, perhaps too con
fidently, a late date for the composition of Ps. xl.,
and to ignore the collateral evidence arising out of
the expression "roU together" used by Is. xxxiv.
4, and also out of the probable reference to the
Pentateuch in Ps. xl. 7, " the roll of the book," a
copy pf which was deposited by the side of the
Ark (Deut. xxxi. 26). We may here add that the
term in Is. viii. 1, rendered in the A. V. "roll,"
more correctly means tablet. W. L. B.
* " Flying roll " (Zech. v. 1, 2) means a book or
parchment rolled up, represented in the prophet's
vision as seen borne through the air. It was an
expressive symbol of Jehovah's judgments written

h In the Hebrew, E7"15 (2 K. xix. 14) and bbs
lla. xxxtT. 4) ; in the Greek, avaimitrireiv and jrrvirffeic
finke ir. 17, 20).

ROMAN EMPIRE
out as it were, and decreed, which at his Gidding
would descend and sweep- away the ungodly. Sea
KeU, Die Kleinen Propheten, p. 560 f. (1866 ). H
* ROLLER (Vinn, from a verb = "to
4end ") = bandage, so called from its form as a
roll, Ezek. xxx. 21. The prophet declares that the
arm of Pharaoh should be broken and no art or
appliance of surgery could enable it to wield again
the sword of the oppressor. H.
ROMAM'TI-E'ZER OT.? "'^ISftO'll :
'Pw/iCTfll-efep; [Vat. Ptt,/.iei, Po,ne\Xf""^0 •*-''^-
Pupep6i-t(ep in 3 Chr. xxv. 4, but Pap,eB-pie(ef
in 1 Chr. xxv. 31. Romemihiezer). One of the
fourteen sons of Heman, and chief of the 24th
division of the singers in the reign of David (1
Chr. xxv. 4, 31). [HoTBiB, Amer. ed.]
• RO'MAN, RO'MANS ('Pupalos: Roma
nus), 1 Mace. viii. 1, 23-29, xu. 16, xiv. 40, xv. 16;
2 Mace. viii. 10, 36, xi. 34; John xi. 48; Acts xvi.
21, 37, 38, xxii. 25-29, xxiii. 27, xxv. 16, xxviii. 17.
[Roman Empire, Rome.] A.
* ROMAN CITIZENSHIP. [Citizen
ship.] ROMAN EMPIRE. The history of the Ro
man Empire, properly so called, extends over a pe
riod of rather more than five hundred years, namely,
from the battle of Actium, E. c. 31, when Augustus
became sole ruler of the Roman world, to the abdi
cation of Augustulus, A. D. 476. The Empire, how
ever, ill the sense of the dominion of Rome over a
large number of conquered nations, was in fill]
force and had reached wide limits some time be
fore the monarchy of Augustus was established.
The notices of Roman history which occur in the
Bible are confined to the last century and a half of
the commonwealth and the first century of the im
perial monarchy.
The first historic mention of Rome in the Bible
is in 1 Mace. i. 10. Though the date of the founda
tion of Rome coincides nearly with the beginning
of the reign of Pekah in Israel, it was not till the
beginning of the 2d century H. c. that the Romans
had leisure to interfere in the afiairs of the East.
When, however, the power of Carthage had been
eflTectually broken at Zama, i;. c. 202, Roman arms
and intrigues soon made themselves felt through
out Macedonia, Greece, and Asia Minor. About
the year 161 B. c. Judas Maccabseus heard of the
Romans as the conquerors of Phihp, Perseus, and
Antiochus (1 Mace. viii. 5, 6). " It was told him
also how they destroyed and brought under their
dominion all other kingdoms and isles tliat at any
time resisted them, but with their friends and
such as relied upon them they kept amity " (viii.
11, 12). Ill order to strengthen himself against
Demetrius king of Syria he sent ambassadors to
Rome (viii. 17), and concluded a defensive alliance
with the senate (viii. 22-32). This was renewed by
Jonathan (xii. 1) and by Simon (xv. 17; Joseph.
Ant. xii. 10, § 6, xiii. 5, § 8; 7, § 3). Notices of
the embassy sent by Judas, of a tribute paid to
Rome by the Syrian king, and of further inter
course between the Romans and the Jews, occur
in 2 Mace. iv. 11, viii. 10, 36, xi. 34. In the

= nSn^^ (A. V. « leaves," Jer. xxxvi. 23). Hit
zig maintains that the word means "leaves," and
that the megillah in this case v as a book like our own
consisting of numerous pages.

ROMAN EMPIRE
»urae of the narrative mention is made of the
Roman senate (t!i fiovKevT^piov, 1 Mace. xii. 3),
jf the consul Lucius (i Bttotos, 1 Mace. xv. 15,
16), and the Roman constitution is described in a
somewhat distorted form (1 Mace. viii. 14-16).
The history of the Maccabsean and Idumsean
dynasties forms no part of our preseut subject.
[Maccabees; Herod.] Here a brief summary
3f the progress of Roman dominion in Judcea will
suffice. In the year 65 b. c, when Syria was made a
lioman province by Pompey, the Jews were still
governed by one of the Asmonsean princes. Aristo-
bulus had lately driven his brother Hyrcanus from
the chief priesthood, and was now in his turn at
tacked by Aretas, king of Arabia Petraea, the ally
of Hyrcanus. Pompey's lieutenant, M. .^Erailius
Scaurus, interfered in the contest b. c. 64, and the
next year Pompey himself marched an army into
Judasa and took Jerusalem (Joseph. Ani. xiv. 2,
3, 4; B. J. i. 6, 7). From this time the Jews
were practically under the government of Rome.
Hyrcanus retained the high-priesthood and a titu
lar sovereignty, subject to the watchful control of
his minister Antipater, an active partisan of the
Rximan interests. Finally, Antipater's son, Herod
the Great, was made king by Antony's interest,
B. c. 40, and confirmed in the kingdom by Augus
tus, B. c. 30 (Joseph. Ani. xiv. 14, xv. 6). The
.Jews, hdwever, were all this time tributaries of
Rome, and their princes in reality were mere Ro
man procuratoi-s. Julius Csesar is said to have ex
acted from them a fourth part of their agricul
tural produce in addition to the tithe paid to
Hyrcanus (Ant. xiv. 10, § 6). Roman soldiers
were quartered at Jerusalem in Herod's time to
support him in his authority (Ant. xv. 3, § 7).
Tribute was paid to Rome, and an oath of allegiance
to the emperor as well as to Herod appears to
have been taken by the people (Ant. xvii. 2, § 2).
On the banishment of Archelaus, A. D. 6, Judaea
became a mere appendage of the province of
Syria, and was governed by a Roman procurator,
who resided at C^sarea. Galilee and the adjoining
districts were still left under the government of
Herod's sons and other petty princes, whose do
minions and titles were changed from time to
time by successive emperors : for details see Herod.
Such were the relations of the Jewish people to
the Roman government at the time when the N. T.
history begins. An ingenious illustration of this
state of things has been drawn from the condition
of British India. The Governor General at Cal
cutta, the subordinate governors at Madras and
Bombay, and the native princes, whose dominions
have been at one time enlarged, at another incorpo
rated with the British presidencies, find their re
spective counterparts in the governor of Syria at
Antioch, the procurators of Judaea at C^sarea, and
the members of Herod's family, whose dominions
were alternately enlarged and suppressed by the
fioman emperors (Conybeare and Howson, Life of
3t. Paul, i. 27). These and other characteristics of
-toman rule corae before us constantly in the N. T,
Thus we hear of Caesar the sole king (John xix. 15)
— of Cyfenius, "governor of Syria" (Luke ii. 2)
— of Pontius Pilate, Felix, and Festus, the " gov-
imors," /. e. procurators, of Judaea — of the "te-
'rarchs " Herod, Philip, and Lysanias (Luke iii.
I) — of "king Agrippa" (Acts xxv. 13) — of Ro
man soldiers, legions, centurions, pubUcans — of the
tribute-money (Matt. xxii. 19) — the taxing of

ROMAN EMPIRE 2741
" the whole worid " (Luke ii. 1) — Italian and Au
gustan cohorts (Acts x. 1, xxvii. 1) — the appeal
to Caesar (Acts xxv. 11). Three of the Roman em
perors are mentioned in the N. T. — Augustus
(Luke ii. 1), Tiberius (Luke iii. 1), and Claudius
(Acts xi. 28, xviii. 2). Nero is alluded to under
various titles, as Augustus (Se^aarSs) and Caesar
(Acts xxv. 10, 11, 21, 25; Phil. iv. 22), as 6 Kii-
pios, "my lord" (Acts x.xv. 26), and apparently
m other passages (1 Pet. ii. 17; Rom. xiii. 1).
Several notices of the provincial administration of
the Romans and the condition of provincial cities
occur in the narrative of St. Paul's journeys (Acts
xiii. 7, xvi. 12, 35, 38, xviii. 12, xix. 38).
In illustration of the sacred narrative it may be
well to give a general account, though necessarily
a short and imperfect one, of the position of the
emperor, the extent of the empire, and the admin ¦
istration of the provinces in the time of our Lord
and his Apostles. Fuller information will be found
under special articles.
I. When Augustus became sole ruler of the Ro
man world he was in theory simply the first citizen
of the republic, entrusted with temporary powers
to settle the disorders of the State. Tacitus says
that hewas neither king nor dictator, but "prince"
(Tac. Ami. i. 9 ), a title implying no civil authority,
but simply the position of chief member of the sen
ate (princeps senatus). The old magistracies were
retained, but the various powers and prerogatives
of each were conferred upon Augustus, so that while
others commonly bore thi chief oflacial titles, Au
gustus had the supreme control of every department
of the state. Above all he was the Emperor (Im-
perator). This word, used originally to designate
any one entrusted with the imperium, or full mili
tary authority over a Roman army, acquired a new
significance when adopted as a permanent title by
Julius Caesar. By his use of it as a constant pre
fix to his name in the city and in tbe camp he
openly asserted a paramount military authority over
the state. Augustus, by resuming it, plainly indi
cated, in spite of much artful concealment, the real
basis on which his power rested, namely, the sup •
port of the army (Merivale, Roman Empire, vol.
iii.). In the N. T. the emperor is comraonly des
ignated by the family name " Caesar," or the dig
nified and almost sacred title " Augustus " (for its
meaning, comp. Ovid, Fasti, i. 609). Tiberius is
called by implication riys/uii/ in Luke iii. 1, a title
applied in the N. T. to Cyrenius, Pilate, and
others. Notwithstanding the despotic character of
the government, the Romans seem to have shrunk
firom speaking of their ruler under his mihtary title
(see Merivale, Rom. Empire, iii. 452, and TiO^e) or
any other avowedly despotic appellation. The use
of the word 6 nipio^, dominus, " my lord," in Acta
xxv. 26, marks the progress of Roman servility be
tween the time of Augustus and Nero. Augustu.^!
and Tiberius refused this title. Caligula first bore
it (see Alford's note in I. c. ; Ovid, Fast. ii. 142).
The term fiaaiKeis, "king," in John xix. 15, 1
Pet. ii. 17, cannot be closely pressed.
' The Empire was nominally elective (Tac. Ann
xiii. 4); but practically it passed by adoption (see
Galba's speech in Tac. Hist. i. 15), and till Nero's
time a sort of hereditary right seeraed to be recog
nized. The dangers inherent in a military govern
ment were, on the whole, successfully averted till
the death of Pertinax, A. d. 193 (Gibbon, ch. iii.
p. 80), but outbreaks of miUtary violence were not
wanting in this earlier period (comp. Wenck's not«

2742

ROMAN EMPIRE

oo Gibbon, I. c). The army was systematically
bribed by donatives at the commencement of each
reign, and the mob of tbe capital continually fed
and amused at tbe expense of the provinces. We
are reminded of the insolence and avarice of the
soldiers in Luke iii. 14. Tlie reigns of Caligula,
Nero, and Domitian show that an emperor might
shed the noblest blood with impunity, so long as
he abstained from offending the soldiery and the
populace. II. Extent ofthe Empire. — Cicero's description
of the Greek states and colonies as a "fringe on the
skirts of barbarism " (Cic. De Rep. ii. 4) has been
well applied to the Roman dominions before the
conquests of Pompey and Cassar (Merivale, Rom.
Empire, iv. 409). The Roman Empire was still
confined to a narrow strip encircling tbe Mediter
ranean Sea. Pompey added Asia jMinor and Syria.
Caesar added Gaul. The generals of Augustus over
ran the N. W. portion of Spain and the country
between the Alps and the Danube. The bounda
ries of the empire were now the Atlantic on the
W., the Euphrates on the E., the deserts of Africa,
the cataracts of the Nile, and the Arabian deserts
on the S., the British Channel, the Rhine, the
Danube, and the Black Sea on tbe N. The only
subsequent conquests of importance were those
of Britain by Claudius, and of Dacia by Trajan.
The only independent powers of importance were
the Partbians on the E. and the Germans on the N.
The population of the empire in the time of
Augustus has been calculated at 85,000,000 (Meri
vale, Rom. Empire, iv. 442-450). Gibbon, speaking
of the time of Claudius, puts the population at
120,000,000 (Decline and Fall, eh. ii.). Count
Franz de Champagny adopts the same number for
the reign of Nero (Les Cesnrs, ii. 428). All these
estini.ates are confessedly somewhat uncertain and
conjectural." This large population was controlled in the time
of Tiberius by an army of 25 legions, exclusive of
the prsEtorian guards and other cohorts in the
capital. The soldiers who composed the legions
may be reckoned in round numbers at 170,000
men. If we add to these an equal number of aux
iliaries (Tac. Ann. iv. 5) we have a total force of
340,000 raen. The praetorian guards may be reck
oned at 10,000 (Uion Cass. Iv. 24). The" other co
horts would swell the garrison at Rome to 15,000
or 16,000 men. For the number and stations of
the legions in the time of Tiberius, corap. Tac.
Ann. iv. 5.
The navy may have contained about 21,000 men
(Les Cesars, ii. 429; comp. Merivale, iii. 534).
The legion, as appeai-s frora what has been said,
must have been " more like a brigade than a regi
ment," consisting as it did of more than 6,000 in
fantry with cavalry attached (Onybeare and How
son, ii. 285). For fhe "Italian and Augustan
bands " (Acts x. 1, xxvii. 1 ) see Army, vol. i. p.
164 [and Italian Baxd, Amer. ed.].
III. The Provinces. — The usual fate of a coun
try conquered by Rome was to become a subject
province, governed directly from Rome by officers
lent out for that purpose. Sometimes, however,
as we have seen, petty sovereigns were left in pos
session of a nominal independence on the borders,
or within the natural limits, of the province. Such

a ? On this subject one may consult C. G. Zunipt's
Ueber den Stand der Bev'dtkerun^ u. d's Volksvprmeh-
ung im AUtrthum, foi. pp. 1-92 (Berl. 1841). H.

ROMAN EMPIRE
a system was useful for rewarding an ally, for em-
ploying a busy ruler, for gradually accustoming a
stubborn people to the yoke of dependence. There
were differences too in the political condition of
cities within the provinces. Some were free cities,
i. t., were governed by their own magistrates, and
were exempted from occupation by a Roman garri
son. Such were Tarsus, Antioch iu SjTia, Ath
ens, Ephesus, Tbessalonica. See tlie notices ol
the " Politarchs " and " Demos " at Tbessalonica,
Acts xvii. 5-8, the " town-clerk " and the as
sembly at Ephesus, Acts xix. 35, 39 (C. and H
Life of St. Paul, i. 357, ii. 79). Occasionally
but rarely, free cities were exempted from taxa
tion. Other cities were " Colonies," i. e. commu
nities of Roman citizens transplanted, like garri
sons of the imperial city, into a foreign land
Such was Phiiippi (Acts xvi. 12). Such, too,
were Corinth, Troas, the Pisidian Antioch. The
inhabitants were for the most part Romans (Acta
xvi. 21), and their magistrates dehghted in the Ro
man title of Praetor (a-TpaTriy6s), and in the at
tendance of lictors (^afidovxoi), Acts xvi. 35. (C.
and H. i. 315.)
Augustus divided the provinces into two classes,
(1) Iranerial, (2) Senatorial; retaining in his own
hands, for obvious reasons, those provinces where
the presence of a large military force was neces
sary, and committing the peaceful and unarmed
provinces to the Senate. The Imperial provinces
at first were — Gaul, Lusitania, Syria, Phoenicia,
CiUcia, Cyprus, and jEgypt. The Senatorial prov
inces were Africa, Numidia, Asia, Achaea and
Epirus, Dahuatia, Macedonia, Sicily, Crete and
Cyrene, Bithynia and Pontus, Sardinia, Bsetica
(Dion C. liii. 12). Cyprus and GaUia Narboneu-
sis were subsequently given up by AugustuSi who
in turn received Dalmatia from the Senate. Many
other changes were made afterwards. The N. T.
writers invariably designate the governors of Sen
atorial provinces by the correct title of afBiira-
TOI, proconsuls (Acts xiii. 7, xviii. 12, xix. 38).
[Cyprus.] For the governor of an Imperial prov
ince, properly styled " Legatus Caisaris " (wpea-
iSewT^s), the word riyeptav (Governor) is used in
the N. T.
Tbe provinces were heavily taxed for the benefit
of Rome and her citizens. " It was as if England
were to defray the expenses of her own administra
tion by the proceeds of a tax levied on her Indian
empire" (LiddeU, Hist, of Rome, i. 448). In old
times the Roman revenues were raised mainly fiom
three sources: (1.) The domain lands; (2.) A di
rect tax (tributum) levied upon every citizeu; (3.)
From customs, tolls, harbor duties, etc. The agra
rian Law of Julius Caesar is said to have extin
guished the first source of revenue (Cic. ad Ait. ii.
xvi.; Dureau de la Malle, ii. 430). Roman citi
zens had ceased to pay direct taxes since the con
quest of Macedonia, B. c. 167 (Cic. de Off. ii. 22;
Pint. jEmil. Paul. 38), except in extraordinary
emergencies. The main part of the Roman revenue
was now drawn from the provhices by a direct tax
(Kijvo-os, <p6pos, M.att. xxii. 17, Luke xx. 22),
amounting probably to from 5 to 7 per cent, on the
estimated produce of the soil (Dureau de la Malle,
ii. 418). The indirect taxes too (reX-i), vectigalia,
Matt. xvii. 25; Dureau de la Malle, ii. 449) appear
to have been very heavy (Ibid. ii. 433, 448). Au
gustus on coming to the empire found the regular
sources of revenue impaired, while his expenses
must have been very great. To say nothing of thi

KOMAN EMPIRE
pay of the army, he is «aid to have supported no
less than 200,000 citizens in idleness by the miser
able system of public gratuities. Hence the neces
sity of a careful valuation of the property of the
whole empire, which appears to have been made
more than once in his reign. [Census.] For the
historical difficulty about the taxing in Luke ii. 1,
see Cyremius. Augustus appears to have raised
both the direct and indirect taxes (Dureau de la
Malle, ii. 433,448).
The provinces are said to have been better gov
erned under the Empire than under the Common
wealth, and those of the emperor better than those
of the Sanate (Tac. Ann. i. 76, iv. 6; Dion, liii.
14). Two important changes were introduced un
der the Empire. The governors received a fixed
pay, and the term of their command was prolonged
(Joseph. Ant, xviii. 6, § 5). But the old mode of
levying the taxes seems to have been continued.
The companies who farmed the taxes, consisting
generally of knights, paid a certain sum into the
Roman treasury, and proceeded to wring what they
could fi-om the provincials, often with the conniv
ance and support of the provincial governor. The
work was done chiefly by underlings of the lowest
class (portitores). These are the publicans of the
N. T.
On the whole it seems doubtful whether the
wrongs of the provinces can have been raaterially
alleviated under the imperial government. It is
not likeJy that such rulers as Caligula and Nero
would be scrupulous about the means used for re
plenishing their treasury. The stories related even
of the reign of Augustus show how sUght were
the checks on the tyi-anny of provincial governors.
See the story of Licinus in Gaul {Diet, of Gr. and
Rom. Biog. sub voce), and that of the Dalmatian
chief (Dion, Iv.). The sufferings of St. Paul, pro
tected as he was to a certain extent by his Roman
citizenship, show plainly how little a provincial had
to hope from the, justice of a Roman governor.
It is irapossible here to discuss the difficult ques
tion relating to Roman provincial gavernment
raised on John xviii. 31. It may be sufficient here
to state, that according to strict Roman law the
Jews would lose the power of life and death when
their country became a province, and there seems
no sufficient reason to depart from the literal in
terpretation of the verse just cited. Hee Alford,
in I. c. On the other side see Biscoe, On ihe Ads,
p. 113.
The condition of the Roman Empire at the time
when Christianity appeared has often been dwelt
upon, as affording obvious illustrations of St. Paul's
expression that the " fullness of time had corae "
(Gal. iv. 4). The general peace within the limits
of the Empire, the formation of military roads, the
suppression of piracy, the march of the legions, the
voyages of the corn fleets, the general increase of
traffic, the spread of the Latin language in the
West as Greek had already spread in the East, the
external unity of the Empire, offered facilities hith
erto unknown for the spread of a world-wide relig-
'on. , The tendency, too, of a despotism Uke that
of the Roman Empire to reduce all its subjects to
i dead level, was a powerful instrument in breaking
liown the pride of privileged races and national
religions, and familiarizing men with the truth that
* God hath made of one blood aU nations on the
"ace of the earth" (Acts xvii. 24, 26). But still
core striking than this outward preparation for' the
Ufiiision of the Gospel was the appearance of a deep

ROMAN EMPIRE

2743

and wide-spread corruption which seemed to defy
any human reraedy. It would be easy to accumu
late proofs of the moral and political degradation
of the Romans under the Empire. It is needless
to do more than allude to the corruption, t\\i*
cruelty, the sensuality, tbe monstrous aud unnat
ural wickedness of the period as revealed in the
heathen historians and satirists. " Viewed as n
national or political history," says the great his
torian of Rome, " the history of the Roman Empire
is sad and discouraging in the last degree. We
see that things had corae to a pohit at which no
earthly power could afford any help ; we now have
the development of dead powers instead of that of
a vital energy" (Niebuhr, Led. v. 194). Not
withstanding the outward appearance of peace,
unity, and reviving prosperity, the general condi
tion of the people must have been one of great
misery. To say nothing of the fact that probably
one-half of the population consisted of slaves, the
great inequality of wealth at a. time when a whole
province cou!d be owned by six landowners, the
absence of any middle class, the utter want of any
iustitutions for alleviating distress such as are found •
in all Christian countries, the inhuman tone of
feeUng and practice generally prevailing, forbid us
to think favorably of the happiness of the world
in the famous Augustan age. We must remember
that "there were no public hospitals, no institu
tions for the relief of the infirm and poor, no
societies for the iniprovement of the condition of
mankind from motives of charity. Nothing was
done to promote the instruction of the lower classes,
nothing to mitigate the miseries of doraestic slavery.
Charity and general philanthropy were so Uttle re
garded ns duties, that it requires a very extensive
acquaintance with the literature of the tiraes to
find any aUusion to them" {Arnold's Later Roman
Commonwealth, ii. 398). If we add to this that
there was probably not a single religion, except the
Jewish, which was felt by the more enlightened
part of its professors to be real, we may form some
notion of the world which Christianity had to
reform and purify. We venture to quote an elo
quent description of its "slow, imperceptible, con
tinuous aggression on the heathenism of the Itoman
Empire." " Christianity was gradually withdrawing some
of aU orders, even slaves, out of the vices, the
ignorance, the niisery of that corrupted social sys
tem. It was ever instilUng feelings of humanity,
yet unknown or coldly commended by an impotent
phUosophy, among men and women whose infant
ears had been habituated to the shrieks of dying
gladiators; it was giving dignity to minds pros
trated by 3'ears, almost centuries, of degrading
despotism; it^ was nurturing purity and modesty
of manners in an unspeakable state of depravation ;
it was enshrining the marriage-bed in a sanctity
long alraost entirely lost, and rekindling to a steady
warmth the domestic affections; it was substituting
a simple, calm, and rational faith for the worn-out
superatitions of heathenism ; gently establishing iu
tho soul of man the sense of immortality, till it
became a natural and inextinguishable part of
his moral being" (Milman's Latin Christianity,
i. 24). The chief prophetic notices of the Roman Empire
are found in the Book of Daniel, especiaUy i-i ch.
xi. 30-40, and in u. 40, vii. 7, 17-19, according to
the common interpretation of the "fourth king
dom;" comp. 2 Esdr. xi. 1, but see Daniel. Ao-

2744 EOMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
cording to some interpreters the Romans are in
tended in Deut. xxviii. 49-57. For the mystical
notices of Rome in the Revelation comp. Rome.
J. J. H.
* On the general subject of the preceding article,
see Merivale's History of the Roman Empire, espe
cially vol. vi. H.
ROMANS, THE EPISTLE TO THE.
1 . The date of this epistle is fixed with more ab
solute certainty and within narrower limits, than
that of any other of St. Paul's epistles. The fol-
lowuig considerations determine the time of writing.
First. Certain names in the salutations point to
Corinth, as the place from which the letter was
sent. (1.) Phoebe, a deaconess of Cencbreae, one
of the port towns of Corinth, is commended to the
Romans (xvi. 1, 2). (2.) Gaius, in whose house
St. Paul'was lodged at the time (xvi. 23), is prob
ably the person mentioned as one of the chief
merabers of the Corinthian Church in 1 Cor. i. 14,
though the name was very common. (3.) Erastus,
here designated " the treasurer of the city " (oIko-
v6pos, xvi. 23, E. V. "chamberlain") is elsewhere
mentioned in connection with Corinth (2 Tim. iv.
20 ; see also Acts xix. 22). Secondly. Having thus
detiermined the place of writmg to be Corinth, we
have no hesitation in fixing upon the visit recorded
in Acts XX. 3, during the winter and spring fol
lowing the Apostle's long residence at Ephesus, as
the occasion on which the epistle was written,
For St. Paul, when he wrote the letter, was on the
point of carrying the contributions of Macedonia
and Achaia to Jerusalem (xv. 25-27), and a com
parison with Acts XX. 22, xxiv. 17, and also 1 Cor.
xvi. 4 ; 2 Cor. viii. 1, 2, ix. 1 ff., shows that he was
so engaged at this period of his Ufe. (See Paley's
ffoi-ce PauUnce, ch. ii. § 1.) Moreover, in this
epistle he declares his intention of visiting the
Romans after he has been at Jerusalem (xv. 2-3-
25), aud that such was his design at this par
ticular time appears from a. casual notice in Acts
xix. 21.
The epistle then was written from Corinth during
St. Paul's third missionary journey, on the occa
sion of the second of the two nsits recorded in the
Acts. On this occasion he remained three months
in Greece (Acts xx. 3). When he left, the sea
was already navigable, for he was on the point of
saihng for Jerusalem when he was obliged to change
his plans. On the other hand, it cannot have been
late in the spring, because after passing through
Macedonia and visiting several places on the coast
of Asia Minor, he still hoped to reach Jerusalem
by Pentecost (xx. 16). It was therefore in the
winter or early spring of the year that the Epistle
to the Romans was written. According to the
most probable system of chronology, adopted by
Anger and Wieseler, this would be the year A. D.
58. 2. The Epistle to the Romans is thus placed in
chronological conneciion with the epistles to the
GaJatiansi and Corinthians, which appear to have
been written within the twelve months preceding.
The First Epistle to the Corinthians was written
before St. Paul left Ephesus, the Second from
Macedonia when he w>ts on his way to Corinth, and
the Epistle to the Galatians most probably either
in Macedonia or after his arrival at Corinth, i. e.
liter the epistles to the Corinthians, though the
date of the Galatian Epistle is not absolutely cer
tain. [Galatians, Epistle to the.] We shall
have to notice the relations existing between these

ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THB
contemporaneous epistles hereafter. At present it
will be sufficient to say that they present a remark.
able resemblance to each other in style and matter
— a much greater resemblance than can be traced
to any other of St. Paul's epistles. They are at
once the most intense and most varied in feeling
and expression — if we may so say, the most Pan-
line of all St. Paul's epistles. When Baur excepts
these four epistles alone from his sweeping con
demnation of the genuineness of all the letters
bearing St. Paul's name (Pautus, der Apostel) this
is a mere caricature of sober criticism; but under
lying this erroneous exaggeration is the fact, that
the epistles of this period — St. Paul's third mis
sionary journey — have a character and an intensity
peculiarly their own, corresponding to the circum
stances of the Apostle's outward and inward life at
the time when they were written. For the special
characteristics of this group of epistles, see a paper
on the Epistle to the Galatians in the Jouimal (ff
Class, and Sacr. Phil., iii. p. 289.
3. The occasion which prompted this epistle,
and the circumstances attending its writing, were
as follows. St. Paul had long purposed visiting
Rome, and still retained this purpose, wishing also
to extend his journey to Spain (i. 9-13, xv. 22-29);
for the time, however, he was prevented from car
rying out his design, as he was bound for Jeru
salem with the alms of the Gentile Christians, and
meanwhile he addressed this letter to the Romans,
to supply the lack of his personal teaching. Phoebe,
a deaconess of the neighboring church of CenchreB,
was on the point of starting for Rome (xvi. 1, 2),
and probably conveyed the letter. 'I'he body of the
epistle waa written at the Apostle's dictation by
Tertius (xvi. 22); but perhaps we may infer from
the abruptness of the final doxology, that it was
added by the Apostle him.self, more especially as we
gather from other epistles that it was his practice
to conclude with a few striking words in his own
handwriting, to vouch for the authorship of^the
letter, and frequently also to impress some important
truth more strongly on his readers.
4. The origin nf the Roman Church is involved
in obscurity. If it had been founded by St. Peter,
according to a later tradition, the absence of any
allusion to him both in this epistle and in the
letters written by St. Paul from Rome would admit
of no explanation. It is equally clear that no
other Apostle was the founder. In this very epis
tle, and in close connection with the mention of
hia proposed visit to Rome, the Apostle declares
that it was his nile not to build on another man's
foundation (xv. 20), and we cannot suppose that
he violated it in this instance. Again, he speaks
of the Romans as especially falling to his share as
the Apostle of the Gentiles (i. 13), with an evident.
reference to the partition of the field of labor be
tween himself and St. Peter, mentioned in Gal. ii.
7-9. Moreover, when he declares his wish to im
part some spiritual gift (xdpiirpa) to them, " that
they might be established" (i. 11", this impUea
that they had not yet been visited by an Apostle,
and that St. Paul contemplated supplying the
defect, as was done by St. Peter and St. John in
the analogous case of the churches founded by
Philip in Samaria (Acts viii. 14-17).
The statement in the Clementines (Hom. i. § 6)
that the first tidings of the Gospel reached Rome
during the lifetime of our Lord, is evidently »
fiction for the purposes of the romance. On the
other hand, it is clear that the foundation of thii

ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THB
church' dates very far back. St. Paul in this
epistle salutes certain believers resident in Rome —
Andronicus and Junia (or Junianus?) — adding
that they were distinguished among the Apostles,
and that they were converted to Christ before hira
self (xvi. 7 ), for such seems to be the meaning of
the passage, rendered somewhat ambiguous by the
position of the relative pronouns. It may be that
some of those Romans, "both Jews and proselytes,"
present on the day of Pentecost {ot iin^7]fxovvTes
'Fafialoi, 'louSaToi re Kal irpoa-'fjKvTotf Acts ii.
10), carried back the earUest tidings of the new
doctrine, or the Gospel may have first reached the
imperial city through those who were scattered
abroad to escape the persecution which foUowed on
the death of Stephen (Acts viii. 4, xi. 19). At
all events, a close and constant communication was
kept up between the Jewish residents in Rome and
their feUow-countrymen in Palestine by the exigen
cies of eomraerce, in which they became more and
more engrossed, as their national hopes decUned,
and by the custom of repairing regularly to their
sacred festivals at Jerusalem. Again, the impe
rial edicts alternately banishing and recaUing the
Jews (corapare e. g. iu the case of Claudius,
Joseph. Ant. xix. 5, § 3, with Suet. Claud, c. 25)
must have kept up a constant ebb and flow of
migration between Rome and the East, and the
case of Aquila and PriscUla (Acts xviii. 2; see
Paley, IJo7\ Paul. v. ii. § 2) probably represents a
numerous class through whose means the opinions
and doctrines promulgated in Palestine might reach
the metropohs. At first we may suppose that the
Gospel was preached there in a confused and im
perfect form, scarcely more than a phase of Juda
ism, as in the case of ApoUos at Corinth (Acts
xviii. 25), or the disciples at Ephesus (Acts xix.
1--3). As time advanced and better instructed
teachers arrived, the clouds would gradually clear
away, tiU at length the presence of the great Apos
tle himself at Rome dispersed the mists of Judaism
which still hung about the Roman Church. Long
after Christianity had taken up a position of direct
antagonism to Judaism in Rome, heathen states-
u"»n and writers stUl persisted in confounding the
01.^ with the other. (See Merivale, Hist, of Rome,
vi. 278, &c.)
5. A question next arises as to the composition
of the Roman Church, at the time when St. Paul
wi'ote. Did the Apostle address a Jewish or a
Gentile coramunity, or, if the two elements were
combined, was one or other predominant so as to
give a character to the whole Church? Either
extreme has been vigorously maintained, Baur for
instance asserting that St. Paul vvas writing to
Jewish Christians, Olshausen arguing that the Ro
man Church consisted almost solely of Gentiles.
We are naturally led to seek the truth in some in
termediate position. Jowett finds a solution of the
difficulty iu the supposition that the members of
the Roman Church, though Gentiles, had passed
through a phase of Jewish proselytism. This wiU
explain some of the phenomena of the epistle, but
not all. It is more probable that St. Paul ad
dressed a mixed church of Jews and Gentiles, the
latter perhaps being the more nuraerous.
There are certain passages which imply the
presence of a large number of Jewish converts to
Christianity. The use of the second person hi ad
dressing the Jews (cc. ii. and iii.) is clearly not
assumed merely for argumentative purposes, but
ippUes to a portion at least of those into whose
173

ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE 2745
hands the letter would fall. The constant app-ala
to the authority of " the Law " may in many om&a
be accounted for by the Jewish education of the
Gentile believers (so Jowett, vol. ii. p. 22), but
sometimes they seem too direct and positive to ad
mit of this explanation (iii. 19, vii. 1). In the
7th chapter St. Paul appears to be addressing Jews,
as those who like himself had once been under the
dominion of the Law, but had been delivered from
it in Christ (see especially verses 4 and 6). And
when in xi. 13, he says " I am speaking to you —
the Gentiles," this very limiting expression, "the
Gentiles," implies that the letter was addressed to
not a few to whom the terra would not apply.
Again, if we analyze the list of names in the
16th chapter, and assume that this list approxi
mately represents tbe proportion of Jew and Gen
tile in the Roman Church (an assumption at least
not iraprobable), we arrive at the same result. It
is true that Mary, or rather Mariam (x\i. 6) is
the only strictly Jewish narae. But this fact is
not worth the stress apparently laid on it by Mr.
.Jowett (ii. p. 27). For Aquila and Priscilla (ver.
3) were Jews (Acts xviii. 2, 26), and the church
which met in their house was probably of the
same nation. Andronicus and Junia (or Junias?
ver. 7) are called St. Paul's kinsmen. The same
term is applied to Herodion (ver. 11). These per
sons then must have been Jews, whether " kins
men " is taken in the wider or the more restricted
sense. The narae Apelles (ver. 10), though a
heathen narae also, was most coramonly borne by
Jews, as appears from Horace, Sid. I. v. 100. If
the Aristobulus of ver. 10 was one of the princes
of the Herodian house, as seems probable, we have
also in " the household of Aristobulus " several
Jewish converts. Altogether it appears that a very
large fraction of the Christian believei'S raentioned
in these salutations were Jews, even supposing that
the others, bearing Greek and Latin naraes, of
whom we know nothing, were heathens.
Nor does the existence of a large Jewish ele
ment in the Roman Church present any difficulty.
The captives carried to Rome by Pompeius formed
the nucleus of tbe Jewish population iu the metropo
lis [Rome]. Since that time they had largely in
creased. During the reign of Augustus we hear
of above 8,000 resident Jews attaching themselves
to a Jewish embassy which appealed to this emperor
(Joseph. Ant. xvii. 11, § 1). The same emperor
gave thera a quarter beyond the Tiber, and aUowed
thera the free exercise oftheir reliijion (Philo, Leg.
ad Caium, p. 568 M.). About the tirae when St.
Paul wrote, Seneca, speaking of the influence of
Judaism, echoes the famous expression of Horace
( Ep. ii. 1, 156) respecting the Greeks — " victi vic-
toribus leges dederunt " (Seneca, in Augustin, de
Civ. Dei, vi. 11). And tbe bitter satire of Juvenal
and indignant complaints of Tacitus of the spread
of the infection through Roman society, are weU
known. On the other hand, situated in the metropolis of
the great erapire of heathendom, the Roman Church
must necessarily have been in great measure a Gen
tile Church; and the language of the epistle bears
out this supposition. It is professedly as the Apos
tle of the Gentiles that St. Paul writes to the Ro
mans (i. 5). He hopes to have some fruit among
them, as he had araong the other Gentiles (i. 13).
I^ater on in the epistle he speaks of the Jews in the
third person, as if addressuig GentUes, '• I could
wish tha.t myself were accursed for my brethren.

2746 EOMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
my kinsmen after the flesh, who are Israelites, etc."
(ix. 3, 4). And again, "my heart's desire and
prayer to God for them is that they might be
¦aved " (x. 1, the right reading is virip abrwii,
not inrep tov 'la-pa^\ as in the Received Text)
Compare also xi. 23, 25, and especiaUy xi. 30,
" For as je in times past did not beheve God, .
. . . so did these also (i. e. the Jews) now not
beUeve," etc. In aU these passages St. Paul clearly
addresses himself to Gentile readers.
These Gentile converts, however, were not for
the most part native Romans. Strange as the
paradox appears, nothing is more certain than that
the Church of Rome was at this time a Greek and
not a Latin Church. It is clearly established that
the early Latin versions of the New Testament were
made not for the use of Rome, but of the provinces,
especially Africa f Westcott, Canxm, p. 269). All
the literature of the early Roman Church was
written in the Greek tongue. The names of the
bishops of Rome during the first two centuries are
with but few exceptions Greek. (See Milman,
Latin Christ, i. 27.) And in accordance with
these facts we find th.at a very large proportion of
the names in the salutations of this epistle are
Greek names; while of the exceptions, Priscilla,
Aquila, and Junia (or Junias), were certainly Jews;
and the same is true of Kufus, if, as is not improb
able, he is tbe same mentioned Mark xv. 21. Julia
was probably a dependent of the imperial house
hold, and derived her name accordingly. The only
Roman names remaining are Amphas (i. t-. Ampli-
atus) and Urbanus, of whora nothing is known,
but their names are of late growth, and certainly
do not point to an old Roman stock. It was there
fore from the Greek population of Rome, pure or
'mixed, that the Gentile portion of the Church was
almost entirely drawn. And this might be ex
pected. The Greeks formed a very considerable
fraction of the whole people of Rome. They were
the most busy and adventurous, and also the most
intelhgent of the middle and lower classes of society.
The influence which they were acquiring by their
numbers and versatility is a constant theme of re
proach in the Roman philosopher and satirist ( Juv.
iii. 60-80, vi. 184; Tac. de Orat. 29). They com
plain that the national character is undermined,
that the whole city has become Greek. Speaking
the language of international intercourse, and
brought by their restless habits into contact with
foreign religions, the Greeks had larger opportuni
ties than others of acquainting themselves with the
truths of the Gospel : while at the same time hold
ing more loosely to traditional beliefs, and with
minds naturally more inquiring, they would be
more ready to welcome these truths when they
came in their way. At all events, for whatever
reason, the Gentile converts at Rome were Greeks,
not Romans: and it was an unfortunate conjecture
on the part of the transcriber of the Syriac Peshito,
that this letter was written " in the Latin tongue,"
fn''SJ31"l). Every line in the epistle bespeaks
au original.
When we inquire into the probable rank and
station of the Roman believers, an analysis of the
names in the list of salutations again gives an ap
proximate answer. These names belong for the
most part to the middle and lower grades of society.
Many of them are found iu the columbaria of the
freedmen and slaves of the early Roman emperors.
iSee Journal of Class, and Sacr, Phil. iv. p. 57.)

ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THB
It would be too much to assume that they wwe
the same persons, but at all events the identity of
names points to the same social rank. Among the
less wealthy meiehants and tradesmen, among the
petty officers of the army, among the slaves and
freedmen of the imperial palace — whether Jews or
Greeks — the Gospel would fii-st find a firm footing.
To this last class allusion is made in Phil. iv. 22,
" they that are of Csesar's household." From these
it would gradually work upwards and downwards;
but we may be sure that in respect of rank the
Church of Rome was no exception to the general
rule, that " not many wise, not many mighty, not
many noble" were called (1 Cor. i. 26).
It seems probable from what has been said abo\e,
that the Roman Church at this time was composed
of Jews and Gentiles in nearly equal portions.
This faet finds expression in the account, whether
true or false, which represents St. Peter and St.
Paul as presiding at the same time over the Church
at Rome (Dionys. Cor. ap. Euseb. //. -A', ii. 25;
Iren. iii. 3). Possibly also the discrepancies in the
lists of the early bishops of Rome may find a solu
tion (Pearson, Minor Theol. Works, ii. 449; Bun
sen, Hippolytus, i. p. 44) in the joint Episcopate of
Linus and Cletus, the one ruling over the Jewish.
the other over the Gentile congregation of the me
tropolis. If this conjecture be accepted, it is an
important testimony to the view here maintained,
though we cannot suppose that in St. Paul's time
the two elements of the Roman Church had dis
tinct organizations.
6. The heterogeneous composition of this church
explains ihe general character ofthe Epistle to the
Romans. In an assemblage so various, we should
expect to find not the exclusive predominance of a
single form of error, but the coincidence of dif
ferent and opposing forms. The Gospel had here
to contend not specially with Judaism nor specially
with heathenism, but with both together. It was
therefore the business of the Christian Teacher to
reconcile the opposing difficulties and to hold out
a meeting point in the Gospel. This is exactly
what St. Paul does in the Epistle to the Romans,
and what from the circumstances of the case he ».a3
well enabled to do. He was addressing a large
and varied community which had not been founded
by himself, and with which he had had no direct in
tercourse. Again, it does nnt appear that the letter
was specially written to answer any doubts or set
tle any controveraies then rife in the Roman Church.
There were therefore no disturbing influences, such
as arise out of personal relations, or peculiar cir
cumstances, to derange a general and systematic
exposition of the nature ahd working of the Gos
pel. At the same time the vast importance of the
metropoUtan Church, wliich could not have been
overlooked even by an uninspired teacher, naturally
pointed it out to the Apostle, as the fittest body to
whom to address such an exposition. I'bus the
Epistle to the Romans is more of a treatise than ol
a letter. If we remove the personal allusions in
the opening verses, and the salutations at the close,
it seems not more particularly addressed to the
Church of Rome, than to any other church of
Christendom. In . this respect it differs widely
from the epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians,
with which as being written about the same time
it may most fairly be compared, and which are full
of personal and direct allusions. In oue instance
alone we seem to trace a special reference to the
church of the metropolis. The injunction of

ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
}betlience to temporal rulers (xUi. 1) would most
5tly be addressed to a congregation brought face
t» face with the imperial government, aud the
more sn, as Rome had recently been the scene of
frequf ut disturbances, on the part of either Jews or
rhristians, arising out of a feverish and restless an-
ticitxition of Messiah's coming (Suet. Claud. 25).
Other apparent exceptions admit of a diflferent ex
planation. 7. Thfs explanation is in fact to be sought in its
rtl ition to the contemporaneous epistles. The
letter to the Romans closes the group of epistles
written during the third missionary journey. This
group contains besides, as already mentioned, the
letters to the Corinthians and Galatians, written
probably within the few months preceding. At
Corinth, the eapital of Achaia, aud the stronghold
of heathendom, the Gospel would encounter its se
verest struggle with Gentile vices and prejudices.
In Galatia, which either from natural sympathy or
from close contact seems to have been more ex
posed to Jewish influence than any other church
within St. Paul's sphere of labor, it had a sharp
contest with Judaism. In the epistles to these
two churches we study the attitude of the Gospel
towards the Gentile and Jewish world respectively.
These letters are direct and special. Tbey are
evoked by present emergencies, are directed against
actual evils, are full of personal applications. The
Epistle to the Romans is the summary of what he
had written before, the result of his dealing with
the two antagonistic forms of error, the gathering
together of the fragmentary teaching in the Co
rinthian aud Galatian letters. What is there im
mediate, irregular, and of partial application, is
here arranged and completed, and thrown into a
general form. Thus on the one hand his treat
ment of the Mosaic law points to the difiiculties he
encountered in deaUng with the Galatian Church,
while on the other his cautions against antinomian
excesses (Kom. vi. 15, &c.}, and his precepts against
giving offense in the matter of meats and the ob
servance of days (Rom. xiv.), remind us of the
errors which he had to correct in his Corinthian
converts. (Compare 1 Cor. vi. 12 ft'., and 1 Cor,
viii. 1 ft*.) Those iiy unctions then which seem at
first sight special, appear not to be directed against
any actual known failings in the Roman Church,
but to be suggested by the possibility of those ir
regularities occurring in Rome which he had al
ready encountered elsewhere.
8. Viewing this epistle then rather iu the hght
of a treatise than of a letter, we are enabled to
explain certain phenomena in ihe text. In the
received text a doxology stands at the close of the
«pistle (xvi. 25-27). The preponderance of evi
dence is in favor of this position, but there is
respectable authority for placing it at the end of
ch. xiv. In some texts again it is found in both
places, while others omit it entirely. How can we
account for this ? It has been thought by sorae to
discredit the genuineness of the doxology itself:
but there is no sufficient ground for this view. The
arguments against its genuineness on the ground
of style, advanced by Reiche, are met and refuted
by Fritzsche {Rom. vol. i. p. xxxv.). Baur goes
BtiU further, and rejects the two last chapters; but
luch an inference falls vrithout the range of sober
eriticism. The phenomena of the MSS. seem best
Explained by supposing that the letter was circu
lated at au early date (whether during the Apostle's
Retime or not it is idle to inquire) in two forms,

ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE 2747
both with and without the two last chapters. In
the shorter form it was divested as far as possible
of its epistolary character by abstracting the per
sonal matter addressed especiallv to the Romat^^,
the doxology being retained at the close. A still
further attempt to strip this epistle of any special
references is found in MS. G, which omits iy 'Pd^fj-ji
(i. 7), and to?? iv 'F(i/jLr} (i. 15), for it is to be
observed at the same time that this MS. omits the
doxology entirely, and leaves a space after ch. xiv.
This view is somewhat confirmed by the parallel
case of the opening of the Ephesian Epistle, in
which there is very high authority for ouiitting
the words 4i/ 'Et^eV^j, and which bears strong
marks of having been intended for a circular
letter. 9, In describing the purport of this epistle we
may start from St. Paul's own words, which, stand
ing at the beginning of the doctrinal portion, maj
be taken as giving a summary of the contents:
"The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation
to every one that believeth, to the Jew first and
also to the Greek: for therein is the righteousness
of God revealed from faith to faith" (i. 16, 17).
Accordmgly the epistle has been described as com
prising " the. reUgious philosophy of the world's
history." The worid in its religious aspect is
divided into Jew and Gentile. The difierent posi
tion of the two as regards tlieir past and present
relations to God, and their future prospects, are ex
plained. The atonement of Christ is the centre of
religious history. The doctrine of justification by
faith is the key which unlocks the hidden mysteries
of the divine dispensation.
The epistle, from its general character, lends
itself more readily to an analysis than is often the
case with St. Paul's epistles. The body of the
letter consists of four portions, of which the first
and last relate to personal matters, the second is
argumentative and doctrin^, and the third practi
cal and hortatory. The following is, a table of its
contents ; —
¦Salutation (i. 1-7). The A-postle at the outset
strikes the keynote of the epistles in the expres
sions ^^ called as an apostle," *^ called as saints."
Divine grace is everything, human merit nothing.
1. Personal explanations. Purposed visit to
Rorae (i: 8-15).
II. Doetrhial (i. 16-xi. 36).
The general proposition. The Gospel is the
salvation of Jew and Gentile alike. This
salvation comes by faith (i. 36, 17).
The rest of this section is taken up in estab
lishing this thesis, and drawing deductions
from it, or correcting misapprehensions.
(o.) AU alike were under condemnation before
the Gospel:
The heathen (i. 18-32).
The Jew (u. 1-29).
Objections to this statement answered (ill.
1-8).
And the position itself estabUshed from
Scripture (iii. 9-20).
{b.) A righteousness (justification) is revealed
under the gospel, which being of faith, not
of law, is also universal (iii. 21-26).
And boasting is thereby excluded (in. 27-31).
Of this justification by faith Abraham is an
exaraple (iv. 1-25).
Thus then we are justified in Christ, in whom
alone we glory (v. 1-11).
And this acceptance in Christ is as xini-

2748 ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
versal as was the condemnation in Adam
(v. 12-19).
(c) The 7noral consequences of our deUver
ance.
The Law was given to multiply sin (v. 20,
21). When we died to the Law we died to
sin (vi. 1-14). The aboUtion of the Law,
however, is not a signal for moral license
(vi. 15-23), On the contrary, as the Law
has passed away, so must sin, for sin and
the Law are con-elative; at the same time
this is no disparagement of the Law, but
rather a proof of human weakness (vii.
1-25). So henceforth in Christ we are free
from sin, we have the Spirit and look for
ward in hope, triumphing over our present
afflictions (viii. 1-39).
{d.) The rejection ofthe Jews is a matter of
deep sorrow (ix. 1-5).
Yet we must remember —
(i.) That the promise was not to the whole
people, but only to a select seed (ix. 6-13).
And the absolute purpose of God in so
ordaining is not to be canvassed by
man (ix. 14^19).
( i. ) That the Jews did not seek justification
aright, and so missed it. This justifica
tion was promised by faith, and is
offered to all aUke, the preaching to the
Gentiles being impUed therein. The
character and results of the Gospel dis
pensation are foreshadowed in Scripture
(X. 1-21).
(iii.) That tbe rejection of the Jews is not
final. This rejection has been the means
of gathering in tbe Gentiles, and through
the Gentiles they themselves will ulti
mately be brought to Christ (xi. 1-36).
III. Practical exhortations (xii. 1-xv. 13).
(a.) To holiness of life and to charity in gen
eral, the duty of obedience to rulers being
inculcated by tbe way (xii. 1-xiii. 14).
(b.) And more particularly against giving
offense to weaker brethren (xiv. 1-xv. 13).
IV. Personal matters.
(a.) The Apostle's motive in writing the
letter, and his intention of visiting the
Romans (xv. 14-33)
(i.) Greetings (xvi. 1-23).
The letter ends with a benediction and doxology
(xvi. 24-27 ).
AVhile this epistle contains the fullest and most
systematic exposition of the Apostle's leaching, it
is at the same time a very striking expression of
his character. Nowhere do his earnest and affec
tionate nature, and his tact and delicacy in hand
ling unwelcome topics appear more strongly than
when he is dealing with the rejection of his fellow-
countrymen the Jews.
The reader may be referred especially to the
introductions of Olshausen, Tholuck, and Jowett,
for suggestive remarks relating to the scope and
purport of the Epistle to the Romans.
10. Internal evidence is so strongly in favor of
the genuineness of the Epistle to the Romans that
it has never been seriously questioned. Even tlie
sweeping criticism of Baur did not go beyond
condemning the two last chapters as spurious.
But while the epistle bears in itself the strongest
oroofs of its Pauline authorship, the external testi
mony in its favor is not inconsiderable.
The reference to Kom ii. 4 in 2 Pet. iii. 16 is

ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THB
indeed more than doubtful. In the Epistle of St
James again (ii. 14), there is an allusion to per
versions of St. Paul's knguage and doctrine which
has several points of contact with the Epistle to
tbe Romans, but this may perhaps be explained
by the oral rather than the written teaching of
the Apostle, as the dates seem to require. It is
not the practice of the .Apostolic fathers to cite the
N. T. writers by name, but marked passages from
the Romans are found embedded in the epistles of
Clement and Polycarp (Rom. i. 29-32 in Clem.
Cor. c. xxxv., and Rom. xiv. 10, 12, in Polyc
Phil. c. vi.). It seems also to have been directly
cited by the elder quoted in IrenEeus (iv. 27, 2,
"ideo Paulum dixisse; " cf. Rom. xi. 21, 17), and
is alluded to by tbe writer of the Epistle to Diog-
netus (c. ix., cf. Rom. iii. 21 foil., v. 20), and by
Justin MartjT (Dial. u. 23, cf. Rom. iv. 10, 11,
and in other passages). The title of MeUto's trea
tise, On ihe Bearing of Faith, seems to be an allu
sion to this epistle (see however Gal. iii. 2, 3). It
has a place moreover in the Muratorian Canon and
in the Syriac and Old Ijitin Versions. Nor have
we the testimony of orthodox writers alone. The
epistle was commonly quoted as an authority by
the heretics of the sub-apostolic age, by the Ophites
(Hippol. adv. Hair. p. 99, cf. Rom. i. 20-26), by
Basilides (ib. p. 238, cf. Rom. viii. 19, 22, and v.
13, 14), by Valentinus (ib. p. 195, cf. Rom. viii.
11), by the Valentinians Heracleonand Ptolemseua
(Westcott, On the U"non, pp. 335, 340), and per
haps also by Tatian ( Orat. c. iv., cf. Rom. i. 20),
besides being included in Marcion's Canon. In
the latter part of tbe second century the evidence
in its favor is still fuller. It is obviously alluded
to in the letter of the churches of Vienne and
Lyons (Euseb. //. E. v. 1, cf. Rom. viii. 18), and
by Athenagoras (p. 13, cf. Rom. xii. 1; p. 37, cf.
Rom. i. 24) and Theophilus of Antioch (Ad Autol.
p. 79, cf. Rom. ii. 6 foil.; p. 126, cf. Rom. xiii. 7,
8); and is quoted frequently and hy name by
Irenseus, TertuUian, and Clement of Alexandria (see
Kirchhofer, Quellen, p. 198, and esp. Westcott,
On the Caium, passim).
11. The Commentaries on this epistle are very
numerous, as might be expected from its impor
tance. Of the many patristic expositions only a few
are now extant. The work of Origen is preserved
entire only in a loose Latin ti-anslation of Eufinua
( Orig. ed. de la Rue, iv. 458), but some fragments
of the original are found in the Phihcalia, and
more in Cramer's Catena. The commentary on
St. Paul's epistles printed among the works of St.
Ambrose (ed. Ben. ii. Appx. p. 21), and hence
bearing the name .Ambrosiaster, is probably to he
attributed to Hilary the deacon. Besides these
are the expositions of St. Paul's epistles by Chry
sostom (ed. Sloiitf. ix. p. 425, edited separately by
Field), by Pelagius (printed among Jerome's
works, ed. Vallaisi, xi. Pt. 3, p. 135), by Piima-
sius (Magn. Bibl. Vet. Pair, vi Pt. 2, p. 30), and
by Theodoret (ed. Schulze, iii. p. 1 ). Augustine
commenced a work, but broke off at i. 4: it
bears the name Inchoata Exposiiio Epistola ad
Rom. (ed. Ben. iii. p. 925). Later he wTote Ex
posiiio quarundam Propositionum Epistola ad
Rom., also extant (ed. Ben. iii. p. 903). To these
should be added the later Catena of U:cumeniu3
(10th cent.) and the notes of Theophylact (llth
cent.), the former containing valuable extracts
from Photius. Portions of a cominentai7 cf Cyril
of Alexandria were published by Mai (Nov. Pair

ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
Bibl. iii. p. 1). The Catena edited by Cramer
(184-1) comprises two collections of Variorum notes,
ilie one extending from i. 1 to ix. 1, the other from
vii. 7, to the end. Besides passages from extant
commentaries, they contain important extracts from
Apollinarius, Theodorus of Mopsuestia [ed. Fritz
sche, 1847; Migne, Patrol. Gr. Ixvi.], Severianus,
Gennadius, Photius, and others. There are also the
Greek Scholia, edited by Matthai, in his large Greek
Test. (Riga, 1782), from Jloscow jMSS. The com
mentary of Euthymius Zigabenus (Thohick,- Einl.
§ 6) exists in MS., but has never been printed.
Of the later commentaries we can only mention
a few of tbe most important. The dogmatic value
of this epistle naturaUy attracted the early re-
formei'S. Melancthon wrote several expositions of it
(Walch, Bibl. Theol. iv. 679). The Comraentary
of Calvin on the Romans is considered the ablest
part of his able work. Among Roman Catholic
writers, the older works of I^^tius and Corn, a
Lapide deserve to be mentioned. Of foreign an-
notators of a more recent date, besides the general
coraraentaries of Bengel, Olshausen, De Wette, and
Meyer (3d ed. 1359 [4th ed. 18o5] ), which are highly
valuable aids to the study of this epistle, we inay
single out the special works of Riickert (2d ed. 1839),
Reiche (1834), Fritzsche (1836-43), and Tholuck
{5th ed. 1856). An elaborate commentary has
aitio been published lately by Van Hengel. Among
English writers, besides the editions of the whole
of the New Testament by Alford (4th ed. 1861)
and Wordsworth (new ed. 1861), the most impor
tant annotations on the Epistle to the Romans are
those of Stuart (6th ed. 1857), Jowett (2d ed.
1859), and Vaughan {2d ed. 1861). Further in
formation on the subject of the Uterature of the
Epistle to the Romans may be found in the intro
ductions of Reiche and l^holuck. J. B. L.
* Recent Literature, — Onthe composition of
the Roman Church and the aim of the epistle
valuable essays have been lately published by W.
Mangold, Der Romerbrief u. die An/ange d. rdm.
Gemeinde, Marb. 1866, and W. Beyschlag, Das
geschichiliche Problem des Romerbriefs, in the
Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1867, pp. 627-665; comp.
Hilgenfeld, Die Paulus- Brief e u. ihre neuesten
Benrbeitungen, iu his Zeiischr. f. wiss. Theol.
1866, ix. 293-316, 337-367- Renan {Saint Paul,
Paris, 18C9, pp. IxUi.-lxxv.) supposes the Epistle
to the Romans to have been a circular letter, of
which there were four copies mth distinct endings
(sent to the churches at Rome, Ephesus, Tbessa
lonica, and sorae unknown church), the body of tbe
letter reraaining the same. The details of his
theory and the arguments for it cannot be given
here. It is fully discussed by Prof. Lightfoot (the
author of the preceding article) in the Jommal of
Philology, 1869, vol. u. pp. 264-295. His own
hypothesis is, that the epistle as originally written
was without the benediction xvi. 24 (omitted by
Lachra,, Tisch., and Tregelles as wanting in the best
MSS.) and tbe doxology (xvi. 25-27). " At some
later period of his life .... it occurred to
the Apostle to give to this letter a wider circula
tion. To this end he made two changes in it: he
obUterated aU mention of Rome in the opening
paragraphs by slight alterations [substituting iv
xydm) deov for iv "?6fjL7) in i. 7, and omitting iy
Pcitfir} in i. 15 — for the traces of this in MSS.,
3tc., see Tisch.] ; and he cut off" the two last chap
ters containing personal matters, adding at the
lame time a doxology [xvi. 2:)- -27] as a termuia-

ROME

2749

tion to the whole.' This it will be perceived is a
modification of the view presented in § 8 of the
article above.
Among the more recent Commentates, we may
notice Umbreit, Der Bri<f an die Romer, auf d.
Gi'unde des A. T. ausyclcgt, Gotha, 1856 ; Ewald,
Die Sendschreiben des Ap. Paulus iibers. u. er
klarl, Gott 1857; John Brown (" Prof, of Exeget.
Theol. to the United Presbyterian Church "), Ana
lytical Exposition of ihe Ep. to the Romans, Edin.,
also N. Y., 1857; John Forbes, Analyt. Comm. on
the Ep. io the Romans, tracing the train of Thought
by ihe aid of Parallelism, Edin. 1868; J. P. Lange,
Der Brief Pauli an die Romer, 2e Aufl. 1868
(Theil vi. of his Bibehcerk), greatly enlarged ant]
enriched by Dr. Schaff and the Rev. M. B. Riddle,
in the Amer. translation, N. Y. 1869 (vol. v. of
Lange's Comm.)', and J. C. K. von Hofmann, Der
Brief Pauli an die Romer, Niirdlingen, 1868
(Theil iii. of his Die heil. Schrift d. N. T. zusam-
menhdngend uniersucht). Of the commentaries
mentioned by Lightfoot, that of Fritzsche is par
ticularly distinguished for its phUological thorough
ness. Of American commentaries, we may further
narae those of Dr. Charles Hodge (Old School
Presbyterian), Philad. 1835, new ed., revised and
greatly enlarged, 1864; S- H. Turner (Episco-
paUan), N. Y, 1853; and the more popular Notes
of Albert Barnes (New School Presb.), H. J. Rip
ley (Baptist), A. A. Liverraore (Unitarian), and h.
R. Paige (Universalist).
On the theology of this epistle and the doctrine
of Paul in general, in addition to the works re
ferred to under the art. Paul, vol. in. p. 2397, one
may consult the recent volume of Weiss, Lehrb.
d. Bibl. Theol. d. N. T., Beri. 1868, pp. 216-507.
Rom. v. 12-19 is discussed by Prof. Timothy Dwight
in the New Englander for July, 1868, with partic
ular reference to the Commentary of Dr. Hodge.
For a fuller view cf the very extensive literature
relating to the epistic, see the American translation
of Lange's Commentar-y as above referred to, p.
48 ff. ; corap. p. 27 ff., 37, and for special mono
graphs, the body of the Comraentary on the more
important passages. The older literature is de
tailed iu the well-known bibliographical works of
Walch. Winer, Danz, and Darling. A.
ROME ('Pcd/iT;, Ethn. and Adj. 'Poi^oTos, 'Por-
fxaiK6s in the phrase ypdfj.fj.aTa 'PaifxaiKd, Luke
xxiii. 38), the famous capital of the ancient world.
is situated on the Tiber at a distance of about 15
railes frora its mouth. The " seven hills " (Rev. xvii.
9) which formed the nucleus of the ancient city
stand on the left bank. On the opposite side of the
river rises the far higher ridge of the Janiculum.
Here frora very early times was a fortress with a
suburb beneath it extending to the river. Modern
Rorae Ues to the N. of the ancient city, covering
with its principal poition the plain to the N, of tbe
seven hills, once known aa the Campus Martins,
and on the opposite bank extending over the low
ground beneath the Vatican to the N. of the
ancient Janiculum. A full account of the history
and topography of the city, is given elsewhere
{Did. of Gr. and Rom. Geogr. ii. 719). Here it
will be considered only in its relation to Bible his
tory. Rome is not mentioned in the Bible except lu
the hooka of Maccabees and in three books of the
N. T., namely, the Acts, the Epistle to the Ro
mans, and the 2d Epistle to Timothy. For tbfl

2750 ROME
notices of Rome in the books of Maccabees see Eo-
MAK Empiue.
The conquests of Pompey seem to have given
rise to the first settlement of Jews at Rome. The
Jewish king Aristobulus and his son formed part
of Pompey's triumph, and many Jewish captives
and emigrants were brought to Rome at that time.
A special district was assigned to them, not on the
Bite of tbe modem " Ghetto," between tbe Capitol
and the island of the Tiber, but across the Tiber
(Philo, Leg. ad Caium, ii. 568, ed. Mangey).
Many of these Jews were made freedmen (Philo,
I. c). Julius Ciesar showed them some kindness
(Joseph. Ant. xiv. 10, § 8; Suet. Ceesar, 84).
They were favored also by Augustus, and by Tibe
rius during the latter part of his reign (Philo, I.
G.). At an earher period apparently he banished
a great number of them to Sardinia (Joseph. Ant.
xviii. 3, § 5; Suet. Tib. 36). Claudius "com
manded all Jews to depart from Rome " (Acts
xviii. 2), on account of tumults connected, pos
sibly, with the preaching of Christianity at Rome
(Suet. Claud. 25, "Judaeos impulsore Chresto
Bssidue tumultuantes Roma expulit "). This ban
ishment cannot have been of long duration, for
we find Jews residing at Rome apparently in con
siderable numbers at the time of St. Paul's visit
(Acts xxviii. 17). It is chiefly in connection with
St. Paul's history that I^me comes before us in
the Bible.
In illustration of that history it may be useful
to give some account of Rome in the time of Nero,
the " Csesar " to whom St. Paul appealed, and in
whose reign he suffered martyrdom (Eus. H. £.
ii. 25).
1. The city at that time must be imagined as a
large and irregular mass of buildings unprotected
by an outer wall. It bad long outgrown the old
Servian wall (Uionys. Hal. Ant. Rom. iv. 13; ap.
Merivale, Rimi. Hist. iv. 497); but the limits of
the suburbs cannot be exactly defined. Neither
the nature of tbe buildings nor the configuration
of the ground were such as to give a striking ap
pearance to the city viewed from without. " An
cient Rome had neither cupola nor campanile "
(Conybeare and Howson, Li/'e of St. Paul, ii. 371 ;
Merivale, Rom. Emp. iv. 512), and the hills, never
lofty or imposing, would present, when covered with
the buildhigs and streets of a huge city, a confused
appearance like the hills of modem London, to
which they have sometimes been compared. The
visit of St. Paul lies between two famous epochs in
the history of the city, namely, its restoration by
Augustus and its restoration by Nero (G. and H.
t. 13). The boast of Augustus is well known,
" that he had found the city of brick and left it of
marble " (Suet. Aug. 28). For tbe improvements
effected by him, see D'lct. of (M: and Rom. Geogr.
ii. 740, and Nlebuhr's Lectures on Rom. Hist. ii.
177. Some parts of the city,- especially the Forum
and Campus Martins, must now have presented a
magnificent appearance, but many of the principal
buildings which attract the attention of modem
travellers in ancient Rome were not yet built. The
streets were generally narrow and winding, flanked
by densely crowded lodging-houses (insute) of enor
mous height. Augustus found it neeessary to
limit their height to 70 feet (Strab. v. 235). St.
Paul's first visit to Rome took place before the
Neronian conflagration, but even after the restora-
')ion of the city, which followed npon that event,
many of the old evils continued (Tac. Hist. iii. 71 ;

ROME
Juv. Sat. iii. 193, 269). The population of Iha
city has been variously estimated: at half a mil
lion (by Dureau de la Malle, i. 403, and Merivale,
Rrnn. Empire, iv. 625), at two millions and up
wards (Hocck, Rdmische Geschichte, I. ii. 131; C.
and H. Life of St. Paul, ii. 376; Diet, of Geogr.
ii. 746), even at eight milhons (Lipsius, De Mag.
nitndine Rom., quoted in Diet, of Geogr.). Prob
ably Gibbon's estimate of one million two hundred
thousand is nearest to the truth (Milman's note on
Gibbon, ch. xxxi. vol. iii. p. 120). One half of
the population consisted, in all probability, of
slaves. The larger part of the remainder consisted
of pauper citizens supported in idleness by tbe mis
erable system of public gratuities. There appears
to have been no middle class and no free industrial
population. Side by side with the wretched classes
just mentioned was the comparatively small body
of the wealthy nobihty, of whose luxury and profli
gacy we hear so much in the heathen writers of the
time. (See for calculations and proofe the works
cited.) Such was the population which St. Paul would
find at Rome at the time of his visit. We leam
from the Acts of the Apostles that he was detained
at Rome for ^' two whole years," " dwelling in hia
own hired house with a, soldier that kept him "
(Acts xxviii. 16, 30), to whom apparently, accord
ing to Roman custom (Seiiec. Ep. v. ; Acts xii. 6,
quoted by Brotier, ad Tac. Ann. iii. 22), he was
bound with a chain (Acts xxviii. 20; Eph. vi. 20;
Phil. i. 13). Here he preached to all that came to
him, no man forbidding him (Acts xxviii. 30, 31).
It is generally believed that on his " appeal to Cse-
sar" he was acquitted, and, after some time spent
in freedom, was a second time imprisoned at Rome
(for proofs, see C. and H. Life of St. Paul, ch.
xxvii., and Alford, Gr. Test. iii. ch. 7). Five of
his epistles, namely, those to the Colossians, Ephe
sians, Philippians, that to Philemon, and the 2d
Epistle to Timothy, were, in all probability, written
from Rome, the latter shortly before his death (2
Tira. iv. 6), the others during his first imprison
ment. It is universally believed that he suffered
martyrdom at Rome.
2. The localities in and about Rome especially
connected with the life of St. Paul are — (1.) The
Appian Way, by which he approached Rome (Acts
xxviii. 15). (See Appii Forum, and Diet, of
Geogr. "Via Appia.") (2.) "The palaee," or
" Cffisar's court " (rh wpaniipioi', Phil. i. 13).
This may mean either tbe great camp of the Prae
torian guards which Tiberius established outside
the walls on the N. E. of the city (Tac. Ann. iv. 2;
Suet. Tib. 37 ), or, as seems more pi'ubable, a bar
rack attached to the Imperial residence on the Pal
atine (Wieseler, as quoted by C. and H ., Life of
Si. Paul, ii. 423). There is no sufficient' proof
that the word " Prsetorium " was ever used to des
ignate the emperor's palace, though it is used for
the official residence of a Roman governor ( Tohn
xviii. 28; Acts xxiii. 35). The mention of "Cae
sar's household" (Phil. iv. 22), eonfirms the
notion that St. Paul's residence was in the im
mediate neighborhood of the emperor's house
on the Palatine. [Judgmeht-Hall ; Pr.kto-
RIUM.] 3. The connection of other localities at Rome
with St. Paul's name rests only on traditions ol
more or less probability. We may mention espe
cially — (1.) The Mamortine prison or Tullianum.
built by Anous Martius near the forum (Liv. i. 33

ROME
lescribed by istllust ( Cat. 55). It still exists be
neath the church of S. Giuseppe dei Falegnami.
Here it is said that St. Peter and St. Paul were
fellow-prisoners for nine months. This is not the
place to discuss the question whether St. Peter was
aver at Rome. It may be sufficient to state, that
though there is no evidence of such a visit in the
N. T., unless Babylon in 1 Pet. v. 13 is a mystical
n&me for Rome, yet early testimony (Dionysius, ap.
Euseb. ii. 25), and the universal belief of the early
Church seem sufficient to establish the fact of his
having suffered martyrdom there. [Pbter, vol. iii.
p. 2464.] The story, however, of the imprison
ment in the Mamertine prison seems inconsistent
with 2 Tim., especially iv. 11. (2.) The chapel on
the Ostian road which marks the spot where the
two Apostles are said to have separated on their
way to martyrdom. (3.) The supposed scene of
St. Paul's martyrdom, namely, the church of St.
Paolo alle tre fontane on the Ostian road. (See
the notice of the Ostian road in Caius, ap. Eus. H.
E. ii. 25.) To these may be added (4.) The sup
posed scene of St. Peter's martyrdom, namely, the
church of St. Pietro in Montorio, on the Janicu
lum. (6.) The chapel "Domine quo Vadis," on
the Appian road, the scene of the beautiful legend
of our Lord's appearance to St. Peter as he was
escaping from martyrdom (Ambrose, .i^^. 33). (6.)
The places where the bodies of the two Apostles,
after having been deposited first in the catacombs
(Koi/iriTiipia) (Eus. H. E. ii. 25), are supposed to
have been finally buried — that of St. Paul by the
Ostian road ; that of St. Peter beneath the dome
of the famous Basilica which bears his name (see
Caius, ap. Eus. H. E.ii. 25). AU these aud many
other traditions will be fbuud in the Annals of
Baronlus, under the last year of Nero. " Value
less as may be the historical testimony of each of
these traditions singly, yet collectively they are of
some importance as expressing tlie consciousness
of the third and fourth centuries, that there had
been an early contest, or at least contrast, be
tween the two Apostles, which in the end was
completely reconciled; and it is this feeling
which gives a real interest to the outward forms
in which it is brought before us, more or less
indeed in all the south of Europe, but especially
iu Rome itself" (Stanley's Sermons and Essays,
p. 101).
4. We must add, as sites unquestionably con
nected with the Roman Christians of the Apostolic
age — (1.) The gardens of Nero in the Vatican, not
far from the spot where St. Peter's now stands.
Here Christians wrapped in the skins of beasts
were torn to pieces by dogs, or, clothed in inflam
mable robes, were burnt to serve as torches during
the midnight games. Others were crucified (Tac.
Ann. XV. 44). (2.) The Catacombs. These sub
terranean galleries, commonly fiom 8 to 10 feet in
height, and from 4 to 6 in width, and extenduig
for miles, especially in the neighborhood of the old
Appian and Nomentan ways, were ¦unquestionably
used as places of refuge, of worship, and of burial
by the early Christians. It is impossible here to
inter upon tbe difficult question of their origin.

I 1. 'Ai/Ti (Matt. ii. 22).
2. -ULiipelv (Mark ii. 2).
8. Tdirot (Luke ii. 7, xiv. 22 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 16).
4. noii (Luke xii. 17, where the word room should
be printed iu italics).
t. UiiioxK ('• «¦ a successor. Acts xxiv. 27).

ROOM 2751
and their possible connection with the deep sand
pits and subterranean works at Rome mentioned
by classical writers. See the story of the murder
of Asinius (Cic. pro Cluent. 13), and the account
of the concealment offered to Nero before his
death (Suet. Nero, 48). A more complete ac
count of the catacombs than any yet given, may
be expected in the forthcoming work of the Cav-
aliere G. B. de Rossi. Some very interesting no
tices of this work, and descriptions of the Roman
catacombs are given in Burgon's Letters from
Rome, pp. 120-258. " De Rossi finds his earliest
dated inscription A. D. 71. From that date to A. D.
300 there are not known to exist so many as thirty
Christian inscriptions bearing dates. Of undated
inscriptions, however, about 4,000 are referable to
the period antecedent to the emperor Constantine"
(Burgon, p. 148). [See De Rossi's Jnscriptiones
Chrisl. Urbis Romce, Vol. L Rom. 1861, foi.]
Nothing is known of the first founder of the
Christian Church at Rome. Christianity may,
perhaps, have been introduced into the city not
long after the outpouring of the Holy Spii'it on
the day of Pentecost, by the " strangers of Rome,"
who were then at Jerusalem (Acts ii. 10). It is
clear that there were raany Christians at Rome be
fore St. Paul visited the city (Rom. i. 8, 13, 15,
XV. 20). The names of twenty-four Christians at
Rome are given in the salutations at the end of the
Epistle to the Romans. Far the difficult question
whether the Roman Church consisted mainly of
Jews or Gentiles, see C. and H., Life of Si. Paul,
ii. 157; Alford's Proleg.; and especially Prof.
Jowett's Epistles of St. Paul to the Romans, Ga
latians, and Thessalonians, ii. 7-26. The view
there adopted, that they were a Gentile Church but
Jewish converts, seems most in harmony with such
pasBiges as ch. i. 5, 13, xi. 13, and with the gen
eral tone of the epistle.
Linus (who is mentioned, 2 Tim. iv. 21), and
Clement (Phil. iv. 3), are supposed to have suc
ceeded St. Peter as bishops of Rome.
Rome seems to be described under the name of
Babylon in Rev. xiv. 8, xvi. 19, xvii. 5, xviii. 2, 21 ;
and again, as the city of the seven hills (Rev. xvii.
9, cf. xii. 3, xiii. 1). See too, for the interpreta
tion of the mystical number 666 in .Rev. xiii. 18,
Alford's note, I. c.
For a good account of Rome at the time of St.
Paul's visit, see Conybeare and Howson's Life oj
St. Paul, ch. xxiv., of which free use has been
made for the sketch of the city given in this »r
tide. J. J. H.
ROOF. [Daberath, Amer. ed. ; House.]
ROOM. This word is employed in the A. V.
of the New Testament as the equivalent of no less
than eight distinct Greek " terms. The only one
of these, however, which need be noticed here is
irptnTOKXuria (Matt, xxiii. 6; Mark xii. 39; Luke
xiv. 7, 8, XX. 46), which signifies, not a " room " ia
the sense we commonly attach to it of a chamber,
but the highest place on the highest couch round
the dinner or supper-table — the "uppermost seat,'*
as it is more accurately rendered in Luke xi. 43.
[Meals.] The word " seat " is, however, generally

6. npuToKXicritt (chief, highest, uppermost room.
See above).
7. *iiva-^aiov (an
xxii. 12).
8. Tb vir^pi^v

See above). upper room, Mark sir. 15 ; Luke

xxii. 12). (the upper room, &cts i. 13).

2752

ROSE

Appropriated by our translators to xaBeBpa, which
4eems to mean some kind of official chair. In Luke
xiv. 9, 10, they have rendered r6iros by both
" place " and " room."
The Upper Roo>i of the Last Supper is noticed
mder its own head. [See House, vol. ii. p. 1105.] G.
ROSE (nbg^n, chabaistseleth : Kpivov,
&v6os^ Aq. ttaAu|: Jlos, lUium) occurs twice only,
namely, in Cant. ii. 1, " I am the Rose of Sharon,''
and in Is. xxxv. 1, '-the desert shaU rejoice and
blossom as the rose.''' There is much difference
of opinion as to what particular flower is here
denoted. TremeUius and Diodati, with some of
the Rabbins, believe the rose is intended, but there
seems to be no foundation for such a translation.
Celsius (Hierob. i. 488) has argued in favor of the
Narcissus {Polyanthus narcissus). This rendering
is supported by the Targum on Cant. ii. 1, where
Chabaistseleth is explained by narhos (D*lp"n3),
This word, says Royle (Kitto's Cyc. art. " Cha-
bazzeleth "), is " the same as the Persian nargus,
the Arabic (jja.^O| whieh throughout the East
indicates Narcissus Tazetia, or the polyanthus
narcissus." Gesenius {Thes. s. v.) has no doubt
that the plant denoted is the '* autumn crocus "
{Colchicum autumnale). It is weU worthy of re
mark that the Syriac translator of Is. xxxv. 1
explains chfibaisiselelh by chamisalyotho," which is
evidently tlie sarae word, m and b being iuter-
changed. This Syriac word, according to Jlichaelis
(Suppl. p. 659), Gesenius, and RosenmiiUer (Bib.
Bot. p. 142), denotes the Colchicum autumnale.
The Hebrew word points etymologicaUy to some
bulbous plant; it appears to us more probable that
the narcissus is intended than the crocus, the
former plant being long celebrated for its fragrance,
while the other has no odorous qualities to recom
mend it. Again, as the chabatstseleih is associated
with the lily in Caut. I. u., it seems probable that
Solomon is speaking of two plants which blossomed
about the same time. The narcissus and the Uly
{LUium candidum) would be in blossom together
in the early spring, while the Colchicum is an
autumn plant. Thomson (Land and Book, pp.
112, 513) suggests the possibility of the Hebrew
name being identical with the Arabic Khubbaizy

(»

'r*'!'^ •"¦ iS)

sLi^),

" the maUow," which

plant he saw growing abundantly on Sharon; but
this view can hardly be maintained : the Hebrew
term is probably a quadriliteral noun, with the
harsh aspirate prefixed, and the prominent notion
impUed in it is beisel, "a bulb," and has therefore
no connection vsith the above-named Arabic word.
Chateaubriand {liineraire, ii. 130) mentions the
narcissus as growing in the plain of Sharon ; and
Strand (Fhr. Palcest. No. 177) names it as a plant
of Palestine, on the authority of Rauwolf and
Hasselquist; see also Kitto's Phys, Hist, (f Palest.
p. 21fi. Hiller {Hierophyt. n. 30) thinks the cha-
hatsiseleth denotes some species of asphodel (Aspho-

]k^

ic;:,.

6 • « From the locahty of Jericho," says Mr. Tris
tram, "and the situation by the waters, this rose is
cost probably the Oleander, the Rhododendron, or
iree-rose of the Greeks, one of the most beautiful and

ROSH
delus): but the iiiiger-like roots of this genus of
plants do not well accord with the " bulb " root
implied in the original word.
Though the rose is apparently not mentioned in
the Hebrew Bible, it is referred to in Ecclus. xxiv.
14, where it is said of Wisdom that she is exalted
"as a rose-plant (as ^vrci ^6Sov) in Jericho"
(comp. also ch. I. 8; xxxix. 13; Wisd. ii. 8).*
Rosea are greatly prized in the East, more espe
cially for the sake of the rose-water, which is in
much request (see Hasselquist, Trav. p. 248). Dr.
Hooker observed the following wild roses in Syria:
Rosa eglanteria (L.), R. sempevnrens (L.), R.
Henkeliann, R. Pheenicia (Boiss), R. se7'iacea, R.
anguslifolia, and R. Libanot'ica. Some of these
are doubtful species. R. centifolia and damascena
are cultivated everywhere. The so-called " Rose
of Jericho " is no rose at all, but the Anastaiicn
Hierochuniina, a cruciferous plant, not uncommon
on sandy soil in Palestine and Egypt. W. H.
ROSH [XSIAn [head]: "pi,: Ros). In the
genealogy of Gen. xlvi. 21, Rosh is reckoned among
the sons of Benjamin, but the name does not occur
elsewhere, and it is extremely probable that " Ehi
and Rosh" is a corruption of " Ahiram " (comp.
Num. xxri. 38). See Burriiigton's Genealogies, i.
281. ROSH (trSI : 'pdJj, Ez. xxxviii. 2, 3, xxxix.
1 : translated by the Vulg. capitis, and by the .K.
V. "chief," as if CS^, "head"). The whole
sentence thus rendered by the A. V. " JIagog the
chief prince of ileshech and Tubal," ought to ru.T
Magog the prince of Rosh, Mesech, and Tubal; "
the word translated " prince " being ^'''2?3, the
term usually employed for the head of a nomad
tribe, as of Abraham (in Gen. xxiii. 6), of the
.irabians (Gen. x™. 20), and of the chiefe of the
several Israelite tribes (Num. vii. 11, xxxiv. 18), or
in a general sense (1 K. xi. 34 ; Ez. xii. 10. xiv. 7,
xlvi. 2). The meaning is that Magog is the head
of the three great Scythian tribes, of which " Rosh "
is thus the first. Gesenius considers it beyond
doubt that by Rosh. or 'pd>s, is intended the tribe
on the north of the Taurus, so called from their
neighborhood to the Rha, or ^'olga, and that in
this name and tribe we have the first trace of the
Russ or Russi.iN nation. Von Hammer identifies
this name with Rass in the Koran (xxv. 40; 1. 12),
the peoples Aad, Thamud, and the Asshabir (or
inhabitants) of Rass or Ross." He considers that
Mohammed had actually the passage of Ezekiel in
view, and that "Assh.a'Dir" corresponds to iViisi,
the " prince " of the A. V., and ^pxavTa of the
LXX. (Sur les Origines Rosses, Petersburg, 1825,
pp. 24-29). The first certain mention of the Rus
sians under this name is in a Ijitin Chronicle under
the year A. D. 839, quoted by Bayer (Origines
Russicce, Comment. Acad. Petropol. 1726, p. 409).
B'rom the junction of Tiras with Meshech and
Tubal in Gen. a. 2, Von Hammer conjectures the
identity of Tiras and Rosh (p. 26).
The name probably occurs again under the
altered form of Rasses, in Judith ii. 23 — this time

attractive plants of Palestine, whicb abounds in all
the warmer parts of the country by the side of pools
aud streams, and flourishes especially at Jericho, where
I have not seen our rose " (Nat. Hist, of tlie Biolt,
p. 477). H.

ROSIN
in the ancient Latin, and possibly also in the
Syriac versions, in connection with Thiras or Thars.
But the passage is too corrupt to admit of any
3ertain deduction frora it. [Rasses.]
This early Biblical notice of so great an empire
is doubly interesting from its being a solitary
instance. No otiier name of any modern nation
occurs in the Scriptures, and the obUteration of it
by the A. V. is one of the many remarkable varia
tions of our version frora the nieaning of the sacred
text of the Old Testament. Kor all fm'ther in
formation see the above-quoted treatises of Von
Hammer and Bayer. A. P. S-
ROSIN. Properly "naphtha," as it is both
in the LXX. nnd Vulg. {vd^Qa., naphtha), as weU
as the Pesbito-Syriae. In the Song of the Three
Children (23), the servants of the king of Babylon
are said to have " ceased not to make the oven hot
with rosin, pitch, tow, and small wood." PUny
(ii. 101) mentions naphtha as a product of Baby
lonia, similar in appearance to liquid bitumen, and
having a remarkable affinity to fire. To this
natural product (known also as Persian naphtha,
petroleum, rock oil, Rangoon tar, Burmese naph
tha, etc.) reference is made in the passage in ques
tion. Sir R. K. Porter thus describes the naphtha
springs at Kirkookin Lower Courdistan, mentioned
hy Strabo (xvii. 738): "They are ten in number.
For a considerable distance from them we felt the
air sulphurous; but iu drawing near it became
worse, and we were all instantly struck with ex
cruciating headaches. The springs consist of sev
eral pits or wells, seven or eight feet in diameter,
and ten or twelve deep. The whole number are
within the compass of five hundred yards. A
ffight of steps has been cut into each pit for tlie
purpose of approaching the fluid, which rises and
falls according to the dryness or moisture of the
weather. The natives lave it out with ladles into
bags made of skins, which are carried on the backs
of asses to Kirkook, or to any other mart for its
sale. . . . The Kirkook naphtha is prin
cipally consumed by the markets in the southwest
of Courdistan, while the pits not far from Knfri
supply Bagdad and its environs. The Bagdad
naphtha is black " ( Trav. ii. 440). It is described
by Dioscorides (i. 101) as the dregs of the Baby
lonian asphalt, and white in color. According to
Plutarch (Alex. p. 35) Alexander first saw it in the
city of Ecbatana, where the inhabitants exhibited
its marvelous effects by strewing it along the street
which led to his headquarters and setting it on
fire. He then tried an experiment on h page who
attended him, putting him into a bath of naphtha
and ^tting light to it (Strabo, xvii. 743), which
nearly resulted in the boy's death. Plutarch sug
gests that it was naphtha in which Medea steeped
the crown and robe which she gave to the daughter
of Creon ; and Suidas says that the Greeks caUed
it " Medea's oil," but the Medes *' naphtha." The
Persian name is ia-flj ("q/il). Posidonius (in
Strabo) relates that in Babylonia there were springs
^f black and white naphtha. The fornier, says
atrabo (xvii. 743), were of Uquid bitumen, which

a fhe Ghald. T^ (Esth. i. 6), which the A. T.
nnders '^ whito," and which seems to be identica with

Ju Arab. *(^j durrj "pearls;

^\0, durrah, " a

RUB 2753
they burnt in lamps instead of oil. The latter
were of Uquid sulphur. W. A. W.
* ROWERS. [Ship (6.)]
* ROWS, Cant. i. 10. [Ornamknt.^. I^kr-
SONAL, note s.]
RUBIES (D';'^3Q, pSnkjyim; D'^i^'SQ, pSnU
nun: \i&oi, \. iroXoTeXe^s- cuncioi opes, cunda
pretlosissimi, gemniai, de ultimis finibus, ebor an-
tiquum), the invariable rendering of the above-
named Hebrew words, concerning the meaning of
which there is much difference of opinion and great
uncertainty. " The price of wisdom is above peni-
7iini " (.lob xxviii. 18; see also Prov. iii. 15, viii.
11, xxxi. 10). In Lam. iv. 7 it is said, "the
Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter
than milk, they were more ruddy in body than
peninim.'' A. Boote {Animad. Sac. iv. 3), on
account of the ruddiness mentioned in the last
passage, supposed "coral" to be intended, for
which, however, there appears to be another Hebrew
word. [Coral.] J. D. JlichaeUs {Suppl. p. 2023)
is of the sarae opinion, and compares the Hebrew
n32Q with the Arab. ^j^Ai, "a branch." Gese
nius (Thes. s. v.) defends this argument. Bochart
(Hieroz. iii. 601) contends that the Hebrew term
denotes pearls, and explains the "ruddiness" al
luded to above, by supposing that the original word
(^ *T^) signifies merely "bright in color," or
"color of a reddish tinge." This opinion is sup
ported by Rosenmiiller (Schol. in Thren.)., and
others, but opposed by Maurer {Comment.) and
Gesenius. Certainly it would be no compUment
to the great people of the land to say that their
bodies were as red as coral or rubies, unless we
adopt Maurer' s explanation, who refers the "rud
diness " to the blood which flowed in their veins.
On the whole, considering that the Hebrew word
is always u.sed in the plural, we are inclined to
adopt Bochart's explanation, and .understand pearls
to be intended. « [Pearls.] W. H.
* RUDDER-BANDS, Acts xxvii. 40
[Ship (¦>.)]
RUE {iriiyavov: ruta) occurs only in Luke j\
42 : " Woe unto you, Pharisees ! for }e tithe mint
and rue and aU manner of herbs." The iii3 here
spoken of is doubtless the comnon Ka^i grave-
olens, a shrubby plant about 2 feet hiiih, of strong
medicinal virtues. It is a native of the Mediter
ranean coasts, and has been found by Hasselquist
on Mount Tabor. Dioscorides (iii. 45) describe
two kinds of ir-fjyavov, namely, tt. 6peiv6v and ir.
K-nweuT^v, which denote the Ruta montana and
R. gravcolens respectively. Rue was in great
repute amongst the ancients, both as a condiment
and as a medicine (PUny, N. H. xix. 8; ColuraeU.
R. Ras. xii. 7, § 5; Dioscorides, I. c). The Tal
mud enumerates rue amongst kitchen-herbs (She-
biiih, ch. ix. § 1), and regards it as free of tithe,
as being a plant not cultivated in gardens. In our
Lord's time, however, rue was doubtless a garden-
plant, and therefore tithable, as is evident from
our Lord's words, " these things ought ye to have

pearl," is by some understood to mean " mother of
pearl," or the kind of alabaster called iu German
Perlenmutterstein. The LXX. has TriVftvos >t9o?. See
Gesenius, and U'iner {Bibl. Realw. i. 71).

2754 RUFUS
done." The rue ig too well known to need de-
•cription." W. H.
RUTTTS ('Poui(ioj [red, reddish] : Rufus) is
mentioned in Mark xv. 21, along with Alexander,
aa a son of Simon the CjTenaean, whom the Jews
compelled to bear the cross of Jesus on the way to
Golgotha (Luke xxiii. 26). As the Evangelist
informs his readers who Simon was by naming the
sons, it is evident that the latter were better
known than the father in the circle of Christians
where Mark lived. Agam, in Rom. xvi. 13, tbe
Apostle Paul salutes a Rufus whom he designates
as " elect in the Lord " (4ic\ficrhy 4v Kvpiif), and
whose mother he gracefully recognizes as having
earned «. mother's claim upon himself by acts of
kindness shown to him. It is generally supposed
that this Rufus was identical with the one to whom
Mark refers; and in that case, as Mark wrote his
gospel in all probability at Rome, it was natural
that he should describe to his readers the father
(who, since the mother was at Rome while the
father apparently was not there, may have died, or
have come later to that city) from his relationship
to two well-known members of the same com
munity. It is some proof at least of the early
existence of this new that, in the Actis Andi-ece el
Petri, both Rufus and Alexander appear as com
panions of Peter in Rome. Assuming, then, that
the same person is meant in the two passages, we
have before us an interesting group of behevere —
a father (for we can hardly doubt that Simon
became a Christian, if he was not aheady such, at
the time of the crucifixion), a mother, and two
brothers, all in the same family. Yet we are to
bear in mind that Rufus was not an uncommon
name (Wetstein, Nov. Test., vol. i. p. 634); and
possibly, therefore, Mark and Paul may have had
in view differeut individuals. IL B. H.
RTJHA'MAH (HDnT \commiserated:\ :
^AeTj/icyrj : misericoo-diiim coiisecuta). The mar
gin of our version renders it " having obtained
mercy " (Hos. ii. 1). The name, if name it be, is
Uke Lo-ruhamah, symbolical, and as that was given
to the daughter of the prophet Hosea, to denote
that God's mercy was turned away frora Israel, so
the name Ruhamah is addressed to the daughters
of the people to denote that they were still the ob
jects of his love and tender compassion.
RTJ'MAH Cmyn [Mgh, exalted]: -povpd;
Joseph. 'Affoifia: Ruma). Mentioned, once only
(2 K. xxiii. 36), as the native place of a certain
Pedaiah, the father of Zebudah, a member of the
harem of king Josiah, and mother of Ehakim or
Jehoiakim king of Judah.
It has been conjectured to be the same place as
Arumab (Judg. ix. 41), which was apparently near
Shechem. It is more probable that it is identical
with Dumah, one ofthe towns in the mouitains of
Judah, near Hebron (Josh. xv. 52), not far distant
from Libnah, the native town of another of Josiah's
wives. The Hebrew D and R are so similar aa
often to be confounded together, and Dumah must
have at any rate been written Rumah in the He
brew text from which tbe LXX. translated, since
they give it as Remna and Rouma.
Josephus mentions a Rumah in Galilee (B. J.
ii. 7, § 21). G.

RUTH
RUSH. [Eeed.]
RUST (Bpao-is, 16s : aa-ugo) occurs as the trans
lation of two different Greek words in Matt. vi. 19,
20, and in Jam. v. 3. In the former passage the
word Bpaa-is, which is joineil with trifs, "moth,"
has by some been understood to denote the larva of
some moth injurious to com, as the Tinea granelh
(see Stainton, Insecta Briian. iii. 30). The He
brew WV (Is. L 9) is rendered PpHiris by Aquila;
comp. also Epist. Jerem. v. 12, airh iou /col fipio-
yaiTcoj', " from rust and moths " (A. V. Bar. vi. 12).
Scultetus (Exerc. Evang. ii. 35, Crit. Sac vi.)
believes that the words a^s ko! Ppairis are an hen-
diadys for o-t/s Pptia^xav. The word can scarcely
be taken to signify " rust," for which there is
another term. Us, which is used by St. James to
express rather the "tarnish" which overspreads
silver than " rust," by which name we now under
stand " oxide of iron." Bpmiris is no doubt in
tended to have reference in a general sense to any
corrupting and destroying substance that may at
tack treasm'es of any kind which have long been
suffered to remain undisturbed-. The allusion of
St. James is to the corroding nature of Us on met
als. Scultetus correctly observes, " arugine de-
formantur quidem, sed non corrumpuntur nummi; "
but though this is strictly speaking true, the an
cients, just as ourselves in common parlance, spoke
of the corroding nature of "rust" (comp. Ham
mond, Annoiat. in Matt. vi. 19). W. H.
RUTH (n=n: 'Poiifl: probably for HWI,'
" a friend," the feminine of Eeu). A Moabitish
woman, the wife, first, of Mahlon, secondly of Boaz,
aud by him mother of Obed, the ancestress of Da
vid and of Christ, and one of the four women
(Thamar, Rahab, and Uriah's wife being the other
three) who are named by St. Matthew in the gen
ealogy of Christ. [Rahab.] The incidents in
Ruth's life, as detailed in the beautiful book that
bears her name, may be epitomized as follows. A
severe famine in the land of Judah, caused perhaps
by the occupation of the land by the Moabites un
der Eglon (as Ussher thinks possible)," induced
Elimelech, a native of Bethlehem Epbratah, to emi
grate into the land of Moab, with his wife Naomi,
and his two sons, Mahlon and Chilion. At the
end of ten years Naomi, now left a. widow and
childless, having heard that there was plenty again
in Judah, resolved to return to Bethlehem, and
her daughter-in-law, Ruth, returned with her.
" Whither thou goest, I will go, and where thou
lodgest, 1 will lodge; thy people shall be my people^
and thy God my God : where thou diest I will die,
and there will I be buried : the Lord do so to me, and
more also, if aught but death part thee and me;"
was the expression of the unalterable attachment
of the young Moabitish widow to the mother, to
the land, and to the religion of her lost husband.
They arrived at Bethlehem just at the beginning
of barley harvest, and Ruth, going out to glean
for the support of her mother-in-law and herself,
chanced to go into the field of Boaz, a wealthy man,
the near kinsman of her father-in-law Elimelech.
The story of her virtues and her kindness and
fidelity to her niotber-in-law, and her preference
for the land of her husband's birth, had gone before

a • " We collected," says Tristram, " four species
nld iu Palestine. Ruta graveolens is cultivated " (Nat.
Hist, ofthe Bible, p. 478). H.

h Some think it is for mS"!, "beauty."
c Patrick suggests the &mine in the days of Oideol
(Judg. vi. 8, 4).

RUTH, BOOK OF
aer; and immediately upon learning who the strange
youi.g woman was, Boaz treated her with the ut
most kindness and respect, and sent her horae
laden with corn which she had gleaned. Encour
aged by this incident, Naomi iu.'jtructed Ruth to
claim at tbe hand of Boaz that be should perform
the part of her husband's near kinsman, by pur
chasing the inheritance of Elimelech, and taking
her to be his wife. But there was a neai-er kins
man than Boaz, and it was necessary that he
should have the option of redeeming the inheritance
for himself. He, however, declined, fearing to mar
his own inheritance. Upon which, with all due
solemnity, Boaz took Ruth to be his wife, amidst
the blessings and congratulations of their neighbors.
As a singular example of virtue and piety in a rude
age and among an idolatrous people ; aa one of the
first-fruits of the Gentile harvest gathered into the
3hurchi as the heroine of a story of exquisite
beauty and simplicity ; as illustrating in her history
the workings of Divine Providence, and the trutb
of the saying, that " the eyes of the Lord are over
the righteous; " and for the many interesting rev
elations of ancient domestic and social customs
which are associated with her story, Ruth has al
ways held a foremost place among the Scripture
characters. St. Augustine has a curious specula
tion on the relative blessedness of Ruth, twice mar-
lied, and by her second marriage becoming the an
cestress of Christ, and Anna remaining constant in
her widowhood (De bono Viduit.). Jerome ob
serves that we can measure the greatness of Ruth's
virtue by the greatness of her reward — " Ex qus
semine Christus oritur " (Epist. xxii. ad Paulam).
As the great-grandmother of King David, Ruth
must have flourished in the latter part of Eli's
'udgeship, or the beginning of that of Samuel. But
there seem to be no particular notes of time in the
book, by which her age can be more exactly defined.
The story was put into its present shape, avowedly,
long after her lifetime; see Ruth i. 1, iv. 7, 17.
(Bertheau on Ruth, in the Exeg. Handb.; Rosen-
mull. Proaem. in Lib Ruth ; Parker's De Wette ;
Ewald, Gesch. i. 295, iii. 760 ff.) A. C. H.
* RUTH, BOOK OF. The plan of the i)ic-
I'umary requires that some account should be given
of the book of which Ruth is the heroine. The
topics which claim remark are — its place in the
canon, its age, authorship, object, sources of the his
tory, its archaeology and the additional literature.
The position of this book in the English Bible
accords with that of the Septuagint, it being very
properly inserted between Judges and 1 Samuel as
essentially a supplement to the former and an in
troduction to the latter, for though Eli and Samuel
as the inimediate precursors of the kings occupy a
place in 1 Samuel, the book of Ruth forms a
connecting link between the period of the judges
and that of the monarchy. If Obed the son of
Boaz was the father of Jesse (iv. 17) the events
which the book of Ruth relates must have taken
place in the last century of the age of the judges.
The arrangement in our ordinary Hebrew Bibles at
present places this history, without any regard to
the chronology, among the hagiographa or sacred
writings (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Solomon's Song,
Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel,
Kzra, Nehemiah, Chronicles), so classified with
reference t^ their ethical or practical contents.
[Canon.] Yet some critics maintain that the
viginal Hebrew order was that of the Septuagint

RUTH, BOOK OF

2755

aud the other a later transposition. (See against
that view Cassel, Das Buch Ruth, p. 201 f.)
The date of the composition it is impossible to
ascertain with much precision. It must have been
written after the birth of David (iv. 17) and prob
ably after his reign ; for the genealogy at the close
presupposes that he had acquired at the time a
historical and theocratic importance which belonged
to him only after he had finished his career as war
rior, king, and prophet. It is no certain proof of
a mach later authorship than this that the custom
of •¦ plucking off the shoe" as a legal form had be
come obsolete when the book was written (iv. 7, 8),
for many changes in the life of the Hebrews must
have taken place rapidly after the establishment of
the monarchy, and in addition to this, if Boaz was
the immediate ancestor of Obed, and Obed was the
father of Jesse (iv. 17) an interval of three genera
tions at least lay between Boaz and the close of
David's reign. Some critics point out certain words
and grammatical forms in the book which they allege
to be proof of a later composition, and would even
bring it down to the Chaldee period of Jewish his
tory. Examples of this are '''l^IiP.ri, '["'pa^n
(ii. 8, 21), )'n2\}'] (il. 9), ¦'iilJpt? ''WIT!
(iii. 3), ''i^^Dtt? (iii. 4), S"ia instead of mO
(i. 20), 7^7 instead of 15^j ^^^ others, buf as
these and some other expressions, partly peculiar
and partly infrequent only, either do not occur at
all in^ the later books, or occur at the same time in
some of the earlier books, they surely cannot be
alleged with any confidence as marks of a Chaldee
style (see Keil's Kinl. in das A. Test. p. 415 f., and
Wright's Book of Ruth, p. xU. ff.). The few un
common words or phrases are found in fact in the
passages of our book where the persons introduced
appear as the speakers, and not in the language of
the historian, and raay be considered as relics of
the conversational phraseoloi^j of the age of the
judges, which happen to be not elsewhere pre
served. Bleek decides in like manner that the lan
guage of the book settles nothing with regard to
the time when the book was written. The earlier
origin of the book of Ruth, as De Wette admits
(Einl. in das A. Test. § 194), is manifest from the
entire absence of any repugnance to intermarriage
between the Hebrews and foreigners. The extrac
tion of Ruth is not regarded as offensive or requir
ing so much as a single word of apology. It is
impossible on this account that it should belong to
the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, when so different
a feeling prevailed in regard to such alliances (see
Ezr. ix. and x. and Neh. xiii. 23 ff.). The aU'
thor is unknown. One of the Jewish traditions
names Samuel as the writer; but, as has been sng
gested already, David was comparatively unknown
till after the death of Samuel.
With regard to the sources of the history we- can
only say with Bleek (Einl. in das A. Test. p. 355)
that we cannot decide whether the writer found
and used an extant written d<jcument or merely
followed some tradition preserved in the family of
David which came to his knowledge. Nothing in
the significance of the personal Hebrew names casts
any doubt on the truthfulness of the narrative
Out of all the names occurring there only two,
Mahlon and Chilion, give the least semblance of
truth to that allegation. The correspondence be*
tween the meaning of these (as usually defined)

2756

RUTH, BOOK OF

and the early death of the persons who bear them.
may be accidental, or the origuial names may have
been changed after their death. On this point see
Chilion and Names (Amer. ed.).
The object of the book has been variously
stated. That the author merely intended to up
hold the authority of the levirate law requir
ing a brother-in-law to marry the . widow of a
deceased brother (Gen. xxxviii. 8; Deut. xxv. 5 ff.)
is entirely improbable; for the assumption of that
relationship appears here only as an incident of the
history, and in reahty Boaz was not the brother
of Mahlon, tlie husband of Ruth (iv. 10), but only
a remote kinsman of the faraily, and his action
in the case was voluntary and not required by any
Mosaic statute. To regard also the object as
merely that of tracing the genealogy of David's
family is certainly too limited a view. We must find
the explanation of the purpose in the facts them
selves which the history relates, and the narrator's
manifest interest m precisely these facts as shown
in the tore and coloring which he has given to the
history. It is the pious, genuinely theocratic spirit
exhibited by the actors in the little book, which con
fers upon it its higlier importance and characferistic
unity. This aim and tendency appear most con
spicuously in ii. 11, 12. Ruth has left her heathen
native land ; tbe God of her mother-in-law is her
God (i. 16). She has gone to an unknown people,
has taken refuge under the wings of the God of
Israel, has looked to liim for help, and has found
more than she could expect or conceive of in being
permitted to become the mother of the royal house
of David. (See Hiivernick's Einl. in das A. Test.
ii. 113.) The fact that Matthew (i. 3-6), who adds
however the names of Thamar and Rahab, and
Luke (iii. 31-33) insert the genealogy of David
as given at the end of the book in the tables
of the genealogy of Christ, not only shows that the
book of Ruth formed a recognized part of the He
brew Scriptures, but that God's arrangements in
providing a Saviour for all the races of mankind
held forth a significant foretoken of this uni
versality in the charaeter of the Saviour's lineage
as derived from Gentile ancestors as well as Jewish.
David's descent from Ruth is known to us only from
this book. The books of Samuel are silent on this
point, and Chronicles, though they mention Boaz
as one of his ancestors, say nothing of Ruth
(1 Chr. ii. 11, 12).
The illustrations of oriental life furnished by
modern travellers impart to this book a character
of vividness and reality which deserves attention.
Naomi and Ruth arrived at Betli-Iehem from
the land of Moab "in the beginning of barley
harvest '* (i. 22). It was about the first of April,
therefore, for the cereal crops are generally ripe in
the south of Palestine at that time. Betli-lehem,
which signifies " house of bread " with reference to
its fertility, is still famous for its fields of grain,
which occur especially on the plains eastward as
one approaches from the valley of the Jordan.
Such fields now, as was true anciently, are not en
closed by walls or hedges, but separated by single
stones set up Were and there, or by a footpath only ;
and hence it is said that it waa " the hap " or lot
of Ruth to light upon the part of the field which
belonged to Boaz (ii. 3). Notice the local pre
cision of the narrator. To reach the grain-fields
or threshing-floor from her home in Beth-lehem
Ruth "went down" from the city (iii. 3, G); for
Beth-lehem is on higher ground than the adjacent

RUTH, BOOK OF
region, and especially on the south and east lidf
is almost precipitously cut off from its enviions.
The gleaning after tbe reapers (ii. 3, 7, 16) was
aUowed to the poor among the Hebrews (a right
guaranteed by an express Mosaic statute), and is
still practiced in the ICast. Dr. Thomson being
in the vicinity of Beth-lehem at the time of
barley-haiTest states that he saw women and chil
dren gleaning after every company of reapers
(Land and Book,'u. bW). The " parched corn "
which Boaz gave her at their rustic repast was not
such in our sense of the expression, but consisted
of roasted heads of grain. The mode of prepar
ing the food we learn from the methods still em
ployed. Mr. Tristram describes one of them which
he saw in Galilee near Lake Huleh. " A few
sheaves of wheat were tossed on tbe fire, and as
soon as the straw was consumed the charred heads
were dexterously swept fi'om the embers on to a
cloak spread on the ground. The women of the
party then beat the ears and tossed them into the
air until they were thoroughly winnowed, when the
wheat was eaten without further preparation.
. . . The green ears had become half charred by tho
roasting, and there was >! pleasant mingUng of
milky wheat and a fresh crust flavor as we chewed
the parched corn " (Land of Israel, p. 590).' Ac
cording to another method some of the best ears,
with the stalks attached, are tied into small par
cels, and the corn-beads are held over the firs
until the chaff is mostly burned off; and, after
being thus roasted, they are , rubbed out in the
hand and the kernels eaten (Thomson, ii. 510).
The Hebrew terms for corn thus roasted are
''bi? and N'*b|T (Lev. xxiii. 14; Ruth ii. 14;
1 Sam. xvii. 17, xxv. 18; and 2 Sam. xvii. 18).
The chomeis or vinegar in which the eaters
dipped their morsel (ii. 14) was sour wine mingled
with oil, still a favorite beverage among the people
of the East (see Keil's Bibl. Archoiologie, ii. 16). At
the close of the day Ruth beat out the grain of the
ears which she had gathered (ii. 17). " It is a com
mon sight now," says Thomson, " to see a poor
woman or maiden sitting by the way-side and beat
ing out with a stick or stone the grain-stocks which
she has gleaned " (Land and Book, ii. 509 ). As late
aa May 21, not far from Gaza, says Robinson, "we
found the lazy inhabitants still engaged in treading
out the barley harvest, which their neighbors had
completed long before. Several women were beat^
ing out with a stick handfuls of the grain which
they seemed to have gleaned " (Bibl. Res. ii. 385).
In another field the next day he saw " 200 reapers
and gleaners at work ; a few were taking refresh
ments and offered us some of their parched
corn " (Bibl. Res. iii. 394). The winnowing took
place by night in accordance with the agricultural
habits of the land at present; for tbe heat being
oppressive by day the farmers avoid its power as
much as possible, and the wind also is apt to be
stronger by night than during the day. The
Hebrew term (goren) describes the thresh ing-flooi
as simply a plot of ground in the open air, smoothed
off and beaten hard, such as the traveller now sees
everywhere as he passes through the country. It
might seem strange that a rich proprietor, like
Boaz, should be said to have slept at night in such
a plaoe; but that is the custom still, rendered
necessary by the danger of pillage and the untrust-
worthiness of the hired laborers. Robinson, speak
ing of a night spent in the mountains of Hebron

BYE
lays: "Here are needed no guards around the
tent; the owners of the crops carae every night
md slept upon their threshing-floors. We were
here iu the midst of scenes precisely like those
of the book of Ruth (iii. 2-14); where Boaz win
nowed barley and laid himself down at night to
guard the heap of corn " (Bibl. Res. ii. 446). " It
is not unusual for the husband, wife, and all the
family to encamp at the ba'iders ov threshing-floors,
until the harvest is over" (Thomson, ii. 511).
The "vail" in which Ruth carried home the "six
measures of barley " given to ber by Boaz, was a
mantle as well as veil, " a square piece of cotton
cloth" such as eastern women still wear; "and I
have often seen it used," says Thomson, "for just
such service as that to which Ruth applied hers "
(ii. 509). Barley is rarely used for purposes of
food in Syria except by the poor ; and that Ruth
and Naomi are represented as glad to avail them
selves of such means of subsistence comports with
the condition of poverty which the narrative as
cribes to them. [Barley.] The scene in the
square at the gate (iv. 1-12) is thoroughly orien
tal. It is hardly necessary to say that the gate hi
eastern cities is now and has been from time imme
morial the place of concourse where the people
come together to heai- the news, to discuss public
attaii's, to traffic, dispense justice, or do anything
else that pertains to the common welfare (Gen.
xix. 1, xxxiv. 20; Deut. xvi. 18; xxi. 19).
Some of the wi'iters on this book are mentioned
in the article on Ruth. The following may be
added: Umbreit, Ueber Geist u. Zweck des
Buchs Ruth, in the Studien u. Kritiken, 1834,
pp. 305-308. F. Benary, De Hebrisorum Levi-
ratu, pp. 1-70 (1835). CL. F. Metzger, Lib. Ruth
ex Hebr. in Lat. vers, peipetuaque inierpr. illusir.
(Tub. 1856). Keil, Bibl. Commentar, iii. 357-
382, and transl. in Clark's Foreign Theol. Library,
viii. pp. 465-494. Paulus Cassel, Das Buch der
Richter u. Ruth, in Lange's Bibelwerk, pp. 198-
242 (1865). C. H. H. Wright, Book of Ruth in
Hebrew and Chaldee (pp. vii.-xlviii. and 1-76, 1-49),
containing a critically revised text to the Chaldee
Targum of Ruth and valuable notes, explanatory
and philological (1865). Christopher Wprdsworth,
Joshua, Judges, Ruth, in his Holy Bible, with
Jntroductims and Notes, ii. pt. i. pp. 158-170
(1865). Bishop Hall, two sermons on Naomi and
Ruth and Boaz and Ruth, in his Contemplalions,
bk. xi. Stanley's Lectures on ihe Jewish Church,
i. 336-38. H.
RYE (npD3, cussemeih: feci, 6\vpa: far,
vicia) occurs in Ex. ix. 32; Is. xxviii. 25; in the
latter the margin reads " spelt." In Ez. iv. 9 the
text has "fitches" and the margin "rie." There
are many opinions aa to the signification of cms-
semeih ; some authorities maintaining that fitches
are denoted, others oats, and others rye. Celsius
has shown that in all probability " spelt " is
intended (Hierob. ii. 98), and this opinion is sup-
oorted by the LXX. and the Vulg. in Ex. ix. 32,
jnd by the Syriac versions. Rj'e is for the most
part a northern plant, and was probably not culti
vated in Egypt or Palestine in early times, whereas
jpelt has been long cultivated in the East, where it

« Can It be this phrase which determined the use
3f the Te Seum as a thanksgiving for victories ? '
& For the passages which follow, the writer is in-
ItMed to the kindnes. of a friend.

SABAOTH, THE LORD OF 2757
is held in high estimation. Herodotua (ii. 36)
says the Egyptians " make bread from spelt (hrri
oKvpewti), which some call zea." See also Phny
(H. N. xviii. 8l, and Dioscorides (ii. Ill), who
speaks of two kinds. The cussemeth was culti
vated in Egypt; it waa not injured by the hail
storm of the seventh plague (Ex. I. c), aa it was
not grown up. This cereal was also sown m Pai
estine (Is. I. c), on the margins or "headlands"
of the fields (ID^SS); it was used for mixing
with wheat, barley, etc., for making bread (Ez.
/. c). The Arabic, Clnrsanai, "spelt," is regarded
by Gesenius as identical with the Hebrew word,
m and n being interchanged and r inserted.
" Spelt " ( Trilirum spelta) is grown in some parts
of the south of Germany; it differs but slightly
from our common wheat (T. vulgare). There are
three kinds of spelt, namely, T. spelta, T. dicoc-
cum (rice wheat), and T. monococcum. [Rib,
Amer. ed."] W. H.

SAB'AOTH, THE LORD OF (Viipios <ra-
PaiiS: Dominus Sabaoth). Tbe name is found in
the English Bible only twice (Rom. ix. 29; James
V. 4). It is probably more familiar through its
occurrence in the Sanctus of the Te Deum " -
" Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Sabaoth." It is
too often considered to be -a synonym of, or to have
some connection with Sabbath, and to express the
idea of rest. And this not only popularly, but in
some of our most cLassical writers.'' Thus Spenser,
Faery Queen, canto viii. 2 ; —
" But thenceforch all shall rest eternally
With Him that is the God of Sabaoth bight :
0 that great Sabaoth God, grant me that Sabaoth'a
sight."
And Bacon, Advancement of Learning, ii. 24: —
" . . . sacred and inspired Divinity, the Sabaoth
and port of all men's labors and peregrin atiouj? "
And Johnson, in the 1st edition of whose Diu.tvn
ary (1755) Sabaoth and Sabbath are treated as the
same word. And Walter Scott, Ivanhoe, i. ch. 11
(1st ed. ) : — "a week, aye the space between twc
Sabaoths." But this connection is quite fictitious
The two words are not only entirely different, but
have nothing in common.
Sabaoth is the Greek form of the Hebrew wori.
tsebdoth, " armies," and occurs in the oft-repeatet
formula which is translated in the Authorized Ver
sion of the Old Test, by " Lord of hosts," " Lort
God ot hosts." We are apt to take " /loste " (prob
ably in connection with the modern expression tin
"heavenly host") as implying the angels — bu'
this is surely inaccurate. Tsebdoth is in coiistan'
use in the 0. T. for the national army or force of
fighting-men,*^ and there can be no doubt that ir
the mouth and the mind of an ancient Hebrew, Je-
hovah-isebdoih was the leader and commander of
the armies of the nation, who " went forth witl
them" (Ps. xliv. 9), and led them to certain vic
tory over the wor.shippers of Baal, Chemosh, Mo-
lech, Ashtaroth, and other false gods. In latei
tinies it lost this peculiar significance, and became
little if anything more than an alternative title for
God. The name ia not found in the Pentateuch,
sim in Burgh's Concordance, p. 1058.

2758 SABAT
or the books of Joshua, Judges, or Ruth. It is
frequent in the books of Samuel, rarer in Kings,
is found twice only in the Chronicles, and not at
all in Ezekiel ; but in the Psalms, in Isaiah, -Jere
miah, and the minor Prophets it is of constant oc
currence, and in fact is used almost to the exclusion
of every other title. [Tsevaoth, Am. ed.] G.
SA'BAT (^aipdy, Alex. ia<l>aT; [Aid. 2a-
$dir:] Phasphat). 1. The sons of Sabat are
Enumerated among the sons of Solomon's servants
who returned with Zorobabel (1 Esdr. v. 34).
There is no corresponding name in the lists of
Ezra and Nehemiah.
2. (Saffir: Sabath.) The month Sebat (1
Ma<x^. xvi. 14).
SABATE'AS [A.V.ed. 1611, SABATBTJS]
{Sa0aTa7os; Alex. ^a$$aTaias; [Aid. SaPar-
Taias'.] Sabbatheus). Shabeethai (1 Esdr. ix.
48; comp. Neh. viii. 7).
SAB'ATUS (Sifiaeos; [Aid. ^d^aTos:] Zab-
dis). Zabad (1 Esdr. ix. 28; comp. Ezr. x. 27).
SAB'BAN (2o/3t£wos: Banni). Binsui 1
(1 Esdr. viii. 63; comp. Ezr. viii. 33).
SABBATH (n3t», " a day of rest," from
nStt?, " to cease to do," " to rest "). This is the
obvious and undoubted etymology. The resem
blance of the word to 5?3ti7, " seven," misled Lac
tantins (Inst. iii. 14) and others ; but it does not
seem more than accidental. Bahr (Symbolik, ii.
533-34) does not reject the derivation from rO.W,
but traces that to 31127, somewhat needlessly and
fancifully, as it appears to us. Plutarch's associa
tion of the word with the Bacchanalian cry (rafioi
may of course be dismissed at once. We have also
(Ex. xvi. 23, and Lev. xxiii. 24) 7in2tt7, of more
intense signification than n3t£7: also n3£i7
]iri2t2;, " a Sabbath of Sabbaths " (Ex. xxxi. 15,
and elsewhere). The name Sabbath is thus ap
plied to divers great festivals, but principally and
usually to the seventh day of the week, the strict
observance of whioh is enforced not merely in the
general Mosaic code, but in the Decalogue itself.
The first Scriptural notice of the weekly Sab
bath, though it is not mentioned by name, is to be
found in Gen. ii. 3, at the close of the record of the
six days' creation. And hence it is frequently ar
gued that the institution is as old as mankind, and
is consequently of universal concern and obligation.
We cannot, however, approach this question till we
have examined the account of ita enforcement upon
the Israelites. It ia in Ex. xvi. 2.3-29 that we find
the firet incontrovertible institution of the day, as
one given to, aud to be kept by, the children of Is
rael. Shortly afierwards it was reenacted in the
Fourth Commandment, which gave it a rank above
that of an ordinary law, making it one of the signs
of the Covenant. As such it remained together
with the Passover, the two forming the most sol
emn and distinctive features of Hebrew religious
'ife. Its neglect or profanation ranked foremost
imong national sins ; the renewed observance of it
(fas sure to accompany national refoimation.
Before, then, dealing with the question whether

o Vide Patrick in loc., and Selden, De Jure Nat. et
Sent. Ul. 9.
b Vide Grotius in loc, who refers to Aben-Ezra.

SABBATH
its ori^nal institution comprised maukind at liffje^
or merely stamped on Israel a very marked badge
of nationality, it will be well to trace somewhat ot
its position and history among the chosen people.
Many of the Rabbis date its furst institution from
the incident <¦ recorded in Ex. xv. 25 ; and believe
that the "statute and ordinance " there mentioned
as being given by God to the children of Israel waa
that of the Sabbath, together with the command
ment to honor father and mother, their previous
law having consisted only of what are called the
" seven precepts of Noah." This, however, seems
to wajit foundation of any sort, and the statute and
ordinance in question are, we think, sufficiently ex
plained by the words of ver. 26, " If thou wilt dili
gently hearken," etc. We are not on sure ground
till we come to the unmistakable institution in ch.
xvi. in connection with the gathering of manna.
The words in this latter are not in themselves
enough to indicate whether such institution was al
together a novelty, or whether it referred to a day
the sanctity of which was already known to those
to whom it was given. There is plausibility cer
tainly in the opinion of Grotius, that the day waa
already known, and in some measure observed aa
holy, but that the rule of abstinence fi-om work waa
first given then, and shortly afterwards more ei-
plicitly imposed in the Fourth Commandment
There it is distinctly set forth, and extended to the
whole of an Israelite's household, his son and hii
daughter, his slaves, male and female, hia ox and
his ass, and the stranger within hia gates. It
would seem that by this last was understood the
stranger who while still uncircumciaed yet wor-
abipped the true' God; for the mere heathen
stranger waa not considered to be under the law of
the Sabbath. In the Fourth Commandment, too,
the institution is grounded on the revealed truth
of the six days' creation and the Divine rest on
the seventh; but in the version of it which we
find in Deuteronomy a further reason ia added:
" And remember that thou wast a stranger in the
land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought
thee forth with a mighty hand and hy a stretched-
out arm ; therefore the Lord thy God commanded
thee to keep the Sabbath day " (Deut. v. 15).
Penalties and provisions in other parts of the
Law construed the abstinence fhim labor prescribed
in the commanument. It was forbidden to light a
fire, a man was stoned for gathering sticks, on the
Sabbath. At n later period we find the Prophet
Isaiah uttering solemn warnings againat profiming,
and promiaing large blessings on the due observ
ance of the day (Is. Iviii. 13, 14). In Jeremiah's
time there seems to have been an habitual violation
of it, amounting to transacting on it such an ex
tent of business as involved the can'ying burdens
about (Jer. xvii. 21-27). His denunciations of
this seem to have led the Pharisees in their bond
age to the letter to condemn the impotent man for
carrying his bed on the Sabbath in obedience to
Christ who had healed him (.lohn v. 10). We
must not suppose' that our I..ord prescribed a real
violation of the Law; and it requires little thought
to distinguish between such a natural and almost
necessary act as that which He commanded, and
the carrying of burdens in connection with busi
ness which is denounced by Jeremiah. By Ezekiel
(xx. 12-24), a paaa^e to which we must shortly
return, the profanation of the Sabbath is made fore
most among the national sins of the Jews. From
Nehemiah x. 31, we learn that the people entereJ

SABBATH
Into a covenant to renew the observance of the Law,
in which they pledged themselves neither to buy
nor sell victurds on the Sabbath. 1'he practice was
theu not infrequent, and Nehemiah tells us (xiii.
15-22) of the successful steps which he took for its
stoppage. Henceforward thereis no evidence of the Sabbath
being neglected by the Jews, except such os (1
Mace. i. 11-15, 39-45) went into open apostasy.
The faithful remnant were so scrupulous concerning
it, as to forbear fighting in self-defense on that day
(1 Jlacc. ii. 36), and it was only the terrible conse
quences that ensued which led Mattathias and his
friends to decree the lawfulness of self-defense on
the Sabbath (1 Mace. ii. 41).
When we come to the N. T. we find the most
marked stress laid on the Sabbath. In whatever
ways the Jew might err respecting it, he had al
together ceased, to neglect it; On the contrary,
wherever he went its observance became the most
visible badge of his nationality. The passages of
Latin literature, such as Ovid, Art. Amat., i. 415;
Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 96-106, which indicate this, are
too well known to require citation. Our Lord's
mode of observing the Sabbath was one of the main
features of his life, which his Pharisaic adversaries
most eagerly watched and criticised. They had
by that time invented many of those fantastic pro
hibitions whereby the letter of the commandment
seemed to be honored at the expense of its whole
spirit, dignity, and value: and our Lord, coming
to vindicate aud fulfill the Law in its real scope
and intention, must needs come into collision with
these. Before proceeding to any of the more curious
questions connected with the Sabbath, such as that
of its alleged pre-Mosaic origin and observance, it
will be well to consider and determine what were
its true idea and purpose in that Law of which
beyond doubt it formed a leading feature, and
among that people for whom, if for none else, we
know that it was designed. And we shall do this
with most advantage, as it seems to us, by pursu
ing the inquiry in the following order: —
I. By considering, with a view to their elimina
tion, the Pharisaic and Rabbinical prohibitions.
These we have the highest authority for rejecting,
as inconsistent with the true scope of the Law.
II. By taking a survey of the general Sabbatical
periods of Hebrew time. The weekly Sabbath stood
in the relation of key-note to a scale of Sabbatical
observance, mounting to the Sabbatical year and
the year of Jubilee." It is but reasonable to sus
pect that these can in some degree interpret each
other. HI. By examining the actual enactments of
Scripture respecting the seventh day, and the mode
in which such observance was maintained by the
best IsraeUtes.
I. Nearly every one is aware that the Pharisaic
and Rabbinical schools invented many prohibitions
respecting the Sabbath of which we find nothing in
the original institution. Of these some may have
been legitimate enforcements in detail of that insti
tution, such as the Scribes and Pharisees "sitting
lii Moses' seat " (Matt, xxiii. 2, 3) had a right to
mpose. How a general law is to be carried out in
iiarticular cases, must often be determined for

SABBATH

2759

o It is obvious from the whole scope of the chapter
Ghat the words, " Ye shall keep my sabbaths,'' in Lev.
otI. 2. related to all thetie. In the ensuing threat of

others by such as have authority to do so. To
this class may belong the limitation of a Sabbath-
day's journey, a limitation not absolutely at vari
ance with the fundamental canon that the Sabbath
was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, al
though it may ha\e proceeded from mistaking a
temporary enactment for a permanent one. Many,
however, of these prohibitions were fantastic and
arbitrary, in the number of those " heavy burdens
and grievous to be borne" which the later ex
pounders of the Law "laid on men's shoulders."
We have seen that the impotent man's carrying his
bed was considered a violation of the Sabbath — a
notion probably derived from Jeremiah's warnings
against the commercial trafiic carried on at the
gates of Jerusalem in his day. The harmless act
of the disciples in the corn-field, and the beneficent
healing of the man in the synagogue with the
withered hand CMatt. xii. 1-13), were alike re
garded as breaches of the Law. Our Lord's reply
in the former case will come before us under our
third head ; in the latter He appeals to the prac
tice of the objectors, who would any one of them
raise his own sheep out of the pit into which the
animal had fallen on the Sabbath-day. From this
appeal, we are forced to infer that such practice
would have been held lawful at the time and place
in which He spoke. It is remarkable, however,
that we find it prohibited in other traditions, the
law laid down being, that in this case a raan might
throw some needful nourishment to the anfmal, but
must not pull him out till the next day. (See
Eeylm, Hist, of Sabbath, i. 8, quoting Buxtorf.)
This rule possibly came into .existence in conse
quence of our Lord's appeal, and with a view to
warding off the necessary inference from it. Still
more fantastic prohibitions were issued. It was
unlawful to catch a flea on the Sabbath, except
the insect were actually hurting his assailant, or to
mount into a tree, lest a branch or twig should
be broken in the process. The Samaritans were
especially rigid in matters like these; and Dosi-
theus, who founded a sect amongst them, went so
far as to maintain the obligation of a man's re
maining throughout the Sabbath in the postui*
wherein he chanced to be at its commencement —
a rule which most people would find quite destruc
tive of its character as a day of rest. When minds
were ooeupied with such mia'ology, as this has been
well called, there was obviously no limit to the
numberof prohibitions which they might derise,
confusing, as they obviously did, abstinence from
action of every sort with rest from business and
labor. That this pen-ersion of the Sabbath had become
very general in our Saviour's time is apparent both
from the recorded objections to acts of his on that
day, and from his marked conduct on occasions to
which those objections were sure to be urged. There
. is no reason, however, for thinking that the Phar
isees had arrived at a sentence against pleasure of
every sort on the sacred day. The duty of hospi
tality was remembered. It was usual for the rich
to give a feast on that day; and our Lord's attend
ance at such a feast, and making it the occasion of
putting forth his rules for the demeanor of guests,
and for the right exercise of hospitality, show that
the gathering of friends and social enjoyment were
judgment in case of neglect or violation of the Iaw,
the Sabbatical year would seem to be mainly referred
to (TV. 34, 35).

;to

SABBATH

hdt deemed inconsistent with the true scope and
Kpiiit of the Sabbath. It was thought right that
tiie meats, though cold, should be of the best and
choicest, nor might the Sabbath be chosen for a
last. Such are the inferences to which we are brought
by our Lord's words concerning, and works on, the
sacred day. A\'e have already protested against
the notion which has been entertained that they
were breaches of the Sabbath intended as harbin
gers of its abolition. Granting for argument's sake
that such abolition was in prospect, still our Lord,
" made under the Law," would have violated no
part of it so long as it was Law. Nor can any
thing be infei-red on the other side from the Evan-
geUst's language (John v. 18). The phrase "He
had broken the Sabbath," obviously denotes not
the character of our Saviour's act, but the Jewish
estimate of it. He had broken {he Pharisaic rules
respecting the Sabbath. Similarly his own phrase,
'- the priests profane the Sabbath and are blame-
lens," can only be undei-stood to assert the lawful
ness of certain acts done for certain reasons on that
day, which, taken in themselves and without those
reasons, would be profanations of it. There re
mains only his appeal to the eating of the shew-
bread by David and his companions, which was no
doubt in its matter a breach of the Law. It
does not follow, however, that the act . in justifi
cation of which it is appealed to was such a
breach. It is rather, we think, an argument a
fortiori, to the effect, that if even a positive law
might give place on occasion, much more might an
arbitrary rule hke that of the Rabbis in the case in
question. Finally, the declaration that " the Son of Man
is I^rd also of the Sabbath," mu.st not be viewed
as though our Lord held Himself free from the
Law respecting it. It is to be taken in connection
with the preceding words, " the Sabl)ath was made
for man," etc., from which it is an inference, as is
shown by the adverb therefore ; and the Son of
Man is plainly speaking of Himself as the Man, the
¦Representative and Exemplar of all mankind, and
teaching us that the human race is lord of the
Sabbath, the day being made for man, not man for
the day.
If, then, our Lord, coming to fulfill and rightly
interpret the Law, did thus protest against the
Pharisaical and Rabbinical rules respecting the Sab
bath, we are supplied by this protest with a large
negative view of that ordinance. The acts con
demned by the Pharisees were not violations of it.
Mere action, as such, was not a violation of it, and
Tar less was a work of heaHng and beneficence. To
this we shall have occasion by and by to return.
.Meanwhile we must try to gain a positive view of
the institution, and proceed in furtherance of this
to our second head.
II. The Sabbath, as we have said, was the key
note to a scale of Sabbatical observance — consist
ing of itself, the seventh month, the seventh year,
and the year of Jubilee. As each seventh day
was sacred, so was each seventh month, and each
seventh year. Of the observances of the seventh
month, little needs be said. That month opened
with the Feast of Trumpets, and contained the Day
of Atonement and Feast of Tabernacles — the last
named being the most joyful of Hebrew festivals.
It is not apparent, nor likely, that the whole of
the month was to be characterized by cessation
Irom labor; but it certainly has a place in the

SABBATH
Sabbatical scale. Its great centre was the itast
of Tabernacles or Ingathering, the year and the
year's labor having then done their work and
yielded their issues. In this last respect its anal-
ogy to the weekly Sabbath is obvious. Only at
this part of the Sabbatical cycle do we find any
notice of humiliation. On the Day of Atonement
the people were to afflict their souls (Lev. xxiii.
27-29). The rules for the Sabbatical jear are very pre
cise. As labor was prohibited on the seventh day,
so the land was to rest ei'ery seventh year. 4i)d
as each forty-ninth year wound up seven of such
weeks of years, so it either was itself, or it ushered
in, what was called "the year of Jubilee."
In Exodus xxiii. 10, 11, we find the Sabbatical
year placed in close connection with the Sabbath-
day, and the words in which the former is pre
scribed are analogous to those of the Fourth Com
mandment: "Six years thou shalt sow thy land
and gather in the fruits thereof; but the seventh
year thou shalt let it rest and lie still; thatthe
poor of thy people may eat; and wbat they leave
the beasts of the field shall eat." This is imme
diately ibllowed by a renewed proclamation of the
law of the Sabbath, " Six days thou shalt do thy
work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that
thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy
handmaid, and the stranger may be refreshed." It
is impossible to avoid perceiving that in these pas
sages the two institutions are put on the same
ground, and are represented as quite homogeneous.
Their aim, as here exhibited, is eminently a benefi
cent one. To give rights to classes that would
otherwise have been without such, to the bond
man and bondmaid, nay, to the beast of the field,
is viewed here as their main end. " The stranger,"
too, is comprehended in the benefit. Many, we
suspect, while reading the Fourth Commandment,
merely regard him as subjected, together with his
host and family, to a prohibition. But if we con
sider how continually ihe stranger is referred to
in the enactments of the Law, and that with a
view to his protection, the instances being oiie-and-
twenty in number, we shall be led to regard his
inclusion in the Fourth Commandment rather as a
benefit conferred than a prohibition imposed on
him. The same beneficent aim is still more apparent A
in the fuller legislation respecting the Sabbatical .|
year which we find in Lev. xxv. 2-7, " When ye
come into the land which I give you, then shall
the land keep a sabbath unto the Lord. Six years
thou sbalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt
prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof;
but in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest
unto the land, a sabbath unto the Lord; thou
shalt neither sow thy field nor prune thy vineyard, ff
That which groweth of its own accord of thy har
vest thou shalt not reap, neither gather the grapes
of thy vine undressed: for it is a yeai- of rest
unto the land. And tbe sabbath of the land shall
be meat for you; for thee, and for thy slave, and
for thy maid, and for thy hired servant, and for thy
stranger that sojourneth with thee, and for thj
cattle and for the beasts that are in thy land,
shall all the increase thereof be meat." One great
aim of both institutions, the Sabbath-day and the
Sabbatical year, clearly was to debar the Hebrew ^^|
from the thought of absolute ownership of any
thing. His time was not his own, as was shown him
by each seventh day being the Sabbath of the Lord .

SABBATH
his God; his land was not his own but God's (Lev.
xxv. 23), as was shown by the Sabbath of each
seventh year, during which it was to have rest,
and all individual right over it was to be sus
pended. It was also to be the year of release from
debt (Deut. xv.). We do not read much of the
way in which, or the extent to which, the Hebrews
observed the Sabbatical year. The reference to it
(2 Chr. xxxvi. 21) leads us to conclude that it had
been much neglected previous to the Captivity, but
it was certainly not lost sight of afterwards, since
Alexander the Great absolved the Jews from pay
ing tribute on it, their religion debarring them
from acquiring the nieans of doing so. [Saubat-
ICAL Year.]
The year of Jubilee must be regarded as com
pleting this Sabbatical scale, whether we consider
it as really the forty-ninth year, the seventh of a
week of Sabbatical years, or the fiftieth, a question
on which opinions are divided. [Jubilee, Year
OF.] The difficulty in the way of deciding for
the latter, that the land could hardly bear enough
spontaneously to suffice for two years, seems dis
posed of by reference to Isaiah xxxvii. 30. Adopt
ing, therefore, that opinion as the most probable,
we must consider each week of Sabbatical years to
have ended hi a double Sabbatical period, to which,
moreover, increased emphasis was given by the pe
culiar enactments respecting the second half of
such period, the year of Jubilee.
Those enactments have been already considered
in the article just refeiTcd to, and throw further light
on the beneficent character of tbe Sabbatical Law.
III. We must consider the actual enactments of
Scripture respecting the seventh day. However
homogeneous the difierent Sabbatical periods may
be, the weekly Sabbath is, as we have said, the
tonic or key-note. It alone is prescribed in tbe
Decalogue, and it alone has in any shape survived
the earthly commonwealth of Israel. We must
still postpone the question of its observance by the
patriarchs, and commence our inquiry with the
institution of it in the wilderness, in connection
with the gathering of manna (Ex. xvi. 23). The
prohibition to gather the manna on the Sabbath
is accompanied by one to bake or to seethe on that
day. The Fourth Commandment gives us but
the generality, "all manner of work," and, seeing
that action of one kind or another is a necessary
accompaniment of waking Hfe, and cannot there
fore in itself be intended, as the later Jews im
agined, by the prohibition, we are left to seek
elsewhere for the particular application of the
general principle. That general principle in itself,
however, obviously embraces an abstinence from
worldly labor or occupation, and from the en-
forclKg such on servants or dependents, or on the
stranger. By him, as we have said, is most prob
ably meant the partial proselyte, who would not
have received much consideration from the Hebrews
had they been left to themselves, as we must infer
from the numerous laws enacted for his protection.
Had man been then regarded by him as made for
the Sabbath, not the Sabbath for man, that is, had
the prohibitions of the commandment been viewed
as the putting on of a yoke, not the conferring of a
privilege, one of the dominant race would probably
have felt no reluctance to placing such a stranger
under that yoke. The naming him therefore in
the commandment helps to interpret its whole
principle, and testifies to its having been a benefi
cent privilege for all who came withm it. It gave
Vi

SABBATH 2761
rights to the slave, to the despised stranger, even
to the ox and the ass.
This beneficent character of the Fourth Com
mandment is very apparent in the version of it
which we find in Deuteronomy : " Keep the Sab
bath-day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath
commanded thee. Six days thou sbalt labor and
do all thy work, but the se\enth day is the Sab
bath of the Lord thy God : in it thou shalt not do
any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter,
nor thy bondman, nor thy bondwoman, nor thine
ox, nor thine ass, nor thy stranger that is within
thy gates: that thy bondman and thy bond
woman may rest as well as thou. And remember
that thou wast a slave in the land of Egypt, and
that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence
through a mighty hand and by a stretched-out
arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded
thee to keep the Sabbath-day" (Deut. v. 12-15).
But although this be so, and though it be plain
that to come within the scope of the command
ment was to possess a franchise, to share in a privi
lege, yet does the original proclamation of it in
Exodus place it on a ground which, closely con
nected no doubt with these others, is yet higher and
more comprehensive. The divine method of work
ing and rest is there proposed to man as the model
after which he is to work and to rest. Time then
presents a perfect whole, is then well rounded and
entire, when it is shaped into a week, modeled on
the six days of creation and their following Sab
bath. Six days' work and the seventh day's rest
conform the life of man to the method of his Cre
ator. In distributing his life thus, man may look
up to God as his Archetype. We need not sup
pose that the Hebrew, even in that early stage of
spiritual education, was limited by so gross a con
ception as that of God working and then resting,
as if needing rest. The idea awakened by the
record of creation and by the Fourth Commandment
is that of work that has a consummation, perfect
ill itself and coraing to a perfect end ; and man's
work is to be like this, not aimless, indefinite, and
incessant, but having an issue on which he can
repo.se, and see and rejoice in its fruits. God's
rest consists in his seeing that all which He has
made is very good; and man's works are in their
measure and degree very good when a six days'
faithful labor has its issue in a seventh of rest
after God's pattern. It is most important to re
member that the Fourth Commandment is not
limited to a mere enactment respecting one day,
but prescribes the due distribution of a week,
and enforces the six days' work as much as the
seventh day's rest.
This higher ground of observance was felt to
invest the Sabbath with a theological character,
and rendered it the great witness for faith in a
personal and creating God. Hence its supremacy
over all the Law, being sometimes taken as the
representative of it all (Neh. ix. 14). The Tal
mud says that "the Sabbath is in importance
equal to the whole Law;" that "he who dese
crates the Sabbath openly is like him who trans
gresses the whole Law; " while Maimonides winds
up his discussion of the subject thus: "He who
breaks the Sabbath openly is like the worshipper
of the stars, and both are like heathens in every
respect." In all this, however, we have but an assertion
of the general principle of resting on the Sabbath,
and must seek elsewhere for information as to tht

2762 SABBATH
details wherewith tliat principle was to be brought
out. We have aheady seen that the work forbidden
is not to be confounded with action of every sort.
To make this confusion was the error of the later
Jews, and their prohibitions would go far to render
the Sabbath incompatible with waking Ufe. The
terms in the commandment show plainly enough
the sort of work which is contemplated. They are
^31?n and HSS VD, the former denoting servile
work, and the latter business (see Gesenius stib
voc. ; Michaelis, Laws of Moses, iv. 195). The
Pentateuch presents us with but three applications
of the general principle. The lighting a fure
m any house on the Sabbath was strictly forbid
den (Ex. xxxv. 3), and a man was stoned for gath
ering sticks on that day (Num. xv. 32-36). The
former prohibition is thought by the Jews to be
of perpetual force; but some at least of the Rabbis
have held that it applies only to Ughting a fire for
culinary purposes, not to doing so in cold weather
for the sake of warmth. The latter case, that of
the man gathering sticks, was perhaps one of more
labor and business than we are apt to imagine.
The third apphcation of the general principle
which we find in tbe I'entateuch was the prohibi
tion to go out of the camp, the command to every
one to abide in his place (Ex. xvi. 29) on the Sab
bath-day. This is so obviously connected with the
gathering the manna, that it seems raost natural
to regard it as a mere teniporary enactment for the
circumstances of the people in the wilderness. It
was, however, afterwards considered by the He
brews a permanent law, and apphed, in the ab
sence of the camp, to the city in which a man
might reside. To this was appended the dictum
that a space of two thousand ells on every side of
a city belonged to it, and to go that distance
beyond the walls vvas permitted as "a Sabbath-
day's journey."
The reference of Isaiah to the Sabbath gives us
no details. Those in Jeremiah and Nehemiah show
that carrying goods for sale, and buying such, were
equally profanations of the day.
There is uo ground for supposing that to engage
the enemy on the Sabbath was considered unlaw
ful before the Captivity. On tbe contrary, there is
much force in the argument of Michaelis (Laws of
Moses, iv. 196) to show that it was not. His
reasons are as follows : —
1. The prohibited T13V, semce, does not even
suggest the thought of war.
2. The enemies of the chosen people would have
continually selected tbe Sabbath as a day of attack,
had the latter been forbidden to defend themselves
then. 3. We read of long-protracted sieges, that of
Rabbah (2 Sam. xi:, xii.), and that of Jerusalem in
the reign of Zedekiah, which latter lasted a year
and a half, during which the enemy would cer
tainly have taken advantage of any such abstinence
from warfare on the part of the chosen people.
At a subsequent period we know (1 Mace. ii.
34-38) that the scruple existed and was acted on
with most calamitous efiects. Those effects led
(1 Mace. ii. 41) to determining that action in self-
defense was lawful on tbe Sabbath, initiatory at
tack not. The reservation was, it must be thought,

SABBATH
nearly as great a misconception of the inatitutios
as the overruled scruple. Certainly warfare haa
nothing to do with the servile labor or the worldly
business contemplated in the Fourth Command
ment, and is, as regards religious observance, a law
to itself. Yet the scruple, like many other scruples,
proved a convenience, and under the Roman Em
pire the Jews procured exemption from military
service by means of it. It was not, however, wuh-
out its evils. In the siege of Jerusalem by I'oni-
pey (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 4), as well as in the final one
by Titus, the Romans took advantage of it, and,
abstaining from attack, prosecuted on tbe Sabbath,
without molestation from the enemy, such works as
enabled them to renew the assault with increased
resources. So far therefore as we have yet gone, so far as
the negative side of Sabbatical obsenance is con
cerned, it would seem that servile labor, whether
that of slaves or of hired servants, and all worldly
business on the part of masters, was suspended oa
the Sabbath, and the day was a common right to
rest and be refreshed, possessed by all classes in
the Hebrew community. It was thus, as we have
urged, a beneficent institution." As a sign between
God and his chosen people, it was also a monitor
of faith, keeping up a constant witness, on the
ground taken in Gen: ii. 3, and in the Fourth Com
mandment, for the one hving and personal God
whom they worshipped, and for the ti'uth, in op
position to all the cosmogonies of the heathen, that
everything was created by Him.
We must now quit the negative for the positive
side of the institution. •
In the first place, we learn from the Pentateuch
that the morning and evening sacrifice were both
doubled on the Sabbath-day, and that the fresh
shew-bread was then baked, and substituted on the
Table for that of the previous week. And this at
once leads to the observation that the negative
rules, proscribing work, lighting of fires, etc., did
not apply to the rites of religion. It became a
dictum that there was no Sabbath in holy things.
To this our Saviour appeals when He says that the
priests in the Temple profane the Sabbath and are
blameless. Next, it is clear that individual offerings were
not breaches of the Sabbath ; and from this doubt
less came the feasts of the rich on that day, whicb
were sanctioned, as we have seen, by our Saviour's
attendance on one such. It was, we may be pretty
sure, a feast on a sacrifice, and therefore a religious
act. All around the giver, the poor as well aa
others, were admitted to it. Yet further, in " casM
of illness, and in any, even the remotest danger,"
the prohibitions of work were not held to apply.
The general principle was that " the Sabbath is de
livered into your hand, not you into the hand of
the Sabbath " (comp. JIark ii. 27, 28).
We have no ground for supposing that anything
like the didactic institutions of the synagogue
formed part of the original observance of the Sab
bath. Such institutions do not come into being
while the matter to which they relate is itself only
in process of formation. Expounding the Law
presumes the completed existence of the Law, and
the removal of the living lawgiver. The assertion
of the Talmud that " Moses ordained to the Israel-

a In tliis light the Sabbath has found a champion
In one who would nob, we suppose, have paid it much
mp«t in Its tbeological charaeter ; we mean no leu

a person than M. Proudhon (De la Celdbtation di
Dimanclie).

SABBATH
ttes that they should read the Law on the Sabbath-
days, the feasts, and the new moons," in itself im
probable, is utterly unsupported by the Penta
teuch. The rise of such custom in after times is
explicable enough. [Synagogue.] But from an
early period, if not, as is most probable, from the
very institution, occupation with holy themes was
regarded as an essential part of the observance of
the Sabbath. It would seem to have been an
habitual practice to repair to a prophet on that
day, in order, it must be presumed, to hsten to his
teaching (2 K. iv. 23). Certain Psalms too, e. g.
the 92d, were composed for the Sabbath, and
probably used in private as well as in the Taber
nacle. At a later period we come upon precepts
that on the Sabbath the mind should be uplifted
to high and holy themes — to God, his character,
hia revelations of Himself, his mighty works.
Still the thoughts with which the day was in
vested were ever thoughts, not of restriction, but
of freedom and of joy. Such indeed would seem,
from Neh. viii. 9-12, to have been essential to the
notion of a holy day. We have more than once
pointed out that pleasure, as such, was never con
sidered by the Jews a breach of the Sabbath ; and
their practice in this respect is often animadverted
on by the early Christian Fathers, who taunt them
with abstaining ou that day only from what is
good and useful, but indulging in danchig and
luxury. Some of the heathen, indeed, such as
Tacitus, imagined that tlie Sabbath was kept by
them as a fast, a mistake which might have arisen
from their abstinence from cookery on that day,
and perhaps, as Heylin conjectures, from their
postponement of their meals till the more solemn
services of religion had been performed. But
there can be no doubt that it was kept as a feast,
and tbe phrase luxus Sabbniai-ius, which we find
in Sidonius Apollinaris (i. 2), and which has been
thought a proverbial one, illustrates the mode in
which they celebrated it in the early centuries
of our era. The following is Augustine's descrip
tion of their practice: "Ecce hodiemus dies Sab-
bati est: hunc in prtesenti tempore otio quodam
corporaliter languido et fluxo et luxurioso celebrant
Judsei. Vacant enim ad nugas, et cum Dens prse-
ceperit Sabbatum, illi in his qnas Deus prohibet
exercent Sabbatum. Vacatio nostra a malis operi-
bus, vacatio illorum a bonis operibus est. Melius
est enim arare quam saltare. lUi ab opere bono
vacant, ab opere nugatorio non vacant" (Aug.
Enarr. in Psalmos, Ps. xci. : see, too, Aug. De
decern Chordis, iii. 3; Chrysost. Honiil. I., De
Lazaro ; and other references given by Bingham,
Eccl. Ant. lib. xx. cap. ii.). And if we take what
alone is in the Law, we shall find nothing to be
counted absolutely obligatory but rest, cessation
from labor. Now, as we have more than once
had occasion to observe, rest, cessation from labor,
cannot in the waking moments mean avoidance of
all action. This, therefore, would be the question
respecting the scope and purpose of the Sabbath
which would always demand to be devoutly con
sidered and intelligently answered — what is truly
rest, what is that cessation from labor which is
really Sabbatical? And it is plain that, in ap
plication and in detail, the answer to this must
almost indefinitely vary with men's varying cir-
tumstauces, habits, education, and familiar asso-
siatiouB. *
We have seen then, that, for whomsoever else the
Uovision was intended, the chosen race were in

SABBATH 2763
possession of an ordinance, whereby neither a man's
time nor his property could be considered abso
lutely his own, the seventh of each week being
holy to God, and dedicated to rest after the pattern
of God's rest, and giving equal rights to all. We
have also seen that this provision was the tonic to
a chord of Sabbatical observance, through which
the same great principles of God's claim and so
ciety's, on every man's time and every man's prop
erty, were extended and developed. Of the Sab
batical year, indeed, and of the year of Jubilee,
it may be questioned whether they were ever
persistently observed, the only indications that we
possess of Hebrew practice respecting them being
the exemption from tribute during the former ac
corded to the Jews by Alexander, to which we have
already referred, and one or two others, all, how
ever, after the Captivity. [Sabbatical Ykar;
Year of Jubilee.]
But no doubt exists that the weekly Sabbath
was always partially, and in the Pharisaic and sub
sequent times very strictly, however mistakenly,
observed. We have hitherto viewed the Sabbath merely as
a Mosaic ordinance. It remains to ask whether,
first, there be indications of its having been pre
viously known and observed ; and, secondly, whether
it have an universal scope and authority over all
men. The former of these questions is usually ap
proached with a feeling of its being connected with
the latter, and perhaps therefore with a bias In
favor of the view which the questioner thinks will
support his opinion on the latter. It seems, how
ever, to us, that we may dismiss any anxiety as to
the results we may arrive at concerning it. No
doubt, if we see strong reason for thinking that the
Sabbath had a pre-Mosaic existence, we see some
thing in it that has more than a Mosaic character
and scope. But it might have had such without
having an universal authority, unless we are pre
pared to ascribe that to the prohibition of eating
blood or things strangled. And again, it might
have originated in the Law of Moses, and yet
possess an universally human scope, and an au
thority over all men and through all time. Which
ever way, therefore, the second of our questions
is to be determined, we may easily approach the
first without anxiety.
The first and chief argument of those who
maintain that the Sabbath was known before
Moses, is the reference to it in Gen. ii. 2, 3. This
is considered to represent it as coeval with man,
being instituted at the Creation, or at least, as
Lightfoot views the matter, immediately upon the
Fall. This latter opinion is so entirely without
rational ground of any kind that we may dismiss
it at once. But the whole argument is very pre
carious. We have no materials for ascertaining or
even conjecturing, which was put forth first, the
record of the Creation, or the Fourth Command
ment. If the latter, then the reference to tht
Sabbath in the former is abundantly natural. Had,
indeed, the Hebrew tongue the variety of preterite
tenses of the Greek, the words in Genesis might
require careful consideration in that regard ; but as
the case is, no light can be had from grammar;
and on the supposition of these being written after
the Fourth Commandment, their absence, or that
of any equivalent to them, would be really mar
velous. The next indication of a pre Mosaic Sabbath hM

2764

SABBATH

been found in Gen. iv. 3, where we read that " in
process of time it came to pass that Cain brought
jf the fruit of the ground an offering unto the
I^rd." The words rendered in pi-ocess of time
mean literally " at the end of days," and it is con
tended that they designate a fixed period of days,
probably the end of a week, the seventh or Sab
bath-day. Again, the division of time into weeks
seems recognized in Jacob's courtship of Rachel
(Gen. xxix. 27, 28). Indeed the large recognition
of that division from the earliest time is considered
» proof that it must have had an origin above
and independent of local and accidental circura
stances, and been imposed on man at the beginning
fix)m above. Its arbitrary and factitious character
is appealed to in further confirmation of this. The
sacredness of the seventh day among the Egyptians,
aa recorded by Herodotus, and the well-known
words of Hesiod respecting it, have long "been cited
among those who adopt this view, though neither
of them in reality gives it the slightest support.
LMtly, the opening of the Fourth Commandment,
the injunction to remember the Sabbath-day, is
appealed to as proof that that day was already
known. It is easy to see that all this is but a precarious
foundation on which to build. It is not clear that
the words in Gen. iv. 3 denote a fixed division of
time of any sort. Those in Gen. xxix. obviously do,
but carry us no further than proving that the week
was known and recognized by Jacob and Laban ;
though it must be admitted that, in the case of time
so divided, sacred rites would probably be celebrated
on a fixed and statedly recurring day. The argu
ment from the prevalence of the weekly division of
time would require a greater approach to univer
sality in such practice than the facts exhibit, to
make it a cogent one. That division was unknown
to the ancient Greeks and Romans, being adopted
by the latter people from the Egyptians, as must
be inferred from the well-known passage of Dion
Cassius (xxxvii. 18, 19), at a period in his own
tinpe comparatively recent; while of the Egyptians
themselves it is thought improbable that they were
acquainted with such division in early times. The
sacredness of the seventh day mentioned by Hesiod,
is obviously that of the seventh day, not of the
week, but of the mouth. And even after the
weekly division was established, no trace can be
found of anything resembling the Hebrew Sab
bath. While the iiyunction in the Fourth Command
ment to remember the Sabbath-day may refer only
to its previous institution in connection with the
gathering of manna, or may be but the natural
precept to beep in mind the rule about to be de
livered — a phrase natural and continually recur
ring in the intercourse of hfe, as, for example, be
tween parent and child — on the other hand, the
perplexity of the Israelites respecting the double
supply of manna on the sixth day (Ex. xvi. 22)
leads us to infer that the Sabbath for which such
extra supply was designed was not then known to
them. Moreover the language of Ezekiel (xx.)
seems to designate it as an ordinance distinctively
Hebrew and Mosait.
We cannot then, from the uncertain notices
iphich we possess, infer more than that the weekly
iivision of time was known to the Israelites and
others before the Law of Moses. [Week.] There
Ib probability, though not more, in the opinion of
Sifiotiua, that the seventh day was deemed sacred

SABBATH
to religious observance; but that the Sabbatieil
observance of it, the cessation from labor, wai
supeiH^iduced on it in the wilderness.
But to come to our second question, it by no
means follows, that even if the Sabbath were no
older than Moses, its scope and obligation are lim
ited to Israel, and that itself belongs only to tiie
obsolete enactments of the Le^¦itical Law That
law contains two elements, the code of a particular
nation, and commandments of human and uni
versal chai^cter. For it must not be forgotten
that the Hebrew was called out from the world,
not to live on a narrower but a far wider footing
than the children of earth; that he was called out
to be the true man, bearing witness for the destiny,
exhibiting the aspect, and realizing the blessednesH,
of true manhood. Hence, we can always see, if
we have a mind, the difference between such feat
ures of his Law as are but local and temporary,
and such as are human and universal. To which
class belongs the Sabbath, viewed simply in itself,
is a question which will soon come before us, and
one which does not appear hard to settle. Mean»
while, we must inquire into the case as exhibited
by Scripture.
And here we are at once confronted with the
fact that the command to keep the Sabbath forma
part of the Decalogue. And that the Decalogue
had a rank and authority above the other enact
ments of the Law, is plain to the n)ost cursory
readers of tbe Old Testament, and is indicated by
its being written on the two Tables of the Cove
nant. And though even the Decalogue is affected
by the New Testament, it is not so in tbe way
of repeal or obliteration. It is raised, trans
figured, glorified there, but itself remains in ita
authority and supremacy. Not to refer just now
to our Saviour's teaching (Matt. xix. 17-19), (rf
which it might be alleged that it was delivered
when, and to the persons over whom, the Old Law
was in force — such passages as Kom. xiii. 8, 9,
and Eph. vi. 2, 3, seera decisive of this. In some
way, therefore, the Fourth Commandment has an
autiiority over, and is to be obeyed by, Christians,
though whether in the letter, or in some large
spiritual sense and scope, is <» question which still
remains. The phenomena respecting the Sabbath pre
sented by the New Testament are, 1st, the frequent
reference to it in the four gospels; and 2dly, tbe
silence of the epistles, with the exception of one
place (Col. ii. 16, 17), where its repeal would
seem to be asserted, and perhaps one other (Heb.
iv. 9).
1st. The references to it in the four gospels are,
it needs not be said, numerous enough. We have
already seen the high position which it took in the
minds of the Rabbis, and the strange code of pro
hibitions which tliey put forth in connection with
it. The consequence of this was, that no part of
our Saviour's teaching and practice would seem to
have been so eagerly and narrowly watched as that
which related to the Sabbath. He seems even to
have directed attention to this, thereby intimating
sjirely that on the one hand the misappreliension,
and on tlie other the true fulfillment of the Sab
bath were matters of deepest concern. We hart
already seen the kind of prohibitions against which
both his teaching and practice were directed; and
his two' pregnant declarations, " The Sabbath waa
made for man, not man for the Sabbath," and
^' My Father worketh hitherto, and I work,*' suwJ]

SABBATH
jihibit to us the I-aw of the Sabbath as human
ind universal. The former sets it forth as a priv
ilege and a blessing, and were we therefore to sup
pose it absent from the provisions of the covenant
of grace, we must suppose that covenant to have
stinted man of something that was made for him,
something that conduces to his well-beuig. The
latter wonderfully exalts the Sabbath by referring
it, even as do tbe record of creation and the
Fourth Commandment, to God as its archetype;
and in showing us that the repose of God does
not exclude work — inasmuch as God opens his
hand daily and filleth all things living with plen-
teousness — shows us that the rest of the Sabbath
does not exclude action, which would be but a
death, but only that weekday action which requires
to be wound up in a rest that shall be after the
pattern of his, who, though He has rested from
all the work that He hath raade, yet " worketh
hitherto." 2dly. The epistles, it must be admitted, with
the exception of one place, and perhaps another to
which we have already referred, are sileut on the
subject of tbe Sabbath. No rules for its observ
ance are ever giveii by the Apostles — its violation
is never denounced by them. Sabbath-breakers
are never included in any list of offenders. Col.
ii. 16, 17, seems a far stronger argument for the
abolition of the Sabbath in the Christian dispensa
tion than is furnished by Heb. iv. 9 for its con
tinuance; and while the first day of tbe week is
more than once referred to as one of religious
observance, it is never identified with the Sabbath,
nor are any prohibitions issued in connection with
the former, while the omission of the Sabbath from
the list of " necessary things " to pe observed by
the Gentiles (Acts xv. 2D) shows that they were
regarded by the Apostles as free from obligation in
this matter.
When we turn to the monuments which we
possess of the early Church, we find ourselves on
the whole carried in the sarae direction. The
seventh day of the week continued, indeed, to be
observed, being kept as a feast by the greater part
of the Church, and as a fast from an early period
by that of Rome, and one or two other churches
of the West; but not as obligatory on Christians
in the same way as on Jews. The Council of
Laodicea prohibited all scruple about working on
It; and there was a very general admission among
the early Fathers that Christians did not Sabba-
iize in the letter.
Again, the observance of the Lord's Day as a
Sabbath would have been well-nigh impossible to
the majority of Christians in the first ages. The
slave of the heathen master, and the child of the
heathen father, could neither of them have the
control of his own conduct in such a matter; while
the Christian in general would have been at once
betrayed and dragged into notice if he was found
abstaining from labor of every kind, not on the
seventh but the first day of the week. And yet
it is clear that many were enabled without blame
to keep their Christianity long a secret ; nor does
Ihere seera to have been any obligation to divulge
it, until heathen interrogation or the order to
lacrifice dragged it into daylight.
When the early Fathers speak of the Lord's
l»yi they sometimes, perhaps, by comparing, con
nect it with the Sabbath ; but we have never found
% pasiK^e, previous to the conversion of Constan-
liiie, imhibitory of any work or occupation on the

SABBATH 2T6fi
former, and any such, did it exist, would have
been in a great measure nugatory, for the reasons
just alleged. [Ix>kd's Day.] After Constantine
things beconie different at once. His celebrated
edict prohibitory of judicial proceedings on the
lord's Day was probably dictated by a wish to
give the great Christian festival as much honor as
was enjoyed by those of the heathen, rather than
by any reference to the Sabbath or the Fourth
Commandment; but it was followed by several
which extended the prohibition to many other oc
cupations, and to many forms of pleasure held
innocent on ordinary days. When this became the
case, the Christian Church, which ever believed the
Decalogue, in some sense, to be of universal obliga
tion, could not but feel that she was enabled to
keep the Fourth Commandment in its letter as well
as its spirit; that she had not lost the ty^ie even
in possessing the antitype ; that the great law of
week-day work and seventh-day rest, a law so
generous and so ennobling to humanity at large,
was. still in operation. True, the name Sabbath
was always used to denote the seventh, aa that
of tbe Lord's Day to denote the first, day of the
week, which latter is nowhere habitually called the
Sabbath, so far as we are aware, except in Scotland
and by the English Puritans. But it was surely
impossible to observe both the Ixird's Day, as was
done by Christians after Constantine, and to read
the Fourth Commandment, without connecting the
two; and, seeing that such was to be the practice
of the developed Church, we can understand how
the silence of the N. T. epistles, and even the
strong words of St. Paul (Col. ii. 16, 17), do not
impair the human and universal scope of the
Fourth Commandment, exhibited so strongly in the
very nature of the Law, and in the teaching re
specting it of Him who came not to destroy the
Law, but to fulfill.
In the East, indeed, where the seventh day of
the week was long kept as a festival, that would
present itself to men's minds as the Sabbath, and
the first day of the week would appear rather, in
its distinctively Christian character, and as of
apostolical and ecclesiastical origin, than in con
nection with the old Law. But in the West the
seventh day was kept for the most part as a fast,
and that for a reason merely Christian, namely, in
commemoration of our Lord's lying in the sepul
chre throughout that day. Its observance therefore
would not obscure the aspect of the Lord's Day as
that of hebdomadal rest and refreshment, and as
consequently the prolongation of the Sabbath in
the essential character of that benignant ordinance;
and, with some variation, therefore, of verbal state
ment, a connection between the Fourth Command
ment and the first day of the week (together, as
should be remembered, with the other festivals
of the Church), came to be perceived and pro
claimed. Attention has recently been called, in connection
with our subject, to a circumstance which is im
portant, the adoption by the Roman world of the
Egyptian week almost contemporaneously with the
founding of the Christian Church. Dion Cassius
speaks of that adoption as recent, and we are
therefore warranted in conjecturing the time of
Hadrian as about that wherein it must have estab
lished itself. Here, then, would seem a signal
Providential preparation for providing the people
of God with a Uteral Sabbatismus ; for prolonging
in the Christian kuigdom that great institution

2766 SABBATH
which, whether or not historically older than the
Mosaic Law, is yet in its essential character adapted
to all mankind, a witness for a personal Creator
and Sustainer of the universe, and for his call to
men to model their work, their time, and their
rives, on his pattern.
Were we prepared to embrace an exposition
which has been given of a remarkable passage
already refen-ed to (Heb. iv. 8-10), we should find
it singularly illustrative of the view just suggested.
The argument of the passage is to this effect, that
the rest on which Joshua entered, and into which
he made Israel to enter, cannot be the true and
final rest, inasmuch as the Psalmist long after
wards speaks of the entering into that rest as still
future aud contingent. In ver. 9 we have the
words " there remaineth, therefore, a rest for the
people of God." Now it is important that through
out the passage the word for rest is KaTaTraviris,
and that in the words just quoted it is changed
into aa^^arifTf^os, which certainly means the
keeping of rest, the act of sabbatizing rather than
the objective rest itself. It has accordingly been
suggested that those words are not the author's
conclusion — which is to be found in the form of
thesis in the declaration " we which have believed
do enter into rest" — but a parenth^is to the
effect that "to the people of God," the Christian
community, there remaineth, there is lefi, a sab
batizing, the great change that has passed upon
them and the mighty elevation to which they have
been brought as on other matters, so as regards the
rest of God revealed to them, still leaving scope
for and justifying the practice.** This exposition
is in keeping with the general scope of the Epistle
to the Hebrews; and the passage thus viewed will
seem to some minds analogous to xiii. 10. It is
given by Owen, and is elaborated with great in
genuity by Dr. Wardlaw in his Discourses on the
Sahbath. It will not be felt fatal to it that more
than 300 years should have passed before the
Church at large was in a situation to discover the
heritage that had been preserved to her, or to
enter on its enjoyment, when we consider how de
velopment, in all matters of ritual and ordinance,
must needs be the law of any Uving body, and
much more of one which had to struggle from
its birth with the impeding forces of a heathen
empire, frequent persecution, and an unreclaimed
society. In such case was the early Church, and
therefore she might well have to wait for a Con
stantine before she could fully open her eyes to
the fact that sabbatizing was still left to her;
and her members might well be permitted not to
see the truth in any steady or consistent way even
then. The objections, however, to this exposition are
many and great, one being, that it has occurred
to so few among the great commentators who have
labored on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Chrysostom
{in loc.) denies that there is any reference to heb
domadal sabbatizing. Nor have we found any
commentators, besides the two just named, who
admit that there is such, with the single exception
of Ebrard. Dean Alford notices the interpretation
mly to condemn it, while Dr. Hessey gives another,
and that the usual explanation of the verse, sug-
geating » sufficient reason for the change of word

a According to this exposition the words of ver.
-J, "for he that hath entered," etc. are referred to
Vbrtet

SABBATH-DAY'S JOU RNBY
from Kardwavais to (ra&$aTi(Tfi6s. It would uot
have been right, however, to have passed it over
in this article without notice, as it relatos to a
passage of Scripture in which Sabbath and Sal).
batical ideas are markedly brought forward.
It would be going beyond the scope of this arti
cle to trace the history of opinion on the Sabbath
in the Christian Church. Dr. Hessey, in his Bamp-
ion Lectures, has sketched and distinguished every
variety of doctrine which has been or still is mam-
tained on the subject.
The sentiments and practice of the Jews subse
quent to our Saviour's time have been already re
ferred to. A curious account — taken from Bax-
torf, De Synag. — of their superstitions, scruples,
and prohibitions, will be found at the close of the
first part of Heylin^s Bist. of the Sabbath. ¦ Cal
met (art. " Sabbath ") gives an interesting sketch
of their family practices at the beginning and end
of the day. And the estimate of the Sabbath, ita
uses, and its blessings, which is formed by the more
spiritually miuded Jews of the present day may be
inferred frora some striking remarks of Dr. Kalisch
(Comm. on Exodus), p. 273, who winds up with
quoting a beautiful passage from the late Mrs.
Horatio Montefiore's work, A Feio Words to die
Jews. Finally, M. Proudhpn's striking pamphlet, De
la Celebration du Dimanche consideree sous- ki
rapports de V Hygiene publique, de la Morale, de*
relations de Famille et de Cite, Paris, 1850, may
be studied with great advantage. His remarks
(p. 67) on the advantages of the precise propor
tion established, six days of work to one of rest,
and the inconvenience of any other that could be
arranged, are well worth attention.
The word Sabbath seems sometimes to denote a
week in the N. T. Hence, by the Hebrew usage
of reckoning tirae by cardinal numbers, 4v t§ fu^
rwv aa&^arav, means on tJie first day of the
week. The Rabbis have the same phraseology,
keeping, however, the word Sabbaih in the sia-
gular. On the phrase of St. Luke, vi. 1, 4v ry (rajSjSiry
SeurepoTT^ctJTQj, see Sabbatical Year.
This article should be read in connection with
that on the Lord's Day.
Literature. ¦ — Criiici Sacri, ou Exod.; Heylin'B
Bist. of ihe Sabbath ; Selden, De Jure Natar, d
Gent. ; Buxtorf, De Sy)iag. ; Barrow, Expos, oj
the Decalogue ; Paley, Moral and Political PhUo^
ophy, V. 7; Jaraes, On the Sa-a^amenis and Sab
bath; Whately's T/ioughts on the Sabbath; Ward-
law, On the Sabbath; Maurice, On ihe Sabbath;
Michaelis, Laws of Moses, arts, cxciv.-vi., clxviii.;
Oehler, in Herzog's ReaLEncykl. " Sabbath ";
'Wm&c, Realworterbuch, "Sabbath"; Bahr,jSt/;n-
boUk des Mos. Cult. vol. ii. bk. iv. ch. 11, § 2; Ka
lisch, Ilistwiccd and Critical Commentary on 0.
T., in Exod. XX. ; Proudhon, De la Celebration
du Dimanche ; and especially Dr. Hessey's 5«n-
day ; the Bampton Lecture foj^ 1860. F. 6.
* Historical Sketch of ihe Christian Sabbath^
by Rev. L. Coleman, Bibl. Sacra, i. 52U-552, and
Change of ihe Sabbath from the Seventh to ihe
First Day ofthe Week, by John S. Stone, D.D.,
Theol. Eclectic, iv. 542-570, are valuable articlea
on ihis subject. The literature is given with great
fullness in R. Cox's Literature of ihe Sabbath
QuesiUm, 2 vols., Edinb. 1865. H.
SABBATH-DAY'S JOURNEY (Sa^

SABBATH-DAY'S JOURNEY
Bdrov 6B6s, Acts i. 12). On occasion of a viola
tion of the commandment by certain of the people
who went to look for manna on the seventh day,
Moses eujoined every man to "abide in his place,"
and forbade any man to " go out of his place " on
that day (Ex. xvi. 29). It seems natural to look
on this as a mere enactment jsro re natd, and hav
ing no bearing on any state of affairs subsequent to
the journey through the wilderness and the daily
gathering of manna. Whether the earlier Hebrews
did or did not regard it thus, it is not easy to say.
Nevertheless, the natural inference from 2 K. iv. 23
is against the supposition of such a prohibition be
ing known to the spokesman, Elisha almost cer
tainly living — as may be seen from the whole nar
rative — much more than a Sabbath-day's journey
from Shunem. Heylm uifers frora the incidents of
David's flight from Saul, and Elijah's from Jezebel,
that neither felt bound by such a limitation. Their
situation, however, being one of extremity, cannot
be safely argued from. In after times the precept
in Ex. xvi. was undoubtedly viewed as a permanent
law. But as some departure from a man's own
place was unavoidable, it was thought necessary to
determine the allowable amount, which was fixed
at 2,000 paces, or about six furlongs, from the wall
of the city.
Though such an enactment may have proceeded
from an erroneous view of Ex. xvi. 29, it is by no
raeans so superstitious and unworthy on the face of
it as are most of the Rabbinical rules and prohibi
tions respectuig the Sabbath-day. In the case of a
general law, like that of the Sabbath, some author
ity must settle the application in details, and such
an authority " the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in
Moses' seat " were entitled to exercise. It is plain
that the Umits of the Sabbath-day's journey must
have been a great check on the profanation of the
day in a country where business was entirely agri
cultural or pastoral, and must have secured to " the
ox and the ass " the rest to which by the Law they
were entitled.
Our Saviour seems to refer to this law iu warn
ing the disciples to pray that their flight from Je
rusalem in the time of its judgment should not
be "on the Sabbath-day" (Matt. xxiv. 20). The
Christians of Jerusalem would not, as in the case
of Gentiles, feel free from the restrictions on jour
neying on that day; nor would their situation en
able them to comply with the forms whereby such
journeying when necessary was sanctified ; nor
would assistance from those around be procurable.
The permitted distance seems to have been
grounded on the space to be kept between the Ark
and the people (Josh. iii. 4) in the wilderness, which
tradition said was that between the Ark and the
tents. To repair to the Ark beini;, of course, a
duty on the Sabbath, the walking to it was no vio
lation of the day; and it thus was taken as the meas
ure of a lawful Sabbath-day's journey. We find the
same distance given as the circumference outside the
walls of the Levitical cities to be counted as their
suburbs (Num. xxxv. 5). The terminus a quo was
thus not a man's own house, but the wall of the
city where he dwelt, and thus the amount of lawful
Sabbath-day's journeying must therefore have va
ried greatly; the movements of a Jew in one of the
imall cities of his own land being restricted indeed
irhen compared with those of a Jew in Alexandria,
intioch, or Rome.
When a man was obliged to go farther than a
iahbath-day's journey, ou some good and allow-

SABBATICAL YEAR 2767
able ground, it was incumbent on him on the even
ing before to furnish himself with food enough foi
two meals. He was to sit down and eat at the ap
pointed distance, to bury what he bad left, and ut
ter a thanksgiving to God for the appointed bound
ary. Next morning he was at liberty to make
this point his terminus a quo.
The Jewish scruple to go more than 2,000 paces
from his city on the Sabbath is referred to by
Origen, Trepi apxav, iv- 2; by Jerome, ad Alga-
siam, qusest. 10; and by QLcumenius — with
some apparent difference between thera as to the
measurement. Jerome gives Akiba, Simeon, and
HUlel, as the authorities for the lawful distance F. G-
SABBATHE'US {-^a&^aTa^os: Sabbath(ms).
Shabbethaj the Levite (1 Esdr. ix. 14; comp.
Ezr.- i. 15).
SABBATICAL YEAR. As each seventh
day and each seventh month were holy, so was each
seventh year, by the Mosaic code. We first en
counter this law in Ex. xxiii. 10, 11, given in
words corresponding to those of the Fourth Com
mandment, and followed (ver. 12) by the reen-
forcement of that commandment. It is impossible
to read the passage and not feel that the Sabbath
Day and the Sabbatical Year are parts of one gen
eral law.
The commandraent is, to sow and reap for six
years, and to let the land rest on the seventh, "th,at
the poor of thy people may eat; and what they
leave the beasts of the field shall eat." It is added,
" In like manner shalt thou deal with thy vineyard
and thy oliveyard."
We meet next with the enactment in Lev. xxv.
2-7, and finally in Deut. xv., in which last place
the new feature presents itself of the seventh year
being one of release to debtors.
When we combine these several notices, we find
that every seventh year the land was to have
rest to enjoy her Sabbaths. Neither tillage nor
cultivation of any sort was to be practiced. The
spontaneous growth of the soil was not to be
reaped by the owner, whose rights of property
were in abeyance. All were to have their share in
the gleanings : the poor, the stranger, aud even the
cattle. This singular institution has the aspect, at first
sight, of total impracticability. This, however,
wears off when we consider that in no year was
the owner allowed to reap the whole harvest (Lev.
xix. 9, xxiii. 22). Unless, therefore, the remainder
w^ gleaned very carefully, there may easily have
been enough left to ensure such spontaneous de
posit of seed as in the fertile soil of Syria would
produce some amount of crop in the succeeding
year, while the vines and olives would of course
yield their fruit of themselves. Bloreover, it is
clear that the owners of land were to lay by com
in previous years for their own and their families'
ats. This is the unavoidable inference from
Lev. xxv. 20-22. And though the right of
property was in abeyance during the Sabbatiaal
year, it has been suggested that this only applied
to the fields, and not to the gardens attached to
houses. The claiming of debts was unlawful during this
year, as we learn from Deut xv. The exceptions
laid down are in the case of a foreigner, and thai
of there being no poor in the land. This '.atter
however, it is straightway said, is what will never

2768 SABBATICAL YEAR
happen. But though debts might not be clairaed,
it is not said that they might not be voluntarily
paid ; and it haa been questioned whether the re
lease of the seventh year was final or merely lasted
through the year. This law was virtually abro
gated in later tinies by the well-known prosbol^^ of
the great Hillel, a permission to the judges to al
low a creditor to enforce his claim whenever he re
quired to do so. The formula is given in the
Mishna (Shemith, 10, 4).
The release of debtors during the Sabbatical
year raust not be confounded with the release of
slaves on the seventh year of their service. The
two are obviously distinct — the one occurring
at one fixed time for all, while the other must
have varied with various families, and with various
slaves. The spirit of this law is the same as that of the
weekly Sabbath. Both have a beneficent tendency,
limiting the rights and checking the sense of prop
erty; the one puts in God's claims on time, the
other on the land. The land shall " keep a Sab-
hath unto the lx)rd." " The land is mine."
There may also have been, as Kalisch conjec
tures, an eye to the benefit which would accrue to
the land from lying fallow every seventh year, in a
time when the rotation of crops was unknown.
llie Sabbatical year opened in the Sabbatical
month, and the whole Law was to be read every
such year, during the Feast of Tabernacles, to the
assembled people. It was thus, like the weekly
Sabbath, no mere negative rest, but was to be
marked by high and holy occupation, and con
nected with sacred reflection and sentiment.
At the completion of a week of Sabbatical years,
the Sabbatical scale received its completion in the
year of Jubilee. For the question whether that
was identical with the seventh Sabbatical year, or
was that which succeeded it, i. e. whether the year
of Jubilee fell every forty-ninth or every fiftieth
year, see Jubilee, Year of.
The next question that presents itself regarding
the Sabbatical year relates to the time when its ob
servance became obligatory. It has been inferred
from I.«viticus xxv. 2, " When ye come into the
land which I give you, then shall the land keep a
Sabbath unto the Lord," that it was to be held by
the people on the first year of their occupation of
Canaan ; but this mere literalism gives a result in
contradiction to the words which iramediately fol
low: " Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six
years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in
the fruit thereof; but in the seventh year shall be
a Sabbath of rest unto the land." It is raore rea
sonable to suppose, with the best Jewish authorities,
that the law became obligatory fourteen years after
the first entrance into the Promised Land, the con
quest of which took seven years and the distribu
tion seven more.
A further question arises. At whatever period
the obedience to this law ought to have com
menced, was it in point of fact obeyed? This is
|n inquiry which reaches to more of the Mosaic
statutes than the one now before us. It is, we ap
prehend, rare to see the whole of a code in full op
eration; and the phenomena of Jewish history pre-
fious to the Captivity present us with no such

a bl^DI'lD = probably TrpojSovA^ or n-potrjSoA^.
For this and other curious speculations on the ety-
uology of tbe word, see Buxtorf, Lex. Talmud. 1807'

SABTAH
spectacle. In the threatenings contained tn Ler
xxvi., judgments on the violation of the Sabhatict/
year are pMticularly contemplated (w. 33, 34),
and that it was greatly if not quite neglected ai>
pears fix)m 2 Chr. xxxvi. 20, 21: " Them that es
caped from the sword carried he away to Babylon;
where they were servants to him and his sons until
the reign of the kingdom of Persia : to fulfill the
word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, uutil
the land had enjoy^l her Sabbaths ; for as long as
she lay desolate she kept Sabbath, to fulfill three
score and ten years." Some of the Jewish com
mentators have inferred from this that their fore
fathers had neglected exactly seventy Sabbatical
years. If such neglect was continuous, the law
must have been disobeyed throughout a poiod ol
490 years, i. e. through nearly the whole duration
of the monarchy ; and as there is nothing iu the
previous history leading to the inference that the
people were more scrupulous then, we must look to
the return from Captivity for indications of the Sab-
b^cal year being actually observed. Then we know
the former neglect was replaced by a punctilious atr
tention to the Law; and as its Ic^ing feature, tbe
Sabbath, began to be scrupulously reverenced, so
we now find traces of a like observance of tbe Sab
batical year. We read (1 Mace. vi. 49) that ''they
came out of the city, because they had no victuals
there to endure the siege, it being a year of rest to
the land." Alexander the Great is said to have
exempt-ed the Jews frora tribute during it, since it
was unlawful for them to sow seed or reap harvest
then ; so, too, did Julius Cassar (Joseph. Ant. xiv.
10, § 6). Tacitus (HisL Jib. v. 2, § 4), having
mentioned the observance of the Sabbath by the
Jews, adds: "Dem blandienti inertia septimnm
quoque annum ignavise datum." And St. Paul, in
reproaching the Galatians with their JeArisJi tend
encies, taxes them with obsaring years as well as
days and months and times (Gal. iv. 10), from
which we must infer that the teachers who com
municated to thera those tendencies did raore or
less the like themselves. Another allusion in the
N. T. to the Sabbatical year is perhaps to be found
in the phrase, iy aa^^dr^ SevrcpoTrpi^T^ (Luke
vi. 1). Various explanations have been given of
the terra, but one of the most probable is that it
denotes the first Sabbath of the second year in the
cycle (Wieseler, quoted by Alford, vol. i.). F. G.
SABBEHJS ([Vat] Sa^^afas; [Rom. Aid.]
Alex. 3£oj3j8aros: Sameas), 1 Esdr. ix. 32. [Shb-
MAIAH, 14.]
SABE'ANS. [Seba; Sheba.]
SA'BI ([Vat. SajSeiTj, joined with preceding
word; not] ^afielv [see errata in M^; Rom,
Aid.] Alex. 2aj8i^ : Sabathen). " The children of
Pochereth of Zebaira" appear in 1 Esdr. v. 34
as " the sons of Phacaretli, the sous of Sahi."
[Sabie.] * SA'BIE (3 syl.), the reading of the A. V
ed. 1611 and other early editions in 1 Esdr. v. 34,
representing the Greek 2a/3i^, has been improperly
changed in later editions to Sabi. A.
SAB'TAH (nrian, in 21 mss. sroa?.
(Jen. X. 7; MTI^O, 1 C^r. i. 9 [see below], A.V-
Sabta: 2aj8aek ; [Vat. in 1 Chr., :SajSaTa:)
Sabatha). The third in oi-der of the sons of Cuah
In accordat .'e with the ideiitiicatious of the setUe

SABTECHA
a,ents of the Cuahites in the article Arabia and
slsewhere, Sabtah should be looked for along the
southern coast of Arabia. The writer has found
no traces in Arab writers ; but the statements of
Pliny (vi. 32, § 155, xii. 32), Ptolemy (vi. 7, p. 411),
and An&n. Peripl. (27), respecting Sabbatha, Sa-
bota, or Sobotale, metropolis of the Atramitas
(probably the Chatramotitie), .seem to point to a
brace of the tribe which descended from Sabtah,
always supposing that this city Sabbatha was not a
corruption or dialectic variation of Saba, Seba, or
Sheba. This point will be discussed under SiiEUA.
It is only necessary to remark here that the indi
cations afforded by the Greek and Roman writers
of Arabian geography require very cautious hand-
Hng, presenting, as tbey do, a mass of contradic
tions and transparent travellera' tales respecting
the unknown regions of Arabia the Happy, Arabia
Thurifera, etc. Ptolemy places Sabbatha in 77°
long. 16° 30' lat. It was an important city, con
taining no less than sixty temples (Pliny, N. H.
vi. c. xxiii. § 32); it was also situate in the terri
tory of king Elisarus, or Eleazus (comp. Anon.
Peripl. ap. Miiller, Geog. Min. pp. 278, 279), sup
posed by Kresnel to be identical with " Ascharides,"
or " Alascharissouii," in Arabic (Journ. Asiai.
Nouv. S^rie, x. 191). Winer thinks the identifi
cation of Sabtah with Sabbatha, etc., to be prob
able; and it is accepted by Bunsen (Bibelwerk, Gen.
X. and Atlas). It certainly occupies a position in
which we should expect to find traces of Sabtah,
where are traces of Oushite tribes in very early
times, on their way, as we hold, from their earlier
colonies in Ethiopia to tlie Euphrates.
Gesenius, who sees in Cush only Ethiopia, " has
no doubt that Sabtah should be compared with 2a-
fiir, Sa$d, 2a/3ai (see Strab. x ri. p. 770, Casaub. ;
Ptol. iv. 10), on the shore of the Arabian Gulf,
situated just where Arkiko is now, in the neigh
borhood of which the Ptolemies hunted elephants.
Amongst the ancient translators, Pseudojonathan
saw the true meaning, rendering it ''S^DD, for
which read ''N")QD, i. e. the Sembritse, whom
Strabo (loc. cit. p. 786) places in the same region.
Josephus (Ant. i. 6, § 1) understands it to be the
inhabitants of Astabora " (Gesenius, ed. Tregelles,
6. v.). Here the etymology of Sabtah is compared
plausibly with 2a/3aTi but when probability is
against his being found in Ethiopia, etymology is
of small value, especially when it is remembered
that Sabat and its variations (Sabax, Sabai) may
be related to Seba, which certainly was in Ethi
opia. On the Kabbinical authorities which he
quotes we pluce no value. It only remains to add
that Michaehs (Suppl. p. 1712) removes Sabtah to
Ceuta opposite Gibraltar, called in Arabic Sebtah,
XjijuM (comp. Marasid, s. v.); and that Bochart
(Ph'aleg, i. 114, 115, 252 if.), while he mentions
Sabbatha, prefers to place Sabtah near the western
shore of the Persian Gulf, with the Saphtha of
Ptolemy, the name also of an island in that gulf.
E S. P.
SABTECHA, and SABTBCHAH
(SpriDD [see above]: ^aPaSaKd, 2e;8eflax»'
[Alex, in Gen., SaySaKafla; Vat. in 1 Chr., 2ei8e-
<a6a;J Sabatacha, Sabatiiacha, Gen. x. 7, 1 Chr.
1, 9). The fifth in order of tho sons of Cush,
whoas satllenients would probably be near the Per-
Uan Gull', where aie those o' Raamah, the next

SACKBUT 2769
before him in the order of the Cushitea. [Raa
MAH, Dedan, Sheba.] He has not been identi
fied with any Arabic place or district, nor satis
factorily with any narae given by classical writers
Bochart (who is followed by Bunsen, Bibelw., Geu
X. and Atlas) argues that he should be placed i^
Carmania, on the Persian shore of the gulf, com
paring Sabtechah with the city of Samydace oi
Steph. Byz. (Sap.iSdicri or :S,ap.vKaSri of Ptol. vi
8, 7). This etymology appears to be very far
fetched. Gesenius merely says that Sabtechah is
the proper name of a district of Ethiopia, and adds
the reading of the Targ. Pseudojonathan (^M33T^
Z'mgitani). E. S. P.
SA'OAU (^5b \hire,reward]: Axdp; Alex.
2ax'>/> : Sachar). 1. A Hararite, father ol Ahiam,
one of David's mighty men (1 Chr. xi. 35). In
2 Sam. xxiii. 33 he is called Sharae, but Ken-
nicott regards Sacar as the correct reading.
2. (Saxip ; [Vat. 2wx«P i Alex. Sax'ap-])
The fourth son of Obed-edom (1 Chr. xxvi. 4).
SACKBUT (S32P, Dan. iii. 5; W33CJ;,
Dan. iii. 7, 10, 15: iraiifiiKr]: sambuca). The
rendering in the A. V. of the Chaldee sabbScd.
If this musical instrument be the same as the
Greek a-ap.0iicn and Latin sambuca," the English
translation is entirely wrong. The sackbut was a
wind-instrument; the sambuca was played with
strings. Mr. Chappell says (Pop. Mus. i. 35),
" The sackbut was a bass trumpet with a slide, like
the modem trombone." It had a deep note ac
cording to Drayton (Polyolbion, iv. 365): — ¦
" The hoboy, sa°but deep, recorder, and the fiute."
The sambuca was a triangular instrument with
four or more strings played with the fingers.
According to Athenseus (xiv. 633), Masurius de
scribed it as having a shrill tone; and Euphorion,
in his book on the Isthmian Games, said that it
waa used by the Partbians and Troglodytes, and
had four strings. Its invention is attributed to
one Sanibyx, and to Sibylla its first use (.Athen.
xiv. 637). Juba, in the 4th book of his Theatrical
History, says it was discovered in Syria, but Nean-
thes of Cyzicum, in the first book of the Hours,
assigns it to the poet Ibycus of Rhegium (Athen.
iv. 77). This last tradition is followed by Suidas,
who describes the sambuca as a kind of triangular
harp. That it was a foreign instrument is clear
from the statement of Strabo (x. 471), who says
its name is barbarous. Isidore of Seville ( Or'ig.
iii. 20) appears to regard it as a wind instrument,
for he connects it with the sambucus, or elder, a
kind of light wood of which pipes were made.
The sambuca was early known at Rome, for
Plautus (Stich. ii. 2, 57) mentions the women who
played it (sambucce, or sambucistricE, as they are
called in Livy, xxxix. 6 ). It was a favorite among
the Greeks (Polyb. v. 37), and the Rhodian women
appear to have been celebrated for theu: skill n
this instrument (Athen. iv. 129).
There was an engine called sambuca used ifi
siege operations, which derived its name from the
musical instrument, because, .according to Athe-
nffius (xiv. 634), when raised it had the form of
a ship and a ladder combined in one.
W. A. W.

a Compare ambvbaia, from Syr. SD-^SS, abbSlb&
a flute, where the m occupies the place of the doenflta

2770

SACKCLOTH

SACKCLOTH (pt?: o-dKKos' saccus). A
coarse texture, of a dark color, made of goats'
hair (Is. L 3; Rev. vi. 12), and resembling the
cilicium of the Romans. It was used (1) for
making sacks, the same word describing both the
material and the article (Gen. xiii. 25; Lev. xi.
32; Josh. ix. 4); and (2) for making the rough
garments used by mourners, which were in extreme
oases worn next the skin (1 K. xxi. 27 ; 2 K. vi.
30; Job x\i. 15; Is. xxxii. 11), and this even by
feraales (.Joel i. 8; 2 Mace. iii. 19), but at other
times were worn over the coat or cethoneih (Jon.
iii. 6) in lieu of the outer garment. The robe
probably resembled a sack in shape, and fitted close
to the person, as we may infer from the application
of the term chagar"- to the process of putting it
on (2 Sam. iii. 31; Kz. vii. 18, &c.). It was con
fined by a girdle 3f similar material (Is. iii. 24).
Sometimes it was worn throughout the night (1 K,
xxi. 27). W. L. B.
SACRIFICE. The peculiar features of each
kind of sacrifice are referred to under their re
spective heads: the object of this article will be: —
I. To examine the meaning and derivation of
the various words used to denote sacrifice in Scrip
ture. n. To examine the historical developraent of
sacrifice iu the Old Testaraent.
III. To sketch briefly the theory of sacrifice,
as it is set forth both in the Old and New Testa
ments, with especial reference to the Atonement
of Christ.
I. Of all the words used in reference to saciifice,
the most general appear to be —
(a.) T^ryyt^^ minchak, from the obsolete root
nSS, "to give;" used in Gen. xxxii. 13, 20, 21,
of a gift from Jacob to Esau (LXX. dcopov); in 2
Sam. \-iii. 2, 6 (^evia), in 1 K- iv. 21 (SeSpo), in 2
K. xvii. 4 {/xavad)j of a tribute from a vassal
king; in Gen. iv. 3, 5, of a sacrifice generally
(dupov and Qvaia., indifferently); and in Lev. ii.
1, 4, 5, 6, joined with tbe word horban, of an
unbloody sacrifice, or "meat-offering" (generally
Sapjv duffia). Its derivation and usage point to
that idea of sacrifice, which represents it as an
eucharistic gift to God our King.
(b.) {'\'2,'~)p,korban, derived from the root ^"^p,
"to approach," or (in Hiphil) to "make to ap
proach; " used with minchah in Lev. li. 1, 4, 5, 6,
(LXX. dwpov Ovaia), generally rendered Batpov
(see Mark vii. 11, Kop^av, 3 iari Saipov) or ivpoa-
4i6pa. The idea of a gift hardly seems inherent
in the root; which rather points to sacrifice, as a
symbol of communion or covenant between God
and man.
(c.) (n5j(j zebach, derived from the root H^L
to "slaughter animals," especially to "slay in sacri
fice," refers emphatically to a bloody sacrifice, one

b See, for example (aa in Faber's Origin of Sacrifice),
Ite elaborate reaeomng on the translation of nStSH
n Gen. iv. 7. Even supposing the Tersion, a " sin-
offering coucheth at the door," to be correct, on the
^onnd of general usage of the word, of the curious
version of the LXX-, and of the remarkable gram-
smtical construction of the masculine participle, with
he feminine noun (as referring to the feet that the

SACKIFICE
in wLich the shedding of blood is the eneLtiAl
idea. Thus it is opposed to minchak, in Ps. xl. 6
(Ovtriav Kal irpo(r<bopdv)t and to dlah (the whole
burnt-offering) in Ex. x. 25, xviii. 12, &c. With
it the expiatory idea of sacrifice is naturally con
nected. Distinct from these general terms, and often
appended to them, are the words denoting special
kinds of sacrifice: —
(d.) n^iy, dlah (generally SKoKavTafia)^ the
" whole burnt-offering."
(e.) D/?^ sAe/cOT (0u(rta (T. TT^piou), used fre
quently with n^?"., and sometimes called l^liji
the "peace- " or " thank-offering."
(f.) nSTSn, chaitaih (generally urepX afiap-
Tlas)^ the "sin-oflfering."
(g.) tStt-'S asfiAm (generaUy 7rA7j/i/Ae\efo), the
" trespass- offering."
For the examination of the derivation and mean
ing of these, see each under its own head.
II. (A.) Oeigdj of Sacrifice.
In tracing the history of sacrifice, from its first
beginning to its perfect development in the Mosaic
ritual, we are at once met by the long-disputed
question, as to the origin of sacrifice; whether it
arose from a natural instinct of man, sanctioned
and guided by God. or whether it was the subject
of some distinct primeval revelation.
It is a question, the importance of which has
probably been exaggerated. There can be no doubt
that sacrifice was sanctioned by God's Law, with a
special typical reference to the Atonement of Christ;
its miiversal prevalence, independent of, and often
opposed to, man's natural reasonings on his relation
to God, shows it to have been primeval, and deeply
rooted in the instincts of humanity. Whether it
was first enjoined by an external command, or
whether it was based on that sense of sin and lost
communion with God, which is stamped by his
hand on the heart of man — is a historical ques
tion, perhaps insoluble, probably one which cannot
be treated at all, except in connection with some
general theory of the method of primeval revela
tion, but certainly oue which does not a^ct the
authority and the meaning of the rite itself.
The great difficulty in the theory which refers
it to a distinct command of God, is the total silence
of Holy Scripture — a silence the more remark
able, when contrasted with the distinct reference
made in Gen. ii. to the origin of the Sabbath.
Sacrifice when first mentioned, in the case of Cain
and Abel, is referred to as a thing of course ; it is
said to have been brought by men; there is no
hint of any command given by God. This con
sideration, the strength of which no ingenuity*
has been able to impair, although it does not actu
ally disprove the formal revelation of sacrifice, yet

sin-offering was actuaUy a male), still it does not settle
the matter. The Lord even then speaks of sacrifice
as existing, and as known to exist : He does not insti
tute it. The supposition that the " skins of beasts"
in Gen. iii. 21 were skios of animals sacrificed by God's
command, is a pure assumpiioa. The argument on
Heb. xi. 4, that faith can rest only on a distinct Diviiu
command as to the special occasion of its exercise,
is contradicted by the general definition sf it giren in
T.l.

SACRIFICE
il least forbids the assertion of it, as of a positive
Uld important doctrine.
Nor is the fact of the mysterious and super
natural character of the doctrine of Atonement,
with which the sacrifices of the O. T. are expressly
connected, any conclusive argument on this side
of the question. All allow that the eucharistic
and deprecatory ideas of sacrifice are perfectly
natural to man. The higher view of it« expiatory
character, dependent, as it is, entirely on its typical
nature, appears but gradually in Scripture. It ia
veiled under other ideas in the case of the patri
archal sacrifices. It is first distinctly mentioned
in the Law (Lev. xvii. 11, Ac); but even then the
theory of the sin offering, and of the classes of
SUIS to which it referred, is allowed to be obscure
and diflicult; it is only in the N. T. (especially in
the Kpistle to the Hebrews) that ita nature is
clearly unfolded. It is aa liltely that it pleased
God gradually to superadd the higher idea t« an
institution, derived by man from the lower ideas
(which must eventually find their justification in
the higher), as that He originally commanded the
institution when the time for the revelation of its
full meaning was not yet come. The rainbow was
just as truly the symbol of God's new promise in
Gen.lx. 13-17, whether it had or had not existed,
as a natural phenomenon before the Flood. What
God sets his seal to. He makes a part of his revela^
tion, whatever its origin may be. It is to be
noticed (see Warbiirton's IJiv. Leg. ix. c. 2) that,
except in Gen. xv. 9, the method of patriarchal
sacrifice is left free, without any direction on the
part of God, while in all the Mosaic ritual the
limitation and regulation of sacrifice, as to time,
place, and materia], is a most prominent feature,
on which much of its distinction from heathen
sacrifice depended. The inference is at least prob'
able, that when God sanctioned formally a natural
rite, then, and not till then, did He define its
method. The question, therefore, of the origin of sacrifice
is best left in the silence with which Scripture
surrounds it.
(B.) Ante-Mosaic History of Sacrifice.
, In examining the various 'sacrifices, recorded
Scripture before the establishment of the Law, we
find that the words specially denoting expiatory
sacrifice (HN^n and DttJS) are not applied to
them. This fact does not at all show, that they
were not actually expiatory, nor even that the
ofierers had not that idea of expiation, which must
have been vaguely felt in all sacrifices; but it justi
fies the inference, that this idea was not then the
prominent one in the doctrine of sacrifice.
The sacrifice of Cain and Abel is called minchah,
although in the case of the latter it was a bloody
sacrifice. (So m Heb. xi. 4 the word Bvaia is
explained by the tois Siipois below.) In the case
of both it would appear to have been eucharistic,
iind the distinction between the ofterers to have
lain in their "faith " (Heb. xi. i). Whether that
faith of Abel referred to the promise of the Re
deemer, and was connected with any idea of the
typical meaning of sacrifice, or whether it was a
jimple and humble faith in the unseen God, as the
^iver and promiser of all good, we are not autnor-
ized by Scripture to decide.
The sacrifice of Noah after the Flood (Gen. viii.
80) is called burnt-offering (dlah). This sacrifice
J txuresdy connected with the institution of the

SACRIFICE 2771
Covenant which follows in ix. 8-17. The same
ratification of a covenant is seen in the burnt*
oflfering of Abraham, especially enjoined and de
fined by God in Gen. xv. 9 ; and is probably to be
traced in the "building of altars" by Abraham
on entering Canaan at Bethel (Gen. xii. 7, 8) and
Mamre (xiii. 18), by Isaac at Beer-sheba (xx"d. 25),
and by Jacob at Shechem (xxxiii. 20), ftnd in
Jacob's setting up and anointing of the pillar at
Bethel (xxviii. 18, xxxv. li). The sacrifice (zebach)
of Jacob at Mizpah also marks a covenant with
Laban, to which God is called to be a witness
and a party. In all these, therefore, the prom
inent idea seems to have been what is called the
federative, the recognition of a bond between the
sacrificer and God, and tbe dedication of himself,
as represented by the victim, to the service of the
Lord. The sacrifice of Isaac (Gen. xxii. 1-13) stands
by itself, as tbe sole instance in which the idea of
human sacrifice was even for a moment, and as a
trial, countenanced by God. Yet in its principle
it appears to have been of the same nature as
before: the voluntary surrender of an only son on
Abraham's part, and the wiUing dedication of him
self on Isaac's, are in the foreground : the expiatory
idea, if recognized at all, holds certainly a second
ary position.
In the burnt-offeruigs of Job for his children
(Job i. 6) and for his three friends (xiii. 8), we
for the first time find the expression of tbe desire
of expiation for sin accompanied by repentance and
prayer, and brought prominently forward. Tbe
same is the case in the words of Moses to Pharaoh,
as to tbe necessity of sacrifice in the wilderness
(Ex. X. 25), where sacrifice (zebach) is distinguished
from burnt-offering. Here the main idea is at least
deprecatory; the object is to appease the wrath,
and avert the vengeance of God.
(C.) The Sacrifices of the Mosaic Period.
These are inaugurated by the offering of the
Passover and the sacrifice of Ex. xxiv. The
Passover indeed is unique in its character, and
seems to embrace the peculiarities of all the various
divisions of sacrifice soon to be established. Ita
ceremonial, however, most nearly resembles that of
the sin-offering in the emphatic use of the blood.
which (after the iirst celebration) was poured at
the bottom of the altar (see Lev. iv. 7 ), and in the
care taken that none of the flesh should remain
till the morning (see Ex. xii. 10, xxxiv. 25). It
was unlike it in that the flesh was to be eaten by
all (not burnt, or eaten by the priests alone), in
token of their entering into covenant with God,
and eating "at his table," as in the case of a
peace-offering. Its peculiar position as a historical
memorial, and its special reference to the future,
naturally mark it out as incapable of being referred
to any formal class of sacrifice ; but it is clear that
the idea of salvation from death by means of sacri
fice is brought out in it with a distinctness before
unknown. The sacrifice of Ex. xxiv., offered as a solemn
inauguration of the Covenant of Sinai, has a sim
ilarly comprehensive character. It is called -a
"burnt-offering" and "peace-offering" in v 5;
but the solemn use of the blood (comp. Heb. ix.
18-22) distinctly marks the idea that expiatory
sacrifice was needed for entering into covenant
with God, the idea of which the sin- and trespass-
offerings were afterwards the symbols.

2772

SACRIFICE

The Law of Leviticus now unfolds diatinctiy the
rarious forms of sacrifice : —
(a.) The burnt-offering. Self-dedicatory.
(4.) The meat-rffering (unbhody) I EuCHARLS-
The peace-offering (bloody) ) tic.
(c.) The sintering U^^^.,^^^_
ihe trespass-offering )
To these may be added, —
(d.) The incense offered after sacrifice in the
Holy Place, and (on the Day of Atonement) in the
Holy of HoUes, the symbol of the intercession of
the priest (as a type of the Great High Priest),
accompanying and making efficacious the prayer
of the people.
In the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Lev.
viii.) we find these offered, in what became ever
afterwards the appointed order : first came the
sin-offering, to prepare access to God; next the
burnt-offering, to mark their dedication to hia
service; and thirdly tbe meat-offering of thanks
giving. The same sacrifices, in the same order,
with the addition of a peace-offering (eaten no
doubt by all the people), were offered a week after
for all the congregation, and accepted visibly by
the descent of fire upon the burnt-oiferiiig. Hence
forth the sacrificial system was fixed in all its parts,
until He should come whom it typified.
It is to be noticed that tlie l^aw of Leviticus
takes the rite of sacrifice for granted (see Lev. i. 2,
ii. 1, (fee., " If a man bring an offering, ye shall,"
etc.), and is directed chiefly to guide and limit its
exercise. In every case but that of the peace-
offering, the nature of the victim was carefully
prescribed, so as to preserve the ideas symbolized,
but so as to avoid the notion (so inherent in
heathen systems, and finding its logical result in
human sacrifice) that the more costly the offering,
the more surely must it meet with acceptance.
At the same time, probably in order to Impress
this truth on their minds, and also to guard against
corruption by heathenish ceremonial, and against
the notion that sacrifice in itself, without obedi
ence, could avail (see 1 Sam. xv. 22, 23), the place
of offering was expressly limited, first to the Taber
nacle," afterwards to the Temple. This ordinance
also necessitated their periodical gathering as one
nation before God, and so kept clearly before their
minds their relation to Him as their national King.
Both limitations brought out the great truth, that
God Himself provided the way by which man
should approach Hira, and that the method of
reconciliation waa initiated by Him, and not by
them. In consequence of the peculiarity of the Law, it
has been argued (aa by Outram, Warburton, etc.)
that the whole system of sacrifice was only a con
descension to the wealtness of the people, borrowed,
more or less, from the heathen nationa, especially
from Egypt, in order to guard against worse super
stition and positive idolatry. The argument is
mainly based (see Warb. Div. Leg. iv., sect. vi. 2)
on Ez. XX. 25, and similar references in the 0. and
N. T. to the nullity of all mere ceremonial. Taken
as an explanation of the theory of sacrifice, it is
weak and superficial; it labors under two fatal
difficulties, the historical fact of the primeval exist
ence of sacrifice, and its typical reference to the

a ¥or instances of infringement of this rule uncen-
lored, see Judg. ii. 6, vi. 26, xiii. 19 ; 1 Sam. xi. 16,
rri. S ; 2 Sam. vi. 13 ; 1 E. iii. 2, 3. Most of these

SACRIFICE
one Atonement of Christ, which was foi%ordaiiied
from the very beginning, and had been already
typified, as, for example, in the sacrifice of Isaac.
But as giving a reason for the rainutenesa and
elaboration of tlie Mosaic ceremonial, so remark
ably contrasted with the freedora of patriarchal
sacrifice, and aa furnishing an explanation of cer
tain special rites, it may probably have some value.
It certainly contains this truth, that the craving
for visible tokens of God's presence, and visible
rites of worship, from which idolatry proceeds, was
provided for and turned into a safe channel, by the
whole ritual and typical system, of which sacrifice
was the centre. I'he contact with the gigantic
system of idolatry, which prevailed in Egypt, and
which had so deeply tainted the spirit of the Israel
ites, would doubtless render such provision then
especially necessary. It was one part of the pro
phetic oflnce to guard against its degradation into
formalism, and to bring out ita spiritual meaning
with an ever-increasing clearness.
(D.) Post-Mosaic Sacrifices.
It will not be necessary to pursue, in detail, the
history of Post-Mosaic Sacrifice, for its main prin
ciples were now fixed forever. The most remark
able instances of sacrifice on a large scale are by
Solomon at the consecration of the Temple (1 K.
viii. 03), by Jehoiada after the death of Athaliah
(2 Chr. xxiii. 18), and by Hezekiah at his great
Passover and restoration of tbe Temple-worship
(2 Chr. xxx. 21-21). In each case, tbe lavish use
of victims was chiefly in the peace-offerings, whicb
were a sacred national feast to the people at the
I'able of their Great King.
The regular sacrifices in the Temple service
were : —
(a.) Burnt-Offerings.
1. The daily burnt-offerings (Ex. xxix. 38-42).
2. The double burnt-offeringa on the Sabbath
(Num. xxviii. 9, 10).
3. The burnt-offerings at the great festivals
(Num. xxviii. 11-xxix. 39).
(6.) Meat-Offerings.
1. The daily meat-offerings accompanying the
daily burnt-offerings (flour, oil, and wine) (Ex.
xxix. 40, 41).
2. The shew- bread (twelve loaves with frankin
cense), renewed every Sabbath (X^ev. xxiv. 5-9).
3. The special meat-offerings at the Sabbath
and the great festivals (Num. xxviii., xxix.).
4. The firat-fruits at the Passover (Lev. xxiii.
10-14), at Pentecost (xxiii. 17-20), iioth "wave-
offerings; " the first-fruits of the dough and thresh
ing-floor at the harvest-time (Num. xv. 20, 21;
Deut. xxvi. 1-11), called "heave-offerings."
(c.) Sin-Offkkings.
1. Sin-offering (a kid) each new moon (Num.
xxviii. 15).
2. Sin-offerings at the Passover, Pentecost, Feast
of Trumpets, and Tabernacles (Num. xxviii. 22, 30,
xxix. 5, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38).
3. The offering of the two goats (the goat
sacrificed and the scape-goat) for the people, and
of the bullock for the priest himself, on the Great
Day of Atonement (Lev. xvi.).
(d.) Incense.
1. The morning and evening incense (Ex. xxx.
7-8). cases are special, some 'authorized by special com
mand ; but the Law probably did not attain to Its fiik
strictness till the foundation of the Temple.

SACRIFICE
2. The inceuae on the Great Day of Atonement
(Lev. xvi. 12).
Besides these public sacrifices, there were offer
ings of the people for themselves individually; at
the purification of women (Lev. xii.), the presenta
tion of the first-born, and circumcision of all male
children, the cleansing ofthe leprosy (Lev. xiv.) or
any uncleanness (Lev. xv.), at the fulfillment of
Niizaritic and other vows (Num. vi. 1-21), on oc
casions of marriage and of burial, etc., etc., besides
tbe frequent offering of private sin-offerings. Thrae
must have kept up a constant succession of sacri
fices every day; and brought the rite home to
every man's thought, and to every occasion of
human life.
(IIL) In examining the doctrine of sacrifice, it
is necessary to remember, that, in its development,
the order of idea is not necessarily the same as the
order of time. By the order of sacrifice in its per
fect form (as in Lev. viii.) it is clear that tbe sin-
offering occupies the most important place, ,the
burnt-offering conies next, and the meat-offering or
peace-offering last of all. The second could only
be offered after the first had been accepted; the
third was only a subsidiary part of tbe second.
Yet, in actual order of time, it has been seen, that
the patriarchal sacrifices partook much more of
the nature of the peace-offering and burnt-offering;
and that, under' the Law, by which was "the
knowledge of sin " (Kom. iii. 20), the sin-oftering
was for the fii'st time explicitly set forth. This is
but natural, that the deepest ideas should be the
last in order of development.
It is also obvious, that those who believe in the
unity of the O. and N. T., and the typical nature
of the Mosaic Covenant, must view the type iu
constant reference to the antitype, and be prepared
therefore to find in the former vague and recon
dite meanings, which are fixed and manifested by
the latter. The sacrifices must be considered, not
merely as they stand iu the Law, or even as they
might have appeared to a pious Israelite ; hut as
they were illustrated by the Prophets, and per
fectly interpreted in the N. T. (e. g. in the Epis
tle to the Hebrews). It follows from this, that,
as belonging to a system which was to embrace all
mankind in its infiuence, they should be also com
pared and contrasted with the sacrifices and wor
ship of God in other nations, and the ideas which
in them were dimly and confusedly expressed.
It is needless to dwell on the universality of
heathen sacrifices," and difficult to reduce to any
single theory the various ideas involved therein.
~t is clear, that the sacrifice was often looked upon
as a gift or tribute to the gods: an idea which (for
exaraple) runs through all Greek literature, from
. the simple conception in Homer to the caricatures
of Aristophanes or Lucian, against the perversion
of which St. Paul protested at Athens, when he
declared that God needed nothing at human hands
(Acts xvii. 25). It is also clear that sacrifices
were used as prayers, to obtain benefits, or to avert
wrath ; and that this idea was coiTupted into the
superstition, denounced by heathen satirists as well
as by Hebrew prophets, that by them the gods'
feivor could be purchased for the wicked, or their
¦'envy " be averted frora the prosperous. On the
¦)ther hand, that they were regarded as thank-offer-
ngB, and the feasting on their fiesh as a partaking

a See Magee 's Diss, on Sacr., vol. i. diss, v., and
Irait Ton Idisauls'S Treatise on Oreok and Soman

SACRIFICE 2778
of the "table of the gods" (comp. 1 Cor. x. 20
21), is equally certain. Nor was the higher idea
of sacrifice, as a representation of the self-devotion
of the offerer, body and soul, to the god, wholly
lost, although generally obscured by the grosser
and more obvious conceptions of the rite. But,
besides all these, there seems always to have been
latent the idea of propitiation, that is, the belief ii?
a communion with the gods, natural to man, brokeo
off in some way, and by sacrifice to be restored.
The emphatic "shedding of the blood," as the es
sential part of the sacrifice, while the flesh wa*
often eaten by the priests or the sacrificer, is not
capable of any full explanation by any of the ideas
above referred to. Whether it represented the
death of the sacrificer, or (as in cases of national
offering of human victims, and of those self-d©..
voted for their country) an atoning death for him \
still, in either case it contained the idea thai
" without shedding of blood is no remission," and,
so had a vague and distorted glimpse of the great
central truth of Revelation. Such an idea may be
(as has been argued) " unnatural," in that it could
not be explained by natural reason; but it cer
tainly was uot unnatural, if frequency of existence,
and accordance with a deep natural instinct, be
allowed to preclude that epithet.
'^ow the essential difference between these
heathen views of sacrifice and the Scriptural doc->
trine of the O. T. is not to be found in its denial
of any of these ideas. The very names used in it
for sacrifice (as is seen above) involve the concep
tion of the rite as a gift, a form of worship, a
thank-offering, a self-devotion, and an atonement.
In fact, it brings out, clearly and distinctly, the
ideas which in heathenism were uncertain, vague,
and perverted.
But the essential points of distinction are two.
First, that whereas the heathen conceived of their
gods as ahenated in jealousy or anger, to be sought
after, and to be appeased by the unaided action of
man. Scripture represents God himself as ap
proaching man, as pointing out and sanctiouing
the way by which the broken covenant should
be restored. This was impressed on the Israelites
at every step by the minute directions of the Law,
as to time, place, victim, and ceremonial, by its
utterly discountenancing the " will-worship," which
in heathenism found full scope, and rioted in the
invention of costly or monstrous sacrifices. And
it is especially to be noted, that this particularity
is increased as we approach nearer to the deep
propitiatory idea; for that, whereas the patriarchal
sacrifices generally seem to have been undefined
by God, and even under the Law, the nature of
the pfeace-offerings, and (to some extent) the burnt-
offerings, was determined by the sacrificer only, tht
solemn sacrifice of Abraham in the inauguration
of his covenant was prescribed to him, and the
sin-offerings under the Law were most accurately
and minutely determined. (See, for example, the
whole ceremonial of Lev. xvi.) It is needless'
to remark, how this essential difference purifies
aU the ideas above noticed frora the corruptions,
which made them odious or contemptible, and sets
on its true basis the relation between God aud
fallen man.
The second mark of distinction is closely con
nected with this, inasmuch as it shows sacrifice to

Sacrifice, quoted in notes 23, 26, to Thomson's
ton Lectures, 1863.

2774 SACRIFICE
be a scheme proceedint; from (iod, and, in his
foreknowledge, connected with the one central fact
of all human history. It is to be found in the
typical character of all Jewish sacrifices, on which,
as the Epistle to the Hebrews argues, all their
efficacy depended. It must be remembered that,
like other ordinances of the Law, they had a two
fold effect, depending on the special position of
an Israelite, as a member of the natural Theocracy,
and on his general position, as a, man in relation
with God. On the one hand, for example, the
sin-offering was an atonement to the national law
for moral offenses of negligence, which in " pre
sumptuous," i. ts. deliberate and willful crime, was
rejected (see Num. xv. 27-31 ; and comp. Heb, x.
26, 27). On the otiier hand it had, as tbe pro
phetic writings show us, a distinct spiritual sig
nificance, as a means of expressing repentance and
receiving forgiveness, which could have belonged to
it only as a type of the Great Atonement. How
far that typical nieaning was recognized at differ
ent periods and by different persons, it is useless
to speculate; but it would be irapossible to doubt,
even if we had no testimony on the subject, that,
in the face of the high spiritual teaching of the
Law and the Prophets, a pious Israelite must have
felt the nullity of material sacrifice in itself, and so
believed it to be availing only as an ordinance
of God, shadowing out some great spiritual truth,
or action of his. Nor is it unlikely that, with
more or less distinctness, he connected the evolu
tion of this, as of other truths, with the coraing
of the promised Messiah. But, however this
be, we know that, in God's purpose, the whole
system was typical, that all its spiritual efficacy
depended on the true sacrifice which it represented,
and could be received only on condition of Faith,
and that, therefore, it passed away when the Anti
type was come.
The nature and meaning of the various kinds
of sacrifice is partly gathered from the form of
their institution and ceremonial, partly from the
teaching of the Prophets, and partly from the
N. T., especially the Epistle to the Hebrews. All
had relation, under different aspects, to a Covenant
between God and man.
The Sin-offering represented that Covenant
as broken by man, and as knit together again, by
God's appointment, through the "shedding of
blood." Its characteristic ceremony was the
sprinkling of the blood before the veil of the
Sanctuary, the putting some of it on the horns of
the altar of incense, and the pouring out of all the
rest at the foot of the altar of burnt-offering. The
flesh was in no case touched by the offerer; either
it was consumed by fire without the camp, or it
was eaten by the priest alone in the holy place,
and everything that touched it was holy (tyip).
This latter point marked the distinction from the
peace-offering, and showed that the sacrificer had
been rendered unworthy of communion with God.
The shedding of the blood, the symbol of life, sig
nified that the death of the offender was deserved
for sin, but that the death of the victim was ac
cepted for his death by the ordinance of God's

" Some render this (like Sacer) " accursed ; " but
;he primitive meaning " clean," and the usage of the
vord, seem decisive against this. LXX. ayia (vid.
. s. v.).

b In Lev. i. 4, it is said to " atone " ("^DS, ». e. to

SACRIFICE
mercy. This is seen most clearly in the ceTft-
monial of the Day of Atonement, when, after ths
sacrifice of the one goat, the high-priest's hand Ma«
laid on the head of the scape-goat — which was
the other part of the sin-offering — with confession
of the sins of the people, that it might visibly bear
them away, and so bring out explicitly, wliat in
other sin-offerings was but implied. Accordingly
we find (see quotation from the Mishna in Outr.
De Sacr. i. c. xv., § 10) that, in all cases, it was
the custora for the offerer to lay his hand on the
head of the sin-offering, to confess generally or
specially his sins, and to say, " Let this be my ex
piation." Beyond all doubt, the sin-offering dis
tinctly witnessed, that siu existed in man, that the
"wages of that sin was death," and that God had
provided an Atonement by the vicarious sufferuig
of an appointed victim. The reference of the
Baptist to a " Lamb of God who taketh away the
sins of the world," was one understood and hailed
at once by a " true IsraeUte."
The ceremonial and meaning of the Burkt-
OKFERiNG were very different. The idea of ex
piation seems not to have been absent from it
(for the blood was sprinkled round about the altar
of sacrifice) ; * and, before the Levitical ordinance
of the sin-offering to precede it, this idea may
have been even prominent. But in the system of
Leviticus it is evidently only secondary. The
main idea is the offering of the whole victim to
God, representing (as the laying of the hand on
its head shows) the devotion of the sacrificer, body
and soul, to Him. The death of the victim was
(so to speak) an incidental feature, to signify the
completeness of thcdevotion; and it is to be no
ticed that, in all solenm sacrifices, no burnt-offering
could be made until a previous sin-offering had
brought the sacrificer again into covenant with
God. The main idea of this sacrifice must have
been representative, not vicarious, and the best
comment upon it is the exhortation in Rom. xii. 1,
"to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy and
acceptable to God."
The Meat-offerings, the peace or thank-
offering, the first-fruits, etc., were simply offerings
to God of his own best gifts, as a sign of thankful
homage, and as a means of maintaining his service
and his servants. Whether they were regular or
voluntary, individual or national, independent or
subsidiary to other Offerings, this was still the lead
ing idea. The meat-offering, of flour, oil, and
wine, seasoned with salt, and hallowed by frankin
cense, was usuaUy au appendage to the devotion
implied in the burnt-offering; and the peace-offer
ings for the people held the same place in Aaron's
first sacrifice (Lev. ix. 22), and in all others of
special solemnity. The characteristic ceremony in
the peace-offering was the eating of the fiesh by
the sacrificer (after the fat had been burnt before
the Lord, and the breast and shoulder given to the
priests). It betokened the enjoyment of com
munion with God at " the table of the I. ord," in
the gifts which his mercy bad bestowed, of which
a choice portion was offered to Him, to his servants,
and to his poor (see Deut. xiv. 28, 29). To this

" cover," and so to " do away ; " LXX. e^i\da-atr9at.).
The same word is used below of the sin-offering ; and
the later Jews distinguish the burnt-ofiering as aton
ing for thoughts and designs, the sin-offering for acts
of transgression. (See Jonath. Paraphr. on Lev. vi
17, etc., quoted by Outram.)

SACRIFICE
new of sacrifice aUusion is made ty St. Paul in
Phil. iv. 18 ; Heb. xiii. 15, 16. It foUows natu
rally from the other two.
It is clear from this, that the idea of sacrifice
is a complex idea, involving the propitiatory, the
dedicatory, and the eucharistic elements. Any one
of these, taken by itself, would lead to error and
superstition. The propitiatory alone would tend
to the idea of atonement by sacrifice for sin, as
being effectual without any condition of repent
ance and faith; the self-dedicatory, taken alone,
ignores the barrier of sin between man and God,
and undermines the whole idea of atonement; the
eucharistic alone leads to the notion that mere gifts
can satisfy God's service, and is easily perverted
into the heathenish attempt to "bribe" God by
vows and offerings. All three probably were more
or less implied in each sacrifice, each element pre
dominating in its turn: all must be kept in mind
in considering the historical influence, the spiritual
meaning, and the typical value of sacrifice.
Now the Isi'aelites, while they seem always to
have retained the ideas of propitiation and of
eucharistic offering, even when they perverted these
by half-heathenish supera titie n, constiintly ignored
the self- dedication which is the link between the
two, and which the regular burnt-offering should
have impressed upon them as their daily thought
and duty. It is therefore to this point that the
teaching of the Prophets is mainly directed; its
key-note is contained in the words of Samuel: "Be
hold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken
than the fat of rams " (1 Sam. xv. 22). So Isaiah
declares (as in i. 10-20) that "the Lord delights
not in the blood of buUocks, or lambs, or goats; "
that to those who " cease to do evil and learn to
do well, .... though their sins be as
scarlet, they shall be white as snow." Jeremiah
reminds them (vii. 22, 23) that the Lord did not
"command burnt-offerings or sacrifices" under
Moses, but said, " Obey my voice, and I wiU be
your God." Ezeldel is full of indignant protests
(see XX. 39-4'l) against the pollution of God's
name by offerings of those whose hearts were with
their idols. Hosea sets forth God's requirements
(vi. 6) in words which our Lord himself sanc
tioned : " I desired mercy and not sacrifice, and
the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings."
Amos (v. 21-27) puts it even more strongly, that
God "hates" their sacrifices, unless "judgment
run down like water, and righteousness like a
mighty stream." And Micah (vi. 6-8) answers
the question which lies at the root of sacrifice,
"Wherewith shaU I come before the I^ord?" by
the words, *' What doth the Lord require of thee,
but to do justly, and love mercy, and walk humbly
with thy God'?" AU these passages, and many
others, are directed to one object — not to dis
courage sacrifice, but to purify and spiritualize the
feelings of the offerers.
The same truth, here enunciated from without,
is recognized from within by the Psalmist. Thus
he says, in Ps. xl. 6-11, " Sacrifice and meat
offering, burnt-offering and sin-offerihg, Thou hast
QOt required;" and contrasts with them the hora-
ige of the heart — " mine ears hast Thou bored,"
and the active service of life — " Lo ! I corae to do
Thy wiU, 0 God." In Ps. 1. 13, 14, sacrifice is
contrasted with prayer and adoration (comp. Ps.
cxU. 2) : " Thinkest thou that I wiU eat bulls' flesh,
Uld drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God
khankagiving, puy thy vows to the Most Highest,

SACRIFICE

2775

and call upon me in time of trouble." In Pa. li.
16, 17, it is similarly contrasted with true repent
ance of the heart: "The' sacrifice of God is a
troubled spirit, a broken and a contritt heart."
Yet here also the next verse shows thai sacrifice
was not superseded, but purified: " Then shalt
thou be pleased with burnt-offerings and oblations;
then shall they offer young bullocks upon thine
altar." These passages are correlative to the others,
expressing the feelings, which those others in God's
narae require. It is not to be argued from them,
that this idea of self-dedication is the main one of
sacrifice. The idea of propitiation lies below it,
taken for granted by the Prophets as by the Thole
people, but still enveloped in mystery unt. the
Antitype should come to make all clear. For th»
evolution of this doctrine we must look to the N ,
T. ; the preparation for it by the Prophets was (so
to speak) negative, the pointing out the nullity
of aU other propitiations in themselves, and then
leaving the warnings of the conscience and the
cravings of the heart to fix men's hearts on the
better Atonement to come.
Without entering directly on the great subject
of the Atonement (which would be foreign to the
scope of this article), it wUl be sufficient to refer
to the connection, established in the N. T., between
it and the sacrifices of the Mosaic system. To do
this, we need do little more than analyze the Epis
tle to the Hebrews, which contains the key of the
whole sacrificial doctrine.
In the first place, it follows the prophetic books
by stating, in the most emphatic terms, the in
trinsic nullity of aU mere material sacrifices. The
" gifts and sacrifices " of the first Tabernacle could
" never make the sacrificers perfect in conscience "
(Karh a'vveiSr]ffiv)'y they were but "carnal ordi
nances, imposed on them tiU the time of reforma
tion" (Siop6ci>a-€cos) (Heb. ix. 9, 10). The very
fact of their constant repetition is said to prove
this imperfection, which depends on the funda
mental principle, " that it is impossible that the
blood of bulls and goats should take away sin"
(x. 4). But it does not lead us to infer, that they
actuaUy had no spiritual efficacy, if offered in m-
pentance and faith. On the contrary, the object
of the whole epistle is to show their typical and
probationary character, and to assert that in virtue
of it alone they had a spiritual meaning. Our
Lord is declared (see 1 Pet. i. 20) "to have been
foreordained " as a sacrifice " before the foundation
of the world ; " or (as it is more strikingly ex
pressed in Rev. xiii. 8) "slain from the foundation
of the world." The material sacrifices represented
this Great Atonement, as already made and ac
cepted in God's foreknowledge; and to those who
grasped the ideas of sin, pardon, aud self-dedica
tion, symbohzed in thera, they were means of enter
ing into the blessings which the One True Sacrifice
alone procured. Otherwise the whole sacrificial
system could have been only a superstition and a
snare. The sins provided for by the sin-offering
were certainly in sorae cases moral. [See Sin-
Offering.] The whole of the Mosaic dracription
of sacrifices clearly impUes sorae real spiritual bene
fit to be derived from them, besides the temporal
privileges belonging to tho national theocracy.
Just as St. Paul argues (Gal. ui. 15-29) that the
Promise and Covenant to Abraham were of pri
mary, the l^w only of secondary, importance, so
that men had under the 1-aw raore than they had
by the l.aw; so it must be said of the Levitica]

2776

SACRIFICE

gacrifices. They conld convey nothing in them
selves; yet, as types, they might, if accepted by a
true, though necessarily imperfect, faith, be means
of conveying in some degree the blessings of the
Antitype. This typical character of all sacrifice being thus
set forth, the next point dwelt upon is the union
in our l^ord's person of the priest, the offerer, and
the sacrifice. [Priest.] The imperfection of all
sacrifices, which made them, in themselves, liable
U> superstition, and even inexpUcable, lies in this,
that, on the one hand, the victim seems arbitrarily
chosen to be the substitute for, or the representa
tive of, the sacrificer; " and that, on the other, if
there be a barrier of sin between man and God,
he has no right of approach, or security that his
sacrifice will be accepted ; that there needs, there
fore, to be a Mediator, i. e. (according to the defi
nition of Heb. V. 1-4), a true Priest, who shall,
as being One with man, offer the sacrifice, and
accept it, as being One with God. It is shown
that this imperfection, which necessarily existed in
all types, without which indeed they would have
been substitutes, not preparations for the Antitype,
was altogether done away in Him; that in the
first place He, as the representative of the whole
human race, oflfered no arbitrarily- chosen victim,
but the willing sacrifice of his own blood; that, in
the second. He was ordained by God, by a solemn
oath, to be a .high-priest forever, "after the order
of Melchizedek," one " in all points tempted hke
as we are, yet without sin," united to our human
nature, susceptible to its infirmities and trials,
yet, at the same time, the True Son of God, ex
alted far above all created things, and ever living
to make intercession in heaven, now that his sacri
fice is over; and that, in the last place, the barrier
between man and God is by his mediation done
away forever, and the Most Holy Place once for
all opened to man. .^11 the points, in the doctrine
of sacrifice, which had before been unintelligible,
were thus made clear.
This being the case, it next follows that all the
various kinds of sacrifices were, each in its meas
ure, representatives and types of the various aspects
of the Atonement. It is clear that the Atonement,
in this epistle, as in the N. T. generally, is viewed
in a twofold light.
On the one hand, it is set forth distinctly as a
vicarious sacrifice, which was rendered necessary by
the sin of man, and in which the Lord " bare the
sins of many." It is its essential characteristic,
that in it He stands absolutely alone, offering his
sacrifice without any reference to the faith or the
conversion of men — offering it indeed for those
who " were still sinners " and at enmity with God.
Moreover it is called a "propitiation " (l\aa'p6s or
ifMffT-fipiov, Eom. iii. 25 ; 1 John ii. 2) ; a " ran
som " (InroXiTpmeris, Eom. iii. 24; 1 Cor. i. 30,
&c.); which, if words mean anything, must imply
that it makes a change in the relation between
God and man, from separation to union, from
wrath to love, and a change in man's state from
bondage to freedom. In it, then. He stands out
alone as the Mediator between God and man ; and
bis sacrifice is offered once for all, never to be imi
tated or repeated.
Now this view of the Atonement is set forth in

a It may be remembered that devices, sometimes
ladicrous, sometimes horrible, were adopted to make
the victim appear willing ; and that voluntary sacri-

SACRIFICE
the Epistle to the Hebrews, as typified by the sin-
ofifering; especially by that particular sin-ofi^erisg
with which the high-priest entered the Most Holy
Place on the Great Day of Atonement (ix. 7-12);
and by that which hallowed the inauguration of
the Mosaic covenant, and cleansed the vessels of its
ministration (ix. 13-23). In the same way, Christ
is called " our Passover, sacrificed for us " (1 Cor.
v. 7); and is said, in even more startling language,
to have been "made sin for us," though He "knew
no sill" (2 Cor. v. 21). This typical relation is
pursued even into details, and our Lord's sufifering
without the city is compared to the burning of the
public or priestly sin-offerings without the camp
(Heb. xiii. 10-13). The altar of sacrifice (tvin-
aariipiov) is said to have its antitype in his Pas
sion (xiii. 10). All the expiatory and propitiatory
sacrifices of the Law are now for the first time
brought into full light. And though the prin
ciple of vicarious sacrifice still remains, and must
remain, a mystery, yet the fact of its existence in
Him is illustrated by a thousand types. As the
sin-oflfering, though not the earliest, is the most
fundamental of all sacrifices, so the aspect of the
Atonement, which it symbohzes, is the one on which
all others rest.
On the other hand, the sacrifice of Christ is set
forth to us as the completion of that perfect
obedience to the will of the Father, which is the
natural duty of sinless man, in which He is the
representative of all men, and in which He calls
upon us, when reconciled to God, to " take up the
Cross and follow liim." " In the days of his flesh
He oflTered up prayers and supplications . . .
and was heard, in that He feared ; though He were
a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things
which he suflTered: and being made perfect" (by
that suff'eruig; see ii. 10), " He became the author
of salvation to all them that obey Him " (v. 7, 8,
9). In this view his death is not the principal
object; we dwell rather on his lowly uicaniation,
and his life of humihty, temptation, and sufi'ering,
to which that death was but a fitting close. In
the passage above referred to the allusion is not to
the Cross of Calvary, but to the agony in Gethsem-
ane, which bowed his human will to the will ot
his Father. The main idea of this \iew of the
Atonement is representative, rather than vicarious.
In the first view the " second Adam " undid by
his atonmg blood the work of evil which the first
Adam did; in the second He, by his perfect obe
dience, did that which the first Adam left undone,
and, by his grace making us like Himself, calls
upon us to follow Him in the same path. This
latter view is typified liy the burnt-ofl%ring: in
respect of which the N. 'f . merely quotes and en
forces the language already cited from the 0. T.,
and especially (see Heb. x. 6-9) the words of Ps.
xl. 6, Ac., which contrast with material sacrifice the
"doing the will of God." It is one, which cannot
be dwelt upon at all without a previous imphcation
of the other; as both were embraced in one aet, so
are they inseparably connected in idea. Thus it is
put forth in Eom. xii. 1, where the " mercies of
God" (i. e. the free salvation, through the sin-
ofifering of Christ's blood, dwelt upon iu all the
preceding part of the epistle) are made the ground
for calling on us "to present our bodies, a living

flee, such as that of the Decii, was held to be tbt
noblest of all.

SACKIFICE
tacrifce, holy and acceptable to God," inasmuch
as we are aHl (see v. 6) one with Christ, and mem
bers of his body. In this sense it is that we are
^id to be "crucified with Christ" (Gal. ii. 20;
Elom. vi. 6); to have "the suff'erings of Christ
abound in us " (2 Cor. i. 5); even to " fill up that
which is behind" (rei utrrep^jnaTa) thereof (Col. i.
24); and to "be offered" (aireiiSeadai) "upon the
sacrifice of the faith " of others (Phil. ii. 17; comp.
2 Tim. iv. 6; 1 John iii. 16). As without the
sm-offering of the Cross, this, our burnt-offering,
would be impossible, so also without the burnt-
off'ering the siii-off'ering will to us be unavaiUng.
With thesa views of our Lord's sacrifice on earth,
as typified in the Levitical sacrifices on the outer
¦liar, is also to be connected the offering of his in
tercession for us in heaven, whk-h was represented
by the incense. In the Epistle to the Hebrews,
this part of his priestly office is dwelt upon, with
particular reference to the offering of incense in
the Most Holy Place by the high-priest on the
Great Day of Atonement (Heb. ix. 24-28; comp.
iv. 14^16, vi. 19, 20, vii. 23). It implies that the
sin-off'ering has been made once for all, to rend
asunder the veil (of sin) between man and God;
and that the continual burnt offering is now ac
cepted by Him for the sake of the Great Interced
ing High -priest. That interccbsion is the strength
of our prayers, and " with tbe smoke of its in
cense " they rise up to heaven (Kev. viii. 4).
[Prayek.] The typical sense of the meat-offering, or peace-
offering, is less connected with tbe sacrifice of
Christ himself, than with those sacrifices of praise,
thanksgiving, charity, and devotion, which we, as
Christians, offer to God, and " with which he is
well pleased " (Heb. xiii. 15, 16) as with "an odor
of sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable to God " (Phil.
iv. 18). They betoken that, through the peace won
by the sin-offering, we have already been enabled
to dedicate ourselves to God, and they are, as it
were, the ornaments and accessories of that self-
dedication. Such is a brief sketch of the doctrine of Sacri
fice. It is seen to have been deeply rooted in
men's hearts; and to have been, from the begin
ning, accepted and sanctioned by God, and made
by Him one channel of his Eevelation. In virtue,
of that sanction it had a value, partly symbohcal,
partly actual, but in all respects derived from the
one I'rue Sacrifice, of which it was the type. It
involved the expiatory, the self-dedicatory, and
the eucharistic ideas, each gradually developed and
explained, but all capable of full explanation only
by the light reflected back from the Antitype.
On the antiquarian part of the subject valuable
information may be found in Spencer, De Legibus
HebrcBOrum, and Outram, De Sacrifciis. The
qi,iestion of the origin of sacrifice is treated clearly
on either side by Faber, On the (Dimne) Origin of
Sacrifine, and by Davidson, Inquiry into the Origin
of Sacrifice ; and Warburton, Div. Leg. (b. ix.
c. 2). On the general subject, see Magee's Disser
tation on Atonement ; the Appendix to Tholuck's
Treatise on the Hebrews ,¦ Kurtz, Der Alltesta^
meniliche OpfercuUus, Mitau, 1862 [Eng. transla
tion by James Martin, Edinb. 1863, in Clark's
Foreign Theol. Libr. ; comp. Bibl. Sacra, ix. 27-
51] ; and the catalogue of authorities in Winer's
RealwSrterb., " Opfer." But it needs for its con
sideration little but the careful study of Scripture
itself. A. B.
175

SADDUCEES 2777
* For other works on this subject see the refer
ences under Leviticus (Amer. ed.), vol. ii. p.
1653 b, and the list prefixed to the work of Kurtz,
just referred to. See also an article by Dr. G. K.
Noyes, The Scripture Doctrine of Sacrifice, in
the Christia.il Examiner (Roston) for Sept. 1855,
and the learned and elaborate discussion of the
subject in Kalisch's Leviticus, part i. (Lond. 1867),
pp. 1-416. A.
SADAMI'AS (Sadanias). The name of
Shallum, one of the ancestors of Ezra, is so writ
ten in 2 Esdr. i. 1.
SA'DAS ('Apyai; Alex. Ao-rao; [Aid. 2a5as:]
Arcliod). AzGAU (1 Esdr. v. 13; comp. Ezr ii.
12). The form Sadas is retained from the Geneva
version. [This form, it will be observed, is the
reading of the Aldine edition. — A.]
SADDE'US (AoSSaios; [Vat. AoSaios;] Alex.
AoASaior; \_k\A.Adb5aios-^ Loddeus). "lDDO,the
chief at the place Casiphia," is called in 1 Esdr. viii.
45, " Saddens the captain, who was in the place of
the treasury." In 1 Esdr. viii. 46 the name is
written " Daddeus " in the A. V., as in the Ge
neva Version of both passages.
* SADDLE. [Camel; Furhituke; Horse;
Mule.] SAD'DXJC (SciSSoCkos; [Vat. SaSSouXouicos,
Mai, Errata:] Sadoc). Zadok* the high-priest,
ancestor of Ezra (1 Esdr. viii. 2).
SAD'DXJCEES (2oB8ouko7oi : Sadducmi:
Matt. iii. 7, xvi. 1, 6, 11, 12, xxii. 23, 34; Mark
xii. IS; Luke xx. 27; Acts iv. 1, v. 17, xxiii. 6, 7,
8). A religious party or school among the Jews
at the time of Christ, who denied that the oral law
was a revelation of God to the Israelites, and who
deemed the written law alone to be obligatory on
the nation, as of Divine authority. Although fre
quently mentioned in the New Testament in con
junction with the Pharisees, they do not throw
such vivid light as their great antagonists on the
real significance of Christianity. Except on one
occasion, when they united with the Pliarisees in
insidiously asking for a sign from heaven (Matt.
xvi. 1, 4, 6), Christ never assailed the Sadducees
with the same bitter denunciations which he ut
ters against the Pharisees; and they do not, like
the Pharisees, seem to have taken active measures
fbr causing bim to be put to death. In this re
spect, and in many others, they have not been so
infiuential as the Pharisees in the world's history;
but still they deserve attention, as representing
Jewish ideas before the Pharisees became tri
umphant, and as illustrating one phase of Jewish
thought at the time when the new religion of
Christianity, destined to produce such a moment
ous revolution in the opinions of mankind, issued
from Judsea.
Authorities. — The sources of information re
specting the Sadducees are much the same as for
the Pharisees. [Pharisees, vol. iii. p. 2472.]
There are, however, some exceptions negatively.
Thus, the Sadducees are not spoken of at all in the
fourth Gospel, where the . Pharisees are frequently
mentioned, John vii. 32, 45, xi. 47, 57, xviii. 3,
viii. 3, 13-19, ix. 13 ; an omission which, as Geiger
suggests, is not unimportant in reference to the
criticism of the Gospels ( Urschrifl und Ueberset-
zungen der Bibel, p. 107). Moreover, while St.
Paul had been a Pharisee and was the son of a
Pharisee ; while Josephus was a Pharisee, and the
Mishna waa a Pharisaical digest of Pharisaical

2778 SADDUCEES
opinions and practices, not a single undoubted
writing of an acknowledged Sadducee has come
down to us, so that for an acquaintance with their
opinions we are mainly dependent on their antago
nists. This point should be always borne in mind
in judging their opinions, and forming an estimate
of their character, and its full bearing will be duly
appreciated by those who reflect that even at the
present day, with aU the checks against misrepre
sentation arising from publicity and the invention
of printing, probably no reHgious or political party
in England would be content to accept the state
ments of an opponent as giving a correct view of
its opinions.
Origin of the name. — Like etj^mologies of
words, the origin of the name of a sect is, in some
cases, almost wholly immaterial, while in other
cases it is of extreme irapoitance towards under
standing opinions which it is proposed to investi
gate. The origin of the name Sadducees is of the
latter description; and a reasonable certainty on
this point would go far towards ensuring coirect
ideas respecting the position of the Sadducees in the
Jewish state. The subject, however, is involved in
great difiiculties. The Hebrew word by which they
are called in the Alishna is Tsedukim, the plural of
Tsadok, which undoubtetUy means "just," or
" righteous," but which is never used in the Bible
except as a proper name, and in the Anglican Xex-
sion is always translated "Zadok " (2 K. xv. 33;
2 Sam. viii. 17; 1 Chr. vi. 8, 12, &c.; Neh. iii. 4,
29, xi. 11). The most obvious translation of the
word, therefore, is to call them Zadoks or Zadok-
ites ; and a question would then arise as to why
they were so called. The ordinary Jewish state
ment is that they are named from a certain Zadok,
a disciple of the Antigonus of Socho, who is men
tioned in the Mishna (Avoth i.) as having received
the oral law from Siinon the Just, the last of the
men of the Great Synagogue. It is recorded of
this Antigonus that he used to say : " Be not like
servants who sene their master for the sake of re
ceiving a reward, but be like servants who serve
their master without a \iew of receiving a reward ; "
and the current statement has been that Zadok,
who gave his name to the Zadokites or Sadducees,
misinterpreted this saying so fer, as not only to
maintain the great truth that virtue should be the
rule of conduct without reference to the rewards of
the individual agent, but likewise to proclaim the
doctrine that there was no future state of rewards
and punishments. (See Buxtorf, s. v. pTl^j

a Aruch, or 'jlrCic ("7"!*^^^)) nie^^s "arranged,"
or " set in order." The author of this work was an
other Habbi Nathan Ben Jechier, president of the Jew
ish Academy at Borne, who died in 1106. a. d. (See
Bartolocci, Bibl. Ratb. iv. 261.) The relerence to
Rabbi Nathan, author of the treatise on the Avdtk, is
made in the Aruch under the word 7'*Din^D. The
treatise itself was published in a Latin translation by
F. Tayler, at London, 1657. The original passage re
specting Zadok's disciples is printed by Geiger in He
brew, and translated by him, Ursckrijt, etc., p. 105.
* Dr. Ginsburg, in his valuable article Sadducees,
In the 3d edition of Kitto's Cyclop, of Bibl. Lit. iii. 731,
note, corrects Mr. Twistleton's statements respecting
"the earliest mention" of Rabbi Nathan, and the
time when he lived. He says : " This Rabbi Nathan
or Nathan ka-EabU, as he is called in the Talmud,
because he was a native of Meshan in Babylon (Baba
Bat/tra, 73 d), was one of the most distinguished Mish-

SADDUCBES
Lightfoot's HbrcB Hebraiae on MaUh. lit. 8; lod
the Note of Maimonides in Snrenhusius'a Mithna,
iv. 411.) If, however, the statement is traced np
to its original source, it is found that there ia no
mention of it either in the Mishna, or in any other
part of the Talmud (Geiger's Vrschrift, etc, p.
105), aud that the first mention of something of
the kind is in a small work by a certain Kabbi
Nathan, which he wrote on ihe Treatise of the
Mishna called the Avbth, or " Fathers.*' But the
age in which this Bh.bbi Nathan lived is uncertaiD
(Bartolocci, Bibliotheca Magna Rabbinica, voL iii.
p. 770), and the earhest mention of him is in a
well-known Babbinical dictionary called the Aruch,**
which was completed about tbe year 1105, a. d
The following are the words of the above-mentioned
Kabbi Nathan of the Avoth. Adverting to the
passage in the Mishna, already quoted, respecting
Antigonus's saying, he observes: "Antigonus of
Socho had two disciples who taught tlie sayuig to
their disciples, and these disciples again taught it
to their disciples. At last these began to scruti
nize it narrowly, and said, * What did our Fathers
mean in teaching this saying? Is it possible that
a laborer is fo perform his work all the day, and
not receive his wages in the evening? TnUy, if
our Fathers had known that there is another world
and a resurrection of the dead, they would not have
spoken thus.' They then b^an to separate them
selves from the Law ; and so there arose two sects,
the Zadokites and Baithusians, the former from
Zadok, and the latter from Baithos." Now it is
to be observed on this passage that it does not jus-
tif}' the once current beHef that Zadok himself mis
interpreted Antigonus's saying; and it suggests no
reason why the followers of the supposed new doc
trines should have taken their name from Zadok
rather than Antigonus. Bearing this in mind, in
connection with several other points of the same
nature, such a.s, for example, the total silence re
specting any such story in the works of Josephns
or in the Talmud ; the absence of any other special
information respecting even the existence of tbe
supposed Zadok ; the improbable and childishly il
logical reasons assigned for tbe departure of Zadok's
disciples from the Law; the circumstances that
Kabbi Nathan held the tenets of the Pharisees,
that the statements of a Pharisee respecting the
Sadducees must always be received with a certain
reserve, that Eabbi Nathan of the Avoth, for aught
that has ever been proved to the contnuy, may
have lived as long as 1000 years after the first !^

naic doctors. In consequence of his high birth, u
his fiither was Prince of the Captivity in Babylon,
and his marvellous knowledge of the law, both divine
and human, . - . he was created vicar of tbe patri
arch Simon II. b. Gamaliel II., a. d. 140-163, or pred
dent of the tribunal (^"'T H^^ ^M), He is fre
quently quoted in the Talmud as a profound scholar
of the law {Horajolh, 13 b ; Baba Kama, 23 a; Baba
Mezia., 117 b), and has materially contributed to ti»
compilation of the Mishna, as he himself compiled &
Mishna, which is quoted by the name of Mishnath dM
Rabbi Nathan, and whicb Rabbi Jehudah the holy
used for the redaction of the present Mishna." But
after all, Br. Ginsburg is disposed to regard tbe pa»-
sage about the Sadducees in the Avoth of Rabbi A'a-
than as by a later hand, "like many other pieces in
the same work," and thinks that its author most
probably flourished towards the end of the 7th cen
tury (p. 733). He himself adopts the view of Geigef
respecting the origin of the Sadducees. ?.

SADDUCEES
peuance of the Sadducees as a party in Jewish his
tory, and that he quotes no authority of any kind
for his account of their origin, it seems reasonable
to reject this Rabbi Nathan's narration as unwor
thy of credit. Another ancient suggestion concern
ing the origin of the name " Sadducees " is in Epi
phanius (Adversus ffcereses, s.iv.), -who states that
the Sadducees called themselves by that name from
"righteousness," the interpretation of the Hebrew
word Zedek ; " and that there was likewise an
ciently a Zadok among the priests, but that they
did not continue in the doctrines of their chief."
But this statement is unsatisfactory in two re
spects: 1st. It does not explain why, if the sug
gested etymology was correct, the name of the Sad
ducees was not Tsaddikim or Zaddikites, which
would have been the regular Hebrew adjective for
the "Just," or " Righteous " ; and 2dly. While it
evidently implies that they once held the doctrines
of an ancient priest, Zadok, who is even called their
chief or master (eiria-TaTTis), it does not directly
assert that there was any connection between his
narae and theirs; nor yet does it say that the co
incidence between the two names was accidental.
Moreover, it does not give information as to when
Zadok lived, nor what were those doctrines of his
whieh the Sadducees once held, but subsequently
departed from. The unsatisfactoriness of Kpipha-
nius's statement is increased by its being coupled
with an assertion that the Sadducees were a branch
broken off from Dositheus; or in other words Schis
matics from Dositheus {airSciraff^a ovres airh Ao-
ffideov) ; for Dositheus was a heretic who lived about
the time of Christ (Origen, contra Celsum, lib. i. c.
17; Clemens, Recognit. ii. 8; Photius, Biblioih. c.
XXX.), and thus, if Epiphanius was correct, the
opinions characteristic of the Sadducees were pro
ductions of the Christian era; a supposition con
trary to the express declaration of the Pharisee
Josephus, and to a notorious fact of history, the
connection of Hyrcanus with the Sadducees more
than 100 years before Christ. (See Josephus, Ant.
xiii. 9, § 6, and xviii. 1, § 2, where observe the
phrase 4k tov irdvu apxalov . . .) Hence Epipha-
nius's explanation of the origin of the word Saddu
cees must be rejected with that of Rabbi Nathan
of the Avdth. In these circumstances, if recourse
is had to conjecture, the first point to be consid
ered is whether the word is likely to have arisen
from the meaning of "righteousness," or from the
name of an individual. This must be decided in
fevor of the latter alternative, inasmuch as the word
Zadok never occurs in the Bible, except as a proper
narae; and then we are led to inquire as to who
the Zadok of the Sadducees is Ukely to have been.
Now, according to the existing records of Jewish
history, there was one Zadok of transcendent im
portance, and only one; namely, the priest who
acted such a prominent part at the time of David,
and who declared in favor of Solomon, when Abia-
thar took the part of Adonijah as successor to the
throne (1 K. i. 32-45). This Zadok was tenth in
descent, according to the genealogies, from the
high-priest Aaron; and whatever may be tlie cor
rect explanation of the statement in the 1st Book
Af Kings, ii. 35, that Solomon put him in the roora
if Abiathar, although on previous occasions he

5ADDUCEES

2779

^ According to the Mishna, Sanhed. iv. 2, no one
waa " clean," in the Levitical sense, to act as a judge
In capital trials, except priests, Levites, and Israelites
those daughters might marry priests. This again

had, when named with him, been always mentioned
first (2 Sam. xv. 35, xix. 11; cf. viii. 17), his line
of priests appears to have had decided preeminence
in subsequent history. Thus, when in 2 Chr.
xxxi. 10, Hezekiah is represented as putting a ques
tion to the priests and Levites generally, the an
swer is attributed to Azariah, " the chief priest of
the house of Zadok:" and in Ezekiel's prophetic
vision of the future Temple, " the sons of Zadok "
and " the priests the Levites of the seed of Zadok "
are spoken of with peculiar honor, as those who
kept the charge of the sanctuary of Jehovah, when
the children of Israel went astray (Ezek. xl. 46,
xUii. 19, xliv. 15, xlviii. 11). Now, as the transi
tion from the expression "sons of Zadok" and
" priests of the seed of Zadok " to Zadokites is easy
and obvious, and as in the Acts of the Apostles v.
17, it is said, " Then the high-priest rose, and all
tbey ihat %ocre vnth him, which u ihe sect of the
Sadducees, and were filled with indignation," it haa
been conjectured by Geiger that the Sadduceea
or Zadokites were originally identical with the sons
of Zadok, and constituted what may be termed a
kind of sacerdotal aristocracy {Urschrift, etc., p.
104). To these were afterwards attached all who
for any reason reckoned themselves as belonging to
the aristocracy ; such, for example, as the familiea
ofthe high-priest; who had obtained consideration
under the dynasty of Herod. These were for the
most part judges," and individuals of the official
and governing class. Now, although this view of
the Sadducees is only inferential, and mainly con
jectural, it certainly explains the name better than
any other, and elucidates at once in the Acts of the
Apostles the otherwise obscure statement that the
high-priest, and those who were with him, were the
sect of the Sadducees. Accepting, therefore, this
view till a more probable conjecture is suggested,
some of the principal peculiarities or supposed pe
culiarities of the Sadducees wiU now be noticed in
detail, although in such notice some points must
be touched upon, which have been already partly
discussed in speaking of the Pharisees.
I. The leading tenet of the Sadducees was the
negation of the leading tenet of their opponents.
As the Pharisees asserted, so the Sadducees denied,
that the Israelites were in possession of an Oral
Law transmitted to thera by Moses. The manner
in which the Pharisees may have gained acceptance
for their own view is noticed elsewhere in this work
[vol. iii. p. 2474] ; but, for an equitable estimate
of the Sadducees, it is proper to bear in mind
emphatically how destitute of historical evidence
the doctrine was which they denied. That doctrine
is at the present day rejected, probably by almost
all, if not by all, Christians; and it is indeed so
foreign to their ideas, that the greater nuraber of
Christians have never even heard of it, though it
is older than Christianity, and has been the sup
port and consolation of the Jews under a series of
the most cruel and wicked persecutions to which
any nation has ever been exposed during an equal
number of centuries. It is likewise now main
tained, all over the world, by those who are called
the orthodox Jews. It is therefore desirable, to
know the kind of arguments by which at the
present day, in an historical and critical age, the

talnes with the explanation offered in the text, of the
Sadducees, aa a sacerdotal aristocracy, being " with
the high-priest."

2180

SADDUCEES

doctrine is defended. For this an opportunity hag
been given during the last three years by a learned
French Jew, Grand-Rabbi of the circumscription
of Colmar (Klein, Le Judaisme, ou la Verite sur
le Talmud, Mulhouse, 1859), who still asserts as a
fact, the existence of a Mosaic Oral Law. I'o do
fuU justice to his views, the original work should
be perused. But it is doing no injustice to his
leaming and ability, to point out that not one
of his arguments has a positive historical value.
Thus he relies mainly on the incon ceivabiUty (as
will be again noticed in this article) that a Divine
revelation should not have explicitly proclaimed the
doctrine of a future state of rewards and punish
ments, or that it should have promulgated laws,
left in such an incomplete forra, and requiring so
much explanation, and so many additions, as the
laws in the Pentateuch. Now, arguments of this
kind may be sound or unsound; based on reason,
or illogical; and for many they may have a philo
sophical or theological value; but they have no
pretense to be regarded as historical, inasrauch as
the assumed premises, which involve a knowledge
of the attributes of the Supreme Being, and the
manner in which Ke would be Ukely to deal with
man, are far beyond the limits of historical verifi
cation. The nearest approach to an historical
argument is the following (p. ID): "In the first
place, nothing proves better the fact of the exist
ence of the tradition than the belief itself in the
tradition. An entire nation does not suddenly
forget its religious code, its principles, its laws, the
daily ceremonies of its worship, to such a point,
that it could easily be persuaded that a new doc
trine presented by sorae impostors is the true and
only explanation of its law, and has always de
termined and ruled its application. Holy Writ
often represents the Israelites as a stiff-necked
people, impatient of the religious yoke, and would
it not be attributing to them rather an excess of
docility, a too great condescension, a blind obe
dience, to suppose that they suddenly consented to
troublesome and rigorous innovations which some
persons might have wished to impose on them
some fine morning? Such a, supposition destroys
itself, and we are obliged to acknowledge that the
tradition is not a new invention, but that its birth
goes back to the origin of the religion ; and that
transmitted from father to son as the word of God,
it lived in the heart of the people, identified itself
with the blood, and was alwaj's considered as an
Inviolable authority." But if this passage is care
fully examined, it will be seen that it does not
supply a single fact worthy of being regarded as a
proof of a Mosaic Oral Law. Independent testi
mony of persons contemporary with Moses that he
had transmitted such a law to the Israelites would
be historical evidence; the testimony of persons in
the next generation as to the existence of such an
Oral Law which their fathers told them came from
Moses, would have been secondary historical evi
dence; but the belief of the Israelites on the point
1,200 years after Moses, cannot, in the absence of
any intermediate testimony, be deemed evidence of
an historical fact. Moreover, it is a mistake to

« See p. 32 of Essay on the Rcvemtes of the Church
of England, by the Rev. Morgan Cove, Prebendary of
Hereford, and Rector of Eaton Bishop. 578 pp. Lou
don, Rivington, 1816. Third edition. " Thus do we
return again to the original difllculty [the origin uf
tjthesj, to the solution of which the strength of human

SADDUCEES
assume, that they who deny a Mosaic Oral l*ir,
imagine that this Oral Law was at some one time,
as one great systera, introduced suddenly amongst '
tbe Israelites. The real mode of conceiving what
occurred is far diflferent. After the return from
the Captivity, there existed probably amongst the
Jews a large body of customs and decisions not.
contained in the Pentateuch ; and these had prac
tical authority over the people long before they
were attributed to Moses. The only pheuomenon
of importance requiring explanation is not the ex
istence of the customs sanctioned hy the Oral Law,
but the belief accepted by a certain portion of the
Jews that Moses had divinely revealed thjse cus
toms as laws to the Israelites. To explain this
historically from written records is impossible, from
the silence on the subject of the very scanty his
torical Jewish writings purporting to be vvritten
between the return from the Captivity in 538 before
Christ and that uncertain period when the canon
was closed, which at the earliest could not have
been long before the death of Antiochus Epiphanea,
B. c. 164. For all this space of time, a period of
about 374 years, a period as long as from the acces
sion of Henry VIL to the present year (1862) we
have no Hebrew account, nor in fact any con
temporary account, of the history of the Jews in
Palestine, except what may be contained in the
short works entitled Ezra and Nehemiah. And
the last named of these works docs not carry
the history much later than one hundred years
after the return frora the Captivity: so that there
is a long and extremely important period of more
than two centuries and a half before tbe heroic
rising of the Maccabees, during which there is a
total absence of contemporary Jewish history. In
this dearth of historical materials, it is idle to
attempt a positive narration of the circurastances
under which the C)ral Law became assigned to
Moses as its author. It is amply sufficient if a
satisfactory suggestion is made as to how it might
have been attributed to Moses, and in this there is
not much difficulty for any. one who bears in mind
how notoriously in ancient tinies laws of a much
later date were attributed to Minos, Ljcurgus, ¦
Solon, and Nunia. The unreasonableness of sup
posing that the belief in the oral traditions being
frora Moses must have coincided in point of time
with the acceptance of the oral tradition, may be
illustrated by what occurred in England during
the present century. During a period when the
fitness of maintainuig the clergy by tithes was
contested, the theory was put forth that the origin
of tithes wiis to be assigned to *'an unrecorded
revelation made to Atlam." « Now, let us suppose
that England was ji^ country as small as Judsea;
that the English were as few in number as the
Jews of Judsea must have been in the time of
Nehemiah, that a temple in London was the centre
of the English religion, and that the population .
of London hardly ever reached 50,000. [Jehu-
SALEM, ii. 1320.] Let us further suppose that
printing was not invented, that manuscripts were
dear, and that few of the population could read.
Under such circumstances it is not impossible that

reason is unequal. Nor does there remain any other
method of solving it, but by assigning thw origin of
the custom, and the peculiar observance of it, to soma
unrecorded revelation made to Adam, and by him uul
his 'lesceudantB delivered down to posterity."

SADDUCEES
.he asscrticyn of an unrecorded revelation made to
Adam, might have been graduaUy accepted by a
large religious party in England as a divine author
ity for tithes. If this belief had continued in the
wirae party during a period of more than 2,000
years, if that party had become dominant in the
English Church, if for the first 250 years every
contemporary record of English history became lost
to mankind, aud if all previous English writings
merely condemned the belief by their silence, so
that the precise date of the origin of the belief
could not be ascertained, we should have a parallel
to the way in which a belief in a Mosaic Oral Law
may possibly have arisen. Yet it would have been
very illogical for an EngUsh reasoner in the year
4000 A. D. to have argued from the burden and
annoyance of paying tithes to the correctness of
the tlieory that the institution of tithes was owing
to this unrecorded revelation to Adam. It is not
meant by this illustration to suggest that reasons
as specious could be advanced for such a divine
origin of tithes as even fer a Mosaic Oral Law.
The main object of the illustration is to show that
the existence of a practice, and the belief as to the
origin of a practice, are two wholly distinct points;
and that there is no necessary connection in time
between the introduction of a practice, and the in
troduction of the prevalent belief in its origin.
Under this head we may acid that it must not be
assumed that the Sadducees, because they rejected
a Mosaic Oral Law, rejected likewise all traditions
and aU decisions in explanation of passages in the
Pentateuch. Although they protested against the
assertion that such points had been divinely settled
hy Moses, they probably, in numerous instances,
followed practically the same traditions as the
Pharisees. This will explain why in the Mishna
specific points of difference between the Pharisees
and Sadducees are mentioned, which are so unim
portant; such, e. g. as whether touching the Holy
Scriptures made the hands technically ''unclean,"
in the Levitical sense, and whether the stream
which flows when water is poured frora a clean
vessel into an unclean one is itself technically
"clean" or "unclean" (Yadaim, iv. 6, 7). If
the Pharisees and Sadducees had differed on all
raatters not directly contained in the Pentateuch,
it would scarcely have been necessary to partic
ularize points of difference such as these, which
to Christians imbued with the genuine spirit of
Christ's teaching (Matt. xv. 11; Luke xi. 37-40),
must appear so trifling, as almost to resemble the
producte of a diseased imagination.^
IL The second distinguishing doctrine of the
Sadducees, the denial of man's resurrection after
death, foUowed in their conceptions as a logical
conclusion frora their denial that Moses had re
vealed to the Israelites the Oral Law. For on a
point so momentous as h second life beyond the
grave, no religious party among the Jews would
have deemed themselves bound to accept any doc
trine as an article of faith, unless it had been
jroclaiiued by Moses, their great legislator ; and it

o Many other points of difference, ritual and jurid
ical, are mentioned in the Gemaras. See Qraetz
|iii. 514-518). But it seems unsatis to admit the
liemaras as an authority for statements respecting
^e Pharisees and Sadducees. See, as to the date of
lihose works, the article Pharisees.
b See De Senectute, xxiii. Thi.s treatise was com-

SADDUCEES 2781
ia certain that in the written Law of the Penta
teuch there is a total absence of any assertion by
Moses of the resurrection of the dead. The ab
sence of this doctrine, so far as it involves a future
state of rewards and punishments, is emphaticaUy
manifest from the numerous occasions for its in
troduction in the Pentateuch, among the promises
and threats, the blessings and curses, with which a
portion of that great work abounds. In the Law
Moses is represented as promising to those who are
obedient to the commands of Jehovah the most
alluring temporal rewards, such as success in busi
ness, the acquisition of wealth, fruitful seasons,
victory over their enemies, long life, and freednm
from sickness (Deut. vii. 12-15, xxviii. 1-12; Ex.
xx. 12, xxiii. 25, 26); and he likewise menaces the
disobedient with the most dreadful evils which can
afflict humanity, with poverty, fell diseases, dis
astrous and disgraceful defeats, subjugation, dis
persion, oppression, and overpowering anguish of
heait (Deut. xxvia. 15-68): but in not a single
instance does he call to his aid the consolations
and terrors of rewards and punishments hereafcer.
Moreover, even in a more restricted indefinite sense,
such as might be involved in the transmigration
of souls, or in the immortality of the soul as
believed in by Plato, aud apparently by Cicero,^
there is a similar absence of any assertion by Moses
of a resurrection of the dead. This fact is pre
sented to Christians in a striking manner by the
well-known words of the Pentateuch which are
quoted by Christ in argument with the Sadducees
on this subject (Ex. iii. 6, 16; Mark xii. 26, 27;
Matt. xxii. 31, 32; Luke xx. 37). It cannot be
doubted that in such a case Christ would quote to
his powerful adversaries the most cogent text in
the Law; and yet the text actually quoted does not
do more than suggest an inference on this great
doctrine. Indeed it must be deemed prol)able that
the Sadducees, as they did not acknowledge the
divine authority of Christ, denied even the logical
validity of the inference, arid argued that the ex
pression that Jehovah was the God of Abraham,
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, did not
necessarily mean more than that Jeho\'ah had been
the God of those patriarchs while they lived on
earth, without conveying a suggestion, one way or
another, as to whether they were or were not still
living elsewhere. It is true that in other parts of
the Old Testament there are individual passages
whieh express a belief in a resurrection, such as in
Is. xxvi. 19; Dan. xu. 2; Job xix. 26, and in some
of the Psalms; and it may at first sight be a sub
ject of surprise that the Sadducees were not con
vinced by the authority of those passages. But
although the Sadducees regarded the books which
contained these passages as sacred, it is more than
doubtful whether any of the Jews regarded them
as sacred in precisely the sarae sense as the written
Law. There is a danger here of confounding the
ideas which are now common amongst Christians,
who regard the whole ceremonial law as abrogated,
with the ideas of Jews after the time of Ezra,

lofied within two years before Cicero's death, and ' vii. 56.

although a dialogue, may perhaps be accepted as ex
pressing his philosophical opinions respecting the im
mortality of the, soul. He had held, however, very
different language in his oration pro Cluentlo, cap.
Ixi., ih a passage which is a striking proof of tb«
popular belief at Rome in his time- See also Sallust,
Catilin. li. ; Juvenal, ii. 149; and Pliny the Elder,

2782

SADDUCEES

irhile the Temple was still standing, or even vrith
the ideas of orthodox modem Jews. To the Jews
Moses was and is a coldssal Form, pretiminent in
authority above all subsequent prophets. Not only
did his series of signs and wonders in Egypt and
at the Red Sea transcend in magnitude and brill
iancy those of any other holy men in the Old
Testament, not only was he the centre in Mount
Sinai of the whole legislation of the Israehtes, but
even the mode by which divine communications
were made to him from Jehovah was pecuUar to
him alone. While others were addressed in visions
or in dreams, the Supreme Being communicated
with him alone mouth to mouth and face to face
(Num. xii. 6, 7, 8; Ex. xxxiii. 11; Deut. v. 4,
xxxiv. 10-12). Hence scarcely any Jew would
have deemed himself bound to beUeve in man's
resurrection, unless the doctrine had been pro
claimed by Moses; and as the Sadducees disbe-
Ueved the transmission of any oral law by Moses,
the striking absence of that doctrine ftom the
written Law freed them from the necessity of ac
cepting the doctrine as divine. It is not meant by
this to deny that Jewish beUevers in the resurrec
tion had their faith strengthened and confirmed by
allusions to a resurrection in scattered passages of
the other sacred writings ; but then these passages
were read and interpreted by nieans of the central
light which streamed from the Oral Law. The
Sadducees, however, not making use of that light,
would have deemed aU such passages inconclusive,
«s being, indeed, the utterances of holy men, yet
opposed to other texts which had equal claims to
he pronounced sacred, hut which could scarcely be
supposed to have been written hy men who believed
in a resurrection (Is. xxxviii. 18, 19; Ps. vi. 5,
xxx. 9, Ixxxviu. 10, 11, 12; Eccl. ix. 4-10). The
real truth seems to be that, as in Christianity the
doctrine of the resurrection of man rests on belief
in the resurrection of Jesus, with subsidiary argu
ments drawn from texts in the Old Testament, and
from man's instincts, aspirations, and moral nature ;
so, admitting fully the same subsidiary arguments,
the doctrine of the resurrection among Pharisees,
and the .'successive generations of orthodox Jews,
and the orthodox Jews now living, has rested, and
rests, on a belief in the supposed Oral I^aw of
Moses. On this point the statement of the learned
Grand-Rabbi to whom aUusion has been already
made deserves particular attention. " What causes
most surprise in perusing the Pentateuch is the
sUence which it seems to keep respecting the most
fundamental and the most consoUng truths. The
doctrines of the immortaUty of the soul, and 'of
retribution beyond the tomb, are able powerfully to
fortify man against the violence of the passions and
the seductive attractions of vice, and to strengthen
his steps in the rugged path of virtue: of them
selves they smooth aU the difficulties which are
raised, aU the objections which are made, against
the government of a Divine Providence, and account
for the good fortune of the wicked and the bad
fortune of the just. But man searches in vain for
these truths, which he desires so ardently ; he in
rain devours with avidity each page of Holy Writ;
he does not find either them, or the simple doc
trine of the resurrection of the dead, explicitly
announced. Nevertheless truths so consoUng and
of such an elevated order cannot have heen passed
»ver in silence, and certainly God has not relied
on the mere sagacity of the human mind in order
to announce them only implicitly. He has trans-

SADDTJCEES
milled them serbaUy, with the means offimSng
them in the text. A supplementary tradition umt
necessary, indispensable : this tradition exists. '
Moses received the Law from Sinai, irantmitttd
it to Joshua, Joshua io Ute elders, the elders trans
mitted it to the prophets, and the prophets io Ihe
men of the great synagogue " (Klein, Le Judaisme
ou la Vmte sur le Talmud, p. 15).
In connection vrith the disbelief of a resurrection
by the Sadducees, it is proper to notice the state
ment (Acta xxiii. 8) that they likewise denied there
was " angel or spirit." A perplexity arises as to
the precise sense in which this denial is to be un.
derstood. Angels are so distinctly mentioned in
the Pentateuch and other books of the Old Testa
ment, that it is hard to understand how those who
acknowledged the Old Testament to have dirine
authority could deny the existence of angels (see
Gen. xvi. 7, xix. 1, xiU. 11, xxviu. 12; Ex. xxiii.
20; Num. xxii. 23; Judg. xiu. 18; 2 Sam. xxiv.
16, and other passages). The difficulty is increased
by the feet that no such denial of angels is recorded
of the Sadducees either by Josephus, or in the
Mishna, or, it is said, in any part of the Talmudical
writings. The two principal explanations which
have been suggested are, either that the Sadducees
regarded the angels of the Old Testament as tran
sitory unsubstantial representations of Jehovah, or
that they disbelieved, not the angels of the Old
Testament, hut merely the angelical system which
had become developed in the popular beUef of the
Jews after their return from the Babylonian Cap
tivity (Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael, iii.
364). Either of these explanations may possibly
be correct ; and the first, although there are numer
ous texts to which it did not apply, would have
received some countenance from passages wherein
the same divine appearance which at one time is
called the "augel of Jehovah" is afterwards called
simply " Jehovah " (see the instances pointed out
by Gesenius, s. v. TIM/Oi Gen. xvi. 7, 13, xxu.
11, 12, xxxi. 11, 16; Ex. iii. 2, 4; Judg. vi. 14,
22, xui. 18, 22). Perhaps, however, another sug
gestion is admissible. It appears from .4cts xxiii.
9, that some of the scribes on the side of the
Pharisees suggested the possibiUty of a spirit or
an angel having spoken to St. Paul, on the very
occasion when it is asserted that the Sadducees
denied the existence of angel or spirit. Now the
Sadducees may have disbelieved in the occurrence
of any such phenomena in their own time, although
they accepted aU the statements respecting angels
in the Old Testament; and thus the key to the
assertion in the 8th verse that the Sadducees denied
" angel or spirit " would be found exclusively m
the 9th verse. This view of the Sadducees may be
iUustrated by the present state of opinion among
Christians, the great majority of whom do not ui
any way deny the existence of angels as recorded
in the Bible, and yet they certainly disheUeve that
angels speak, at the present day, even to the most
virtuous and pious of mankind.
III. The opinions of the Sadducees respecting
the freedom of the will, and the way iu which
those opinions are treated by Josephus (Ant. xiii-
5, § 9 ), have been noticed elsewhere [Pharisees,
iii. 2478], and an explanation has been there sug
gested of the prominence given to a difference in
this respect between the Sadducees and the Phari
sees. It may be here added that possibly the great
stress laid by the Sadducees on the freedom <k tin

SADDUCEES
«dU may have had some connection with their
forming such a large portion of that class from
which criminal judges were selected. Jewish phi
losophers in their study, although they knew that
punishments as an instrument of good were un
avoidable, might indulge in reflections that man
seemed to be the creature of circumstances, and
might regard with compassion the punishments
inflicted on individuals whom a wiser moral train
ing and a more happily balanced nature might have
made useful members of society. Those Jews who
were almost exclusively religious teachers would
naturally insist on the inability of man to do any
thing good if God's Holy Spirit were taken away
from him (Ps. U. 11, 12), and would enlarge on
the perils which surrounded man from the tempta^
tions of Satan and evil angels or spirits (1 Chr.
xxi. 1; Tob. iii. 17). But it is Ukely that the
tendencies of the judicial class would be more prac
tical and direct, and more strictly in accordance
with the ideas of the Levitical prophet Ezekiel
(xxxiii. 11-19) in a well-known passage in which he
gives thfe responsihiUty of bad actions, and seems
to attribute the power of performing good actions,
exclusively to the individual agent. Hence the
tentlment of the lines —
" Our acts our Angela are, or good or ill,
Oor fatal shadows that walk by us still,"
would express that portion of truth on which the
Sadducees, in inflicting punishments, would dweU
with most emphasis: and as, in some sense, they
disbelieved in angels, these lines have a pecuUar
claim to lie regarded as a correct exponent of Sad-
ducean thought." And yet perhaps, if writings
were extant in which the Sadducees explained their
own ideas, we might find that they reconciled these
principles, as we may be certain that Ezekiel did,
with other passages apparently of a different import
in the Old Testament, and that the line of demar
cation between them and the l*harisees was not,
in theory, so very sharply marked as the account
of Josephus would lead us to suppose.
IV. Some of the early Christian writers, such
as [Hippol. Philosqphum. ix. 29, and the spu
rious addition to TertuU. De Prmsa: Hceret. c.
1 (or 45),] Epiphanius (Hceres. xiv.), Origen
and Jerome (in their respective Commentaries on
Matt. xxii. 31, 32, 33) attribute to the Sadducees
the rejection of all the Sacred Scriptures except the
Pentateuch. Such rqjection, if true, would un
doubtedly constitute a most important additional
difi'erence between the Sadducees and Pharisees.
The statement of these Christian writers is, how
ever, now generally admitted to have been founded
on a misconception of the truth, and probably to
have arisen from a confusion of the Sadducees
with the Samaritans. See Lightfoot's Horce He
braiae on Matt. iii. 7; Ilerzfeld's Geschichte des
V:)lkes Jisrael, ii. 363. Josephus is wholly sUent
as to an antagonism on this point between the
Sadducees and Pharisees; and it is absolutely in
conceivable that on the three several occasions when
he introduces an account of the opinions of the
two sects, he should have been silent respect
ing such an antagonism if it had reaUy ex-
sted (Ani. xiii. 5, § 9, xviii. 1, § 3; B. J. ii. 8,

" The preceding lines would be equally applicable.
If, as is not improbable, the Sadducees likewise re
jected tile Chaldsean belief in astrology, so coinmon
rfDiong the Jews and Christians of the Middle Ages ; —

SADDUCEES 2788
§ 14). Again, the existence of such a niomentom
antagonism would be incompatible with the man-
nei' in which Josephus speaks of John Hyrcanus,
who was high-priest and king of Judsea thirty-one
years, and who nevertheless, having been previously
a Pharisee, became a Sadducee towards the close
of his life. This Hyrcanus, who died about 106
B. c, had been so invetevately hostUe to the Sa
maritans, that when about three years before his
death he took their city Samaria, he razed it to
the ground; and he is represented to have dug
caverns in various parts of the soil in order to sink
the surface to a level or slope, and then to have
diverted streams of water over it, in order to efface
marks of such a city having ever existed. If the
Sadducees had come so near to the Samaritans
as to reject the divine authority of all the books
of the Old Testament except the Pentateuch, it is
very unlikely that Josephus, after mentioning the
death of Hyrcanus, should have spoken of him
as he does in the " following manner: "He was
esteemed by God worthy of three of the greatest
privileges, the government of the nation, the dig
nity of the high-priesthood, and prophecy. For
God was with him and enabled him to know fu
ture events." Indeed, it may be inferred from
this passage that Josephus did not even deem it
a matter of vital importance whether a high-priest
was a Sadducee or a Pharisee — a latitude of tolera
tion which we may be confident he would not have
indulged in, if the divine authority of all the books
of the Old Testament except the Pentateuch, had
been at stake. What probably had more influence
than anything else in occasioning this misconcep
tion respecting the Sadducees, was the circumstance
that in arguing with them on the doctrine of a
future Ufe, Christ quoted from the Pentateuch only,
although there are stronger texts in favor of the
doctrine in some other books of the Old Testament.
But probable reasons have been already assigned
why Christ, in arguing on this suhject with the
Sadducees, referred only to the supposed opinions
of Moses rather than to isolated passages extracted
from the productions of any other saered writer.
V. In conclusion, it may be proper to notice a
fact, which, while it accounts for misconceptions of
early Christian writers respecting the Sadducees, is
on other grounds weU worthy to arrest the atten
tion. This fact is the rapid disappearance of the
Sadducees from history after the first century, and
the subsequent predominance among the Jews of
the opinions of the Pharisees. Two circumstances,
indirectly, but powerfully, conti-ibuted to produce
this result : Ist. The state of the Jews after the
capture of Jerusalem by Titus; and 2dly. Tho
growth of the Christian religion. As to the first
point it is difficult to over-estimate the consterna^
tion and dismay which the destruction of Jerusalem
occasioned in the minds of sincerely religious Jews.
Their holy city was in ruins; their holy and beau
tiful Temple, the centre of their worship and their
love, had been ruthlessly burnt to the ground, and
not one stone of it was left upon another; their
magnificent hopes either of an ideal king who waa
to restore the empire of David, or of a Son of Man
who was to appear to them -'n the clouds of heaven,

** Mau is hiB own Star ; and the soul that can
Bender an honest and a perfect man,
CommaDds all light, all Influence, all fate :
Nothing to him falls early, or too late."
Flbtcheb's LineB *' tTpon an Iknest Man's Fortmu

2784

SADDUCEES

seemed to them for a while Hke empty dreams; and
the whole visible world was, to their imagination,
black with desolation and despair. In this their hour
of darkness and anguish, they naturally turned to
the consolations and hopes of a future state, and the
doctrine of the Sadducees that there was nolhing
beyond the present life would have appeared to
them cold, heartless, and hateful. Again, while
they were sunk in the lowest depths of depression,
a new religion which they despised as a heresy and
a superstition, of which one of their own nation
was the object, and another the unrivaled mission
ary to the heathen, was gradually making its way
among the subjects of their detested conquerors,
the Romans. One of the causes of its success was
undoubtedly the vivid belief in the resurrection of
Jesus, and a consequent resurrection of all man
kind, which was accepted by its heathen converts
with a passionate earnestness, of which those who
at the present day are familiar from infancy with
the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead can
form only a faint idea. To attempt to check the
progress of this new religion among the Jews by an
appeal to the temporary rewards and punishments
of the Pentateuch, would have been as idle as an
endeavor to check an explosive power by ordinary
mechanical restraints. Consciously, therefore, or
unconsciously, many circumstances combined to
induce the Jews, who were not Pharisees, but who
resisted the new heresy, to rally round the stand
ard of the Oral Law, and to assert that their holy
legislator, Moses, had transmitted to his faithful
people by word of mouth, although not in writing,
the revelation of a future state of rewards and
punishuients. A great belief was thus built up on
a great fiction ; early teaching and custom supplied
the place of evidence; faith in an imaginary fact
produced results as striking as could have flowed
from the fact itself; and the doctrine of a Mosaic
.Oral Law, enshrining convictions and hopes deeply
rooted in the human heart, has triumphed for
nearly 1800 years in the ideas of the Jewish peo
ple. This doctrine, the pledge of eternal life to
them, as the resurrection of Jesus to Christians, is
still maintained by the majority of our Jewish con
temporaries; and it wiU probably continue to be
the creed of millions long aiter the present genera
tion of mankind has passed away from the earth."
E. T.
* Literature. — It should be noted, perhaps,
that the Jewish sects are treated of in the lately
discovered Phihsophumena or Refuiaifo omnium
Bceresium, now generally ascribed to Hippolytus,
Ub. ix. cc. 18-30. The Sadducees are not named
by Philo, but Grossmann, De Phihs. Sadduca^rrum,
4 partt. Lips. 1836-38, 4to, has collected from this
luthor a large number of passages whieh he sup
poses to relate to them. His conjectures, however,
have not been generally adopted by scholars (see

a In Germany and elsewhere, some of the most
learned Jews disbelieve in a Mosaic Oral Law ; and
Judaiim seems ripe to enter on a new phaae. Based
on the Old Testament, hut avoiding the mistakes of
the Karaites, it might still have a great future ; but
tvhether it could last another 1800 years with the be
lief in a future life, as a revealed doctrine, depending
aot on a supposed revelation by Moses, but solely on
icattered texts, in the Hebrew Scriptures, is an in-
eresting subject for speculation.
6 The primary meaning of ttJI^p, according to
Jesenius and Dietrich, is " pure ; " according to Furst

SAINTS
Winer, Bibl. Realworterb. and Heuss in
Real-fincyki, art. Sadducder). The more rec^l
writers respecting the Sadducees are mentioned
under the art. Pharisees, voL iii. p. 2479.
Among these, Keim, Derenbourg and Hausrath
may be specially refeiTed to for a view of the latest
researches and opinions. See also Fiirst's Ge
schichte des KaraeHhums, 2 vols. Leipz. 1862-65,
and J. R. llanne. Die Pharisder u. Sadducder
ahpoUt. Parieien, in Hilgenfeld's Zeiischr. f. vnss.
Theol., 1867, x. 131-179; 239-263. A.
SA'DOC (Sadoch). 1. Zadok the ancestor
of Ezra (2 Esdfr. i. 1; comp. Ezr. vii. 2).
2. {SaBa)K: Sadoc.) A descendant of Zerub
babel in the genealogy of Jesus Christ (Matt. i. 14).
SAFFRON (D3"l?, carcom: KpSvos- crocus)
is mentioned only in Cant. iv. 14 with other odorous
substances, such as spikenard, calamus, cinnamon,
etc.; there is not the slightest doubt that "saf
fron " is the correct rendering of the Hebrew word;
the Arabic Kurkum is similar to the Hebrew, and
denotes the Crocus sallvus, or "saflfron crocus."
Saffron has from the earliest tiraes been in high
esteem as a perfume: "it is used," says Hosen-
muller {Bib. Bot. p. 138), "for the same purposes
as the modern pot-pourri." Saffron was also used
in seasoning dishes (Apicius, p. 270); it entered
into the composition of many spirituous extracts
which retained the scent (see Beckmann's Hist, of
Jnveni. \. 175, where the whole subject is very fully
discussed). The part of the plant which was used
was the stigma, which was pulled out of the flower
and then dried. Dr. Koyle says, that " sometimes
the stigmas are prepared by being submitted to
pressure, and thus made into cake saffron, a form
in which it is still imported frora Persia into In
dia." Hasselquist (Trav. p. 36) states that in
certain places, as around Magnesia, large quanti
ties of saffron are gathered and exported to diff'erent
places in Asia and Europe. Kitto (Phys. IJist. of
Palest, p. 321) says that the safllower (Carthamm
tinctorius), a very different plant from the crocus,
is cultivated in Syria for the sake of the flowers
which are used in dyeing, but tbe Karkom no doubt
denotes the Crocus sniivus. The word saffron is
derived from the Arabic Zafran, "yellow." This
plant gives its name to Saffi-on-Walden, in Essex,
where it is largely cultivated. It belongs to ths
Natural Order Iridaceae. W. H.
* SAINTS (derived, through the French, from
the Latui sanctus) occurs in the O. T. sixteen
times as the translation of tt?'^np or its cognates,
and nineteen times as the translation of T^DH,
which Hebrew words are with a few exceptions rep
resented in the LXX. by oytos and So-iof respect-
ively.ft In some instances when applied to men

"pure," "fresh;" according to Meier (Hebr. Wur-
zelw., p. 395) " separated." Uupfeld ascribes to
T*Dn (Comm. on Ps. iv. 4) a. passive force, "fa
vored." 'Ayios (from o^o>, a^ojuwit, vtmiate, akin to
ayajLLttt. Buttmann's Lfxilogus, \. 236 ; F. trans, p. 47|
seems by derivation to signify " very pure," then
'^ holy." The derivation of oo-to«, " hallowed." is les»
certain (see Benfey, Griech. WurzfUex. i. 434 f-J
'Oo-ios, common in the classics, in Biblical Greek rs-
cedes from use. As a personal epithet it is applied tt
Christians but once in the N. T., and then in descritv
ing the official character of a bishop (Tit. i fij. 'Avtoi

SAINTS
. describes their inherent personal character (Ps.
an. i, xxxi. 23, xxxiv. 9, xxxvii. 28, etc.). But
In the majority of cases it seems to be used in a
theocratic rather than a moral sense : so that, while
having often a secondary reference, more or less
marked, to holiness as the prescrilied and appropri
ate character of those who bear it, it is applied in
discriminately (especially in the later books) to the
Israelites, as a nation consecrated to God (Ps. 1. 5,
cxxxii. 9; Dan. vii. 18, 21, 22, 25, 27; cf. viii. 24,
xii. 7; Exod. xix. 6; Num. xvi. 3; 1 Esdr. viii.
70). In the N. T., where it is found 61 times, it uni
formly corresponds to the Greek ayios, and in its
application to Christians it is not used to designate
them distinctively as respects either their nation
ality or their locality, nor does it denote outward
separation, nor does it refer — at least primarily —
to their moral characteristics, whether they be
viewed as pardoned sinners, or as the possessors of
an imputed holiness, or of sorae degree of actual
holiness, or as predestined to perfect holiness, or as
constituting a community the greater or more im
portant number of whom ax'e holy; but it is an
appellation of all Christians as Christians. On be
coming Christians they become also "saints" (cf.
the use of the singular in Phil. iv. 21). Yet as
in the 0. T. the inherent sense of the word often
gleams through the theocratic, so in the N. T.,
agreeably to the spiritual nature of the Christian
dispensation, the theocratic sense is regarded as " ful
filled " in the spiritual, the consecration is viewed
more as internal and personal, the B.ytot are also
truly Tiyiacrixhoi (ef. 1 Cor. i. 2; Eph. i. 1, 4; 1
Pet. ii, 9.) (Note the fluctuation in the meaning
of aytci^o) in John xvii. 17, 19 ; and see Heb. ii.
11.) This sense, however, is one which does not so
much lie in the word itself, ^ result from the na
ture of the " people of God," which " the saints "
constitute; accordingly it comes to view with dif
ferent degrees of distinctness in different passages.
The value of the term for moral uses is greatly
augmented by this very flexibility and possible com
prehensiveness of signification.
The term is alio applied in the 0. T. several
times (Deut. xxxiii. 2; Job v. 1, xv. 15; Ps.
kxxix. 5, 7: Zech. xiv. 5) to the angels as preemi
nently "holy"; and in one obscure passage, Hos.
xi. 12 (xii. 1, LXX. yahs oiyios), to God himself
(phij\ mnjest. cf. Josh. xxiv. 19 ; Prov. ix. 10, xxx-
3.) In the N. T., also, it is thought by many
expositors to be used of holy angels in 1 Thess. iii.
13 (so Jude, ver. 14); in Rev. xv. 3 the reading
"saints" is unsustained by the MSS.
Although the terra is used in some passages
which refer chiefly, if not exclusively, to the con
summation of the Messiah's kingdom in the world
to come (Eph. i. 18; Col. i. 12; cf. Acts xx. 32,

on tbe other hand, though found as early as Herod.,
^ rare in profane Greek, but very common in the
Bible — selected by the sacred writers apparently be-
;:ause it presents holiness under the aspect of awe
towards a pereon. Its correlate (t^lp) first occurs
an occasion of the appearance of God to Moses (Ex.
ii. 5). See G. v. Zpzschwitz, Frofan^dcitat, etc., p.
16 f. ; Tittmann, de Syn. in Nov. Test. i. 22 f. ; Cre-
tner, Bibl.-theot. Wdrterb. der N. T. Gracitat, pp. 2" f.,
kl9 f. ; Trench, Syn. of N. T., § Ixxxviii. p. 312 IT.,
pt. ii. F 132 ff. (Amer ed.).
a Tho unrestricted applica^'on of the term seems to

SAINTS 2785
xxvi. 18), yet it is nowhere used to designate the
people of God in heaven, as distinguished from
those on earth. Nor is it ever restricted to the
eminently pious in distinction from the mass of
believers." In the saints Christ will be glorified at his com
ing (2 Thess. i. 10), and they will be in some sense
participants in the judgment (1 Cor. vi. 2, 3; cf.
Matt. xix. 28; Luke xxii. 30). Nowhere in the
Scriptures are they represented as objects of wor
ship, nor is their agency invoked.
The resurrection of saints, raentioned Matt.
xxvii. 52, 53, has raised many questions, very few
of which can be answered confidently. That the
saints spoken of were brought to life from the dead,
and that they went into Jerusalem after Christ's
resurrection and were seen by many, the language
leaves no doubt. That their tombs were in the
vicinity of Calvary and were opened contempora'
neously with the earthquake, appears to be implied
(cf. ver. 54 ). That they were not, or at least were not
solely ^ departed disciples of Christ seems probable;
for as yet " many " of them, could hardly have
dbert- Further, the term "saints" applied thus in
a Ohriatian document to deceased Jews who at the
same time are spoken of as KeKoifi-q/x^vuv,^ still
more the eongruities of the case, make it probable
that the word has here a distinctive force and de
notes Jewish worthies (cf. 1 Pet. iii. 5). The
arrangement of the words favors the interpretation
that " they came forth from their sepulchres after
the Lord's resurrection;" accordingly ^j-ye^eTjcra;/
has been regarded by some expositors as antici
patory, by others more naturally as signifying
merely "raised to life," and sb distinguishing the
vivification from the quitting the tombs. The
majority, however, have considered the reanimation
and the resurrection as simultaneous: some hold
ing that both took place at Christ's death, and
that the risen saints first " came into the holy city
after his resurrection;" while others, and by far
the greater number, have preferred to make the
assumption that both were postponed until after
Christ had risen. Possibly we may find in a-dtfiara
support for the supposition that they had died
recently (and so were recognized by those to whom
they appeared). Certainly there is nothing either
in the use of this word or of evetpaviadijaav,^ nor
in the context of historic realities in which the
incident lies imbedded, to favor the theory that
their appearance was by dream or vision, and con
fined to the mind of the " many " who saw them.
These last we may, in accordance with Acts x. 41,
plausibly infer to have been followers of Jesus or in
sympathy with him. Whether the risen saints
were clothed with immortal bodies and ascended
with their Lord (as the commentators have been
coramonly pleased to assume), or rose to die again:

have continued down to the times of Irenaeus and
TertuUian (Herzog, Real-Encyfc. v. 670). The_ clause
in the Apostles' Creed relative to " the communion of
saints " is not found in the more ancient forms of that
Confession. & This word, while it does not seem to warrant any
doctrinal inferences respecting the nature of the inters
mediate state, does appear to be used in the New Test
specifically of the righteous dead.
c 'EjLt^ai'iV" ^oiild be appropriately used, indeed,
of a spectral appearance (cf. Wisd. of Sol. xvii. 4),
but may designate no less appropriately an appearanoa
in the body. See John xiv 22.

2786 SALA
whether they were ihe only ones among the de
parted whose condition was aflected immediately
by the death of Christ, or were but specimens of
an effect experienced by all the righteous, or the
ante-Christian, dead" — we have no means of
knowing. But hovrever perplexing our ignorance may be
respecting details, the substantial facts stated above
must be accepted by all who accept the inspired
record. To discard that record as an interpolation,
as a few critics have done, is a procedure in direct
violation of all diplomatic evidence in the case, cor
roborated as that evidence is by one or two inteioal
characteristics (particularly r^y ayiav irrfAtrj cf.
iv. 5). Nor is there any pretext for regarding it as
a mythical amplification of the fact that graves were
Dpened by the earthquake. Matthew, to be sure,
is the only evangelist who mentions the incident;
but Mark and Luke concur with him in stating
that the vail of the Temple was rent. Why, then,
should we not here as in other cases consider par
ticulars not manifestly false, rather as confirmed by
the concurrence of the other testimonies in refer
ence to a. pari of the story, than as discredited by
their silence respecting the remainder ? And why
should the existence of apocryphal appendages^
bring suspicion upon this any more than upon
other portions of tbe sacred narrative upon which
BUch excrescences were formed ? Nor can the hy
pothesis of Strauss lay claim to plausibility. He
conceives that the story was fabricated to answer a
twofold Messianic expectation of the times which
had not been fulfilled by Jesus during his ministry,
namely, that the Messiah would effect a general
resurrection of the pious dead, and that, too, a res
urrection to immorUd life. Yet the narrative is
made to meet the first requirement only by exag
gerating improbably the numerical force of iroXAct;
and concerning a resurrection to immortal life it
^ves, as has been already intimated, no hint. Ob
viously the incident ought not to be contemplated
as an isolated fact, but as one of the accompani
ments of the crowning event in the history of a
being whose entire earthly career was attended by
miracles. Viewed thus, its blended strangeness
and appropriateness, its " probability of improba
bility," affords a presumption of its truth.
For a list of the treatises whicb the passage has
called forth, the reader may see Hase's Leben Jesu,
1865, § 119 (5th ed.). An idea ofthe speculations
in which writers have indulged here may be gath
ered from Calmefs dissertation, translated in the
Journal of Sacred Lit. for Jan. 1848, pp. 112-125.
J. H. T.
SA'LA (2a\a: Sale). Salah, or Shelah,
the father of Eber (Luke iii. 35).
SAOOAH (n2?? [a missile, weapon; also
gjroMi]: 2aAa: Sale). The son of Arphaxad and

o There ia no propriety in associating, as many
commentators do, this incident in Matt, with the state
ment relative to " the spirits in prison " (1 Pet. iii. 19).
Although Peter's language is generally rendered in the
versions and commentaries, " who were sometime dis
obedient," and so Christus preaching represented as
baving taken plar-e after his death , yet such a trans
ition is given in disregard of the fact that aireiST^a-affi,
•greeing as it docs with a noun which has the article
ret itself wanting it, is properly a predicative, not an
attributive, participle. Says Donaldson ( Gr£e^ Gram.

SALAMIS
fether of Eber (Gen. i. 24, xi. la 14 ; Luke il. 36)
The name is significant of extension, the cognaw
verb being applied to the spreading out of the
roots and branches of trees (Jer. xvii. 8; Ez. xvii.
6). It thus seems to imply the historical feet of
the gradual extension of a branch of the Semitic
race from its original seat in Northern Assyria
towards the river Euphrates. A place with a
similar name in Northern Mesopotamia is noticed
by Syrian writers (Knobel, in Gen. xi.); but we
can hardly assume its identity with the Salah of
the Bible. Ewald (Gesch. i. 354) and Von Bohien
(Introd. to Gen. ii. 205) regard the name as purely
fictitious, the former explaining it as a son or ojf-
spHng, the latter as the father of a race. That
the name is significant does not prove it fictitious,
and the conclusions drawn by these writers are
unwarraniod. [The proper form of this name is
Shelak, which see. — A.] W. L. B.
SAL' AMIS (SoXttfti? [prob. fr. Sas, sea, as
being near the shore] : Salamis), a city at the
east end of the island of Cyprus, and the first place
visited by Paul and Barnabas, on the first mission
ary journey, after leaving the mainland at Seleucia.
Two reasons why they took this course obviously
suggest themselves, namely, the fact that Cyprus
(and probably Salamis) was the native place of
Barnabas, and the geographical proximity of this
end of the island to Antioch. But a further reason
is indicated by a circumstance in the narrative
(Acts xiii. 5). Here alone, among all the Greek
cities visited by St. Paul, we read expres-sly of " syn
agogues" in the plural. Hence we conclude that
there were many Jews in Cyprus. And this is in
harmony with what we read elsewhere. To say
nothing of possible mercantile relations in very
early times [Chittim; Cypkus], Jewish residents
in the island are mentioned during the period
when the Seleucidae reigned at Antioch (1 Mace.
XV. 23). In the reign of Augustus the Cyprian
copper-mines were farmed to Herod the Great
(Joseph. Ant. xvi. 4, § 5), and this would proba-
ably attract many _ Hebrew famiUes: to which we
may add evidence to the same effect from' Philo
(Legat. ad Caium) at the very time of St. Paul's
journey. And again at a later period, in the
reigns of Trajan and Hadrian, we are informed of
dreadful tumults here, caused by a vast multitude
of Jews, in the course of which •¦' the whole popu
lous city of Salamis became a desert" (Milman's
Hist, of the Jews, iii. Ill, 112). We may well
beheve that from the Jews of Salamis came some
of those early Cypriote Christians, who are so
prominently mentioned in the account of the first
spreading of the Gospel beyond Palestine (Acta
xi. 19, 20), even before the first missionary expe
dition. Mnason (xxi. 16) might be one of them.
Nor ought Mark to be forgotten here. He was at
Salamis with Paul, and his own kinsman Barnabas;
and again he was there with the same kinsman after

3d ed., p. 632] : << The participle without the article
can never be rightly rendered by the relative sentence
with a definite antecedent, which is equivalent to the
participle with an article " (cf- The New Cratylus, §
304 f.). Green in his N. T. Grammar (^. 54, ed.1862;
renders the passage, " He went and preached to the
imprisoned spirits on their being once on a time difr
obedient, when," etc.
b On this point see Evang. Nicod. (2d Part) c. 17 f.
ThUo, Cod. Apocr. N. T , pp. 790 f., 810 f. ; Tisch
Evang. Apocr. p. 301 f.

SALASADAI
.he misouderatanding with St. Paul and the separsn
;ion (xv. 39).
Salamis was not far from the modern Fama-
gousta. It was situated near a river called the
Pedixus, on low ground, which is in fact a contin
uation of the plain running up into the interior
toward the place where Nicosia, the present capi
tal of Cyprus, stands. We must notice in regard
to Salamis that its harbor is spoken of by Greek
writers as very good ; and that one of the ancient
tables lays down a road between this city and
Paphos, the next place which Paul and Barnabas
visited oh their journey. Salamis again haa rather
an eminent position in subsequent Christian his
tory. Constantine or his successor rebuilt it, and
sailed it Constantia (" Salamis, quse nunc Con
stantia dicitur," Hieronyra. Philem.), and, while it
had this name, Epiphanius was one of its bishops.
Of the travellers who have visited and described
Salamis, we must particularly mention Pooocke
(Desc. ofthe East, ii. 214) and Ross (Reisen nach
Kos, Halikarnassos, Hhodos, und Cypern, pp. 118-
125). These travellers notice, in the neighborhood
of Salamis, a village named St. Sergius, which is
doubtless a reminiscence of Sergius Paulus, and a
large Byzantine church bearing the nanie of St
Barnabas, and associated with a legend concerning
the discovery of his relics. The legend will be
found in Cedrenus (i. (518, ed. Bonn). [Barna
bas; Sergius Paulus.] J. S. H.
SALAS'ADAI [4 syl.] ([Alex.] 2a\ao-aSa.;
[Tat. Rom.] Sapao-aSai; [Sin. 2opio-aSai, MS.
19] ^oupio-aSe), a variation for Surisadni {^ovpic-
ttSttt, Num. i. 6) in Jud. viii. 1. [Zurishaddai.] B. F. W.
SALATHIEL (bS'^ribw^, [bNTlbt?:]
2aAofli^\: Salathiel: " I have asked God " <¦"), son
of Jeohonias king of Judah, and father of Zoroba
bel, according to Matt. i. 12 ; but son of Neri, and
father of Zorobabel, according to Luke iii. 27;
while the genealogy in 1 Chr. iii. 17-19, leaves it
doubtful whether he is the son of Assir or Jecho-
nias, and makes Zorobabel his nephew. (Zekub-
DAnEL.] [Tpon tbe incontrovertible principle that
no genealogy would assign to the true son and heir
ofa king any inferior and private parentage, whereas,
on the contrary, the son of a private person would
naturally be placed in the royal pedigree on his be
coming the rightful heir to the throne; we may
assert, with the utmost confidence, that St. Luke
gives us the true state of the case, when he informs
us that Salathiel was the son of Neri, and a de
scendant of Nathan the son of David.* And from
his Insertion in the royal pedigree, both in 1 Chr.
and St. Matthew's Gospel, after the childless Jecho-

SALCAH

2T87

« Possibly with an allusion to 1 Sam. i. 20, 27, 28.
See Broughton's Our Lord's Family.
6 It is -worth noting that Josephus speaks of Zoro
babel as " the son of Salathiel, of the posterity of Da
vid, and of the tribe of Judah " {A. J. xi. 3, § 10).
Had he believed him to be the son of Jeconiah, of
whom he had spoken (x. 11, § 2), he could hardly
have failed to say so. Comp. x. 7, § 1.
c " Of Jechonias God sware that he should die leav
ing no child behind him ; wherefore it were flat athe-
sm to prate that he naturally became father to Sala-
Jhiel. Though St. Luke had never left us Salathiel's
family up to Nathan, whole brother to Solomon, to
Ihow that Salathiel was of another family, Qod'a oath
hould make us believe that, without any fiarther ree-
JTd" (BrougUton, ut supra).

nias," we infer, with no less confidence, that, on the
failure of Solomon's line, he was the next heir to
the throne of David. The appearance of Salathiel
in the two pedigrees, though one deduces the
descent from Solomon and the other from Nathan,
is thus perfectly simple, aud, indeed, necessary;
whereas the notion of Salathiel being called Neri's
son, as Yardley and others have thought, because
he married Neri's daughter, is palpably absurd on
the supposition of his being the son of Jechonias.
On this last principle, you might have not two
but about a million different pedigrees between Je
chonias and Christ;'^' and yet you have no ra
tional account, why there should actuaUy be more
than one. It may therefore be considered as cer
tain, that Salathiel was the son of Neri, and the
heir of Jechoniah. The question whether he was
the father of Zerubbabel will be considered under
that article.^ Besides tbe passages already cited,
Salathiel occurs in 1 Esdr. v. 5, 48, 56, vi. 2; 2
Esdr. V. 16.
As regards the orthography of the name, it has,
as noted above, two forms in Hebrew. The con
tracted form [Shaltiel] is peculiar to Haggai, who
uses it three times out of five; while in the first
and last verse of his prophecy he uses the full form,
which is also found in Ezr. iii. 2; Neh. xii. 1
The LXX. everywhere have SttAafl^i^A, while the
A. V. has (probably with an eye to correspondence
with Matt, and Luke) Salathiel in 1 Chr. iii. 17,
but everywhere else in the 0. T. Shealtiel.
[Genealogy of Jesus Chkist; Jehoiachin.] A. C. H.
SAL''OAH/ (nD/D [wandering, migratwn,
Fiirst] : 'S.^Kxai, 'Axa, 'S.eXd [Vat. EAx«] '¦> ^'^^•
AtreAxai, EAxa, SeAxa: Salecha, Selcha). A
city named in the early records of Israel as the ex
treme limit of Bashan (Deut. iii. 10; Josh. xiii.
11) and of the tribe of Gad (1 Chr. v. 11). On
another occasion the name seems to denote a dis
trict rather than 0 town (Josh. xii. 5). By Eu
sebius and Jerome it is merely mentioned, appar
ently without their having had any real knowledge
of it.
It is doubtless identical with the town of Siil-
khad, which stands at the southern extremity of
the Jebel Hauran, twenty miles S. of Kunawai
(the ancient Kenath), which was tbe southern out
post of the Leja, the Argob of the Bible. Sulkhad
is named by both the Christian and Mohammedan
historians of the middle ages (Will, of Tyre, xvi,
8, " Selcath; " Abulfeda, in Schultens' Index
geogr. "SarchaJ"). It was visited by Burckhardt
(SyHa, Nov. 22, 1810), Seetzen and others, and
more recently by Porter, who describes it at some

d See a curious calculation in Blackstone's Com'
ment. ii. 203, that in the 20th degree pf ancestry every
man has above a million of ancestors, and in the 40th
upwards ofa million millions,
c The theory of two Salathiels, of whom each had
a son called Zerubbabel, though adopted by Hottinger
and J. G. Vossius, is scarcely worth mentioning, ex
cept as a curiosity.
/ One of the few instances of our translators hav
ing represented the Hebrew Caph by c. Their com
mon practice is to use ch for it — as indeed they have
done on one occurrence of this very name. [Salchah ;
and compare Calgb ; OAPHToa ; Carmex ; COZBI ;
Cdsh, etc.]

2788

SALCHAH

length (Five Years, ii. 176-116). Its identifica
tion with Salcah appears to be due to Gesenius
(Burckhardt's Reisen, p. 507).
Immediately below SOlkhad commences the plain
of the great Euphrates desert, which appears to
stretch with hardly an undulation from here to
Busra on the Persian Gulf. The town is of consid
erable size, two to three miles in circumference,
surrounding a castle on a lofty isolated hill, which
rises 300 or 400 feet above the rest of the place
(Porter, pp. 178, 179 ). Oue of the gateways of the
castie bears an inscription containing the date of
A. D. 246 (180). A still earlier date, namely, a, d.
196 (Septimius Severus), is found on a grave-stone
(185). Other scanty particulars of its later history
will be found in Porter. The hill on which the
castle stands was probably at one time a crater, and
its sides are still covered with volcanic cinder and
blocks of lava. G.
*'jMr. Porter describes the present condition of
this city in his Giant Cities of Bashan, p. 76 f.
Though long deserted, "five hundred of its houses
are still standing, and from 300 to 400 families
might settle in it at any moment without laying a
stone, or expending an hour's labor on repairs.
The circumference of the town and castle together
is about three miles. The open doors, the empty
houses, the rank grass and weeds, the long, strag
gling brambles in the doorways and windows,
formed a strange, impressive picture which can
never leave my memory. Street after street we
traversed, the tread of our horses awakening mourn
ful echoes and startling the foxes from their dens
in the palaces of Salcah. The castle rises to the
height of 300 feet, the southern point of the moun
tain range of Bashan. The view from the top em
braces the plain of Bashan stretching out on the
west to llermon; the plain of Moab on the south,
to the horizon ; and the plain of Arabia on the
east beyond the range of vision. . . Frora this
one spot I saw upwards of 30 towns, all of them,
BO far as I could see with my telescope, habitable
like Salcah, but entirely deserted." See the
prophet's remarkable prediction of this desolation,
Jer. xlviii. 15-29. H.
SAL'CHAH (n^Vp: 'EAxS: Selcha). The
forra in which the name, elsewhere more accu
rately given Salcah, appears in Deut. iii. 10
only. Th^ Targum Pseudofon. gives it M^'pl wD,
i. e, Selucia; though which Seleucia they can have
supposed was here intended it is difficult to im
agine. G.
SA'LEM (D^tt7, i. e. Shalem [whole, perfecf] :
SaA-^jU.: Salem). 1. The place of which Mel
chizedek was king (Gen. xiv. 18; Heb. vii. 1, 2).
No satisfactory identification of it is perhaps possi-
ole. The mdications of the narrative are not suffi
cient to give any clew to its position. It is not
safe even to infer, as some have done," that it lay
between Damascus and Sodom; for though it is
said that the king of Sodom — who had probably
regained his own city after the retreat of the As
syrians — went out to meet (nS"lf7/)'' Abram,
yet it is also distinctly stated that this was after
Aln-am had returned (13^tt? "^TID^) ^o™ t^^
daughter of the kings. Indeed, it is not certain

SALEM
that there is any connection of time or place be-
tween Abram's encounter with the king of Sodom
and the appearance of Melchizedek. Nor, sup
posing this last doubt to be dispelled, is any clew
afforded by the mention of the Valley of Shaveh,
since the situation even of that is more than un
certain. Dr. WolflT — no mean authority on oriental
questions — in a striking passage in his last work,
implies that Salem was — what the author of the
Epistie to tbe Hebrews understood it to be — a
title, not the name of a place. " Melchizedek of
old . . - had a royal title; he was 'King of
Righteousness,' in Hebrew Afelchi -zedek. And he
was also ' King of Peace,' Melek-Salem. And
when Abraham came to his tent he came forth
with bread and wine, and was called ' the Priest of
the Highest,' and Abraham gave him a portion of
his spoil. And just so AVolff's friend in the desert
of Meru in the kingdom of Khiva . . . whose
name is Abd-er-Rahman, which means ' Slave of
the merciful God ' . . . has also a royal title. He
is called Shahe-Adaalat, ' King of Righteousness '
— the same as Melchizedek in Hebrew. And when
he makes peace between kings he bears the title,
Shahe Soolkh, ' King of Peace ' — in Hebrew Me-
lek-Salem.'^ To revert, however, to the topographical ques
tion; two main opinions have been current from
the earliest ages of interpretation. 1. That of the
Jewish commentators, who — from Onkelos ( Tar-
gum) and Josephus (B. J. vi. 10; Ant. i. 10, § 2,
vii. 3, § 2) to Kalisch (Comm. on Gen. p. 360) —
with one voice affirm that Salem is Jerusalem, on
the ground that Jerusalem is so called in Ps. Ixxvi.
2, the Psalmist, after the manner of poets, or from
some exigency of his poem, making use of the ar
chaic name in preference to that in common use.
This is quite feasible; but it is no argument for
the identity of Jerusalem with the Salem of Mel
chizedek. See this well put by Reland (Pal. p,
833). The Christians of the 4th century held the
same belief with the Jews, as is evident from an ex
pression of Jerome (" nostri omnes," Ep. ad Evan-
gelum, § 7).
2. Jerome himself, however, is not of the same
opinion. He states (Ep. ad Evang. § 7) without
hesitation, though apparently (as just observed)
alone in his belief, that the Salem of Melchizedek
was not Jerusalem, but a town near Scythopolis,
which in his day was still called Salera, and where
the vast ruins of the palace of Melchizedek were
still to be seen. Elsewhere ( Onom. " Salem ") he
locates it raore precisely at eight Roman miles from
Scythopolis, and gives its then name as Salumias.
Further, he identifies this Salem with the Salim
(2oA€f/t) of St. John the Baptist. That a Salem
existed where St. Jerome thus places it there need
be no doubt. Indeed, the name has been recovered
at the identical distance below Beisan b}'"Mr. Van
de Velde, at a spot otherwise suitable for iEnon.
But that this Salem, Salim, or Salumias was the
Salem of Melchizedek, is as uncertain as that Jeru
salem was so. The ruins were probably as much
tbe ruins of Melchizedek's palace as the remains it
Ramet eUKhalil, three miles north of Hebron, are
those of " Abraham's house." Nor is the decision
assisted by a consideration of Abram's tnmeward
route. He probably brought back his party by

a For instance, Bochart, Phaleg, ii. 4 ; Ewald, Gesch.
410

b The force of this word is occunere in obviatn (Gt
senilis, Thes. p. 1233 b).

SALEM
Jie road along the Ghor as far as Jericho, and then
turuing to the right ascended to the upper level of
the country in the direction of Mamre ; but whether
he crossed the Jordan at the Jisr Benat Yahib
above the Lake of Gennesaret, or at the Jisr Me-
\amia below it, he would equally pass by both Scy
thopolis and Jerusalem. At the same time it must
be confessed tliat the distance of Salem (at least
eighty miles from the probable position of Sodom)
nialies it difficult to suppose that the king of Sodom
can have advanced so far to meet Abram, adds its
weight to the statement that the meeting took
place after Abram had returned, — not during his
return, — and is thus so far in favor of Salem being
Jerusalem. 3. Professor Ewald (Geschichte, i. 410, note)
pronounces that Salem is a town on the further
side of Jordan, on the road from Damascus to
Sodom, quoting at the same time John iii. 23, but
the writer has in vain endeavored to discover any
authority for this, or any notice of the e,tistence of
the name in that direction either in former or re
cent times.
4. A tradition given by Eupolemus, a writer
known only through fragments preserved in the
Pneparatio Evangelica of Eusebius (ix. 17), dif
fers in some important points from the Biblical
account. According to this the meeting took
place in the sanctuary of the city Argarizin, which
is interpreted by Eupolemus to meau '¦ the Moun
tain of the Most a High." Argarizin * is of
course har Gerizzim, Mount Gerizim. The
source of tbe tradition is, therefore, probably Sa
maritan, since the encounter of Abram and Mel
chizedek is one of the events to which the Samari
tans lay claim for Mount Gerizim. But it may
also proceed from the identification of Salem with
Shechem, which lying at the foot of Gerizim would
easily be confounded with the mountain itself.
[See Shalem.]
5. A Salem is mentioned in Judith iv. 4, among
the places which vvere seized and fortified by the
Jews on the approach of Holofernes. " The valley
of Salem," as it appears iu the A. V. (rbv aiXava
-Za\-i]fi), is possibly, as Eeland has higeniously
suggested (Pal. " Salem," p. 977), a corruption of
CIS avKSiva. els Sa\-lip. — " into the plain to Sa
lera." If l\.u\d>ii is here, according to frequent
usage, the Jordan ^ VaUey, then the Salem referred
to must surely be that mentioned by Jerome, and
already noticed. But in this passage it may be
with equal probability tbe broad plain of the
Mukhna which stretches from Ebal and Gerizim
on the one hand, to the hills on whieh Salim stands
on the other, which is said to be still called tbe
"plain of Salim"'' (Porter, Handbook, p. 340 o),
and through which runs the central north road of
ihe country. Or, as is perhaps still more likely, it

SALEM

2789

a Professor Stanley seems to have been the first to
:all attention to this {S. Sf P. p. 249). See Eupolemi
Fragmcnta, auctore G. A. Kuhlmey (Berlin, 1840);
one of those exceUent monographs which we owe to
the German acadi^mical custom of demanding a trea
tise at each step in honors.
b Pliny uses nearly the same form — Argaris (H.
y. T. 14).
*? A.vKtov is commonly employed in Palestine topog
raphy for the great valley of the Jordan (see Eusebius
ind Jerome, Onomasticon, " Aulou "). But in the
Book of Judith it is used with much less precision in
Ihfl general sense of a valley or plain.
4 Tbe writer could not succeed (in 1861) in eliciting I

refers to another Salim near Zerin (Jezreel), and to
the plain which runs up between those two places,
as far as Jenin, and which lay directly in the route
of the Assyrian army. There is nothing to show
that the invaders reached as far Into the interior oi
the country as tbe plain of the Mukhna. And the
other places enumerated in the verse seem, as far as
they can be recognized, to be points which guarded
the main approaches to the interior (one of the
chief of which was by Jezreel and En-gannim), not
towns in the ulterior itself, hke Shechem or the
Salem near it.
2. (Dv^ • ^»' elp'fjVT}'. in pace^), Ps. Ixxvi. 2.
It seems to be agreed on all hands that Salem is
here employed for Jerusalem, but whether as a
mere abbreviation to suit some exigency of the
poetry, and point the allusion to the peace (salem)
which the city enjoyed through the protection of
God, or whether, after a well-known habit of poets/
it is an antique name preferred to the more modem
and familiar one, is a question not yet decided.
The latter is the opinion of the Jewish commen
tators, but it is grounded on their belief that the
Salem of Melchizedek was the city which after
wards became Jerusalem. This is to beg the
question. See a remarkable passage in Geiger's
Urschrift, etc., pp. 74-76.
Tbe antithesis in verse 1 between "Judah " and
"Israel" would seem to imply that sume sacred
place in the northern kingdom is being contrasted
with Zion, the sanctuary of the south. And if
there were in tbe Bible any,sanction to the identifi
cation of Salem with Shechem (noticed above), the
passage raight be taken as referring to the con
tinued relation of God to the kingdom of Israel.
But there are no materials even for a conjecture
on the point. Zion the sanctuary, however, being
named in the one member of the verse, it is toler
ably certain that Salem, if Jerusalem, must denote
the secular part of the city — a distinction which
has been already noticed [vol. ii. p. 1321] as fre
quently occurring and impUed in the Psalms and
Prophecies. G.
* In the passage quoted above, " In Judah is
God known, his name is great in Israel," we recog
nize not " antithesis " but the synonymous parallel
ism of Hebrew poetry — - each term being generic
and designating the whole nation, as in Ps. cxiv.
2 — "Judah was his sanctuary, and Israel his
dominion" — where the words will bear no other
construction. In the next verse — " In Salem also
is his tabernacle, and his dwelling-place in Zion " —
we understand the naraes as also cognate, not " con
trasted," each indicating the Holy City as the
special seat of divine worship. We are not able
to trace in the sacred writings, referred to above^
any clear distinction between the secular Jerusalem

this name for any part of the plain. The name, given
in answer to repeated questions', for the eastern braneb
or leg of the Mukkna was always Wady Sajtia.
e The above is the reading of the Vulgate and of
the " Galilean Psalter." But in the Liber Psalmorum
juxta Hebraicam veritatem, in the Divina Bibliotheca
included in the Benedictine edition of Jerome's works,
the reading is Salem.
f The Arab poets are said to use the same abbre
Tiation (Gesenius, Thes. p. 1422 b). The preference
of an archaic to a modern name will surprise no
student of poetry. Few things are of more constasi'
occurrence.

2790 SALIM
and the sacred Zion, but find the phrases used in
terchangeably, each sometimes with a secular refer
ence, and each sometimes in a spiritual relation.
S. W.
SA'LIM (^tt\elp; Alex. ^aWet/i: Salim).
A place named (John iii. 23) to denote the situa
tion of .^non, the scene of St. John's last bap
tisms — Salim being the well-known town or spot,
and iEnon a place of fountains, or other water,
near it. There is no statement in the narrative
itself fixing the situation of Salim, and the only
direct testimony we possess is that of Eusebius and
Jerome, who both affirm unhesitatingly (Onom.
"jEnon") that it existed in theur day near the
Jordan, eight Roman miles south of Scythopolis.
Jerome adds (under "Salem") that its name was
then Salumias. Elsewhere (Ep. ad Evangelum,
§§ 7, 8) he states that it was identical with the
Salem of Melchizedek.
Various attempts have been more recently made
to determine the locality of this interesting spot.
1. Some (as Alford, Greek Test, ad loc.) pro
pose Shiliiim and Ain, in the arid country far
in the south of Judsea, entirely out of the circle
of associations of St. John or our Lord. Others
identify it with the Shalim of 1 Sam. ix. 4, but
this latter place is itself unknown, and the name
in Hebrew contains ^, to correspond with which
the name in St. John should be ^eyaKelp. or
2. Dr. Robinson suggests the modern village of
Salim, three miles E. of Nablus (Bibl. Res. iii.
333), but this is no less out of the circle of St.
John's ministrations, and is too near the Samari
tans ; and although there is some reason to believe
that tbe village contains " two sources of living
water" (ibid. 298), yet this is hardly sufficient for
the abundance of deep water implied in the narra
tive. A writer in the Colonial Ch. Chron., No.
cxxvi. 464, who concurs in this opinion of Dr.
Koblnson, was told of a village an hour east (?) of
Salim "named Ain-un, with a copious stream of
water." The district east of Salim is a blank
in the maps. YiMiun lies about 1^ hour S. E.
of Salim, but this can hardly be the place in
tended ; and in the description of Van de Velde,
who visited it (ii. 303), no stream or spring is
mentioned. 3. Dr. Barclay ( City, etc., p. 564) is filled with
an " assured conviction " that Salim is to be found
in Wady Seleim, and ./Enon in the copious springs
of Ain Farah (ibid. p. 559), among the deep and
intricate ravines some five miles N. E. of Jerusalem.
This certainly has the name in its favor, and, if
the glowing description and pictorial wood-cut of
Dr. Barclay may be trusted — has water enough,
and of sufficient depth for the purpose.
4. The name of Salim has been lately discov
ered by Mr. Van de Velde (Syr. <} Pal. ii. 345,
346) in a position exactly in accordance with the
notice of Eusebius, namely, six English miles south
of Beisan, and two miles west of the Jordan. On
the northern base of Tell Redghah is a site of
rains, and near it a Mussulman tomb, which is called
oy the Arabs Sheykh Salim (see also Memoir, p.
145). Dr. Robinson (iii. 333) complains that the
name is attached only to a Mussulman sanctuary,
Uld also that no ruins of any extent are to be
found on the spot; but with regard to the first
objection, even Dr. Robinson does not dispute that
the name is there, and that the locality is in the

SALMA
closest agreement with the notice of Emebiui.
As to the second it is only necessary to point It
Kefr-Saba, where a town (Antipatris), which go
late as the time of the destruction of Jerusalem
was of great size and extensively fortified, has
absolutely disappeared. The career of St. John
has been examined in a former part of this work,
and it has been shown with great probability that
his progress waa from south to north, and that the
scene of his last baptisms was not &r distsat from
the spot indicated by Eusebius, and now recovered
by Mr. Van de Velde. [Jokdan, vol. ii. p. 1457.]
Salim fulfills also the conditions implied in the
name of JpAion (springs), and the direct statement
of the text, that the place contained abundance
of water. " The brook of Wady Chusneh runs
close to it, a splendid fountain gushes ont beside
tbe Wely, and rivulets wind about in all directions.
. . . . Of few places in Palestine could it
so truly be said, 'Here is much water' " (Syr. f
Pal. ii. 346). [.ffiNON, Amer. ed.]
A tradition is mentioned by Keknd (Palcettina,
p. 978) that Salim was the native place of Simon
Zelotes. This in itself seems to imply that its posi
tion was, at the date of the tradition, believoi to
be nearer to Galilee than to Judsea. 6.
SALTl/AI [2 syl.] C'vD, in pause "'vD [perh.
basket-maker, Ges.]: SijAi; [Vat. FA., though
not properly separated from preceding word,] Alex.
^7l\ei: Sella'i). 1. A Benjamite, who with 928
of his tribe settled in Jerusalem after the Captivity
(Neh. xi. 8).
2. (2a\at; [Vat. Alex. FA.l omit; FA.3 2aV
\a'i.] ) The head of one of the courses of priests
who went up from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Neh.
xiL 20). In Neh. xii. 7 he is called Sai.lu.
SAL'LU (-"IvP [weighed]: 2a\<ip, :iri\ti;
Alex. 2a\aj in 1 Chr.: Salo, Sellum). 1. The
sow of Jleshullam, a Benjamite who returned and
settled in Jerusalem after the Captivity (1 Chr. ix.
7; Neh. xi. 7).
2. (Om. in Vat. MS.; [also in Rom., Alex.,
FA.l; FA.8] SoAouof; [Comp. 2oAoiJ:] Sethm.)
Tbe head of one of the courses of priests who re
turned with Zerubbabel (Neh. xii. 7). Called also
Sallai. SALLTJ'MXJS (SaKov^os; [Vat. Aid.] Alex.
2aAXoS/ios: Salumus). Shallum (1 Esdr. ix,
25; comp. Ezr. x. 24).
SAL'MA, or SALTMON (Habb, SObb,
or pl3 yCjy Iclothed, a garment, Ges.] : [in Ruth]
iaXpuiv [Vat. SaAyUOJ/] ; [in 1 Chr. ii. 11,] Alex.
^aXpLtiv, but SaKafiiiv both MSS. in Ruth iv.
[rather 1 Chr. ii. 51, 54; in N. T., 2oA;ai6i']:
Salmon [in Ruth and N. T., Salma in 1 Chr.]).
Son of Nahshon, the prince of the children of
Judah, and father of Boaz, the husband of Kuth.
Salmon's age is distinctly marked by that of his
father Nahshon, and with this agrees the statement
in 1 Chr. ii. 61, 54, that he was of the sons of
Caleb, and the father, or head man of Bethleheiu-
Ephratah, a town which seems to have been within
the territory of Caleb (1 Chr. ii. 50, 51). [Eph-
KATAH ; Bethlehem.] On the entrance of the
Israelites into Canaan, Salmon took Rahab of Jeri
cho to be his wife, and from this union sprang tbe
Christ. [Rahab.] From the circumstance of Sal
mon having lived at the time of the conquest </
Canaan, as well as from his being tbe fifst pn>

SALMAN ASAE
prietor of Bethlehem, where his family continued so
many centuries, perhaps till the reign of Domitian
(Euseb. Eccles. Hist. ii. 20), he may be called the
founder of the house of David. Besides Beth
lehem, the Netophathites, the house of Joab, the
Zorites, and several other families, looked to Sal
mon as their head (1 Chr. ii. 54, 55).
Two circumstances connected with Salmon have
caused some perplexity: one, the variation in the
orthography of his name, the other, an apparent
variation in his genealogy.
As regards the first, the variation in proper
names (whether caused l)y the fiuctuations of copy
ists, or whether they existed in practice, aud vvere
favored by the significance of the names), is so
extremely common, that such slight diflerences as
those in the three forms of this name are scarcely
worth noticing. Compare e, g. the difierent forms
of the name Shimea, the son of Jesse, in 1 Sam.
xvi. 9 ; 2 Sam. xiii. 3 ; 1 Chr. ii. 13 : or of Simon
Peter, in Luke v. 4, &c. ; Acts xv. 14. See other
examples in Hervey's Geneal. of our Lord, cc. vi.
and X. Moreover, iu this case, the variation from
Salma to Salmon takes place in two consecutive
verses, namely, Rulh iv. 20, 21, where the notion
of two diflferent persons being meant, though in
some degree sanctioned by the authority of Dr.
Kennicott (Dissert, i. 184, 543), is not worth re-
fiiting." As regards the Salma of 1 Chr. ii. 51, 64,
his connection with Bethlehem identifies hira with
the son of Nahshon, and the change of the final
n into N belongs doubtless to the late date of the
book of Chronicles. The name is so written also
in 1 Chr. ii. 11. But the truth is that the sole
reason for endeavoring to make two persons out of
Salma and Salmon, is the wish to lengthen the
line between Salma and David, in order to meet the
false chronology of those times.
The variation in Salma's genealogy, which hag
induced some to think that the Salma of 1 Chr. ii.
61, 54 is a difl'erent person from the Salma of 1
Chr. ii. 11, is more apparent than real. It arises
from the circumstance that Bethlehem Ephratah,
which was Salmon's inheritance, was part of the
territory of Caleb, tiie grandson of Ephratah ; and
this caused him to be reckoned among the sons of
Caleb. But it is a complete misunderstanding of
the language of such topographical genealogies to
suppose that it is meant to be asserted that Salma
was the literal son of Caleb. Mention is made of
Salma only in Ruth iv. 20, 21; 1 Chr. ii. 11, 51,
64; Matt. i. 4, 5; Luke iii. 32. The questions
of his age and identity are discussed in the Geneal.
of our Ijord, cc. iv. and ix. ; Jackson, Chron.
Antiq. i. 171; Hales, Analysis, iii. 44; Burring-
ton, Geneal. i. 189 ; Dr. Mill, Vind'ic. of our Lords
Geneal. p. 123, &c. A. C. H.
SALMAN A'SAR (Salmanasar). Shalman-
itSER, king of Assyria (2 Esdr. xiii. 40).
SAL'MON O'la^? Ishady, Ges.; perh. ter-

« Kusebius (Citron. Canon, lib. i. 22) has no mis-
Siving as to the identity of Salma.
b See a work by Beuss, Der acht und sechzigste Fsahn,
Hn Denhmal exegetischer Noth und Kunst, zu E/tren
unser ganzen Zunft, Jena, 1851. Independently of its
many obscure allusions, the 68th Psalm contains thir
teen airo^ AeydjUGi^a, including ^^t^^. It may be
observed that this word ia scarcely, as Qesenius sug
gests anaioirous to VB^H, C^^WH, Iliphils of

SALMON 2791
race-like, Furst]: SeA/iaiy; [Vat Alex. Epfiav:]
Salmon, Judg. ix. 48). The name of a hill near
Shechem, on which Abimelech and his followers
cut down the boughs with which they set the
tower of Shechem on fire. Its exact position is
not known.
It is usually supposed that this bill is mentioned
iu a verse of perhaps the most difficult af all the
Psalms* (Ps. Ixviii. 14); and this is probable,
though the passage is peculiarly difficult, and the
precise allusion intended by the poet seems hope
lessly lost. Commentators diflfer from each other;
and Fiirst, within 176 pages of his Handworter-
buch, differs from himself (see abtt? and ^lUbs).
Indeed, of six distinguished modem commentatora
-- De Wette, Hitzig, Ewald, Hengstenberg, De-
litzsch, and Hupfeld — no two give distinctly the
same meaning; and Mr. Keble, in bis admirable
Version of the Psalms, gives a translation which,
though poetical, as was to be expected, differs from
any one of those suggested by these six scholars.
This is not the place for an exhaustive examina^
tion of the passage. It may be mentioned, how
ever, that the literal translation of the words
ViaV?? 2bt?ri is " Thou makest it snow," or
" It snows," with liberty to use the word either in
the past or in the future tense. As notwithstand
ing ingenious attempts, this supplies no satisfactory
meaning, recourse is had to a translation of doubt
ful validity, " Thou makest it white as snow," or
" It is white as snow" — words to which various
metaphorical meanings have heen attributed. The
allusion which, through the Lexicon of Gesenius, is
most generally received, is that the words refer to
the ground being snow-white with bones after a
defeat of the Canaanite kings; and this may be
accepted by those who will admit the scarcely per
missible meaning, " white as snow," and who can
not rest satisfied without attaching some definite
signification to the passage. At the same tirae it
is to be remembered that the figure is a very harsh
one ; and that it is not really justified by passages
quoted in illustration of it from Latin classical
writers, such as, " campique ingentes ossibus al-
bent" (Virg. jEn. xii. 36), and " humanis os.sibu8
albet humus " (Ovid, Fast. r. 558), for in these
cases the word " hones " is actually used in the
text, and is not left to be supplied by the imagina
tion. Granted, however, that an allusion is made
to bones of the slain, there is a divergence of
opinion as to whether Salmon was mentioned sim
ply because it had been the battle-ground in some
great defeat of the Canaanitish kings, or whether
it is only introduced as an image of snowy white
ness. And of these two explanations, the first
would be on the whole most probable ; for Salmon
cannot have been a very high mountain, as the
highest mountains near Shechem are Eljal and
Gerizim, and of these Ebal, the highest of the
two, is only 1,028 feet higher than the city (see

color ; for these words have a signification of color In
Kal. The really analogous word Is "T^KaPl, " he
makes it lain," which bears the same relation to
"nlaO, "rain," which ^''btt.'n bears to ^baj.
" snow." Owing, probably, to Hebrew religious con
ceptions of natural phenomena, no instance occurs of
"n^tSan used as a neuter in the sense of " it rains ; "
thongli this would be grammatically admissible.

2792

SALMON

Ebal, vol. i. p. 640; and Robinson's Gesenius, p.
895 a). If the poet had desired to use the image
of a snowy mountain, it would have been more
natural to select Hermon, which is visible from the
eastern brow of Gerizim, is about 10,000 feet high,
and is covered with perpetual snow. Still it is not
Mieant that this circumstance by itself would be
toiiclusive; for there may have been particular asso
ciations in the mind of the poet, unknown to us,
which led him to prefer Salmon.
In despair of understanding the allusion to Sal
mon, some suppose that Salmon, i. e. Tsalmon, is
not a proper name in this passage, but merely sig
nifies "darkness;" and this interpretation, sup
ported by the Targum, though opposed to the
Septuagint, has been adopted by Ewald, and in
the first statement in his Lexicon is admitted by
Fiirst. Since iselem signifies " shade," this is a
bare etymological possibility. But no such word
as tsalmon occurs elsewhere in the Hebrew lan
guage; while there are several other words for
darkness, in different degrees of meaning, such as
the ordinary word choshek, c^}hel, aphelah, and
'arapheh Unless the passage is given up as corrupt, it
seems more in accordance with reason to admit
that there was some allusion present to the poet's
mind, the key to which is now lost; and this ought
not to surprise any stholar who refiects how many
allusions there are in Greek poets — in Pindar, for
example, and in Aristophanes — which would be
wholly unintelligible to us now, were it not for the
notes of Greek scholiasts. To these notes there is
nothing exactly analogous in Hebrew literature;
and in the absence of some such assistance, it is
unavoidable that there should be several passages
in the 0. T. respecting the meaning of which we
must be content to remain ignorant. E. T.
SAL'MON the father of Boaz (Ruth iv. 20,
21; Matt. i. 4, 6; Luke iii. 32). [Salma.]
SALMO'NB CZaKp.dvn: Salmane). The
East point of the island of Crete. In the ac
count of St. Paul's voyage to Rome this promon
tory is raentioned in such a way (Acts xxvii. 7) as
to afford a curious illustration both of the naviga
tion of the ancients and of the minute accuracy of
St. Luke's narrative. "We gather from other cir
cumstances of the voyage that the wind was blow
ing from the N. W. (ivavrious, ver. 4; fipaSv-
TrXooivTes, ver. 7). [See Mtra.] We are then
told that the ship, on making Cnidus, could not,
by reason of the wind, hold on her course, which
was past the south point of Greece, W. by S.
She did, however, just fetch Cape Salmone, which
bears S. W. by S. from Cnidus. Now we may
take it for granted that she could have made good
a course of less than seven points from the wind
[Ship] : and, starting from this assumption, we
are at once brought to the conclusion that the wind
must have been between N. N. W. and W. N. W.
Thus what Paley would have called an "unde
signed coincidence" is elicited by a cross-examina
tion of the narrative. This ingenious argument is
due to Mr. Smith of Jordanhill ( Voy. and Ship
wreck of St. Paul, pp. 73, 74, 2d ed.), and from
him it is quoted by Conybeare and Howson (Life
and Ej^. of St. Paul, ii. 393, 2d ed.). To these
books we must refer for fuller details. We may

« According to one account she was the daughter
tt Jomph by a former marriage (Epiphan. Jt^er.

SALOME
just add that the ship had had the advantages of
a weather shore, smooth water, and a favoring cur<
rent, before reaching Cnidus,, and that by running
down to Cape Salmone the sailors obtained similar
advantages under the lee of Crete, as far as Faik
Havens, near Las.ea. J. S S.
* The northeast point of Crete is the present
Cape Sidero, and has generally been supposed (as
above) to be Luke's Salmone. Captain Spratt,
R. N., dissents from this opinion ( Travels and lie.
searches in Crete, Lond. 1865). He admits that
the ancient writers, generally at least, appUed tie
name to that Cape, but thinks that Luke refers to
the promontory — jutting out toward the east
some miles to the south of Cape Sidero, and c-alled
Plaka. His reasons for this conclusion in the
case of Luke are, frst, " that Cape Sidero is, in
truth, not the headland or point his ship wonld
keep nearest to in coming from Cnidus ; and, sec
ondly, that this promontory south of Grandes Bay,
called Plaka by the natives, is indeed now by some
Levantine navigators called Cape Salmone, to dis
tinguish it from Cape Sidero." Purdy (Nea
Sailing Directions, etc., p. 69, Lond. 1834) writes
the name SalomoUj but must refer, of course, fo
the same place. H.
SAXOM (SaAdJ^: Salom). The Greek form
1. of Shallum, the father of Hilkiah (Bar. i. 7).
[Shallum.] '2. (Salojnus) of Salu the father of
Zimri (1 Mace. ii. 26). [Salu.]
SALO'ME (2oA<4;iir) [Heb. peaceful]: So.
lome). 1. Tbe wife of Zebedee, as appears from
comparing Matt, xxvii. 56 with Mark x\'. 40. It is
further the opinion of many modem critics that she
was the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, to whom
reference is made in John xix. 25. The words ad
mit, however, of another and hitherto generally
received explanation, according to which they refer
to tbe " Mary the wife of Cleophas " immediately
afterwards mentioned. In behalf of the former
view, it may be urged that it gets rid of tbe diffi
culty arising out of two sistei*s having the same'
name — that it harmonizes John's narrative with
those of Matthew and Mark — that this circuitous
manner of describing his own mother is in char
acter with St. John's manner of describing him
self — that the absence of any connecting Unk
between the second and third designations may be
accounted for on the ground that the four are
arranged in two distinct couplets — and, lastly,
that the Peshito, the Persian, and the .£thiopic
versions mark the distinction between the second
and third by interpolating a conjunction. On the
other hand, it may be urged that the difficulty
arising out of the name may be disposed of by
assuming a double marriage on the part of the
father — that there is no necessity to harmonize
John with Matthew and Mark, for that the tirae
and the place in which the groups are noticed dif
fer materially — that the language addressed to
John, "Behold thy mother! " favors the idea of
the absence rather than of the presence of his nat
ural mother — and that the varying traditions"
current in the early Church as to Salome's parents,
worthless as they are in themselves, yet bear a
negative testimony against the idea of her bemg
related to the mother of Jesus. Altogether we
can hardly regard the pomt as settled, though the

Ixxviii. 8) : according to another, the wife of Jofepb
(Niceph. H. B. ii. 3).

SALT
weight of modem criticism is decidedly in favor of
tbe former view (see Wieseler, Stud. u. Krit. 1S40,
p. 648). The only events recorded of Salome are
that she preferred a request on behalf of her two
sons for seats of honor in the kingdom of heaven
(Matt. XX. 20), that she attended at the crucifixion
of Jesus (Mark xv. 40), and that she visited his
sepulchre (Mark xvi. 1). She is mentioned by
name only on the two latter occasions.
2. The daughter of Herodias by her first hus
band, Herod Philip (Joseph. Ani, xviii. 5, § 4).
She is the " daughter of Herodias" noticed in Matt.
^v, 6 as dancing before Herod Antipas, and as
procuring ut her mother's instigation the death of
John the Baptist. She married in the first place
Philip the tetrarch of Trachonitis, her paternal
uncle, and secondly Aristobulus, the king of Chal-
cis. W. L. B.
SALT (nbn: Sas: sal). Indispensable as
salt is to ourselves, it was even more so to the
Hebrews, being to them not only an appetizing
condiment in the food both of man (Job vi. 6) and
beast (Is. xxx. 24, see margin), and a most valua
ble antidote to the effects of the heat of the cli
mate on animal food, hut also entering largely into
their religious services as an accompaniment to the
various offerings presented on the altar (Lev. ii.
13). They possessed an inexhaustible and ready
supply of it on the southern shores of the Dead
Sea. Here may have been situated the Valley of
Salt (2 Sam. viii. 13), in proximity to the moun
tain of fossil salt which Koblnson (Researches, ii.
108) describes as five miles in length, and as the
chief source of the salt in the sea itself. Here
were the saltpits (Zeph. ii. 9). probably formed in
tbe marshes at the southern end of the lake, vi'hich
are completely coated with salt, deposited period
ically by the rising of the waters; and here also
were tbe successive pillars of salt which tradition
has from time to time identified with Lot's wife
(Wisd. i. 7; Joseph. Ani. i. 11, § 4). [Sea, the
Salt.] Salt might also he procured from the
Mediterranean Sea, and from this source the Phoe
nicians would naturally obtain the supply neces
sary for salting fish (Neh. xiii. 16) and for other
purposes. The Jews appear to have distinguished
between rock-salt and that which was gained by
evaporation, as the Talmudists particularize one
species (probably the latter) as the " salt of
Sodom " (Carpzov, Appar. p. 718). The notion
that this expression nieans bitumen rests on no
foundation. The saltpits formed an important
source of revenue to the rulers of the country
(Joseph. Ant. xiii. 4, § 9), and Antiochus conferred
a valuable boon on Jerusalem by presenting the
city with 375 bushels of salt for the Temple ser
vice (Ant. xii. 3, § 3). In addition to the uses of
salt already specified, the inferior sorts were ap
plied as a manure to the soil, or to hasten the
decomposition of dung (Matt. v. 13; Luke xiv.
35), Too large an admixture, however, was held
to produce sterility, as exemplified on the shores
of the Dead Sea (Deut. xxix. 23; Zeph. ii. 9):
hence a "salt" land was synonymous with barren
ness (Job xxxix. 6, see margin; Jer. xvii. 6; comp.
Joseph. B. J. iv. 8, § 2, a.Kp.vp6hir}s Koi &yovos)'-,
and hence also arose the custom of sowing with
salt the foundations of a destroyed city (Judg. ix.
45), as a token of its irretrievable ruin. It was
^he belief of the Jews that salt would, by exposure
to the air, lose its virtue (/Awpoi/0p, Matt. v. 13)
176

SALT, CITY OF

2793

and become saltless {^vaKov, Mark x. jO). Tha
same fact is implied in the expressions of Pliny,
sal iners (xxxi. 39), sal tabescere (xxxi. 44); and
Maundrell (Early Travels, p. 512, Bohn) asserts
that he found the surface of a salt rock in this
condition. The associations connected with salt
in eastern countries are important. As one of
the most essential articles of diet, it symbolized
hospitality; as an antiseptic, durability, fidelity,
and purity. Hence the expression, ''covenant of
salt*' (I^v. ii. 13; Num. xviii. 19; 2 Chr. xiii.
5), as betokening an indissoluble alliance between
friends; and again the expression, "salted with
the salt of the palace" (Ezr. iv. 14), not neces
sarily meaning that they had " maintenance from
the palace," as the A. V. has it, but that they
were bound by sacred obligations of fidelity to the
king. So in the present day, " to eat bread and
salt together" is an expression for a league of
mutual amity (Russell, Aleppo, i. 232); and, on
the other hand, the Persian term for traitor ia
nemekharam, "faithless to salt" (Gesen. Thes.
p. 790). It was probably with a view to keep this
idea prominently before the minds of the Jews
that the use of salt was enjoined on the Israelites
in their offerings to God ; for in the first instance
it was specifically ordered for the meat-offering
(Lev. ii. 13), which consisted mainly of flour, and ,
therefore was not liable to corruption, ^i'he ex
tension of its use to burnt sacrifices was a later
addition (Ez. xbii. 24; Joseph. Ant. iii. 9, § 1),
in the spirit of the general injunction at the close
of l^v. ii. 13. Similarly tlie heathens accom
panied their sacrifices with salted barley-meal, the
Greeks with their ouXoxorat (Hom. 11. i. 449),
tbe Romans with their mola salsa (Hor. Sai. ii. 3,
200) or their salsce fmges (Virg. ^n. ii. 133).
It may of course be assumed that in all of these
cases salt was added as a condiment; but the
strictness with which the rule was adhered to —
no sacrifice being offered without salt (Plin. xxxi.
41), and still more the probable, though perhaps
•doubtful, admixture of it in incense (Ex. xxx. 35,
where the word rendered "tempered together" ia
by some understood as "salted") — leads to the
conclusion that there was a symbolical force at
tached to its use. Our Lord refers to the sacrifi
cial use of salt in Mark ix. 49, 50, though some
of the other associations may also be implied.
The purifying property of salt, as opposed to cor
ruption, led to its selection as the outward sign in
Elisha's miracle (2 K. ii. 20, 21), and is also
developed in the N. T. (Matt. v. 13; Col. iv. 6).
The custom of rubbing infants with salt (Ez. xvi.
4) originated in sanitary considerations, but re>
ceived also a symbolical meaning. W. L. B.
SALT, CITY OF (nb^n-"T^r : a\ TrtfAea
2a5i£y; Alex, ay iroKis aKmv'. civitas saHs). The
fifth of the six cities of Judah which lay in the
"wilderness" (Josh. xv. 62). Its proximity to
En-gedi, and the name itself seem to point to its
being situated close to or at any rate in the neigh
borhood of the Salt Sea. Dr. Robinson (Bibl. Res.
ii. 109) expresses his belief that it lay somewhere
near the plain at the south end of that lake, which
he would identify with the Valley of Salt. This,
though possibly supported by the reading of the
Vatican LXX., " the cities of Sodom," is at present
a mere conjecture, since no trace of the narae or the
city has yet been discovered in that position. On
the other hand, Mr. Van de Velde (Syr. ^ Pal. u.

2794 SALT SEA
B9; Memoir, p. Ill, and Map) mentions a Nahr
Match wliich he passed in hia route from Wady
ir-Rmail to Sebbeh, the name of which (though the
orthography is not certain) may be found to con
tain a trace of the Hebrew. It is one of four
ravines which unite to form the Wady eUBedun.
Another ofthe four, W. 'Amreh (Syr. ^ P. ii. 99;
Memoir, p. Ill, Map), recalls the name of Gomor
rah, to the Hebrew of which it is very similar. G.
* SALT SEA. [Sea, the Salt.]
SALT, VALLBY OF (nba M-"!, but
twice with the article, H vSH 3 : TePeXepi,
Te^eAeS, Koihds, and (pdpay^, riJovaKSiV', Alex.
¦ TrifiaXa, TaipieKa: Vallis Salinxirum). A certain
valley, or perhaps more accurately a "ravine," — the
Hebrew word Ge appearing to bear that significa
tion, — in which occurred two memorable victories
of the Israelite arms.
1. That of David over the Edomites (2 Sam.
viii. 13 1 1 Chr. xviii. 12). It appears to have im
mediately followed his Syrian campaign, and was
itself one of the incidents of tbe great Edomite war
of extermination." The battle in the Valley of
Salt appears to have been conducted by Abishai
(1 Chr. xviii. 12), but David and Joab were both
present in person at the battle and in the pursuit
and campaign which followed; and Joab was left
behind for six months to consummate the doom
of the conquered country (1 K. xi. 15, 16 ; Ps. Ix.
title). The number of Edomites slain in the bat
tle is uncertain: the narratives of Samuel and
Chronicles both give it at 18,000, but this figure is
lowered in the title of Ps. Ix. to 12,000.
2. That of Amaziah (2 K. xiv. 7 ; 2 Chr. xxv.
11), who is related to have slain ten thousand
Edomites in this valley, and then to have pro
ceeded, with 10,000 prisoners, to the stronghold of
the nation at has-Sela, the Cliff, i. e. Petra, and,
after taking it, to have massacred them by hurling
ihem down the precipice which gave its ancient
name to the city.
Neither of tliese notices affords any clew to the
situation of the Valley of Salt, nor does the cursory
mention of the name ("Gemela" and "Mela")
in the Onomasticon. By Josephus it is not named
on either occasion. Seetzen (Reisen, ii. 356) was
probably the first to suggest that it was the broad
open plain whioh lies at the lower end of the Dead
Sea, and intervenes between the lake itself and the
range of heights which crosses the valley at six or
eight miles to the south. The same view is taken
(more decisively ) by Dr. Robinson (Bibl. Res. ii. 109 ).
The plain is in fact the termination of the Gk6r or
valley through which the Jordan flows from the
Lake of Tiberias to the Dead Sea. Its N. W. cor
ner is occupied by the Khashm Usdim, a mountain
of rock salt, between which and the lake is an ex
tensive salt marsh, while salt streams and brackish

a The Received Text of 2 Sam. viii. 13 omits the
mention of Edomites : but from a comparison of the
parallel passages in 1 Chr. and in the title of Ps. Ix.
there is good ground for believing that the verse origi
nally stood thus : <' And David made himself a name
[when he returned from smiting the Aramites] [and
when he returned he smote the Edomites] in the Val
ley of Salt — eighteen thousand;" the two clauses
within brackets having been omitted by the Greek and
Hebrew scribes respectively, owing to the very close
resemblance of the words with which each clause
Intohes — cms and D'^OIS. This is the con-

SALtTM
springs pervade, more or lesa^ the entire veston
half of the plain. Without presuming to contr»-
dict this suggestion, which yet can hardly be
affirmed with safety in the very imperfect condition
of our knowledge of the inaccessible regions S. and
S. E. of the Dead Sea, it may be well to call atten
tion to some considerations which seem to stand in
the way of the implicit reception which most writ
ers have given it since the publication of Dr. E.'s
Researches. (a.) The word Ge (H''3), employed for the place
in question, is not, to the writer's knowledge, else
where applied to a broad valley or sunk plain of
the nature of the lower Ghor. Such tracts are
denoted in the Scripture by the words Emek or
Bika'ah, while Ge appears to be reserved for clefti
or ravines of a deeper and narrower character.
[Valley.] (b.) A priori, one would expect the tract in
question to be called in Scripture by the peculiar
name uniformly applied to the more northern pirte
of the same valley — ha-Ardbah — in the same
manner that the Arabs now call it el-Ghdr — Gidi-
being their equivalent for the Hebrew Ardbali,
(c.) The name " Salt," though at first sight
conclusive, becomes less so on reflection. It does
not follow, because the Hebrew word melach signi
fies salt, that therefore the valley was salt. A case
exactly parallel exists at el-Milh, the representative
of the ancient Moladaii, some sixteen miles south
of Hebron. Like melach, milh signifies salt; but
there is no reason to believe that there is any salt
present there, and Dr. Robinson (Bibl. Res. ii. 201,
note) himself justly adduces it as " an instance of
the usual tendency of popular pronunciation to re
duce foreign proper names to a significant form."
Just as el-Milh is the Arabic representative of the
Hebrew Moladah, so possibly was ge-melacli the
Hebrew representative of some archaic Edomite
name. (d.) What little can be inferred from the narra
tive as to the situation of the Ge-Melach is in
favor of its being nearer to Petra. AssumiD({
Selah to be Petra (the chain of evidence for which
is tolerably connected), it seems difficult to believe
that a large body of prisoners should have been
dragged for upwards of fifty miles through the
heart of a hostile and most difficult country,
merely for massacre. G.
SA'LU (S^lbO [weighed:]: :Sd\p.iv; Alex.
[Comp. Aid.] Sa\ii: Salu). The father of Zimri
tbe prince of the Simeonites, who was slain by
Phinehas (Num. xxv. 14). Called also Salom.
SA'LUM (^aKoip.; [Vat. corrupt:] Esmen-
nus). 1. Shallum, the head of a family of gate
keepers (A. V. " porters ") of the Temple (1 Esdr.
v. 28; comp. Ezr. ii. 42).
2. (2a\7)/ioj; [Aid. iaXovpos'] Sobr.ie]

jecture of Thenius (Exeg. Handbucli), and is adopted
by Bunsen (Bibelwerk, note to the passage). Ewald
has shown (GcjcA. iii. 201, 202) that the whole passage
is very much disordered. GW C2?V!!l *™'d prob
ably be rendered " and set up a monument," Instead
of ¦' and gat a name " Geson. ( TItcs. p. 1431 b) ; Michaelis
(Suppl. So. 2501, and note to Bibel /Ur Vnstl.); Ds
Wette (Bibel) ; LXX. Coisl., Kal idriKev eonj^w^e'i^i' ;
Jerome (Clucest. Helrr.), erexit fomicem triumphalon.
Rashi iuterprets it " reputation," and makes tbi
reputation to have arisen from David's good act In
burying the dead even of his enemies.

SALUTATION
Shallum, the father of Hilkiah and ancestor of
Ezra (1 Esdr. viii. 1; Comp. Ezr. vii. 2). Called
also Sadamlas and Sadom.
SALUTATION. Salutations may be classed
under the two heads of conversational and epistolary.
The salutation at meeting consisted in early times
of various expressions of blessing, such as " God be
gracious unto thee" (Gen. xliii. 29); "Blessed be
thou of the Lord " (Ruth iii. 10; 1 Sam. xv. 13);
" The Lord be with you," " The Lord bless thee "
(Ruth ii. 4); " The blessing of the Lord be upon
you; we bless you in the name of the Lord" (Ps.
cxxix. 8). Hence the term "bless" received the
secondary sense of ".salute," and is occasionally so
rendered in the A. V. (1 Sam. xiii. 10, xxv. 14;
2 K. iv. 29, X. 15), though not so frequently as it
might have been (e. g. Gen. xxvii. 23, xlvii. 7, 10 ;
1 K. viii. 66). The blessing was sometimes ac
companied with inquiries as to the health either of
the person addressed or his relations. The Hebrew
term used in these instances (shaldma) has no
special reference to " peace," as stated in the mar
ginal translation, but to general well-being, and
strictly answers to our " welfare," as given in the
text (Gen. xhii. 27; Ex. xviii. 7). It is used not
only in the case of salutation (in which sense it is
frequently rendered " to salute," e. g. Judg. xviii.
15 ; 1 Sam. x. 4 ; 2 K. x. 13 ) ; but also in other
cases where it is designed to soothe or to encourage
a person (Gen. xliii. 23; Judg. vi. 23, xix. 20;
1 Chr. xii. 18; Dan. x. 19; compare 1 Sara. xx.
21, where it is opposed to "hurt;" 2 Sam. xviii.
28, "all is well;" and 2 Sam. xi. 7, where it is
applied to the progress of the war). Tbe saluta
tion at parting consisted origuially of a simple bless
ing (Gen. xxiv. 60, xxviii. 1, xlvii. 10; Josh. xxii.
6), but in later times the term shdloin was intro
duced here also in the form " Go in peace," or
rather " Farewell" (1 Sam. i. 17, xx. 42; 2 Sam.
IV. 9). This* was current at the time of our
Saviour's ministry (Mark v. 34; Luke vii. 50;
Acts xvi. 36), and is adopted by Him in his parting
address to his disciples (John xiv. 27). It had
even passed into a salutation on meeting, in such
forms as "Peace be to this house" (Luke x. 6),
"Peace be unto you" (Luke xxiv. 36; John xx.
19). The more common salutation, however, at
this period was borrowed from the Greeks, their
word yalpitv being used both at meeting (Matt.
xxvi. 49, xxviii. 9; Luke i. 28), and probably also
at departure. In modern times the ordinary mode
of address current in the East resembles the He
brew: Es-seldm aleykum, "Peace be on you"
(Lane's Mod. Eg. ii. 7), and the term "salam"
has been introduced into our own language to de
scribe the Oriental salutation.
The forms of greeting that we have noticed
were freely exchanged among persons of difi'erent
ranks on the occasion of a casual meeting, and this
even when they were strangers. Thus Boaz ex
changed greeting with his reapers (Ruth ii. 4), the
traveller on the road saluted the worker in the
field (Ps. cxxix. 8), and members of the same fam-
ly interchanged greetings on rising in the morn
ing (Prov. xxvii. 14). The only restriction ap
pears to have been in regard to religion, the Jew
of old, as the Mohammedan of the present day,

SAMAEL

2795

b The Greek expression is evidently borrowed from
lie Hebrew, the preposition «; not betokening

paying the compliment only to those whom he con..
sidered " brethren," i. e. members of the same re
ligious community (Matt. v. 47; Lane, ii. 8; Nie
buhr, Descript. p. 43). Even the Apostle St
John forbids an interchange of greeting where it
implied a wish for the success of a bad cause
(2 John 11). In modern times the Orientals ar«
famed for the elabor.ite formality of their greetings,
which occupy a very considerable time; the in
stances given in the Bible do not bear such a char
acter, and therefore the prohibition addressed to
persons engaged in urgent business, " Salute no
man by the way " (2 K. iv. 29 ; Luke x. 4), may
best be referred to the delay likely to ensue from
subsequent conversation. Among the Persians the
monarch was never approached without the salu
tation " 0 king! live ifbr ever" (Dan. ii. 4, &c.).
There is no evidence that this ever became cur
rent among the Jews : the expression in 1 K. i. 31
was elicited by the previous allusion on the part of
David to his own decease. In lieu of it we meet
with the Greek x^'Pfi "hail! " (Matt, xxvii. 29).
The act of salutation was accompanied with a va
riety of gestures expressive of diff'erent degrees of
humiliation, and sometimes with a kiss. [Adora
tion; Kiss.] These acts involved the necessity
of dismounting in case a person were riduig or
driving (Gen. xxiv. 64; 1 Sam. xxv. 23; 2 K. v.
21). The same custom still prevails in the East
(Nlebuhr's Descripl. p. 39).
The epistolary salutations in the period subse
quent to the 0. T. were framed on the model of
the Latin style : the addition of the term " peace "
may, however, be regarded as a vestige of the old
Hebrew form (2 Mace. i. 1). The writer placed
his own name first, and then that of the person
whom he saluted; it was only in special cases that
this order was reversed (2 Mace. i. 1, ix. 19;
1 Esdr. vi. 7). A combination of tbe first and
third persons in 'the terms of the salutation was not
unfrequent (Gal. i. 1, 2; Philem. 1; 2 Pet. i. 1).
The term used (either expressed or understood) in
the introductory salutation was the Greek ^atpetv
in an elliptical construction (1 Mace. x. 13 ; 2 Mace.
ix. 19 ; 1 Esdr. viii. 9 ; Acts xxiii. 26) ; this, however,
was more frequently omitted, and the only Apos
tolic passages in which it occurs are Acts xv. 23
and James i. 1, a coincidence which renders it
probable that St. James composed the letter in
the former passage. A form of prayer for spiritual
mercies was also used, consisting generally of the
terms "grace and peace," but in the three Pastoral
Epistles and in 2 John "grace, mercy, and peace,"
and in Jude "mercy, peace, and love." The con
cluding salutation consisted occasionally of a trans
lation of the Latin valete (Acts xv. 29, xxiii. 30),
but more generally of the term oLtr-Kd^ofiai, " 1
salute," or the cognate substantive, accompanied by
a prayer for {leace or grace. St. Paul, who availed
himself of an amanuensis (Rom. xvi. 22), added
the salutation with his own hand (1 Cor. xvi.
21; Col. iv. 18; 2 Thes. iii. 17). The omis
sion of the introductory salutation in the Epistle
to the Hebrews is very noticeable. W. L. B.
SAM'AEL (2oA.a/»i^A; [Sm. :Sapapiri\; Aid
2apaii\:] Salathiel), a variation for (margin)

the state into which, but answering to the Bebreit
y, in which the person departs.

2796

SAMAIAS

Salamiel [Shklubiiel] in Jud. viii. 1 (comp. Num.
i. 6). The form in A. V. is given by Aldus.
B. F. W.
SAMAFAS [3 syl.] (5a/ia/os: Semeias). 1.
Shemaiah tbe Levite in the reign of Josiah (1
Esdr. i. 9; comp. 2 Chr. xxxv. 9).
2. ShexialiVH of the sons of Adonikam (1 Esdr.
viii. 39; comp. Ezr. viii. 13).
3. (2ejU6t; [Vat. Se/teas; Sin. ^efj.e\iasi Aid.
%afiaias\] Alex. -S,e/x€ias- om. in Vulg.) The
"great Samaias," father of Ananias and Jonathaa
(Tob. V. 13).
SAMA'BIA (]'1">P2?, i. e. Shomeron [see
below]; Chald. ]^1ipK7 : 2a/A({peta, 'SefA-npc^u,
^OfiSpojv;^ [Alex, very often 'S.ajxapia^ and so Sin.
or FA. in Is., Jer., Obad.; Sin. -p^ia in Jud. i. 9,
Lv. 4;] Joseph, '^afj.dpeta, but Ant. viii. 12, § 5,
"Zefiapec^u. Samaria). 1. A city of Palestine,
The word (S/iomeron means, etymologically, "per
taining to a watch," or "a watch-mountain; " and
we should almost be inclined to think that the
peculiarity of the situation of Samaria gave occa
sion to its name. In the territory originally be
longing to the tribe of Joseph, about six miles to
the northwest of Shechem, there is a wide basin-
shaped valley, encircled with high hills, almost on
the edge of the great plain which borders upon the
Mediterranean. In the'centre of this basin, which
is on a lower level than the valley of Shechem,
rises a less elevated oblong hill, with steep yet
accessible sides, and a long flat top. This hill was
chosen by Omri, as the site of the capital of the
kingdom of Israel. The first capital after the seces
sion of the ten tribes had been Shechem itself,
whither all Israel had come to raake Hehoboam
king. On the separation being fully accomplished,
Jeroboam rebuilt that city (1 K. xii. 25), which
had been razed to the ground by Abimelech (Judg.
ix. 45). But he soon moved to Tirzah, a place, as
Dr. Stanley obseiTCs, of great and proverbial beauty
(Cant. vi. 4); which continued to be the royal resi
dence until Zimri burnt the palace and perished
in its ruins (1 K. xiv. 17, xv. 21, 33, xvi. 6-18).
Omri, who prevailed in the contest for the kingdom
that ensued, after "reigning six years" there,
"bought the hill of Samaria (linptt? ^'HJ^'- rh
6pos Th ^£fi7}p(£ty) of Shemer O^??: Se/i^p,
Joseph. 'Ze/j.apos) for two talents' of silver, and built
on the hill, and called the name of the city which
he built, after the name of the owner of the hill,
Samaria" (1 K. xvi. 23, 24). [Omri, Amer. ed.]
This statement of course dispenses with the ety
mology above alluded to; but the central position
of the hill, as Herod sagaciously observed long
afterwards, made it admirably adapted for a place
of observation, and a fortress to awe the neighbor
ing country. And the singular beauty of the spot,
upon which, to this hour, travellers dwell with
admiration, may have struck Omri, as it afterwards
struck the tasteful Idumean (B. J. i. 21, § 2; Ant.
XV. 8, § 5).
From the date of Omri's purchase, b. c. 925,
Samaria retained its dignity as the capital of the

SAMARIA
ten tribes. Ahab built a temple to Baal then
(1 K. xvi. 32, 33); and from this circumstance
portion of the city, possibly fortified by a separate
wall, was called "the city of the house of Baal"
(2 K. X. 25). Samaria must have been a place
of great strength. It was twice besieged by the
Syrians, in b. c. 901 (1 K. xx. 1), and in b. c. 892
(2 K. vi. 24-\ii. 20); but on both occasions thf
siege was ineffectual. On the latter, indeed, il
was relieved miraculously, but net until the inhab
itants had suffered almost incredible hon'ors from
famine during their protracted resistance. The
possessor of Samaria was considered to be de facto
king of Israel (2 K. xv. 13, 14); and woes de
nounced against the nation were directed against
it by name (Is- vii. 9, &c.). In b. v;. 721, Sama
ria was taken, after a siege of three j'ears, by Shal-
maneser, king of Assyria (2 K. xviii. 9, 10), aud
the kingdom of the ten tribes was put an end to.
[See below, No. 3.] Some years afterwards the
district of which Samaria was the centre was re-
peopled by Esarhaddon ; but we do not hear espe
cially of the city until the days of Alexander the
Great. That conqueror took the city, which seems
to have somewhat recovered itself (Euseb. Chron.
ad ann. Abr. 1684), killed a large portion of the
inhabitants, and sirfifered the remainder to settle
at Shechem. [Shechem; Sychar.] He replaced
them by a colony of Syro-JIacedonians, and gave
the adjacent territory (Sa/zaperris x^'P") *° ^^^
Jews to inhabit (Joseph, c. Ap. ii. 4). These
Syro-Macedonians occupied the city until the time
of John Hyrcanus. It was then a place of con
siderable importance, for Josephus describes it (Ani.
xiii. 10, § 2) as a very strong city (ttSKis oxvpo)-
rdTTj)- John Hyrcanus took it after a year's siege,
and did his best to demolish it entirely. He inter
sected the hill on which it lay with trenches : into
these he conducted the natural brooks, and thus
undermined its foundations. "In fact," says the
Jewish historian, " he took away all evidence of
the very existence of the city." This story at first
sight seems rather exaggerated, and inconsistent
with the hilly site of Samaria. It may have
referred only to the suburbs lying at ite foot.
"But," says Prideaux (Conn. b. c. 109, note),
" Benjamin of Tudela, who was in the place, tells
us in his Itinerary ^ that there were upon the top
of this hiU many fountains of water, and from
these water enough may have been derived to fill
these trenches." It should also be recollected that
the hill of Samaria was lower than the hills in its
neighborhood. This may account for the existence
of these springs. Josephus describes the extrem
ities to which the inhabitants were reduced duiing
this si^e, much in the same way that the author
of the Book of Kings does during that pf Ben
hadad (comp. Ani. xiii. 10, § 2, with 2 K. vi. 25).
John Hyrcanus' reasons for attacking Samaria were
the injuries which its inhabitants had done to the
people of Marissa, colonists and allies of the Jews
This confirms what was said above, of tiie cession
of the ' Samaritan neighborhood to the Jews ) j
Alexander tbe Great.
After this disaster (which occurred in b. c. 109),
the Jews inhabited what remained of the city; ai

" The prevailing LXX. form in the 0. T. is 2aju,o-
seia, with the following remarkable exceptions : 1 K.
tri. 24, l^fieptov . . . J,efJufipi!}V (Mai, Sa/xijpui/) ;
tAlex "Eiieptav . . SofiTipa)!/ ;] Ear. iv. 10, 2oft6-

ptov (Mai, J.bifL(optav)] Neh. iv. 2; Is. vii. 9, So^w-
pov. b No such passage, however, now exists in Be^ja
min of Tulela. See the editions of Asher and o(
L'Ahn.

SAMARIA
least we find it in their possession in the time of
Alexander Jannaius (Ant. xiii. 15, § 4), and until
Pompey gave it back to the descendants of its
original inhabitants (to7s oiK^TOpirtv). These
olxiiTopes may possibly have been the Syro-Mace
donians, but it is more probable that they were
Samaritans proper, whose ancestors had been dis
possessed by the colonists of Alexander the Great.
By directions of Gabinius, Samaria and other de
molished cities were rebuilt (Ant. xiv. 5, § 3). But
its more effectual rebuilding was undertaken by
Herod the Great, to whom it had been granted by
Augustus, on the death of Antony and Cleopatra
(Ani. xiii. 10, § 3, xv. 8, § 5; B.J. i. 20, § 3).
He called it Sebaste, 2e;3ao-T^ = Augusta, after
the name of his pati'on (Ant. xv. 7, § 7). .Josephus
gives an elaborate description of Herod's improve
ments. The wall surrounding it was 20 stadia in
length. In the middle of it was a close, of a
stadium and a half square, containing a mag-

SAMAEIA 2797
nilicent temple, dedicated to the Caesar. It wa«
colonized hy 6,000 veterans and others, for whose
support a most beautiful and rich district surround
ing tho city was appropriated. Herod's motives
in these arrangements were probably, first, the
occupation of a commanding position, and then
the desire of distinguishing himself for taste by
the embellishment of a spot already so adorned
by nature (Ant. xv. 8, § 5; B. J. i. 20, § 3; 21,
§2). How long Samaria maintained its splendor after
Herod's improvements we are not informed. In
the N. T. the city itself does not appear to be
mentioned, but rather a portion of Ihe dislrict to
which, even in older times, it had extended its
name. Our Version, indeed, of Acts viii. 5 says
that Philip the deacon " went down to the city of
Samaria; " but the Greek of the passage is simply
els ¦ir6xiv Tijs Sapapeias. And we may fairly
argue, both from the absence of the definite article,

^^

ah'',.

Vr i *¦

hv?'

"^-^r

"-• ¦¦» '^%ft'''--'^-f-^.~s'-'

:^^^

¦.9ft'''

* *

^¦* '

•^"^rt^

Sebust\yeh, the ancient Samabia, from the E. N. B.
Behind the city are the mountains of Ephraiin, verging on tho Plain of Sharon. Tho .Mediterranean Sea is
in the furthest disfcmce.a The original sketch from which this view is taken was made by William Tipping,
Esq., in 1842, and is engraved by his kind permission. (Dlpian, Leg. I. de Censihus, quoted by Dr. Rob-

and from the probability that, had the city Samaria
been intended, the term employed wonld have been
Sebaste, that some one city of the district, the
name of which is not specified, was in the mind
of the writer. In verse 9 of the same chapter
"the people of Samaria" represents ri tBvos -rns
Sttfmpeias; and tbe phrase in verse 25, "many
tillages of the Samaritans," shows that the opera-
^ions of evangelizing" were not confined to the city
)f Samaria itself, if they were ever carried on
¦here. Comp. Matt. i. 5, " Into any city of the
Samaritans enter ye not; " and John iv. 4, 5,
where, after it has been said, "And He must needs
go through Samaria," obviously the district, it is
subjoined, " Then cometh He to a city of Samaria
failed Sychar." Henceforth its history is very un-
20nnected. Septimius Severus planted a Roman
colony there in the beginning of the third century

a • The sea it visl")le with the naked eye from the
up of the bill. H.

in.son). "S^arious specimens of coins struck on the
spot have been preserved, extending from Nero to
Geta, the brother of Caracalla (Vaillant, in JVa-
mism. Imper., and Noris, quoted by Reland ). But,
though the seat of a Roman colony, it could not
have been a place of much political importance.
We find in the Codex of Theodosius, that by A. D.
409 the Holy Land had been divided into Palsestina
Prima, Secunda, and Tertia. Patestina Prima
included the country of the Philistines, Samaria
(the district), and the northern part of .Judaia;
but its capital was not Sebaste, but Coesarea. In
an ecclesiastical point of view it stood rather higher.
It was an episcopal see probably as early as the
third century. At any rate its bishop was present
amongst those of Palestine at the Council of Nicsea,
A. D. 325, and subscribed its acts as " Maximua
(al. Marinus) Sebastenus." The names of some
of his successors have been preserved — tbe latest
of them mentioned is Pelagius, who attended tht

2798

SAMAKIA

Synod at Jerusalem, A. d. 536. The title of the
¦ee occurs in the earlier Greek Notitice, and in
the later Latin ones (Reland, Pal. pp. 214-229).
Sebaste fell into the hands of the Mohammedans
during the siege of Jerusalem. In the course of
the Crusades a Latin bishopric was established
there, the title of which was recognized by the
Roman Church until the fourteenth century. At
this day the city of Omri and of Herod is rep
resented by a small village retaining few vestiges
of the past except its name, SebHstieh, an Arabic
corruption of Sebaste. Some architectural remains
it has, partly of Christian construction or adapta
tion, as the mined church of St. John the Baptist,
partly, perhaps, traces of Idumsan magnificence.
" A long avenue of broken pillars (says Dr. Stan
ley), apparently the main street of Herod's city,
here, as at Palmyra and Damascus, adorned by a
colonnade on each side, still lines the topmost ter
race of the hill." But the fragmentary aspect of
the whole place exhibits a present fulfillment of the
prophecy of Micah (i. 6), though it may have been
ftilfilled more than once previously by the ravages
of Shalmaneser or of Jobn Hyrcanus. "I will
make Samaria as an heap of the field, and as
plantings of a vineyard : and I will pour down the
stones thereof into the valley, and I will discover
the foundations thereof" (Mic. i. 6; comp. Hos.
xiii. 16).
St. Jerome, whose acquaintance with Palestine
imparts a sort of probability to the tradition which
prevailed so strongly in later days, asserts 'hat
Sebaste, which he invariably identifies with Samaria,
was the place in which St. John the Baptist was
imprisoned and suffered death. He also makes it
the burial-place of the prophets Elisha and Obadiah
(see various passages cited by Reland, pp. 980, 981).
Epiphanins is at great pains, in his work Adv.
Bcereses (lib. i.), in which he treats of the heresies
of the Samaritans with singular minuteness, to
account for the origin of their name. He inter
prets it as D^"1J?tr, ^ixaxes, or "keepers." The
hill on which the city was built was, he says,
designated Somer or Someion (2m/i^p, Soj/iSpav),
from a certain Somoron the son of Somer, whom
he considers to have been of the stock of tbe an
cient Perizzites or Girgashites, themselves descend
ants of Canaan and Ham. But he adds, the
inhabitants may have been called Samaritans from
their guarding the land, or (coming down much
later in their history) from their guarding the Law,
as distinguished from the later writings of the
Jewish Canon, which they refused to allow. [See
Samaeitaks.] For modern descriptions of the condition of Sa
maria and its neighborhood, see Dr. Robinson's
Biblical Researches, ii. 127-133; Reland's Palces-
tina, pp. 344, 979-982; Raumer's Paldstina, pp.
144-148, notes ; Van de Velde's Syria and Pales
tine, i. 363-388, and ii. 295, 296, Map, and Me
moir ; Dr. Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, pp.
242-24G ; and a short article by Mr. G. Williams
in the Did. of Geog, Dr. Kitto, in his Physical
History of Palestine, pp. cxvii., cxviii., has an in-
'eresting reference to and extract from Sandys,
illustrative of its topography and general aspect at
the commencement of the seventeenth century.
2. The Samaria named in the present text of
1 Mace. V. 66 (r^u ^apapetav: [Sin. Alex, -piav:]
Samariam) is evidently an error. At any rate
the well-known Samaria of the Old and New Tes-

SAMAEIA
laments cannot be intended, for il is obvious thit
Judas, in passing from Hebron lo the land of tlie
Philistines (Azotus), could not make so immense a
detour. The true correction is doubtless supplied
by Josephus (Ant. xii. 8, § 6), who has Marissa
(i. e. Mares HA), a place which lay in the road
from Hebron to the Philistine Plain. One of tht
ancient Latin Versions exhibits the same reading;
which is accepted by Ewald (Uesch. iv. 361) and a
host of commentators (see Grimm, Kurzg. Exeg.
Handb., on the passage). Drusius proposed Sha-
araim ; but this is hardly so feasible as Maresha
and has no external support.
3. Sama'kia ([Sajiiapela; Alex, very often 2a«
napia, and so Sin. in 1 Mace, and N. T., followed
by Thich. in his 8th ed. of the N. T.;— "the
country of Samaria," 1 Mace. x. 30, xi. 28, 34, t)
-Zapape-iTts, -ilex, -pins, and so Sin. except 1
Mace. xi. 28; — (woman) "of Samaria," John iv.
9, SapapeiTis, but Tisch. in his 8th ed. of the N.
T., Xafiap'iTis; — ] Joseph. x'^P" SafiapeaV, Ptol.
2o/iapi5, ^a/juipeia: Samaria).
Samar'itans (D^pnntt? : ^aiiapeiTai; [Alex.
Sa/xapiTai, and so Sin. and Tfcch. (Sth ed.) in
the N. T.;] Joseph, ^apapeis: [SamariUB]).
I'here are few questions in Biblical philology
upon which, in recent times, scholars have come to
such opposite conclusions as the extent of the terri
tory to which tbe former of these words is applica
ble, and the origin of the people to which the latter
is applied in the N. T. But a probable solution of
them may be gained by careful attention to the
historical statements of Holy Scripture and of Jo
sephus, and by a consideration of the geographical
features of Palestine.
In the strictest sense of the term, a Samabitah
would be an inhabitant of the rily of Samaria
But it is not found at all in this sense, exclusively
at any rate, in the O. T. In fact, it only occurs
there once, and then in a wider signification, in
2 K. xvii. 29. There it is employed to designate '
those whom tbe king of Assyria had " placed in
(what are called) the rilies of Samaria (whatever
these may be) instead of the children of Israel."
Were the word Samaritan found elsewhere in the
0. T., it would have designated those who be-
longed to the kingdom of the ten tribes, which in
a large sense was called Samaria. And as the ex
tent of that kingdom varied, which it did very
much, gradually diminishing lo the lime of Shal
maneser, so the extent of the word Samaritan would
have varied.
Samaria at first included all the tribes over
which Jeroboam made himself king, whether east
or west of the river Jordan. Hence, even before
the city of Samaria existed, we find the "nld
prophet who dwelt at Bethel " describing the pre
dictions of " the man of God who came from
Judah," in reference to the altar at Bethel, aa
directed not merely against that altar, but
" against all the houses of the high-places which
are in the cities of Samaria " (1 K. xiii. 32), i e.
of course, the cities of which Samaria was, or was
to be, the head or capital. In other places in the
historical books of the 0. T. (with the exception
of 2 K. xvii. 24, 26, 28, 29) Samaria seems to
denote the city exclusively. But the prophets use
the word, much as did the old prophet of Bethd,
in a greatly extended sense. Thus the " calf of
Bethel " is called by Hosea (viii. 5, 6) the "caU
of Samaria " ; in Amos (iii. 9) the " mouniains ol

SAMARIA
Samaria" are spoken of; and the *' captivity of
Samaria and her daughters " is a phrase found in
Ezekiel (xvi. 53). Hence the word Samaritan
must have denoted every one subject to the king of
the northern capital.
But, whatei'er extent the word might have ac
quired, it necessarily became contracted as the
limits of the kingdom of Israel became contracted.
In all probability the territory of Simeon and that
of Dan were very early absorbed in the kingdom of
Judah. This would be one limitation. Next, in
B. c. 771 and 740 respectively, *' Ful, king of As
syria, and Tilgath-Pilneser, king of Assyria, carried
away the Reubenites and the Gadites, and the half-
tribe of Manasseh, and brought thera luito Halah,
and Habor, and Hara. and to the river Gozan "
(1 Chr. V. 26). This would be a second limitation.
But the latter of these kings went further: "He
took Ijon, and Abel-beth-maachah, and Janoah, and
Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all
the land of Naphtali. and cairied them captive to
Assyria" (2 K. xv. 29). This would be a third
limitation. Nearly a century before, B. c. 860,
*' the Lord had begun to cut Israel short;" for
" Hazael, king of Syria, smote them in all the
coasts of Israel; from Jordan eastward, all the land
of Gilead, the Gadites, and the Keubenites, and the
Manassites, from Aroer, which is by the river Ar
non, eveu Gilead and Bashan " (2 K. jl. 32, 33).
This, however, as we may conjecture from the di
versity of expression, had been merely a, passing
inroad, and had involved no pennanent subjection
of the country or deportation of its inhabitants.
The invasions of Pul and of Tilgath-pilneser were
utter clearances of the population. The territory
thus desolated by them was probably occupied by
degrees by the pushing forward of the neighboring
heathen, or by straggling families of the Israelites
themselves. In reference to the northern part of
GaUlee we know that a heathen population pre
vailed. Hence the phrase " Galilee of the Na
tions," or " Gentiles " (Is. ix. 1; 1 Mace v. 15).
And no doubt this was the case also beyond Jor
dan, But we have yet to arrive at a fourth limitation
of the kingdom of Samaria, and by consequence, of
the word Samaritan. It is evident from an occur
rence in Hezekiah's reign, that just before the dep
osition and death of lloshea, the last king of Is
rael, the authority of the king of Judah, or, at
least, his influence, was recognized by portions of
Asher, Issachar, and Zebulun, and even of Ephraim
and Manasseh (2 Chr. xxx. 1-26). Men came
from all those tribes to the Passover at Jerusalem.
This was about b. c. 726, In fact, to sucli miser-
alile limits had the kingdom of Samaria been re
duced, that when, two or three years afterwards,
we are told that " Shalmaneser came up through
out the land,'* and after a siege of three years
" took Samaria, and earned Israel away into As
syria, and placed them in Haliih, and in Habor by
the river Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes"
(2 K. xvii, 5, 6), and when again we are told that
" Isi-ael was carrietl away out of their own land
hito Assyria" (2 K. xvii. 23), we must suppose a
(ery small field of operations. Samaria (the city),
md a few adjacent cities or villages only, repre-
Bented that dominion which had once extended
from Bethel to Dan northwards, and from the
Mediterranean to the borders of Syria and Ani-
•non eastwards. This is further confirmed by
irhat we read of Josiah's progress, in b. c. 6-il,

SAMARIA

2799

through " the cities of Manasseh, and Ephraim,
and Simeon, even unto Naphtali " (2 Chr. xxxiv.
6). Such a progress would have been impractica
ble had the nuraber of cities and villages occupied
by the persons then called Samaritans been at ab
large. This, however, brings us more closely to the
second point of our discussion, the origin of those
who are in 2 K. xvii. 29, and in the N. T., called
Samaritans. Shahnaneser, as we have seen (2 K.
xvii. 5, 6, 26), carried Israel, i. e. the remnant of
the ten tribes which still acknowledged Hoshea^s
authority, into Assyria. This remnant consisted,
as has been shown, of Samaria (the city) and a
few adjacent cities and villages. Now. 1. Did he
carry away all their hihabitants or no? 2.
Whether they were wholly or only partially des •
olated, who replaced the deported population V
On the answer to these inquiries will depend our
determination of the questions, were the Samari
tans a mixed race, composed partly of Jews, partly
of new settlers, or were they purely of foreign ex
traction V
In reference to the forraer of these inquiries, it
may be observed that the language of Scripture
admits of scarcely a doubt. " Israel was carried
away " (2 K. xvii. 6, 23), and other nations were
placed " in the cities of Samaria instead of the
children of Israel" (2 K. xvii. 24). There is no
mention whatever, as in the case of the somewhat
parallel destruction of the kingdom of Judah, oi
" the poor of the land being left to be vine-dressers
and husbandmen " (2 K. xxv. 12). We add, that,
had any been left, it would have been impossible
for the new inhabitants to have been so utterly
unable to acquaint themselves with " the manner
of the God of the land," as to require to be taught
by some priest of the Captivity sent from the king
of Assyria. Besides, it was not an unusual thing
with oriental conquerors actually to exhaust a land
of its inhabitants. Comp. Herod, iii. 149, " The
Persians dragged (a-ayrji'Gva'avres) Samos, and
delivered it up to Syloson stript of all its men; "
and, again, Herod, vi. 31, for the application of
the same treatment to other islands, where the
process called aayTjusuen/ is described, and is com
pared to a hunting out of the population (iKdTjpe^
etv). Such a capture is presently contrasted with
the capture of other territories to which a-ayTjy^^r-
€iv was not applied. Josephus's phrase in refer
ence to the cities of Samaria is that Shalmaneser
"transplanted all the people" (Ant. ix. 14, § 1).
A threat against Jerusalem, which was indeed only
partially carried out, shows how complete and sum
mary the desolation of the last relics of the sister
kingdom must have been: "I will stretch over
Jerusalem the line of Samaria, and the plummet
of the house of Ahab : and I will wipe Jerusalem
as a man wipeth a dish : he wipeth and turneth it
upon the face thereof" (2 K. xxi. 13). This was
uttered within forty years after b. c. 721, during
the reign of Manasseh. It must have derived
much strength from the recentness and proximity
of the calamity.
We may then conclude that the cities of Samii-
ria were not merely partially, but wholly evacuated
of their inhabitants in b. c. 721, and that they re
mained in this desolated state until, in tbe words
of 2 K. xvii. 24, " the king of Assyria broughi
men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from
Ava (Ivah, 2 K. xviii. 34), and from Hamath. and
from Sepharvaira, and placed them in the cities ol

2800

SAMAKIA

Samaria instead of the children of Israel: and they
possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof."
Thus the new Samaritans — for such we must now
call them — were Assyrians by birth or subjuga-
tion, were utterly strangers in the cities of Sama
ria, and were exclusively the inh.ibitanls of those
cities. An ' incidental question, however, arises.
Who was the king of Assyria that effected this
colonization ? At first sight, one would suppose
Shalmaneser; for the narrative is scarcely broken,
and the repeopling seems to be a natural sequence
of the depopulation. Such would appear to have
been Josephus' view, for he says of Shalmaneser,
" When he had removed the people out of their
land, he brought other nations out of Cuthab, a
place so called (for there is still in Persia a river
of that name), into Samaria and the country of
the Israelites" (Ani. ix. 14, §§ 1, 3; x. 9, § 7);
but he must have been led to this interiiretation
simply hy the juxtaposition ofthe two transactions
in the Hebrew text. The Samaritans themselves,
in Ezr. iv. 2, 10, attributed their colonization not
. to Shalmaneser, but to " Esar-haddon, king of As-
Bur," or to " the great aud noble Asnapper," either
the king himself or one of his generals. It was
probably on his invasion of Judah, in the reign of
Manasseh, about B. c. G77, that Esarhaddon dis
covered the impohcy of learing a tract upon the
very frontiers of that kingdom thus desolate, and
determhied to garrison it with foreigners. The
fact, too, that some of these foreigners came from
Babylon would seem to direct us to Esarhaddon,
rather (ban to his grandfather, Shalmaneser. It
was only recently that Babylon had come into the
hands of the Assyrian king. And there is an
other reason why this date should be preferred. It
coincides with the termination of the sixty-five years
of Isaiah's prophecy, delivered B. c. 742, within
which •' Ephraira should be broken that it should
not be a people " (Is. vii. 8). This was not effect
ually accomplished until the very land itself was
occupied by strangers. So long as this had not
taken place, there might be hope of return : after it
had taken place, no hope. Josephus (Ant. x. 9, § 7)
expressly notices this difference in the cases of the
ten and of the two tribes. The land of the former
became tbe possession of foreigners, the land of the
latter, not so.
These strangers, whom we will now assume to
have been placed in " the cities of Samaria " by
Esarhaddon, were of course idolaters, and wor
shipped -A strange medley of divinities. Each of
the five nations, says Josephus, who is confirmed
by the words of Scripture, had its own god. No
place was found for the worship of Him who had
once called the land his own, and whose it was
still. God's displeasure was kindled, and they were
infested by beasts of prey, which had probably
increased to a great extent before their entrance
upon it. " The Lord sent lions among them, which
slew some of tliem." On their explaining their
miserable condition to the king of Assyria, he de-
ipatched one of the captive priests to teach them
"how they should fear the Lord." The priest
came accordingly, and henceforth, in the language
of the sacred historian, they " feared the Lord, and
served their graven im.iges, both their children and
their children's children: as did their fatliers, so
do they unto this day " (2 K. xvii. 41). This last
«entcnce was probably inserted by Ezra. It serves
two purposes: 1st, to qualify the pretensions of the
Baniaritans of Ezra's time to be pure worshippers

SAMAKIA
of God — they were no more exclusively bis nt.
vants, than was the Homan emperor who desired
to place a statue of Christ in the Pantheon enti
tled to be called a Christian; and, 2dly, lo show
how entirely the Samaritans of later days differed
from their ancestors in respect to idolatry. Jose
phus's account of the distress of the Samaritans,
and of the remedy for it, is very similar, with the
exception that with him they are afflicted with
pestilence. Such was the origin of the post^caplivity or new
Samaritans — men not of Jewish extraction, but
from the further East: "tbe Cuthteaiis had for
merly belonged to the inner parts of Persia and
Media, but were then called ' Samaritans,' taking
the name of the country to which tbey were re
moved," says Josephus (Ant. x. 9, § 7). And
again he says (Ant. ix. 14, § 3) they are called "in
Hebrew 'Cuthasans,' but in Greek 'Samaritans.'"
Our Lord expressly terms them a\\oy€ve7s (Luk«
xvii. 18); and Josephus' whole account of them
shows that he believed them to have been jucVoiKei
aWoeOj/eis, though, as he tells us in two places
(Ant. ix. 14. § 3, and xi. 8, § 6), they sometimes
gave a different account of their origin. But of
this by-and-by. A gap occurs in their histoiy
untU Judah has returned from captivity. They
then desire to be allowed to participate in the re
building of the Temple at Jerusalem. It is curi
ous, and perhaps indicative of the treacherous
character of their designs, to find them even then
called, by anticipation, " the adversaries of Judah
and Benjamin" (Ezr. iv. 1), a title which they
afterwards fully justified. Bnt, so far as profes
sions go, they are not enemies; they are most
anxious to be friends. 'Ibeir religion, they assert,
is the same as that of the two tribes, therefore
they have a right to share in that great religious
undertaking. But they do not call it a national
undertaking. They advance no pretensions to Jew
ish blood. They confess their Assyrian descent,
and even put it forward ostentatiously, [lerhaps to
enhance the merit of llieir partial conversion to
God. That it was but partial they give no hint.
It may have become purer already, but we have no
information that it had. Be tliis, however, as it
may, the Jews do not listen favorably to their over
tures. Ezra, no doubt, from whose pen we have a
record of the transaction, saw them through and
through. On this the Samaritans throw off the
mask, and become open enemies, frustrate the
operations of the Jews through the reigns of two
Peraian kings, and are only effectually silenced in
the reign of Darius Hystaspis, B. c. 519.
The feud, thus unhappily begun, grew year by
year more inveterate. It is probable, too, that ths
more the Samaritans detaclied themselves from
idols, and became devoted exclusively to a sort of
worship of Jehovah, the more they resented tht
contempt with which the Jews treated their offeit
of fraternization. Matters at length came to »
climax. About b. c. 409, a certain Manasseh, a
man of priestly lineage, on being expelled ftoir
Jerusalem by Nehemiah for an unlawful marriage.
obtained permission from the Persian king of hii
day, Darius Nothus, to build a temple on Mouni
Gerizim, for the Samaritans, with whom he hac
found refuge. The only thing wanted to crystal
lize the opposition between the two races, namely.
a rallying point for schismatical worship, being
now obtained, their animosity became more intense
than ever. The Samaritans are said to have dou

SAMARIA
sverything in their power to annoy the Jews.
They would refuse hospitality to pilgrims on their
road to Jerusalem, as in our Lord's case. They
would even waylay them in their journey (Joseph.
Ant. XX. 6, § 1); and raany were compelled through
fear to take the longer route by the east of Jordan.
Certain Samaritans were said to have once pene
trated into the Temple of Jerusalem, and to have
defiled it by scattering dead men's bones on the
sacred pavement (Ani. xviii. 2, § 2). We are told
too of a strangp piece of mockery which must have
been especially resented. It was the custom of tho
Jews to communicate to their brethren still hi
Babylon the exact day and hour of the rising of
the paschal moon, by beacon-fires commenchig from
Mount Olivet, and flashing forward from hill to
hill until they were mirrored in the Euphrates.
So the Greek poet represents Agamemnon as con
veying the news of IVoy's capture to the anxious
watchers at Mycen^E. Those who '' sat by the
waters of Babylon" looked for this signal with
much interest. It enabled them to share in the
devotions of those who were in their father-land,
and it proved to thera that they were not forgotten.
' The Samaritans thought scorn of these feelings,
and would not unfrequentiy deceive and disappoint
them, by kindling a rival flame and perplexing tbe
watchers on the mountains." Their own temple
on Gerizim they considered to be much superior to
that at Jerusalem. There they sacrificed a pass-
over. Towards the moun"tain, even after the tem
ple on it had fallen, wherever they were, they
dh'ected their worship. To their copy of the Law
they arrogated an antiquity and authority greater
than attached to any copy in the possession of the
Jews. The Law (i. e. the five books of Moses)
was their sole code ; for they rejected every other
book in the Jewish canon. And they professed to
observe it better than did the Jews themselves,
employing the expression not unfrequentiy, « The
Jews indeed do so and so ; but we, observing the
letter of the Law, do otherwise."
The Jews, on the other hand, were sot more
¦ conciliatory in their treatment of the Samaritans.
The copy of the Law possessed by that people they
declared to be the legacy of an apostate (Manasseh),
and cast grave suspicions upon its genuineness.
Certain other Jewish renegades had from time to
time taken refuge with the Samaritans. Hence,
by degrees, the Samaritans claimed to partake of
Jewish blood, especially if doing so happened to
suit their interest (Joseph. Ani. xi. 8, § 6; ix. 14,
§ 3). A remarkable instance of this is exhibited
in a request which they raade to Alexander the
Great, about b. c. 332. They desired to be excused
payment of tribute in the sabbatical year, on the
plea that as true Israelites, descendants of Ephraira
and Manasseh, sons of Joseph, they refrained frora
cultivating their land in that year, Alexander, on
cross-questioning them, discovered the hollowness
jf their pretensions. (They were greatly discon-
terted at their failure, and their dissatisfaction

SAMAKIA 2801
probably led to the conduct which induced Alex
ander to besiege and destroy the city of Samaria.
Shechem was indeed their metropolis, but the de
struction of Samaria. seems to have satisfied Alex
ander.) Another instance of claim to Jewish
descent appears in the words of the woman of
Samaria to our Lord (John iv. 12), "Art Thou
greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the
well? " A question which she puts without recol
lecting that she had just before strongly contrasted
the Jews and the Samaritans. Very far were the
Jews from admitting this claim to consanguinity
on the part of these people. They were ever remind
ing them that they were after all mere Cuthteans,
mere strangers from Assyria. They accused them
of worshipping the idol-gods buried long ago under
the oak of Shechem (Gen. xxxv. 4). They would
have no dealings with them that they could possi
bly avoid.** " Thou art a Samaritan and hast a
devil," was the mode in which they expressed
themselves when at a loss for a bitter reproach.
Everything that a Samaritan had touched was aa
swine's flesh to tliem. The Samaritan was pub
licly cursed in their synagogues — could not bte
adduced as a witness in the Jewish courts — could
not be admitted to any sort of proselytism — and
was thus, so far as the Jew could afi'ect his posi
tion, excluded from hope of eternal life. The tra
ditional hatred in which the Jew held him is
expressed in Ecclus. 1. 25, 26, " There be two man
ner of nations which my heart abhorreth, and the
third is no nation: they that sit on the mountain
of Samaria; and they that dwell among the I^hilis-
tines; and that foolish people that dwell in Sichera."
And so long was it before such a temper could be
banished from the Jewish mind, that we find even
the Apostles beUeving that an inhospitable slight
shown by a Samaritan village to Christ would be
not unduly avenged by calling down fire from
heaven. " Ye know not what spirit ye are of," said the
lai'ge-hearted Son of iMan, and we find Him on no
one occasion uttering anything to the disparage
ment of the Samaritans. His words, however, and
the records of his ministrations confirm mo^t
thoroughly the view which has been taken above,
that the Samaritans were not Jews. At the first
sending forth of flie Twelve (iNIatt. x. 5, 6) He
charges them, " Go not into the way of the Gen
tiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye
not, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house
of Israel." So again, in his final address to them
on Mount Olivet, " Ye shall be witnesses to Me in
Jerusalem and in all Judsea, and in Samaria, and
unto the uttei-most part of the earth " (Acts i. 8).
So the nine unthankful lepers, Jews, were con
trasted by Him with the tenth leper, the thankful
stranger (aWoyevijs), who was a Samaritan. So,
in his well-known parable, a merciful Samaritan is
contrasted with the unmerciful priest and Levite.
And the very worsliip of the two races is described
by Him as different in character. " Ye worship ye

a " This fact," says Dr. Trench, " is mentioned by
Makrizi (see De Sacy's Chrest. Arabe, ii. 159), who
nfflrms that it was this which put the Jews on making
accurate calculations to determine the moment of the
lew moon's appearance (comp. Schoettgen's Hor. Heb.
544)." b This prejudice had, of course, sometimes to give
vay to DGceseity, for the disciples had gone to Sychar
o buy food, while OMr Lord was talking with the

woman of Samaria by the well in its suburb (John iv.
8). And from Luke ix. 52, we learn that the disciples
went before our Lord at his command into a certain
village of the Samaritans " to make ready " for Hiiu
Unless, indeed (though, as we see on both occasions,
our Lord's influence over them was not yet complete),
we are to attribute this partial abandonment of thoii
ordinary scruples to the change which his exampU
had already wrought iu them.

2802

SAMARIA

BEnow Kot what," this is said of the Samaritans:
" We know what we worship, for salvation is of
the Jews " (John iv. 22).
Such were the Samaritans of our Lord's Day: a
people distiact from the Jews, though lying in
the very midst of the Jews; a people preserving
their identity, though seven centuries had rolled
away since they had been brought from Assyria
by Esarhaddon, and though they had abandoned
their polytheism for a sort of ultra Mosaicism ; a
people, who — though their limits had been grad
ually contracted, and the rallying place of their
religion on Mount Gerizim hafl been destroyed one
hundred and sixty years before by John Hyrcanus
(b. c. 130), and though Samaria (the city)- had
been again and again destroyed, and though their
territory had been the battle-field of Syria and
Egypt — still preserved their nationality, still wor
shipped from Shechem and their other impoverished
settlements towards their sacred hill; still retained
their nationaUty, and could not coalesce with the
Jews : —
"O^os T aAei<f>a t' eyx^as rauTu KVTei,
AiXO(TTaTOvvT' av ov (^lAus 7Tpo(revveTrotg,
Not indeed that we must suppose that the whole
of the country called in our Lord's time Samaria
was in the possession of the Cutha;an Samaritans,
or that it had ever heen so. " Samaria," says
Josephus (B. J. iii. 3, § 4), "lies between Judsea
and Galilee. It commences from a village called
Ginsea (Jenin), on the great plain (that of Esdra
elon), and extends to the toparchy of Acrabatta,"
in the lower part of the territoi-y of Ephraim.
These points, indicating the extreme northern and
the extreme southern parallels of latitude between
which Samaria was situated, enable us to fix ite
boundaries with tolerably certainty. It was bounded
northward by the range of hills which commences
at Mount Carmel on the west, and, after making a
bend to the southwest, runs almost due east to the
valley of the Jordan, forming the southern border
of the plain of Esdraelon. It touched towards the
south, as nearly as possible, the northern limits of
Benjamin. Thus it comprehended the ancient ter
ritory of Ephraim, and of those Manassites who
were west of Jordan. "Its character," Josephus
continues, " ia in no respect different from that of
Judsea. Both abound in mountains and plains,
and are suited for agriculture, and productive,
wooded, and full of fruite both wild and cultivated.
They are not abundantly watered ; but much rain
falls there. The springs aire of an exceedingly
Bweet taste; and, on account of the quantity of
good grass, the cattle there produce more milk
than elsewhere. But the best proof of their rich
ness and fertility is that both are thickly pop
ulated." The accounts of modern travellers con
firm this description by the Jewish historian of
the " good land " which was allotted to that pow
erful portion of the house of Joseph which crossed
the Jordan, on the first division of the territory.
The Cuthsean Samaritans, however, possessed only
a few towns and villages of this large area, and
these lay almost together in the centre of the dis
trict. Shechem or Sychar (as it was contempt-
jously designated) was their chief settlement, even
before Alexander the Great destroyed Samaria,
probably because it lay almost close to Mount
Gerizim. Afterwards it became more prominently
10, and there, on the destruction of the temple on
Gerizim, by John Hyrcanus (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 9,

SAMARIA
§ I), they built themselves a temple. The moderj
representative of Shechem is Nablus, a corruption
of Neapolis, or the " New Town," suilt by Ves
pasian a littie to the west of the older town which'
was then ruined. At Nablus the Samaritans have
still a settlement, consisting of about 200 persons.
Yet they observe the Law, and celebrate the Pass- "
over on a sacred spot on Mount Gerizim, with an
exactness of minute ceremonial which the Jews
themselves have long intermitted :
"Quanquam diruta, servat
Ignem Trojanum, et Vestam colit Alba minorem."
The Samaritans were very troublesome both to
their Jewish neighbors and to their Roman maa-
ters, in the first century, a. o. Pilate chastised
them with a severity which led to his own domi-
fall (Joseph. Ani. xriii. 4, § 1), and a slaughter of
10,600 of them took place under Vespasian (B. J.
iii. 7, § 32). In spite of these reverses they in
creased greatly in numbers towards ite termination,
and appear to have grown into importance under
Dositheus, who was probably an apostate Jew.
Epipbanius (adv. Hm'eses, lib. i.), in the fourth
century, considers them to be the chief and most
dangerous adversaries of Christianity, and he enu
merates the se\'eral secte into jvhich they had by
that time divided themselves. They were popu
larly, and even by some of the Fathers, confounded
with the Jews, insomuch that a legal interpretation
of the Gospel was described as a tendency to
1,a.p.apeiTiap.6s or ^lov^a'ia-pSs. This confusion,
however, did not extend to an identification of the
two races. It was simply an assertion that their
extreme opinions were identical. And previously
to an outrage which they committed on the Chris
tians at Neapolis in the reign of Zeno, towards
the end of the fifth century, the distinction between
them and the Jews was sutficientiy known, and
even recognized in the Theodosian Code. This
was so severely punished, that they sank into an
obscurity, which, though they are just noticed by
travellers, of the twelfth and fourteenth centuries,
was scarcely broken until the sixteenth century
In the latter half of that century a correspondence
with them was commenced by Joseph Scaliger.
(De Sacy has edited two of their letters to that
eminent scholar.) Job Ludolf received a letter
from them, in the latter half of the next century
These three letters are to be found in Eichhorn'B
Reperiorium fur Biblische und Morgenldndische
Liiteratur, vol. xiii. They are of great archseo-
logical interest, aiid enter very minutely into the
observances of the Samaritan ritual. Among other
points worthy of notice in them is the inconsistency
displayed by the writers in valuing themselves on
not being Jews, and yet claiming to be descendants
of Joseph. See also De Sacy's Corresjjondance
des Samariiains, etc., iu Notices et Exir. des MSS.
de la Biblioih. du Roi, etc., vol. xii. And, for
more modern accounts of the people themselves,
Robinson's Biblical Researches, ii. 280-311, iii.
129-30; Wilson's Lands of ihe Bible, ii. 46-78;
Van de Velde's SyHa and Palestine, ii. 296 seq.;
Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, p 240; Rogers'a
Notices of ihe Modei-n Samaritans, p 25; Grove's
account of their Day of Atonement in Vacniion
Tourists for 1861; and Dr. Stanley's, of their
Passover, in his Lectures on ihe Jewish Church,
App. iii. [Passover, vol. iii. p. 2357 f., Amer.
ed.] The view maintained in the above remarks, m

SAMARITAN
JO the pto-ely Assyrian origin of the New Samari
tans, is that of Suicer, Reland, Hammond, Drusius
in the Critici Sacri, Maldonatus, Hengstenberg,
Havernick, Robinson, and Dean Trench. The
reader is referred to the very clear but too brief
discussion of the subject by the last-mentioned
learned writer, in his Parables, pp. 310, 311, and
to the authorities, especially De Sacy, which are
there quoted. There is no doubt in the world
that it was the ancient view. We have seen what
Josephus said, and Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius,
Chrysostom, and Theodoret, say the same thing.
Socrates, it must be admitted, calls the Samaritans
iirtfo'Xto'^ua ^lovZaiwv, but he stands almost alone
among the ancients-in making this assertion. Ori
gen and Cyril indeed both mention their claim to
descent from Joseph, as evidenced in the statement
of the woman at the well, but mention it only to
declare it unfounded. Others, as Wiiiei*, Dollin-
ger, and Dr. Davidson, have held a dlfl'ereiit view,
which may be expressed thus in Dtillinger's own
words: "In the northern part of the Promised
Land (as opposed to Judsea proper) there grew up
H mingled race which drew its origin from the
remnant of the Israelites who were left behind in
the country on the removal of the Ten Tribes, and
also from the heathen coloniste who were trans
planted into the cities of Israel. Their religion
was as hybrid as their extraction ; they worshipped
Jehovah, but, in addition to Hira, also the heathen
idols of Phoenician origin which they had brought
from their native land" (Tleidenthum und Juden-
thum, p. 739, § 7). If the words of Scripture are
to be taken alone, it does not appear how this view
Is to be maintained. At any rate, as Drusius ob
serves, the only mixture was that of Jewish apos
tate fugitives, long after Esarhaddon's colonization,
not at the time of the colonization. But modern
as this view is. it has for some years been the pop
ular one, and even Dr, Stanley seems, though
quite incidentally, to have admitted it (S. <^ P.
p. 240). He does not, however, enter upon its de
fense. Mr. Grove is also in favor of it. See his
notice already mentioned.
The authority due to the copy of the Le^w pos
sessed by the Samaritans, and the determination
whether the Samaritan reading of Deut. xxvii. 4,
Gerizim, or that of the Hebrew, Ebal, is to be
preferred, are discussed in the next article. [See
Samaritan Pkntateuci-i ; Ebal ; Gertzim ;
Shechem; SiCHEiM; Sycitar.] J. A. H.
* On Samaria and the Samaritans see the elab
orate article of J. H. Petermann in Herzog's Real-
Encykl. xiii. 359-391 (comp. his lieisenim Orient,
Leipz. 18G0-61, i. 269-292). See also John Mills's
7'hree Months^ Residence in Nablus, Lond. 1864,
and a series of learned articles by Dr. Geiger in
the Zeiischr. d. deutschen moj'genl. Gesellschaft
from 1862 to 1868. A.
* SAMARITAN. [Samaria, 3.]
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH, a Recen-
BJon of the commonly received Hebrew Text of the
Mosaic Law, in use with the Samaritans, and writ
ten in. the ancient Hebrew (Ibri), or so-called

« ns)n2"^b, v^"!, n*^"inr nriD as dis.
dnguished from SITV, D'^nV^W DHD. Comp.
Sy»iA. 21 b, Jer. Meg. 6, 2 ; Tosifla Synh.^; Synkedr.
12 a, Hsg. Ter. 1, 9, Sola Jer. 7, 2, sq.

SAMARITAN PENTATKUOH 2803
Samaritan character." This recension is found
vaguely quoted by some of the early Fathers of the
Church, under the name of " XiaKaiSrarov 'E^pai-
Khv rh naph 'S.ajxap^tTa'is ,''' in contradistinction tt
the " ';oj8patKb/' rh -rrapa 'louSafois; " further, as
" Samaritanoruni Voluraina," etc. Thus Origen on
Num. xiii. 1, ...."& /cal outoc ^k to6tcov 2a-
(xapeir&v'E^paiKOv /j,ere^d\ofxei/;^' and on Num.
xxi. 13, . . . '¦'¦ ^ 4u /x6vois r&v'2,afxapeiTav eiipO'
fj.€v,'^ etc. Jerome, Prol. to Kings: •¦' Samaritani
etiam Pentateuchum Moysis ioHdem (V 22, like
the " Hebrews, Syrians and Chaldteans") litteris
habent, figuris tantum et apicibus discrepantes."
Also on Gal. iii. 10, " qnam ob causam " — (viz.
'E-TTi/cartipaTOS Toy &s ovk ifi/xevet ii> Tract rots
yeypafXfievotSj being quoted there from Deut. xxvii.
26, where the Masoretic text has only ~itI?M ")1")M
nsTn n-nnn nni ns Dp*^ wb- "cursed
be he that confirmeth not'' the words of this Law
to do them ; " while the LXX. reads iras &vdpa}Tros
. . TToo-t roTs \6yoLs)~' quam ob causam Sa-
maritanorura Ilebrtea volumina relegens inveni
^D scriptum esse; " aud he forthwith charges the
Jews with having deliberately taken out the 7D,
because they did not wish to be bound individually
to all the ordinances: forgetting at the same tirae
that this same v3 occurs in the very next chap
ter of the Masoretic text (Deut. xxviii. 15) — "AU
his coniinandraents and his statutes." Eusebius
of Csesarea observes that the LXX. and the Sam.
Pent, agree against the Received Text in the num
ber of years from the Deluge to Abraham. Cyril
of Alexandria speaks of certain words (Gen. iv. 8),
wanting in the Hebrew, but found in the Samari
tan. The same remark is made by Procopius of
Gaza with respect to Deut. i. 6 ; Num. x. 10, a.
9, (fee. Other passages are noticed by Diodorus,
the Greek Scholiast, etc. The Talmud, on the
other hand, mentions the Sam. Pent, distinctly
and contemptuously as a clumsily forged record:
" You have falsifitd<^ your Pentateuch,^'' said R.
Eliezer b. Shimon to the Samaritan scribes, with
reference to a passage in Deut. xi. 30, where the
well -understood word Shechem was gratuitously
inserted after " the plains of Moreh," — " and you
have not profited aught by it" (comp. Jer. Sotah-
21 b, cf 17; B'ibli 33 b). On another occasion
they are ridiculed on account of their ignorance of
one of the simplest rules of Hebrew Grammar, dis
played in their Pentateuch ; namely, the use of the H
locjle (unknown, however, according to Jer. Meg.
6, 2, also to the people of Jerusalem). -' iVho has
caiised you io blunder f^^ said R. Shimon b. Elie
zer to them; referring to their aboHtion of the
Mosaic ordinance of marrying the deceased broth ¦
er's wife (Deut. xxv. 5 ff"-), — through a misinter
pretation of the passage in question, which enjoins
that the wife of the dead man shall not be "with
out " to a stranger, but that the brother should
marry her : they, however, taking PT 7 IH H
(=V"inb) to be an epithet of n^7M, "wife,*

b The A. V., following the LXX.. and perhaps Ltt
ther, has inserted the word alt.

2804 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
translated "the outer wife," i. e. the betrothed
only (Jer. Jebam. 3, 2, Ber. R., etc.).
Down to within the last two hundred and fifty
years, however, no copy of this divergent Code of
Laws had reached Europe, and it began to be pro
nounced a fiction, and the plain words of the
Church Fathers — the better known authorities —
who quoted it, were subjected to subtle interpre
tations. Suddenly, in 1616, Pietro della Valle,
one of the first discoverers also of the Cuneiform
inscriptions, acquired a, complete Codex from tbe
Samaritans in Damascus. In 1623 it was pre
sented by Achille Harley de Sancy to the Library
of. the Oratory in Paris, and in 1628 there' ap
peared a brief description of it by J. Morinus in
his preface to the Roman text of the LXX. Three
years later, shortly before it was published in the
Paris Polyglott, — whence it was copied, with few
emendations from other codices, by Walton
Morinus, the first editor, wrote his Exercitrdiones
Ecclesiaslicce in ulrumque Samaritanoruni Penta
teuchum, in which he pronounced the newly found
Codex, with all its innumerable Variants from the
Masoretic text, to be infinitely superior , to the lat
ter: in fact, the unconditional and speedy emenda^
tion of the Received Text thereby was urged most
authoritatively. And now tbe impulse was given
to one of the fiercest and most barren literary and
theological controversies: of which more anon.
Between 1620 and 1630 six additional copies, partly
complete, partly incomplete, were acquired Ijy
Ussher: flve of which he deposited in Knglish
libraries, while one was sent to De Dieu, and has
disappeared mysteriously. Another Codex, now in
tbe Ambrosian Library at Milan, was brought to
Italy in 1621. Peiresc procured two more, one of
which was placed in the Eoyal Library of Paris,
(250) 31 D^TlNa I'^'Sp '. lltCSin ~IDD riTn [Masoret. Cod. 12 Sidras CParshioth), 50 Chapters).
(200) D\-|Kt3 " ''3t2;n " " [ " 11 " 40 " I
(i30)Q'<ti!7ibffi'insa " 'tt;">btt;n " " [ " lo " 27 " i

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
and one in the Barberini at Rome. Thus the Dnm
ber of MSS. in Europe gradually grew to sixteen.
During the present century another, but very ihig.
raentary copy, was acquired by the Gotha Library.
A copy of the entire (?) Pentateuch, with Targum
(? Sam. Version), in parallel columns, 4to, on
parchment, was brought from Nablus by Mr. Grove
in 1861 for the Count of Paris, in whose library it
is. Single portions of the Sam. Pent., in a more
or less defective state, are now of no rare occur
rence in Europe.
Respecting the external condition of these MSS.,
it raay be observed that their sizes vary frpm 12mo
to folio, aud that no scroll, such as the Jews and
the Samaritans use in their synagogues, is to b«
found among them. The letters, which are of a
size corresponding to that of tlie book, exhibit.
none of those varieties of shape so frequent in the
Masor. Text; such as majuscules, minuscules, sus
pended, inverted letters, etc. Their material is
vellum or cotton-paper; the ink used is black m
all cases save the scroll u.sed by the Samaritans at
Nablus, the letters of which are in gold. There
are neither vowels, accents, nor diacritical points.
Tbe individual words are separated from each other
by a dot. Greater or smaller divisions of the text
are marked by two dots placed one above the other,
and by an asterisk. A small line above a conso
nant indicates a peculiar meaning of the word, an
unusual form, a passive, and tbe like: it is, in fact,
a contrivance to bespeak attention." The whole
Pentateuch is divided into nine hundred and sixty-
four paragraphs, or Kazziit, the termination of
whioh is indicated by these figures, = , .•., or <.
At the end of each book the number of its divis
ions is stated thus : —

(218) a66)

n'^v-i

''3?''2~in "

"IDT • p " ¦a?"'ann "

10 11

84

The Sam. Pentateuch is halved in Lev. rii. 15
(viii. 8, in Hebrew Text), where the words "Middle
of the Thorah " * are found. At the end of each
MS. the year of the copying, the name of the scribe,
and also that of the proprietor, are usually stated.
Yet their dates are not always trustworthy when
given, and very difficult to be conjectured when en
tirely omitted, since the Samaritan letters afford no
internal evidence of the period in which they were
written. To none of the MSS., however, which
have as yet reached Europe, can be assigned a
higher date than the 10th Christian century. The
scroll used in Nablus bears — so the Samaritans
pretend — the following inscription : " I, Abisha,

¦. r^yn and nSn, IV and ts, I^T and
-121, bw and b«, bDS'' and h'D'A\ iinr>>
?nd S"^|7^, tt? and W, the suffixes at the end of a
rord, the H without a dagesh, etc., are thus pointed
"ut to the reader.
" smn-isi sabs.
c It would appear, however (see Archdeacon Tat-
Bim's notice in tbe Parthenon, No. 4, May 24, 1862),

son of Pinehas, son of EleazEir, son of Aaron the
Priest, — upon them lie the Grace of Jehovah! To
his honor have I written this Holy T^w at the en
trance of the Tabernacle of Testimony on the
RIount Gerizim, Beth ICl, in the thirteenth yearoi
the taking possession of the Land of Canaan, and
all its boundaries around it, by the Children of Is
rael. I praise Jehovah." (Letter of lleshahnah
b. Ab Sechuah, Cod, 19,791, Add. MSS. Brit. Mus.
Comp.' Epist. Sam. Sichemitarum ad Jobuni Lu-
dolphnm, Cizse, 1688; Antiq. Eccl. Orient, p. 123*^
Huntingtoni Epist. pp. 49, 56: Eichhom's Reper^
ioriumf bibl. und mor g. Lit., tom. ix., etc.) But
no European c has ever succeeded in finding it in

that Mr. Levysohn, a person lately attached to the
Russian staff in Jerusalem, has found the inscripfaoB
in question "going through the middle of.the bodyol
the Text of the Decaloorue, and extending through
three columns." Considering that the Samaritans
themselves told Huntington, " that this inscriptioD
had been in their scroll once, but must have been
erased by some wicked hand," this startling piece o)
information must be received with extreme caution:
no less so than the other uiore or less vague stat»
menta with respect to tbe labors and pretended discoT
eries of Mr. Levysohn. See note, p. 2810.

SAMAKITAN PENTATEUCH
this 8crolt( however great the pains bestowed upon
the search (comp. Eichhorn, Elnleit. ii. 132); and
even if it had been found, it would not have de
served the slightest credence.
We have briefly stated above that the Extrcita-
tiones of Morinus, which placed the Samaritan Pen
tateuch far above the Keceived Text in point of
genuineness, — partly on account of its agreeing in
many places with the LXX., and partly on ac
count of its superior " lucidity and harmony," —
excited and kept up for nearly two hundred years
one of the most extraordinary controversies on rec
ord. Characteristically enough, however, this was
set at rest once for all by the very first systematic
investigation of the point at issue. It would now
appear as if the unquestioning rapture with which
every new Hterary discovery was formerly hailed,
the innate animosity against the Masoretic (Jewish)
Text, the general preference for the LXX., the de
fective state of Semitic studies, — as if, we say,
all these put together were not sufficient to account
for the phenomenon that men of any critical acu
men could for one moment not only place the Sam.
Pent, on a par with the Masoretic Text, but even
raise it, unconditionally, far above it. There was
indeed another cause at work, especially in the first
period of the dispute : it was a controversial spirit
which prompted Morinus and his followers, Cap
pellus and others, to proi'e to the Reformers what
kind of value was to be attached to their authority:
the received form of the Bible, upon which and
which alone they professed to take their stand ; —
it was now evident that nothing short of the Di
vine Spirit, under the influence and inspiration of
which the Scriptures were interpreted and ex-
¦ pounded by the Roman Church, could be relied
upon. On the other hand, most of the " Antimo-
rinians''^ — De Muys, Hottinger, St. Morinus,
Buxtorf, Fuller, Leusden, Pfeiffer, etc. — instead
of patiently and critically examining the subject
and refuting their adversaries l)y arguments which
were within their reach, as they are within ours,
directed their attacks against the persons of the
Morinians, and thus their misguided zeal left the
question of the superiority of the new document
over the old where they found it. Of higher value
were, it is true, the labors of Simon, Le Clerc,
Walton, etc., at a later period, who proceeded ec-
lectieally, rejecthig many readiugs, and adopting
others which seemed preferable to those of the old
text. Houbigant, however, with unexampled igno
rance and obstinacy, returned to Morinus's first
notion — already generally abandoned — of the un
questionable and thorough superiority. Jle, again,
was followed more or less closely by Kennicott, Al.
a St. Aquilino, Lobstein, Geddes, and others. The
discussion was taken up once more on the other
side, chiefly by Ravius, who succeeded in finally
disposing of this point of the superiority (Exerciil.
Phil, in Iloubig. Prol. Lugd. Bat. 1755). It was
from his day forward allowed, almost on all hands,

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 28 S
that the Masoretic Text was the genuine one, but
that in doubtful cases, when the Samaritan had an
unquestionably clearer" reading, this waa to be
adopted, since a certain amount of value, however
limited, did attach to it, Michaehs, Eichhorn,
Bertholdt, Jahn, and the majority of modern crit
ics, adhered to this opinion. Here the matter
rested until 1815, when Gesenius {De Pent. Zam,
Origine, Indole, et Auctoritate) abolished the rem
nant of the authority of the Sam. Pent. So mas
terly, lucid, and clear are his arguments and his
proofs, that there has been and will be no further
question as to the absence of all value in this Re
cension, and in its pretended emendations. In
fact, a glance at the systematic arrangement of the
variants, of which he first of all bethought himself,
is quite, sufficient to convince the reader at once
that they are for the most part mere blunders,
arising from an imperfect knowledge of the first
elements of grammar and exegesis. That others
owe their existence to a studied design of conform
ing certain passages to the Samaritan mode of
thought, speech, and faith — more especially to
show that the Mount Gerizim, upon which their
temple stood, was the spot chosen and indicated by
God to Moses as the one upon which He desired to
be worshipped." Finally, that others are due to a
tendency towards removing, as well as linguistic
shortcomings would allow, all that seemed obscure
or in any way doubtful, and towards filling up all
apparent imperfections : either by repetitions or bj
means of newly-invented and badly-fitting word.
and phrases. It must, however, be premised that
except two alterations (Ex. xiii. 7. where the Sam
reads " Six days shalt thou eat unleavened bread,''
instead of the received " Seven days," and tht
change of the word (T^nn, " There shall not be,"'
into n"^nn, ^ Uve,^^ Deut. xxiii. 18), the Mosaic
laws and ordinances themselves are nowhere tam
pered with.
We will now proceed to lay specimens of these
once so highly prized valiants before the reader, in
order that he may judge for himself. We shall
foUow in this tbe coramonly received arrangement
of Gesenius, who divides all these readings into
eight classes; to which, as we shall afterwards
show, Frankel has suggested the addition of two or
three others, while Kirchheim (in his Hebrew work
"[THDIli? "^QID) enumerates thirteen,* which W8
will name hereafter.
1. The frst class, then, consists of readings by
which emendations of a grammatical nature have
been attempted.
(a.) The quiescent letters, or so-called mairet
leciionis, are supphed.*^
(b.) The more poetical forms of the pronouns,
probably less known to the Sam. are altered into
the more common ones.*^

<* For *inD^, " He will elect " (the spot), the Sam.
Always puts IH^, " He Ims elected " (namely, Geri-
dm). See below.
6 D'^*n^tt7 '^ must be a misprint.
c Thus D^ is foimd in the Samar. for D7 of the
KMonitJo T.', m tor n'"; V for 1"; DH^'bH

for Dn7M; mmSK for ni'StS etc.; some
times a ^ ia put even where the Heb. T. has, in ac*
cordance with the grammatical rules, only a short
vowel or a sheva : TDDIH is found for VDQn,
nvais for nr3W. t:
<« lana, ur, bsn, become lanas, r\'an,

2806 SAMARTTAN PENTATEUCH
(c.) The same propensity for completing appar-
n]tly incomplete forms is noticeable in the flexion
of the verliS. 'llie apocopated or short future is
altered into the regular future."
( d.) On the other hand the paragogical letters 1
and ^ at the end of nouns, are almost universally
(truck out by the Sam. coiTector;'' and, in the igno
rance of the existence of nouns of a common gender,
he has given them genders according to his fancy.c
(e. ) The infin. absol. is, in the quaintest manner
possible, reduced to the forra of the finite verb.''
For obsolete or rare forms, the modern and more

" ^ri^l ''««0™e8 T'Sm ; nj3^1 is emendated
'nto mD"-!; NH': (vcrbn"b) into n«-l\ the
final ^~ of the 3d pers. fein. plur. fut. into PI',
' ''331ti7 is shortened into ]3W, inTI into
c Masculine are made the words CH^ (Gen. xlix.
20), "lytj; (Deut. XV. 7, etc.), niiia (Gen. xxxii.
9) ; feminine the words "^"HM (Gen. xiii- 6), *7'^"^
(Deut. xxviii. 25), tCSS (Gen. xlvi. 25, etc.) ; where-
erer the word "I^J^ occurs in the sense of " girl,"' a
M is added at the end (Gen. xxiv. 14, etc.).
rf Ditn ~[lbn 131tJ3'''l, " the waters returned
eontinuatty," is transformed into l^vH ln*lt£?'^1
12t271, "they returned, they went and they re-
tamed " (Gen. viii. 3). Where the infin. is used as
an adverb, e. g, pmn (Gen. xxi. 16), " far off," it
is altered into np^n"irT, *¦ she went far away,"
which renders the passage almost unintelligible.
« Ciiy for DT"!? (Gen. iii. 10, 11) ; lb"' for
ibl (xi. 80) ; D''"1'13^ for the collective "IISS
(XT. 10] ; mON, " female servants," for mnBS
(XX. 17); nma ''3 nmia sim for the ad
verbial 3113 (xlix. 15); Tfia for DTina
(Ex. xxvi. 26, making it depend from "''SV) ; dt^lS,
in the unusual sense of " from it " (comp. 1 K. xvii.
13), is altered into ilBiaa (Lev. ii. 2); TTTf

la wrongly put for TI (3d p. s. m. of "'TI =

?)i

"l^j tho obsolete form, is replaced by the more recent
~)"i27 (Num. xxi. 15) ; the unusual fem. termination
">- (comp. btD^iS) b'^a^DM, is elongated into
r\''~; "intl^ la the emendation for Vtt^ (Deut.
xxii. 1) ; ""in for ''"yill (Deut. xxxiii. 15), etc.
/ ntCSI ti7^S, "man and woman," used by
Sen. Tii. 2 of animals, is changed into n3p31 *13T,
' male and female ; " VN3ti^ (Gen. xxiv. 60), « his
»»tei»," becomes VD'^'lN, " his enemies ; " for H J2

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
common ones have been substituted in a gteti
number of places *
2. The second class of variants consists of gloswt
and interpretations received into the text: glosses,
moreover, in which the Sam. not unfrequentlj
coincides with the LXX., and which are in many
cases evidently derived by both from some ancient
Targum./ 3. The third class exhibits conjectural emenda
tions — sometimes far from happy — of real or itd-
aginarj' dif&culties in the Masoretic Text.c
4. The fourlh class exhibits readings In which
apparent deficiencies have been corrected or sup-

(indefin.) is substituted nDISD i MT', "he wiU
see, choose," is amplified by a 1 v, " for himself; "
nan nSn is transformed into -112"i "UJS ")an
(Lev. xvii. 10) ; OVb^ bK 'nbS -1i7';5 (Nm.
xxiii. 4), " And God met Bileam," becomes with the
Sam. 'n riN bW "ISbla K2J2''1, «and an
Angel of the Lord found Bileam ; " ntfMn vS
(Gen. XX. 3], "for the woman," is amplified into
ntrSn miN b l?, " for the sake of the woman | "
for ''¦|33bl,ftom "lD3(obsol.,comp. tXX3),i8piil
^^33/, "those that are before me," in contradis.
tinctlon to " those who will come after me ; " "llJriT
" and she emptied " (her pitcher into the trough. Gen.
xxiv. 20), has made room for T'n'inl, " and she
took down ; " nJ3tt7 ''m57")3, " I will meet there"
(A. v., Ex. xxix. 43), is made UXO TltffllS, " I
shall be [searched] found there ; " Num. xxxi. 15,
before the words n3p3 bS DiT'Tin, "Have
you spared the life of every female? " a HSb,
"Why," is inserted (LXX.); for nirT'' Dt2? ^D
Sips (Deut. xxxu. 3), " If I call the name of Jeho
vah," the Sam. has DIZ^D, " In the name," etc.
9 The elliptic use of Tb\ frequent both in He
brew and Arabic, being evidently unknown to the
emendator, he alters the ^bV TVW nSO pbn
(Gen. xvii. 17), " shall a child be born unto him that
is a hundred years old ? " into ^^b^S, " shall I be
get ? " Gen. xxiv. 62, SISQ H2, " he came from
going " (A. v. " from the way ") to the well of Lahai-
roi, the Sam. alters into ^^^J22 SD, "in <w
through the desert " (LXX., Jii t^s kpiipov). In Gen.
xxx. 84, T'ima ^n"" ib ^n, "BehoW, m»y
it be according to thy word," the lb (Arab. J) 'a
transformed into Sb, "and if not — let it be like
thy word." Qen.xii.82,nibnn nistsn bs*!,
" And for that the dream was doubled," becomw
n n''3tt^ nb5?"1, "The dream rose a seconO
time," which is both un-Hobrew, and diametrically
opposed to the sense and construction of the passage
Better is the emendation Gen. ilix. 10, V2!?

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
p.ied from parallel passages in the common text.
Gen. xviii. 29, 30, for "1 shall not do it," « "I
shall not destroy," & is substituted from Gen. xviii.
28, 31, 32. Gen. xxxvii. 4, VHTM, " his brethren,"
is replaced by 1^3^, "his sons," from the former
verse. One of the most curious specimens of the
endeavors of the Samaritan Codex to render the
readings as smooth and consistent as possible, is
its uniform spelling of proper nouns Hke ITn*',
Jethro, occasionally spelt "^Ti*' in the Hebrew text,
ftlosea' father -in law — a man who, according to
the Midrash (Sifri), had no less than seven names;
^Ei^in** (Jehoshua), into which forra it corrects
the shorter l?t£7irT (Hoshea) when it occurs in
the Masoretic Codex. More frequent still are the
additions of single words and short phrases in-
Berted from parallel passages where the Hebrew
text appeared too concise :•= — unnecessary, often
excessively absurd interpolations.
5. Theffth class is an extension of the one im
mediately preceding, and comprises larger phrases,
additions, and repetitions from parallel passages.
Whenever anythhig is raentioned as having been
done or said previously by Moses, or where a com
mand of God is related as being executed, the
whole speech bearing upon it is repeated again at
full length. These tedious and always superfluous
repetitions are most frequent in Exodus, both in
the i^ecord of the plagues and in the many interpo
lations from Deuteronomy.
6. To the sixth class belong those " emendations "

V v5"li " from between his feet," into " from
T : -'
among his banners," VvHT 'J'^^D. Ex. xv.
18, all but flve of the Sam. Codd. read Obl^^V
"n^lj " for ever and longer,^^ instead of *7^"1, the
common form, "evermore." Ex. xxxiv. 7, njy'D'1
np)3^ ^7, " that will by no means clear the 5i»,"
becomes rT|73^ i7 f^pPl' "a^^d the innocent to
him shall be innocent," agaibst both the parallel pas
sages and the obvious sense. The somewhat difficult
^QD*^ Wbl, " and they did not cease " (A. V., Nmn.
xi. 25), reappears as a still more obscure conjectural
•IDpS^ } which we would venture to translate, " they
were not gathered in," in the sense of " killed " : in
stead of either the 1t£?3!DM, " congregated," of the
Sam. Vers., or Castell's " contiouerunt," or lloubigant's
aud Dathe's " conveneraut." Num. xxi. 28, the '^V.
' t'
" Ar " (Moab), is emendated into "T3?, " as far as,"
a pertectly meaningless reading ; only that the *nV,
" city," as we saw above, was a word unknown to the
Bam. The somewhat uncommon words (Num. xi. 32),
mtOtt? Dnb *in^tt?"^1, "and they (the people)
spread them all abroad," are tmusposed into
ntaintt? nnb 1^ntt?''1, "and they slaugh-
ered for themselves a slaughter." Deut. xxviii. 37,
ba word HSU?/, " an astonishment " (A. V.), very
imly used in this sense (Jez. xix. 8, xxv. 9), becomes
0t£?7, (< to ft name," i. e. a bad name, Deut. xxxiii. &

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 2807
of passages and words of the Hebrew text which
contain something objectionable in the eyes of tha
Samaritans, on account either of historical improb
ability or apparent want of dignity in the terms
applied to the Creator. Thus in the Sara. Pent.
no one in the antediluvian times begets his first
son after he has lived 150 years: but one hundred
years are, where necessary, subtracted before, and
added after the birth of the first son. Thus Jared,
according to the Hebrew Text, begat at 162 years,
lived afterwards 800 years, and " all his years were
902 years; " according to the Sam. he begot when
only 62 years old, Uved afterwards 735 years, " and
all his years were 847." After the Deluge the
opposite method is followed. A hundred or fifty
years are added before and subtracted after the be
getting: K.g. Arphaxad, who in the Common Text
is 35 years old when he begets Shelah, and lived
afterwards 403 years: in all 438 — is by the Sam.
made 135 years old when he begets Shelah, and
lives only 303 years afterwards = 438. (The LXX.
haa, according to ita own pecuHar psychological and
chronological notions, altered the Text in the op
posite manner. [See Septuagijst.] ) An exceed
ingly important and often discussed emendation of
this class is the passage in Ex. xii. 40, which in our
text reads, " Now the sojourning of the children of
Israel who dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and
thirty years." The Samaritan (supported by LXX.
Cod. AI.) has "the sojourning of the children of
Israel [and their fathers who dwell in the land of
Canaan and in the land of Egypt — ev yi) Pdyvirrtp
KoX il/ yy Kavadv] was four hundred and thirty
years:" an hiterpolation of very late date indeed.

"IDDD y^rV2 ^n**!, "May his men be a multi
tude," the Sam., with its characteristic aversion to, or
rather ignorance of, the use of poetical diction, reads
")5Da ll^Wa ^r\^\ " May there be yj-om Aim a
multitude," thereby trying perhaps to encounter also
the apparent difficulty of the word "ICDD, standing
for " a great number." Anything more absurd than
the iriSQ in this place could hardly be imagined.
A few verses fhrther on, the uncommon use of ^Q
in the phrase I^D^p^ ]^ (Deut. xxxiii. 11), as
"lest," "not," caused the no less unfortunate altera
tion ^3^5*^^ "^^j so ^^^^ *^^ latter part of the pas
sage, " smite' through tho loins of them that rise
against him, and of them that hate him, ihat they rise
not agai7i." becomes "tMo will raise them?" — barren
alike of meaning and of poetry. For the unusujil aud
poetical TjSin"^ (Deut. xxxiii. 25 ; A. V. " thy
strength "), *^''3"1 is suggested ; a word about the
significance of which the commentators are at a
greater loss even than about that of the original.
c Thus in Gen. i. 15, the words b^? T'Mnb
t^nMn, " to give light upon the earth," are inserted
from ver. 17; Gen. xi. 8, the word vT^lQ^ "and a
tower," is added from ver. 4 ; Gen. xxiv. 22, 73?
riDM, " on her face " (nose), is added from ver. 47, sc
that the former verse reads "And the man took
(np*''l for Dti7^1) a golden ring 'upon her &c«.-^

2808 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
Again, in Gen. ii. 2, " And God [ ? had] finished
I ''^^l,? pluperf.) on the seventh day," "tyi^tm
is altered into "'tt'Cn, "the sixth,'' lest God's
rest on the Sabbath-day might seem incomplete
(LXX.). In Gen. xxix. .3, 8, " We caimot, until
all the flocks be gathered together, and till they
roll the stone from the mouth of the well,"
Q''~ni7, •' flocks," is replaced by D'^SII, " shep
herds," .since the flocks ctoild not roll the stone
from the well: tbe corrector not being apparently
aware that in common parlance in Hebrew, as in
other languages, "they" occasionally refers to cer
tain not particularly specified persons. Well may
Gesenius ask what this corrector would have raade
of Is. xxxvii. [not xxxvi.] 36 : "And when they arose
in the morning, behold they were all dead corpses."
The surpassing reverence of the Samaritan is
shown in pas.sages like Ex. xxiv. 10, "and they
beheld God," " which is transmuted into " and
they held by, clung to, God"* — a reading cer
tainly less in harmony with the following — "and
they ate and drank."
7. The seventh class comprises What we might

a D"'nbN ns iTHM. * iTns'^i.
c The gutturals and AJievi-letters are frequently
changed : — tD*T^n becomes tOT^M (Gen. viii. 4);
*^S3 is altered into ^V^ (xxiii. 18); Tl'ilW into
V^W (xxvii. 19) ; "^bnT stands for ^bplT (Deut. xxxii.
24) ; the n is changed into H in words Uke ^HD
D^nD3, which become nPID, DTTn3 ; n is altered
into 3? — "IQn becomes "1X2^, The ** is frequently
doubled (? as a mater lectionis) : D'^tO'^TT is substi
tuted for D'^tD'^n ; Mn'^'^K for Wn''« ; ^i^D for "T .
Many woras are joined together : — TlTnD stands
for -iTn "la (Ex. xxx. 23); ^S^HD for ]S IHID
(Gen. xii. 45) ; D'^T'^")^ "iH is always D'^r"i:nn.
The pronouns PiM and "jHW, 2d p. fem. sing, and
plur., are changed into ^^DN, ^^'flM (the obso
lete Heb. forms) respectively ; the sufiF. Tf into "^M ;
*T~ into ^^ : the termination of the 2d p. s. fem.
praet. P", becomes ^'P, like the first p. ; the verbal
form Aphel ia used for the lliphil; "^n^DTS for
ri
HjTl^^n i the medial letter of the verb i ^ is
sometimes retained as S or **, instead of being dropped
as in the Ileb. Again, verbs of the form H V have
ttie "^ frequently at the end of the infin. fut. and part.,
Instead of the Pf, Nouns of the schema /tSH
(bnS, etc.) are often spelt v'^^p, into which the
form vlt^n is likewise occasionally transformed.
.. It
Df distinctly Samaritan words may be mentioned:
"jn (Gen. xxxiv. 31) = T^j T^U (Chald.) « like ; "
DTin, for Heb. Dmn, "seal;" nn^bs,

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
briefly call Samaritanisms, {. e. certain Hebreit
forms translated into tbe idiomatic Samaritan ,
and here the Sam. Codices vary considerably
among themselves, — as far as the very impel feet
collation of them has hitherto shown — some hav
ing retained the Hebrew in many places where the
others have adopted the new equivalents.^
8. The eighth and last class contains alterations
made in fa^-or or on behalf of Samaritan theology,
hermeneutics and domestic worship. Thus the
word Llohim, four times construed with the plural
verb in the Hebrew Pentateuch, is in the Sam
aritan Pent, joined to the singular verb (Gen. xx,
13, xxxi. 53, xxxv. 7; Ex. xxii. 9); and further,
both anthropomorphisms as well as antbropopath-
isms are carefully expunged — a practice very com
raon in later times.'' The last and perhaps the
most momentous of all intentional alterations is
the constant change of all the "nn^^ •* God will
choose a spot," into "^Hn, " He haa chosen,"
namely, Gerizim, and the weE known substitution
of Gerizim for Kbal in Deut. xxvii. 4: "It shall
be when ye be gone over Jordan, that ye shall set

nn-DW ir); DSn, "wise," reads DIDHi
^v, "spoil," "^iv; ni)3\ "days," nav.
'^ n^^nvQ 12?''S, "man of war," an expreBsion ,
used of God (Ex. xv. 3), becomes D "llD!!, "hero (rf
war," the former apparently of irreverent import to
the Samaritan ear ; for H f]K ItZ^S?"^ (Deut. xxix.
19, A. V. 20), lit. "And the wrath (nose) of the Lord
shall smoke," H fjK "^n"^, " the wrath of the Lord
will be kindled," is substituted ; ^jbblHD 1"l!J
(Deut. xxxii. 18), " the rock (God) which begat thee,*'
is changed into *J77ntj "^1^, "the rock which
glorifies thee ; " Gen. xix. 12, D'^tySSH, " the men,''
used of " the angels," has been replaced by
D^'^S/ttn, "the angels." Extreme reverena
for the patriarchs changed "IIIW, "Cursed b«
their (Simeon and Levi's) anger," into T'^Sj
" brilliant is their anger" (Gen. xlix. 7). A flagraBt
falftification is the alteration, in an opposite sense,
which they ventured in the passage T31£?^ H 'T'*^^
nCO^V, "The beloved of God [Benjamin, the
founder of the J uda;o-Da vidian empire, hateful to
the Samaritans] shall dwell securely," transformed
by them into the almost senseless H H** ^*'
nt::ib ]'DW^j '^ The hand, t/ie hand of God vrill
rest [if Hiph. : IStp**, * will cause to rest '] securely "
(Deut. xxxiii. 12). 'Reverence for the Law and tbe
Sacred Records gives rise to more emendationB ; —
T'li?:^^ D (Deut. xxv. 12, A. V. 11), " by his secretB,"
becomes 1"lt£7^D, "by his flesh;" H^bitt/N
" coibit cum ea ; " (Deut. xxviii. 30), T112V D3E2?\
" concumbet cum ea ; " ^1D'^bti7n nb^b, " to t^«
dog shall ye throw it" (Ex. xxii. 80) (A. V. 81),
'ba^n ^bt£?n, "y© shall indeed throw »
'*u though it budded," becomes nmOMD = Taig. j [away]."

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
up these stones which I command you this day on
Alount Ebal (Sam. Germm), and there shalt thou
build an altar unto the Lord thy God," etc. This
passage gains a certain interest from Whiston aud
Kennicott having charged the Jews with corrupt
ing it from Gerizim into Ebal. This supposition,
however, was met by Rutherford, Parry, Tychsen,
Lobstein, Verschuir, and others, and we need only
add that it is completely given up by modern Bib
lical scholars, although it cannot be denied that
theie is sorae prima facie ground for a doubt
upon the subject. To this class also belong more
especially interpolations of really existing pas
sages, dragged out of their context for a special
purpose. In Exodus as well as in Deuteronomy
the Sam. has, immediately after the Ten Com
mandments, the following insertions from Deut.
xxvii. 2-7 and xi. 30 : " And it shall be on the
day when ye shall pass over Jordan ... ye shall
set up these stones ... on Mount Gerizim . . .
and there shalt thou build an altar . . . ^That
mountain ' on the other side Jordan by the way
where the sun goeth down ... in the champaign
over against Gilgal, beside the plains of Moreh,
' over against Shechem ; ' " — this last superfluous
addition, which is also found in Deut. xi. 30 of the
Sam. Pent., being ridiculed in the Talmud, as we
^ave seen above.
From the immense number of these worse than
worthless variants Gesenius has singled out four,*
which he tliinks preferable on the whole to those
of the Masoretic Text. We will confine ourselves
to mentioning them, and refer the reader to the
recent commentaries upon them : he will find that
they too have since been, all but unanimously,
rejected." (1.) After the words, "And Cain spoke
(IDWI) to his brother Abel" (Gen. iv. 8), the
Sam. adds, "let us go,into the field," ' in ignorance
of the absolute use of "IDM, " to say, speak "
(corap. Ex. xix. 25; 2 Chr. ii. 10 (A. V. H)), and
the absol. 12''1 (Gen. ix. 22). (2.) For "IHS
(Gen. xxii. 13) the Sam. reads IHM, i. e. instead
of "behind him a ram," "one ram." (3.) For
D12 "llSin (Gen. xlix. 14), " an ass of bone,"
i. 6. a strong ass, the Sam. has D^"^2 T^On
(Targ. on?, Syr. pi-;^- And (4.) for pT^I
(Gen. xiv. 14), "he led forth his trained ser
vants," the Sam. reads p"!*^"!) " he numbered."
We must briefly state, in concluding this por-

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 2809
tion of the subject, that we did not choose this
classification of Gesenius because it appeared to us
to be either systematic (Gesenius says himself:
" Ceterura facile perspicitur complures in his esse
lectiones quarum singulas alius ad aliud genus
referre forsitan malit .... in una vel altera
lectione ad aliam classem referenda baud difficileg
erimus . . . . ") or exhaustive, or even be
cause the illustrations themselves are unassailable
in point of the reason he assigns for them ; but
because, deficient as it is, it has at once aud for
ever silenced the utterly unfounded though time-
shallowed claims of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It
was only necessary, as we said before, to collect a
great number of variations (or to take them (rom
Walton), to compare them with the old text and
with each other, to place them in some kind of
order before the reader and let them tell their own
tale. That this was not done during the two
hundred years of the contest by a single one of the
combatants is certainly rather strange: albeit not
the only instance of the kind.
Important additions to this list have, as we
hinted before, been made by Frankel, such as the
Samaritans' preference of the imperat. fur the 3d
pers. ; *•' ignorance of the use of the abl. absol. ; ^
Galileanisms, — to which also belongs the permu
tation of the letters Ahevi" (comp. Erub. p. 53,
"inn, "laS, "IDV), in the Samaritan Cod. ; tho
occasional softening down of the 5 into 3,/ of 3
into 3, !J into T, etc., and chiefly the presence
of words and phrases in the Sam. which are not
interpolated from parallel passages, but are entirely
wanting in our text. 9 Frankel derives from these
passages chiefly the conclusion that the Sam.
Pent, was, partly at least, emendated from the
LXX., Onkelos, and other very late sources. (See
below. )
We now subjoin, for the sake of completeness,
the beforementioned thirteen classes of Kirchheim,
in the original, to which we have added the trans
lation : —
1. anna -in nhvab ?''''13U?1 msDin
[Additions and alterations in the Samaritan Pen
tateuch in favor of Mount Gerizim.]
2. msbcb mSDin. [Additions for the
purpose of completion.]
3. "IISS. [Commentary, glosses.]
4. D'<3\'nm n"'b:?Sn ni^n. [Change
of verbs and moods.]

o Keil, in the latest edition of hia Introd., p. 590,
note 7, says, " Even the few variants, which Gesenius
tries to prove gen line, fall to the ground on closer
examination." » ntwrt n^ba.
' E. g. 3ipn for mp"' (Ex. xii. 48) ; s::''
x^w3^ (bx. xxxv. lo).
•J E.g. 1-I3T for -IIDT (Ex. xiii. 13); T!T\
for DiaT (Num XV. 35).
'¦ B.g. F)nm for ^nnKOen. viii.22); t^^Xl
«w "^yS (Gen. ixxTi. 28); ^ISt^n for F^ntt^n
(Ut. xi. 16), See. 177

r a?2n"'T for tt^Sn'^'l (Oen. xxxi. 35) ; PiOiWi
for nSD3 (Ex. XV. 10).
a Gen. xxiii. 2, after IJ^ISn fT'lp^ the
words pav bs are added ; xxvii. 27, after mti7n
the word Sbo is found (LXX.); xliii. 28, the phrase
D'^nbNb Sinn a;"'«n -[Ta is inserted after
the Ethnaoh ; xlvii. 21, D"'131?b T'aVn, and
Ex. xxxu. 32, NtJ; nn stan strn as is read.
Au exceedingly difficult and un-Hebrew passage 1^
found in Ex. xxiii. 19, reading nST 'il^SV ""D
apj?"' "inbNb sin n-asi n^to naT3.

2810 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
6. mriDn Fjlbn. [change of nouns.]
6. ns 'Wn. [Emendation of seeming irreg-
nlarities by assimilating forms, etc.]
7. nVmSn mian. [Permutation of
letters.] 8. D"'''13D. [Pronouns.]
9. yT2. [Gender.]
10. niDDian m\~nS. [Letters added.]
11. Dn'^n nVmS. [Addition of preposi
tions, conjunctions, articles, etc.]
12. 71-131 V'^^H- [Junction of separated,
and separation of joined words.]
13. nbl3? niD'^- [Chronological alterations.]
It may, perhaps, not be quite superfluous to ob
serve, before we proceed any further, that, since
up to this moment no critical edition of the Sam.
Pent., or even an examination of the Codices since
Kennicott — who can only be said to have begun
the work — has been thought of, the treatment of
the whole subject remains a most precarious task,
and bp.set with unexampled difficulties at every
step ; and also that, under these circumstances, a
more or less scientific arrangement of isolated or
common Samaritan mistakes and falsifications ap
pears to us to be a subject of very small conse
quence indeed.
It is, however, this same rudimentary state of
investigation — after two centuries and a half of
fierce discussion — which has left the other and
much more important question of the Age and
Origin of the Sam. Pent, as unsettled to-day as it
was when it first came under the notice of Eu
ropean scholars. For our own part we cannot but
think that as long as (1) the history of the
Samaritans remains involved in the obscurities of
which a former article will have given an account;
(2) we are restricted to a small number of com
paratively recent Codices; (3) neither these Codices
themselves have, as has just been observed, been
thoroughly collated and recollated, nor (4) more
than a feeble beginning has been made with any
thing like a collation between the various readings
of the Sam. Pent, and the LXX. (Walton omitted
the greatest number, "cum nullam sensus varie-
tatem constituant " ) ; so long must we have a
variety of the most divergent opinions, all based
on "probabilities," which are designated on the
other side as "false reasonings" and "individual
crotchets," and which, moreover, not unfrequentiy
start from flagrantly false premises.
We shall, under these circumstances, confine
ourselves to a simple enumeration of the leading

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
opinions, and the chief reasons and argumente at.
leged for and against them : —
(1.) The Samaritan Pentateuch came into ths
hands of the Samaritans as an inheritance trota
the ten tribes whom they succeeded — so the pop
ular notion runs. Of this opinion are J. Morinuu,
Walton, CappelluB, Kennicott, Michaelis, Eichhom,
Bauer, Jahn, Bertholdt, Steudel, Mazade, Stuart,
Davidson, and others. Their reasons for it may be
thus briefly summed up : —
(a.) It seems improbable that the Samaritans
should have accepted their code at the hands of the
Jews after the exile, as supposed by some critics,
since there existed an intense hatred between ita
two nationalities.
(b.) ITie Samaritan Canon has only the Pcnls-
teucb in common with the Hebrew Canon: had
that book been received at a period when the Ha
giographa and the Prophets were in the Jews'
hands, it would be surprising if they had not also
received those.
(c.) The Sam. letters, avowedly the raore an
cient, are found in the Sam. Cod. : therefore it wai
written before the alteration of the character into
the square Hebrew — which dates from the end of
the Exile — took place.
¦ [We cannot omit briefly to draw attention here
to a most keen-eyed suggestion of S. D. Luzzatto,
contained in a letter to R. Kirchheim (Ca/i^t
Shomron, p. 106, &c.). by the adoption of which
many readings in the Heb. Codex, now almost un
intelligible, appear perfectly clear. He assumes
that the copyist who at some time or other after
Ezra transcribed the Bible into the modem square
Hebrew ch<aracter, from the ancient copies written
in so-called Samaritan, occasionally mistook Samar
itan letters of similar form." And since our Sam.
Pent, has those difficult rea^lings in common witb
the Mas. Text, that other moot point, whether it
was copied fi-om a Hebrew or Samaritan Codex,
would thus appear to be solved. Its constant
changes of -) and 1, "^ and 1, n and n — let
ters which are similar in Hebrew, 'hut not in Sa
maritan — have been long used as a powerful argu
ment for the Samaritans having received the Pent
at a very late period indeed.]
Since the above opinion — that the Pent, carae
into the hands of the Samaritans frora the Ten
Tribes — is the raost popular one, we will now
adduce some of the chief reasons brought against
it, and the reader will see by the somewhat fee-
ble nature of the arguments on either side, that
the last word has not yet been spoken in the mat
ter. (a.) There existed no religious animosity what
soever between Judah and Israel when they sep
arated. The ten tribes could not therefore haiJ

a E. g. Is. xi. 15, Q^5?3 instead of D^V2
(adopted by Gesenius in Thes. p. 1017 a, without a
mention of its source, which he, however, distinctly
tt
avowed to Rosenmiiller — comp. t£? j, p. 107, note
K) ; Jer. iii. 8, S"lS1 instead of SHHI ; 1 Sam.
ixiv. 11, Dnm for Dnsi ; Ezr. vi. 4, mn
R* Sin ; Ez. xxii. 20, ''nn3ni for "'nnsni ;
Jnig XV. 20, D''1t2737 — Samson's reign during the
lima of tJbe Philistines being given as twenty y«u«

instead of forty (comp. Jer. Sola, 1), accounted fot
by the D (numerical letter for forty) in the original
being mistaken for ^ (twenty). Again, 2 Chr. xxii-
2, forty is put instead of twenty (comp. 2 K. viii. 26);
2 K. xxii. 4, nn''1 for "7n"'1 ; Ez. iu. 12, f I'D
for D1"13, etc.; all these letters — f^j and -fll,
fy and y>, J and J, ^ and ^ — rcaemblio*
each other very closely.

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
liequeathed such an animosity to those who suc-
3eeded them, and who, we may add, probably cared
aa little originally for the disputes between Judah
and Israel, aa colonists from far off countries, be-
lougina; to utterly different races, are likely to care
for the quarrels of the aborigines who formerly in
habited the country. On tbe contrary, the contest
between the slowly judaized Samaritans and the
Jews only dates from the moment when the latter
refused to recognize the claims of tbe former, of
belonging to the people of God, and rejected their
aid in building the Temple: why then, it is said,
should they not first have received the one book
which would bring them into still closer conformity
with the i-eturned exiles, at their hands? That the
Jews should yet have refused to receive them a^
equals is no more surprising than that the Samari
tans from that time forward tnok their stand upon
this very Law — altered according to their circum
stances; and proved from it that they and they
alone were the Jews /car* c^ox^v.
(b.) Their not possessing any other book of the
Hebrew Canon is not to be accounted for by the
circumstance that there was no other book in exist
ence at the time of the schism, because many
psalms of David, writings of Solomon, etc., must
have been circulating among the people. But the
jealousy witb which the Samaritans regarded Jeru
salem, and the intense hatred which they naturally
conceived against the post-Mosaic writers of na
tional Jewish history, would sufficiently account for
their rejecting the other books, in all of which, save
Joshua, Judges, and Job, either Jerusalem, as the
centre of worship, or David and his House, are
extolled. If, however, Loewe has really found with
them, as he reports in the Allgem. Zeilung d.
Judenth. April 18th, 1839, our Book of Kings and
Solomon's Song of Songs, — which they certainly
would not have received subsequently, — all these
arguments are perfectly gratuitous.
(c.) The present Hebrew character was not in
troduced by Ezra after the return from the Exile,
but carae into use at a much later period. The
Samaritans might therefore have received the Pen
tateuch at the hands of the returned exiles, who,
according to the Talmud, aftemoards c)\^\\geA their
writing, and in the Pentateuch only, so as to dis
tinguish' it from the Samaritan. "Originally,"
says Mar Sutra (Sanhedr. xxi. b), "the Pentateuch
was given to Israel in Jbri writing and the Holy
(Hebrew) language: it was again given to them
in the days of Ezra in the Ashurith writing and
Aramaic language. Israel then selected the Ash
urith writing and the Holy language, and left to
the Hediotes ClSiwrat) the Ibri writing and the
Aramaic language. Who are the Hediotes V The
Cuthim (Samaritans). What is Ibri writing?
The Libonaah (Samaritan).'' It ia well known
also that the Maccabean coins bear Samaritan in
scriptions: so that " Hediotes'' would point to the
common use of the Samaritan character for ordi
nary purposes, down to a very late period.
(2.) The second leading opinion on the age and
origin of the Sam. Pent, is that it was introduced
by Manasseh (comp. Josephus, Ant. xi. 8, §§ 2, 4)
Rt the time of the foundation of the Samaritan
Sanctuary on Mount Gerizim (Ant. van Dale, K.
Simon, Prideaux, Fulda, Hasse, De Wette, Gese
nius, Hupfeld, Hengstenberg, Keil, etc.). In sup
port of this opinion are alleged, the idolatry of the
Samaritans before they received a Jewish priest
through Esarhaddon (2 K. xvii. 24-33), and the

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 2811
immense number of readings common to the LXX.
and this Code, against the Masoretic Text.
(3.) Other, but very isolated notions, are tbost
of Morin, Le Clerc, Poncet, etc., that the Israelit-
ish priest sent by the king of Assyria to instruct
the new inhabitants in the religion of the country
brought the Pentateuch with hiin. Further, mat
the Samaritan Pentateuch was the production of
an impostor, Dositheus C^Mt^DITin Talmud), who
lived during the time ofthe Apostles, and who fal
sified the sacred records in order to prove that he
was the Messiah (Ussher). Against which there
is only this to be observed, that there is not the
slightest alteration of such a nature to be found.
Finally, that it is a very late and faulty recension,
with additions and corruptions of tbe Masoretic
Text (6th century after Christ), into which glosses
from the LXX. had been received (Frankel). Many
other suggestions have been made, but we cannot
here dwell upon tbem : suffice it to have mentioned
those to which a certain popularity and authority
attaches. Another question has been raised: Have all
the variants whicb we find in our copies been in
troduced at once, or are they the work of many
generations ? From the number of vague opinions
on that point, we have only room here to adduce
that of Azariah de Rossi, who traces many of the
glosses (Class 2) both in the Sam. and in the LXX,
to an ancient Targura in the hands of the people
at the time of Mzvsl, and refers to the Talmudical
passage of Nedar. 37: " And he read in the Book
of the Law of God — this is Mikra, the Pentateuch ;
l£7"1*1DD, explanatory, this is Targum.'" [Vek-
SIONS (Takgum).] Considering that no Masorah
fixed the letters and signs of the Samar. Codex,
and that, as we have noticed, the principal object
was to make it read as smoothly as possible, it is
not easily seen why each succeeding century should
not have added its own emendations. But here,
too, investigation still wanders about in the mazes
of speculation.The chief opinions with respect to the agreement
of the numerous and as yet uninvestigated — even
uncounted — readings of the LXX. (of which like
wise no critical edition exists as yet), and tbe Sam.
Pent, are: —
1. That the LXX. have translated from the
Sara. (De Dieu, Selden, Hottinger, Hassencamp,
Eichhorn, etc.).
2. That mutual interpolations have taken place
(Grotius, Ussher, Ravius, etc.).
3. That both Versions were formed from Hebrew
Codices, wbich differed among themselves as well
as from the one which afterwards obtained public
authority in Palestine; that however very many
willful corruptions and interpolations have crept in
in later times (Gesenius).
4. That the Samar. has, in the main, been al
tered from the LXX. (Frankel).
It raust, on the other hand, be stated also, that
the Sam, and LXX. quite as often disagree with
each other, and follow each the Masor. Text. Also,
that the quotations in the N. T, from the LXX.,
where they coincide with the Sam. against the
Hebr. Text, are so small in number and of so un
important a nature that they cannot be adduced ai
any argument whatsoever.
The following is a Hst of the MSS. of the Sam-
Pent, now in European libraries [Kennicott]: —

2812 SAMARITAN PEKTATEUCH
No. 1. Oxford (Usslier) Bodl., foi., No. 3127.
Perfect, except the first twenty and last nine verses.
No. 2. Oxford (Ussher) Bodl., 4to, No. 3128,
with an Arabic version in Sam. characters. Imper
fect. Wanting the whole of I..eviticus and many
portions of the other books.
No. 3. Oxford (Ussher) Bodl., 4to, No. 3129.
Wanting many portions in eivch book.
No. 4. Oxford (Ussher, Laud) Bodl., 4to, No.
624. Defective in parts of Deut.
No. 5. Oxford (Marsh) Bodl., 12mo, No. 15.
Wanting some verses in the beginning ; 21 chapters
obliterated. No. 6. Oxford (Pocock) Bodl.,24mo, No. 5328.
Parts of leaves lost ; otherwise perfect.
No. 7. London (Ussher) Br. Mus. Claud. B. 8.
Vellum. Complete. 254 leaves.
No. 8. Paris (Peiresc) Imp. Libr., Sam. No. 1.
Recent MS., containing the Hebr. and Sam. Texts,
with an Arab. Vers, in the Sam. character. Want
ing the first 34 cc, and very defective in many
places. No. 9. Paris (Peiresc) Imp. Libr., Sam. No. 2.
Ancient MS., wanting first 17 chapters of Gen.;
and all Deut. from the 7th ch. Houbigant, how
ever, quotes from Gen. x. 11 of this Codex, a rather
puzzling circumstance.
No. 10. Paris (Harl. de Sancy) Oratory, No. 1.
The famous MS. of P. della Valle.
No. 11. Paris (Dom. Noliu) Oratory, No. 2.
Made-up copy.
No. 12. Paris (Libr. St. Genfev.). Of little
value. No. 13. Rome (Peir. and Barber.) Vatican, No.
106. Hebr. and Sam. texts, with Arab. Vers, in
Sam. character. Very defective and recent. Dated
the 7th centui-y (?).
No. 14. Rome (Card. Cobellutius), Vatican.
Also supposed to le of the 7th century, but very
doubtfuL No. 15. Milan (Ambrosian Libr.). Said to be
very ancient; not collated.
No. 16. Leyden (GoUus MS.), foi., No. 1. Said
to be complete.
No. 17. Gotha (Ducal Libr.). A fragment only.
No. 18. London, Count of Paris' Library. With
Version. Printed editions are contained in the Paris and
Walton Polyglots ; and a separate reprint from the
latter was made by Blayney, Oxford, 1790. A
Facsimile of the 20th ch. of Exodus, from one of
the Nablus MSS., has been edited, with portions
of the corresponding Masoretic text, and a Russian
Translation and Introduction, by Levysohn, Jeru-
lalem, 1860.« II. Versions.
1. Samaritan. — The origin, author, and age of
the Samaritan Version of the Five Books of Moses,
has hitherto — so F.ichhorn quaintly observes —
" always been a golden apple to the investigators,
and will very probably remain so, until people leave
off venturing decisive judgments upon historical
subjects which no one has recorded in antiquity."
And, indeed, modern investigators, keen as they
have been, have done little towards the elucidation

a The original intention of tbe Russian Qovernment
to publish the whole Codex in the same manner seems
to h.ave been given up for the present. We can only
hope that, if the work is ever ttiken up again, it will
Ktl intc more competent hands. Mr. Levysohn^s In-

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
of the subject. According to the Samaritans them
selves (De Sacy, Mem. i; Paulus; Winer), theil
high-priest Nathaniel, who died about 20 B. c, 'a
its author. Gesenius puts its date a few years after
Christ. Juynboll thinks that it had long been ui
use in the second post Christian century. Fraukel
places it in the post-Mohammedan time. Otherin.
vestigators date it from the time of Esarhaddon's
priest (Schwarz), or either shortly before or after
the foundation of the temple on Mount Gerizim.
It seems certain, however, that it was composed
before the destruction of the second temple; and
being intended, like the Targunis, for the use of tbe
people exclusively, it was written in the popular
Samaritan idiom, a mixture of Hebrew, Aramaic,
and Syriac.
In this version the original haa been followed,
with a very few exceptions, in a slavish and some
times perfectly childish manner, the sense evidently
being of minor consideration. As a very striking
instance of this may be adduced the translation ol
Deut. iii. 9 : " The Zidonians call Hermon T'ltB
(Shirion), and the Amorites call it I^DJi? (Shenir)."
The translator deriiing 7""~l!i7 from "1127 "prince,
master," renders it 7^"^ "masters;" and finding
the letters reversed in the appellation of the Amor
ites as T'DiZ?, reverses also the sense in his ver
sion, and translates it by "slaves" ^"n^^ti^Q!
In other cases, where no Samaritan equivalent
conld be found for a Hebrew word, the translator,
instead of paraphrasing it, simply transposes its
letters, so as to make it look Samaritan. Occa
sionally he is misled by the orthography of tho
original: J SIES 12 DS, " If so, where . . .?"
he renders ilWIS p CS, " If so, I shall be
wrath:" mistaking SI^S for tSN, from fj^
" anger." On the whole it may be considered a
very valuable aid towards the study of the Samar.
Text, on account of its very close verbal adherence.
A few cases, however, may be brought forward,
where the Version has departed from the Text,
either under the influence of popular religious no
tions, or for the sake of explanation. " We pray"
— so they write to Scaliger — " evei^ day in the
morning and in the evening, as it is said, the one
lamb shalt thou prepare in the morning and the
second in the evening; we bow to the ground and
worship God." Accordingly, we find the translate!
rendering the passage, "And Isaac went to 'walk'
(n'ltt77) in the field," by — " and Itoac went to
pray {HSlbl'cV) in the field." "And Abraham
rose in the morning (~ip")23)," is rendered "'7VD,
" in the prayer," etc. Anthropomorphisms are
avoided. " The image (ri31Cn) of God " i»
rendered !~\ty^Vi, "the glory." mrT* ¦"?,
"The mouth of Jehovah," is transformed into
mn"' na'^li, »the word of Jehovah." Foi

troduction, brief as it is, shows him to be ntterl;
wanting both in scholarship and in critical acumen,
and to be, moreover, entirely unacquainted with th«
fact that his new discoveries have been disposed ot
some hundred and -fifty years since.

8AMAEITAJN i-EN TATE UCH
CnbS, "God," n-2«^a, "Angel," is fre
quently found, etc. A great difiBculty is offered by
the proper names which this version often substi- I for instance

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 2813
tutes, they being, in many cases, less inteUigible
than the original ones." The similarity it has witt
Onkelos occasionally amounts to complete identity,

Onkelos in Polyglott. Num.
cv bba : -in'^ab ntt^ia dv r^^n^ bbai
wnn« IS -132 iinb -m\-n bsiu?"' ''3a
Dip iTab snnj -113 -nab wt^-^ ns
^n -)Ti pTis-i mn -lana : r\^^n>
^nw^ sb p^nv -lam bm mn nam
T'33371 Titi?"! hiib T'nsi? nnna bsi
.bis''"' sb i''j£;"'2"'"i T'a''?2-i
But no safe conclusion as to tbe respective rela
tion of the two versions can be drawn from this.
This Version has likewise, in passing through
the hands of copyists and commentators, suffered
many interpolations and corruptions. The first
copy of it was brought to Europe by De la Valle,
together with the Sam. Text, in 1616. Joh. Ne-
drinus first published it together with a faulty Latin
translation in the Paris Polyglott, whence it was,
with a few emendations, reprinted in Walton, with
some notes by Castellus. Single portions of it
appeared in Halle, ed. by Cellarius, 1705, and by
Uhlemann, Leipz., 1837. Compare Gesenius, De
Pent. Sam. Oiigine, etc., and Winer's monograph,
De Versionis Pent. Sam. Irulole, etc., Leipzig,
1817. 2. Ti -^iiapeniKSv. The hatred between the
Samaritans and the Jews is supposed to have caused
the former to prepare a Greek translation of their
Pent, in opposition to the LXX. of the Jews. In
this way at least the existence of certain fragments
of a Greek Version of the Sam. Pent., preserved in
lome MSS. of the LXX., together with portions of
Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, etc., is accounted

" A list of the more remarkable of these, iu the
Base of geographical names, is subjoined : —
Oen. viii. 4, for Ararat, Sareodlb, 3^1310.
I. 10, " Shinar, Tsofah, nSI^ (T Zobah).
11, " Asshur, Astun, ]"ltDD^.
— " Kehoboth, Satcan, ]3aD (? Sit
tacene).
— 1. Calah, Laksah, nOpb.
12, « Reaen, Asfah, nDDJ?.
30, " Mesha, Mesbal, b^Da.
xi. 9, <i Babel, Lilak, pb"'b.
XiU. 3, " Ai, Cefrah, niDS (? Cephirah,
Josh. ix. 17).
ziT. 5, " AshterothKarnaim, AtinithRarniah,
n"'3-ip n''3"'sr.
» Ham, Lishah, nti?^b.
6, 11 El Paran, Pelishah, etc., DIIS
aibsb na?bD.
— 14, .. Dan, Banias, DS''33.
— 16, " Hobah, Fogah, n313.
— 17, " Shaveh, Mifneh, n3Sa.

i. 1, 2. Sam. Vers, in Barberini H-iglou.
av bba : -la'^ab nteia cv nini bbai
nns IS n33 iinb -)a\-n hn-)W -"sa
n-H3nab 1^3 -113 -na'^ te-is'' n:?
-lam '>an •nT ton-n -nan ia : nin'^b
n-iw -na bai sn::?'' sb ton-n ''am
1''K;''n"'i I'^T'an i-'nsyi nnw sb i''a3i?
.bs"'" sb
for. These fragments are supposed to be alluded to
by the Greek Fathers under the name ^afiapet-
tik6v. It is doubtful, however, whether it ever ex
isted (as Gesenius, Winer, -Juynboll, suppose) in
the shape of a complete translation, or only desig
nated (as Castellus, Voss, Herbst, hold) a certain
number of schoHa translated from the Sam. Version.
Other critics again (Havernick, Hengstenberg, etc.)
see in it only a corrected edition of certain passages
of the LXX.
3. In 1070 an Arabic Version of the Sam. Pent.
was made by Abu Said in Egypt, on the basis of
the Arabic translation of Saadjah haggaon. Like
the original Samaritan it avoids anthropomorph
isms and anthropopathisms, replacing the latter
by euphemisms, besides occasionally making some
slight alterations, more especially in proper nouns.
It is extant in several MS. copies in European
libraries, and is now in course of being edited by
Kuenen, Leyden, 1850-54, &c. It appears to have
been drawn up from the Sam. Text, not from the
Sam. Version; the Hebrew words occasionally
remaining unaltered in the translation.'' Often
also it renders the original differently from the

Gen. XV. 18, for Euphrates, Shalmah, nSabU?.
— 20, " Kephaim, Chasah, HSDn.
XX. 1, .. Gerar, Askelun, pbpDV.
xxvi. 2, " Mitsraim, Nefik, p''D3 (? Exoaue).
xx>ivi.8,9,&c."i Seir, Gablah, nb33 (Jebal).
37, " Rehoboth, Fathi, TlQ.
Num. xxi. 33, .. Bashan, Bathnin, ]^3n3 (Batansea).
xxxiv. 10', " Shepham, 'Abamiah, fT^an^ (Apa.
m^a).
11, .. Shepham, 'Afamiah, n"'aD5.
Deut. U. 9, " Ar (IJ?), Arshah, nt27-|S.
iii. 4, .. Argob, Rigobaah, nS213'''l (Pn^
7»|3<x).
— 17, .1 Chinnereth, Genesar, '^033.
iv.4S, .. Sion, Tur Telga, Slbn TITS (Je
bel et Telj).
6 E. g. Ex. xiii. 12, urn "ItaS b3 (Sam. Ter.
?m ''mnQ ba) remams -.isU Jil xxi. 3
ntSS by2 (Sam. Ver nnS ]nD!r^ U givel
st

\jje\ i^xi.

2814 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
Samar. Version." Principally noticeable is its
excessive dread of assigning to God anything
like human attributes, physical or mental. For
DTlbW mn'', " God," we find (as in Saadiah
sometimes) asJJt C)i\jO, "the Angel of God;"
for "the eyes of God" we have (Deut. xi. 12)
aJJt &ia.a*!^, "the Beholding of God."
For "Bread of God," *\jf, "the necessary,"
etc. Again, it occasionally adds honorable epithets
where the Scripture seems to have omitted them,
etc. Its language is far from elegant or even cor
rect; and its use must likewise be confined to the
critical study of the Sam. Text.
4. To this Arabic version Abu Barachat, a
Syrian, wrote in 1208 a somewhat paraphrastic
commentary, which has by degrees come to be
looked npon as a new Version — the SyHac, in
contradistinction to the Arabic, and which is
often confounded with it in the MSS. On both
Recensions see Eichhorn, Gesenius, Juynboll, etc.
III. Samakitan Literatukk.
It may perhaps not be superfluous to add here
a concise account of the Samaritan literature in
general, shice to a certain degree it bears upon our
subject. 1. Chronicon Samariianum. — Of the Penta
teuch and its Versious we have spoken. We have
also mentioned that the Samaritans have no other
book of our Received Canon. " There is no
Prophet but Moses" is one of their chief dogmas,
aud fierce are the invectives in which they indulge
against men like Samuel, "a Magician and an In
fidel," jii^6 (Chron. Sam.); Eli; Solomon, "Shi
loh " (Gen. xlix. 10), "z. e. the man who sball
^oil the Law and whom many nations will follow
because of their own licentiousness" (De Sacy,
Mem. 4); Ezi-a "cursed for ever" (Lett, io Hun
tington, etc.). Joshua alone, partly on account of
his being an Ephraimite, partly because Shechem
was selected by him as ttie scene of his solemn
valedictory address, seems to have found favor in
their eyes; but the Booh of Joshua, which they
perhaps possessed in its original form, gradually
came to form only the groundwork of a fictitious
national Samaritan history, overgrown with the
most fantastic and anachronistic legends. This
is the so-called " Samaritan Joshua," or Chroni
con Samariianum Ci.i^J i'>^ * it- .g ^ y-^^^l
sent to Scaliger by the Samaritans of Cairo in 1584.
It was edited by Juynboll (Leyden, 1848), and his
acute investigations have shown that it was redacted
into its present form about a. d. 1300, out of four
special documents, three of which were Arabic and
one Hebrew (/. c. Samaritan). The Leyden MS.
in 2 pts., which Gesenius, De Sam. Theol. p. 8, n.
18, thinks unique, is dated a. h. 764-919 (a. d.
1362-1513); — the Cod. in the Brit. Museum,

o Thus ni**37, GcD. xlix. 11 (Sam. Ver. Hmp,
'his city "), the Arab, renders 5 wint • Gen, xii. 43,
"J"I3S (Sam. Ter. T1")3 = K^pv|), the Arab, trans-

'if^

\ o:i(i=Ti=iw.

SAMABITAN PENTATEUCH
lately acquired, dates a. h. 908 (A. d. 1502). Th(
chronicle embraces the time from .loshua to about
A. D. 350, and was originally written in,or subsfr
quently translated into, Arabic, After eight cliap.
ters of introductory matter begins the early historj
of "Israel" under ^'King Joshua," who, anioiig
other deeds of arms, wages war, with 300,000
mounted men — "half Israel" — agauist two kings
of Persia. The last of his five '• royal " successorB
is Shimshon (Samson), the handsomest and most
powerful of them all. These reigned for the space
of 250 years, and were followed by five high-pricsta,
the last of whom was L'si ( ? = Uzzi, Ez. vii. 4).
\\'ith the history of Eli, "the seducer," whidi
then foUows, and Samuel "a sorcerer," the ac
count, by a sudden transition, runs off to Nebu
chadnezzar (ch. 45), Alexander (ch. 46), and Ha
drian (47), and closes suddenly at the time of
Julian the Apostate.
We shall only adduce here a single specimen
out of the 45th ch. of the book, which treats of
the subject of the Pentateuch : —
Nebuchadnezzar was king of Persia (Mossul),
and conquered the whole world, also the kings of
Syria. In the thirteenth year of their subjuga
tion they rebelled, together with the kings of Jeru
salem (Kodsh). Whereupon the Samaritans, to
escape from the vengeance of their pursuer, fled,
and Persian colonists took their place. A curse,
however, rested upon the land, and the new immi
grants died from eating of its fruits (Joseph. Ani.
ix. 14, § 3), The chiefs of Israel (i. e. Samari
tans), being asked the reason of this by the king,
explained it by the aboUtion of the worship of
God. The king upon this permitted them to return
and to erect a temple, in which work he promised
to aid them, and he gave them a letter to ail their
dispersed brethren. '1'he whole Dispersion dow
assembled, and the Jews said, " AVe will now go
up into the Holy City (Jerusalem) and live there
in unity." But the sons of Harun (Aaron) and
of Joseph (i. t. the priests and the Samaritans)
insisted upon going to the "Mount of Blessing,"
Gerizim. The dispute was referred to the king, and
while the Samaritans proved their case from the
books of Moses, the Jews grounded their preference
for Jerusalem on the post-Mosaic books, 'i'he supe
rior force of the Samaritan argument was fully recog
nized by the king,, But as each side — by the mou5i
of their spokesmen, Sanballat and Zerubabel respec
tively, — charged the other with basing its claims
on a forged document, the sacred books of each
party were subjected to the ordeal of fire. The
Jewish Record was immediately consumed, while
the Samaritan leaped three times from the flames
into tbe king's lap: the third time, however, a por
tion of the scroll, upon which the king had spat,
was found to have been consumed. Thirty-six
Jews were immediately beheaded, and the Samari
tans, to the number of 300,000 wept, and .ill Israel
worshipped henceforth upon Mount Gtrizira —
" and so we will ask our help from the ;;race of
God, who has in his mercy granted all these things,
and in Him we will confide."
2. From this work chiefly has been compiled an
other Chronicle, written in the llth century (liJ55)

& A word, it may be observed by the way,
taken by the Mohammedans fcom. the Rabbioioil

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
oy AbuT Fatah." This comprises the history of
the Jews and Samaritans from Adam to A. n. 756
aud 708 (A. D. 1355 and 1397) respectively (the
forty-two years must have been added by a later
historiographer). It is of equally low historical
value; its only remarkable feature being its adop
tion of certain Talmudical legends, which it took
at second hand from Josippon ben Gorion. Accord
ing to this chronicle, the deluge did not cover
Gerizim, in the same manner as the Midrash (Ber.
Rah.) exempts the whole of Palestine from it. A
specimen, liltewise on the subject of the Penta^
teuch, may not be out of place: —
In the year of the world 4150, and in the 10th
year of Philadelphus, this king wished to learn the
difference between the Law of the Samaritans, and
that of the Jews. He therefore bade both send
him some of their elders. The Samaritans dele
gated Ahron, Sumla, and Hudmaka, the Jews
Eleazar only. The king assigned houses to them,
and gave them each an adept of the Greek language,
iu order that he might assist them in their transla^
tion. Tlie Samaritans rendered only then- Penta
teuch into the language of the land, while Eleazar
produced a translation of the whele Canon. The
king, perceiving variations in the respective Penta-
teuchs, asked the Samaritans the reason of it.
Whereupon they replied that these differences chiefly
turned upon two points. (1.) God Acm^, chosen the
Mount of Gerizim: and if the Jews were right,
why waa there no mention of it in their Thora?
(2.) The Samaritans read, Deut. xxxii. 35,
Dp3 DVv, "to the day of vengeance and re
ward," the Jews Dp3 ** /, '¦'¦Mine is vengeance
and reward" — which left it uncertain whether
that reward was to be given here or in the world
to come. Tlie king then asked what was their
opinion about the Jewish prophets and their writ
ings, and they replied, " Either they must have said
and contauied what stood in the Pentateuch, and
1 hen their saying it again was superfluous ; or more ;
or less : '' either of which was again distinctly pro
hibited in the Thora; or finally they must have
changed the laws, and these were unchangeable.*'
A Greek who stood near, observed that laws must
be adapted to ditferent times, and altered accord
ingly; whereupon the Samaritans proved that this
was only the case with human, not with divine
laws : moreover, the seventy Elders had left them
the expHcit command not to accept a word beside
the Thora, The king now fully approved of their
translation, and gave them rich presents. But to
the Jews he strictly enjoined not even to approach
Mount Gerizim. There can be no doubt that there
is a certain historical fact, however contorted, at
the bottom of this (comp. the Talmudical and other
accounts of the LXX.), but we cannot now further
pui"sue the subject. A lengthened extract from
this chronicle — the original text with a German
translation — is given by Schnuirer in Paulus'
Neues RepertoHum, 1790, 117-159-

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 2815
3. Another "historical" work is the ^.^LXS
yyklAMJ^I on the history and genealogy of the
patriarchs, from Adam to Moses, attributed to
Moses himself; perhaps the sarae which Petermann
saw at Nablus, and which consisted of sixteen
vellum leaves (suppo.sed, however, to contain the
history of the world down to the end). An anony
mous recent commentary on it, A. ti. 1200, a. d.
1784, is in the Brit. Mus. (No. 1140, Add.).
4. Of other Samaritan works, chiefly in Arabic —
their Samaritan and Hebrew Uterature having
mostly been destroyed by the Emperor Commo-
dus — may be briefly mentioned Commentaries upon
the whole or parts of their Pentateuch, by Zadaka b.
Manga b. Zadaka;" further, by Maddib Eddin
Jussuf b. Abi Said b- Khalef ; by Ghazel Ibn Abu-
1-Surur Al-Safawi Al-Ghazzi <^ (a. ii. 1167-68, a. d.
1753-54, Brit. Mus. ), &c. Theological works chiefly
in Arabic, mixed with Samaritanisms, by Abul
Hassan of Tyre, On the religious Manners and
Customs of ihe Samaritans, and ihe IVoi-ld to
come ; by Mowaflek Eddin Zadaka el Israili, A
Compendium of Religion, on ihe Nature of the
Divine Being, on Man, on ihe Worsliip of God;
by Amin Eddin Abu'l Baracat, On ihe Ten Com-
mann'menfs ; by AbuU Hassan Ibn El Markum
Gonajem ben Abulfaraj' ibn Chatar, On Penance;
by Muhaddib Eddin Jussuf Ibn Salmaah Ibn
Jussuf Al Askari, A?i Exposition of the Mosaic
Laws, etc., etc. Some grammatical works may
be further mentioned, by Abu Ishak Ibrahim,
On ihe Hebrew Language ; by Abu Said, On
reading ihe Hebrew Text ((wft^J! ivV-^'jJ')*
This grammar begins in the following character
istic manner: —
" Thus said the Sheikh, rich in good works and
knowledge, the model, the abstemious, the well-
guided Abu Said, to whom God be merciful and
compassionate. " Praise be unto God for his help, and I ask for
his guidance towards a clear exposition. I have
resoh'ed to lay down a few rules for the proper
manner of reading the Holy Writ, on account of
the difference which I found, with respect to it,
among our co-religionists — whom may God make
numerous and inspire to obedience unto Him ! —
and in such a maimer that I. shall bring proofs for
my assertions, from wbich the wise could in no
way differ. But God knows best !
" Rule 1 : With all their discrepancieft about
dogmas or religious views, yet all the confessors of
the Hebrew religion agree in this, that the iH of
the first pers. (sing, perf.) is always pronounced
with Kasra, and that a '^ follows it, provided it has
no suffix. It is the same, when the suflBx of the
plural, D, is added to it, according to the unani
mous testimony of the MSS,, etc."

« ^^A.\ ^^l^jjt ^J!jJ\ ^1
^5^wj JI ^-AJjJ (^*«lAtJI (Bodl.; Imp.
Library, Paris) Two copies in Berlin Library (Pe
termann, lio&QD) recently acquired.
? This work has pince been published, with the
(tie : " AbuUithi iVanales Samaritani. Quos Arabice

edidit, cum ProU. Latine yertit et Commentario illus
travit Dr. Bd. Vilmar." Gotha, 1865, 8to. A.
6 Compare the well-known dictum of Omar on the
.'tlexandrian Library (Gibbon, ch. 51).
'¦J^liil ySuJ\ ^ (ISth century, Bodl.)
d Under the title ,.y£. <,^Jt\jJu\ l—lLCiU

,_^j6tj^l >lv*«.|.

2816 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
The treatise concludes, at the end of the 12th
Canon or Rule : —
" Often also the perfect is used in the form of
the imperative. Thus it is reported of a man
of the best reputation, that he had used the
form of the imperative in the passage (Ex. iii. 13),
1Dtt7 no ^b 1inWT—*And they shall say to
me. What is his name ? ' He who reported this
to me is a man of ^'ery high standing, against
whose trutlifulness nothing can be brought forward.
But God knows best I
" There are now a few more words to be treated,
of which, however, we will treat viva voce. And
blessed be His name forevermore."
5. Their Liturgical literature is more extensive,
and not without a certain poetical value. It con
sists chiefly of hymns (Defter, Durran) and prayers
for Sabbath and Feast-days, and of occasional
prayers at nuptials, circumcisions, burials, and the
like. We subjoin a. few specimens irom MSS. in
the British Museum, transcribed into Hebrew char
acters. The following is part of a Litany for the dead : —
Lord Jehovah, Elohim, for Thy mercy, and for Thine
Own sake, and for Thy name, and for Thy glory, aud
for the sake of our Lords Abraham, and Isaac, and
Jacob, aud our Lords Moses and Aaron, and Eleazar,
and Ithamar, and Pinehas, and Joshua, and Caleb,
and the Holy Angels, aod the seventy Eiders, and the
holy mountain of Gerizim, Beth El. If Thou accept-
est [D'^C£?n] this prayer [S~lpQ = reading], may
there go forth from before Thy holy countenance a
gift sent to protect the spirit of Thy servant, . ,.!j\^
..t^^t^ I'V^I P^' *'^® ®°^ °^ ^'J' °^ *^® ^°*^ °^
[  ], daughter [  ] from the sons of [  ]. 0
Lord Jehovah, in Thy mercy have compassion on him
(•1 [or] have compassion on her), and rest his (her)
soul in the garden of Eden; and forgive him (.f
[or] her), and all the congregation of Israel who flock
to Mount Gerizim, Beth EL. Amen. Through Moses
the trusty. Amen, Amen, Amen.
The next is part of a hymn (see Kirchheim's
Carme Shotnron, emendations on Gesenius, Cai-m.
Sam. iii.): — 1.
"TPIM SbW nbS rVh There is no God but one,
nD*'37p D'^nbS The everlasting God,
Cbiyb "IV U^Vpl Who Uveth forever ;
P/**!! bD bv n7N God above aU powers,
Dv3?7 "JD *'DD1 And who thus remaineth
forever.

^rrinD nm "l vTID in Thy grcaij power shall
we trust,
yiJ^ in nWI For Thou art our Lord ;
fT^iriS"! "[ninbWn in Thy Godhead ; for
Thou hast conducted
ntZJ'^'n ]12 ntsbV The world from begin
ning.

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
8.
rr^DD in^nDn Thy power was liiddeQ,
"I^^n"n "I"iniDl And Thy gloiy and mercy
nnKD3innS*'ba'i'»b:i Eevealed are both thi
tiuDgs that are ifr
vealed, and tbosi
that are unreveaial
"l3*l "[mnbS ^tabtt^n Before the reign ol
Thy Godhead, etc.
IV. AVe shall only briefly touch here, in con
clusion, upon the strangely contradictory rabbhiical
laws framed for tlie regulation of the intercourse
between the two rival iiationahties of Jews and
Samaritans in religious aud ritual matters; dis
crepancies due parti}" to the ever-shifting phases of
their mutual relations, partly to the modificatiooB
brought about in the Samaritan creed, and partly
to the now less now greater acquiescence of the
Jews in the religious state of the Samaritans.
Thus we find the older Talmudical authorities dis
puting whether the Cuthim (Samaritans) are to
be considered as "Real Converts" n22M '^*T^2l^
or only converts through fear — " IJon Converts"
j"l V"1S '^n*'^ — in allusion to the incident related
in 2 K. xvii. 25 (Baba K. 38; Kidush. 75^ &c.)
One Rabbi holds ^^yD ^i^O, " A Samaritan ia
to be considered as a heathen;" while K. Simon
b. Gamaliel — the same whose opinion on the Sam.
Pent, we had occasion to quote before — pro
nounces that they are " to be treated in every
respect Uke Israehtes" (Dem. Jei'. ix. 2; Keiub.
11, &c.). It would appear that notwithstanding
their rejection of all but the Pentateuch, they bad
adopted many traditional religious practices from
the Jews — principally such as were derived direct
from the books of ISIoses. It was acknowledged
that they kept these oi-dinances with even greater
rigor than those from whom they adopted them
The utmost confidence was therefore placed in tbem
for their ritually slaughtering animals, even fowls
(Chul. 4 a); their wells are pronounced to be
conformed to all the conditions prescribed by the
Mishnah (Toseph. Mikw. 6; comp. Mikio. 8,
1). See, however, Abodah Zarah (Jer. v. 4).
Their uideavened bread for tlie Passover is com
mended (Git. 10; Chul. 4); their cheese (Mas.
Cuih. 2); .and even tlieir whole food is allowed
to the Jews (Ab. Zar. Jtr. \: 4). Compare John
iv. 8, where the disciples are reported to have gone
into the city of Samaria to buy food. Their testi
mony was valued in that most stringent matter of
the letter of divorce (Mas. Cuth. ii.). They wtre
admitted to the office of circumcising Jewish boja
(Mas. Cuth. i.) — against R. Jehudah, who asserts
that they circumcise "in the name of Mount
Gerizim" (Abodah Zarah., 43). The criminal
law makes no difference whatever between them and
the Jews (Mas. Cuih. 2; Makk. 8); and » Sa^
maritan who strictly adheres to his own special
creed is honored with the title of_ a Cuthi-Chaber
(Gitiin, 10 6: Mtddah, 33 6). By degrees, bow-
ever, inhibitions began to be laid upon the use
of their wine, vinegar, bread (Mas. Cuth. 2
Toseph. 77, 5), &c. This intermediate stage of
uncertain and inconsistent treatment, which must
have lasted for neaily two ceiitiu-ies, is best char
acterized by the small rabbinic^ ti'eatise quoted
above — Massecheth Cuthim (2d cent. A i>.) —

SAMAUITAS PENTATEUCH
5rst edited by Kirchheim (m2I2p 'dQ ^^W
bbti;"!"!'*) Francf. 1851 — the beginning of which
reads : " The ways (treatment) of the Cuthim (Sa
maritans), sometimes like Goyim (heathens) some
times like Israel." No less striking ia its conclu
sion : —
" And why are the Cuthim not permitted to come
into the midst of the Jews? Because they have
mixed with the priests of the heights " (idolaters).
R. Ismael says: " They were at frst pious con
verts (p^2 ^"T'S = real Israelites), and why is
the intercourse with them prohibited ? Because of
their illegally begotteji children," and because they
do not fulfill the duties of 133^ (marrying the
deceased brother's wife); " a law which they under
stand, as we saw above, to apply to the betrothed
only. " At what period .are they to be received (into
the Community) ? " " When they abjure the Mount
Gerizim, recognize Jerusalem (namely, its superior
claims), and believe iu tbe Resurrection."''
We hear of their exclusion by R. Meir (Chid.
6), in the third generation of the Tanaim, and
later again under Ii. Abbuha, tbe Amora, at the
time of Diocletian; this time the exclusion was
unconditional and final (Jer. Abodah Zarah, 6,
&c.). Partaking of their bread " was considered a
transgression, to be punished like eating the flesh
of swine (Zeb. S, 6). The intensity of their
mutual hatred, at a later period, is best shown by
dicta like that in Meg. 28, 6. " May it never
happen to me that I behold a Cuthi." " Whoever
receives a Samaritan hospitably in his house, de
serves that his children go into exile " (Synh.
104, 1). In Matt. x. 5 Samaritans and Gentiles
are already mentioned tojjether; and in Luke xvii.
18 the Samaritan is called "a stranger" (aWo-
yeviis). The reason for this exclusion is variously
given. They are said liy some to have used and
sold the wine of heathens for sacrificial purposes
(Jer. ibid.); by, others they were charged with
worshipping the dove sacred to Venus ; an imputa
tion over the correctness of which hangs, up to this
momeut, a certain mysterious doubt. It has, at
all events, never been brought home to tbem, that
they really worshipped this image, although it was
certainly seen with them, even by recent travellers.
AvAorilies. — 1. Original texts. Pentateuch iu
the Polyglotts of Paris, and Walton; also (in Hebr.
letters) by Blayney, 8vo, Ox. 1790. Sam. Version
in the Polyglotts of Walton and Paris. Arab.
Vers, of Abu Said, Libri Gen. Ex. el Lev. by
Kuenen, 8vo, Lugd. 1851-5i; also Van Vloten,
Specimen, etc., ito, Lugd. 1803. Literee ad Scal
iger, etc. (by De Sacy), and Epistola ad Ludolph.
(Bruns), in Eichhoril's Reperiorium, xiii. Also,
with Letters to De Sacy himself, in Notices et Ex-
Irails des MSS. [vol. xii.] Par. 1831. Chronicon
Samariianum, by Juynboll, iU>, Leyden, 1848.
Specimen of Samar. Commentary on Gen. xlix. by
Bchnurrer, in Eichhorn's Repert. xvi. Carm. Sa
mar. [ed.] Geseuius, 4to, Lips. 1824.
o The briefest rendering of D'^^TDtt which we
^n give — a full explanation of the term would ex
ceed our limits.
6 On ttiis subject the Pent, contains nothing ex
plicit. The>' It first n^ected that dogma, but adopted
t at a later period, perhaps since Dositheus; comp.

8AMGAR-NEB0

2817

2. Dissertations, etc., J. Morinus, Exercitalionet
etc., Par. 1631 ; Opusaila Hebr. Samaritica, Par
1657 ; Antiquitates Eccl. Orient., Lond. 1682. J
H. Hottinger, Exercil. Anti-morinianee, etc., Tignr
1644. Walton, De Pent. Sam. 'in Prolegom" ad
Polyglott. Castell, Animadversiones, in Polyglott,
vi. Cellarius, Ho?-w Samarilaiue, Ciz. 1682; alsc
Collectanea, in Ugolini, xxii. I.eusden, Philulogw
Hebr. Utraj. 1686. St. Morinus, Exercil. de Ling
ptinuBVa, Utr. 1694. Schwarz, Kxercitationes
etc. Houbigant, Prolegomena, etc., Par. 174(
Kennicott, State of Ihe Heb. Text, etc., ii. 1759
J. G. Carpzov, Crit. Sacra V. T. Pt. 1, Lips
1728. Hassencamp, Entdeckler Ursprung, etc
0. G. Tychsen, Disputalio. etc., Biitz. 1765. Bauer,
Crit. Saa: Gesenius, De Pent. Sam. Origine,
etc., Hal. 1815 ; Samar. Theologia, etc., Hal.
1822; Anecdota Exon., Lips. 1824. Hengstenberg,
Autli. des Pent. Mazade, Sur V Orii/ine, etc..
Gen. 1830. M. Stuart, A^. Amer. Rev. [vol. xxu.]
Frankel, Vorstudien, Leipz. 1841, [and Einjluss
d. palestin. Exegese, etc., 1851.] Kirchheim,
inCIU? ''a-13, Frankfort, 1851. The Einleit-
ungen of Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Vater, De Wette,
Havernick, Keil, [Bleek,] etc. Tbe Geschlchten
of Jost, Herzfeld, etc.
3. Versions. Winer, De Vers. Pent. Sam.
De Sacy, Mtim. sur la Vers. Arabe des Livres de
MoXse, in J/chi. de Litterature, xHx , Par. 1808 ;
also L'Etnl actuel des Samariiains, Par. 1812;
De Versione Samaritano- Arabica, etc., in Eich
horn's AUg. Bibliothek, x. 1-176. E. D.
* On the Samarit.™ Pentateuch there are articles
by Prof. Stuart in the Bibl. Repus. for Oct. 1832,
and by T. Walker in tbe Chrisl. Examiner for
May and Sept. 1840. See also Davidson's art. in
Kitto's Cycl. of Bibl. Lit., 3d ed., iii. 746 8'.;
Rosen in the Zeiischr. d. deutschen morgenl. Ge-
sellsch., xviii. 582 ff. ; S. Kohn, De Penlateudio
Samaritano, Vratisl. 1865, and id. Samarita-
nische Studien, Breslau, 1837. A.
SAM'ATUS (Saparis: Semedius). One of
the sons of Ozora in tlie list of 1 Esdr. ix. 34.
Tbe whole verse is very corrupt.
* SAMBCH, one of tbe Hebrew letters em
ployed in the alphabetic compositions. [Poetry;
Writisg.] , H.
SAME'IUS [3 syl.] (Sapaios [Vat. 00/10101,
Aid. So/ieios] ). SiiEJiAiAH of the sons of lUrim
(1 Esdr. ix. 21; comp. Ezr. x. 21).
SAM'GAR-NE'BO (^3j!-iapp [see be
low] : Semegarnabu). One of the princes or gen
erals of tbe king of Babylon who commanded the
victorious army of the Chaldseans at the capture
of Jerusalem (Jer. xxxix. 3). The text of the
LXX. is corrupt. The two names " Samgar-
nebo, Sarsechim," are there written ^apaydiQ
[Alex. ^taaaiMyaS] xaX Na0oiiaaxap. The Neho
is tbe Cbaldsean Mercury ; about the Samgar, opin
ions are divided. Von Bohien suggested that from
the Sanskrit sangara, "war," might be formed
sdngara, " warrior," and that this was the original
of Samgar.

the sayings of Jehudda-hadassi aud Massudi, that one
of tlie two Samaritan sects believes ia tb.e itesurrec-
tion ; Epiphaoius, Leontius, Gregory the Great, testify
unanimously to their former unbelief in this articl«
of their present faith.
c n ", Lightfoot "buceUa"P)

2818

SAMI

SATWCI (Tq>$(s; {Tat. Ta$eis; Aid. Sa/i^O
Alex. SojSet: Tobi). Shobai (1 Esdr. v. 28;
3omp. Ezr. ii. 42).
SA'MIS (-Zofiets, [Vat. ^ofieets', Alex. 5o-
uew; Aid. Sa/Ai's:] om. in Vulg.). Shimei 13
(1 Esdr. ix. 34; corap. Ezr. x. 38).
SAMXAH (nbpt£7 [garment] : 2a/ta5a;
Alex. 2a\ajUo; [in l' Chr., Kom. SejSAa; Vat.
Alex. ^afj.aa-] Semla), Gen. xxxvi. 36, 37; 1 Chr.
i. 47, 48. One of the kings of Edom, successor to
Hadad or Hadak. Samlah, whose name signi
fies "a garment." was of JLasrkkah; that being
probably the chief city during his reign. This
mention of a separate city as belonging to each
(almost without exception) of the "kings" of
Edom, suggests tljat the Edomite kingdom con
sisted of a confederacy of tribes, and that the chief
city of the reigning tribe was the metropolis of the
whole. E. S. P.
SAM'MUS (Sa/x^ous; [Vat- ^afxiJLoV^ Sa-
mus). Shema (1 Esdr. ix. 43; comp. Neh. viii.
4). SA'MOS ('^dpos [height: Samus]). A very
illustrious Greek island oflf that part of Asia Minor
where Io>"IA touches Cakia. For its history, from
the time when it was a powerful member of the Ionic
confederacy to its recent struggles against Turkey
during the war of independence, and since, we must
refer to the Diet, of Greek and Rom. Geog." Ssl-
mos is a very lofty and commanding island; the
word, in fact, denotes a height, especially by the sea
shore: hence, also, the name of Sajiothkacia, or
" the Thracian Samos." The Ionian Samos comes
before our notice in the detailed account of St.
Paul's return from his third missionary journey
(Acts XX. 15). He had been at Chios, and was
about to proceed to Miletus, having passed by
Ephesus without touching there. The topograph
ical notices given incidentally by St. Luke are
most exact. The night was spent at the anchor
age of Tkogylliuw, in the narrow strait between
Samos and the extremity of the mainland-ridge of
Mycale. This spot is famous both for the great
battle of the old Greeks against the Persians in b.
c. 479, and also for a gallant action of the modern
Greeks against the Turks in 1824. Here, however,
it is more natural (especially as we know, from 1
Mace. XV. 23, that Jews resided here) to allude to
the meeting of Herod the Great with Marcus
Agrippa hi Samos, whence resulted many privi
leges to the Jews (Joseph. Ant. xvi. 2, §§ 2, 4).
At this time and when St. Paul was there, it was
politically a "free city" in the province of Asia.
Various travellers (Toumefort, Pococke, Dallaway,
Ross) have described this island. We raay refer
particularly to a very recent work on the subject.
Description de Vile de Patmos et de Vile de Samos
(Paris, 1856), by V. Gu^rin, who spent two
months in the island. J. S. H.

o A curious illustration of the renown of the Sa-
mian earthenware iB furnished by the Vulgate render
ing of Is xiv. 9 : "Testa de Samiis terrae."
b * Samothrace lies in the track of the steamers
from Constantinople to Neapolis (Kavalla) andThessa-
onica. The work of A. Couze, Reise auf den inseln
des Thrakisdten Meeres, contains the results of a visit
in 1858 to Thasos, Samothrace, Inibros, and Limnos,
liainly for the purpose of copying monumental Bculp-
hires and inscriptions. Some of those in Samothrace
are specially interesting on account of their great an-

SAMSOlIf
SAMOTHRA'CIA(2aAio0p^/c77 [proh. heighi
of Th7-ace] : Samoihracia). The mention of thia
island in the account of St. Paul's first voyage to
Europe (Acts xvi. 11) is for two reasons worthy of
careful notice. In the first place, being a very
lofty and conspicuous island, it is an excellent land
mark for sailors, and must have been full in view
if the weather was clear, throughout that voyage
from Troas to Neapolis. Prom the shore at Troas
Samothrace is seen towering over Inibros (Hom.
//. xiii. 12, 13; Elinglake's Ebihen, p. 6i), aniHtis
similarly a marked object in the view from the hills
between Neapolis and Phiiippi (Clarke's TravtU,
ch. xiii.). These allusions tend to give vividness
to one of the most important voyages that ever
took place. Secondly, this voyage was made with
a fair wind. Not only are we told that it occupied
only parts of two days, whereas on a subsequent
return-voyage (Acts xx. C) the time spent at se^
was five: but the technical word here used {evQuBpo-
p-i}capev) implies that they ran before the wind.
Now the position of Samothrace is exactly such as
to correspond with these notices, and thus incident
ally to confirm the accuracy of a most artless nar
rative. St. Paul and his companions anchored lor
the night off Samothrace. The ancient city, and
therefore probably the usual anchorage, \vas on the
N. side, which would he sufficiently sheltered from
a S. E. wind. It may be added, as a further prac
tical consideration not to be overlooked, that such
a wind would be favorable for overcoming the
opposing current, which sets southerly after leaving
the Dardanelles, and easterly between Samothrace
and the mainland. Fuller details are given in
Life and Epp. of St. Paul, 2d. ed. i. 335-338.
The chief classical associations of this island are
mythological and connected with the mysterious
divinities called Cabeiri. Perseus took refuge here
after his defeat by tbe Romans at Pydna. In St,
Paul's time Samothrace had, according to Pliny,
the privileges of a small free state, though it was
doubtless considered a dependency of the province
of Macedonia.6 J. S. H.
SAMP'SAMES ([Rom. Sin.] 2o/i\|/(i/iT;s,
[Alex.] !SajUi//a/c7;y: Lampsacus, Sampsames), a
name which occurs in the fist of those to whom the
Romans are said to have sent letters in favor of the
Jews (1 Mace. xv. 23). The name is probably not
that of a sovereign (as it appears to be taken in
A. v.), but of a place, which Grimm identifies with
Samsun on the coast of the Black Sea, between
Sinope and Trebizond. B, F. W.
SAM'SON (I'ntrat?, i. e. Shimshon: %ap.-
ypSv'. [Samson,'] "little sun," or "sunlike;" bui
according to Joseph. Ant. v. 8, § 4 " strong: " if
tiie root shemesh has the signification of "awe"
which Gesenius ascribes to it, the name Samson
would seem naturally to allude to the " awe " and
astonishment " with which the father and mother

tiquity and their symbolic import a^ connected with
tbe remarkable religious rites of which that island
was tbe seat. Fr. W. J. Scbelling maintains tbe She-
mitic origin of these rites and of some of the associated
teachings in his noted lecture, Ueber die Gottheiten
von Samothrake. See also Creuzer'a Symbolik, ii.
802 ff. It is worth mentioning that the old form of
the Greek future which has generally disappeared
from the modern Greek Is found to be common in
t bese rarely visited retreats of the c d Uellenio race.

SAMSON
ooked upon the angel who announced Samson's
Mrth -— see Judg. xiii. 6, 18-20, and Joseph. I. c),
son of Manoah, a man of the town of Zorah, in the
tribe of Dan, on the border of Judah (Josh. xv.
33, xix. 41). The miraculous circumstances of his
birth are recorded in Jtidg. xiii.; and the three fol
lowing chapters are devoted to the history of his
life and exploits. Samson takes his place in Scrip
ture, (1) as a judge — an office which he filled for
twenty years (Judg. xv. 20, xvi. 31); (2) as a Naz-
arite (Judg. xiii. 5, xvi. 17); and (3) as one en
dowed with supernatural jjower by the Spirit ofthe
Lord (Judg. xiii. 25, xiv. G, 19, xv. 14).
(1.) As a judge his authority seems to have been
Umited to the district bordering upon the country
of the Philistines, and his action as a deliverer does
not seem to have extended beyond desultory attacks
upon the dominant Phihstines, by which their hold
upon Israel was weakened, and the way prepared
for the future emancipation of the Israelites from
their joke. It is evident from Judg. xiii. 1, 5, xv.
9-11, 20, and the whole history, that the Israelites,
or at least Judah and Dan, which are the only
tribes mentioned, were subject to the Philistines
through the whole of Samson's judgeship; so that,
of course, Samson's twenty years of office would be
included in the forty years of the Philistine domin
ion. From the angel's speech to Samson's mother
(Judg. xiii. 5), it appears further that the Israehtes
were already subject to the Philistines at his birth;
and as Samson cannot have begun to be judge be
fore he was twenty years of age, it follows that his
judgeship must about have coincided with the last
twenty years of Philistine dominion. But when
we turn to the First Book of Samuel, and especially
to vii. 1-14, we find that the Philistine dominion
ceased under the judgeship of Samuel. Hence it is
obvious to conclude that tlie early part of Samuel's
judgeship coincided with the latter part of Sam-^
son's; and that the capture of the ark by the Phi
listines in the time of Eli occurred during Samson's
lifetime. There are besides several points in the
respective narratives of the tinies of Samson and
Samuel which indicate great proximity. First,
there is the general prominence of the Philistines
in their relation to Israel. Secondly, there is the
remarkable coincidence of both Samson and Sam
uel being Nazarites (Judg. xiii. 5, xvi. 17, com
pared with 1 Sam. i. 11). It looks as if the great
exploits of the young Danite Nazarite had suggested
to Hannah the consecration of her son in like man
ner, or, at all .events, as if for some reason the
Nazarite vow was at that time prevalent. No
other mention of Nazarites occurs in the Scripture
history till Amosii. 11, 12; and even there the al
lusion seems to be to Samuel and Samson. .Thirdly,
there is a similar notice of the house of Dagon in
Judg. xvi. 23, and 1 Sam. v. 2. Fourthly, the
lords of the Phihstines are mentioned in a similar
way in Judg. xvi. 8, 18, 27, and in 1 Sam. vii. 7.
All of which, taken together, indicates a close

SAMSOK

2819

a " Hercules once went to Egypt, and there the inhab
itants took him, and, putting a chaplet on his head,
led him out in solemn procession, intending to offer
him in sacrifice to Jupiter. I'or awhile he submitted
luietly ; but when they led hira up to the altar, and
Degan the ceremonies, he put forth his strength and
slew them all " (Rawlins. Herod, book ii. 45).
The passage from Lycophron, with the scholion,
quoted by Bochart (Hieroz. para ii. lib. v. cap. xii.),
vhore Hercules is said to have been three nights In
'he buUy oi the sea-monster, .ind to have come out

proximity between the times of Samson and Sam
uel. There does not seem, however, to be any
means of fixing the time of Samson's judgeship
more precisely. The effect of his prowess mus.
have been more of a preparatory kind, by arous
ing the cowed spirit of his people, and shaking tht
insolent security of the Philistines, than in the way
of decisive victory or deliverance. There is no
allusion whatever to other parts of Israel during
Samson's judgeship, except the single fact of the
men of the border tribe of Judah, 3,000 iu number,
fetching him from the rock Etain to deliver him
up to the I^hihstines (Judg. xv. 9-1-i). The whole
narrative is entirely local, and, like the following
story concerning Micah (Judg. xvii., xviii.), seems
to he taken from the annals of the tribe of Dan.
(2.) As a Nazarite, Samson 'exhibits the law in
Num. vi. in full practice. [Nazauite.] The
eminence of such Nazarites as Samson and Samuel
would tend to give that dignity to the profession
which is alluded to in Lam. iv. 7, 8.
(3.) Samson is one of those who are distinctly
spoken of in Scripture as endowed with supernat
ural power by the Spirit of the Lord. " The
Spirit of the Lord began to move him at times in
Mahaneh-Dan." "The Spirit of the Lord came
mightily upon him, and the cords that were upon
his arms became as flax burnt with fire." '* The
Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he went
down to Ashkelon, and slew thirty men of them."
But, on the other hand, after his locks were cut,
and his strength was gone from him, it is said
"He wist not that the Lord was departed from
him " (Judg. xiii. 25, xiv. 6, 10, xv. 14, xvi. 20).
The phrase, "the Spirit of the Lord came upon
him," is common to him with Othniel and Gideon
(Judg. iii. 10, vi. 34); but the connection of super
natural power with the integrity of the Nazaritic
vow, and the particular gift of great strength of
body, as seen in tearing in pieces a lion, breaking
his bonds asunder, currying the gates of the city
upon his back, and throwing down the pillars which
supported the house of Dagon, are quite peculiar
to Samson. Indeed, liis whole character and hiii-
tory have no exact parallel in Scripture. It ia
easy, however, to see how forcibly the Israelites
would be taught, by such an example, that their
national strength lay in their complete separation
from idolatry, and consecration to the true God;
and that He could give tliem power to subdue their
mightiest enemies, if only they were true to his
service (comp. 1 Sam. ii. 10).
It is an interesting question whether any of the
legends which have attached themselves to the
name of Hercules may have been derived from
Phcenician traditions of the strength of Samson.
The combination of great strength with submis
sion to the power of women ; the slaying of the
Nemesean lion; the coniing by his death at the
hands of his wife; and especially the story told by
Herodotus of the captivity of Hercules iu Egypt,"
with the loss of all his hair, is also curious, and seems
to be a compound of tbe stories of Samson and Jonah
To this may be added the connection between Samson,
considered as derived from Shemesh, "the sun," and
the designation of Moui, the Egyptian Hercules, a*
" Son of the Sun," worshipped also under the name
Sem, which Sir G. Wilkinson compsires \vith Samson.
The Tyrian Hercules (whose temple at Tyre is de
scribed by Herodot. ii. 44), he also tells us, " waa
originally the Sun, and the same as Baal" (Raw!
Herod, il. 44, note 7). The connectiou between ttw

2820

SAMSON

are certainly remarkable coincidences. Phoenician
traders might easily have carried stories concerning
the Hebrew hero to the different countries where
they traded, especially Greece and Italy; and such
stories would have been moulded according to the
taste or imagmation of those who heard them.
The following description of Hercules given by C
0. Miiller (Dorians, b- ii. c 12) might almost
have been written for Samson : " The highest de
gree of human suffering and courage is attributed
to Hercules : his character is as noble as could be
conceived in those rude and early times: but he is
by no means represented as free from the blemishes
of human nature; on the contrary, he is frequently
subject to wild, ungovernable passions, when the
noble indignation and auge;- of the suffering hero
degenerate into frenzy. Every crime, however, is
atoned for by some new suffei'ing; ,but nothing
breaks his invhicible courage, until, purified from
earthly corruption, he ascends Mount Olympus."
And again : " Hercides was a jovial guest, and not
backward in enjoying himself. .... It was
Hercules, above all other heroes, whom mythology
placed in ludicrous situations, and sometimes made
the butt of the buffoonery of others. The Cercopes
are represented as alternately amusing and annoy
ing the hero. In works of art they are often rep
resented as satyrs who rob the hero of his quiver,
bow, and club. Hercules, annoyed at their insults,
binds two of them to a pole, and marches off mth
his prize. . . .It also seem.s that mirth
and buffoonery were often combined with the festi
vals of Hercules: thus at Athens there was a
society of sixty men, who on the festival of the
Diomean Hercules attacked and amused themselves
and others with sallies of wit." Whatever is
thought, however, of such coincidences, it is certain
that the history of Samson is an historical, and
not an allegorical narrative- It has also a dis
tinctly supernatural element which cannot be ex
plained away. The history, as we now have it,
must have been written several centuries after Sam
son's death (Judg. xv. 19, 20, xviii. 1, 30, xix. 1),
though probably taken frora the annals of the tribe
of Dan. Josephus has given it pretty fully, but
with alterations and embeUishments of his own,
after his manner. For example, he does not make
Samson eat any of the honey which he took out
Df the hive, doubtless as unclean, and unfit for a
Nazarite, but makes him give it to his wife. The
only mention of Samson in the N. T. is that in
Heb. xi. 32, where he is coupled with Gideon,
Barak, and Jephthah, and spoken of as one of
those who " through faith waxed valiant in fight,
Phoenician Baal (called B.aal Shcmen, Baal Shemesh,
and Baal Hamman), and Hercules is well known.
Gesenius (Tiies, a. r. vV3) tells us that, in certain
Phoenician inscriptions, whicb are accompanied by a
Greek translation, B'to/is rendered Hnakles, and that
" the Tyrian Hercules " is the constant Greek designa
tion of the Bajil of Tyre. He also gives many Car-
tha^nian inscriptions to Bnal Hamman, whicb he
renders Baal Solaris ; and also a sculpture in which
Baal ILimman's head is surrounded with rays, and
which has an image of the sun on the upper part of
the monument {Mon. Phan. i. 171 ; ii. tab 21).
Another evidence of the identity of the Phoenician
Baal and Hercules may be found in Baidi, near Balse,
place sacred to Hercules ("locus Uerculis," Serv.),
out evidently so called from Baal. Thirlwall (Hist, of
KGreeee) ascribes to the numerous temples built by the

SAMUEL
and turned to flight the armies of the aUcDB '
See, besides the places quoted in the course of thii
article, a full article in Winer, Reakob.; Ewald
Geschichte, ii. 516, &c.; Bertheau, On Judges,
Bayle's Diet. A. C- H.
SAM'UEL (bw^Ktt?, i. c. Shemuel: s.ap.-
ovfiK' [Samuel:] Ai-abic, SamwU, or Aschnumyl,
see D'Herbelot, under this last name). Different
derivations have been given. (1.) 7W DC27, " name
of God:" so apparently Origen (Eus. H. E. vi.
25), eeoK\riT6s. (2.) bW DW, "placed by
God." (3.) bW b^St£7, "asked of God" (1
Sam. i. 20). Josephus ingeniously makes it cor
respond to the well-known Greek name Tkeaietus
(4.) bs VM2iW, "heard of God." This, which
may have the same meaning as tbe previous deriva
tion, is the most obvious. The last Judge, the first
of the regular succession of Prophets, and the
founder of the monarchy. So important a position
did he hold in Jewish history as to have given hia
name to the sacred book, now divided into two,
which covers the whole period of the first establish
ment of the kingdom, corresponding to the man
ner in which the name of Moses has been assigned
to the sacred book, now divided uito five, which
covers the period of the foundation of the Jewish
Church itself. In fact no character of equal mag
nitude had arisen since the death of the great
Lawgiver. He was the son of Elkanah, an Ephrathite or
Ephraimite, and Hannah or Anna. His father is
one of the few private citizens in whose household
we find polygamy. It may possibly have arisen,
from the irregularity of the period.
The descent of Elkanah is involved in great ob
scurity. In 1 Sam. 1. 1 he is described as an
Ephraimite. In 1 Chr. vi. 22, 23 he is made a
descendant of Korah the I.£vite. Hengstenbeig
(on Ps. Ixxviii. 1) and Ewald (ii. 433) explain this
by supposing that the Invites were occasionally in
corporated into the tribes amongst whom they
dwelt. The question, however, is of no practical
importance, because, even if Samuel were a Levite,
he certainly was not a Priest by descent.
His birthplace is one of the vexed questions of
sacred geography, as his descent is of sacred gene
alogy. [See Ramah, and Rasiathaim-Zopbim.]
All that appears with cei'tainty from the accounta
is that it was in the hills of Ephraiim, and (as may
be inferred from its name) a double height, us«?
for the purpose of beacons or outlookers (1 Sam. L

Phoenicians in honor of Baal in their different settle
ments the Greek fables of the labors and journeys of
Hercules. Bochart thinks the custom described by
Ovid {Fast, liv.) of tying a lighted torch between two
foxes in tbe circus, in memory of the damage once
done to the harvest by a fox with burning hay and
straw tied to it, was derived from the Phoenicians, and
is clearly to be traced to the history of Samson {Hieroz.
pars. i. lib. iii- cap. xiii.). From all which arises a
considerable probability that the Greek and Latin con-
ceptJon of Hercules iu reg.ird to his strength \^&6 de
rived from Phoenician stories and reminiscences of the
great Hebrew hero Samson. Some learned men con*
nect the name Hrcides with Samson etymologicaUy
(See Sir G. Wilkinson^s note in Rawlinson's Herod, ii
43 ; Patrick, On Judg. xvi. SO ; Cornel, a Lapide, eto.i
But none of these etymologies are very ronvincing.

SAMUEL
I). At the foot of the hill wag a well (1 Sam. xix.
221. On the brow of its two summits was the
tity. It never lost its hold on Samuel, who in later
life made it his fixed abode.
The combined family must have been large.
Peninnah had several children, and Hannah had,
besides Sanmel, three sons and two daughters.
But of these nothing is l<nowii, unless tbe nanies
of tbe sons are those enumerated in 1 Chr. vi.
26, 27.
It is on the mother of Samuel that our chief
attention is fixed in the account of his l)irth. She
is described as a woman of a high religious mis
sion. Almost a Nazarite by practice (1 Sam. i.
15), and a prophetess in her gifls (1 Sam. ii. 1),
she sought from God the gift of tbe child for which
she longed vvith a passionate devotion of silent
prayer, of which there is no other example in the
0. T., and when the son was granted, the name
which he bore, and thus first introduced into the
world, expressed ber sense of tbe urgency of her
entreaty — Samuel, " tbe Asked or Heard of God."
Living in the great age of vows, she had before
his birth dedicated him to the office of a Nazarite.
As soon as he was weaned, she herself with her
husband brought him to tbe Tabernacle at Shiloh,
where she had received tbe first intimation of his
birth, and there solemnly consecrated him. The
form of consecration was simiUr to that with which
the irregular priesthood of Jeroboam was set apart
in later times (2 Ciir. xiii. 9) — a bullock of three
years old (LXX.), loaves (LXX.), an ephah of
flour, and a skin of wine (1 Sam. i. 24). First
took place the usual sacrifices (LXX.) by Elkanah
himself — then, after tbe introduction of the child,
the special sacrifice of the bullock. Then his
mother made bim over to Eli (i. 25, 28), and (ac
cording to the Hebrew text, but not the LXX.)
the child himself performed an act of worship.
The hymn which followed on this consecration
is tlie first of the kind in tbe sacred volume. It is
possible that, like many of the Psalms, it may have
been enlarged in later times to suit great occasions
of victory aud tbe like. But verse 5 specially ap
plies to this event, and verses 7, 8 may well express
the sense entertained by tbe prophetess of the com
ing revolution in the fortunes of her sou and of her
country. [H.vnnah.]
From this time tbe child is shut up in the
Taberuacle.' Tbe priests furnished hiui with a
sacred garment, an ephod, made, like their own,
of white linen, though of inferior quality, and his
mother every year, apparently at the only tirae of
their meeting, gave him a little mantle reaching
down to his feet, such as was worn only by high
personages, or women, over the other dress, and
such as be retained, as his badge, till the latest
times of his life. [Mantle, vol. ii. p. 1782 b.]
He seems to have slept within the Holiest Place
(LXX., 1 Sam. iii. 3), aud his special duty was to
put out, as it would seem, the sacred candlestick,
•iiid to open the doors at sunrise.
In this way liis childhood was passed. It was
whilst thus sleeping in the Tabernacle that he re
ceived his first prophetic call. The stillness of the
night — the sudden voice — the childlike misconcep
tion — the venerable Eli — the contrast between the
jerrible doom and the gentle creature who bas to

SAMUEL

2821

a According to the Mussulman tradition, Samuel's
Mrth is granted in answer to the prayers of tbe nution
>n the overthrow of the sanctuary aad loss of the ark

announce it — give to this portion of the narrative
a universal interest. It is this side of Samuel's
career that has been so well caught in the well-
known picture by Sir Jo.sliua Reynolds-
From this moment the proplietic character of
Samuel was established. His words were treasurfed
up, and Shiloh became the resort of those whs
came to beaif him (iii. 10-21).
In the overthrow of the sanctuary, which fo
lowed shortly on this vision, we hear not wha
became of Samuel. « He next appears, probabl}
twenty years afterwards, suddenly amongst the
people, warning them against their idolatrous prao
tices. He convened an assembly at Mizpeh —
probably the place of that name in the tribe of
Benjamin — and there with a symbolical rite, ex
pressive partly of deep humiliation, partly of the
libations of a treaty, they poured water on the
ground, they fasted, and they entreated Samuel to
raise the piercing cry, for which he was known, in
supplication to God for them. It was at the
moment that he was offering up a sacrifice, and
sustaining this loud cry (compare the situation of
Pausanias before the battle of Plataa, Herod, ix.
61), that the Philistine host suddenly burst upon
them. A violent thunderstorm, and (according to
Josephus, Ant. vi. 2, § 2) an earthquake, came to
the timely assistance of Israel The Phihstines
fled, and, exactly at the spot where twenty years
before they had obtained their great victory, they
were totally routed. A stone was set up, which
long remained as a memorial of Samuel's triumph,
and gave to the place its name of Eben-ezer, " the
Stone of Help," which lias thence passed into
Christian phraseology, and become a common naino
of Nonconformist chapels (1 Sam. vii. 12). The
old Canaanites, whom the Pliilistines had dispos
sessed in the outskirts of the Judacan hills, seem to
have helped in the battle, and a large portion of
territory was recovered (1 Sam. vi. 14). This was
Samuel's first and, as far as we know, his only
military achievement. But, as in the case of the
earlier chiefs who bore that name, it was appar
ently this which raised him to the office of "Judge"
(comp. 1 Sam. xii. 11, where he is thus reckoned
with Jerubbaal, Bedan, and Jephthah; and Ecclus.
xlvi. 15-18). He visited, in discharge of his duties
as ruler, the three chief sanctuaries (iy irairi to7s
Tjyiaa/j.Gyots rovrpts) on the west ofthe Jordan —
Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpeh (1 Sam. vii. 16). His
own residence was still his native city, Ramah or
Ramathaim, which he further consecrated by an
altar (vii. 17). Here he married, and two sons
grew up to repeat under his eyes the same per
version of high office that he had himself witnessed
in his childhood in the case of the two sons of Eli.
Ojje was Ahiah, the other Joel, sometimes called
simply "the second" (vashni, 1 Chr. vi. 28). In
his old age, according to the quasi- hereditary prin
ciple, already adopted by previous judges, he shared
his power with them, and they exercised their func
tions at the southern frontier in Beer-sheba (I Sam.
viii. 1-4).
2. Down to this point in Samuel's life there is
but little to distinguish his career from that of hia
predecessors. Like many characters in later days,
had he died in youth his fame would hardly have
been greater than that of Gideon or Samson. He

(D'Herbelot, Aschmouyl). This, though false 111 thi
letter, is true to the spirit "J Samuel's life.

2822

SAMUEL

was a judge, a Nazarite, a warrior, and (to a cer
tain point) a prophet.
But his peculiar position in the sacred narrative
turns on the events which follow. He is the in-
ftugurator of the transition from what is commonly
called the theocracy to the monarchy. The mis
demeanor of his own sons, in receiving bribes, and
in extorting exorbitant interest on loans (1 Sam.
viii. 3, 4), precipitated the catastrophe which had
been long preparing. The people demanded a king.
Josephus (Ani. vi. 3, § 3) describes the shock to
Samuel's mind, " because of his inborn sense of
justice, because of his hatred of kings, as so far
inferior to the aristocratic form of government,
iphich conferred a godlike character on those who
lived under it." For the whole night he lay fast
ing and sleepless, in the perplexity of doubt and
difficulty. In the vision of that night, as recorded
by the sacred historian, is given the dark side of
the new institution, on which Samuel dwells on the
following day (1 Sam. viii. 9-18).
This presents his reluctance to receive the new
order of things. The whole narrative of tbe recejj-
tion and consecration of Saul gives his acquiescence
hi it. [Saul.]
The final conflict of feeling and surrender of his
office is given in the last assembly over which he
presided, and in his subsequent relations with Saul.
The assembly was held at Gilgal, immediately after
the victory over the Ammonites. The monarchy
waa a second time solemnly inaugurated, and (ac
cording to the LXX.) "Samuel" (in the Hebrew
text "Saul") "and all the men of Israel rejoiced
greatly." Then takes place his farewell address.
By this time the long flowing locks on which no
razor had ever passed were white with age (xii. 2).
He appeals to their knowledge of his integrity.
Whatever might be the lawless habits of the chiefs
of those times — Hophni, Phinehas, or his own
sons — he had kept aloof fi-om all. No ox or ass
had he taken from their stalls — no bribe to obtain
his ju^igment (LXX., i^i\a(T/j.a) — not even a
sandal {uwSSrjfia, LXX., and Ecclus. xlvi. 19). It
is this appeal, and the response of the people, that
has made Grotius call him the Jewish Aristides.
He then sums up the new situation in which they
have placed themselves; and, although "the wick
edness of asking a king" is still strongly insisted
on, and the unusual portent « of a thui derstorm
in May or June, in answer to Samuel's \ rayer, is
urged as a sign of Divine displeasure (xii. 16-19),
the general tone of the condemnation is much
softened from that which was pronounctd on the
fii'st intimation of the change. The first king is
repeatedly acknowledged as " the Mess'ah " or
anointed of the Lord (xii. 3, 5), the future pros
perity of the nation is declared to depend on their
nse or misuse of the new constitution, and Samuel
retires with expressions of goodwill and hope: " 1
will teach you the good and the right way .
, . only fear the Lord . . . . " (1 Sam. xii.
23, 24).
It is the most signal example afforded in the
3. T. of a great character reconciling himself to a
changed order of things, and of the Divine sanction
resting on his acquiescence. For this reason it is
that Athanasius is by Basil called the Samuel of
the Church (Basil, Ep. 82).
a According to the Mussulman traditions, his anger
tras occasioned by the people rejecting Saul as not
Deing of the tribe of Judah. The sign thaUiaul was

SAMUEL
3. His subsequent relations with Saul are iftbi
same mixed kind, 'i'he two institutions which thej
respectively represented ran on side by side. Sam
uel was still Judge. He judged Israel "all Ihe
ditys of his life^^ (vii. 15), and from time to time
came across the king's path. But these interven
tions are chiefly in another capacity, which this is
the place to unfold.
Samuel is called emphatically "the Prophet"
(Acts iii. 24, xiii. 20). To a certain extent thii
was in consequence of the gift which he shared in
common with others of his time. He was espe
cially known in bis own age as " Samuel the Seer "
(1 Chr. ix. 22, xxvi. 28, xxix. 29). "I am tbe
seer," was his answer to those who asked " Where
is the seerV" " Where is the seer's house?'" (1
Sam. ix. 11 18. 19). '* Seer," the ancient name,
was not yet superseded by "Prophet " (1 Sam. ix.).
By this name, Samuel Videns and Samuel d jSAe-
TTur, he is called in the Acta Sanctorum. Of tbe .
tliree modes by which Divine communications were
then made, '* by dreams, Urim and Tbummim, and
prophets," the first was that by which tbe Dinne
will was made known to Samuel (1 Sam. iii. 1, 2;
Jos. Ant. v. 10, § 4). "The Lord uncovered his
ear " to whisper into it in the stillness of the night
the messages that were to be delivered. It is the
first distinct intimation of the Hdea of "Revela.
i'lon^- to a human being (see Gesenius, in toe.
^5t^" ^^ "^ consulted far and near on the
small afi&irs of life; loaves of "bread," or "the
fourth part of a shekel of silver," were paid for the
answers (1 Sam. ix. 7, 8).
From this faculty, combined with his office of
ruler, an awful reverence grew np round him. No
sacrificial feast was thought complete without his
blessing (1 Sam. ix. 13). M^hen he appeared sud
denly elsewhere for the same purpose, the villagers
" trembled " at his approach (1 Sam. xvi. 4, 5). A
'peculiar virtue was belie\ed to reside in his interces
sion. He was conspicuous in later times amongst
those that " call upon the name of the Lord " (Ps.
xcix. 6; 1 Sam. xii. 18), and was placed with
Moses as " standing " for prayer, in a special sense,
"before the Lord " (Jer. xv. 1). It was the last
consolation he left in his parting address that he
would " pray to the Lord " for the people (1 Sam.
xii. 19, 23). There was something peculiar in the
long. sustained cry or shout of supplication, which
seemed to draw down as by force the Divine an
swer (1 Sam. vii. 8, 9). All night long, in agi
tated moments, " he cried unto the Lord " (1 Sam.
XV. 11).
But there are two other points which more espe
cially placed him at tbe head of the prophetic order
as it afterwards appeared. The first is brought
out In his relation with Saul, the second iu hil
relation with David.
(a.) He represents the independence of the moral
law, of the Divine Will, as distinct from regal or
sacerdotal enactments, which is so remarkable »
characteristic of all the later prophets. As we
have seen, he was, if a Invite, yet certainly not s
Priest ; and all the attempts to identify his opposi
tion fo Saul with a hierarchical interest are founded
on a complete misconception of the facts of the
case. From the time of the overthrow of Shiloh,

the king wa« the liquefaction of the sacred oil In hil
presence and the recovery of the TabrrnaclA (D'He>
belot, Aschmouyl).

SAMUEL
be never appears in the remotest connection with
the priestly ordfer. Amongst all the places in
cluded in his personal or administrative visits,
neither Shiloh, nor Nob, nor Gibeon, the seats of
the sacerdutal caste, are ever mentioned. " When
he counsels Saul, it is not as the priest, but as the
prophet; when he sacrifices or blesses the sacrifice,
it is not as the priest, but either as an individual
Israelite of eminence, or as a ruler, like Saul him
self. Saul's sin in both cases where he came into
collision with Samuel, was not of intruding into
aacerdotal functions, but of disobedience to the
prophetic voice. The firat was that of not waiting
for Samuel's arrival, according to the sign given
by Samuel at his original meeting at Kamah (1
Sam. X. 8, xiii. 8); the second was that of not car
rying out the stem prophetic injunction for tbe
destruction of the Amalekites. When, on that
occasion, the aged Prophet called the captive ** prince
before him, and with his own hands hacked him
limb from limb,'' in retribution for the desolation
he had brought into the horaes of Israel, and thus
offered up his mangled remains almost as a human
sacrifice ("before the Lord in Gilgal"), we see the
representative of the older part of the Jewish his
tory. But it is the true prophetic utterance, such
as breathes through the psalmists and prophets, when
he says to Saul in words which, from their poetical
form, must ha\e become fixed in the national mem
ory, " To obey is better than sacrifice, and to
hearken than the fat of rams."
The parting was not one of rivals, but of dear
though divided friends. The King throws himself
on the Prophet with all his force ; not without a
vehement effort (Jos. Ani. vi. 7, § 5) the prophet
tears himself away. The long mantle by which
he was always known is rent in the struggle; and,
like Ahijah after him, Samuel saw in this the
omen of the coming rent in the monarchy. They
parted each to his house to meet no more. But
a long shadow of grief fell over the prophet.
"Samuel mourned for Saul." " It grieved Samuel
for Saul." " How long wilt thou mourn for Saul ? "
(1 Sam. XV. 11, 35, xvi. 1).
(b.) He is the first of the regular succession of
prophets.' "All the prophets from Samuel and
those that follow after" (Acts iii. 24). "Ex quo
sanctus Samuel propheta coepit et deinceps donee
populus Israel in Babyloniam captiMis veheretur,
 totum est tempus proph eta rum " (Aug.
Civ. Dei, xvii. 1). Moses, Miriam, and Deborah,
perhaps Ehud, had been prophets. But it was only
Ironi Samuel that the continuous succession was
unbroken. This may have been merely from the
coincidence of his appearance with the beginning
of the new order of things, of which the prophet
ical office was the chief expression. Some predis
posing causes there may have been in his own
iiamily and birthplace. Mis mother, as we have
seen, though not expressly so called, was in fact a
prophetess; the word Zophim, as the affix of Ra
mathaim, has been explained, not unreasonably, to
mean "seers;" and Klkanah, his father, is by the
Chaldee paraphrast on 1 Sam. i. 1, said to be " a
disciple of the nrophets." But the connection of

« Agag is described by Josephus {Ant. vi. 7, § 2) as
} chief of magnificent appearance ; and hence rescued
&om destruction. This is perhaps an inference from
the word in3"T^t3, which the Vulgate translates
pinguissimus.

SAMUEL

2822

the continuity of the office with Samuel appears to
be still more direct. It is in bis lifetime, long after
be had been " estiiblished as a prophet" (1 Sam.
iii. 20), that we liear of the companies of disciples,
called in the 0. T. " the sons of the prophets," liy
modern writers " the schools of the prophets." xlll
the peculiarities of their education are implied or
expressed — the sacred dance, the s.acred music, tbe
solemn procession (1 Sam. x. 5, 10: 1 Chr. xxv. 1,
6). At the head of this congregation, or "church
as it were within a church" (LXX. riiv 4ick\ti-
aiav, 1 Sam. x 5, 10), Samuel is expressly de
scribed as "standing appointed over tbem " (1 Sam.
xix. 20). Their chief residence at this time
(though afterwards, as the institution spread, it
struck root in other places) was at Samuels own
abode, Eamah, where tbey lived in habitatiDiia
(Naioth, 1 Sam. xix. 19, &c.) apparently of a rustic
kind, like fhe leafy huts which Elisha's disciples
afterwards occupied by tbe Jordan (Naioth =¦¦
" habitations," but more specifically used for " pas
tures"). In those schools, and learning to cultivate tbe
prophetic gifts, were some whom we know for cer
tain, others whom we may almost certainly conjec
ture, to have been so trained or influenced. One
was Saul. Twice at least be is described as hav
ing been in the company of Samuel's disciples, and
as having caught from them tbe prophetic fervoi
to such a degree as to have " prophesied among
them'' (1 Sam. x. 10, 11), and on one occasion tc
have thrown ofl' bis clothes, and to have passed the
night in a state of prophetic trance (1 Sam. xix.
24) : and even in bis palace, the prophesying min
gled with his madness on ordinary occasions
(1 Sam. xviii. 9). Another was D.iviD. The
first acquaintance of Samuel with David, was when
he privately anointed him at the house of Jesse
[see David]. But the connection thus begun
with the shepherd boy must have been continued
afterwards. David, at first, fled to "Naioth in
Eamah," as to bis second home (1 Sam. xix. 19),
and the gifts of music, of song, and of prophecy,
here developed on so large a scale, were exactly
such as we find in the notices of those who looked
up to Samuel .as their father. It is, further,
hardly possible to escape the conclusion that David
there first met his fast friends and companions
in after life, prophets like himself — Gad and
Nathan.
It is needless to enlarge on the importance with
which these incidents invest the appearance of
Samuel. ' He there becomes the spiritual father of
the Psalmist king. He is also the Founder of the
first regular institutions of religions instruction,
and communities for the purposes of education.
The schools of Greece were not yet in existence.
From these Jewish institutions were developed, by
a natural order, the universities of Christendom.
And it may be further added, that with this view
the whole life of Samuel is in accordance. He is
the prophet — the only prophet till the time of
Isaiah — of whom we know that he was so from
his earliest years. It is this continuity of his own
life and character, that makes him so fit an instru
ment for conducting his nation through so great
a change. The death of Samuel is described as taking place

& 1 Sam. XV. The LXX. softens this into etrttta^e
but the Vulg. translation, in frusta cancidit, " cut uf
Into small pieces," seems to be tbe true meaning.

2824

SAMUEL

hi the year of the close of David's wanderings. It
is said with peculiar emphasis, as if to mark the
loss, that " all the Israelites " — all, with a uni
versality never specified before — "were gathered
together" from all parts of this hitherto divided
country, and " lamented him," and " buried him,"
not in any consecrated place, nor outside the walls
of his city, but within liis own bouse, thus in a
manner consecrated by being turned into his tomb
(1 Sam. xxv. 1), His relics were translated " from
Jud£ea " (the place is not specified) A. d. 406, to
Constantinople, and received there with much pomp
by the Emperor Arcadius. They were landed at
the pier of Chalcedon, and thence conveyed to a
church, near the palace of Hebdomon (see Acta
Sanctorum, Aug. 20).
The situation of Ramathaim, as has been observed,
is uncertain. But the place long pointed out as his
tomb is the height, most conspicuous of all in the
neighborhood of Jerusalem, immediately above the
town of Gibeon, known to the Crusaders as " Mont-
joye," as the spot from whence tbey first saw
Jerusalem, now called Neby Samwil, " tbe Prophet
Samuel." The tradition can be traced back as
far as the 7th century, when it is spoken of as tbe
monastery of St. Samuel (Robinson, Bibl. Res. ii.
142), and if once we discard the connection of
Ramathaim with the nameless city where Samuel
met Saul (as is set forth at length in the articles
Ramah ; Ramathai.m-Zophi.\i), there is no reason
why the tradition should be rejected. A cave is
still shown underneath the floor of the mosque.
" He built tbe tomb in his lifetime," is the account
of the Mussulman guardian of the mosque, " but
was not buried here till after the expulsion of the
(jreeks." It is the only spot in Palestine which
claims any direct connection with the first great
prophet who was bom within its limit.s; and its
coramanding situation well agrees with the impor
tance assigned to him in the sacred history.
His descendants were here till the time of David.
Heman, his grandson, was one of tbe chief sing
ers in the Levitical choir (1 Cbr. vi. 33, xv. 17,
IXV. 5).
The apparition of Samuel at Endor (1 Sam.
xxviii. 14; Ecclus. xlvi. 20) belongs to the history
of Saul.
It has been supposed that Samuel wTote a Life
of David (of course of his earlier years), which was
still accessible to one of the authors of tbe Book of
Chronicles (1 Chr. xxix. 29); but this appears
doubtful. [See p. 2826 b.] Various other books
of the O. T. have been ascribed to bim liy the
Jewish tradition: the Judges, Ruth, tbe two Books
of Samuel, the latter, it is alleged, being written
in the spirit of prophecy. He is regarded by tbe
Samaritans as a magician and an infidel (Hottin
ger, Hist. Orient, p. 52).
The Persian traditions fix his life in the time
o" Kai-i-Kobad, 2d king of Persia, with whom he
IE said to have conversed (D'Herbelot, Kai Kobad).
A. P. S.
* The prophet Samuel lived at a great transi
tional period of Jewish history. The Israelites had
been intended for a great nation, living under the
immediate Divine government, and closely knit to
gether by religious ties. Through their unfaith
fulness to God, they had become Uttle more than a
collection of independent tribes, continually en
gaged in harassing wars with their neighbors, and
pften falling for long periods together under their
power. It was therefore a natural desire that they

SAMUEL
should have a king to reunite them in one nation-
ahty, and enable them to make bead against theil
foes. To this Samuel was earnestly opposed, nor
did he acquiesce in their wish until expressly di
rected -to do so from on high. God saw that the
people were too sinful fbr the great destiny ofi'ered
them, and therefore it was fitting that in this
matter of government they should be reduced to
the level of other nations, it was by no means an
" example of the Divine sanction resting on [Sam
uel's] acquiescence;" but rather of a Divine com
mand to him to let a ^tiff-necked people have their
way. In the Tabernacle Samuel probably slept in one
of the chambers over, or at the side of, the Taber
nacle [Tkmple]. The extreme improbability that
he should have slept in the Holy of Holies is en
hanced by the fact that he was evidently in a
difierent apartment from Eli (1 Sam. iii. 4-10),
and if the latter was not within the vail, much less
the former. There is nothing in 1 Sam. ui. 3 to
suggest such a supposition. Tbe " Temple " is there
particularized as the place " where the ark of God
MJ^fS," and the time is fixed as " before the lamp of
God" — wbich was outside the vail — "went out
in tbe Temple of the Lord." No hint is given of
the plaoe of Samuel's chamber. At a later date,
when the Ark was taken into the battle with the
Philistines, it does not appear that the Tabernacle
was otherwise distur'oed, of that Samuel then gave
up his residence there. It is not likely that Sam
uel himself ever actually engaged in military opera
tions. In tbe successful battle with the Philistines
(1 Sam. vii. ) he assisted hy bis prayers, but could
have taken no part in the battle itself, as he was
engaged at the time in offering sacrifice (ver 10).
The name "warrior" must therefore be omitted
from the list of bis titles.
TTie narrative in 1 Sam. ix. 7, 8, afibrds no
ground for tbe supposition that either he or other
inspired prophets received compensation for their
utterances as a quid jno quo alter the fashion of
heathen soothsayers or modem necromancers.
Saul, a young man not of distinguished birth, and
an entire stranger to Samuel, did not think it
fitting, according to oriental etiquette, to approach
the great judge of Israel and divinely appointed
prophet without a present. This appears in the
narrative much more as a tribute to tlie rank and
station of Samuel than as a proposed payment for
his counsel — a thing abhorrent to the whole idea
of tbe prophetic office.
In 1 Sam. xiii. the narrative distinctly makes tbe
sm of Saul "his intrading into sacerdotal func
tions." Saul says (ver. 12), " Therefore, said I, the
Philistines will come down now upon nie to Gilgal,
and I have not made supplication unto the Lobd;
I forced myself therefore, and offered a burnt off'er
ing." Samuel replies — n)aking no allusion to
the not waiting for his coming, — " Thou hast done
fooHshly : thou hast not kept the commandment of
the Lord thy God."
It is impossible that Saul, and improbable that
David had any training in the schools of the
prophets under Samuel. The first passage adduced
in the article above ui evidence of such training
(1 Sam. JL. 10) reads that "a company of the
propheta met" Saul as he went home after hie
anointing (when he spent one night with Samuel
whom he had not before known) and "the spirit
of God came upon him, and he prophesied among
them." The only other passage given (1 Sam.

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF
xix 24) is quite late in the reign of Saul when he
came to Naioth in pursuit of David, and tb'ire
spent a day and a night, while the spirit of proph
ecy was upoi. him. In both casjs tbe astonish
ment of tbe beholders is expressed by tlie exclama
tion, "Is Saul also among the prophets? " — which
of course contradicts the supposition that be had
heen trained among them. In regard to David,
it is inaccurately said that he fled to " ' Naioth in
Ramah' as to his second home (1 Sam. xix. 19)."
What is said is that " he came to Samuel to Ka
mah and told him all that Saul had done to him.
And he and Samuel went and dwelt in Naioth."
David's purpose was to seek refuge with Samuel,
the aged judge whom Saul still feared and re
spected. He went to his residence at Eamah.
For reasons not mentioned, but probably from pru
dential considerations, they left then together and
"went and dwelt at Naioth."
Some other slight inadvertencies in the above
article the reader will readily correct for himself.
F. G.
SAMUEL, BOOKS OF (bWD^ :
Baa-t\ettiip Tlpdrri, Aeurepa : Liber Megum
Primus, Semundus). Two historical books of the
Old Testament, wliich are not separated from each
other in the Hebrew MSS., and which, from a
critical point of view, must be regarded as one
book. The present division was first made in the
Septuagint translation, and was adopted in tbe Vul
gate irom the Septuagint. But Origen, as quoted
by Eusebius (Histoi: Eccles. vi. 25), expressly states
that they formed only one book among the He
brews. Jerome (Pros/', in Libi-os Samuel et Mai-
achim) implies the same statement; and in the
Talmud (Baba Bathra, foi. 14, c. 2), wherein the
authorship is attributed to Samuel, tliey are desig
nated hy the name of bis book, in the singular
number (1"1QD 2n3 bS1CU7). After the in
vention of printing they were published as one
book in the first edition of the whole Bible printed
at Soncino in 1488 A. p., and likewise in tbe Com
plutensian Polyglot printed at Alcala, 1502-1517
a. d. ; and it was not till the year 1518 that the
division of the Septuagint was adopted in Hebrew,
in the edition of the Bible printed by the Bom-
bergs at Venice. The book was called by the He
brews " Samuel," probably because tbe birth and
hfe of Samuel were the suigects treated of in the
beginning of the work — just as a treatise on fes
tivals in tbe Mishna bears the name of Beitsah, an
egg, because a question connected with the eating of
an egg is tbe first subject discussed in it. [Phari
sees, vol. iii. p. 2475 a.] It has been suggested
indeed by Abarbanel, as quoted by Carpzov (211),
that the book was called by Samuel's name be
cause all 'things that occur in each book may, ui a
certain sense, be referred to Samuel, including the
acts of Saul and David, inasmuch as each of them
was anointed by him, and was, as it were, the
work of his h:mds. This, however, seems to be a
refinement of explanation for a fact which is to be
accounted for in a less artificial manner. And,
generally, it is to be observed that the logical titles
of books adopted in modern times must not be
looked for in Eastern works, nor indeed in early
works of modem Europe. Thus David's Lamen
tation over Saul and Jonathan was called " The
Bow," for some reason connected with the occur
rence of that word in his poem (2 Sam. i. 18-22);
and Snorro Storleson'a Chronicle of the Kings of
178

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF 2825
Norway obtained the name of " Heimski-iiigla,"
the World's Circle, because Heiniskringla was the
first prominent word of tbe MS. that caught the
eye (Laing's Heimskringla, i. 1),
Authorship and Date of tlie Book. — Tbe most
interestuig points in regard to every important his
torical work are tbe name, intelligence, aud cliarac
ter of the historian, and his means of obtaniing
correct information. If these points should not be
known, next in order of interest is the precise pe
riod of time when the work was composed. On all
these points, however, in reference to the book of
Samuel, more questions can be asked than can be
answered, and libe results of a dispassionate inquiry
are mainly negative.
1st, as to the authorship. In common with all
the historical books of the Old Testament, except
the beginning of Nehemiah, the book of Samuel
contains no mention in the text of tbe name of its
author. The earliest Greek historical work extant,
written by one who bas frequently been called the
Father of History, commences with the words,
" This is a publication of the researches of Herod
otus of Halicarnassus ; " and the motives which
induced Herodptus to write the work are then set
forth. Thucydides, the writer of the Greek his
torical w^ork next iu order of time, who hkewise
specifies his reasons for writing it, commences by
stating, " Thucydides the Atlienian wrote tbe his
tory of the war between the Peloponnesians and
Athenians," and frequently uses tbe formula that
such or such a year ended — the second, or third,
or fourth, as the ease might be — " of this war of
wbich Thucydides wrote the history" (ii. 70, 103;
iii. 25, 88, 116). Again, when he speaks in one
passage of events in which it is necessary that he
should mention his own name, be refers to himself
as " Thucydides son of Olorus, who composed this
work " (iv. 104). Now, with the one exception
of this kind already mentioned, no similar informa
tion is contained in any historical book of the Old
Testament, although there are passages not only in
Nehemiah, but likewise in Ezra, written in the first
person. Still, without any statement of the author
ship embodied in the text, it is possible that his
torical books might come down to us with a titlu
containing the name of the author. This is the
case, for example, with Livy's Roman History, and
Ciesar's Commentaries of the GttUic -War. In the
latter case, indeed, although Csesar mentions a long
series of his own actions, without intimating that
he was the author of the work, and thus there is an
antecedent improbability th.at he wrote it, yet the
traditional title of the work outweighs this improb
ability, confirmed as the title is, by an unbroken
chain of testimony, commencing with contempo
raries (Cicero, Brui. 75; Ca;sar, De Bell. Gall.
viii. 1; Suetonius, Jul. Cces. 56; Quinctihan, a. 1;
Tacitus, Germ. 28). Here, again, there is noth
ing precisely similar in Hebrew history. The five
books of the Pentateuch have in Hebrew no title
except the first Hebrew words of each part; and
the titles Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
and Deuteronomy, which are derived from the Sep
tuagint, convey no information as to their author.
In like manner, the book of Judges, the books of
tbe Kings and the Chronicles, are not referred to
any particular historian ; and although six works
bear respectively the names of Joshua, Ruth, Sam
uel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, there is nothing
in the works tb/tmselves to preclude the idea that
in each case the subject only ¦"f the work may he

2826 SAMUEL, BOOKS OF
indicated, and not its authorship; as is shown con-
clusivdy by the titles Ruth and Esther, which no
one has yet construed into the assertion that those
celebrated women wrote the works concerning them
selves. And it is indisputable that the title " Sam
uel" does not imply that the prophet was the au
thor of the book of Samuel as a whole; for the
death of Samuel is recorded in the beginning of
the 25th chapter; so that, under any circum
stances, a different author would be required for
the remaining chapters, constituting considerably
more than one half of the entire work. Again, in
reference to the book of Samuel, the absence of
the historian's name from both the text and the
title is not supplied by any statement of any other
writer, made within a reasonable period from the
time when the book may be supposed to have been
written. No mention of the author's name is
made in the book of Kings, nor, as will be here
after shown, in the Chronicles, nor in any other
of the sacred writings. In like manner, it is not
mentioned either in the Apocrypha or in Josephus.
The silence of Josephus is particularly significant.
He published his Antiquities about 1100 years
after the death of David, and in them he makes
constant use of the book of Samuel for one
portion of his history. Indeed, it is his exclusive
authority for his account of Samuel and Saul, and
his main authority, hi conjunction with the Chron
icles, for the history of David. Yet he nowhere
attempts to name the author of the book of Sam
uel, or of any part of it. There is a similar silence
in the Mishna, where, however, the inference from
such silence is far less cogent. And it is not until
we come to the Babylonian Gemara, which is sup
posed to have been completed in its present form
somewhere about 500 a. d., that any Jewish state
ment respecting the authorship can be pointed out,
and then it is for the first time asserted {Baba
Bathra, foi. 14, c. 2), in a passage already referred
to, that " Samuel wrote his book," i. e. as the words
imply, the book which beai-s his name. But this
statement cannot be proved to have been made
earlier than 1550 years after the death of Samuel^
a longer period than has elapsed since the death of
the Emperor Constantine; and unsupported as the
statement is by reference to any authority of any
kind, it would be unworthy of credit even if it
were not opposed to the internal evidence of the
book itself. At the revival of learning, an opinion
was propounded by Abarbanel, a learned Jew,
t A. D. 1508, that the hook of Samuel was written
by the prophet Jeremiah « (Lat. by Aug. Pfeiffer,
I^eipzig, 1686), and this opinion was adopted by
Hugo Grotius (Pref. ad Libi^m pHm'vm Sam-
uelis), with a general statement that there was no
discrepancy in the language, and with only one
special reference. Notwithstanding the eminence,
however, of these writers, this opinion must be re
jected as highly improbable. Under any circum
stances it could not be regarded as more than a
mere guess; and it is in reaUty a guess uncoun-
tenanced by peculiar similarity of language, or of
style, between the history of Samuel and the writ
ings of Jeremiah. In our own time the most

a Professor Hitzig, in like manner, attributes some
of the Psalms to Jeremiah. In support of this view,
he points out, 1st, several special instances of striking
Bimilarity of language between those Psalms and the
writings of Jeremiah, and, 2dly, agreement between
historical facts in the Ufe of Jeremiah and the situa-

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF
prevalent idea in the Anglican Church seems to
have been that the first twenty-four chapters of
the book of Samuel were written by the prophet
himself, and the rest of the chapters by the prcphets
Nathan and Gad. ITiis is the view favored by
Mr. Home (Introduction to ihe Holy Scj^ipturet, "'M
ed. 1846, p. 45), in a woik which has had very ex
tensive circulation, and which amongst many read
ers has been the only work of the kind consulted
in England. If, however, the authority adduced
by him is examined, it is found to be ultimately
the opinion " of the Talmudists, which was adopted
by the most learned Fathers of tie Christian
Church, who unquestionably had better nieans of
ascertaining this point than we have." Now the
absence of any evidence for this opinion in tiie
Talmud has been already indicated, and it is diffi
cult to understand how the opinion could have been
stamped with real value through ita adoption by
learned Jews called Talmudifits, or by learned
Christians called Fathers of the Christian Church,
who lived subsequently to the publication of the
Talmud. For there is not the slightest reiison for
supposing that in the year 500 a. d either Jews or
Christians had access to tnistworthy documents od
this subject which have not been transmitted to
modem times, and without such documents it can
not be shown that they had any better means of
ascertaining this point than we have. Two cir
cumstances have probably contributed to the adop
tion of this opinion at the present day: 1st, the
growth of .stricter ideas as to the importance of
knowing who was the author of any historical work
which advances claims to be tnistworthy; and
2dly, the mistranslation of an ambiguous passage
in the First Book of Chronicles (xxix. 29), respect
ing the authorities for the Ufe of David. The firet
point requires no comment. On the second point
it is to be observed that the following appears to
be the correct translation of the passage in ques
tion : " Now the history of David first and last,
behold it is written in the history of Samuel the
seer, and in the history of Nathan the prophet,
and in the history of Gad the seer" — iu which
the Hebrew word dibi-ti, here translated "his
tory," has the same meaning given to it each of
the four times that it is used. This agrees wiUi
the translation in the Septuagint, which is parUco-
larly worthy of attention in reference to the Chion-
icles, as the Chronicles are the very last work in the
Hebrew Bible; and whether this arose from their
ha\-ing been the last admitted into the Canon, or
the last composed, it is scarcely probable that any
translation in the Septuagint, with one great ei-
ception, was made so soon after the composition of
the original. The rendering of the Septuagint is
by the word K6yoi, in the sense, so well known
in Herodotus, of "history" (i. 184, ii. 161, vi.
137), and in the like sense in the Apocrypha,
wherein it is used to describe the history of Tobit,
/Si'^Aos K6y(ov Ta$iT, The word "histoiy"
(Geschichte) is hkewise the word four tinies used
in the translation of this passage of the Chionicles
in Luther's Bible, and in the modern version of
the Germali Jews raade under tbe superintendMce

tion in which tbe writer of those Psalms depicts him
self as having been placed (Hitidg, Die Psa/m«n, pp-
48-85). Whether the eouclusion is correct or inoOT-
rect, this is a legitimate mode of reasoning, and tbert
is a sound hoBis for a critical superstructure. Sm
Psalms xxxi., xxxv., xl.

SAMUEL, BOOKS OP
if the learned Dr. Zunz (Berlin, 1858). In the
English Version, however, the word dibrei is trans-
fated in the first instance "acts" as applied to
David, and then "book" as applied to Samuel,
Nathan, and Gad; and thus, through the ambi
guity of the word "book" the possibility is sug
gested that each of these three prophets wrote a
book respecting his own life and times. This
double rendering of the same word in one passage
Deems wholly inadmissible; as is also, though in a
less degree, the translation of dibrei as " book,"
for which there is a distinct Hebrew word —
tepher. And it may be deemed morally certain
that this passage of the Chronicles is no authority
for tho supposition that, when it was written, any
work was in existence of which either Gad, Na
than, or Samuel was the author."
2. Although the authorship of the book of Sam
uel cannot be ascertained, there are some indica
tions as to the date of the work. And yet even on
this point no precision is attainable, and we must
be satisfied with a. conjecture as to the range, not
of years or decades, but of centuries, within which
the history was probably composed. Evidence on
this head is either external or internal. Tlie earli
est undeniable external evidence of the existence of
the book would seem to be the Greek translation
of it in the Septuagint. The exact date, however,
of the translation itself is uncertain, though it must
have been made at some time between the transla
tion of the Pentateuch in the reign of Ptolemy
Philadelphus, who died u. c. 247, and the century
before the birth of Christ. The next best external
testimony is that of a passage in the Second Book
of Maccabees (ii. 13), in which it is said of Nehe
miah, that "he, founding a' library, gathered to
gether the acts of the kings, and the prophets,
and of David, and the epistles of the kings con
cerning the holy gifts." Now, although this pas
sage cannot be relied on for proving that Nehe
miah himself did in fact ever found such a library,'*
yet it is good evidence to prove that the Acts of
the Kings, tA irepl rcav jSao-iAewj/, were in exist
ence when the passage was written; and it can
not reasonably be doubted that this phrase was in
tended to include the book of Samuel, which is
equivalent to the two first books of Kings in the
Beptuagint. Hence there is external evidence that
Jie book of Samuel was written before the Second
Book of Maccabees. And lastly, the passage in
tbe Chronicles already quoted (1 Chr. xxix. 29)
seems likewise to prove externally that the book
of Samuel was written before the (Jhronicles. This
is not absolutely certain, but it seems to be the
most natural inlereuce from the words that the his
tory of David, first and last, is contained in the
history of Samuel, the history of Nathan, and the
history of Gad. For as a work has come down to
U3, entitled Saniuel, which contains an account of
the life of David till within a short period before

SAMUEL, BOOKS OP

2827

« In fhe Jiwedish Bible the word dibrei in each of
fhe four instances is translated " acts " ( Gemingar),
being precisely the same word which is used to desig-
uate the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament.
This translation is self-consistent and admissible.
But the German translations, supported as tbey are
by the Septuagint, seem preferable.
i> Professors ISwald and Bleek have accepted the
itatoment that Nehemiah founded such a library, and
they make inferences Irom the account of the library
u to the time when certain books of the Old Testa-
bent were admitted into the Canon. There are, how-

his death, it appears most reasonable to conclude
(although this point is open to dispute) that the
writer of the Chronicles referred to this work by
the title History of Samuel. In this case, admit
ting the date assigned, on internal grounds, to the
Chronicles by a modern Jewish writer of undoubt/Cd
learning and critical powers, there would be exter
nal evidence for the existence of the book of Sam
uel earlier than 247 n- c, though not earlier than
312 B. c, the era of the Seleucidae (Zunz, IHe
Goltesdiensilichen Vorirdge der Juden, p. 32).
Supposing that the Chronicles were written earlier,
this evidence would go, in precise proportion,
further back, but there would be still a total ab
sence of earlier external evidence on the subject
than is contained in the Chronicles. If, however,
instead of looking solely to the external evidence,
the internal evidence respecting the book of
Samuel is examined, there are indications of its
having been written some centuries earlier. On
this head the following points are worthy of no
tice : —
1. The book of Samuel seems to have been writ
ten at a time when the Pentateuch, whether it was
or was not in existence in its present form, was at
any rate not acted on as the rule of religious ob
servances. According to the Mosaic Law as finally
established, sacrifices to Jehovah were not lawful
anywhere but before the door of the Tabernacle of
the congregation, whether this vvas a permanent
temple, as at Jerusalem, or otherrt'ise (Deut. xii.
13, 14; Lev. xvii. 3, 4; but see Ex. xx. 24). But
ill the book of Samuel, the offering of sacrifices, or
the erection of altars, which implies sacrifices, is
mentioned at several places, such as Mizpeh, Ra
mah, Bethel, the threshing-place of Araunah the
Jebusite, and elsewhere, not only without any dis
approbation, apology, or explanation, but in a way
which produces the impression that such sacrifices
were pleasing to Jehovah (1 Sam. vii. 9, 10, 17,
ix. 13, x. 3, xiv. 35; 2 Sam. xxiv. 18-25). This
circumstance points to the date of the book of
Samuel as earlier than the reformation of Josiah,
when Hilkiah the high-priest told Shaphan the
scribe that he had found the Book of the Law in
the house of Jehovah, when the Passover was kept
as was enjoined in that book, in a way that no
l^assover had been holden since the days of the
Judges, and when the worship upon high-places
was abolished by the king's orders (2 K. xxii. 8,
xxiii. 8, 13, 15, 19, 21, 22). The probability that
a sacred historian, writing after that reformation,
would have expressed disapprobation of, or would
have accounted for, any seeming departure from the
laws of tbe Pentateuch by David, Saul, or Samuel,
is not in itself conclusive, but joined to other con
siderations it is entitled to peculiar weight. The
natural mode of dealing with such a religious scan
dal, when it shocks the ideas of a later generation,
is followed by the author of the book of Kings, who
ever, the following reasons for rty'ecting the state-
ment: 1st. It occurs in a letter generally deemed
spurious. 2dly. In the same letter a fabulous story
is recorded not only of Jeremiah (ii. 1-7), but likewise
of Nehemiah himself. 3dly. An erroneous historical
statement is likewise made in the same leHer, that
Nehemiah built the Temple of Jerusalem (i 18). No
witness in a court of justice, whose credit jad been
shaken to a similar extent, would, unless corroborated
by other evidence, be relied on as in authority for anv
important fiu:t.

2828 SAMUEL, BOOKS OP
tmdonbtedlj lived later than the reformation of Jo-
Biah, or than the beginning, at least, of the captiv
ity of Judah (2 K. xxv. 21, 27). This writer men
tions the toleration of worship on high-places with
disapprobation, not only in connection with bad
kings, such as Manasseh and Ahaz, hut likewise as
n drawback in the excellence of other kings, such as
Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoasb, Amaziah, Azariah, and
Jotham, who are praised for having done what was
right m the sight of Jehovah (1 K. xv. 14, xxii. 43 ;
2 K. xii. 3, xiv. 4, xv. 4, 35, xvi. 4, xxi. 3); aud
something of the same kind might have been ex
pected in the writer of the book of Samuel, if he
had lived at n time when the worship on high-
places had been abolished.
2. It is in accordance with this early date of the
book of Samuel that allusions in it even to the
existence of Moses are so few. After the return
from the Captinty, and more especiaUy after the
changes introduced by Ezra, Moses became that
great central figure in the thoughts and language
of devout Jews which he could not fail to be when
all the laws of the Pentateuch were observed, and
they were all referred to him as the divine prophet
who communicated them directly from Jehovah.
This transcendent importance of Moses must al
ready have commenced at the finding of the Book
of the Law at the reformation of Josiah. Now it
is remarkable that the book of Samuel is the his
torical work of the Old Testament in which the
name of Moses occurs most rarely. In Joshua it
occurs 56 times; in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehe
miah, 31 times; in the book of Kings ten times;
in Judges three times ; but in Samuel only twice
(Zunz, Voi-trage, 35). And it is worthy of note
that in each case Moses is merely mentioned with
Aaron as having brought the IsraeUtes out of the
land of Egi'pt, but nothing whatever is said of the
Law of Moses (1 Sara. xii. 6, 8). It may be
thought that no inference can be drawn from this
omission of the name of Moses, because, inasmuch
as the Law of Moses, as a whole, was evidently not
acted on in tbe time of Samuel, David, and Solo
mon, there was no occasion for a writer, however
late he lived, to introduce the name of Moses at all
in connection with their life and actions. But it is
very rare indeed for later writera to refrain in this
way from importing the ideas of their own time
into the account of earher transactions- Thus,
very early in the book of Kings there is an allusion
to what is " written in the Law of Aloses '" (1 K.
ii. 3). Thus the author of the book of Chronicles
makes, for the reign of David, a calculation of money
in daiics, a Persian coin, not likely to have been
in common use among the Jews until the Persian
domination had been fully estabhshed. Thus,
more than once, Josephus, in his Antiquities of'
Ute Jews, attributes expressions to personages in
the Old Testament which are to be accounted for
by what was familiar to his own mind, although
they are not justified by his authorities. For ex
ample, evidently copying the history of a transac
tion from the book of Samuel, he represents 'the
prophet Saniuel as exhorting the people to bear in
mind " the code of laws which Moses had given
thera " (t^v Kwvtrews voiioBetrias, ^^nt. vi. 5, § 3),
though there is no mention of Moses, or of his leg
islation, in the corresponding passage of Samuel (1
a As compared with Samuel, the peculiarities of
tho Pentateuch are not quite aa striking as tbe differ-
snoi-s in language between Lucretius and Virgil : ^he

SAMUEL, BOOKS OP
Sam. xii. 20-25). Again, in giving an acconnto
the punishments with which the Israelites were
threatened for disobedience of the I.aw by Moses in
the book of Deuteronomy, Josephus attributes to
Moses the threat that their tenjple should be burned
(Ant. iv. 8, § 46). But no passage can be pointed
out in the whole Pentateuch in which such a tbmt
occurs; and in fact, according to the received chio-
nology (1 K. vi. 1), or according to any chronol
ogy, the first temple at Jerusalem was not built till
some centuries after the death of Moses. Yet thii
allusion to the burning of an unbuilt temple oogfal
not to be regarded as an intentional misrepresenta
tion. It is rather an instance of the tendency in
an historian who describes past events to give nu-
consciously indications of his living himself at g
later epoch. Similar remarks apply to a passage
of Josephus (Am. vii. 4, § 4), in which, ^ving an
account of David's project to build a temple at Je
rusalem, he says that David wished to prepares
temple for God, " as Moses commanded,*' though
no such command or injunction is found to be in the
Pentateuch. To a religious Jew, when the lavsnf
the Pentateuch were observed, Moses could not fail
to be the predominant idea in his mind ; but Mosei
would not necessarily be of equal importance to a
Hebrew historian who Hved before the refbrmatioo.
of Josiah.3. It taUies with an early date for the compo
sition of the book of Samuel that it is one of the
best specimens of Hebrew prose iu the golden age
of Hebrew hterature. In prose it holds the same
place which Joel and the undisputed prophecies oj
Isaiah hold in poetical or prophetical language. Il
is free from the peculiarities -f the book of .Judgss,
which it is proposed to accoimt for by supposing
that they belonged to the popular dialect of Northern
Palestine; and likewise from the slight peculiarities
of the Pentateuch, which it is proposed to regard as
archaisms " (Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar, § 2, 5).
It is a striking contrast to the language of the book
of Chronicles, which undoubtedly belongs to the
silver age of Hebrew prose, and it does not contain
as inany alleged Chaldaisms as tlie few in the book
of Kings. Indeed the number of Chaldaisms in the
book of Samuel which the most rigid scrutiny tas
suggested do not amount to more than about sir
instances, some of them doubtful ones, in 90 pages
of our modem Hebrew Bible. And, considering the
general purity of the language, it is not only possi
ble, but probable, that the trifling residuum of Chal
daisms may he owing to the inadvertence of Chal
dee copyists, when Hebrew had ceased to be a living
language. At the sarae time this argument from
language must uot be pushed so far as to imply
that, standing alone, it would be conclusive; foi
sorae writings, the date of which is about the time
of the Captivity, are in pure Hebrew, such as the
prophecies of Habakkuk, the Psalms cxx., cxxirii-,
cxxiix., pointed out by Gesenius, and by far the
largest portion of the latter part of the prophecies
attributed to " Isaiah " (xl.-kvi.). And we have
not sufficient knowledge of the condition of the Jem
at the time of the Captivity, or for a few centnries
after, to entitle any one to assert that there were no
individuals among them who wrote the purest He
brew. Still the balance of probabiUty inclines to Ihe
contrary du^ction, and, as a subsidiary argument,

parallel which has been suggested by Gesenius. Tl^
gil seems to have been about 14 years of age whtf
Lucretius' great poem was publislied.

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF
the purity of language of tbe book of Samuel is
BDtitted to some weight.
Assuming, then, that the work was composed at
» period not later than the reformation of Josiah, —
say, B. C. G22, — the question arises as to the very
earliest point of time at which it could have existed
in its present form. And the answer seems to be,
that the earliest period was subsequent to tlie seces
sion of the Ten Tribes. This results from the pas
sage in 1 Sam. xxvii. 6, wherein it is said of Da
vid, "Then Achish gave him Ziklag that day:
wherefore Ziklag pertaineth unto the kings of Ju-
iah unto this day: " for neither Saul, David, nor
Solomon is in a single instance called king of Ju
dah simply. It is true that David is said, in one
narrative respecting him, to have reigned in Hebron
seven years and six months over Judah (2 Sam. v.
5) before he rpigned in Jerusalem thirty-three
years over all Israel and Judah; but he is, notwith-
flianding, never designated by the title King of
Judah. Before the secession, the designation of
^he kings was that they were kings of Israel (1
Sam. xiii. 1, xv. 1, xvi. 1; 2 Sam. v. 17, viii. 15;
1 K.. ii. 11, iv. 1, vi. 1, xi. 42). It may safely,
therefore, he assumed that the book of Samuel
Tould not have existed in its present form at aii
earlier period than the reign of Kehoboam, who as
cended the throne u. c. 975. If we go beyond
this, and endeavor to assert the precise time be
tween 975 K. c. and 622 b. u., when it was com
posed, all certain indications fail us. The expres
sion " unto this day," used several times in the
book (1 Sam. v. 5, vi. 18, xxx. 25; 2 Sam. iv. 3,
vi. 8), ill addition to the use of it in the passage
already quoted, is too indefinite to prove anything,
except that the writer who employed it lived subse
quently to the events he described. It is inade
quate to prove whether he lived three centuries, or
only half a century, after those events. The same
remark applies to the phi-ase, " Therefore it became
a proverb, 'Is Saul among the Prophets?'" (1
Sara. X. 12), and to the verse, " Beforetime in Is-
i-ael, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he
spake. Come, and let us go to the seer : for he that
is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a
Seer" (1 Sam. ix. 9). In both cases it is not cer-
t'Ain that the writer lived more than eighty years
after the incidents to which he alludes. In like man
ner, the various traditions respecting the manner
in which Saul first became acquainted with David
(I Sam. xvi. 14-23, xvii. 55-58) — ^respecting the
manner of Saul's death (1 Sam. xxxi. 2-6, 8-13;
2 Sam. i. 2-12) — do not necessarily show that a
very long time (say even a century) elapsed between
the actual events and the record of the traditions.
In au age anterior to the existence of newspapers
or the invention of printing, and when probably
few could read, thirty or forty years, or even less,
have been sufficient for the growth of different tra
ditions respecting the same historical fact. Lastly,
internal evidence of language lends no assistance
for discrimination in the period of 353 years within
which the book may hai'e been written ; for the
undisputed Hebrew writings belonging to that pe
riod are comparatively few, and not one of them is
a history, which would present the best points of
comparison. They embrace scarcely more than
the writings of /oel, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Nahum,
tiud a certain portion of the writings under the title
* Isaiah." The whole of these writings together
tan scarcely be estimated as occupying more than
lixty pages of our Hebrew Bibles, and whatever

SAMUEL, BOOKS OP 2829
may be their peculiarities of language or style, they
do not aflford materials for a safe inference as to
which of their authors was likely to have been con
temporary with the author of the book of Samuel,
All that can be asserted as undeniable is, that the
book, as a whole, can scarcely have been composed
later than the reformation of Josiah, and that it
could not have existed in its present form earlier
than the reign of Kehoboam.
It is to be added that no great weight, in oppo
sition to this conclusion, is due to the fact that the
death of David, although in one passage evidently
implied (2 Sam. v. 5), is not directly recorded in the
book of Samuel. From this fact Htivernick (Ein
leiiung in das Alte Tesidvient, part ii., p. 145)
deems it a certain inference that the author lived
not long after the death of David. But this is a
very slight foundation for such an inference, since
we know notiiing of the author's name, or of the
circumstances under which he wrote, or of his pre
cise ideas respecting what is required of an histo
rian. We cannot, therefore, assert, from the knowl
edge of the character of his mind, that his deeming
it logically requisite to raake a formal statement
of David's death would have depended on his Uving
a short time or a long time after that event. Be
sides, it is very possible that he did formally record
it, and that the mention of it was subsequently
omitted on account of the more minute details by
which the account of David's death is preceded
in the First Book of Kings. There would have
been nothing wrong in such an omission, nor in
deed, in any addition to the book of Samuel; for,
as those who finally inserted it in the Canon did
not ti-ansmit it to posterity with the name of any
particular author, their honesty was involved, not
in the mere circumstance of their omitting or
adding anything, but solely in the fact of their
addhig nothing which they believed to be false,
and of omitting nothing of importance which they
believed to be true.
In this absolute ignorance of the author's name,
and vague knowledge of the date of the Work,
there has been a controversy whether the book of
Saniuel is or is not a compilation from preexist
ing documents; and if this is decided in the af
firmative, to what extent the work is a compilation.
It is not intended to enter fully here into this con
troversy, respecting which the reader is referred to
Dr. Davidson's Introduction io the Criticid Study
and Knowledge of ihe Holy Sciiptures, Lx)ndon,
Longman, 1856, in which this subject is dispas
sionately and fairly treated. One observation, how
ever, of some practical importance, is to be borne
in mind. It does not admit of much reasonable
doubt that in the book of Samuel there are two
different accounts (already alluded to) respecting
Saul's first acquaintance with David, and the cir
cumstances of Saul's death — and that yet the
editor or author of the book did not let his mind
work upon these two different accounts so far as tc
make him interpose his own opinion as to which
of the conflicting accounts was correct, or even to
point out to the reader that the two accounts were
apparently contradictory. Hence, in a certain
sense, and to » certain extent, the author must bo
regarded as a compiler, and not an original his
torian. And in reference to the two accounts of
Saul's death, this is not the less true, even if the
second account be deemed reconcilable with the first
by the supposition that the Amalekite had fabri
cated the story of his havhig killed Saul (2 Sani.

2830 SAMUEL, BOOKS OF
I. 6-30). Although possibly true, this is an un
likely supposition, because, as the Amalekite's ob-
ect in a lie would have been to curry favor with
David, it would have been natural for him to have
*brged some story which would have redounded
more to his own credit than the clumsy and im-
[ffobable stateraent that he, a mere casual spectator,
had killed Saul at Saul's own request. But whether
the Amalekite said what was true or what was
false, an historian, as distinguished from a compiler,
could scarcely have failed to convey his own opinion
on the point, affecting, as on one alternative it did
materially, the truth of the narrative which he had
just before recorded respecting the circumstances
under which Saul's death occurred. And if com
pilation is admitted in regard to the two events
just mentioned, or to one of them, there is no
antecedent improba-bility that the same may have
been the case in other instances; such, for exam
ple, as the two explanations of the proverb, " Is
Saul also among the Prophets? " (1 Sam. x. 9-12,
xix. 22-24), or the two accounts of David's having
forborne to take Saul's life, at the very time when
he was a fugitive from Saul, and his own life was
in danger from Saul's enmity (1 Sam. xxiv. 3-15,
xxvi. 7-12). The same remark applies to what
seem to be summaries or endings "f narratives by
different writere, such as 1 Sam. vii. lo- V^, 1 Sam.
xiv. 47-52, compared with chapter xv. ; 2 Sam.
viii. 15-18. In these cases, if each passage were
absolutely isolated, and occurred in a work which
contained no other instance of compilation, the
inference to be drawn might be uncertain. But
when even one instance of compilation has been
clearly established in a work, all other seeming
instances must be viewed in its light, and it would
be unreasonable to contest each of them singly, on
principles which imply that compilation is as un
likely as it would be in a work of modern history.
It is to be added, that as the author and the-
precise date of the book of Samuel are unknown,
its historical value is not impaired by its being
deemed to a certain extent a compilation. Indeed,
from one point of view, its value is in this way
somewhat enhanced ; as the probability is increased
of its containing documents of an early date, sorae
of which may have been written by persons con
temporaneous, or nearly so, with the events de
scribed. Sow'ces ofthe Book of Samuel — Assuming that
the book is a compilation, it is a subject of rational
inquiry to ascertain the materials from which it
was composed. But our information on this head
is scanty. The only work actually quoted iu this
book is the book of Jasher; i. e. the book of
the Upright. Notwithstanding the great leaming
which has been brought to bear on this title by
numerous commentators [vol. ii. p. 1215], the
meaning of the title must be regarded as absolutely
unknown, and the character of the book itself as
uncertain. The best conjecture hitherto offered as
an induction from facts is, that it was a book of
Poems; but the facts are too few to establish this

ff Any Hebrew scbolar wbo will write out the orig
inal four lines commencing with "Sun, stand thou
Itill ui)on Gibeon I " may satisfy himself that they
belong to a poem. The last line, "Until the people
had avenged themselves upon their enemies," which
m the A. V, is somewhat heavy, is almost uomistak-
vbly a line of poetry in the original. In a narrative
expecting the Israelites in T>rose they would not haTe

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF
as a positive general conclusion. It is only quoted
twice in the whole Bible, once as a work cont^ning
David's I.^mentation over Saul and Jonathan (2
Sam. i. 18), and secondly, as an authority for the
statement that the sun and moon stood still at tbe
command of Joshua (-Josh, x 13). There can be
no doubt that the Lamentation of David is a poem ;
and it is most probable that the other passage
referred to as written in the book of Jasher in-
eludes four lines of Hebrew poetry,« though the
poetical diction and rhythm of the original are
somewhat impaired in a translation. But the only
sound deduction frora these facts is, that the book
of Jasher contained some poems. What else it
may have contained we cannot say, even nega
tively. Without reference, however, to the book of
Jasher, the book of Samuel contains several poetical
compositions, on each of which a few observations
may be offered; commencing with the poetry of
David. (1.) David's Lamentation over Saul and Jona
than, called " The Bow." Tliis extremely beautifii!
composition, which seems to have been preserved
through David's baring caused it to be taught to
the children of Judah (2 Sara. i. 18), is universally
admitted to be the genuine production of David.
In this respect, it has an advantage over f^e
Psalms; as, owing to the unfortunate inaccuracy
of some of the inscriptions, no one of the psalms
attributed to Darid has wholly escaped challenge-
One point in the Lamentation especially merits
attention, that, contrary to what a later poet would
have ventured to represent, Darid, in the generosity
and tenderness of his nature, sounds the praises of
Saul. (2.) David's Lamentation on the death of Abner
(2 Sara. iii. 33, 34). There is no reason to doabt
the genuineness of this short poetical ejaculation.
(3.) 2 Sara. xxii. A Song of David, which ig
introduced with the inscription that David spoke
the words of the song to Jehovah, in the day that
Jehovah had delivered him out of the hand of all
his eneraies and out of the hand of SauL Tliia
song, with a few unin:portaiit verbal differences, ia
merely the xviiith Psalm, which bears substantial!;
the same inscription. For poetical beauty, tbe
song is well worthy to be the production of David,
The foUowing ditficulties, however, are connected
with it.
(a.) The date of the composition is assigned to
the day when David had been delivered not only
out of the hand of all his enemies, but likewise
"out of the hand of Saul." Now Darid reigned
forty years after Saul's death (2 Sam. v. 4, 5), and
it was as king that he achieved the successive con
quests, to which allusion is made in the psalm.
Moreover, the psalm is evidently introduced as
composed at a late period of his life; and it imme
diately precedes the twenty-third chapter, which
commences with the passage, ^^Now these be tbe
last words of Darid." It sounds strange, there
fore, that the narae of Saul should l>e introduced,
whose hostility, so far distant in tirae, had been

been described as ''HS (g-fii), without even an article.
Moreover, there is no other instance in which the fflm*
pie accusative of the person on whom vengeance tt
taken is used aftei Dp3 (nakam). In simple pro*
")Q (min) intervenes, aod, Hke the article, it mij
have been here omitted for conciseness.

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF
condoned, as it were, by David in his noble Lamen
tation (b.) In the closing verse (2 Sam. xxii. 51), Je
hovah is spoken of as showing " mercy to his
Euiointed, unto David and his seed for evermore."
These words wouhl be more naturally written of
David than by David. They may, however, he a
later addition; as it maybe observed that at the
present day, notwithstanding the safeguard of print
ing, the poetical writings of living authors are occa
sionally altered, and it must be added disfigured,
in printed hymn-books. Still, as far as they go,
the words tend to raise a doubt whether the psalm
was written by David, as it cannot be proved that
they are an addition.
(c.) In some passages of the psalm, the strong
est assertions are made of the poet's uprightness
and purity. He says of himself, " According to
the cleanness of my hands hath He recompensed
me. For I have kept the ways of Jehovah, and
have not wickedly departed from my God. For all
his judgments were before me: and as for his
statutes. I did not depart from them. I was also
upright before Him, and have kept myself from
mine iniquity " (xxii. 21-24). Now it is a subject
of reasonable surprise that, at any period after the
painful incidents of his life in the matter of Uriah,
David should have used this language concerning
himself. Admitting fully that, in consequence of
his sincere and bitter contrition, " the princely
heart of innocence" may have been freely bestowed
upon him, it is difficult to understand how this
should have influenced him so far in his assertions
respecting his own uprightness in past times, as to
make him forget that he had once been betrayed
by his passions into adultery and murder. These
assertions, if made by David himself, would form
a striking contrast to the tender humility and self-
mistrust in connection with the same subject by
a great hving genius of spotless character. (See
"Christian Year," Gth Sunday after Tnnity — ad
finem. )
(4. J A song, called "last words of David" (2
Sam. xxiii. 2-7). According to the Inscription, it
was composed by " David the sou of Jesse, the man
who was raised up on high,- the anointed of the
God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel."
It ia suggested by Bleek, and is in itself very prob
able, that both the psalm and the inscription were
(aken from some collection of songs or psalms.
There is not sufficient reason to deny that this song
is correctly ascribed to David.
(5.) One other song remains, which is perhaps
the most perplexing in the book of Samuel. This
is the Song of Hannah, a wife of Elkanah (1 Sam.
ii. 1-30). One difficulty arises from an allusion
in verse 10 to the existence of a king under Jeho
vah, many years before the kingly power w^s
established among the Israelites. Another equally
great difficulty arises from the internal character
of the song. It purports to be written by one of
two wives as a song of thanksgiving for having
borne a child, after a long period of barrenness,
which had caused her to be looked down upon by
.he other wife of her husband. But, deducting a
general allusion, in verse 5, to the barren having
borne seven, there is nothing in the song peculiarly
applicable to the supposed circumstances, and by
far the greater portion of it seems to he a song of
triumph for deliverance frora powerful eneraies in
battle (vv. 1, 4, 10). Indeed, Thenius does not
lesitate to conjecture that it was written by David

SAMUEL, BOOKS OP 2831
after he had slain Goliath, and the Philistines had
been defeated in a great battle (Exegetisches Hand-
buch, p. 8). There is no historical warrant for
this supposition ; but the song is certainly more
appropriate to the victory of David over Goliath,
than to Hannah's having given birth to a child
under the circumstances detailed in the first chap
ter of Samuel. It would, however, be equally
appropriate to some other great battles of the
Israelites. In advancing a single step beyond the songs of
the book of Samuel, ^e enter into the region of
conjecture as to the raaterials which were at the
command ofthe author; and in points which arise
for consideration, we must be satisfied with a sus
pense of judgment, or a shght balance of proba
bilities. For example, it being plain that in some
instances there are two accounts of the same trans
action, it is desirable to form an opinion whether
these were founded on distinct written documents,
or on distinct oral traditions. This point is open
to dispute; but the theory of written documents
seems preferable; as in the alternative of mere
oral traditions it would have been supereminently
unnatural even for a compiler to record them with
out stating in his own person that there were differ
ent traditions respecting the same event. Again,
the truthful simplicity and extraordinary vividness
of sorae portions of the book of Samuel naturally
suggest the idea that they were founded on con
temporary documents or a peculiarly trustworthy
tradition. This applies specially to the account
of the combat between David and Goliath, which
has been the delight of successive generations,
which charms equally in different ways the old and
the young, the learned and the illiterate, and which
tempts us to deem it certain that the account must
have proceeded from an eye-witness. On the other
hand, it is to be remembered that vividness of
description often depends more on the discerning
faculties of the narrator than on mere bodily
presence. "It is the raind that sees," so that 200
years after the meeting of the Long Parliament a
powerful imaginative writer shall portray Cromwell
more vividly than Ludlow, a contemporary who
knew him and conversed with hira. Moreover,
Livy has described events of early Roman history
which educated men regard in their details as
imaginary; and Defoe, Swift, and the authors of
The Arabian Nights have described events which
all men adrait to be imaginary, with such seem
ingly authentic details, with such a charm of
reality, movement, and spirit, that it is sometimes
only by a strong effort of reason that we escape
from the illusion that the narratives are true. In
the absence, therefore, of any external evidence on
this point, it is safer to suspend our judgment as
to whether any portion of the book of Samuel is
founded on the writing of a contemporary, or on a
tradition entitled to any peculiar credit. Perhaps
the two conjectures respecting the composition of
the book of Samuel which are raost entitled t*^
consideration are — let. That the list which ii
contains of officers or pubhc functionaries under
David is the result of contemporary registration;
and 2dly. That the book of Samuel was the com
pilation of some one connected with the schools of
the prophets, or penetrated by their spirit. On
the first point, the reader is referred to such pas
sages as 2 Sam, viii. 16-18, and xx. 23-26, in
regard to which one fact may be mentioned. It
has already been stated [King, vol. " p. 1540 i]

2832 SAMUEL, BOOKS OF
that under the kings there existed an officer
called Recorder, Remembrancer, or Chronicler; in
Hebrew, mazkir. Now it can scarcely be a mere
accidental coincidence that such an officer is men
tioned for the fii-st tirae in David's reign, and that
it is precisely for David's reign that a list of public
functionaries is for the first time transmitted to
us. On the second' point, it cannot but be ob
served what prominence is given to prophets in
the history, as compared with priests and Levites.
This prominence is so decided, that it undoubtedly
contributed towards the formation of the uncritical
opinion that the book of Samuel was tJie produc
tion of the prophets Samuel, Nathan, and Gad.
This opinion is unsupported by external eridence,
and is contrary to internal evidence: but it is by
no means improbable that sorae writers among the
sons of the prophets recorded the actions of those
prophets. This would be peculiarly probable in
reference to Nathan's rebuke of David after the
murder of Uriah. Nathan here presents the image
of a prophet in its noblest and raost attractive form,
Boldness, tenderness, inventiveness, and tact, were
combined in such admirable proportions, that a
prophet's functions, if always discharged in a sim
ilar manner vrith equal discretion, would have been
acknowledged by aU 4o be purely beneficent. In
his interposition there is a kind of ideal moral
beauty. In the schools of the prophets he doubt
less held the place which St. Ambrose afterwards
held in the rainds of priests for the exclusion of the
Emperor Theodosius from the church at Milan after
the massacre at Tbessalonica. It may be added,
that the following circumstances are in accordance
with the supposition that the compiler of the book
of Samuel was connected with the schools of the
prophets. The designation of Jehovah as the
"Lord of Hosts," or God of Hosts, does not occur
in the Pentateuch, or in Joshua, or in Judges; but
it occurs in the book of Samuel thirteen times. In
the book of Kings it occurs only seven times ; and
in the book of Chronicles, as far as this is an
original or independent work, it cannot be said to
occur at all, for although it is found in three pas
sages, all of these are eridently copied from the
book of Samuel. (See 1 Chr. xi. 9 — in the orig
inal, precisely the same words as in 2 Sam. v. 10;
and see 1 Chr. xrii. 7, 24, copied from 2 Sam. vii. 8,
26.) Now this phrase, though occurring so rarely
elsewhere in prose, that it occurs nearly twice as
often in the book of Samuel as in all the other
historical writings of the Old Testament put to
gether, is a very favorite phrase in some of the
great prophetical writings. In Isaiah it occurs
sixty-two times (six times only in the chapters xl-
Ixvi.), and in Jeremiah sixty-five tinies at least.
Again, the predominance of the idea of the pro
phetical office in Samuel is shown by the very sub-
orduiate place assigned in it to the Levites. The
difference between tbe Chronicles and the book oi

o It is worthy of note that the prophet Ezekiel never
u^es the expression "Lord of Hosts." On the other
band, there i? no mention of the Lerites in the undis
puted writings of Isaiah
b Tacitus records it as a distinguishing custom of
the Jews, " corpora condere quam cremare, ex more
^gyptio " (Hist. y. 5). And it is certain that, in later
Umes, they buried dead bodies, and did not bum
them ; though, notwithstanding the instance in Gen.
2, they did not, strictly speaking, embalm them,
Ue the Egyptians. And though it may be suspected,

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF
Samuel in this respect is even more strikiug than
their difference in the use of the expression "Lord
of Hosts; " « though in a reverse proportion. In
the whole book of Samuel the Levites are men
tioned only twice (1 Sam. vi. 15 ; 2 Sam. xv. 24),
while in Chronicles they are mentioned about thirty
tira^ in the first book alone, which contains the
history of Darid^s reign.
In conclusion, it may be observed that it is very
instructive to direct the attention to the passages
in Samuel and the Chronicles which treat of the
same events, and, generally, to the manner in which
the life of David is treated in the two histories. A
comparison of the two works tends to throw light
on the state of the Hebrew raind at the time when
the book of Saniuel was written, compared with
the ideas prevalent among the Jews some hundred
years later, at the time of the compilation of the
Chronicles. Some passages correspond almost pre
cisely word for word; others agree, with slight but
significant alterations. In some cases there are
striking omissions; iu others there are no less re
markable additions. Without attempting to ex
haust the subject, sorae of the differences between
the two histories will be now briefly pointed out;
though at the same tirae it is to be borne iu mind
that, in drawing inferences fi-om them, it would be
useful to review likewise all the differences between
the Chronicles and the book of Kings.
1. In 1 Sam. xxxi. 12, it is stated that the men
of Jabesh Gilead took the body of Saul and the
bodies of his sons from the wall of Beth-shan, and
came to Jabesh and bunit them there. The com
piler of the Chronicles omits mention of the burn
ing of their bodies, and, as it would seem, de
signedly; for he says that the valiant men of
Jabesh Gilead buried the bones of Saul and his
sons under the oak in Jabesh; whereas if there
had been no burning, the natural expression would
have been to have spoken of burying their botSes,
instead of their bones. Perhaps the chronicler
objected so strongly to the burning of bodies that
he purposely refrained from recording such a fact
respecting the bodies of Saul and his sons, even
under the peculiar circurastances connected with
that incident.^
2. In the Chronicles it is assigned as one of the
causes of Saul's defeat that he 'had asked counsel
of one that had a faniifiar spirit, and "had not
inquired of Jehovah" (1 Chr. x. 13, 14); whereas
in Samuel it is expressly stated {1 Sara, xxviii. 6)
that Saul had inquired of Jehovah before he con
sulted the witch of Endor, but that Jehovah had
not answered him either by dreams, or by Urim,
or by prophets.
3. The Chronicles make no mention of the civU.
war between David and Ishbosheth the son of Saul,
nor of Abner's changing sides, nor his assassina
tion by Joab, nor of the assassination of Ish
bosheth by Rechab and Baanah (2 Sam. ii. 8-32.
iii., iv.).

it cannot be proved, that they ever burned their deaa
in early times. The passage in Am. vi. 10 is ambig
uous. It may merely refer to the burning of bodies,
as a sanitary precaution in a plague ; but it is not
undoubted that burning is alluded to See Fiirst s. i'.
^l^D. The buming/tw Asa (2 Chr. xvi. 14) is dif
ferent fi'om the burning of his body. Compare Jer
xxxiv. 5 ; 2 Chr. xxi. 19, 20 ; Joseph. Ant. xv. 8, $ 4
De Bell. Jud. i. 83, § 9.

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF
i. l.>Eivid's adultery with Bath-sbeba, the ex
posure of Uriah to certain death by David's orders,
the solemn rebuke of Nathan, and the penitence of
David, are all passed over in absolute silence in the
'Ohronicles (2 Sara, xi., xii. 1-25).
5. In the account given in Samuel (2 Sam. vi.
2-11) of David's removing the Ark from Kirjath-
jearim, no special mention is made of the priests
or Levites. David's companions are said, generallv,
to have Been "all the people that were with him,"
and '' all the house of Israel " are said to have
played before Jehovah on the occasion with all
manner of musical instruments. In the corre-
Eponding passage of the Chronicles (1 Chr. xiii.
1-14) David is represented as having puMicly pro
posed to send an invitation to the priests and
Levites in their cities and " suburl)s," and this is
(aid to have been assented to by all the congrega
tion. Again, in the preparations which are made
for the reception of the Ark of the Covenant at
Jerusalem, nothing is said of the Levites in Sam
uel; whereas in the Chronicles David is introduced
aa sayuig that none ought to carry the Ark of
God but the Levites; the special numbers of the
Levites and of the children of Aaron are there
given; and names of Levites are speciiied as hav
ing been appointed singers and players on musical
instruments in connection with the Ark (1 Chr.
XV., xvi. 1-6).
6. The incident of David's dancing in public
with all his might before Jehovah, when the Ark
was brought into Jerusalera, the censorious remarks
of his wife Michal on David's conduct, David's
answer, and Miohal's punishment, are fully set
forth in Samuel (2 Sara. vi. 14-23); but the whole
subject is noticed in one verse only in Chronicles
(1 Chr. XV. 29). On the other hand, no mention
is made in Samuel of David's having composed a
psalm on this great event ; whereas in Chronicles a
psalm is set forth which David is represented as
having delivered into the hand of Asaph and his
brethren on that day (1 Chr. xvi. 7-36). Of this
psalm the first fifteen verses are alraost precisely
the same as in Ps. cv. 1-15. The next eleven
verses are the same as in Ps. xcvi. 1-11; and the
next three concluding verses are in Ps. evi. 1, 47,
48. The last verse but one of this psalm (1 Chr.
xvi. 35) appears to have been written at the time
of the Captivity. '
7. Ifc is stated in Sarauel that David in his con
quest of Moab put to death two thirds either of
the inhabitants or of the Moabitish army (2 Sam.
viii. 2). This fact is oraitted in Chronicles (1 Chr.
xviii. 2), though the woi'ds used therein in men
tioning the conquest are so nearly identical with
the beginning and the end of the passage in Sam
uel, that in the A. V. tiiere is no difference in the
translation of the two texts, " And he smote Moab ;
and the Moabites became David's servants, and
brought gifts."
8. In 2 Sam. xxi. 19, it is stated that " there
was a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where

<• * Th. Parker (De VTette, Introd. to the O. T. ii.
263) speaks of " an amusing mistake " in 2 Sam.
taiii. 21, as compared with 1 Chr. xi. 23. But there
la no foundation for this, unless it tae his own singular
wmiering, " a respectable man," where the Hebrew is
fimply nH"10 CD^S, " a man of appearance '- (=
Tlirabilis visu), in the A. V. " a goodly mau," because
preiiisely as defined in 1 Chr. xi. 23, he was very tall,
<a man of star- ure, five cubits high," etc. H.

SAMUEL, BOOKS OP 283b
Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Bethiehemite
(in the original Beit hal-lachmi), slew Goliath the
Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's
beam." In the parallel passage in the Chronicles
(1 Chr. XX. 5) it is stated that " Elhanan the son
of Jair slew Lachmi the brother of Goliath the
Gittite." Thus Lachmi, which in the former case
is merely part of an adjective describing Elhanan's
place of nativity, seems in the Chronicles to be
the substantive name of the raan whom Elhanan
slew, and is ao translated in the LXX. [Elha
nan, i. 696 f ; LA1I.MI, ii. 1581.]
9. In Samuel (2 Sam. xxiv. 1) it is stated that,
the anger of Jehovah having been kindled against
Israel, He moved David against them to give orders
for taking a census of the population. In the
Chronicles (1 Chr. xxi. 1) it is mentioned that
David was provoked to take a census of the popu
lation by Satan. This last is the first and the
only instance in which the narae of Satan is intro
duced into any historical book of the Old Testa
ment. In the Pentateuch Jehovah himself is
represented as hardening Pharaoh's heart (Ex. vii.
13), as in this passage of Samuel He is said to have
incited David to give orders for a census."
10. In the incidents connected with the three
days' pestilence upon Israel on account of the cen
sus, some facts of a very remarkable character are
nan-ated in the Chronicles, which are not men
tioned in the earlier history. Thus in Chronicles
it is stated of the Angel of Jehovah, that he stood
between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn
sword in his hand stretched over .Jerusalem ; that
afterwards Jehovah commanded the angel, and
that the angel put up again his sword into its
sheath* (1 Chr. sxi. 15-27). It is further stated
(ver. 20) that Oman and his four sons hid thera-
selves when they saw tlie angel: and that when
David (ver. 26) had built an altar to Jehovah, and
offered burnt-offerings to Him, Jehovah answered
him from heaven by fire upon the altar of burnt-
offering. Eegai'ding all these circurastances there
is absolute silence in the corresponding chapter of
Sarauel. 11. The Chronicles make no mention of the hor
rible fact mentioned in the book of Samuel (2 Sam.
xxi. 3-9) that David permitted the Gibeonites to
sacrifice seven sons of Saul to Jeliovah, as an atone
ment for the injuries which the Gibeonites had for
merly received from Saul. This barbarous act of
superstition, which is not said to have been com
manded by Jehovah (ver. 1 ), is one of the most
painful incidents in the life of Da^id, and can
scarcely be explained otherwise than by the suppo
sition either that David seized this opportunity to
rid himself of seven possible rival claimants to the
throne, or that he was, for a while at least, infected
by the baneful example of the Phosnicians, who
endeavored to avert the supposed wrath of their
gods by human sacrifices [Phoia'tcia] . It was,
perhaps, wholly foreign to the ideas of the Jews
at the time when the book of Chronicles was com
piled.

& The statue of the archangel Michael on the top
of the mausoleum of Hadrian at Rome is in accordance
with the same idea. In a procession to St. Peter's,
during a pestilence, Gregory the Great saw the arch
angel in a vision, as he is supposed to be represented
in the statue. It is owing to this that the fortress
subsequently had tbe name of the Castle of St. Ad •
gelo. See Murray's Ilandbooic for Rome p. 67, 6th

2834 SAMUEL, BOOKS OF
It only remains to add, that in the numerous
instances wherein there is a close verbal agreement
between passages in Samuel and in the Chronicles,
the sound conclusion seems to be that the Chroni
cles were copied from Samuel, and not that both
were copied from a common original. In a matter
of this kind, we must proceed upon recognized
principles of criticism. If a writer of the 3d or
4th century narrated events of Roman history al
most precisely in the words of Livy, no critic would
hesitate to say that all such narratives were copied
from Livy. It would be regarded as a very im
probable hypothesis that they were copied from
documents to which Livy and the later historian
had equal access, especially when no proof what
ever was adduced that any such original documents
were in existence at the tirae of the later historian.
The same principle applies to the relation in which
the Chronicles stand to the book of Samuel. There
IS not a particle of proof that fhe original docu
ments, or any one of them, on which the book of
Samuel was founded, were in existence at the time
when the Chronicles were compiled ; aud in the ab
sence of such proof, it must be taken for granted
that, where there is a close verbal correspondence
between the two works, the compiler of the Chron
icles copied passages, more or less closely, from the
book of Samuel. At the same time it would be
unreasouable to deny, and it would be impossible
to disprove, that the compiler, in addition to the
book of Samuel, made use of other historical docu
ments which are no longer in existence.
Literature. — The following list of Commen
taries is given by De Wette: Serrarii, Seb.
Schmidii, Jo. Clerici, Maur. Commenlt, ; Jo. Dru-
sii, Annolatt. in Locos dijjic. Jos., Jud., et Sam.;
Victorini Strigelii, Comm. in Libr. Sam., Reg.,
et Paralipp., Lips. 1591, foi; Casp. Sanctii,
Comm. in IV. Lib. Reg. el Paralipp., 1624, foi.;
Hensler, Erlaiiterungen des L B. Sam. u. d. Sa
lom. Denksirriiche, Hamburg, 1795. The best
mode-n Commentary seems to be that of Thenius,
Exegetisches Handbuch, Leipzig, 1842. In this
work there is an excellent Introduction, and an
interesting detailed comparison of the Hebrew text
in the Bible with the Translation of the LXX.
There are no Commentaries on Samuel in Eosen-
miiller's great work, or in the Compendium of his
Scholia. The date of the composition of the book of Sam
uel and its authorship is discussed in all the ordi
nary Introductions to the Old Testament — such
as those of Home, Hiivernick, Keil, De Wette,
which have been frequently cited in this work. To
these may be added the following works, which
have appeared since the first volume of this Dic
tionary was printed: Bleek's Einleiiung in das
Alle Testament, Berlin, 1860, pp. 356-368; Sta-
helin's Specielle Einleiiung in die Kanonischen
B'licher des Alten Testaments, Elberfeld, 1862, pp.
83-105; Davidson's Introduction lo the Old Testa
ment, London and Edinburgh, 1862, pp. 491-536. E. T.
* The alleged " mistranslation " (see the article
above) of 1 Chr. xxix. 29, is of a technical rather
than a practical charaeter. The sarae Hebrew word
is indeed rendered by different terms in English,
but only in order to express more clearly the dif-
"erent senses in which the Hebrew word must nec
essarily be understood. " The history of David "
Irhich is written somewhere, must of course take
History in the sense of biography ; while " the his-

SAMUEL, BOOKS OP
tory of Samuel," in which it is written, must be
the written record. The passage certainly assert!
that the prophets mentioned did write an account
of David and his reign which was still extant in
the time of the writer of the book of Chronicles.
The question whether that account was the same
with our present books of Samuel turns upon the
probability or improbability of still another history
(beside Samuel and Chronicles) having been writ
ten of tlie same events when one from sueh'autlior-
ity was already in existence. Possibly the original
work may have been more full, and the present
books have been more or less abridged ; but in this
case they stiU remain substantially, contempoi-a-
neous history.
The arguments given above in favor of an early
date of these books are entitled to more weight
than is there allowed to them ; especially the argu
ment from the language does not require to be so
rauch qualified. The instances of pure Hebrew cited
as belonging to the time of the Captivity, with the
single exception of Ps. cxxxvii. (which is too brief to
support the inference from its language) all belong
to a much earlier date. At least, if the opinion o(
Gesenius and some other scholars be considered an
offset to the solid arguments for their earlier date,
the question must be considered an open one; and
these books cannot therefore be legitimately re
ferred to as evidence of compositions in pure He
brew as late as the time of the Captivity.
On the other hand, the arguments in favor of a
comparatively late date require important qualifica
tion. The expression in 1 Sara, xxvii. 6, " where
fore Ziklag pertaineth unto the kings of Judah
to this day," relied on to prove that the book couW
not have been composed before the accession ol
Kehoboam (b. c. 975), will not sustain the infer
ence. Such a clause might be a marginal note,
crept into the text ; but this supposition is unnec
essary. As Judah was the leading tribe, it is not
unlikely that kings of Judah was sometimes used
instead of kings if Israel to designate the mou-
archs, even before the secession. I'he contrary is
asserted above: " Before the secession, the designs-,'
tion of the kings was that they were kings of Is
rael." But not one of the nine references given
happens to contain the exiwt expression. They are
all " king OVER Israel," or " king OVER ALL Is
rael," and this is quite another matter when the
question is one of a precise title. There are indeed
three passages (none of which are given above) 'in
which the construction is the same as in the pres
ent instance, the exact title " king of Israel " being
used, with the word king in Hebrew in construc
tion with Israel (1 Sam. xxiv. 14, xxvi. 20, 2 Sam.
vi. 20). But those instances of this title along with
one of "kmgs of Judali " do not form a sufficient
basis for an induction. There is, too, a special
i-eason why " kings of Judah " should be here used.
Ziklag was one of the cities originally assigned to
Judah (Josh. xv. 31), and subsequently allotted
out of his territory to Simeon (xix. 5). When it
came back from the Philistines as the private prop
erty of David and his descendants, it did not be
long to the kings of Israel as such, but only to
those of the tribe of Judah, and particularly, it did
not pass to the inheritance of Simeon. The first
king was of the tribe of Benjamin ; then for two
years his sin, of course a Benjamite, reigned ovei
"alllsrae'" (1 Sam. ii. 9), while David reigned
only over Judah; during five more years David
continued to reign over Judah only, while the rec-

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF
ord is silent aa to the sovereignty over the other
tribes; and then at last David became king over all.
Certainly it was natural in his reign to speak of
Ziklag as pertaining " unto the kings of Judah."
It is truly said that from certain expressions in
the book " it is not certain that the writer lived
more than eighty years after tbe incidents to which
^ he allude.s." It should have been adJed that these
expressions furnish no probable inference that the
writer lived more than iwenfy years after the
events. The " various traditions respecting the manner
in which Saul first became acquainted with David
(1 Sam. xvi. 14-23, xvii. 55-58), respecting the
manner of Saul's death (1 Sam. xxxi. 2-6, 8-13,
2 Sam. i. 2-12)," are easily shown to be quite har
monious. It is evident that the passage in 1 Sam.
rvi. 18-23 is chronologically later than that in
xvii. 55-58 (or rather, xvii. 55-xviii. 9); for in the
latter David is represented as an unknown stripling,
while in the former (ver. 18) he is " a mighty val
iant man, and a man of war, and prudent in mat
ters," and accordingly in some chronological ar
rangements, as in that of Townsend, tlie passage is
actually transposed, and there is then seen to be no
inconsistency whatever in the story, in the nar
rative it§elf, however, the former passage is a nar
ration by anticipation in order to complete without
interruption the narrative liegun in ver. 14.
The other supposed inconsistency depends en
tirely upon tbe assumed trutlifulness of an Amalek
ite who, according to his own story, had just com
mitted a great crime. His fabrication may have
been " clumsy and improbable," as lies are apt to
be; or it may have been, under the circumstances,
clever. His object was to curry favor with David
(cf. 2 Sam. iv. 10), and nothing seemed to him
more to the purpose than to say that in Saul's ex
tremity he had himself actually dispatched him,
This he had to reconcile with facts as best he
could. The theory of *' a compilation " has surely but
Blight support in the mention of Saul's having been
filled with the spirit of prophecy at the only times
when he was brought into close contact with the
company of the prophets, and of his having twice
f^len into the power of David. There is nothing
surprising in the fact that both these events sliould
have occurred twice in the life of Saul; and even
were the accounts of them given in separate books,
they are yet so clearly distinguished in time and in
differing circumstances, that we should still be
compelled to regard them as separate events.
There is nothing then to forbid, but inuch to fa
vor, the supposition that the earlier part of tbe
books of Samuel was written by the prophet of
that name, and the later parts by his successors in
the prophetic office, Nathan and Gad ; or at least
that they wrote the original history, of which the
present books, if an abridgment at all, must have
been an authorized abridgment, since none other
would have been likely to supplant the original.
In comparing the narrative of Samuel with that
of Chronicles, eleven points of difference are men
tioned, two or three oi which are worthy of further
attention. The first instance may well be classed
imong those " undesigned coincidences " which so
Deautifully illustrate the trustworthiness of the
Scripture narratives. In Chronicles no mention is
made of the burning ofthe bodies of Saul and his
sons recorded by Sarauel; yet the fact is recog
nized iu saying that ttie raen of ,Jabesh Gilead

SANBALLAT

2835

buried — not their bodies, but only — their bones.
In the second instance both accounts agree in the
fact, although there is a superficial verbal opposi
tion in tbe manner of stating it. 13oth assert that
Saul did not obtain ' counsel of the Lord, Samuel
only mentioning that he vainly attempted to do so.
The fact is thus expressed by Samuel: he inquired,
but obtained no answer becau.se of his wicked heart,
which led him into tbe further sin df inquiring of
the witch of Endor; the same fact is more briefly
expressed in Clironicles by saying that he sinned in
not inquiring of the Lord (i. e. in acting without
his counsel), but seeking counsel of the witch.
Most of the other instances are merely the fuller
relation of events by one or other of the writers,
showing that the author of Chronicles had access
to other sources of information in addition to our
present books of Samuel, and that he did not think
it necessary to ' transcribe everything he found in
that book.
We dissent from tbe representation, under the
llth head, of the event narrated in 2 Sara. xxi.
3-9, as a human sacrifice to -lehovah. It was such
in the same sense in which tiie destruction of the
Canaanites, or any other guilty people, was a sac
rifice. Saul had broken the ancient treaty witb
the Gibeonites, and for this sin God afflicted the
land. To remove the famine David offered the
Gibeonites any satisfaction they might demand,
and they chose to have seven of Saul's descendants
given up to them. These they hung " up unto tbe
Lord in Gibeah," not with the remotest idea of a
sacrifice to Him; but as a public token that they
were themselves appeased. If this punishment of
Saul's sins upon his descendants incidentally re
moved a danger frora David's throne, it was an ad
vantage uot of his own devising, but brought about
by the sin and cruelty of Saul rankling in the
minds of the Gibeonites. F. G.
* Recent Literature. — On the books of Samuel,
we may also refer to PnH'rey's Led. on ihe Jeioish
Scripiarcs,\\.'2.'^i\-m0, iii. 1-43 (Boston, 1840-52);
Nagelsbach, art. Sam-ndis, BUcher, in Herzog's Real-
Encykl. xiii. 400-412 (Gotha, 1860); and Kuenen,
Hist. cril. des livres da I'Anvien Testt, i. 374-399,
567-580 (Paris, 1866); — Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes
Israel, 3e Ausg., Bde. ii., iii. ; and Stanley, Hist, of
ihe Jewish Church, vols, i., ii. The latest commenr-
taries are by Keil, Die Biicher Samuels, Leipz.
1864 (Theil ii. Bd. ii. of the Bibl. Comm. by Keil
and Delitzsch), Eng. trans. Edinb. 1866 (Clark's
For. Theol. Libr.)., and Wordsworth, Holy Bible,
with Notes and Introductions., vol. ii. pt- ii. (Loud.
1866). A new edition of Thenius's conmientary
(Kurzgef. exeg. Handb. iv.) was published in 1864-
Other works illustrating these books are referred to
under Chkoa'icles and Kings. A.
SANABAS'SAR (Sa/taz/efo-capos; Alex. 2o-
va^daaapos ' Salmanifsarus). Suksiibazzab
(1 Esdr. ii. 12, 15; comp. Ezr. i. 8, 11).
SANABAS'SARITS {^a^avdaaapos; Alex.
^ava^da-o'apos '• Salmanasarus). Smeshuazzar
(1 Esdr. vi. 18, 20; comp. Ezr. v. 14, 16).
SAN'ASIB (:Sauaffi&; [Vat. 2amj3eis; Aid.
:Bavao-ei^;] Alex. Kvaffei^'- EWislb). The suns
of .leddu, the son of Jesus, are reckoned " among
the sons of Sanasib," as priests whe returnetl with
Zorobabel (1 Esdr. v. 24).
SANBAL'LAT (tDi'n^D : ^ava^aWdr;
[FA. SavojSo^aT, etc :] Sanaballat). Of uncer
tain etymology; accordhig to Gesenius after Von

2836

SANBALLAT

Bohien,' nieaning in Sanskrit " giving strength to
the army," but according to Fiirst " a chestnut
tree." A Moabite of Horonairn, as appears by hia
designation "Sanballat the Horonite " (Neh. ii.
10, 19, xiii. 28). All that we know of him from
Scripture is that he had apparently some civil or
miUtary command in Samaria, in the service of
Artaxerxes (Neh. iv. 2), and that, from the mo
ment of Neheraiah's arrival in Judaea, he set hira-
Belf to oppose, every measure for the welfare of Je
rusalem, and was a constant adverssfry to the
Tirshatha. His companions in this hostility were
Tobiah the Ammonite, and Gesheni the Arabian
(Neh. ii. 19, iv. 7). For the details oftheir oppo
sition the reader is referred -to the articles Nehe
miah and Nehemiah, Book of, and to Neh. vi.,
where the enmity between Sanballat and the Jews
is brought out in the strongest colors. The only
other incident in bis life is his alliance with the
high-priest's family, by the marriage of his daugh
ter with one of the grandsons of Eliashib, which,
from the similar connection formed by Tobiah the
Ammonite (Neh. xiii. 4), appears to have been part
of a settled policy concerted between Eliashib and
the Samaritan faction. The expulsion from the
priesthood of the guilty son of Joiada by Nehemiah
must have still further widened the breach between
him and Sanballat, and between the two parties
in the Jewish state. Here, however, the Scriptural
narrative ends — owing, probably, to Neheraiah's
return to Persia — and with it likewise our knowl
edge of Sanballat.
But on turning to the pages of Josephus a
wholly new set of actions, in a totally different
time, is brought before ue in connection with San
ballat, while his name is entirely omitted in the ac
count there given of the government of Nehemiah,
which is placed in the reign of Xerxes. Josephus,
after interposing the whole reign of Artaxerxes
Longimanus between the death of Nehemiah and
the transactions in which Sanballat took part, and
utterly ignoring the very existence of Darius Nothus,
Artaxerxes Mnemon, Ochus, etc., jumps at once to
the reign of "Darius the last king," and tells us
{Ant. xi. 7, § 2) that Sanballat was his officer in
Samaria, that he was a Cuthean, i. e. a Samaritan,
by birth, and that he gave his daughter Nicaso in
marriage to Manasseh, the brother of tbe high-
priest Jaddua, and consequently the fourth in de
scent from Eliashib, who was high-priest in the
time of Nehemiah. He then relates that on the
threat of his brother Jaddua and the other Jews to
expel him from the priesthood unless he divorced
his wife, Manasseh stated the case to Sanballat, who
thereupon promised to use his influence with king
Darius, not only to give hira Sanballat's govern
ment, but to sanction the building of a rival temple
on Mount Gerizim, of which Manasseh should be
the high-priest. Manasseh on this agreed to retain
bis wife and join Sanballat's faction, which was fur
ther strengthened by the accession of all those
priests and Levites (and they were many) who had
taken strange wives. But just at this time hap
pened the invasion of Alexander the Great; and

a He says that Alexander appointed Andromachns
governor of Judaea and the neighboring districtB ; that
fche Samaritans murdered him ; and that Alexander on
his return took Samaria in revenge, and settled a col
ony of Macedonians in it, and the inhabitants of Sa-
fiuiria retired to Sicbem.
b Such 9- time, e. ^., aa when the book of Ecclesiaa-

SANDAL
Sanballat, with 7,000 men, joined him, and re
nounced his allegiance to Darius (Ant. xi. 8, § 4j,
Being favorably received by tJie conqueror, he took
the opportunity of speaking to him in behalf ol
Manasseh. He represented to him how much it was
for his interest to divide the strength of the Jew
ish nation, and how many there were who wished
for a temple in Samaria; and so obtained Alexan
der's permission to build tbe temple on Moimt
Gerizim, and make Manasseh the hereditary high-
priest. Shortly after this, Sanballat died; but the
temple on Mount Gerizim remained, and the Sb,e-
chemites, as they were called, continued also aa a
permanent schism, which was continually fed by all
the lawless and disaffected Jews. Such is Josephus'-
account. If there is any truth in it, of course the
Sanballat of whom he speaks is a difierent person
from the Sanballat of Nehemiah, who flourished
fully one hundred years earlier; but when we put
together Josephus' silence concerning a Sanballat,
in Neheraiah's time, and the many coincidences in
the lives ofthe Sanballat of Nehemiah and that of"
Josephus, together with the inconsistencies in Jose
phus' narrative (pointed out by Prideaux, Connecia
\. 466, 288, 290), and its disagreement with what
Eusebius tells of the relations of Alexander with
Samaria" (Chron. Can. lib. post. p. 346), and re
member how apt Josephus is to follow any narra
tive, no matter how anachronistic and inconsistent.
with Scripture, we shall have no difficulty in con
cluding that his account of Sanballat is not histor
ical. It is doubtless taken from some apocryphal-*
romance, now lost, in which the writer, living under
the empire of the Greeks, and at a time when the
enmity of the Jews and Samaritans was at its
height,'' chose the downfall of the Persian empire
for the epoch, and Sanballat for the ideal instru
ment, of the consolidation ofthe Samaritan Church
and the erection of the temple on Gerizim. To bor
row events from some Scripture narrative and intro
duce some Scriptural personage, without any regard
to chronology or other propriety, was the regula"
method of such apocryphal books. See 1 Esdras,
apocryphal Esther, apocryphal additions to the
book of Daniel, and the articles on them, and the
story inserted by the LXX. after 2 K. xii. 24, &e.,
with the observations on it in the art. Kings, vol. ii.
p. 1550. To receive as historical Josephus' nanu-
tive of the building of the Samaritan temple by
Sanballat, circumstantial as it is in its aecount of
Manasseh's relationship to Jaddua, and Sanballat's
intercourse with both Darius Codomanus and Alex
ander tbe Great, and yet to transplant it, as Pri
deaux does, to the time of Darius Nothus (b. c.
409), seems scarcely compatible with sound criti
cism. For a further discussion of this subject, see
the article Nehkmiah, Book of, iii. 2096; Pri
deaux, Connect. \. 395-396; Geneal. of out Lo^d^
p. 323, &c. ; Mill's Vindic. of our Lord^s GenettK
p. 165; Hales' Analys. ii. 634. A. C H.
* SANCTUARY. [Tabernacle; Tem
ple.]
SANDAL (^3?3 : {,Tr6dT]pa, trav^dXtov). The

ticus was written, in which we read (ch. 1. 25, 26)
^^ There be two manner of nations which mine heart
abhorreth, and the third is no nation : they that sit
upon the mountam of Samaria, and they that dwell
among the Philistines, an(f that foolish people that
dwell in Sichem."

SANDAL
landal appears to have been the article ordinarily
used by the Hebrews for protecting the feet. It
consisted siraply of a sole attached to the foot hy
thongs. 1'he Hebrew term na^al " implies such an
article, its proper sense being that of confining or
shutting in the foot with thongs: we have also
express notice of the thong '' (tyntt^; ipds: A.V.
"shoe-latchet") in several passages (Gen. xiv. 23;
Is. V. 27; Mark i. 7). The Greek term inr65r]pa
properly applies to the sandal exclusively, as it
nieans what is bound under the foot ; but no stress
can be laid on the use of the term by the Alexan
drine wiiters, as it was applied to any covering of
the foot, even to' the military caliga of the Romans
(Joseph. B. J. vi. 1, § 8). A similar observation
applies to aavSiXiov, which is used in a general,
and not in its strictly classical sense, and was
adopted in a Hebraized form by the Talmudists.
We have no description of the sandal in the Bible
itself, but the deficiency can be supplied from col
lateral sources. Thus we learn from the Talmud
ists that the materials employed in the construction
of the sole were either leather, felt, cloth, or wood
(Mishn. Jebam. 12, §§ 1, 2), and that it was occa-

SANDAL

2837

Egyptian Sandals.
lionally shod with iron (Sabb. 6, § 2). In Egypt
various fibrous substances, such as palm leaves and
papyrus stalks, were used in addition to leather
(Herod, ii. 37; Wilkinson, ii. 332, 333), while in
Assyria, wood or leather was employed (Layard,
Nin. ii. 323, 324). In Egypt the sandals were
usually turned up at the toe like our skates, though
other forms, rounded and pointed, are also exhib
ited. In Assyria the heel and the side of the foot
were encased, and sometimes the sandal consisted
of little else than this. This does not appear to
have been the case in Palestine, for a heel-strap was
essential to a proper sandal (Jebam. 12, § 1).
Great attention was paid by the ladies to their san
dals; they were made of the skin of an animal
named tachash (Ez. xvi. 10), whether a hyena or
a seal (A. V. " badger ") is doubtful: the skins of
a fish (a species of Halicore) are used for this pur-

" In the A. V. this term is invariably rendered
"shoes.'" There is, however, little reason to think
that the Jews really wore shoes, aod the expressions
Fhich Carpzov (Apparat. pp. 781, 782) quotes to prove
that they did — (namely, " put the blood of war in
his shoes," 1 K. ii. 5 ; " make men go over in shoes,"
Is. xi. 15), are equally adapted to the sandal — the
flrat signifying that the blood was sprinkled on the
thong of the sandal, the second that men should cross
the river on foot instead of in boats. The shoes found
^ ^yp^ probably belonged to Greeks (Wilkinsou, ii.

pose in the peninsula of Sinai (Robinson, Bibl. Res.
i. 116). The .thongs were handsomely embroidered
(Cant. vii. 1; Jud. x. 4, xvi. 9), as were those of
the Greek ladies (Diet, of Ant. a. v. " Sanda-
lium '¦). Sandals were woni by all classes of soci
ety in Palestine, even by the very poor (Am. viii.
6), and both tbe sandal and the thong or shoe-
latchet were so cheap and common, that they passed
into a proverb for the most insignificant thing (Gen.

Assi'rian Sandals. (From Layard, ii. 234.)
xiv. 23; Ecclus. xlvi. 19). They were not, how
ever, worn at all periods; they were dispensed with
in-doors, and were only put on by persons about to
undertake some business away from their homes ;
such as a, miUtary exi>edition (Is. v. 27; Eph. vi.
15), or a journey (Ex. xii. 11; Josh. ix. 5, 13;
Acts xii. 8): on such occasions persons carriwl an
extra pair, a practice which our Lord oljected to as
far as the Apostles were concerned (Matt. x. 10;
comp. Mark vi. 9, and the expression in Luke x. 4,
" do not carry," which harmonizes the passages).
An extra pair might in certain cases be needed, as
the soles were liable to be soon worn out (Josh. ix.
5), or the thongs to be broken (Is. v. 27). During
¦meal-times the feet were undoubtedly uncovered, as
implied in Luke vii. 38 ; John xiii. 5, 6, and in the
exception specially made in reference to the Paschal
feast (Ex. xii. 11): the same custom must have
prevailed wherever reclining at meals was practiced
(comp. Plato, Sympos. p. 213). It was a mark of
reverence to cast off the shoes in approaching a
place or person of eminent sanctity: '^ hence the
command to Moses at the bush (Ex. iii. 5) and to
Joshua in the presence of the angel (Josh. v. 15).
In deference to these injunctions the priests are
said to have conducted their ministrations in the
Temple barefoot (Theodoret, ad Ex. iii. qmesi. 7),
and the Talmudists even forbade any person to pass
through the Temple with shoes on (Mishn. Berach.
9, § 5). This reverential act wa.s uot peculiar to
the Jews: in ancient times we have instances of it
in the worship of Cybele at Rome (Prudent. Peris.
154), in the worship of Isis as represented in a pic
ture at Herculaneum (Ant. d'Ercol, ii. 320), and
in the practice of the Egyptian priests, according

& The terms applied to the removal of the shoe
( Y'bn, Deut. xxv. 10 ; Is. xx. 2 ; and fjbt^, Ruth
iv. 7) imply that the thongs were either so numerous
or so broad as almost to cover the top of the foot.
c It is worthy of observation that the term U6#d
for " putting off " the shoes on these oooasions is pe
culiar (7tC?3), atid conveys the notion of Tiolence
and haste.

2888

SANHEDRIM

to Sii. Ital. iii. 28. In modern tinies we may com
pare the similar practice of the Mohammedans of
(Palestine before entering a mosque (Robinson's
Researches, ii. 36), and particularly before entering
the Kaaba at Mecca (Burckhardt's Arabia, i. 270),
of the Yezidis of Mesopotamia before entering the
tomb of their patron saint (Layard's Nin. i. 282),
and of the Samaritans as they tread the sumniit'of
Mount Gerizim (Robinson, ii. 278). 'J'he practice
of the modern Egyptians, who t.ake off their shoes
before slepping on to the carpeted leeivdn, appears
to be dictated by a feeling of reverence rather than
cleanliness, that spot being devoted to prayer (Lane,
i. 35). It was also an indication of violent emo
tion, or of mourning, if a person appeared barefoot
in public (2 Sam. xv. 30; Is. xx. 2: Ez. xxiv. 17,
23 ). This again was held in common with other
nations, as instanced at the funeral of Augustus
(Suet. Aug. 100), and on the occasion of the sol
emn processions which derived their name of Nudi-
pedaUa from this feature (TertuU. Ajjol. 40). To
carry or to unloose a person's sandal was a menial
office betokening great inferiority on the part of the
person performing it; it was hence selected by
John the Baptist to express his relation to the
Messiah (Matt. iii. 11 ; Mark i. 7 ; John i. 27 ;
Acts xiii. 25). The expression in Ps. Ix. 8, cviii.
9, " over Edom will I cast out ray shoe," evidently
signifies the sulijection of that country, but the
exact point of the comparison is obscure ; for it may
refer either to the custom of handing a sandal to a
slave, or to that of claiming possession of a property
by planting the foot on it, or of acquiring it by the
symbolic action of ca,sting the shoe, or a£;ain, Edom
may be regarded in the still more subordinate posi
tion of a shelf on which the sandals were rested
while their owner bathed his feet. The use of the
shoe in the transfer of property is noticed in Ruth
iv. 7, 8, and a similar significancy was attached to
the act in connection with the repudiation of a Le
virate marriage (Deut. xxv. 9). Shoe-making, or
rather strap-making (i. e. making the straps for tlie
sandals), was a recognized trade among the Jews
(Mishn. Pesach. i, § 6). W. L. B.
SAN'HBDRIM (accurately Sanhedrin,
V^IUPPj formed from a-vveSpiov ¦ the attempts
of the Rabbins to find a Hebrew etymology are
idle; Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. s. v.), called also in the
Talmud the great Sanhedrin, the supreme council
of the Jewish people in the time of Christ and
earlier. In the Mishna it is also styled X''^, ^"'?j
Beth Din, "house of judgment."
1. The origin of this assembly is traced in the
Mishna (Sanhedr. i. 6) to the seventy elders
whom Moses was directed (Num. xi. 16, 17) to
associate with him in the government of the Israel
ites. This body continued to exist, according to
the Rabbinical accounts, down to the close of the
Jewish commonwealth. Among Christian writers
Schickhard, Isaac Casaubon, Salmasius, Selden,
and Grotius have held the same view. Since the
time of Vorstius, who took the ground (De Syn-
hedriis, §§ 25-40) that the alleged identity between
the assembly of seventy elders mentioned in Num.
a. 16, 17, and the Sanhedrim which existed in
the later period of the Jewish commonwealth, waa
simply a conjecture of the Rabbins, and that there
are no traces of such a tribunal in Deut. xvii. 8,
10, nor in the age of Joshua and the Judges, nor
during the reign of the kings, it haa been gener-

SANHEDKIM
ally admitted that the tribunal established by
Moses was probably temporary, and did not con
tinue to exist after the Isi'aelites had entered Pal-
estine (Winer, Realwbrlerb. art. " Synedrium ").
Ill the lack of definite historical information aa
to the establishment of the Sanhedrim, it can only
be said in general that the Greek etymology of the
name seems to point to a period subsequent to the
Macedonian supremacy iu Palestine. Livy ex
pressly states (xiv. 32), " pronuntiatum quod ad
statum JIacedonise pertinebat, senatores, quos syne-
dros vocant, legendos esse, quorum consilio respub-
lica admiiiistraretur." The fact that Herod, when
procurator of Galilee, was .summoned before Uio
Sanhedrim (b. c. 47) on the ground that in put
ting men to death he had usurped the authority
of the body (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 9, § 4) shows that
it then possessed much power and was not of very
recent origin. If the yepoucla -rav 'lovSaim,
in 2 Mace. i. 10, iv. 44, xi. 27, designates the San
hedrim — as it probably does — this is the earliest
historical trace of its existence. On these grounds
the opinion of Vorstius, Witsius, Winer, Keil,
and others, may be regarded as probable, that the
Sanhedrim described in the Talmud arose after
the return of the Jews from Babylon, and in tbe
time of the Seleucidse or of the Hasnioneaii
princes. In the silence of Philo, Josephus, and the Mishna,
respecting the constitution of the Sanhedrim, we
are obliged to depend upon the few incidental no
tices in the New Testament. From these we gather
that it consisted of apx'epeis, chief priests, or the
heads of the twenty-four classes into which the
priests were divided (including probably those who
had been high-priests), trpscrfiirfpoi, elders, men of
age and experience, and ypafifnaTe?!, sa-ibes, law
yers, or those learned in the Jewish law (Matt.
xxvi. 57, 59; Mark xv. 1; Luke xxii. 66; Acta
V. 21).
2. The number of members is usually given as
seventy-one, but this is a point on which thereis
not a perfect agreement among the learned. The
nearly unanimous opinion of the Jews is given in
the Mishna (Sanhedr. i. 6): "the great Sanhe
drim consisted of seventy-one judges. How is this
proved? From Num. xi. 16, where it is said,
'gather unto me seventy men of the elders of
Israel.' To these add Moses, and we have seventj-
one. Nevertheless P.. Judah says there were
seventy." The same difference made by the addi
tion or exclusion of Moses, appears in the works
of Christian writers, which accounts for the varia
tions in the books between seventy and seventy-
one. Baronius, however (Ad. Ann. 31, § 10), and
many other Roman Catholic writers, together with
not a few Protestants, as Drusius, Grotius, Pri
deaux, Jahn, Bretschneider, etc., hold that the
true number was seventy-two, on the ground that
Eldad and Medad, on whom it is expressly said the
Spirit rested (Num. xi. 26), remained in the camp
and should lie added to the seventy (see Hartmann,
Verbindung des A. T. p. 182; Selden, De Synetlr.
lib. ii cap. 4). Between these three numbers
that given by the prevalent Jewish tradition is cer
tainly to be preferred; but if, as we have seen,
there is really no evidence for the identity of tbe
seventy elders summoned by Moses, and the
Sanhedrim existing after the Babylonish Captivity,
the argument from Num. xi. 16 in respect to the
numberof members of which. the latter body con
sisted, has no force, a-jd wo we left, as Keil main-

SANHEDRIM
ains (Archaohgie, ii. § 259), without any certain
information on the point.
The president of this body was styled N'^'i'T.
Nasi, and, according to Maimonides and Lightfoot,
was chosen on account of his enihience in worth
and wisdom. Often, if not generally, this pre-
sminenee was accorded to the high-priest. That
the high-priest presided at the condemnation of
Jesus (Matt. xxvi. 62) is plain from the narra^
tive. 'The vice-president, called in the Talmud
'J'''^ rr^a as, "father of the house of judg
ment," sat at tbe right hand of the president.
Some writers speak of a second vice-president, styled
D3n, "wise," but this is not sufficiently con
firmed (see Seidell, De Synedr. p. 156 S.). The
Babylonian Gemara states that there were two
scribes, one of whom registered the votes for ac
quittal, the other those for condemnation. In Matt.
xxvi. 58; Mark xiv. 54, &c., the lictors or attend
ants of the Sanhedrim are referred to under the
name of virnptrat. AVhile in session the Sanhe
drim sat in the form of a half-circle (Gem. Hieros.
Const, vii. ad Sanhedr. i.), with all which agrees
the statement of Maimonides (quoted by Vor
stius): " him who excels all others in wisdom they
appoint head over them and head of the assembly.
And he it is whom the wise everywhere call Nasi,
and he is in the place of our master Moses. Lilce-
wise him who is tbe oldest anioiig the seventy, they
place on the right hand, and him they call ' father
of the house of judgment.' The rest of the
seventy sit before these two, according to their
dignity, in the form of a semicircle, so that the
president and vice-president may have them all in
sight." 3. The place in whieh the sessions of the San
hedrim were ordinarily held was, according to tbe
Talmud, a hall called jT'-M, Gazzith (Sanhedr. -a.),
supposed by Lightfoot ( IVoj-ks, i. 2005) to have
been situated in the southeast corner of one of the
courts near the Temple building. In special exi
gencies, however, it seems to have met in the resi
dence of the high-priest (Matt. xxvi. 3). Forty
years before the destruction of Jerusalem, and con
sequently while the Saviour was teaching in Pales
tine, the sessions of the Sanhedrim were reraoved
from the hall Gazzith to a somewhat greater dis
tance from the Temple building, although still on
Mt. Moriah (Abod. Zara, i. Gem. Babyl. ad San
hedr. v.). After several other changes, its seat was
finally established at Tiberias (Lightfoot, Wm-ks,
ii. 365).
As a judicial body the Sanhedrim constituted a
supreme court, to which belonged in the first
instance the trial of a tribe fallen into idolatry,
false prophets, and the high-priest (Mishna, San
hedr. i.); also the other priests (Middoth, v.).
As an administrative council it determined other
important matters. Jesus was arraigned before
this body as a false prophet (John xi. 47), and
Peter, John, Stephen, and Paul as teachers of
error and deceivers of the people. From Acts ix.
2 it appears that the Sanhedrim exercised a degree
of authority beyond the limits of Palestine. Ac
cording to the Jerusalem Gemara (quoted by
Selden, lib. ii. c. 15, 11), the power of inflicting
apital punishment was taken away from this tri
bunal forty years before the destruction of Jerusa
lera. With this agrees tlie answer of the Jews to
Pilate (Jobn xviii. 31), " It is not lawful for us to

SANSANNAH

2839

put any man to death." Beyond the arrest, trial,
and condemnation of one convicted of violating the
ecclesiastical law, the jurisdiction ofthe Sanhedrim
atthe time could not be extended; the confirma
tion and execution of the sentence in capital cases
belonged to the Roman procurator. The stoning
of Stephen (Acts vii. 5G, &c.) is only an apparent
exception, for it was either a tunmltuous proceed-
ure, or, if done by order of the Saidiedrim, was
an illegal assumption of power, as Josephus (Ant.
XX. 9, § 1) expressly declares the execution of the
Apostle James during the absence of the procura
tor to have been (Winer, Realiob. art. " Syne-
drium"). The Talmud also mentions a lesser Sanhedrim
of twenty-three members in every city in I*ale3tine
in wbich were not less than 120 householders; but
respecting these judicial bodies Josephus is entirely
silent. The leading work on the subject is Selden, De
Synedriis et Prcefectuns Juridicis veterum Ebris-
orum, Lond. 1650, Amst. 1G79, 4to It exhibits
immense learning, but introduces much irrelevant
matter, and is written in a heavy and unattractive
style. The monographs of Vorstius and Witsius,
contained in Ugolini's Thesaurus, vol. xxv., are
able and judicious. The same volume of Ugolini
contains also the .Jerusalem and Babylonian Ge-
maras, along with the Mishna on the Sanhedrim,
with which may be compared Duo Tiiull Talmudici
Sanhedrin ct Mficcoth, ed. Jo. Cocb, Amst. 1629,
4to, and Maimonides, De Sanhedrils et Pants,
ed. Houting. Amst. 1695, 4to. Hartmann, Die
Verbindung des Alten Testaments mit dem Neuen,
Hamb. 1831, 8vo, is worthy of consultation, and
for a compressed exhibition of the subject, Winer,
Realwb., and ICeil, Archceologie. G. E. D.
SANSAN'NAH (rTSD^D [palnv^ranch^G^.,
Fiirst]: 'S.^B^vvaK'-, Alex. y,avaavva'' Sensenna).
One of the towns iu the south district of Judah,
named in -losh. xv. 31 only. The towns of this
district are not distributed into small groups, like
those of the highlands or the Shefttah ; and aa
only very few of them have been yet identified, we
have nothing to guide us to the position of San-
sannah. It can hardly have had any connection
with Kirjath-Sannaii (Kiijath-Sepher, or De-
bir), which was probably near Hebron, many miles
to the north of the most northern position possible
for Sansannah. It does not appear to be men
tioned by any explorer, ancient or modern. Ge
senius (Thes. p. 962) explains the name to mean
"palm-branch; " but this is contradicted by Fiirst
(Hwb. ii. 88), who derives it from a root which
signifies " writing." The two propositions are
probably equally wide of the mark. The conjec
ture of Schwarz that it was at Simsim, on the val
ley of the same name, is less feasible than usual.
The termination of the name is singular (comp.
Madmannaii;. By comparing the list of Josh. xv. 26-32 with
those in xix. 2-7 and 1 Chr. iv. 28-33, it will be
seen that Beth-marcaboth aud Hazar-susim, or
-susah, occupy in the two last the place of Mad-
mannah and Sansannah respectively in the first.
In like manner Shilhim is exchanged for Sharuhen
and Shaaraim. It is difficult to believe that tliese
changes can have arisen from the mistakes of
copyists solely, but equally difficult to assign any
other satisfactory reason. Prof. Stanley has sug
gested that Beth-marcaboth and Hazar-susim are

2840

SAPH

tokens of ihe trade in chariots and horses wbich
arose in Solomon's time; but, if so, how comes it
that the new names bear so close a resemblance in
form to the old ones? G-
SAPH (HP [ilireshoU, dish, Ges.]: 5e>
Alex. Se^e: Saph). One of the sons of the giant
{'Patpd, Arapha) slain by Slbbcchai the Husha-
thite in the battle against the Philistines at Gob
or Gaza f2 Sam. xxi. 18). In 1 Chr. xx. 4 he is
called SiPPAi. The title of Ps. cxliii. in the
Peshito Syriac is, "Of David: when he slew
Asaph (Saph) the brother of Gulyad (Goliath),
and thanksgiving for that he had conquered."
SA'PHAT(2a(^(iT: om. intheVulg.). She-
PHATIAH 2 (1 Esdr. V. 9; comp. Ezr. ii. 4).
SAPHATFAS (Stw^ar^ay; [Vat. 2o<^OTiay:]
S^haiias). Shephatiah 2 (1 Esdr. viii. 34;
comp. Ezr. viii. 8).
SA'PHETH (2o0ut; [Vat. ^atpvet; Aid.
5a^60:] Alex. ^a<pv$i' Sephegi). Shephatiah
(1 Esdr. V. 33; comp. Ezr. ii. 57).
SATHIR ("I'^St^, [f. c. Shaphir,/m>, beavr^
Uful]: KoKios'- piUchra, but in Jerome's Com
ment. Saphir). One of the villages addressed by
the prophet Micah (i. 11), but not elsewhere men
tioned. By/ Eusebius and Jerome (Onomasi.
"Saphir") it is described as "in the mountain
district between Eleutheropolis and Ascalon." In
this direction a village called es-Sawafir still exists
(or rather three with that name, two with affixes),
possibly the repr^entative of the ancient Saphir
(Rob. Bibl. Res. ii. 34 note ; Van de Velde, Syr.
cf- Pal. p. 159). Es-SawafirW^ seven or eight miles
to the N. E. of Ascalon, and aboilt 12 W. of Beit-
Jibnn, to the right of the coast road from Gaza.
Tobler prefers a village called Saber, close to Sa-
wdfir, containing a copious and apparently very an
cient well (Htte Wanderung, p. 47). In one impor
tant rrapect, however, the position of neither of
these agrees with the notice of the Onomasticon,
since it is not near the mountains, but on the open
plain of the Shefelah. But as Beit-Jibrin, the
ancient Eleutheropolis, stands on the western slopes
of the mountains of Judah, it is difficult to under
stand how any place could be westward of it (i. e.
between it and Ascalon), and yet be itself in the
mountain district, unless that expression may refer
to places which, though situated in the plain, were
for some reason considered as belonguig to the
towns of the mountains. We have already seen
reason to suspect that the reverse was the case with
some others. [Keilah; Nezib, etc.]
Schwarz, though aware of the existence of Sa-
loafir (p. 116), suggests as the most feasible iden
tification the village of Safimyeh, a couple of miles
N. W. of Lydda (p. 136). The drawback to this is,
that the places mentioned by Micah appear, as far
as we can trace them, to be mostly near Beit-Jibrin,
and in addition, that Safriyek is in clear contra
diction to the notice of Eusebius and Jerome. G.
SAPPHI'RA (5a7r<^6/p7? = either sapphire,
from ffdTr<{>eiposj or beautiful, from the Syriac
SI^Dtt?). The wife of Ananias, and the partici
pator both in his guilt and in his punishment
(Acts v. 1-10). The interval of three hours that
elapsed between the two deaths, Sapphira's igno
rance of what had happened to her husband, and
the predictive language of St. Peter towards her,

SARAH
are decisive evidences as to the supernatural chai ¦
acter of the whole transaction. -The history ol
Sapphira's death thus supplements that of Ananias
which might otherwise have been attributed tc
natural causes. W. L. B.
SAPPHIRE n^'SD, sapplri adinpetpos
s'ipphirus). A precious stone, apparently of a
bright blue color, see Ex. xxiv. 10, where the God
of Israel is represented as being seen in vision by
Moses and the Elders with " a paved work of a
sappir stone, and as it were the body of heaven in
its clearness" (comp. Ez. i. 26). The sn/^/nr was
the second stone in the second row of the high-
priest's breastplate (Ex. xxviii. 18); it waa ex
tremely precious (Job xxviii. 16); it was one of
the precious stones that ornamented the king of
Tyre (Ez. xxviii. 13). Notwithstanding the iden
tity of name between our sapphire aud the o-o7rd»ei-
pos and sapphh^us of the Greeks and Romans, it ia
generally agreed that the sapphirus of the anci«ita
was not our gem of that name, namely, the azure
or indigo-blue, crystalline variety of Corundum, but
our lapis-lazuli (ultra-marine); this point may
be r^arded as established, for Pliny (H. N. xxxvii.
9) thus speaks of the sapphirus: " It is refulgrait
with spots of gold, of au a^ure color sometimes,
but not often purple; the best kind comes from
Media; it is never transparent, and is not wdl
suited for engraving upon when intersected with
hard crystalline particles." This description m-
swers exactly to the character of the lapis-laznJi;
the " crystalline particles " of Pliny are crystals of
iron pyrites, which often occur with this mineral
It is, however, not so certain that the saj^r of
the Hebrew Bible is identical with the lapis-Iazuli;
for the Scriptural requirements demand tRmapar-
ency, great value, and good material for the en
graver's art, all of which combined characters the
lapis- lazuli does not possess in any great d^ree.
Mr. King (Antique Gems, p. 44) says that intagli
and camel of Roman times are frequent in the
material, but rarely any works of much merit.
Again, the sappir was certainly pellucid, "sane
apud Judaeos," says Braun (De Vest. Sac. p. 680, ed.
1680), "saphiros pellucidas notas fuisse manifestis-
simum est, adeo etiam ut pelhtcidum illorum phi-
losophis dicatur 'H'^DD, sajthir.'''' Beckmann
(Hist, of Invent, i. 472) is of opinion that tiie
sap^r of the Hebrews is the same as the lapis-
lazuli; Rosenmiiller and Braun agree in favor of
its being om- sapphire or precious Corundum. We
are incUned to adopt this latter opinion, but are
unable to come to any satisfactory conclusion. W.ll.
SA'RA (tdppa: Sara). 1. Sarah the wife
of Abraham (Heb. xi. 11; 1 Pet. iii. 6)
2. The daughter of Eaguel, in the apocryphal
history of Tobit. As the story goes, she had been
married to seven husbands, who were all slain on
the wedding night by Asmodeus, the evil spirit,
who loved her (Tob. iii. 7). The breaking of
the spell and the chasing away of the evil spirit b;
the "fishy fume," when Sara was married to
Tobias, are told in chap. viii.
SARABI'AS(2apaj3fos: Sarebias). Shekb-
biah (1 Esdr. ix. 48; comp. Neh. viii. 7).
SATIAH (nntp, princess: ^d^^a'. Sara
originally *^^i^' 2apo: Sarai). 1. The wife ()(
Abraham and mother of Isaac.

SABAH
Of her birth and parentage we have no certain
sccount in Scripture. Her name is first introduced
in Gen. xi. 29, as follows: "Abram and Nahor
took them wives : the name of Abram's wife was
Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife was Milcah
the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah and
the father of Iscah." In Gen. xx. 12, Abrahara
speaks of her as " his sister, the daughter of the
sarae father, but not the daughter of the same
mother." 'The common Jewish tradition, taken
for granted by Josephus (Ant. i. c. 6, § 6 ) and by
St. Jerome ( Qtuest. Hebr. ad Genesin, vol. iii. p. 323,
ed. Ben. 1735), is that Sarai is the same as Iscab,
the daughter of Haran, and the sister of Lot, who
is called Abraham's "brother" in Gen. xiv. 14, 16.
Judging from the fact that Eebekah, the grand
daughter of Nahor, was the wife of' Isaac the son
of Abraham, there is reason to coiyecture that
Abraham was the youngest brother, so that his
wife might not improbably be younger than the
wife of Nahor. It is certainly strange, if the tra
dition be true, that no direct mention of it is found
in Gen. xi. 29. But it is not improbable in itself;
it supplies the aecount of the descent of the mother
of the chosen race, the omission of which in such a
passage is most unlikely; and there is no other to
set against it.
The change of her name from " Sarai " to " Sa
rah " was made at the same time that Abram's
name was changed to Abraham, on the establish
ment of the covenant of circumcision between him
and God. That the name " Sarah " signifies " prin
cess " is universally acknowledged. But the mean
ing of "Sarai" is still a subject of controversy.
The older interpreters (as, for example, St. Jerome
in Qiuest. Hebr., and those who follow hun) sup
pose it to mean "my princess; " and explain the
change fix)m Sarai to Sarah, as signifying that she
was no longer the queen of one family, but the
royal ancestress of " all families of the earth.' ' They
also suppose that the addition of the letter 71, as
taken from the sacred Tetragrammaton Jehovah, to
the names of Abram and Sarai, mystically signified
theu: being received into covenant with the Lord.
Among moderu Hebraists there is great diversity of
interpretation. One opinion, keeping to the same
general derivation as that referred to above, explains
"Sarai" as "noble," "nobility," etc., an explana
tion which, even more than the other, labors under
the objection of giving little force to the change.
Another opinion supposes Sarai to be a contracted
form of n'^'HE? (Slrayah), and to signify " Jeho
vah is ruler." But this gives no force whatever to
the change, and besides introduces the same name
Joh into a proper name too early in the history.
A third (following Ewald) derives it from H'^ti',
a root which is found in Gen. xxxii. 28, Hos. xii.
4, in the sense of "to fight," and explains it as
"contentious" (streilsiichtig). This last seems to
be etymologically the most probable, aud differs
from the others in giving great force and dignity
to the change of name. (See Ges. Thes. vol. iii.
p. 1338 b.)
Her history is, of course, that of Abraham.
She came with him from Ur to Haran, from Haran

SARAI

2841

n Note the significant remark oa Isaac's marriage
(Qen. xxiv. 67), " Isaac was comforted after his moth
er's death." There is a Jewish tradition, based ap-
panatly on the mention of Sarah's death almost im-
179

to Canaan, and accompanied him in all the wander
ings of his life. Her only independent action is
the demand that Hagar and Ishmael should be cast
out, far from all rivalry with her and Isaac; a
demand, symbolically applied in Gal. iv. 22-31 to
the displacement of the Old Covenant by the New.
The tiraes in which she plays the most important
part in the history, are the times when Abraliam
was sojourning, first in Egypt, then in Gerar, and
where Sarah shared his deceit, towards Pharaoh
and towards Abimelech. On the first occasion,
about the middle of her life, her personal beauty is
dwelt upon as its cause (Gen. xii. 31-16); on the
second, just before the birth of Isaac, at a time
when she was old (thirty- seven years before her
death), but when her vigor had been miraculously
restored, the same cause is alluded to, as supposed
by Abraham, but not actually stated (xx. 9-11).
In both cases, especially the last, the truthfulness
of the history is seen in the unfavorable contrast
in which the conduct both of Abraham and Sarah
stands to that of Pharaoh and Abimelech. She
died at Hebron at the age of 127 years, 28 years
before her husband, and was buried by him in the
cave of Machpelah. Her burial place, purchased
of Ephron the Hittite, was the only possession of
Abraham in the land of promise ; it has remained,
hallowed in the eyes of Jews, Christians, and Mo
hammedans alike, to the preseut day ; and in it the
" shrine of Sarah " is pointed out opposite to that
of Abraham, with those of Isaac and Kebekah on
the one side, and those of Jacob and Leah on the
other (see Sianhy^s Led. on Jewish Church, app.
ii. pp. 484-509).
Her character, like that of Abraham, is no ideal
type of excellence, but one thoroughly natural, in
ferior to that of her husband, and truly feminine,
both jn its excellences and its defects. She is the
mother, even more than the wife. Her natural
motherly afi'ection is seen in her touching desire
for children, even from her bondmaid, and in her
unforgiving jealousy of that bondmaid, when she
became a mother; in her rejoicing over her son
Isaae, and in the jealousy which resented the
slightest insult to him, and forbade Ishmael to
share his sonship. It makes her cruel to others as
well as tender to her own," and is remarkably con
trasted with the sacrifice of natural feeling on the
part of Abraham to God's command in the last
case (Gen. xxi. 12). To the same character belong
her ironical laughter at the promise of a child, long
desired, but now beyond all hope; her trembling
denial of that laughter, and her change of it to the
laughter of thankful joy, which she commemorated
in the name of Isaac. It is a character deeply
and truly affectionate, but impulsive, jealous, and
imperious hi its afi'ection. It is referred to in the
N. T. as a type of conjugal obedience in 1 Pet. iii.
6, and as one of the types of faith in Heb. xi. 11
A. B.
2. (rritp: Sdpa; [Vat.l M. Kop«:] Sara.)
Sekah the daughter of Asher (Num. xxvi. 46).
SA'RAI [2 syl.] 0"^ [see below]: Sdpa:
Sarai). The original name of Sarah, the wife of
Abraham. It is always used in the history from

mediately after the sacriflce of Isaac, that the shock
of it killed her, and that Abraham found her dead on
his return fiom Moriah.

2842

SAKAIAS

(]«n. xi. 29 to xvii. 15, when it was changed to
Sarah at the same time that her husband's name
Irom Abram became Abraham, and the birth of
Isaac was more distinctly foretold. The meaning
of the name appears to be, as Ewald has sug
gested, "contentious." [Sahah.]
SARA'IAS [3 syl.] (Sapaias: om. in Vulg.).
1. Sekaiah the high-priest (1 Esdr. v. 5).
2. ('ACapaias; Alex. [Aid.] ^apalas: Azarias,
Azareus.) Sekaiah the father of Ezra (1 Esdr.
viii. 1; 2 Esdr. 1. 1).
SAE'AMEL ([Rom.] Alex. ^apa/ieW [Sin.
and] other MSS. 'A<rapap.4\ : Asaramel). The
name of the place in whioh the assembly of the
Jews was held at which the high-priesthood was
confeiTed upon Simon Maccabseus (1 Mace. xiv.
28). The fact that the name is found only in this
passage has led to the conjecture that it is an im
perfect version of a word in the original Hebrew or
Syriac, trom which the present Greek text of the
Maccabees is a translation. Some (as Castellio)
have treated it as a corruption of Jerusalem : but
this is inadmissible, since it is inconceivable that
so well-known a name should be corrupted. The
other conjectures are enumerated by Grimm in the
Kurzgef. exegetisches Handb. on the passage. A
few only need be named here, but none seem per
fectly satisfactory. All appear to adopt the read
ing Asaramel. 1. Hahatsar Millo, " the court
of Millo," Millo being not improbably the citadel
of Jerusalem [vol. iii. p. 1937]. This is the con
jecture of Grotius, and has at least the merit of
ingenuity." 2. Hahatsar Am El, " the court of
the people of God, that is, the great court of the
Temple." This is due to Ewald (Gesch. iv. 387),
who compares with it the weU-known Sarbeth
Sabanai El, given by Eusebius as the title of the
Maccabean history. [See Maccabees, vol. ii. p.
1718.] 3. Hasshaar Am El, " the gate of the
people of God," adopted by AViner (Realwb.). 4.
Hassan- Am El, " prince of the people of God," as
if not the name of a place, but the title of Simon,
the " in " having been inserted by puzzled copyists.
This is adopted by Grimm himself. It has in its
favor the fact that without it Simon is here styled
high-priest only, and his second title, " captain and
governor of the Jews and priests " (ver. 47), is
then omitted in the solemn official record — the
very plaoe where it ought to be found. It also
seems to be countenanced by the Peshito-Syriac
version, which certainly omits the title of "high-
priest," but inserts Rabba de Israel, " leader of
Israel." None of these explanations, however, can
be regarded as entirely satisfactory. G.
SA'RAPH (^^^ [burning, fiery, poison
ous]: Sapdij)-, [Vat. Sma:] Incendens). Men
tioned in 1 Chr. iv. 22 among the descendants of
Shelah the son of Judah. Burrington (Geneal. i.
179) makes Seraph a descendant of Jokim, whom
he regards as the third son of Shelah. In the
Targum of R. Joseph, Joash and Saraph are
identified with Mahlon and Chilion, "who mar
ried (-ibSB) in Moab."
SAEOHBD'ONUS ([Rom. Vat.] Sax^p-
Sov6s, [Alex.] 'SaxepSdy, [Aid. SapxeSSyos :]
Archedonassar, Achenossar, Sarcedonasaar), a col
lateral form of the name Esar-haddon [Esak-iiad-

a Junius and TremeUius render it by in atrio muni-
fUAl's.

SAEDI8
don], occurring Tob. i. 21. 1'he form In A. V. for
Sacherdonus appears to be an oversight. [*„ comet
from the Aldine edition. — A.] B. F. W.
SAEDE'US (Zepa\ias; Alex. ZapSaios [so
Tisch., but ZapBaias, Baber's ed. ; Aid. Sapiaiosi]
Tfibedias). AziZA (1 Esdr. ix. 28; comp. Ezr.
X. 27).
SARDINE, SARDIUS (D^'S, ddem: aip.
Siov. sardius) is, according to the LXX. and
Josephus (Bell. Jud. v. 6, § 7), the correct render
ing of the Hebrew term, which occurs in Ex. xxviii.
17, xxxix. 10, as the name of the stone ithich
occupied the first place in the first row of the high-
priest's breastplate ; it should, however, be noticed
that Josephus is not strictly consistent with him
self, for in the Antiq. iii. 7, § 5, he says that the
sardtmyx was the first stone in the breastplate;
still as this latter named mineral is merely another
variety of agate, to which also the sard or sardius
belongs, there is no very great discrepancy in the
statements of the Jewish historian. The 6dem is
mentioned by Ezekiel (xxviii. 13) as one of the orna
ments of the king of 'Tyre. In Rev. iv. 3, St. John
declares that he whom he saw sitting on the
heavenly throne " was to look upon like a jasper
and a sardine stone." The sixth foundation of
the wall of the heavenly Jerusalem was a sardim
(Rev. xxi. 20). There can scarcely be a doubt
that either the sard or the sardonyx is the stone
denoted by odem. The authority of Josephus in
all that relates to the high-priest's breastplate is of
the greatest value, for aa Braun (De Vest. Sac,
Heb. p. 635) has remarked, Josephus was not only
a .Tew but a priest, who might have seen the breast
plate with the whole sacerdotal vestments a hun
dred times, since in his time the Temple was stand
ing; the Vulgate agrees with his nomenclature; in
Jerome's time tbe breastplate was still to be in
spected in the Temple of Concord ; hence it will
readily be acknowledged that this agreement of the
twd is of great weight.
The sard, which is a superior variety of agate,
has long been a favorite stone for the engraver's
art; "on this stone," says Mr. King (Antigu
Gems, p. 5), " all the finest works of the most
celebrated artists are to be found; and this nol
without good cause, such is its toughness, faeilit;
of working, beauty of color, and the high polish
of whieh it is susceptible, and which Pliny states
that it retains longer than any other gem." Sardi
differ in color ; there is a bright red variety which,
in Pliny's time, was the most esteemed, and, per
haps, the Heb. odem, from a root which means "to
be red," points to this kind; there is also a paler
or honey-colored variety ; but in all sards there il
aiways a shade of yellow mingling with the red
(see King's Ani. Gems, p. 6). The sardius, ac
cording to Pliny (//. N. xxxvii. 7), derived its
name from Sardis in Lydia, where it was fint
found; Babylonian specimens, however, were the
most esteemed. The Hebrews, in the tirae of
Meses, could easily have obtained their sard stona
from Arabia, in which country they were at tbe
time the breastplate was made; other precious stones
not acquirable during their wanderings, may have
been brought with them from the land of their
bondage when " they spoiled the Egyptians.'' W.H.
SARTJIS [orSAR'DES] (SipSeis)- Acitj
situated about two miles to the south of the river
Hermus, just below tbe range of Tmolus (Boi

SARDIS
¦Dagh), on a spur of which its acropolis was built.
(t was the ancient residence of the kings of Lydia.
After ita conquest by Cyrus, the Persians always
kept a garrison in the citadel, on account of its
natural strength, which induced Alexander the
Great, when it was surrendered to him in the
sequel of the battle of the Granicus, similarly to
occupy it. Sardis waa in very early times, both
ftom the extremely fertile character of the neigh
boring region, and from its convenient position, a
commercial mart of importance. Chestnuts were
first produced in the neighborhood, which procured
them the name of /Si^Aorai SapZtavoi. The art
of dyeing wool is said by Pliny to have been
Invented there; and at any rate, Sardis was the
entrepot of the dyed woolen manufactures, of which
Phrygia with its vast flocks (iroKtiirpofiarcaTiiTri,
Herod, v. 49) furnished the raw material. Hence
we hear of the ipoivuciSes SapSiaval, and Sappho
¦peaks of the toikJAos p,dir9\ris AvSiov Ka\hv
ipyov, which was perhaps something like the mod-

SARDIS 2843
em Turkish carpets. Some of the woolen manu
factures, of a peculiarly fine texture, were called
^iKordirihes. The hall through which the king
of Persia passed from his state apartments to the
gate where he mounted on his horse, was laid witb
these, and no foot but that of the monarch wat
allowed to tread on them. In the description
given of the habits of a young Cyprian exquisite
of great wealth, he is represented as reposing upon
a bed of which the feet were silver, and upon which
these ^iKoidin^es ^apStavai were laid as a mat
tress. Sardis, too, was the place where the metal
electrum was procured (Soph. Antig. 1037); and
it was thither that the Spartans sent in the sixth
century B. c. to purchase gold for the purpose of
gilding the face of the Apollo at Amyclse. This
was probably furnished by the auriferous sand of
the Pactolus, a brook which came from Tmolug,
and ran through the agora of Sardis by the side
of the great temple of Cybebe. But though iti
gold-washings" may have been celebrated in earlj

Ruins of Sardis. '

times, the greatness of Sardis in its best days was
much more due to its general commercial impor
tance and its convenience as an entrepot. This
seems to follow from the statement, that not only
silver and gold coins were there first minted, but
there also the class of itdirriXoi (stationary traders
as contradistinguished from the iforopoi, or travel
ling merchants) first arose. It was also, at any
rate between the fall of the Lydian and that of the
Persian dynasty, a slave-mart.
Sardis recovered the privilege of municipal gov
ernment (and, as was alleged several centuries
afterwards, the right of a sanctuary) upon its sur-
ender to Alexander the Great, but its fortunes for
the next three hundred years are very obscure. It
ehanged hands more than once in the contests
between the dynasties which arose after the death
rf Alexander. In the year 214 b. c, it was taken
»nd sacked by the army of Antiochus the Great,
Tho oeeieged his cousin Achseus in it for two years
oefbn succeeding, as he at last did through treach

ery, in obtaining possession of the person of tOe
latter. After the ruin of Antiochus's fortunes, it
passed, with the rest of Asia on that side of Tau
rus, under the dominion of the kings of PergamuB,
whose interests led them to divert the course of
traffic between Asia and Europe away from Sardis.
Its productive soil must always have continued a
source of wealth ; but its importance as a central
mart appears to have diminished from the time of
the invasion of .Asia by Alexander. Of the few
inscriptions which have been discovered, all, or
nearly all, belong to the time of the Roman empire.
Yet there still exist considerable remains of the
earlier days. The massive temple of Cybebe still
bears witness in its fragmentary remains to the
wealth and architectural skill of the people that
raised it. Mr. Cockerell, who visited it in 1812,
found two columns standing with their architrave,
the stone of which stretched in a single block from
the centre of one to that of the other. This stone,
although it was not the largest of the architrave.

2844

SARDIS

be calculates must have weighed 25 tons. The
diameters of the columns supporting it are 6 feet
4} inches at about 35 feet below tbe capital. The
present soil (apparently formed by the crumbling
away of the hill which backs the temple on its
eastern side) is more than 25 feet above the pave
ment. Such proportions are not inferior to those
of the columns in the Herseum at Samos, which
divides, in the estimation of Herodotus, with the
Artemisium at Ephesus, the palm of preeminence
among all the works of Greek art. And as regards
the details, " the capitals appeared," to Mr. Cock
erell, " to surpass any specimen of the Ionic he had
seen in perfection of design and execution." On
the north side of the acropolis, overlooking the
valley of the Hermus, is a theatre near 400 feet in
diameter, attached to a stadium of about 1,000.
This probably was erected after the restoration of
Sardis by Alexander. In the attack of Sardis by
Antiochus, described by Polybius (vii. 15-18), it
constituted one of the chief points on which, after
entering the city, the assaulting force was directed.
The temple belongs to the era of the Lydian
dynasty, and is nearly contemporaneous with the
temple of Zeus Panhellenius in ./Sgina, and that
of Her^ in Samos. To the same date may be as
signed the " Valley of Sweets " (yXvKiis iyicdv),
a pleasure ground, the fame of which Polycrates
endeavored to rival by the so-called Laura at
Samos. The modern name of the ruins at Sardis is Sert-
Kalessi. Travellers describe the appearance of the
locality on approaching it from the N. W. as that
of complete solitude. The Pactolus is a mere thread
of wat«r, all but evanescent in summer time. Tbe
Wadis-tchai (Hermus), in the neighborhood of the
town, is between 00 and 60 yards wide, and nearly
3 feet deep, but its waters are turbid and disagree
able, and are not only avoided as unfit for drink
ing, but have the local reputation of generating
the fever which is tbe scourge of the neighboring
plains. In the time of the emperor Tiberius, Sardis was
desolated by an earthquake, together with eleven,
or as Eusebius says twelve, other important cities
of Asia. The whole face of the country is said to
have been changed by this convulsion. In the
case of Sardis tbe calamity was increased by a pes
tilential fever which followed; and so much com
passion was in consequence excited for the city at
Rome, that its tribute was remitted for five years,
and it received a benefaction from the privy purse
of the emperor. This was in the year 17 A. D.
Nine years afterwards the Sardians are found
among the competitors for the honor of erecting,
aa representatives of the Asiatic cities, a temple to
their benefactor. [Smyrna.] On this occasion
they plead, not only their ancient services to Rome
in the time of the Macedonian war, but their well-
watered country, their climate, and the richness of
the neighboring soil: there is no allusion, however,
to the important manufactures and the commerce
of the early times. In the time of Pliny it was
included in the same conventus juridicus with Phil
adelphia, with the Cadueni, a Macedonian colony
in the neighborhood, with some settlements of the
sld Mseonian popubtion, and a few pther towns of
Ass note. These Mseonians still continued to call
Sardis by its ancient name Hydi', which it bore in
the time of Omphale.
The only passage in which Sardis is mentioned
in the Bible, ia Rev. iii. 1-6. There is nothing in

SAEGON
it which appears to have any special reference Id
the peculiar circumstances of the city, or to any
thing else than the moral and spiritual condition
of the Christian community existing there. Thii
latter was probably, in its secular relations, pretty
nearly identical with that at Philadelphia.
(Athenasus ii. 48, vi. 231, xii. 514, 540; Ar-
rian, i. 17; PUny, //. N. v. 29, xv. 23; Stephs-
nus Byz. v. "TSri ; Pausanias, iii. 9, 5 ; Diodo
rus Sic. XX. 107; Scholiast, Aristoph. Pac. 1174;
Boeckh, Jnscriptiones Gnecce, Nos. 3451-3472;
Herodotus, i. 69, 94, iii. 48, viii. 105 ; Strabo, xiiL
§ 6 ; Tacitus, Annal. ii. 47, iii. 63, iv. 55 ; Cocker-
eU, in Leake's Asia Minor, p. 343 ; Arundell, Dit-
coveries in Asia Minor, i. pp. 26-28 ; Tchihatchefi;
Asie Mineure, pp. 232-242.) J. W. B.
SARaJITES THB (""^^Sn [patr.] : « Sa()-
e5^ [Vat. -del] : Sareditce). 'The descendants of
Sered the son of Zebulon (Num. xxvi. 26).
SARDONYX (a-apS6w^: sardonyx) is nam-
tioned in the N. T. once only, namely, in Rev,
xxi. 20, as the stone which garnished the fifth fnun-
dation of the wall of the heavenly Jerusalem. " By
sardonyx," says Pliny (H. N. xxxvii. 6), who de
scribes several varieties, "was formerly understood, as
its name implies, a sard with a white ground beneath
it, like the flesh under the finger-naiL" The sar
donyx consists of " a white opaque layer, superim
posed upon a red transparent stratum of the true
red sard" (Antique Gems, p. 9); it is, like ths
sard, merely a variety of agate, and is frequently
employed by engravers for the purpose of a signet-
ring. W. H.
SATIEA (Sarea). One of the five scribes
"ready to write swiftly" whom Esdras was com
manded to take (2 Esdr. xiv. 24).
SAREPTA (Sdoe-irTa: Sarepta: Syriac,
Ttarpath), The Greek form of the name which in
the Hebrew text of the O. T. appears as Zaek-
PHATH. The place is designated by the same for
mula on its single occurrence in the N. T. (Luk«
lv. 26) that it is when first mentioned in the LXX.
version of 1 K. xvii. 9, " Sarepta of Sidonia." G.
SAR'GON (]'Ta"?D [perh. Pers., prince «/
the tun, Ges.] : 'Apvotr Bargon) was one of the
greatest of the Assyrian kings. His name is read
in the native inscriptions as Sargina, while a foira
which he built and called after himself (now Khor-
sabad) was known as Sarghun to the Arabian
geographers. He is mentioned by name only ones
in Scripture (Is. xx. 1), and then not in an histor
ical book, which formerly led historians and critics
to suspect that he was not really a king distinct
from thoee mentioned in Kings and Chronicles, hot
rather one of those kings under another name. Vi
tringa, Offerhaus, Eichhorn, and Hupfeld identified
him with Shalmaneser ; Grotius, Lowth, and Keil
with Sennacherib ; Perizonius, Kalinsky, and Mi
chaelis with Esarhaddon. All these conjectures
are now shown to be wrong by the Assyrian in
scriptions,, which prove Sargon to have been dis
tinct and diflferent from the several monarchs named,
and fix his place in the list — where it had been
already assigned by Rosenmuller, Gesenius, Ewald,
and Winer — between Shalmaneser and Sennach
erib. He was certainly Sennacherib's father, and
there is no reason to doubt that he was his im
mediate predecessor. He ascended the throne of
Assyria, as we gather from his annals, in tbe tann

SARGON
year that Mrax)dach-Baladan ascended the throne
tf Babylon, which, according to Ptolemy's Canon,
was B. c. 721. He seems to have been an usurper,
md not of royal birth, for in his inscriptions he
carefully avoids all mention of his father. It has
lieen conjectured that he took advantage of Shal-
inaneser's absence at the protracted siege of Sama
ria (2 K. xvii. 5) to eflTect a revolution at the seat
af government, by which that king was deposed,
and he himself substituted in his room. [SitAir-
MANESER.] It is remarkable that Sargon claims
the conquest of Samaria, which the narrative in
Kings appears to assign to his predecessor. He
places the event in his first year, before any of his
other expeditions. Perhaps, therefore, he is the
" king of Assyria " intended in 2 K. xvii. 6 and
xviii. 11, who is not said to be Shalmaneser, though
we might naturally suppose so from no other name
being mentioned." Or perhaps he claimed the
conquest as his own, though Shalmaneser really
accomplished it, because the capture of the city oc
curred after he had been acknowledged king in the
Assyrian capitaL At any rate, to him belongs the
settlement of the Samaritans (27,280 families, ac
cording to his own statement) in Halah, and on
the Habor (Khabour), the river of Gozan, and (at
a later period probably) in the cities of the Medes.
Sargon was undoubtedly a great and successful
warrior. In his annals, which cover a space of
fifteen years (from b. c. 721 to b. c. 706 ), he gives
an account of his warlike expeditions against Baby
lonia and Susiana on the south. Media on the east,
Armenia and Cappadocia towards the north, Syria,
Palestine, Arabia, and Egypt towards the west and
the southwest. In Babylonia he deposed Mero-
dach-Baladan, and established a viceroy ; in Media
he built a number of cities, which he peopled with
captives from other quarters ; in Armenia and the
neighboring countries he gained many victories;
while in the far west he reduced Philistia, pene
trated deep into tbe Arabian peninsula, and forced
Egypt to submit to his arms and consent to the
payment of a tribute. In this last direction he
seems to have waged three wars — one in his sec
ond year (b. c. 720), for the possession of Gaza;
another in his sixth year (B. c. 715), when Egypt
itself was the object of attack; and a third in his
nmth (b. c. 712), when the special subject of con
tention was Ashdod, whicb Sargon took by one of
his generals. This is the event which causes the
mention of Sargon's name in Scripture. Isaiah
was instructed at tbe time of this expedition to
" put off his shoe, and go naked and barefoot," for
a sign that " the king of Assyria should lead away
the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians cap
tives, young and old, naked and barefoot, to the
shame of Egypt " (Is. xx. 2-4). We may gather
from this, either that Ethiopians and Egyptians
formed part of the garrison of Ashdod and were
captured with the city, or that the attack on the
Philistine town was accompanied by an invasion of
Egypt itself, which was disastrous to the Egyptians.
The year of the attack, being b. c. 712, would fall
into the reign of the first Ethiopian king, Sabaco

SARON

2845

o There is a peculiarity of phraseology in 2 K. xviii.
*, 10, which perhaps indicates a knowledge on the part
of the writer that Shalmaneser was not tbe actual
vptor. '^ In the fourth year of Hezekiah," he pays,
'' Shalmaneser king of Assyria came up against Sama
ria and besieged it: and at the end of three years,
our took it."

I., who probably conquered Egypt in b. c. 714
(Rawlinson's Herodotus, i. 386, note 7, 2d ed.),
and it is in agreement with this [that] Sargon'
speaks of Egypt as being at this time subject to
Meroe. Besides these expeditions of Saigon, his
monuments mention that he took Tyre, and re
ceived tribute from the Greeks of Cyprus, against
whom there is some reason to think that he con-
ductefl an attack in person.^
It is not as a warrior only that Sargon deserves
special mention among the Assyrian kings. He
was also the builder of useful works and of one of
the raost magnificent of the Assyrian palaces. He
relates that he thoroughly repaired the walls oi
Nineveh, which he seems to have elevated from a
provincial city of some importance to the first posi
tion in the empire; and adds further, that in its
neighborhood he constructed the palace and town
which he made his principal residence. This was
the city now known as " the French Nineveh," or
" Khorsabad," from which the valuable series of
Assyrian monuments at present in the Louvre is
derived almost entirely. Traces of Sargon's build
ings have been found also at Nimriid and Koyun-
jik; and his time is marked by a considerable ad
vance in the useful and ornamental arts, which
seem to have profited by the connection which he
established between Assyria and Egypt. He probably
reigned nineteen years, from b. c. 721 to b. q. 702,
when he left the throne to his son, the celebrated
Sennacherib. G. -R.
SA'RID CT^"]ty [one left, a survivor] : 'Etre-
SeKywAa,^ ScSSoiJk; Alex. 2ap0t5, 5api3: Sarid).
A chief landmark of the territory of Zebulun, ap
parently the pivot of the western and southern
boundaries (Josh. xix. 10, 12). AU that can be
gathered of its position Is that it lay to the west of
(Jhi sloth-Tabor. It was unknown to Eusebius and
Jerome, and no trace of it seems to have twen
found by any traveller since their day (Onom.
"Sarith"). The ancient Syriac version, in each case, reads
Asdod. I'his may be only from the interchange,
so frequent in this version, of R and D. At any
rate, the Ashdod of the Philistines cannot be in
tended. G.
.SA'^ON (rhv 'S.apiova.; in some MSS. affffa-
pcava, i. e,. Illt&n [ihe plain] : Sarona). The
district in which Lydda stood (Acts ix. 35 only) ;
tbe Sharon of the 0. T. The absence of the ar
ticle from Lydda, and its presence before Saron, is
noticeable, and shows that the name denotes a dis
trict — -as in "The Shefelah," and in our own
" The Weald," " The Downs." G.
* The Plain extended along the sea-coast from
Joppa to Caesarea, about 30 miles. Though con
nected by Kai to Lydda, in Acts ix. 35, Saron in
cluded that city. It has been conjectured that there
was a village of this name, but no trace of it has
been discovered. Luke's meaning is that not only
the inhabitants of Lydda but of the Plain gener
ally, heard of the miracle and believed. H.
6 The statue of Sargon, now in the Berlin Museum,
was found at Idalium in Cyprus. It is not very likely
that the king's statue would have been est up unless
he had made the expedition in person.
c This barb'arous word is obtained by joining to S»
rid the first word ofthe following verse, n^3?%

2846

SAROTHIE

SARO'THIE [4 syl.] (:Sapm0i [Jut. -Oei];
Alex. [Aid.] -ZapaBU: Caronetli). " The sons of
Sarothie " are among the sons of the servants of
Solomon who returned with Zorobabel, according
to the list in 1 Esdr. v. 34. There is nothing cor
responding to it in the Hebrew.
SAR'SECHIM (D'^pPlb [prince of Ihe
eunuchs] : Sarsachim). One of the generals of
Nebuchadnezzar's army at the taking of Jerusalem
(Jer. xxxix. 3). He appears to have held the office
of chief eunuch, for Eab-saris is probably a title
and not a proper name. In Jer. xxxix. 13, Nebu-
shasban is called Rab-saris, "chief eunuch," and
the question arises whether Nebushasban and Sar
sechim may not be names of the same person. In
tbe LXX., verses 3 and 13 are mixed up together,
and so hopelessly corrupt that it is impossible to
infer anything from their reading of NajSoutrc^xap
[but Comp. tiaPova-apaax'tf.] ior Sarsechim. In
Gesenius' Thesaurus it is conjectured that Sarse
chim and Eab-saris may be identical, and both
titles of the same office.
SA'RtrCH (Sapoix'- Sarug). Sehug tbe
son of Eeu (Luke iii. 35).
SA'TAN. The word itself, the Hebrew ]t^b,
is simply an "adversary,'' and is soused in 1 Sam.
xxix.. 4; 2 Sam. xix. 22; 1 K. v. 4 (LXX. iiri-
PovKos); in 1 K. xi. 25 (LXX. i,VTiKeip.evos): in
Num. xxii. 22, and Ps. cix. 6 (LXX. Sid^oXos and
cognate words); in 1 K. xi. 14, 23 (iJSiX. aardv).
This original sense is still found in our Loi'd's ap
plication of tbe name to St. Peter in Matt. xvi. 23.
Jt is used as a proper name or title only four times
in the 0. T., namely, (with the article) in Job i. 6,
12, ii. 1; Zech. iii. 1, and (without the article) in
1 Chr. xxi. 1. In each case the LXX. has Sid^o-
\os. And the Vulgate Saiatt. In the N. T. the
word is auTuvas, followed by the Vulgate Salanas,
except in 2 Cor. xii. 7, where aarav is used. It is
found in twenty-five places (exclusive of parallel pas
sages), and the corresponding word b Sid^ohos in
about the same number. The title 6 &px'»y rod
K6(Tfiov TOiiTOv is used three times; d Trov7jp6s is
used certainly six times, probably more frequently,
and d Tretpd^iiir twice.
It is with the Scriptural revelation on the sub
ject that we are here concerned, and it is clear,
from this simple enumeration of passages, that it is
to be sought in the New, rather than in the Old
Testament. It divides itself naturally into the consideration
of his existence, his nature, and his power and
action. (A.) His Existence. — It would be a waste of
time to- prove, that, in various degrees of clearness,
tbe personal existence of a Spirit of Evil is revealed
again and again in Scripture. Every quality, every
action, which can indicate personality, is attributed
to him in language which cannot be explained away.
It is not difficult to see why it should be thus re
vealed. It is obvious that the fact of his existence
is of spiritual importance, and it is also clear, from
the nature of the case, that it could not be discov
ered, although it might be suspected, by human
reason. It is in the power of that reason to test
iny supposed manifestations of supernatural power,
tnd any asserted principles of Divine action, which
'all within its sphere of experience (" the earthly
things " of John iii. 12) ; it may by such examina
tion satisfy itself of the truth and divinity of a Per-

SATAN
son or a book ; but, having done this, it must then
accept and understand, without being able to test
or to explain, the disclosures of this Divine author
ity upon subjects beyond this world (the " heavenly
things," of whioh it is said that none can see or
disclose them, save the " Son of Man who is in
heaven ").
It is true, that human thought can assert an
a prim-i probability or improbability in such state
ments made, based on the perception of a greater or
less degree of accordance in principle between the
things seen and the things unseen, between the
eflfects, which are visible, and the causes, which are
revealed from the regions of mystery. But even
this power of weighing probability is applicable
rather to the fact and tendency, than to the method,
of supernatural action. This is true even of natu
ral action beyond the sphere of human observation.
In the discussion of the Plurality of Worlds, for
example, it may be asserted without doubt, that
in all tbe orlis of the universe the Divine power,
wisdom, and goodness must be exercised ; but the
inference that the method of their exercise is foui)d
there, as here, in the creation of sentient and rational
beings, is one at best of but moderate probability.
Still more Is this the case in the spiritual world.
Whatever supernatural orders of beings may exist,
we can conclude that in their case, as in ours, the
Dirine government must be carried on by the union
of individual freedom of action with the overruluig
power of God, and must tend finally to that good
which is bis central attribute. But beyond this
we can assert nothing to be cei'tain, and can scarcely
even say of any part of the method of this govern
ment, whether it is antecedently probable or im
probable. Thus, on our present subject, man can ascertain
by observation the existence of evil, that is, of facts
and thoughts contrary to the standard which con
science asserts to be tbe true one, bringing with
tbem suffering and misery as their inevitable re
sults. If he attempts to trace them to tlieir causes,
he finds them to arise, for each individual, partly
from the power of certain internal impulses which
act upon the will, partly from the influence of ex
ternal circumstances. These circumstances them
selves arise, either from the laws of nature and so
ciety, or by the deliberate action of other men.
He can conclude with certainty, that both seri2s of
causes must exist by the permission of God, and
must finally be overruled to his will. But whether
there exists any superhuman but subordinate cause
of the circumstances, and whether there be any
similar influence acting in the origination of the
impulses which move the will, this is a question
which he cannot answer with certainty. Analo^j
from the observation of the only ultimate cause
wbich he can discover in the visible world, namely,
the free action of a personal will, may lead him,
and generally bas led him, to conjecture in the af
firmative, but still the inquiry remains unanswered
by authority.
The tendency of the mind in its inquiry is jreit-
erally towards one or other of two extremes. '1 lie
first is to consider evil as a negative imperfection,
arising, in some unknown and inexplicable w.iy,
from the nature of matter, or from some distnrbiuB
infiuences which limit the action of goodness on
earth ; in fact, to ignore as much of evil as possilile,
and to decline to refer the residuum to any positive
cause at all. The other is the old Persian or-Wan-
ichaean hypothesis, which traces the existence ol

SATAN
ivil to a rival Creator, not subordinate to the Cre-
itor of Good, though perhaps inferior to Him in
power, and destined to be overcome by Him at last.
Between these two extremes the mind varied,
through many gradations of thought and countless
forms of superstition. Each hypothesis had its ar
guments of probability against the other. The first
labored under tbe difficulty of being insufficient as
an account of the anomalous facts, and indetermi
nate in its account of tbe disturbing causes; the
second sinned against that belief iu the Unity of
God and the natural supremacy of goodness, which
is supported by the deepest instincts of the heart.
But both were laid in a sphere beyond human cog
nizance; neither could be proved or disproved with
certainty. The Eevelation of Scripture, speaking with au
thority, meets the trutb, and removes the error in
herent in both these hypotheses. It asserts in the
strongest terms the perlect supremacy of God, so
that under his permission alone, and for his inscru
table purposes, evil is allowed to exist (see for
example, Prov. xvi. 4; Is. xiv. 7; Am. iii. 6;
comp. Eom. ix. 22, 23 ). It regards this evil as an
anomaly and corruption, to be taken away by a
new manifestation of Divine Love iu the Incarna
tion and Atonement. The conquest of it began
virtually in God's ordinance after the FaU itself,
was effected actually on ^he Cross, and shall be
perfected in its results at the Judgment Day.
Still Scripture recognizes the existence of evil in
the world, not only as felt in outward circum
stances (" the world "), and as inborn in the soul
of man (" the flesh "), but also as proceeding
from the influence of an Evil Spirit, exercising
that mysterious power of firee will, which God's
rational creatures possess, to rebel against Him,
and to draw others into the same rebellion (" the
devil"). In accordance with the " economy " and pro-
gressiveness of God's revelation, the existence of
Satan is but gradually revealed. In the first en
trance of evil into tbe world, the temptation is
referred only to the serpent. It is true that the
whole narrative, and especially the .spiritual nature
of the temptation (" to be as gods "), which was
united to the sensual motive, would force on any
thoughtful reader " the conclusion that something
more than a mere animal agency was at work;
but the time was not then come to reveal, what
afterwards was revealed, that " he who siuneth
is of the devil" (1 John iii. 8), that "the old
serpent " of Genesis was " called the devil and
Satan, who deceiveth the whole world " (Rev. xii.
9, XX. 3).
Throughout the whole period of the patriarchal
and Jewish dispensation, this vague and imperfect
revelation of the Source of Evil alone was given.
The Source of all Good is set forth iu all his su
preme and unapproachable Majesty; evil is known
negatively as the faUing away from Him; and the
" vanity " of idols, rather than any positive evil
influeuce, is represented as the opposite to his
reality and goodness.- The Law gives " the knowl
edge of sui " in the soul, vrithout referring to any
external influence of evil to foster it; it denounces
<¦ See Wisd. il. 24, ^^oiiiii Se SlojSoXov Sai/arot cltrriK-
kv dc TQIt KOtrflOV.
t> For this reason, if for no other, it seems impossi
ble to accept the interpretation of ^^ Azazel," given by
Speucer, JE^ngstenberg, and others, in Lev. xvi. 8, as

SATAN 2847
idolatry, without even hinting, what the N. T.
declares plainly, that such evil implied a " powei
of Satan." ^
The book of Job stands, in any case, alon
(whether we refer it to an early or a later period)
on the basis of " natural religion," apart from the
gradual and orderly evolutions of the Mosaic reve
lation. In it, for the first time, we find a distinct
mention of *' Satan," " the adversary " of Job.
But it is important to remark the emphatic stress
laid on his subordinate position, on the absence of
all but delegated power, of all terror, and all grand
eur in his character. He comes among the " sons
of God" to present himself before the Lord; his
malice and envy are permitted to have scope, in
accusation or in action, only for God's own pur
poses ; and it is especially reraarkable that no power
of spiritual influence, but only a power over out
ward circumstances, is attributed to him. All this
is widely diffbrent from the clear and terrible reve
lations of the N. T.
The Captivity brought the Israelites face to face
with the great dualism of the Persian mythology,
the conflict of Ormuzd with Abriman, the co
ordinate Spirit of Evil. In the books written aftw
the Captivity we have again the narae of " Satan "
twice mentioned; but it is confessed by all that
the Satan of Scripture bears no resemblance to the
Persian Abriman. His subordination and inferi
ority are as strongly marked as ever. In 1 Chr.
xxi. 1, where the name occurs without the article
(" an adversary," not *' ihe adversary"), the com
parison with 2 Sam. xxiv. 1 shows distinctly that,
in the temptation of David, Satan's malice was
overruled to work out the '* anger of the Lord"
against Israel. In Zech. iii. 1, 2, " Satan" is
6 aurlBiKos (as in 1 Pet. v. 8), the accuser of
Joshua befbre the throne of God, rebuked aud put
to silence by Him (comp. Ps. cix. 6). In the case,
as of tbe good angels, so also of the Evil One, the
presence of fable and idolatry gave cause to the
manifestation of the truth. [Angels, i. 97 b.]
It would have been impossible to guard the Israel
ites more distinctly from the fascination of the
great dualistic theory of their conquerors.
It is perhaps not difficult to coryecture, that the
reason of this reserve as to the disclosure of the
existence and nature of Satan is to be found in
the inveterate tendency of the Israelites to idolatry,
an idolatry ba'sed as usual, in great degree, on the
supposed power of their false gods to inflict evil.
The existence of evil spirits is suggested to them
in the stern prohibition and punishment of witch
craft (Ex. xxii. 18; Deut. xviii. 10), and in the
narrative of the possession of men by an "evil" or
"lying spirit from the Lord" (1 Sam. xvi. 14
1 K. xxii. 22); the tendency to seek their aid is
shown by the rebukes of the prophets (Is. viii
19, &c.). But this tendency would have been in
creased tenfold by the revelation of the existence of
the great enemy, concentrating round himself all
the powers of evil and enmity against God. There
fore, it would seem, the revelation of the " strong
man armed" was withheld until "the stronger
than he" should be made manifest.
For in the New Test, this reserve suddenly van-

a reference to the Spirit of Evil. Such a referenc*
would not only stand alone, but would be entirely in
consistent with the whole tenor of the Mosaic revela
tion. See Dat op Atonement.

2848

SATAN

lihes. In the interval between the Old and New
T^t. the Jewish mind had pondered on the scanty
revelations already given of evil spiritual influence.
But the Apocryphal Books (aa, for example, Tobit
and Judith), while dwelling on " demons '^ {dai/x6-
yia)y have no notice of Satan. The same may be
observed of Josephus. The only instance to the
contrary is the reference already made to Wisd. ii.
2-1. It is to be noticed also that the Targums often
introduce the name of Satan into the descriptions
of sin and temptation found in the 0. T. ; as for
example in Ex. xxxii. 19, in connection with the
worehip of the golden calf (comp. the tradition as
to the body of Moses, Deut. xxxiv. 5, 6 ; Jude 9,
Michael). But, while a mass of fable and super
stition grew up on the general subject of evil
spiritual influence, still the existence and nature of
Satan remained in the background, felt, but not
understood. The N. T. first brings it plainly forward. From
the beginning of the Gospel, when he appears as
the personal tempter of our Lord, through all the
Gospels, Epistles, and Apocalypse, it is asserted or
implied, again and again, as a familiar and im
portant truth. To refer this to mere " accommo
dation" of the language of the Lord and his
Apostles to the ordinary Jewish beUef, is to contra
dict facts, and evade the meaning of words. The
subject is not one on which error could be tolerated
as unimportant; but one important, practical, and
even awful. The language used respecting it is
either truth or falsehood; and unless we impute
eiTor or deceit to the writers of the N. T., we must
receive the doctrine of the existence of Satan as a
certain doctrine of Revelation. Without dwelling
on other passages, the plain, solemn, and unmeta-
phorical words of John viii. 44, must be sufficient:
« Ye are of your father the devil. _ . . . .He
was a murderer from the beginning, and abides
(effTt^Kcv) not in the truth  When
he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is
a liar and the father of it." On this subject, see
Demoniacs, vol. i. p. 585.
(B.) His Nature. — Of the nature and original
state of Satan, little is revealed in Scripture. Most
of the common notions on the subject are drawn
from mere tradition, popularized in England by
Milton, but without eveu a vestige of Scriptural
authority. He is spoken of as a " spirit " in Eph.
ii. 2, as the prince or ruler of the " demons "
(^aip.6via) in Matt. xii. 24-26, and as having
"angels" subject to him in Matt. xxv. 41; Rev.
xii. 7, 9. The whole description of his power im
plies spiritual nature and spiritual influence. We
conclude therefore that he was of angelic nature
[Angels], a rational and spiritual creature, super
human in power, wisdom, and energy; and not
only so, but an archangel, one of the " princes " of
heaven. We cannot, of course, conceive that any
thing essentially and originally evil was created by
God. We find by experience, that the will of a
free and rational creature can, by his permission,
oppose his will; that tbe very conception of free
dom imphes capacity of temptation; and that
every sin, unless arrested by God's fresh gift of
grace, strengthens the hold of evil on the spirit,
till it may fall into the hopeless state of repro
bation. VVe can only coryecture, therefore, that
Sat'dn is a. fallen angel, wbo once had a time of

a It is referred by some to Gen. vi. 2, where many
tf 39. of tne LXX. have ayycAoi 0eov for " sons of

SATAN
probation, but whose condemnation id now irre
vocably fixed.
But of the time, cause, and manner of hia fiiU,
Scripture tells us scarcely anything. It limits ita
disclosures, as always, to that which we need to
know. The passage on which all the fabric of
tradition and poetry has been raised is Rev. xii. 7,
9, which speaks of "Michael and his angels" as
" flighting against the dragon and his angels," tiU
the "great dragon, called the devil and Satan,"
was "cast out into the earth, and his angels cast
out with him." Whatever be the meaning of thie
passage, it is certain that it cannot refer to the
original fall of Satan. The only other pass^e
which refers to the fall of the angels is 2 Pet. ii. 4,
" God spared not the angels, when they had sinned,
but having cast them into hell, delivered them to
chains of darkness (ceiptus ^6<f>ov raprap&ffas
irapeSctfKfv), reserved unto judgment," with the
parallel passage in Jude 6, " Angels, who kept not
their first estate {tt}v eavrwu apx'h^)i hut left
their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlast
ing chains under darkness unto the judgment of
the Great Day." Here again the passage is mys
terious ; '^ but it seems hardly possible to consider
Satan as one of these ; for they are in chains
and guarded {rert)pi]fi4vovs) till the Great Day;
he is permitted still to go about as the Tempter
and the Adversary, until his appointed time be
come. Setting these passages aside, we have still to con
sider the declaration of our Lord in Luke x. 18,
" I beheld (eBedjpovv) Satan, as lightning, fall
from heaven." This may refer to the fact of his
original fall (although the use of the imperfect
tense, and the force of the context, rather refer it
figuratively to the triumph of the disciples over the
evil spirits) ; but, in any case, it tells nothing of its
cause or method. There is also the passage already
quoted (John viii. 44) in which our Lord declarefl
of him, that "he was <t murderer from the be
ginning," that " he stands not (eo-TT^Kc) in the
truth, because there is no truth in him," " that he
is a liar and the father of it." But here it seems
likely the words air' apx^s refer to the beginning
of his action upon man; perhaps the allusion is
to his temptation of Cain to be the first murderer,
an allusion explicitly made in a similar passage in
1 John iii, 9-12. The word go-tt^kc (wrongly
rendered " abode "in A. V,), and the rest of the
verse, refer to present time. The passage therefore
throws little or no light on the cause and method
of his fall.
Perhaps the only one, which has any value, is
1 Tim. iii. 6, " lest being lifted up by pride he fall
into the condemnation (KpipLa) of the devil," It
is concluded from this, that pride was the cause
of the devil's condemnation. The inference is a
probable one ; it is strengthened by the only anal
ogy within our reach, that of the fall of man, in
which the spiritual temptation of pride, the d&-
su-e "to be as gods," was the subtlest and most
deadly temptation. Still it is but an inference;
it cannot be regarded as a matter of ceruin Reve
lation. But, while these points are passed by almost in
silence (a silence which rebukes the irreverent
exercise of imagination on the subject). Scripture
describes to us distinctly the moral nature of the

God ; " especially because 2 Pet. iii. 6, relating to tlw
Flood, seems closely connected with that passage.

SATAN
Evil One. This is no matter of barren speculation
lo those who by yielding to evil may become the
I' children of Satan," instead of "children of God."
The ideal of goodness is made up of the three gi'eat
moral attributes of God, Love, Truth, and Purity
ar Holiness; combined with that spirit, which is
the natural temper of a finite and dependent crea
ture, the spirit of Faith. We find, accordingly,
that the opposites to these qualities are dwelt upon
as the characteristics of the devil. In John viii.
44, compared with 1 John iii. 10-15, we have
hatred and falsehood; in the constant mention of
the "unclean" spirits, of which he ia the chief,
we find impurity; from 1 Tim. iii. 6, and the nar
rative of the Temptation, we trace the spirit of
pride. These are especially the "sins of tbe devil ; "
in them we trace the essence of moral evil, and the
features of the reprobate mind. Add to this a
spirit of restless activity, a power of craft, and an
intense desire to spread corruption, and with it
eternal death, and we have the portraiture of the
Spirit of Evil as Scripture has drawn it plainly
before our eyes.
(C.) His Power and Action. — Both these
points, being intimately connected with our own
life and salvation, are treated with a distinctness
and fullness remarkably contrasted with the ob
scurity of the previous subject.
Tbe power of Satan over the soul is represented
as exercised, either directly, or by bis instruments.
His direct influence over the soul is simply that of
a powerful and evil nature on those in whom lurks
the germ of the same evil, differing from the in
fluence exercised by a wicked man in degree rather
than in kind ; but it bas the power of acting by
suggestion of thoughts, without the medium of
aetions or words — a power which is only in very
slight degree exercised by men upon each other.
This influence is spoken of in Scripture in the
strongest terms, as a real external influence, cor
relative to, but not to be confounded with, the
existence of evil within. In the parable of the
sower (Matt. xiii. 19), it is represented as a nega
tive influence, taking away the action of the Word
of God for good; in that of the wheat and the
tares (Matt. xiii. 39), as ^ positive influence for
evil, introducing wickedness into the world.: St.
Paul does not hesitate to represent it as a power,
permitted to dispute the world with the power of
God ; for he declares to Agrippa that his mission
was " to turn men from darkness to light, and
from the power (4^ovoias) of Satan unto God,"
and represents the excommunication, which cuts
men off from the grace of Christ in his Church, as
a "deliverance of tbem unto Satan " (1 Cor. v. 5;
1 Tim. i. 20). The same truth is conveyed, though
in a bolder and more startling form, in the Epistles
to the Churches of the Apocalypse, where the body
of the unbelieving Jews is called a " synagogue of
Satan " (Rev. ii. 9, iii. 9), where the secrets of false
doctrine are called "the depths of Satan " (ii. 24),
Mid the "throne" and "habitation" of Satan are
said to be set up in opposition to the Church of
Christ. Another and even more remarkable ex-
Dression of the same idea is found in the Epistle
0 the Hebrews, where the death of Christ is spoken
l( as intended to bafl3e dcarapye-iv) " him that
nath the power, (r!) Kpdros) of death, that is, the
levil; " for death is evidently regarded as the
¦'wages of sin," and the power of death as in
separable from the power of corruption. Nor is
Ihis truth only expressed directly and formally;

SATAN

2849

it meets us again and again in passages simply
practical, taken for granted, as already familiar
(see Rom. xvi. 20 ; 2 Cor. ii. 11 ; 1 Thess. ii. 18 ;
2 Thess. ii. 9; 1 Tim.-v. 15). The Bible does
not shrink from putting the fact of Satanic influ
ence over the soid before us, in plain and terrible
certainty. Yet at the same time it is to be observed, that
its language is very far from countenancing, even
for a moment, the horrors of the JManichaean the
ory. The influence of Satan is always spoken of
as temporary and limited, subordinated to the
Divine counsel, and broken by the Incarnate Son
of God. It is brought out visibly, in the form of
possessibn, in the earthly life of our Lord, only in
order that it may give the opportunity of his
triumph. As for Himself, so for his redeemed
ones, it is true, that " God shall bruise Satan under
their feet shortly" (Rom. xvi. 20; comp. Gen. iii.
15). Nor is this all, for the history of the book
of Job shows plainly, what is elsewhere constantly
implied, that Satanic influence is permitted, in
order to be overruled to good, to teach humility,
and therefore faith. The mystery of the existence
of evil is left unexplained; but its present subordi
nation and future extinction are familiar truths. So
accordingly, on the other hand, his power is spoken
of as capable of being resisted by the will of man,
when aided by the grace of God. " Resist the
devil, and he will flee from you," is the constant
language of Scripture (Jam. iv. 7). It is indeed
a power, to which "place" or opportunity "is
given " only by the consent of man's will (Eph, iv,
27). It is probably to be traced most distinctly in
the power of evil habit, a power real, but not irre
sistible, created by previous sin, and by every suc
cessive act of sin riveted more closely upon the
soul. It is a power which cannot act directly and
openly, but needs craft and dissimulation, in order
to get advantage over man by entangling the will.
The "wiles" (Eph. vi. 11), the '-devices" (2 Cor.
ii. 11), the "snare" (1 Tim. iii. 7, vi. 9; 2 Tim.
ii. 26) "of the devil," are expressions which indi
cate the indirect and unnatural character of the
power of eviL It is therefore urged as a reason
for "soberness and vigilance" (1 Pet. v- 8), for
the careful use of the "whole armor of God"
(Eph. vi. 10-17); but it is never allowed to obscure
the supremacy of God's grace, or to 'disturb tlie
inner peace of the Christian. ' " He that is bom
of God, keepeth himself, and the wicked one touch-
eth him not" (1 John v. 18).
Besides his own direct influence, the Scripture
discloses to us the fact that Satan is the leader of
a host of evil spirits or angels who share his evil
work, and for whom the " everlasting fire is pre
pared " (Matt. xxv. 41). Of their origin and fall
we know no more than of his, for they cannot be
the same as the fallen and imprisoned angels of
2 Pet. ii. 4, and Jude 6; but one passage (Matt.
xii. 24-26) identifies them distinctly with the
^aip6via (A.V. " devils "«) who had power to
possess the souls of men. The Jews there speak
of a Beelzebub (BeeXCeiSoiJ^), "a prince of the
demons," whom they identify with, or symbolize
by the idol of Ekron, the "god of flies" [see
BKEirzEBUB], and by whose power they accuse om
Lord of casting out demons. His answer is, " How

a It is unfortunate that the A. V. should use the
word "devil," not only for its proper equiTaleut
fiiajSoAo?, but also for Saiftoviov.

2850

SATAN

can Satan cast out Satan? " The inference is clear
that Satan is Beelzebub, and therefore the demons
are " tbe angels of the devil; " and this inference is
Btrengthened by Acts x. 38, in which St. Peter
describes the possessed as KaTaSvvaffrevofJLevovs
vwh TOV SiajStfA-ou, and by Luke x. 18, in which
the mastery over the demons is connected by our
Lord with the "fall of Satan from heaven," and
their power included by Hira in the " power of the
enemy " (rod ixOpov); comp. Matt. xiii. 39). For
their nature, see Demons. They are mostly spoken
of in Scripture in reference to possession ; but in
Eph. vi. 12 they are described in various lights,
as "principalities" (apxai)^ "powera" (e^ovtriaOi
" rulers of the darkness of this world," and
'*¦ spiritual powers of wickedness in heavenly places "
(or "things") (tq; irvevpariKh. t^s irovTjpias ee
ToTs iiroupayiois); and in all as "wrestling"
against the soul of man. The same reference is
made less explicitly in Rom. viii 38, and Col. ii.
15. In Rev. xii. 7-9 they are spoken of as fight
ing with "the dragon, the old serpent called the
devil and Satan," against "Michael and his angels,"
and as cast out of heaven with their chief. Taking
all these passages together, we find them sharing
the enmity to God and man implied in the name
and nature of Satan ; but their power and action
are but little dwelt upon in comparison with his.
That there is against us a power of spiritual wick
edness is a truth which we need to know, and a
mystery which only Revelation can disclose; but
whether it is exercised by few or by many is a
matter of comparative indifference.
But the Evil One is not only the " prince of the
demons," but also he is called tbe "prince of this
world " (6 &px<^v TOO KSapov to6tov) in John xii.
31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11, and even the "god of this
world " (6 6ehs rod aiavos toiJtou) in 2 Cor. iv.
4; the two expressions being united in the words
robs KOfffiOKpdTOpas rod o'k6tovs tov atatvos
toiJtow, used in Eph. vi. 12.« This power he
claimed for himself, as a delegated authority, in
the temptation of our Lord (Luke iv. 6); and the
temptation would have been unreal, had he spoken
altogether falsely. It implies another kind of in
direct influence exercised through earthly instru
ments. There are some indications in Scripture of
the exercise of this power through inanimate in
struments, of an influence ovet the powers of na
ture, and what men call the " chances " of Hfe.
Such a power is distinctly asserted in the case of
Job, and probably implied in the case of the woman
with a spirit of infirmity (in Luke xiii. 16), and of
St. Paul's "thorn in the flesh" (2 Cor. xii. 7).
It is only consistent with the attribution of such
action to the angels of God (as in Ex. xii. 23 ; 2
Sara. xxiv. 16; 2 K. xix. 35; Acts xii. 23); and,
in our ignorance of the method of connection of tlie
second causes of nature with the Supreme Will of
God, we cannot even say whether it has in it any
antecedent improbability; but it is little dwelt
upon in Scripture, in comparison with the other
exercise of this power through tbe hands of wicked
men, who become "children of the devil," and
accordingly "do the lusts of their father." (See
John viii. 44; Acts xiii. 10; 1 John iii, 8-10;

a The word Koa-fLo^, properly referring to the system
if the universe, and so used in John 1. 10, is generally
Applied in Scripture to human society as alienated
.from God, with a reference to the " pomp and vanity "
vmch makes it an idol (see, e.g., 1 John ii 16] ; aXiav

SATAN
and comp. John vi. 70.) In this sense the Scrip
ture regards all sins as the " works of ihe devil,''
and traces to him, through his ministers, al]
spiritual evil and error (2 Cor. xi. 14, 15), and all
the persecution and hindrances which oppose the
Gospel (Rev. ii. 10; 1 Thess. u. 18). Most of aU
is this indirect action of Satan manifested in those
who deliberately mislead and tempt men, and who
at last, independent of any interest of their oftTi,
come to take an unnatural pleasure in the sight of
evil-doing in others (Rom. i. 32).
The method of his action is best discerned by
an examination of the title by which he is desig
nated in Scripture. He is called emphaticaUy
6 5id0o\os, " the devil." The derivation of the
word in itself implies only tbe endeavor to break tbe
bonds between others, and "set them at variance''
(see, e. g.. Plat. Symp. p. 222 c: Bia&dhKeip e^e
Kal' Ay dd<t}ya); but common usage adds to this
general sense the special idea of " setting at vari<-
ance by slander.^' In the N. T. the word Bid^o\oi
is used three times as an epithet (1 Tim. iii. 1];
2 Tim. iii. 3; Tit. ii. 3); and in each case with
something like the special meaning. In the appli
cation of the title to Satan, both the general and
special senses should be kept in view. His general
object is to break the bonds of communion between
God and mau, and the bonds of truth and love
which bind men to each other, to "set " each soul
"at variance" both with men and God, and so
reduce it to that state of self-will and selfishness
which is the seed-plot of sin. One special means
by which be seeks to do this, is slander of God to
man, and of man to God.
The slander of God to man is seen best in the
words of Gen. iii. 4, 5: "Ye shall not surely die:
for God doth know, that in the day that ye eat
thereof your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall he
as gods, knowing good and evil." These words
contain the germ of the false notions, which keep
men from God, or reduce their service to Him to a
hard and compulsory slavery, and which the hea^
then so often adopted in all their bideousness, when
they represented their gods as either careless of
human weal and woe, or "envious" of human ex
cellence and happiness. They attribute selfishness
and jealousy to the Giver of all good. This is
enough (even without the imputation of falsehood
which is added) to pervert man's natural love of
freedom, till it rebels against that which is made
to appear as a hard and arbitrary tyranny, and
seeks to set up, as it thinks, a freer and nobler
standard of its own. Such is the slander of God
to man, by which Satan and his stents still strive '
against his reuniting grace.
The slander of man to God is illustrated hy the
book of Job (Job i. 9-11, ii. 4, 6). In reference
to it, Satan is called the *' adversary" (avribiKos)
of man in 1 Pet. v. 8, and represented in that
character in Zech. iii. 1, 2; and more plainly still
designated in Rev. xii. 10, as " the accuser of our
brethren, who accused them before our God day
and night." It is diiBcult for us to understand
what can be the need of accusation or tbe power of
slander, under the all-searching eye of God. 1'he
mention of it is clearly an "accommodation" of

refers to Its transitory character, and is evidently
used above to qualify the startling application of
the word deos, a " god of an age " being of courw
no true God at all. It is used with Koa-nK ia £pb
ii 2.

SATAN
God's judgment to the analogy of our human expe- '<
rience; but we understand by it a practical and
awful truth, that every sin of hfe, and even the
admixture of lower and evil motives which taints
the best actions of man, will rise up against us at
the judgment, to claim the soul as their own, and
fix forever that separation from God, to which,
through them, we have yielded ourselves. In that
accusation Satan shall in some way bear a leading
part, pleading against man with that worst of
slander which is based on perverted or isolated
facts; and shall be overcome, not by any counter
claim of human merit, but " by the blood of the
Lamb " received in true and steadfast faith.
But these points, iraportant as they are, are of
less moment than the disclosure of the method of
Satanic action upon the heart itself. It may be
summed up in two words — Temptation and Pos
session. The subject of temptation is illustrated, not only
by abstract statements, but also by tbe record of
the temptations of Adam and of our Lord. It is
expressly laid down (as in James i. 2-4) that
"temptation," properly so called, i. a. "trial"
[•jr€ipa(rfi6s), is essential to man, and is accord-
ngly ordained for him and sent to him by God
(as in Gen. xxii. 1). Man's nature is progressive;
his faculties, which exist at first only in capacity
(dvvdfi€i) must be brought out to exist in actual
efficiency (ivepyeia) by free exercise." His appe
tites and passions tend to their objects, simply and
unreservedly, without respect to the rightness or
wrongness of their obtaining them ; they need to
be checked by the reason and conscience, and this
need constitutes a trial, in which, if the conscience
prevail, the spirit receives strength and growth ; if
it be overcome, the lower nature tends to predomi
nate, and the man has fallen away. Besides this,
the will itself delights in independence of action.
Such independence of physical compulsion is its
high privilege; but there is over it the Moral Power
of God's Law, which, by the very fact of its truth
and goodness, acknowledged as they are by the
reason and the conscience, should regulate the hu
man will. The need of giving up the individual
will, freely and by conviction, so as to be in har
mony with the will of God, is a still severer trial,
with the reward of still greater spiritual progress,
if we sustain it, with the punishment of a subtler
and more dangerous fall if we succumb. In its
struggle tbe spirit of man can only gain and sus
tain its authority by that constant grace of God,
given through communion of the Holy Spirit,
which' is the breath of spiritual life.
It is this tentability of man, even in his original
nature, which is represented in Scripture as giving
scope to the evil action of Satan. He is called tbe
"tempter" (as in Matt. iv. 3; 1 Thess. iii. 5).
He has power (as the record of Gen. iii. shows
clearly), first, to present to the appetites or passions
their objects in vivid and captivating fornis, so as
to induce man to seek these objects against the
Law of God " written in the heart; " and next, to
act upon the false desire of the will for indepen
dence, the desire "to be as gods, knowing" (that
ta, practically, judging and determining) "good
»nd evil." It; is a power which can be resisted,
because it ia under the control and overruling power
)f God, as is emphatically laid down in 1 Cor. x.

SATAN

2851

« 9ee the connection between faith and love by
^bleh it is made perfect (ivepyovfiivri) in Gal. v. 6,

13; Jam, iv. 7, &c. ; but it can be oo resisted only
by yielding to the grace of God, and by a struggle
(sometimes an " agony ") in reliance on its
strength. It is exercised both negatively and positively.
Its negative exercise is referred to in the parable of
the sower, as taking away the word, the " engrafted
word " (James i. 21) of grace, i. e. as interposing
itself, by consent of man, between him and the
channels of God's grace. Its positive exercise is set
forth in the parable of the wheat and the tares,
represented as sowing actual seed of evil in the in
dividual heart or the world generally ; and it is to
be noticed, that the consideration of the true na
ture of the tares ((i(dvta) leads to the conclusion,
which is declared plainly in 2 Cor. xi. 14, namely,
that evil is introduced into the heart mostly as
the counterfeit of good.
This exercise of the Tempter's power is possible,
even against a sinless nature. We see this in the
Temptation of our Lord. The temptations pre
sented to Him appeal, first to the natural desire
and need of food, next to the desire of power, to
be used for good, which is inherent iu the noblest
minds; and lastly, to the desire of testing and
realizing God's special protection, which is the in
evitable tendency of human weakness under a real
but imperfect faith. The objects contemplated in
volved in no case positive sinfulness; the temptation
was to seek them by presumptuous or by unholy
means ; the answer to them (given by the Lord as
tbe Son of Man, and therefore as one like ourselves
in all the weakness and finiteness of our nature)
lay in simple Faith, resting upon God, and on his
Word, keeping to his way, and refusing to con
template the issues of action, which belong to Him
alone. Such faith is a renunciation of all self-
confidence, and a simple dependence on the will and
on the grace of God.
But in the temptation of a fallen nature Satan
has a greater power. Every sin committed makes
a man the "servant of sin " for the future (John
viii. 34; Rom. vi. 16); it therefore creates in the
spirit of man a positive tendency to evil, which
sympathizes with, and aids, tbe temptation of the
Evil One. This is a fact recognized by experience;
t>he doctrine of Scripture, inscrutably mysterious,
but unmistakably declared, is that, since tbe FaU,
this evil tendency is born in man in capacity, prior
to all actual sins, and capable of being brought out
into active existence by such actual sins committed.
It is this which St. Paul calls "a law," i. e. (ac
cording to his universal use of the word) an exter
nal power "of sin" over man, bringing the inner
man (the yovs) into* captivity (Rom. vii. 14-24).
Its power is broken by the Atonement and tbe gift
of the Spirit, but yet not completely cast out; it
still "lusts against the spirit" so that men "can
not do the things which they would " fGal. v. 17).
It is to this spiritual power of evil, the tendency to
falsehood, cruelty, pride, and unbelief, independently
of any benefits to be derived from them, that Satan
is said to appeal in tempting us. If his tempta
tions be yielded to without repentance, it becomes
the reprobate (MKtfxos) mind, which delights in
evil for its own sake (Rom. i. 28, 32) and makes
men emphatically "children of the devil" (John
viii. 44; Acts xiii. 10; 1 John iii. 8, 10), and " ac
cursed " (Matt. xxv. 41), fit for "the fire pre-
and between iaith and the works by wliich it is pep
fected (TcA.etoi)Tcii} in Jam. ii. 22.

2852

SATHBABUZANES

pared fo the devil and his angels." If they lis
resisted, as by God's grace they may be resisted,
then the evU power (the "flesh" or the "old
man") is graduaUy " crucified " or "mortified,"
until the soul is prepared for that heaven, where
no evil can enter.
This twofold power of temptation is frequently
referred to in Scripture, as exercised, chiefly by the
suggestion of evil thoughts, but occasionaUy by the
delegated power of Satan over outward circum
stances. To this latter power is to be traced
(as has been said) the trial of Job by temporal loss
and bodily sufiering (Job i-, u.), the remarkable
expression, used by our Lord, as to the woman
with a "spirit of infirmity" (Luke xiii. 16), the
"thorn in the flesh," which St. Paul calls the
" messenger of Satan " to buffet him (2 Cor. xii. 7).
Its language is plain, incapable of being explained
as metaphor, or poetical personification of an ab
stract principle. Its general statements are iUus
trated by examples of temptation. (See, besides
those already mentioned, Luke xxii. 3; John xiii.
27 (Judas); Luke xxii. 31 (Peter); Acts v. 3 (An
anias and Sapphira); 1 Cor. vii. 5; 2 Cor. ii. 11;
1 Thess. iii. 5.) The subject itself is the most
startling form of the m3'stery of evil; it is one on
which, from our ignorance of tbe connection of the
First Cause with Second Causes in Nature, and
of tbe process of origination of human thought,
experience can hardly be held to be competent
either to confirm or to oppose the testimony of
Scripture. On the subject of Possession see Demokiacs.
It is sufficient here to remark, that although widely
ditferent in form, yet it is of the same intrinsic
character as the other power of Satan, including
both that external and Internal infiuence to which
reference has been made above. It is disclosed
to us only in connection with the revelation of that
redemption from sin, which destroys it, — a reve
lation begun in the first promise in Eden, and
manifested, in itself at the Atonement, in its effects
at the Great Day. Its end is seen in the Apoca
lypse, where Satan is first " bound for a thousand
years," then set free for a time for the last conflict,
and finaUy " cast into the lake of fire and brim
stone ... for ever and ever " (xx. 2, 7-10). A.B.
* The literature of this subject is extensive.
Some of the works relating to it are referred to
under the articles Angels, Demons, and Demo
niacs. Among the more recent books it may be
sufficient to name here G. Eoskofi''s Geschichte des
Teufels, 2 vols. Leipz. 1869, 8vo. A.
SATHBABUZA'NbS {2.aepafiov(ivr)s ;
[Vat. once -^ovp^avris '] Satrahuzanes). Sheth-
AEBOZNAI (1 Esdr. vi. 3, 7, 27 [vii. 1] ; comp.
Ezr. Y. 3, 6, vi. 6, 13).
SATYRS (D''-I^p,s^inm: iaipivia.: pilosi),
the rendering in the A. V. of the above-named
plural noun, which, having the meaning of " hairy "
or "rough," is frequently applied to "he-goali"
(comp. the I^tin hircus, from hirtus, hirsuius) ; the
Seirim, however, of Is. xiii. 21, and xxxiv. 14,
where the prophet predicts the desolation of Baby-
Ion, have, probably, no aUusion to any species of
goat whether wild or tame. According to the old
versions, and nearly aU the commentators, our own
translation is correct, and Satyrs, that is, demons
]f woods and desert places, half men and half
{oats, are intended. Comp. Jerome ( Comment, ad

sJATJL
Is. xiu.), "Seirim vel incubones vel satynx rel
sylvestres quosdam homines quos nonnuUi £ituoi
ficarios vocant, aut dsemonum genera intellignnl.^'!
This explanation receives confirmation from a pas*
sage in I.£v. xvii. 7, "they shaU no more offer
their sacrifices unto Seirim,'^ and from a sioiilai
one in 2 Chr. xi. 15. The Israelites, it is prob
able, had become acquainted with a form of goat-
worship from the Egyptians (see Bochart, Hieros.
iu. 825; Jablonski, Pant. ^gypt. i. 273 ft.).
The opinion held by Michaelis (Svpp. p. 2342) and
Lichtenstein ( Commentat. de Simiarum, etc., § 4

Gynocephalus. (Egypfaan Monomente '
50, sqq.), that the Seirim probably denote some
species of ape, has been sanctioned by Hamilton
Smith in Kitto's Cyc. art. " Ape." From a few pas
sages in Pliny (H: N. v. 8; vu. 2; viii. 54) it is
clear that by Satyrs are sometimes to be understood
some kind of ape or monkey; Col. H. Smith has
figured the Macaeus Arabicus as being the prob
able satyr of Babylon. That some species of t'jno-
cephalus (dog-&ced baboon) was an animal that
entered into the theology of the ancient Egyptians,
is evident from the monuments and frora wbat
HorapoUo (i. 14-16) bas told us. The other ex
planation, however, has the sanction of Gesenins,
Bochart, Rosenmiiller, Pafthurst, Maurer, FiiiBt,
and others. As to the " dancing " satyrs, comp.
Virg. Eel. v. 73, —
" Saltantes satyros imitabitur Alphe^bcens."
W.H.
SAUL (b^N^, i. e. Shafll [asked far, be
sought] : SaoiiA ; Joseph. SidovKos : Saul), more
accurately Shaul, in which form it is given on
several occasions in the Authorized Version. 1'he
name of various pereons in the Sacred History.
1. Saul ot Kehoboth by the River was one of
the early kings of Edom, and successor of Sanilah
(Gen. xxxvi. 37, 38). In 1 Chr. i. 48 he is callal
Shaul. G.
2. The first king of Israel. The name here
first appears in the history of Israel, though found
before in the Edomite prince already mentioned;
and in a son of Simeon (Gen. xlvi. 10; A. V.
Shaul). It also occurs among the Kohathites in
the genealogy of Samuel (1 Chr. vi. 24), and in
Saul, like the king, of the tribe of Benjamin, better
known as 'the Apostle Paul (see below, p. 2857).
Josephus (B. J. ii. 18, § 4) mentions a Saul, fatha
of one Simon who distinguished himself at Scythop
olis in the early part of the Jewish war.
In the foUowing genealogy may beobsexved—

SAUL
1. The repetition in two generations of the names
jf Kiah and Ner, of Nadab and Abi-nadab, and of
Mephibosheth. 2. The occurrence of the name of
Baal in three successive generations: possibly in
four, as there were two Mephibosheths. 3. The
constant shiftings of tbe names of God as incor
porated in the proper naraes: (a.) Ab-ie\

SAUL

2853

(4.) il/afcAt-shua = /e-shua. (c.) Esh-6an^=:Ish-
bosheth. (d.) Mephi- (or Meri-) ianZ^Mephi-
bosheth. i. i'he long continuance of tbe family
down to the times of Ezra. 5. Is it possible that
Zimri (1 Chr. ix. 42) can be the usurper of 1 K.
xvi. — if so, the last attempt of the house of Saul
/e-hid. ' to regain it^ ascendency ? The time would agree.
(1 Sam. be. 1.)

Aphiah.
Bechorath. Zeror. (LXX. Jaotd.)
Abiel, or Jehiel = Maachah.
(1 Sam. ix. L) , (l Chr. ix.)
a Chr. viii. 29.)

Kiah.
Ahinoom =; SAUL =
(1 Chr. ix..3!

Baal. Ner.
(1 Chr. ix. S

redor.

Zticliariah. (Zachcr,
1 Chr. viii.)

Miliioth.
a Chr. ITL. ST.)
I
Shimeah.

Blzpah.

Jonathan. iBhui. Malchi-shua. Ahinadab. Bah-baol. Merab. David:
I (1 Sam. lahbosheth.
1 xi7.49 ; Jeshna C'leoxivs], Job. .^nt. vL 6, § 6.) fi<
Hflrib-haal.
Mephibosheth. (1 Chr. ix. 40.)

Michal = Fhaltiel. Armoni. Mephiboiheth.

Pithon.

Uele<^. Tahrea.

Ahaz.Jefioadah.

(larah, 1 Chr. Ix. 42.)
Alemeth.
Azmavetb
Zimri. Moza.Binea.
Bephar. CBaphaia
Eleasah. 1
h, 1 Chr. ii. 48.)
iiel. 1
Eahek. 1
AzriKom.
Fochem. Ishmael. Sheariah
1
Obadiah.
Hanon. Ulam.
Jehuah. Eliph
ISO descendnnta.
There is a contradiction between the pedigree in
1 Sam. ix. 1, xiv. 51, which represents Saul and
Abner as the grandsons of Abiel, and 1 Chr. viii.
33, ix. 39, which represents them as his great-
grandsons. If we adopt the more elaborate pedi
gree in the Chronicles, we must suppose either that
a Unk has been dropped between Abiel and Kish,
in 1 Sam. ix. 1, or that the elder Kish, the son of
Abiel (1 Chr. ix. 36), has. been confounded with
the younger Kish, the son of Ner (1 Chr. ix. 39).
The pedigree in 1 Chr. viii. is not free from con
fusion, as it omits, amongst the sons of Abiel,
Ner, who in 1 Chr. ix. 36 is the fifth son, and who
in both is made the father of Kish.
His charaeter is in part iUustrated by the fierce,
wayward, fitful nature of the tribe [Benjamin],
and in part accounted for by the struggle between
the old and new systems in which he found him
self involved. To this we must add a taint of
madness, which broke out in violent frenzy at
Umes, leaving him with long lucid intervals. His
affections were strong, as appears in his love both
for David and his son Jonathan, but they were
unequal to the wild accesses of religious zeal or
" 2 Sam. 1. 19, the word translated " beauty," but
Ihe same term (''2^) in 2 Sam. ii. 18 and elsewhere
Utrualaled "roe." Ihe LXX. have confoanded it
insanity which ultimately led to his ruin. He was,
Uke the earlier Judges, of whom in one sense he
may be counted as the successor, remarkable for his
strength and activity (2 Sara. i. 23), and he was,
lUce the Homeric heroes, of gigantic stature, taUer
by head and shoulders than the rest of the people,
and of that kind of beauty denoted by tbe Hebrew
word " good " (1 Sam. ix. 2), and which caused
him to be compared to the gazeUe, "the gazeUe
of Israel." » It was probably these external quali
ties which led to the epithet which is fifequently
attached to his nan^e, " chosen " — " whom the
Lord did choose " — " See ye (i. e. Look at) hun
whom the Lord hath chosen ! " (1 Sam. ix. 17,
X. 24; 2 Sam. xxi. 6).
The birthplace of Saul is not expressly men
tioned ; but as Zelah was the place of Kish's sep
ulchre (2 Sam. xxi.), it was probably his native
viUage. There is no warrant for- saying that it
was Gibeah,'' though, from its subsequent connec
tion with him, it is caUed often " Gibeah of Saul "
[Gibeah]. His father, Kish, was a powerful and
wealthy chief, though the famUy to which he be
longed was of Uttle importance (1 Sam. ix. 1, 21).
with a very similar word, and render it ^rqXiaavv,
" set up a pillar."
b Whtn Abiel, or Jehiel (1 Chr. viil. 29, ix. 86), ia
called the father of "Gibeon," it probably meant
founder of (ribMh.
2854

SAUL

A portion of his property consisted of a drove of
asses. In search of these asses, gone astray on
the mountains, he sent his son Saul, accompanied
by it servant," who acted also as a guide and
guardian of the young man (ix. 3-30). After a
three days' journey (ix. 20), which it has hitherto
proved impossible to ti-ack, through Ephraim and
Benjamin [Shalisha ; Shalim; Zdph], they
arrived at the foot of a iUl surrounded by a town,
when Saul proposed to return home, but was de
terred by the advice of tbe servant, who suggested
that before doing so they should consult " a man
of God," "a seer," as to the fate of the asses —
securing his oracle by a present (backshish) of a
quarter of a sUver shekel. They were instructed
by the maidens at the weU outside the city to catch
the seer as he came out of the city to ascend to a
sacred eminence, where a sacrificial feast was wait
ing for his benediction (1 Sam. ix. 11-13). At
the gate they met the seer for the fu'st time — it
was Samuel. A divine intimation had indicated
to him the approach and the future destiny of the
youthful Benjamite. Surprised at his language,
but still obeying his call, they ascended to the high
place, and in the inn or caravanserai at the top
(rh KaTd\v/j.a, LXX., ix. 27) found thirty or
(LXX., and Joseph. Ant. vi. 4, § 1 ) seventy guests
assembled, amongst whom they took the chief place.
In anticipation of some distinguished stranger,
Samuel had bade the cook reserve a boiled shoulder,
from which Saul, as tbe chief guest, was bidden to
tear off the first morsel (LXX., ix. 22-24). They
then descended to the city, and a bed was prepared
for Saul on the housetop. At daybreak Samuel
roused him. They descended again to the skirts
of the town, and there (the servant having left
them) Samuel poured over Saul's head the conse
crated oil, and with a kiss of salutation announced
to him that he was to be the ruler and (LXX.)
deUverer of the nation (ix. 25-x. 1). From that
moment, as he turned on Samuel tbe huge shoulder
which towered above aU the rest (x. 9, LXX.), a
new Ufe dawned upon bim. He returned by a
route whicb, like that of his search, it is impos
sible to make out distinctly; and at every step
homeward it was confirmed by the incidents wbich
according to Samuel's prediction, awaited him (x.
9, 10). At Rachel's sepulchre he met two men,''
who announced to him the recovery of the asses —
his lower cares were to cease. At the oak<: of
Tabor [Plain; Tabok, Plain of] he met three
men carrying gifts of kids and bread, and a skin
of wine, as an ofiering to Beth-el. Two of the
loaves were offered to him as if to indicate his new
dignity. At "the hill of ''God" (whatever may
be meant thereby, possibly his own city, Gibeah),
he met a band of prophets descending with musi
cal instruments, and he caught the inspiration from
them, as a sign of his new. life. ^

SAUL
This is what may be called the private, hina
view of his caU. The outer caU, which is related
independently of the other, was as foUows. A«
assembly was convened by Samuel at Mizpeh, and
lots (so often practiced at that time) were cast to
find the tribe and the family which was to product
the king. Saul was named — and, by a Divine in
timation, found hid in the circle of baggage which
surrounded the encampment (x. 17-24). HU
stature at once conciliated the public feeling, and
for the first time the shout was raised, afterwards
so often repeated in modem times, " Long live the
king'' (x. 23, 34), and .he returned to hia native
Gibeah, accompanied by the fighting part/ of the
people, of whom he was now to be the especial
head. The murmurs of the worthless part of the
community who refused to salute him with the
accustomed presents were soon dispelled » by an
occasion arisuig to justify the selection of Saul.
He was (having apparently returned to his private
Ufe) on his way home, driving his herd of oxen,
when he heard one of those wild lamentationB in
tbe city of Gibeah, such as mark in eastern towns
the arrival of a great calamity. It was the tidings
of the tbreat issued by Nahash king of Ammon
against Jabesh Gilead (see Ammon). The inhab
itants of Jabesh were connected with Benjamin,
by the old adventure recorded in Judg. xxi. It
was as if this one spark was needed to awaken the
dormant spirit of the king. " The Spirit of the
Lord came upon him," as on the ancient judges.
The shy, retiring nature which we have observed,
vanished never to return. He bad recourse to tbe
expedient of the earUer days, and summoned the
people by the bones of two of tbe oxen from the
herd which he was driving: three (or six, LXX.)
hundred thousand followed from Israel, and (per
haps not in due proportion) thirty (or seventy,
LXX.) thousand from Judah: and Jabesh waa
rescued. The effect was instantaneous on the peo
ple ; the punishment of the murmurers was de
manded — but refused by Saul, and the monarchy
was inaugurated anew at GUgal (xi. 1-15). It
should be, however, observed that, according to 1
Sam. xii. 12, the affair of Nahash preceded and
occasioned the election of Saul. He becomes kuig
of Israel. But he still so far resembleg the earlier
judges, as to be virtually king only of his own
tribe, Benjamin, or of the immediate neighborhood.
Almost aU his exploits are confined to this circle
of territory or associations.
Samuel, who had up to this time been still
named as ruler with Saul (xi. 7, 12, 14), now with
drew, and Saul became the acknowledged chief.*
In the 2d year » of his reign, he began to organize
an attempt to shake off" the Philistine yoke wbich
pressed on his country ; not least on his own tribe,
where a PhUistine officer had long been stationed
even in his own field (x. 5, xiii. 3). An army of

a The word is 1373, "servant," not "TD??)
" Blave." b At Zelzah, or (LXX.) " leaping for joy."
c Mistranslated in A. V. "plain."
d In X. 5, Gibealh lia-Etohim ; in x. 10, hag-gibealt
only. Joseph. (Ant. vi. 4, § 2) gives the name Ga-
batha, by which he elsewhere designates Gibeah, Saul's
elty. e See for this Ewald (iii. 28-30).
/¦ bTln, " the strength," the host, i. 26 ; comp.
Z Sam. xxiv. 2. The word "band" is usuaUy em

ployed iu the A. T. for ^^'^3, a very different teno,
with a strict meaning of its own. [Troop.]
ff The words which close 1 Sam. x. 27 are in the
Hebrew text "he was as though he were deaf;'' in
Joseph. Ant. vi. 6, § 1, and the LXX. (followed by
Ewald); " and it came to pass after a month that."
h Also 2 Sam. x. 15, LXX., for "Lord."
t The expression, xiii. 1, "Saul was one year old'
(the son of a year) in his reigning, may be either
(1), he reigned one year ; or (2), the word 80 may ban
dropped out thence to xiii. 6, and it may have bee*
" he was 31 when he began to reign."

SAUL
S.OOO was formed, which he soon afterwards gath
ered together round him; and Jonathan, apparently
with his sanctiou, rose against the officer" and
Blew him (xiii. 2— i). This roused the whole force
of the Philistine nation against him. The spirit
of Israel was completely broken. Many concealed
themselves in the caverns; many crossed the Jor
dan; all were disai-med, except Saul and his son,
witii their immediate retainers. In this crisis,
Saul, now on the very confines of his kingdom at
Gilgal, found himself in the position long before
described by Sarauel; longing to exercise his royal
right of sacrifice, yet deterred by his sense of obe
dience to the prophet.* At last, on the 7th day,
he could wait no longer, but just after the sacrifice
was completed Samuel arrived, aud pronounced the
first curse, on his impetuous zeal (xiii. 5-14).
Meanwhile the adventurous exploit of Jonathan at
Michmash brought on the crisis which ultimately
drove the Philistines back t-o their own territory
[Jonathan]. It was signalized by two remark
able incidents in the life of Saul. One was the
first appearance of his madness in the rash vow
which all but cost the life of bis son (1 Sara. xiv.
24, 44). The other was the erection of his first
altar, built either to celebrate the victory, or to
expiate the savage feast of the famished people
(xiv. 35).
The expulsion of the Philistines (although not
entirely completed, xiv. 52) at once placed Saul in
a position higher than that of any previous ruler
of Israel. Probably from this time was formed
the organization -of royal state, which coiita,ined
in germ somu of the future institutions of the
monarchy. The host of 3,000 has been already
mentioned (1 Sam. xiii., xxiv. 2, xxvi. 2; comp.
1 Chr. xii. 29). Of this Abner became captain
(1 Sam. xiv. 50). A body guard was also formed
of runners and messengers (see 1 Sam. xvi. J 5, 17,
xxii. 14, 17, xxvi. 22).c Of this David was after
wards made the chief. These two were the prin
cipal officers of the com-t, and sate with Jonathan
at the king's table (1 Sam xx. 25). Another
officer is incidentally mentioned — the keeper of
the royal mules — the cumes stabuli, the "consta
ble" of the. king, such as appears in the later
monarchy (1 Chr. xxvii. 30). He is the first
instance of a foreigner employed about the court
— being an Edomite or (LXX.) Syrian, of the
name of Doeg (1 Sam. xxi. 7, xxii. 9). According
to Jewish tradition (Jer. Qu. Heb. ad loc.) he was
the servant who accompanied Saul in his pursuit
of his father's asses, who couuseled him to send
for David (ix., xvi.), and whose son ultimately
killed him (2 Sara. i. 10). The high priest of the
house ,of Ithamar (Abimelech or Ahijah) was in
attendance upon him with the ephod, when he
desired it (xiv. 3), and felt himself bound to assist
his secret commission ere (xxi. 1-9, xxii. 14).
The king himself was distinguished by a state
lot before marked in the rulers. He had a tall
spear, of the same kind as that described in the
hand of Goliath. [Arms.] This never left him
— in repose (1 Sara, xviii. 10, xix. 9); at his meals
(xx, 33); at rest (xxvi. 11), m battle (2 Sam. i. 6).

SAUL

2855

« The word may be rendered either " garrison " or
' officer ; " its meamng is uncertain.
6 The command of Samuel (x. 8) had apparently a
perpetual obligataon (xUi. 13). It had been given two
rears b«fope and in the interval they had both been at

In battle he wore a diadem on his head and a
bracelet on his arm (2 Sara. i. 10). He sate at
meals on a seat of his own facing his son (1 Sam
XX. 25; LXX.). He was received on his return
from battle by the songs of the Israelite'' women
(1 Sam. xviii. 6), amongst whom he was on such
occasions specially known as bringing back from
the enemy scarlet robes, and golden ornaments fo*
their apparel (2 Sam. i. 24).
The warlike character of his reign naturally still
predominated, and he was now able (not merely,
like his temporary predecessors, to act on the
defensive, but) to attack the neighboring tribes of
Moab, Ammon, Edom, Zobah, and finally Amalek
(xiv. 47). The war with Amalek is twice related,
first briefly (xiv. 48), and then at length (xv. 1-9).
Its chief connection with Saul's history lies in the
disobedience to the prophetical command of Sam
uel; shown in the sparing of the king, and the
retention of the spoil.
The extermination of Amalek and the subsequent
execution of Agag belong to the general question
of the raoral code of the 0. T. There is no reason
to suppose that Saul spared the king for any othei
reason than that for which he retained the spoil —
namely, to make a more splendid show at the
sacrificial thanksgiving (xv. 21). Such waa the
Jewish tradition preserved by Josephus (Ant. vi. 7,
§2), who expressly says that Agag was spared for
his stature and beauty, and such is the general
impression left by the description of the celebration
of the victory. Saul rides to the southern Carmel
in a chariot (LXX.), never mentioned elsewhere,
and sets up a monument there (Heb. "a hand,"
2 Sam. xviii. 18), whicb in the Jewish traditions
(Jerome, Qu. Heb. ad loc.) was a triumphal arch
of olives, myrtles, and palms. And in allusion to
his crowning triumph, Samuel applies to God the
phrase, " The Victory (Vulg. tnumphaior) of Israel
will neither lie nor repent'' (xv. 29; and comp.
1 Chr. xxix. 11). This second act of disobedience
called down the second curse, and the first distinct
intimation of the transference of the kingdom to a
rival. The struggle between Samuel and Saul ir
their final parting is indicated by the rent of
Samuel's robe of state, as he tears himself awa}
from Saul's grasp (for the gesture, see Joseph. Ant
vi. 7, § 5), and by the long mourning of Sarauel
for the separation — "Sarauel mourned for Saul."
" How long wilt thou mourn for Saul?" (xv. 35,
xvi. 1).
The rest of Saul's life is one long tragedy. The
frenzy, which had given indications of itself ' before,
now at times took alraost entire possession of hini.
It is described in mixed phrases as " an evil spirit
of (iod " (much as we might speak of " religious
madness "), which, when it came upon him, almost
choked or strangled hira from its violence (xvi. 14,
LXX.; Joseph. Ant.yu 8, § 2).
In this crisis David was recommended to hira by
one of the young men of his guard (in the Jewish
tradition groundlessly supposed to be Doeg. Je
rome, Qu. Heb. ad loc). From this time forward
their lives are blended together. [David.] In
Saul's better moments he never lost the strong af-

Gilgal (xi. 15). N. B. — The words "had appointed''-
(xiii. 8) are inserted in A. V.
c They were BeDJamites (1 Sam. xxii. 7 ; Joseph. Ant.
vii. 14), young, tall, and handsome (Ibid. vi. 6, § 6).
d Joseph. (Ant. vi. 10, § 1) makes the wo-m^ siiig
the praises of Saul, the maidens^^of David.

2856 SAUL
fection which he had contracted for David. " He
loved him greatly" (xvi. 21). "Saul would let
him go no more home to his father's house" (xviii.
2). " Wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse to
meat? " (xx. 27). " Is this thy voice, my son Da
vid. . . . Retuni, my son David; blessed be thou,
my son David" (xxiv. 16, xxvi. 17, 25). Occa
sionally too his prophetical gift returned, blended
with his madness. He " prophesied " or " raved "
in the midst of his house — " he prophesied and lay
down naked all day and all night " at Ramah (xix.
24). But his acts of fierce, wild zeal increased.
The massacre of the priests, with all their families"
(xxii.) — the massacre, perhaps at the same tirae,
of the Gibeonites (2 Sara. xxi. 1), and the violent
extirpation of the necromancers (1 Sam. xxviii. 3,
9), are all of the same kind. At last the monarchy
itself, which he had raised up, broke down under
the weakness of its head. The Phihstines reen
tered the countiy, and with their chariots and
horses occupied the Plain of Esdraelon. Their
camp was pitched on the southern slope of the
range now called Little Hermon, by Shunem. On
the opposite side, on Mount Giiboa, was the Israel
ite army, clinging as usual to the heights wbich
were their safety. It was near the spring of Gid
eon's encampment, hence called the spring of Harod
or " trembling " . — and now the name assumed an
evil omen, and the heart of the king as he pitched
his camp there "trembled exceedingly" (1 Sam.
xxviii. 5). In the loss of all the usual means of
consulting the Di™e will, he determined, with
that wayward mixture of superstition and religion
which marked his whole career, to apply b to one of
the necromancers who had escaped his persecution.
She was a woman Uving at Endor, on the other
Bide of Little Hermon ; she is called a woman of
" Ob," i. e. of the skin or bladder, and this the
LXX. has rendered by iyyaffrpipuBos or ventrilo
quist, and the Vulgate by Pythoness. According
to the Hebrew tradition mentioned by Jerome, she
was the mother of Abner, and hence her escape
from the general massacre of the necromancers (see
Leo AUatius, De Engastrirnytho, cap. 6, in Critici
Sacri, ii.). Volumes have been written on tbe
question, whether in the scene that follows we are
to understand an impQgture or a real apparition pf
Samuel. Eustathius and most of the Fathers take
the former view (representing it, however, as a fig
ment of the devil) ; Origen, the latter view. Au
gustine wavers. (See I.£0 Allatius, ut supra, pp.
1062-1114.) The LXX. of 1 Sam. xxvii. 7 (by
the above translation) and the A. V. (by its omis
sion of "himself" in xxviii. 14, and insertion of
" when " in xxviii. 12) lean to the former. Jose>-
phus (who pronounces a glowing eulogy on the
woman, Ani. vi. 14, §§ 2. 3), and the LXX. of
1 Chr. X. 13, to the latter. At this distance of
time it is impossible to determine the relative
amount of fraud or of reality, though the obvious
meaning of the narrative ilself tends to the hypoth
esis of some kind of apparition. She recognizes the
disguised king first by the appearance of Samuel,
seemingly from his threatening aspect or tone as
towards his enemy." Saul apparently saw nothing.

SAUL
but listened to her description of a god-like figim
of an aged man, wrapped round with the roysj op
sacred roiie.'-'
On hearing the denunciation wbich the appa.
rition conveyed, Saul fell the whole length of hlg
gigantic stature (see xxviii. 20, margui) oh the
ground, and remained motionless till the woman
and his servants forced him to eat.
The next day the battle came on, ajid according
to Josephus (Ant. vi. 14, § 7), perhaps according
to the spirit of the sacred narrative, tis courage
and self-devotion returned. The Israehtes were
driven up the side of Giiboa. The three sons of
Saul were slain (1 Sam. xxxi. 2). Saul himself
with his armor-bearer was pursued by the archers
and the charioteers of the enemy (1 Sam. xxxi. 3;
2 Sam. i. 6). He was woundel in the stomach
(LXX., 1 Sam. xxxi. 3). His shield was castaway
(2 Sam. i. 21). According to one account, he feH
upon his owu sword (1 Sam. xxxi. i). According
to another account (which may be reconciled with
the former by supposing that it describes a later
incident), an Amalekite « came up at the moment
of his death-wound (whether from himself or the
enemy), and found him " fallen," but leaning on
his spear (2 Sam. i. 6, 10). The dizziness of death
was gathered over him (LXX., 2 Sam. i. 9), bnt
he was still alive; and he was, at his own request,
put out of his pain by the Amalekite, who took ofi
his royal diadem and bracelet, and carried the news
to David (2 Sam. i. 7-10). JSTot till then, accord
ing to Josephus (Ant. vi. 14, § 7), did the faithful
armor-bearer fall on his sword and die with him
(1 Sam. xxxi. 5). The body on being found by
the Phihstines was stripped, and decapitated. The
armor was sent into the Philistine cities, a£ if in
retribution for the spoliation of Goliath, and finally
deposited in the temple of Astarte, apparently in
the neighboring Canaanitish city of Beth.«han ; and
over the walls of the same city was hung the naked,
headless corpse, with those of bis three sons (w. 9,
10). The head was deposited (probably at Ash
dod) in the temple of Dagon (1 Chr. x. 10). The
corpse was removed from Beth-shan by the gratitiide
of the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead, who came over
the Jordan by night, carried off the bodies, burnt
them, and buried them under the tamarisk at Ja
besh (1 Sam. xxxi. 13). Thence, after the lapse of
several years, his ashes and those of Jonathan were
removed by David to their ancestral sepulchre at
Zelah in Benjamin (2 Sam. xxi. 14). [Mephi
bosheth, vol. iii. p. 1889 b.] A. P. S.
* On the history and character of Saul may be
mentioned Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes IsraA,
3e Ausg. (1866), iii. 22-76; Nagelsbach, art. iSaui,
in Herzog's ReaUEncyk. xiii. 432-437; Wunder-
lich, in Zeller's Bibl. Pf%-ier6. ii. 407-9 ; Bishop
Hall, Contemplations on Uie 0. and N. Teslameiilt,
bks. aii.-xv; Milman, History ofthe Jews, i. 315-
331 (N. Y. 1865); Stanley, writer ofthe preceding
sketch, " House of Saul," in his Lectures on the
Jewish Church, ii. 1-44; and Archbishop Trench,
Shipwrecks of Faith: Three Sermons preached
before the University of Cambridge in May, 1867.
This last writer has drawn a sad picture of the con-

a This is placed by Josephus as the climax of his for, not hating, Saul. Had the massacre of the prieflti

guilt, brought on by the intoxication of power t.Ant.
rl. 12, § 7).
6 His companions were Abner and Amasa (Seder
Ham, Meyer, p. 492).
c When we last heard of Samuel he was mourning

and the persecution of David (xix. 18} alienated hilQ
<i 'IcpaTUcqi/ Si-irXotSn. (Joseph. AtU. vi. 14, § i).
e According to the Jewish tradition (Jerome, (^
Heb. ad loo.), be was tbe son of Doeg.

SAVARAN
iKist between the beginning and the close of Saul's
career. All the finer and nobler elements of his
character displayed themselves at the outset of his
eventful life; while at the end we have before us
the mournful spectacle of " the gradual breaking
down under the wear and the tear of the world,
under the influence of unresisted temptations, of a
lofty soul: the unworthy close of a life worthily
begun." H.
3. The Jewish name of St. Paul. This was
the most distinguished narae in the genealogies of
the tribe of Benjamin, to which the Apostle felt
some pride in belonging (Kom. xi. 1; Phil. iii. 5).
He himself leads us to associate his name with that
of the Jewish king, by the marked way in which he
mentions Saul in his address at the Pisidian Anti
och : " God gave unto them Saul the sou of Cis, a
man of the tribe of Benjamin " (Acts xiii. 21).
These indications are in harmony with the intensely
Jewish spirit of which tbe life of the .(Vpostle ex
hibits so many signs. [Paul.] The early ecclesi
astical writers did not fail to notice the prominence
thus given by St. Paul to his tribe. TertuUian
(adv. Marc. v. 1) applies, to him the dying words
of Jacob on Benjamin. And Jerome, in his Epi-
taphium Paulce (§ 8), aUuding to the preservation
of the six hundred men of Benjamin after the af
fair of Gibeah (Judg. xx. 49), speaks of them as
" trecentos (sic) viros propter Aposlolum reserva-
tos." Compare the article on Benjamin (vol. i.
p. 279 a).
Nothing certain is known about the change of
the Apostle's name from Saul to Paul (Acts xiii.
9), to which reference has been already made.
[Paul, vol. iii. p. 2369 a.] Two chief conject
ures" prevail concerning the change. (1.) "That
of Jerome and Augustine, that the name was de-
rived from Sergius Paulus, the first of his Gen^
tile converts. (2.) That which appears due to
Lightfoot, that Paulus was the Apostle's Homan
name as a citizen of Tarsus, naturally adopted into
common use by his biographer when his labors
among the heathen commenced. The former of
these is ^opted by Olshausen and Meyer. It is
also the view of Ewald (Gesch. vi. 419, 420), who
seems to consider it self-evident, and looks on the
absence of any explanation of the change as a proof
that it was so understood by all the readers of the
Acts. [See vol. ni. p. 2369 a, and note, Amer.
ed.] However this may be, after Saul has taken
hia place definitively as the Apostle to the Gentile
v^orld, his JTewish name is entirely dropped. Two
divisions of his Ufe are well marked by the use of
the two names. J. LL D.
SAVARAN (i Savapdv; [Sin. o AvpaV,
Oomp. with 4 MSS. Avapav] fiHus Saura, Avar-
rum t), an erroneous form of the title Avaran,
borne by Eleazar the son of Mattathias, whioh is
found in the coramon texts in 1 Mace. vi. 43.
[Eleazar 8, vol. i. p. 695 a.] B. F. W.
SAVI'AS (om. in Vat.; Alex. Saowi'a; om. in
Vulg.). Uzzi the ancestor of Ezra (1 Esdr. viii.
2; comp. Ezr. vu. 4).
'f. SAVIOUR. The following article, together
with the one on the Son ok God, forms the com
plement to the life of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[See vol. ii. p. 1437.] An explanation is first
^ There are many other theories, one of which may
be mentioned ; that of Nicephorus (Hist. Eccl. ii. 37),
who treats Paulus as a contraction of Pusillus, and
180

SAVIOUR 2857
given of the word " Saviour," and then of his um-k
of salvation, as unfolded and taught in the New
Testament. [See also Messiah.]
I. The Word Saviour. — The term " Sav
iour," as applied to our Lord Jesus Christ, repre
sents the Greek sbter (awTiip), which in turn rep
resents certain derivatives from the Hebrew root
ydsh'a (V'W^): particularly the participle qf the
HiphU form moshi'a (S''ti.''1I2): which is usuaUy
rendered " Saviour " in the A. V. (c. g. Is. xiv.
15, xlix. 26). In considering the true import of
" Saviour," it is essential for us to exaraine the
original terms answering to it, including in our
view the use of sdter in the LXX., whence it was
more immediately derived by the writers of the
New Testament, and further noticing the cognate
terras "to save" and "salvation," which express
respectively the action and the results of the Sav
iour's ofiice. (1.) The first point to be observed is
that the term sbter is of raore frequent occurrence
in the LXX. than the term " Saviour " in the
A. V. of the Old Testaraent. It represents not
only the word 7n6shVa above mentioned, but also
very frequently the nouns yesh'a {VW^} and ySshi'dh
(ilV^W^y. which, though properly expressive of
the abstract notion " salvation," are yet sometimes
used in a concrete sense for " Saviour." We may
cite as an exaraple. Is. Ixu. 11, " Behold, thy salva
tion cometh, his reward is with him," where evi
dently " salvation " = Saviour. So again in pas
sages where these terms are connected immediately
with the person of the Godhead, as in Ps. Ixviii.
20, " the God our Saviour " (A. V. " God of our
salvation "). Not only in such cases as these, but
in many others where the sense does not require it,
the LXX. has sdter where the A. V. has " salva
tion;" and thus the word " Saviour " was more
familiar to the ear of the reader of the Old Testa
ment in our Lord's age than it is to us. (2.) The
same observation holds good with regard to the
verb (TtJo^eiv, and the substantive oojTTjpia, as used
in the LXX. An examination of the passages in
which they occur shows that they stand as equiva
lents for words conveying the notions of well-being,
succor, peace, and the like. We have further to
notice a-ojTTtpta in the sense of recovery of the bod
ily health (2 Mace. iii. 32), together with the ety
mological connection supposed to exist between the
terms ffiar^p and (T&pa, to which ' St. Paul evi
dently aUudes in Eph. v. 23; Phil. iii. 20, 21. (3.)
If we turn to the Hebrew terms, we cannot fail to
be struck with their comprehensiveness. Our verb
" to save " impUes, in its ordinary sense, the res
cue of a person from actual or impending danger.
This is undoubtedly included in the Hebrew root
ydsh^a, and may be said to be its ordinary .sense, as
testified by the frequent accompaniment of the
preposition min (^13; corapare the iTd)iTei ani
which the angel gives in explanation of the name
Jesus, Matt. i. 21). But yash'a, beyond this, ex
presses assistance and protection of every kind .
assistance in aggressive measures, protection against
attack; and, in a secondary sense, the results of
such assistance — victory, safety, prosperity, and
happiness. We may cite as an instance of the ag-

supposes it to have been a nickname given to th«
Apostle on account of his insignificant stature- 1

2858

SAVIOUR

gressive sense, Deut. xx. 4, " to fight for you
against your enemies, to save you; " ol protection
against attack. Is. xxvi. 1, " salvation wiU God ap
point for walls and bulwarks;" of victory, 2 Sam.
viii. 6, " The Lord preserved David," i. e. gave
him victory ; of prosperity and happiness. Is. Ix.
18, " Thou shalt caU thy waUs Salvation ; " Is. Ixi.
10, " He hath clothed me with the garments of
salvation." No better instance of this last sense
can be adduced than the exclamation " Hosanna,"
meaning, " Save, I beseech thee," which was uttered
as a prayer for God's blessing on any joyous occa
sion (Ps. cxviii. 25), as at our Lord's entry into
Jerusalem, when the etymological connection of the
terms Hosanna and Jesus could not have been lost
on the ear of the Hebrew (Matt. xxi. 9, 15). It
thus appears that the Hebrew and Greek terms had
their positive as well as their negative side, in other
words that they expressed the presence of blessing
as well as the- absence of danger, actual security as
well as the removal of insecurity.'* (4.) The histor
ical personages to whom the terms are applied fur
ther iUustrate this view. The judges are styled
^'saviours," as having rescued their country from a
state of bondage (Judg. ui. 9, 15, A. V. " deliv
erer;" Neh. ix. 27); a "saviour" was subse
quently raised up in the person of Jeroboam H. to
deliver Israil from the Syrians (2 K. xiii. 5); and
in the same sense Josephus styles the deUverance
from Egypt a "salvation" (Ant. iii. 1, § 1).
Joshua on the other hand verified the promise con
tained in his name by his conquests over the Ca
naanites : the Lord was his helper in an aggressive
sense. SimiLirly the office of the " saviours " prom
ised in Obad. 21 was to execute vengeance on Edom.
Jhe names Isaiah, Jeshua, Ishi, Hosea, Hoshea,
and lastly, Jesus, are all expressive of the general
idea of assistance from the Lord. The Greek sbter
was in a similar manner applied in the double sense
of a deliverer from foreign foes as in tbe case of
Ptolemy Soter, and a general protecter, as in the
nuraerous instances where it was appended as the
title of heathen deities. (5.) There are nuraerous
indications in the 0. T. that the idea of a spiritual
salvation, to be effected by God alone, was hy no
means foreign to the mind of the pious Hebrew.
In the Psalms there are numerous petitions to God
to save from the effects of sin (e. g. xxxix. 8, Ixxix.
9). Isaiah in particular appropriates the term
•'saviour" to Jehovah (xliii. 11), and connects it
with the notions of justice and righteousness (xiv.
21, Ix. 16, 17): he adduces it as the special manner
in which Jehovah reveals Himself te man (xiv. 15):
he hints at the raeans to be adopted for effecting
salvation in passages where he connects the term
"saviour" with "redeemer" (goel), as in xii. 14,
xlix. 20, Ix. 16, and again with "ransom," as in
xUii. 3. Similar notices are scattered over the pro
phetical books (e. g. Zech. ix. 9; Hos. i. 7), and
though in many instances these notices admitted
of a reference to proximate events of a temporal
nature, they evidently looked to higher things, and
thus fostered in the mind of the Hebrew the idea

SAVIOUR
of a "Saviour" who should far surpass in hii
achievements the " saviours " that had as yet ap.
peared. The mere sound of the word would conjuit
up before his imagination visions of deUverance, se
curity, peace, and prosperity.
II; The Work ov the Saviouk. — 1. The
three first Evangelists, as we know, agree in show
ing that Jesus unfolded his message to the disci
ples by degrees. He wrought the miracles that
were to be the credentials of the Messiah ; He laid
down the great principles of the Gospel moraUty,
until He had estabUshed in the rainds of the
Twelve the conviction that He was the Christ of
God. Then as the clouds of doom grew darker,
and the malice of the Jews became more intense,
He turned a new page in his teaching. Drawing
from his disciples the confession of their fiiith in
Him as Christ, He then passed abraptly, so t»
speak, te the truth that remained to be learned in
the last few months of his ministry, that his work
included suffering as well as teacliing (Matt. xvi.
20, 21). He was instant in pressing this unpal
atable doctrine home to his disciples, from this
time to the end. Four occasions when He proph
esied his bitter death are on record, and they
are probably only examples out of many more
(Matt. xvi. 21). We grant that in none of theso
places does the word " sacrifice" occur; and that
the mode of speaking is somewhat obscure, as ad
dressed to rainds unprepared, even then, to bear the
full weight of a doctrine so repugnant to their
hopes. But that He must (Sei) go and meet death;
that the powers of sin and of tliis world are let
loose against Hira for a time, so that He shaU be
betrayed to the Jews, rejected, delivered by them to
the Gentiles, and by them be mocked and scourged,
crucified, and slain ; and that all this shaU be done
to achieve a foreseen work, and accomphsh all things
written of Him by the prophets — these we do cer
tainly find. They invest the death of Jesus with a
peculiar significance; they set the mind inquhing
what the meaning can be of this hard necessity that
is laid on Him. For the answer we look to other
places ; but at least there is here no contradiction
to the doctrine of sacrifice, though the Lord does
not yet say, " I bear the wrath of God against yonr
sins in your stead ; I become a curse for you." Of
the two sides of this mysterious doctrine, — that
Jesus dies for us wiUingly, and that He dies to bear
a doom laid on Him as of necessity, because sorae
one must bear it, — it is the latter side that is made
prominent. In all the passages it pleases Jesus to
speak, not of his desire to die, but of the burden
laid on Him, and the power given to others againit
Him. 2. Had the doctrine been explained no further,
there would have been rauch to wait for. But the
series of announcements in tliese passages leads up
to one more definite and complete. It cannot be
denied that the words of the institution of the
lord's Supper speak raost distinctly of a sacrifice.
" Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the
new covenant," or, to foUow St. Luke, " the new

a The Latin language possessed in the classical pe
riod no proper equivalent for the Greek aiarrip. This
appears from the introduction of the Greek word itself
la a Latinized form, and from Cicero's remark (i.n Verr.
Act. 2, ii. 63) that there waa no one word which ex
pressed the notion qui salutem dedit. Tacitus (Ann.
XV. 71) uses consnvalor, and Pliny (xxii. 5) srrvator.
Fbe t«rm salvator appeara appended as a title of Jupi

ter in an inscription of the age of Trajan (Gruter, p
19, No. 6). This was adopted by Christian writen «
the most adequate equivalent for aiarrip, though ob
jections were evidently raised against it {AugustiD,
Serm. 299, § 6). Another term, saliilifiraM, ««
occasionally used by Tcrtnllian (De Resurr. C"*
c. 47 ; De Cam. Oir. c. 14).

SAVIOUR
ecvenant in my blood." We are carried back by
these words to the first covenant, to the altar with
twelve pilliirs, and the burnt offerings and peace-
offerings of oxen, and the blood of the victims
sprinkled on tlie altar and on the people, and the
words of Moses as he sprinkled it : " Behold the
blood of the covenant wliich the Lord hath raade
with you concerning all these words" (Ex. xxiv.).
No interpreter has ever failed to draw frora these
passages the true meaning: " When my sacrifice is
accomplished, my blood shall be the sanction of the
new covenant." The word "sacrifice" is wanting;
but sacrifice and nothing else is described. And
the words are no mere figure used for illustration,
and laid aside when they have served that turn,
"Do this in reraembrance of j\le." They are the
words in which the Church is to interpret the act
of Jesus to the end of time. They are reproduced
exactly by St. Paul (1 Cor. xi. 25). Then, as
now. Christians met together, and by a soleran
act declared that they counted the blood of Jesus
as a sacrifice wherein n new covenant was sealed ;
and of the blood of that sacrifice they partook by
faith, professing themselves thereby wilUng to enter
the covenant and be sprinkled with the blood.
3. So far we have examined the three " synop
tic" Gospels. They follow a historical order. In
the early chapters of all three the doctrine of our
Lord's sacrifice is not found, because He will first
answer the question about Himself, " Who is
this?" before He shows them "What is bis
work?" But at length the announcement is
made, enforced, repeated; until, when the feet of
the betrayer are ready for their wicked eiTand, a
command is given which secures that the death of
Jesus sball be described forever as a sacrifice and
nothing else, sealing a new covenant, and carry
ing good to many. Lest the doctrine of Atone
ment should seem to be an afterthought, as indeed
De Wette has tried to represent it, St. John pre
serves the conversation witli Nicodemus, which took
place early in the ministry; and there, under the
figure of the brazen serpent lifted up, the atoning
virtue of the Lord's death is fully set forth. " As
Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even
so must the Son of Man be lifted up ; that whoso
ever beUeveth in Him should not perish, but have
eternal Ufe " (John iii. 14, 15). As in this inter
cessory act, the image of the deadly, hateful, and
accursed (Gen. iii. 14, 15) reptile became by God's
decree the means of health to all who looked on it
earnestly, so does Jesus in the form of sinful man,
of a deceiver of the people (Matt, xxvii. 63), of An
tichrist (Matt. xii. 24; John xvUi. 83), of one ac
cursed (Gal. iii. 13), become the means of our sal
vation; so that whoever fastens the earnest gaze of
Iaith on Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
There is even a significance in the word " lifted
up ; " the Lord used probably the word f]pf,
which in older Hebrew meant to hft up in the
widest sense, but began in the Aramaic to have the
restricted nieaning of lifting up for punishment."
With Christ the lifting up was a seeming disgrace,
> true triumph and elevation. But the context in
which these verses occur is as important as the

SAVIOUR

2859

a So Tholttck, and Knapp {Opuscula, i. 217). The
treatiBti of Knapp on this discourse is valuable
throughout. 6 Some, omitting 1)1/ e-yw Soio-u, would read, " And
WS flesh is the bread that I will give for the hfe of the

verses themselves. Nicodemus comes as an in
quirer ; he is told that a mau must be born again,
and then he is directed to tlie death of Jesus as the
means of that regeneration. The earnest gaze of
the wounded soul is to be the condition of its cure
and that gaze is to be turned, not to Jesus on the
mountain, or in the Temple, but on the Cross.
This, then, is no passing allusion, but it is the sub
stance of the Christian reaching addressed to an
earnest seeker after truth.
Another passage claims a reverent attention —
*' If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for
ever, and the bread that I will give is my flesh,
which I will give for the life of the world " (John
vi. 51). He is the bread; and He will give the
bread.'' If his presence on earth were the expected
food, it was given already ; but would He speak of
"drinking his blood" (ver. 53), which can only
refer to the dead ? It is on the cross that He will
afford this food to his disciples. We grant that
this whole passage has occasioned as much dis
puting among Christian commentators as it did
among the Jews who heard it; and for the same
reason, — for the hardness of the saying. But
there stands the saying; and no candid person can
refuse to see a reference in it to the death of Him
that speaks.
In that discourse, which has well been called the
Prayer of Consecration offered by our High Priest,
there is another pas^e which cannot be alleged as
evidence to one who thinks that any word applied
by Jesus to his disciples and Himself must liear in
both cases precisely the sarae sense, but which ia
really pertinent to this inquiry: "Sanctify them
through thy truth : thy word is truth. As Thou ¦
hast sent Me into the world, even so have I also
sent them into the world. And for their sakes I
sanctify Myself, that they also might be sanctified
through the truth " (John xvii. 17-19). The word
hyid^^Lv, "sanctify," "consecrate," is used in the
LXX. for the offering of sacrifice (Lev. xxii. 2),
and for the dedication of a man to the Divine ser
vice (Num. iii. 15). Here the present tense "1
consecrate," used in a discourse in which our Lord
says He is " no more in the world," is conclusive
against the interpretation "I dedicate my Ufe to
Thee; " for life is over. No self- dedication, except
that by death, can now be spoken of as present.
"I dedicate Myself to Thee, in my death, that
these may be a people consecrated to Thee; " such
is the great thought in this sublime passage, which
suits well with his other declaration, that the blood
of his sacrifice sprinkles them for a new covenant
with God. To the great majority of expositora
from Chrysostom and Cyril, the doctrine of recon
ciliation through the death of Jesus is asserted in
these verses.
The Redeemer has already described Himself as
the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for the
sheep (John x. 11, 17, 18), taking care to disthi-
guish his death from that of one who dies against
his will in striving to compass some other airai
" Therefore doth my Father love Me, because I lay
down my life that I might take it again. No man
taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself.
I have power to lay it down, and I have power to
take it again."

world." So Tertullian seems to have read " PanU
quem ego dedero pro salute mundi caro mea eat."
The sense is the same with the omission ; but tha r»
ceived reading may be successfully defended.

2860

SAVIOUR

Other passages that relate to his death will occur
to the memory of any Bible reader. The corn of
wheat that dies in the ground to bear much fruit
(John xii. 24) is explained by his own words else-
vfhere, where He says that He came "to minister,
and to give his life a ransom for many" (Matt.
|cx. 28).
4. Thus, then, speaks Jesus of Himself. What
say his witnes.ses of Him ? " Behold the Lamb
of God," says the Baptist, " which taketh away
the sin of the world " (John i. 29). Commentators
differ about the allusion implied in that name. But
take any one of their opinions, and a sacrifice is
impUed. Is it the Paschal lamb that is referred
to 'i' Is it the lamb of the daily sacrifice ? Either
jvay the death of the victim is brought before us.
But the allusion in all probabiUty is to the well-
known prophecy of Isaiah (lui.) to the Lamb
brought to the slaughter, who hore our griefs and
carried our son-ows.**
5. The Apostles after the Resurrection preach no
luoral system, but a beUef in and love of Christ,
the crucified and risen Lord, through whom, if
they repent, men shall obtain salvation. This was
Peter's preaching on the day of Pentecost (Acts
ii.); and he appealed boldly to the prophets on the
ground of an expectation of a suffering Messiah
(Acts iii. 18). PhiUp traced out for the Eunuch,
in that picture of sufiering hoUness in the well-
|uiown chapter of Isaiah, the lineaments of Jesus
of Nazareth (Acts viii.; Is. liii.). The first ser
mon to a Gentile household proclaimed Christ slain
and risen, and added " that through his name
whosoever believeth in Him shaU receive remission
of sins " (Acts x.). Paul at Antioch preaches " a
Saviour . Jesus " (Acts xiii. 23); "through this
Man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins,
and by Him all that believe are justified frora all
things from which ye could not be justified hy the
Law of Moses " (Acts xiii. 38, 39). At The8,sa-
lonica aU that we learn of this Apostle's preaching
is " that Christ must needs have suffered and risen
again from the dead ; and that this Jesus, whom I
preach unto you, is Christ " (Acts xvii. 3). Before
Agrippa he declared that he had preached always
" that Christ should suffer, and that He should be
the first that should rise from the dead " (Acts
«xvi. 23); and it waa this deckration that con-
yinces his royal hearer that he was a ci'.azed fanatic.
The account of the first founding of the Church
in the Acts of the Apostles is concise and frag
mentary; and sometimes we have hardly any means
of judging what place the sufferings of Jesus held
in the teaching of the Apostles ; but when we read
that they " preached Jesus," or the Uke, it is only
fair to infer from other passages that the Cross
of Christ was never concealed, whether Jews, or
Greeks, or barbarians were the listeners. And this
very pertinacity shows how much weight they at
tached to the facts of the life of our Lord. They
did not merely repeat in each new place the pure
morality of Jesus as He uttered it in the Sermon
on the Mount: of such lessons we have no record.
They, took in their hands, as the strongest weapon,
the fact that a certain Jew crucified afar off in

SAVIOUR
Jerusalem was the Son of God, who had died to
save men from their sins ; and they oifeted to all
alike an interest, through faith, in the resurrection
fi'om the dead of this outcast of his own people.
No wonder that Jews and Greeks, judging in their
worldly way, thought this strain of preaching came
of foUy or madness, and turned from what thej
thought unmeaning jargon.
6. We are able to complete frora the epistles our
account of the teaching of the Apostles on the doc
trine of Atonement. " The Man Christ Jesus" is
the Mediator between God and man, for in Him the
human nature, in its sinless purify, is lifted up to
the Divine, so that He, exempt from guilt, can
plead for the guUty (1 Tim. ii. 5; 1 John ii. 1, 2;
Heb. vii. 28). Thus He is the second Adam that
shall redeem the sin of tbe first; the intereatsiof
men are bound up in Hira, since He has power tc
take them all into Himself (Eph. v. 29, 30; Roni.
xii. 5; 1 Cor. xv. 22; liom. v. 12, 17). This sal
vation waa provided by the Father, to " reconcile
us to Himself" (2 Cor. v. 18), to whom the name
of "Saviour" thus belongs (Luke i. 47); and our
redemption ia a signal proof of the love of God to
us (1 John iv. 10). Not less is it a proof of the
love of Jesus, since He freely lays down his life for
— oflers it as a precious gift, capable ot pur
chasing all the lost (1 Tim. ii. ti ; Tit. ii. 14; Eph.
i. 7. Comp. Matt. xx. 28). But there is another
side of the truth more painful to our natural rea*
son. How came this exhibition of Divine telo
be needed V Because wrath had aheady gone out
against man. The clouds of God's anger gathered' '
thick over the whole human race ; they discharged!,'
themselves on Jesus only. God has made Him-fo
he sin for us who knew no sin (2 Cor. v. 21); He
is made "a curse" (a thing accursed) for us, that
the curse that hangs over us may be removed (Gal,
in. 13 ) ; He bore our sins in his own body on the
tree (1 Pet. ii. 24). There are those who would
see on the page of the Bible only the sunshine of
the Divine love; but the muttering thunders' of
Divine wrath against sin ai-e heard there also: and
He who alone was no child of wrath, meets the
shock of the thunderstorm, becomes a curse for ub,
and a vessel of wrath ; and the rays of love break
out of that thunder-gloom, and shine on the bowed
head of Him who hangs on the Cross, dead for our
sins. We have spoken, and advisedly, as if the Ne»
Testament were, as to this doctrine, one book in
harmony with itself. That there are in the New _
Testament diflTerent types of the one true doctrine,';;
may be admitted without peril to the doctrine.
The principal types are four in number.
7. In the Epistle of James there is a remarkshle .
absence of all explanations of the doctrine of tbe
Atonement; but this arlmission does not amountfn
so much as may at first appear. I'rue, the key
note of the epistle is that the Gospel is the Law
made perfect, and that it is a practical moral sys
tem, in whieli man finds himself free to keep tbe
Divine Law. But with him Christ is no mere
Lawgiver appointed to impart the Jewish 8)'8teni.
He knows that Elias is a man like himself, but of

« See this passage discussed fully in the notes of
Meyer, la.i:ige(Bibelwerle), and Alford. The reference
Co the Paschal lamb finds favor with Grotius and
others ; the reference to Isaiah is approved by Ohry-
mttom and mauy others. The taking away of sin
(aipeiv) of the Bajtist, and the bearing it (^ipeiv,

LXX.) of Isaiah, have one meaning, and answer to the
Hebrew word SE?3. To take l;he sins on Himself il
T T
to remove them from the sinners ; and how caalhlt: '
be through tiis death except in the way of explstbl
by that death itself!

SAVIOUR
the Person of Christ he speaks in a different spirit.
He calls hiraself " a servant of God and of the
I^rd Jesus Christ," who is "the Lord of Glory."
He speaks of the Word of Truth, of which Jesus
has been the utterer. He knows that faith in the
Lord of Glory is inconsistent with time-serving
And "respect of persons " (James i. 1, ii. 1, i. 18).
"There is one Lawgiver," he says, "who is able
to save and to destroy" (James iv. 12); and this
refers no doubt to Jesus, whose second coming he
holds up as a motive to obedience (James v. 7-9).
These and like expressions remove this epistle far
out of the spliere of Ebionitish teaching. The
inspired writer sees the Saviour, in the Father's
glory, preparing to return to judge the quick and
dead. He puts forth Christ as Prophet and King,
for he makes Him Teacher and Judge of the
world; but the oflEice of the Priest he does not
dwell on. Far be it from us to say that he knows
it not. Something must have taken place before
he could treat his hearers with confidence, as free
creatures, able to resist temptations, and even to
meet temptations with joy. He treats " your
foith" as something founded already, not to be
prepared by this epistle (James i. 2, 3, 21). His
purpose is a purely practical one. There is no
intention to unfold a Christology, such as that
which makes the Epistle to the Romans so valu
able. Assuming that Jesus has manifested Him
self, and begotten anew the human race, he seeks
to make them pray with undivided hearts, and
be considerate to the poor, and strive with lusts,
for which they and not God are responsible; and
bridle their tongues, and show their fruits by their
works." 8. In the teaching of St. Peter the doctrine of
the Person of our Lord is coiuiected strictly with
that of his work as Saviour and Messiah. The
frequent raention of his sufferings shows the prom
inent place he would give them ; and he puts for
ward as the ground of his own right to teach, that
he was " a witness of the sufferings of Christ
(1 Pet. v. 1). The atoning virtue of those suf
ferings he dwells on with peculiar emphasis ; and
not less so on the purifying influence of the Atone
ment on the hearts of believers. He repeats again
and again that Christ died for us (1 Pet. ii. 21,
iii. 18, iv, 1); that He bare our sins in his own
body on the tree'' (1 Pet. ii. 24). He bare them;
and what does this phrase suggest, but the goat
that "shall bear" the iniquities of the people off
into the land that was not inhabited ? (Lev. xvi.
22) or else the feeling the consequences of sin, as
the word is used elsewhere (Lev. xx. 17, 19) ? We
have to choose between the cognate ideas of sacri
fice and substitution. Closely allied with these
statements are those which connect moral reforma
tion with the death of Jesus. He bare our sins
that we might live unto righteousness. His death
u our life. We are not to be content with a self-
satisfied contemplation of our redeemed state, but
to live a life worthy of it (1 Pet. ii. 21-25, iii.
15-18). In these passages the whole Gospel is
wntained; we are justified by the death of Jesus,
rho bore our sins that we might be sanctified and

SAVIOUR

286J

<* See Neander, Pflanzung, b. vi. c. 3 [Robinson's
ransl. p. 498 tf.] ; Schmid, Tlieotogie des N. T., part
i. ; and Doraer, Gmstologie,'\ 95.
b If there were any doubt that "for us " {inep
\}uav) means "in our stead" (see ver. 21). this 24th
Vvrse, which explaios the former, would set it at rest.

renewed to a life of godUness. And from thi.
Apostle we hear again the narae of " the Lamb,"
as well as frora John the Baptist; and the passage
of Isaiah comes back upon us with unmistakable
clearness. "We are redeemed "with the precious
blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and
without spot " (1 Pet. i. 18, 19, with Is. liii. 7).
Every word carries us back to the Old Testament
and ite saerlficial system : the spotless victim, the
release from sin by its blood (elsewhere, i. 2, by
the sprinkling of its blood), are here; not the type
and shadow, but the truth of them; not a cere
monial purgation, but an efiectuai reconcilement of
man and God.
9. In the inspired writings of John we are struck
at once with the emphatic statements as to the
Divine and human natures of Christ. A right
belief in the incarnation is the test of a Christian
man (1 John iv. 2; John i. 14; 2 John 7); we
must believe that Jesus Christ is come in the ileshy
and that He is manifested to destroy the works of
the devil (1 John iii. 8). And, on the other hand,
He who has come in the flesh is the One who alone
has been in the bosom of the Father, seen the
things that human eyes have never seen, and has
come to declare them unto us (1 John i. 2, iv. 14;
John i. 14-18). This Person, at once Divine and
human, is "the propitiation for our sins," our
" Advocate with the Father," sent into the world
"that we raight Uve through Him;" and the
means was his kying down his life for us, which
should make us ready to lay down our lives for
the brethren (1 John ii. 1, 2, iv. 9, 10, v. 11-13,
iii. 16, v. 6, i. 7; John xi. 51). And the moral
effect of his redemption is, that " the blood of
Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin" (I John
i. 7 ). The intimate connection between his work
and our hoUness is the main subject of his first
epistle : " Whosoever is born of God doth not
comrait sin" (1 John iii. 9). As with St. Peter,
so with St. John; every point of the doctrine of
the Atonement comes out with abundant clearness:
the substitution of another who can bear our sins,
for us who cannot ; the sufferings and death as the
means of our redemption, our justification thereby,
and our progress in hoUness as the result of our
justification. 10. To follow out as fully, in the more volumi
nous writings of St. Paul, the passages that .speak
of our salvation, would far transgress the limits of
our paper. Man, according to this Apostle, is a
transgressor of the Law. His conscience tells him
that he cannot act up to that Law which, the same
conscience admits, is Divine, and binding upon
him. Through the old dispensations raan remained
in this condition. Even the Law of Moses could
ilot justify him: it only by its strict behests held
up a mirror to conscience that its frailness might
be seen. Christ came, sent by the mercy of our
Father who had never forgotten us; given to, not
deserved by us. He came to reconcile men and
God by dying on the Cross for them, and bearing
their punishment in their stead c (2 Cor. v. 14-21;
Rom. V. 6-8). He is "a propitiation through
faith in his blood " (Rom. iii. 25, 26. Compare

[Tt may be the inferential, but not direct force of Inrep
(comp.' Philip, i. 29). See Winer, N. T. Or., 7th ed.,
pp. 332, 383 (Thayer's trans. 1889). — H.]
c These two passages are decisive as to the tact
of substitution ; tbey might be fortified with many
others.

2862

SAVIOUE

Lev. xvi. 15. 'Waaripiov means "victim for
3xpiation"): words which most people wiU find
unintelligible, except in reference to the Old Testa
ment and its sacrifices. He is the ransom, or price
paid, for the redemption of man from all iniquity "
(Titus ii. 14). The wrath of God was against
man, but it did not fall on man. (jod made his
Son " to be sin for us " though He knew no sin,
and Jesus suffered though men had sinned. By
this act God and man were reconciled (Rom. v. 10;
2 Cor. V. 18-20; Eph. ii 16; Col. i. 21). On
the side of man, trust and love and hope take the
place of fear and of an evil conscience ; on the side
of God, that terrible wrath of his, which is re
vealed from heaven against aU ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, is tumed away (Rom. i.
18, V. 9; 1 Thess. i. 10). The question whether
we are reconciled to God only, or God is also rec
onciled to us, might be discussed on deep meta
physical grounds ; but we purposely leave that on
one side, content to show that at all events the in
tention of God to punish man is averted by this
" propitiation " and " reconcilement."
11. Diflferent views are held about the author
ship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, by modern
critics; out its numerous points of contact with
the other epistles of St. Paul must be recognized.
In both, the incompleteness of Judaism is dwelt on ;
redemption from sin and guilt is what religion has
to do for men, and this the Law failed to secure.
In both, reconciliation and forgiveness and a new
moral power in the beUevers are the fruits of the
work of Jesus. In the Epistle to the Romans,
Paul shows that the Law failed to justify, and
that faith in the blood of Jesus must be the ground
of justification. In the Epistle to the Hebrews the
same result follows from an argument rather dif
ferent: all that the Jewish system aimed to do is
accompUshed in Christ in a far more perfect manner.
The Gospel has a better Priest, more effectual sacri
fices, a more profound peace. In tbe one epistle
the Law seems set aside wholly for the systera of
faith ; in the other the Law is exalted and glorified
in its Gospel shape; but the aim is precisely the
same — to show thb weakness of the Law and the
efiectuai fruit of the Gospel.
12. We are now in a position to see how far the
teaching of the New Testament on the effects of the
death of Jesus is continuous and consistent. Are
the declarations of our Lord about Himself the
same as those of James and Peter, John and Paul?
and are those of the Apostles consistent with each
other V The several points of this mysterious trans
action may be thus ronghly described : —
(1.) God sent his Son into the world to redeem
lost and ruined man frora sin and death, and the
Son willingly took upon Him the form of a servant
for this purpose ; and thus the Father and the Son
manifested their love for us.
(2. ) God the Father laid upon his Son the weight
of the sins of the whole world, so that He bare hi
his own body the wrath which raen must else have
borne, because there was no other way of escape for
them : and thus the Atonement was a manifestation
of Divine justice.
(3.) The effect of the Atonement thus wrought
Is, that man is placed in a new position, freed from
Jie dominion of sin, and able to follow hoUness;

a still stronger in 1 Tim. ii. 6, "ransom instead
rf " (avrikMrpov). Also Eph. i. 7 (aTroAvrputrts) ; 1 Cor.
ri. 20, vil. 28.

SAVIOUK
and thus the doctrine of the Atonement ought t
work in all the hearers a sense of love, of obedieuoi
and of iself-saorifice.
In shorter words, the sacrifice of the death oi
Christ is a proof of Divine love, and of Divine jm
lice, and is for Us a document of obedience.
Of the four great writers of the New Testament
Peter, Paul, and John set forth every one of thesi
points. Peter, the "witness of the sufferings, ol
Christ," tells us that we are redeemed witi thi
blood of Jesus, as of a lamb without blemish, am
without spot ; says that Christ bare our sins in hi
own body on the tree. If we " have tasted thai
the Lord is gracious" (1 Pet. ii. 3), we must noi
rest satisfied with a contemplation of our redeeniH
state, but must Uve n life worthy of it. No om
can well doubt, who reads the two epistles, thai
the love of God and Christ, and the justice of God,
and the duties thereby laid on us, aU have theil
value in them ; but the love is less dwelt on that
the justice, whilst the most prominent idea of all ii
the moral and practical working of the Cross ol
Christ upon the lives of men.
With St. John, again, all three points find place
That Jesus willingly laid down his life for us, ani
is an advocate with the Father; that He is also th<
propitiation, tbe suffering sacrifice, for our sins
and that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth ui
from all sin, for that whoever is born of God dotl
not comrait sin — all are put fonvard. The deatl
of Christ is both justice and love, both a pm
pltiation and an act of loving sSlf-surrender; bul
the moral effect upon us is more proininent ever
than these.
In the epistles of Paul the three elements are al
present. In such expressions as a ransom, » pm
pitiation, who was " made sin for us," the wratl
of God against sin, and the mode in which it wai
turned away, are presented to us. Yet not wratl
alone. "The love of Christ constraineth us ; be
cause we thus judge, that if one died for all, thei
were all dead: and that He died fbr aU, that thej
which live should not henceforth live unto theni'
selves, but unto Him which died for them, m
rose again " (2 Cor. v. 14, 15). Love in Him be
gets love in us, and in our reconciled state the holi
ness which we could not practice before becoma
easy. The reasons for not finding from St. James simi
lar evidence, we have spoken of already.
Now in which of these points is there the seni'
blance of contradiction between the Apostles am
their Master ? In none of tbem. In the GospeJB
as in the Epistles, Jesus is held up as tbe sacrifici
and victim, draining a cup from which his huniai
nature shrank, feeling in himself a sense of dcsola
tion such as we fail utterly to comprehend on i
theory of human motives. Yet no one takes fixin
Him his precious redeeming life ; He lays it (low
of Himself, out of his great love for men. Bu
men are to deny themselves and take up their cros
and tread in his steps They are his friends onl;
if they keep his commands and follow his foot
steps. We must consider it proved that these thre
points or momenta are the doctrine of the »hol
New Testament. Whut is there about this teachinj
that has provoked in times past and present »
much disputation ? Not the hardness of tbe dol
trine, — for none of the theories -put in ita plM
are any easier, — but its want of logical conipleti
ness. Sketched out for us ui a few broad liiieSi

SAVOTJE
tempts tbe fan-^y to fiU it in and lend it color; and
we do not always remember that the hands that
ittempt this are trying to make a mystery into a
theory, an infinite trulJi into a finite one, and to
reduce the great things of God into the narrow
Umits of our little field of view. To whom was the
ransom paid? What was Satan's share of tbe
transaction? How can one sufler for another?
How could the Redeemer be miserable when He
was conscious that his work was one which could
bring happiness to the whole huraan race ? Yet
this condition of iudefiniteness is one which is im
posed on us in the reception of every mystery:
prayer, the incarnation, the immortality of the soul,
are aU subjects that pass far beyond our range of
thought. And here we see the wisdom of God in
oonnecting so closely our redemption with our
reformation. If the object were to give us a com
plete theory of salvation, no doubt there would he
in the Bible much to seek. The theory is gathered
by fi^ogments out of many an exhortation and warn
ing; nowhere does it stand out entire, and without
logical flaw. But if we assume that the New Tes
tament is written for the guidance of sinful hearts,
we find a wonderful aptness for that particular end.
Jesus is proclaimed as the solace of our fears, as
the founder of our moral Ufe, as the restorer of our
lost relation with our Father. If He had a cross,
there is a cross for us ; if He pleased not himself,
let us deny ourselves ; if He suffered for sin, let us
hate sin. And the quesiion ought not to be, What
do aU these mysteries mean ? but. Are these
thoughts really such as wiU serve to guide our Ufe
and to assuage our terrors in the hour of death ?
The answer is twofold — one from history and one
from experience. The preaching of the Cross of
tbe Lord even in this simple fashion converted the
world. The same doctrine is now the ground of
any definite hope that we find in ourselves, of for
giveness of sins and of everlasting life.
It would be out of place in a Dictionary of the
Bible to examine the History of tbe Doctrine or to
answer the modem objections urged against it. For
these subjects the reiuier is referred to the author's
essay on the " Death of Christ," in Aids to Faith,
which also conteins tbe substance of the present
article. [See also the arts. Jesus Christ, Mes
siah, Son of God, and Son of Man, in this
Dictionary.] W. T.
* SAVOUR as a verb occurs in the A. V.
only in Matt. xvi. 23, and the parallel passage
Mark viu. 3-3, in our Lords rebuke of Peter: "Thou
tavourest not the thhigs that be of God, but those
that be of men." The Greek, ou tppoveis ra tov
eeoS, ete , raay be weU rendered, as it is by Mr.
Green in his Twofold New Test., " Thy raind is
not on the things of God, but on those of men."
Dr. Johnson defines the word savour here " to
exhibit =i taste for," and probably m.ost English
readers so understand it. But it may have been
used by our translators in a raore comprehensive
sense, corresjjonding to the translation given above.
Wycliffe renders Col. ui. 2 (Vulg. guai sursum
Wit, sapite), "-saver ye tho thingis that ben
above," and uses the same word in his translation
if Rom. viii. 5, xii. 3, 16; Phil. iii. 19, ete., where

SCBPTEB

2863

" 1. m3p : irpmv '. from "1^^ ' **°^y ^^^®^ '°
*rt. PuaCljk. vii. 9. *^
2- "ITOp : TTpmv : serra.

the A. V. has " mind " or " think of." The term
is derived, ultimately, through the French noun
saveur, 0. F. savoi; verb savoi'er, from the Latin
sapere, meaning primarily to taste or smeU, then
to discern, jwssess discernment or knowledge, etc.
The noun savour occurs very often in the A. V.,
and almost always in the sense (now becoming ob^
solete) of "odor." A.
SAW." Egyptian saws, so far as has yet been
discovered, were single-handed, though St. Jerome
has been thought to allude to circular saws. Aa
is the case in modem oriental saws, the teeth
usually incline toward the handle, instead of away
from it like ours. They have in most cases, bronze
blades, appai'ently attached to the handles by
leathern thongs, but some of those in the British
Museum have theu- blades let into them Uke our
knives. A double-handed iron saw has been foxmd
at Nimrud ; aud double saws strained with a cord,
such as modem carpenters use, were in use among
the Romans. In sawing wood the Egyptians
placed the wood perpendicularly in a sort of frame,
and cut it downwards. No evidence exists of the
use of the saw applied to stone in Egypt, nor with
out the double-handed saw does it seem likely that
this should be the case; but we read of sawn stones
used in the Temple. (1 K. vii. 9 ; Ges. Thes. p.
305; Wilkinson, Jnc. Egyp. ii- 11-i, 119; Brit
Mus. Egyp. Room, No. 6016; Layard, Nin. and
Bab. p. 195; Jerome, Comm. in Is. xxviii. 27.)
The saws "under" or "in"* which David is said
to have placed his captives were of iron. The
expression in 2 Sam. xii. 31 does not necessarily
imply torture, but the word "cut" in 1 Chr.
XX. 3 can hardly be understood otherwise. (Ges.
Thes. p. 1326; Thenius on 2 Sam. xii. and
1 Chr. XX.) A case of sawing asunder, by placing
the criminal between boards, and then beginning
at the head, is mentioned by Shaw, Tmv. p. 254.
(See Diet, of Antiq. "Serra.") [flANrncKAFT;
PUXISHMESTS, HI. b. (3).] H. W. p.
SCAPE-GOAT. [Atonemext, Day of.]
SCARLET. [Colors.]
SCEPTRE (t05??)- The Hebrew term she-
bet, like its Greek equivalent o'KrjirTpov, and our
derivative scepti^e, originally meant a rod or staff
It was thence specifically applied to the shepherd's
crook (Lev. xxvii. 32; Mic. vii. 14), and to the
wand or sceptre of a ruler. It has been inferred
that the latter of these secondary senses is derived
from the former (Winer, Realwb. " Sceptre "); but
this appears doubtful from the circumstance that
the sceptre of the Egyptian kings, whence the idea
of a sceptre was probably borrowed by the early
Jews, resembled not a shepherd's crook, but a
plough (Diod. Sic. iii. 3). The use of the staflf as
a symbol of authority was not confined to kings;
it might be used by any leader, as instanced in
Judg. v. 14, where for "pen of the writer," as in
the A. v., we should read " sceptre of the leader."
Indeed, no instance of the sceptre being actually
handled by a Jewish king occurs in the Bible; the
allusions to it are all of a metaphorical character,
and describe It simply as one of the insignia of su
preme power (Gen. xlix. 10; Num. xxiv. 17; Ps.
xiv. 6; Is. xiv. 5; Am. i. 5; Zech. x. 11; Wisd,
x. 14; Bar. vi. 14 [or Epist. of Jer. 14]). We are

0 rr^Jl^B : iv 7(f TrpCovi. (e0T}Ke) : serravit.

2864

SCEVA

consequently unable to describe the article from
my Biblical notice; we may infer from the term
%hebet, that it was probably made of wood; but
we are not warranted in quoting Ez. xix. 11, in
support of this, as done by Winer, for the term
rendered " rods " may better be rendered " shoots,"
or "sprouts" as = offspi'ing. I'he sceptre of the
Persian monarchs is described as "golden," i. e.
probably of massive gold (Esth. iv. 11; Xen. Cp'op.
viii. 7, § 13); the inclination of it towards a sub
ject by the monarch was a sign of favor, and kiss
ing it an act of homage (Esth. iv. 11, v. 2). A
C£ffved ivory staff discovered at Nimrud is sup
posed to have been a sceptre (Layard, Nin. and
Bab. p. 195). The sceptre of the Egyptian
queens is represented in Wilkinson's Anc. Eg.
i. 276. The term shebet is rendered in the A. V.
" rod " in two passages where sceptre should be
substituted, namely, in Ps. ii. 9, where " sceptre of
iron" is an expr^sion for strong authority, and in
Ps. cxxv. 3. W. L. B.
SCE'VA ('S.Kevas- Sceva). A Jew residing
at Ephesus at the time of St. Paul's second visit
to that town (Acts xix. 14—16). He is described
M a " high-priest " (apxie/jetJs), either as having
exercised the office at Jerusalem, or as being chief
of one of the twenty-four classes. His seven sons
attempted to exorcise spirits by using the name of
Jesus, and on one occasion severe injury was in
flicted by the demoniac on two of them (as implied
in the term apipoTepuvj the true reading in ver. 16
instead of avTtov). W. L. B.
* SCHOOL. Acts xix. 9. [Tyranxus.]
* SCHOOLS OF THE PROPHETS.
[Sasiuel, 3 (6); Prophet, IL]
SCIENCE (^TO: yyatris- scientia). In
the A. V. this word occurs only in Dan. i. 4, and
1 Tim. vi. 20. Elsewhere the rendering for the
Hebrew or Greek words and their cognates is
*' knowledge," while the Vulg. has as uniformly
scientia. Its use in Dan. i. 4 is probably to be
explained by the number of synonymous words in
the verse, forcing the translators to look out for
diversified equivalents in English. AVhy it should
have been chosen for 1 Tim. vi. 20 is not so ob
vious. Its effect is injurious, as leading the reader
to suppose that St. Paul is speaking of something
else than the " knowledge" of which both the
Judaizing and the mystic sects of the apostolic age
continually boasted, against which he so urgently
warns men (1 Cor. viii. 1, 7), the counterfeit of
the true knowledge which he prizes so highly
(1 Cor. xii. 8, xiii. 2; PhU. i. 9; Col. iii. 10). A
natural per\'ersion of the meaning qf the text has
foUowed from this translation. Men have seen in
it a warning, not against a spurious theosophy —
of which Swedenborgianism is, perhaps, the nearest
modem analogue — but against that which did
not come within St. Paul's horizon, and which, if
it had, we may believe he would have welcomed —
the study ofthe works of God, the recognition of

a The following quotation from Tindal is decisive as
to the sense in which he used the word. It shows
that he contemplated no form of science (in tbe mod-
em sense of the term), mathematical or physical, but
the very opposite of this, — the attempt to bring all
Bpiritual or divine truths under the formulae of the
logical understanding. He speaks of the disputes of
Bomish theologians as the " contradictions of which
Paul warned Timothy, calling them the oppositions of

SCORPION
his WiU working by laws in nature. It has beei
hurled successively at the heads of astronomers and
geologists, whenever men have been alarmed at
what they have deemed the antagonism of physical
" science " to religion. It would be interesting U
ascertain whether this were at all the animus of
the translators of the A. V. — whether they were
beginning to look with alarm at the union of skep
ticism and science, of which the common proverb,
td)i tres mediei duo aihei, was a witness. As it
is, we must content ourselves with noting a few
facts in the Biblical history of the English word.
(1.) In Wickliflfe's translation, it appears less
frequently than might have been expected in a ver
sion based upon the Vulgate. For the " knowl^ge
of salvation " of the A. V. in Luke i. 77, we have
the " science of health." In Christ are hid "the
treasures of wisdom and of science" (Col. ii. 3).
Tn 1 Tim. vi. 20, however, Wickliffe has "kun-
nynge." (2.) Tindal, rejecting "science" as a rendering
elsewhere, introduces it here; and is followed by
Cranmer's and the Geneva Bibles, and by tiie
A. V.«
(3.) The Rhemish translators, in this instance
adhering less closely to the Vulg. than the Protest
ant vereions, give " knowledge."
It would obviously be out of place to enter here
into the wide question what were the avriQians
tSs il/6u5o)yt5u.ou yptCo'tcos of which St. Paul
speaks. A dissertation on the Gnosticism of the
Apostolic age would require a volume. What is
necessary for a Dictionary will be found under
TiaioTHY, Epistles to. E. H. P.
SCORPION (-7l?^, 'akrdb: trKopirios:
Scorpio). The well-known animal of that name,
belonging to the class Arachnida and order Pvl-
jnonaria, which is twice mentioned in the 0. T.
and four times in the N. T. The wilderness of
Sinai is especially alluded to as being inhabited by
scorpions at the time of the Exodus (Deut. viii. IS),
and to this day these animals are common in the
same district, as well as in some parts of Palestme.
Ehrenbei^ (Symb. Phys.) enumerates five species.
as occurring near Mt. Sinai, some of which are
found also in the Lebanon. Ezekiel (ii. 6) is told
to be in no fear of the rebellious Israelite, here
compared to scorpions. The Apostles were endued
with power to resist the stings of serpents and
scorpions (Luke x. 19). In the vision of St. John
(Rev. ix. 3, 10) the locusts that came out of the
smoke of the bottomless pit are said to have had
" tails like unto scorpions," while the pain result
ing from this creature's sting is alluded to in verse
5. A scorpion for an egg (Luke xi. 12) was prob
ably a proverbial expression. According to Eras
mus the Greeks had a similar proverb (hn\ irep-
KTJs a-Kopmov). Scorpions are generally found in
dry and in dark places, under stones and in ruins,
chiefly in warm climates. They are carnivorous in
their habits, and mo^e along in a threatening atti
tude with the tail elevated. The stiug, which ia
a false-named science, for that theiv scholasticat dirinitif
must make objections against any truth, be it nevei
so plain, with pro and contra " (Supper of the Lnril
iii 284, Parker Soc. Edition), Tindal-s use and appli
cation of the word accounts, it may be remarked, foi
the choice of a different word by the Rhemish tranJ^la-
tors. Those of the A. V. may have used it vith i
different meaning.

SCOUBGINa
aated at the extremity of the tail, has at its
le a gUnd that secretes a poisonous fluid, which
discharged into the wound by two minute cr
ies at its extremity. In hot climates the sting
en occasions much suffering, and sometimes
rming symptoms. The following are the spe-
s of scorpions mentioned by Ehrenberg : Scmpio
icrocenlrus, S. palinalus, S. biculor, S. leptochi-
, S. funeslus, all found at Mt. Sinai ; S. nigro-
Klus, S. melnnopbysa, S. palmatus, Mt. Lebanon. «
sides these Palestine and Sinai kinds, five othere
s recorded as occuriing in Egypt.

SCRIBtri

2865

Scorpion.
The " scorpions " of 1 K. xii. 11, 14, 2 Chr. x.
, 14, have clearly no allusion whatever to the
imal, but to some instrument of scourging —
iless, indeed, the expression is a mere figure.
ilsius (Hierob. ii. 45) thinks the " scorpion "
)urge was the spiny stem of what the Arabs call
erfe^ fi fccXs*.). the Solanum melongena, var.
zulentum, egg-plant, because, accordhig to Abdul
idli, this plant, from' the resemblance of its seines
the sting of a scorpion, was sometimes callex, he
jcorpion thorn; " but in all probability this in
:ument of punishment was in the form of a whip
med with iron points " Virga — si nodosa vel acu-
ita, Scorpio rectissimo nomine vocatur, qui arcuato
ilnere in corpus infigitur." (Isidorus, Orig. Lat.
27; and see Jahn, Bib. Ant. p. 287.) In the
reek of 1 Mace. vi. 51, some kind of war missile
mentioned under the name a'KopirlSiov', but we
mt information both as to its form and the rea-
n of its name. (See Did. of Antiquities, art,
Tormentum.") W. H.
S0OURGING.& The punishment of scourg-
g was prescribed by the Law in the case of a be-
othed bondwoman guilty of unchastity, and per-
Lps in the case of both the guilty persons (Lev,
X. 20).- "Women were subject to scourging in
?ypt, as they still are by the law of the Kor^n,
r incontinence (Sale, Koran, chap. xxiv. and
lap. iv. note ; Lane, Mod. Egyp. i. 147; Wilkin-

o Modern naturalists restrict the genus Scorpio to
ose kinds which have six eyes, Boathus to those
nioh have eight, and Audroctoous to those which
ive twelve.
6 1. To scourge, t2^t27 ; the scourge, tOlti? : tida--
f ! fiageltum ; also in A. V. " whip."
8. tA^U7 ; ^xos ; qffendiculum ; only In Josh

son, Anc. Egyp. abridgm. ii. 211). Tlie instru
ment of punishment in ancient Egypt, as it is also
in modern times generally in tlie East, was usually
the stick, applied to the soles of the feet — basti
nado (Wilkinson, I. c. ; Chaidin, vi. 114; Lane,
Mod. Egyp. i. 146). A more severe scourge is
possibly imphed in the terra "scorpions," whips
armed with pointed balls of lead, the " horribile
flagellum " of Horace, though it is more probably
merely a vivid figure. Under the Roman method
the culprit was stripped, stretched with cords or
thongs on n frame (divaricatio), and beaten with
rods. After the Porcian law (n. c. 300), Roman
citizens were exempted from scourging, but slaves
and foreigners were liable to be beaten, even to
death (Gesen. Thes. p. 10G2; laid. Orig. v. 27,
ap. Scheller, Lex. Lot. Scorpio; Hor. 1 Sat. ii.
41, iii. 119; Prov. xxvi. 3; Acts xvi. 22, and Gro
tius, ad I, xxii. 24, 25; 1 K. xii. 11; Cic. Ver.
iii. 28, 29; pro Rab. 4; Liv. x. 9; Sail. Cat. 51)
[PUNISHMKXTS, UL c. (4.)] H. W. P
SCREECH-OWL. [Owl.]
SCRIBES CD'^'HS'lD: ypapfiUTels: scribce).
The prominent position occupied by the Scribes in
the Gospel history would of itself make a knowl
edge of their life and teaching essential to any
clear conception of our Lord's work. It was by
their influence that the later form of Judaism had
been determined. Such as it was when the " new
doctrine " was first proclaimed, it had become
through them. Ear more than priests or Levites
they represented the religions life of the people.
On the one hand we nmst know what they were
in order to understand tlie innumerable points of
contrast presented by our Lord's acts and words.
On the other, we must not forget that there were
also, inevitably, points of resemblance. Opposed
as his teaching was, in, its deepest principles, to
theirs, He was yet, in the eyes of men, as one of
their order, a Scribe among Scribes, a Rabbi among
Rabbis (John i. 49, iii. 2, vi. 25, tfec ; Schoettgen,
Hor. Heb. ii. Christus Rabbinornm Summus).
1. Name. — (1.) Three meanings are connected
with the verb saphar ("^DD) the root of Sopherim
— (1) to write, (2) to set in order, (3) to count.
The explanation of the word has been referred to
each of these. The Sophenm were so called be
cause ¦ they wrote out the Law, or because they
classifieid and arranged its precepts, or because they
counted' with scrupulous minuteness every clause
and letter it contained. The traditions of the
Scribes, glorying in their own achievements,*^ were
in favor of the last of the.se etymologies (Seknllm,
5; Carpzov, App. Cnt. ii. 135). The second fits
in best with the military functions connected with
the word in the earlier stages of its history (infra).
The authority of most Hebrew scholars is with the
first (Gesenius, s. v.). The Greek equivalent an
swers to the derived rather than the original mean ¦
ing of the word. The ypa^ifxaTeis of a Greek

xxiii. 13. Either a subst. or the inf. in Fiel (Ges. p.
1379). c They had ascertained that the central letter ofthe
whole Law was the vau of ^IHS iu Lev. xi. 42, and
wrote ifc accordingly in a larger character. (Kidflusk.
in Lightfoot, On Luke x.) They counted up in like
manner the precepts of the Law that answered to the
number of Abraham's servants or Jacob's descend-
ante.

2866

SCRIBES

state was not the mere writer, but the keeper and
registrar of public documents (Thuc- iv. 118, vii.
10, so in Acts xix. 35). The Scribes of Jerusalem
were, in like manner, the custodians and interpret
ers of the ypdfifjLaTa upon which the polity of the
nation rested. Other words apphed to the same
class are found in the N. T. NofiiKol appears in
Matt. xxii. 35, Luke vii. 30, x. 25, xiv. 3 ; vopoBi-
SdiTKaKoi in Luke v. 17 ; Acts v. 34. Attempts
have been made, but not very successfully, to re
duce the several terms to a classification.'* All
that can be said is that ypa/zpaTcvs appears the
most generic term ; that in Luke xi. 45 it is con
trasted with popiK6si that j/ofio^iddaKa\os, as in
Acts V. 34, seems the highest of the three. Jose
phus {A7ii. xvii. 6, § 2) paraphrases the technical
word by i^rjyTjToi v6p(iiv.
(2.) The name of Kiejath-Sepher (Tr6\is
ypafifidTtap, LXX., Josh. xv. 15; Judg, i. 12)
may possibly connect itself with some early use of
the title. .In the Song of Deborah (Judg. v. 14)
the word appears to point to military functions of
some kind. The "pen of the writer" of the A.
V. (LXX. ip pd^^tp SiTJT^ffeajs ypapfj-ar^co^) is
probably the rod or sceptre of the comraander
numbering or marshalling his troops.^ The title
appears with more distinctness in the early history
of the monarchy. Three men are mentioned as
successively filling the office of Scribe under David
and Solomon (2 Sam. viii. 17, xx- 25; 1 K. iv. 3,
in this. instance two simultaneously). Their func
tions are not specified, but tbe high place assigned
to thera, side by side with the high-priest and the
captain of the host, implies power and honor. We
may think of them as the king's secretaries, writing
his letters, drawing up his decrees, managing his
finances (comp. the work of the Scribe under Jo
ash, 2 K. xii. 10). At a later period the word
again connects itself with the act of numbering the
military forces of the country (Jer. Hi. 25, and
probably Is. xxxiii. 18). Other associations, how
ever, began to gather round it about the same pe
riod. The zeal of Hezekiah led him to foster the
growth of a body of men whose work it was to
transcribe old records, or to put in writing what
had Vieen handed down orally (Prov. xxv. 1). To
this period, accordingly, belongs tbe new signifi
cance of the title. It no longer designates only an
officer of the king's court, but a class, students and
interpreters of fhe Law boasting of their wisdom
(Jer. viii. 8).
(3.) The seventy years of the Captivity gave a
fresh glory to the name. The exiles would be
anxious above all things to presen-e the sacred
books, the laws, the hymns, the prophecies of the
past. To know what was worth preserving, to
transcribe the older Hebrew documents accurately,
when the spoken language of the people was pass
ing into Aramaic, to explain what was hard and

SCRIBES
obscure — this was what the necessities of the limc
demanded. The man who met them became em
phatically Ezra the Scribe, the priestly functioua
falling into the background, as the priestly ordei
itself did before the Scribes as a class. The ^ords
of Ez. vii. 10 describe the high ideal of the new
office. The Scribe is " to seek {^'^'l) the law of
the Lord and to do it, and to teach in Israel stat
utes and judgments." This, far more than his
priesthood, was the true glory of Ezra. In the
eyes even of the Persian king he was " a Scribe of
the Law of the God of Heaven" (vii. 12). He
was assisted in his work hy othei's, chiefly Levites.
Publicly they read and expounded the Law, per
haps also translated it fiom the already obsolescent
Hebrew into the Aramaic of the people" (Neh.
viii. 8-13).
(4.) Of the time that followed we have bnt
scanty records. The Scribes' office apparently be
came more and more prominent. Traces are found
in the later canonical books of their work and in
fluence. Already they are recognized as " masters
of assembUes," acting under " one shepherd," hav
ing, that is, something of a corporate life (Eccl sdi.
11; Jost, Judenth. i. 42). As such they set their
faces steadily to maintain the authority of the Law
and the Prophets, to exclude from all equality with
them the "many books" of which "there is no
end" (Eccl. xii. 12). They appear as a distinct
class, "the families of the Scribes," with a local
habitation (1 Chr. ii. 55). They compile, as in the
two books of Chronicl&s, excerpta and epitomes
of larger histories (1 Chr. xxix. 29 ; 2 Chr. ix. 29).
The occurrence of the word m{dras% ("the stoiy
— margin, ' the commentary ' — of the Proph^
Iddo ' ' ), afterwards so memorable, in 2 Chr. xiii
22, shows that tbe work of commenting and ra-
pounding had begun ali-eady.
II. Devehjyment of DociHne. — (1. ) It is char-
acterUtic of the Scribes of this period that, with
the exception of Ezra and Zadok (Neh. xiii. 13),
w-e have no record of their names. A later age
honored them collectively as the men of the Great
Synagogue, the true successors of the Prophets
(Pirke Aboth, i. 1), but the men themselves by
whose agency the Scriptures of the 0. T. were
written in their present characters,^ compiled in
their present form, limited to their present nura
ber, remain unknown to us. Never, perhaps, was
so important a work done so silently. It has been
well argued (.Jost, Judtnthum, i. 42) that it was ac
of set purpose. The one aim of those early Scribes
was to promote reverence for the Law, to make it
the groundwork of the people's life. They would
write nothing of their own, lest less worthy words
should be raised to a level with those of the oracles
of God. If interpretation were needed, their teach
ing should be oral only. No precepts should be
perpetuated as resting on their authority.^ In th*"

o Lightfoot's arrangement, though conjectural, is
worth giving (Harm. § 77). The "Scribes," as such,
were those who occupied themselves with the Mikra.
Next above them were the " Lawyers,"' students of the
Mishna. acting as assessors, though not voting in the
Sanhedrim. The " Doctors of the Law " were ex
pounders of the Gemara, and actual members of the
Sanhedrim. (Comp. Carpzov, App. Crit. i. 7 ; Leus-
Jen, Phil. Heitr. c. 23 ; Leyrer, in Herzog's Encyklop.
Schriftgelahrte.") 6 Ewald, however (Poei. Bilch. i. 126 [182,2c Aufl.]),
lakes nCD as equivalent to IDQti?, "a judge."

c If this were so (and most commentators adopt thii
view), we should have in this history the starting-
point of the Targum. It has, however, been qaes-
tioned. (Comp. Leyrer, /. c.)
d Jost (Judenth. i. 52) draws attention to the singu
lar, almost unique combiuations of this period. Tbe
Jewish teachers kept to the old Hebrew, but used
Aramaic characters. The Siimaritans spoke Aramaic,'
but retained the older Hebrew writing.
c The principle of au unwritten teaching was maitt
tained among the Rabbis of P;tlestine up to the ct»
ftruction of the Temple (Jost, i. 97, S67).

SCRIBES
irords of later Judaism, they devoted themselves to
the Mikra (i. e. recitation, reading, as in Neh. viii.
8), the careful study of the text, and laid down
rules for transcribing it with the most scrupulous
precision (comp. the tract Sopherim in the Jeru
salem Gemara).
(2.) A saying is ascribed to Simon the Just
(b. c. 300-290), the last of the succession of the
men of the Great Synagogue, which embodies the
prmciple on which they had acted, and enables us
to trace the next stage of the growth of their sys
tem. "Our fathers have taught us," he said,
" three things, to be cautious in judging, to train
many scholars, and to set a fence about the Law "
(Pirke Aboih, i. 1; Jost, i. 95). They wished to
make the Law of Moses the rule of life for the
whole nation and for individual men. But it lies
in the nature of every such law, of every informal,
half-systematic code, that it raises questions which
it does not solve. Circuujstances change, while the
Law remains the same. The hifinite variety of life
presents cases which it has not contemplated. A
Roman or Greek jurist would have dealt with these
on general principles of equity or polity. The
Jewish teacher could recognize no principles beyond
the precepts of the Law. To him they all stood
on the same footing, were all equally divine. All
possible cases must he brought within their range,
decided by their authority.
(3.) The result showed that, in this as in other
instances, the idolatry of the letter was destructive
of the very reverence in which it had originated.
Step by step the Scribes were led to conclu.sions at
which we may believe the earlier representatives of
the order would have started back with horror.
Decisions on fresh questions were accumulated into
a complex system of casuistry. The new precepts,
still transmitted orally, raore precisely fitting in to
the circurastances of men's lives than the old, came
practically to take their place. The "Words of
the Scribes " (D**"!Q1D ^^^^i "<>«' "sed as a tech
nical phrase for these decisions) were honored above
the Law (Lightfoot, Harm. i. § 77; Jost, Judenth.
I. 93). It was a greater crime to offend against
them than against the Law. They were as wine,
while the precepts of the Law were as water. The
first step was taken towards annulling the com
mandments of God for the sake of their own tra
ditions. The casuistry became at once subtle and
prurient," evading tlie plainest duties, tampering
with conscience (Matt. xv. 1-6, xxiii. 16-23). I'he
right relation of moral and ceremonial laws was
not only forgotten, but absolutely inverted. This
was the result of the pi'ofouud reverence for the
letter which gave no heed to the " word abiding in
them" (John v. 38).
(4.) The history of the full development of these
tendencies belongs to a history of the Talmud.'
Here it will he enough to notice in what way the
teaching of the Scribes in our Lord's time was

SCRIBES

2867

« It would be profitless to accumulate proofs of
this. Those who care for them may find them in
fiaxtorf, Si/nfi^oga Judaica ; M'Caul, Old Paths. Ke-
rolting as it is, we must remember that it rose out of
che principle that there can be no indifferent action,
that there must be a right or a wrong even for the
commonest necessities, the merest animal functions of
man's life, that ifc was the work of the teacher to for
mulate that principle into rules. [Compare the Ro-
lian Catholic writers ou " Moml Theology." — A.]
6 • ffor a partial view of the liteiuture relating to

making to that result. Their first work was to
report the decisions of previous Rabbis. These
were the Halachoih (that which goes, the current
precepts of the schools) — precepts binding on th
conscience. As they accumulated they bad to be
compiled and classified. A new code, a second
Coipus Juris, the Mishna (Seurepc^cefs), grew out
of them, to become in its turn the subject of fresh
questions and commentaries. Here ultimately the
spirit of the commentators took a wider range.
The anecdotes of the schools or courts of law, tha
obiter dicta of Rabbis, the wildest fables of Jewish
superstition (Tit. i. 14), were brought in, with oi
without any relation to the context, and the Ge*
mara (completeness) filled up the measure of the
Institutes of Rabbinic Law. The Mishna and the
Gemara together were known as the Talmud (in
struction), the "necessary doctrine and erudition"
of every learned Jew (Jost, Judenth. ii. 202-222).
(5.) Side by -side with this was a development
in another direction. The sacred books were not
studied as a code of laws only. To search into
their meaning- had from the first belonged to the
ideal office of the Scribe. He who so searched was
secure, in the language of the Scribes themselves,
of everlasting life (John v. 39; Pirke Aboih, ii. 8)
But here also the hook suggested thoughts which
could not logically be deduced from it. Men came
to it with new beliefs, new in form if not in essence,
and, not finding any ground for them in a literal
interpretation, were compelled to have recourse to
an interpretation which was the reverse of literal.^
The fruit of this efl^ort to find what was not there
appears in the Midrashim (searchings, investiga^
tions) on the several books of the 0- T. The
process by which the meaning, moral or mystical,
was elicited, was known as Hagada (saying, opin
ion). There was obviously no assignable limit to
such a process. It became a proverb that no one
ought to spend a day in the Beth-ham -Midrash
("the house of the interpreter") without lighting
on something new. But there lay a stage higher
even than the Hagada. The mystical school of in
terpretation .culminated in the Kabbala (reception,
the received doctrine). Every letter, every nura
ber, becarae pregnant with mysteries. With the
strangest possible distortion of its original mean
ing, the Greek word which had been the repre
sentative of the most exact of all sciences wan
chosen for the wildest of all interpretations. The
Gematria (= yeco/xeTpia) showed to what depths
the wrong path could lead men. The mind of the
interpreter, obstinately shutting out the light of
day, moved in its self chosen darkness amid a world
of fantastic Eidola (comp. Carpzov, App. Crit. i
7; Schoettgen, Hiyi\ Heb. de Mess. i. 4; Zunz,
Gottesdiensil. Vortrdge, pp. 42-61; Jost, Judenth.
iii. 65-81; [Ginsburg, The Kabbalah: its Doc
trines, Development, and Literature, Lond. 1865;
also his arts. Kabbalah and Midrash in Eitto'a
Cyclop, of Bibl. Lit., 3d ed.]).

the Talmud the reader may see the references under
Pharisees (vol. iii. p. 2472, note b), to which may be
added the interesting and instructive article on The
Jewish Reformaiion and the Tatmnd in Blackwood's
iWog. for Nov. 1859, reprinted in Littell's Living Age
for Jan. 22, 1870, No. 1338. A.
c Comp. e. g. the exposition which found in Laban
and Balaam "going to their own place" (Gen. xxxi
55; Num. xxiv. 25) an iatimation of their being sen*
tenced to Gehenna (Gill, Comm. on Acts, i. 25).

2868

SCRIBES

III. Jlistory.-- (1.) The names of the earlier
Scribes passed away, as has heen said, unrecorded.
Simon the Just (cir. n. c. 300-290) appears as
the last of the men of the Gre.it Synagogue, the
beginner of a new period. The memorable naraes
of the tinies that followed — Antigonus of Socho,
Zadok, Boethos — connect themselves with the rise
of the first opposition to the traditional system
which was growing up. [Sadducees.] The tenet
of the Sadducees, however, never commanded the
adhesion of more than a small minority. It tended,
by maintaining the sufiiciency of the letter of the
Law, to destroy the very occupation of a Scribe,'*
and the class, as such, belonged to the party of its
opponents. The words '-Scribes" and "Pharisees"
were bound together by the closest possible alliance
(Matt, xxiii. passim; Luke v. 30). [Phahisees.]
Within that party there were shades and sub
divisions, and to understand their relation to each
other in our Lord's time, or their connection with
his life and teaclung, we must look back to what is
known of the five pairs (nWD) of teachers who
represented the scribal succession. Why two, and
two only, are named in each case we can only
conjecture, but the Rabbinic tradition that one was
always the Nasi or President of the Sanhedrim as
a council, the other the .A.b-beth-din (Father of
the House of Judgnient), presiding in the supreme
court, or in the Sanhedrim when it sat as such, is
not improbaljle (.Jost, Juthnlh. i. 100).
(2.) The two nanies that stand first in order are
Joses ben-Joezer, a priest, and Jo-ses ben-Jochanan
(cir. B. c. iiO-130). The precepts ascribed to
tbem indicate a tendency to a greater elaboration
of all rules connected with ceremonial defilement.
Their desire to separate themselves and their'dis-
ciples from all occasions of defilement may have
fiirnished the starting-point for the name of Phari
see. The brave sti-uggle with the Syrian kings
had turned chiefly on questions of this nature, and
it was the wish of the two teachers to prepare the
people for any future conflict by founding a fra
ternity (the Chaberim, or associates) bound to the
strictest observance of the Law. Every member
of the order on his admission pledged himself to
this in the presence of tliree Chaberim. They
looked on each other as brothers. The rest of the
nation they looked on as " the people of the
earth." The spirit of Scribedoni was growing.
The precept associated with the name of Joses hen-
Joezer, " l.et thy house be the assembly-place for
the wise; dust thy.self with the dust of their feet;
drink eagerly of their words," pointed to a further
growth (Pirke Abi..t, i. 1; Jost, i. 2.33). It was
hardly checked by the taunt of the Sadducees that
" these Pharisees would purify the sun itself "
(Jost, i. 217).
(3.) Joshua ben-Perachiah and Nithai of Ar-
bela were contennwrary with John Hyrcanus (cir.
B. c. 135-108 >, and enjoyed his favor till towards
fhe close of his reign, when caprice or interest led
him tu pass over to the camp of the Sadducees.
The saying ascribed to .losliua, '¦'• Take to thyself a
teacher (Hab), get to thy-self an associate (Chaber),
judge every man on his better side " (Pirke
Aboth, i. 1), while its last clause attracts us by its

o A striking iustance of this is seen in the history
of John Hyrcanus. A Sadducee came to him with
proofs of the di.<^fiectioD of the Pharisees. The king
Uked, " What then am I to do ? " " Crush them,"

SCRIBES
candor, shows how easily even a fair-minded mag
might come to recognize no bonds of fellowship
outside the limits of his sect or order (Jost, i
227-233). (i.) The secession of Hyrcanus involved the
Pharisees, and therefore the Scribes as a class, in
diflScuIties, and a period of confusion followed.
The meetings of the Sanliedrim were suspended or
became predominantly Sadducean. Under his suc
cessor, Alexander Jannai, the influence of Sunon
ben-Shetach over the queen -mother Salome rees
tablished for a time the ascendency of the Scribes.
The Sanhedrim once again assembled, with none
to oppose the dominant Pharisaic party. The day
of meeting was observed afterwards as a festi\'al
only less solemn than those of Purim and the
Dedication. The return of Alexander from hia
campaign against Gaza again turned the tables.
Eight hundred Pharisees took refuge in a fortress,
were besieged, taken, and put to death. Joshua
ben-Perachiah, the venerable head of the order,
was driven into exile. Simon ben-Shetach, his
successor, had to earn his livelihood by spinning
flax. The Sadducees failed, however, to win the
confidence of the people. Having no body of oral
traditions to fall back on, they began to compile a
code. They were accused by their opponents of
wishing to set np new laws on a level with those
of Moses, and had to abandon the attempt. On
the death of Jannai the influence of his widow
Alexandra was altogether on the side of the Scribes,
and Simon ben-Shetach and Judah hen-Tabbai
entered on their work as joint teachers. Under
them the juristic side of the Scribe's functions
became prominent. Their rules turn chiefly on
tbe laws of evidence (Pirke Aboth, i. 1). In two
memorable instances they showed what sacrifices
they were prepared to make in support of those
laws. Judah had, on one occasion, condemned
false witnesses to death. His zeal against the guilt
led him to neglect the rule which only permitted
that penalty when it would have been the conse
quence of the original accusation. His colleague
did not shrink from rebuking him, " Thou hast
shed innocfent blood." Prom that day Judah re
solved never to give judgment without consultmg
Simon, and every day threw himself on the grave
of the man he had condemned, imploring pardon.
Simon, in his turn, showed a like sense of the
supreme authority of the Law. His own son was
brought before him as an oflender, and he sen
tenced him to death. On the way to execution
the witnesses confessed that they had spoken
falsely ; but the son, more anxious that they should
suff'er than that be himself should escape, tumed
round and entreated his father not to stop the '
completion of the sentence. The character of such
a man could not fail to impress itself upon hia
followers. To its influence may probably be traced
the indomitable courage in defense of the Temple,
which won the admiration even of the Roman
generals (Jost, i. 234-247).
(5.) The two that followed, Shemaiah and Ab-
talion (the names also appear under tlie form of
Sameas, Joseph. Ani. xiv. 9, § i, and Pollio, Jo
seph. Ant. xiv. 1, § 1), were conspicuous for an
other reason. Now, for the fii-st time, the teach-

was the answer. " But what then will become of tb«
teaching of the Law?" "The Law is now in tha
hands of every man. They, and they only, would
keep it in a corner " (Jost, Judenth. i. 235).

SCRIBES
srs who sat in Moses' seat were nol even of the
children of Abraham. Proselytes themselves, or
the SODS of proselytes, their preiiniinenue in the
knowledge of the Law raised them to this office.
The jealousy of the high-priest was excited. As
the people flocked round their favorite Rabbis when
it was his function to pronounce the blessing, he
looked round and, turning his benediction into a
sarcasm, said, with a marked emphasis, " May the
sons of the alien walk in peace! " The answer of
the two teachers expressed the feeling of scorn with
which the one order was beginning to look upon
tlie other: " Yes, the sons of the alien shall indeed
walk in peace, for they do the work of peace. Not
80 the son of Aaron who follows not in the foot
steps of his father." Here also we have some sig
nificant sayings. The growing love of titles of
honor was checked by Shemaiah by the counsel
that " men should Ipve the work, but hate the
lUbbiship." The tendency to new opinions (the
fruits, probably, of the freer exposition of the Ha-
yada) was rebuked by Abtalion in a precept which
enwTaps a parable: *' Take good heed to thy words,
lest, if thou wander, thou light upon a place where
the wells are poisoned, and thy scholai-s who come
after thee drink deep thereof and die" (Pirke
Aboth, i. 1). The lot of these two also was cast
upon evil days. They had courage to attempt to
check the rising power of Herod iu his bold defi
ance of the Sanhedrim (Joseph. Ani. xiv. 9, § 3).
When he showed himself to be irresistible they had
the wisdom to submit, and were suffered to con
tinue their work in peace. Its glory was, however,
in great measure, gone. The doors of their school
were uo longer thrown open to all comers so that
crowds might listen to the teacher. A fixed fee "¦
had to be paid on entrance. The regulation was
probably intended to discourage the attendance of
the young men of Jerusalem at the Scribes' classes;
and apparently it had that effect (Jost, i. 248-253).
Qn the death of Shemaiah and Aljtalion there were
no qualified successors to take their place. Two
sons of Bethera, otherwise unknown, for a time oc
cupied it, hut they were themselves conscious of
their incompetence. A question was brought be
fore them which neither they nor any of the other
Scribes could ans\ver. At last they asked, in their
perplexity, " Was there none present who had been
a disciple of the two who had been so honored? "
The question was answered by Hillel the Babylo-

SORIBES

2869

Ot The amount is uncertain. The story of Ilillel
{in/ra) represents ifc as half a stater, but it is doubtful
whether the stater here is equal to twice the didrachma
or to half (comp. Geiger, De HUlcle et S/iamtnai, in
JjTgoUni, Thes. xxi.). It was, at any rate, half the
day's wages of a skilled laborer.
^ • We have not the meansof fixing with any pre
cision the date of Ilillel's birth. The question is fully
discussed by Ewald in his Gesr.h. d. Volkes Israel,
8e 4u8g. (1867), V. 12-26. Assuming that Hillel is the
same person with tbe Pollio of Josephus (so Josippon
V. 4, etc. cited by Ewald) he is disposed to consider
him as flourishing from about 60 b o. to 10 a. d,
Derenbourg (Es-mi sur Phist. et la geog. de la Palestine.
i. 149 f, 463 f.) thinks that the Sameas and Pollio of
Jqflpphus represent, through a confusion on the part
pf this writer, sometimes Shemaiah and Abtalion, aud
sometimes Shammai and Hillel. Ginsburg, art. Hillel
Id Kitco's Cyclop, of Bibl. Lit., 3d ed., says, without
giving any authoriCy, that he was born about 75, b. o,
On Hillel, whose merits, , really great, have been
itraugely exaggerated by some recent Jewish writers,
g. Dr. Geiger (not the Geiger so oi^en referred to in

nian, known also, then or afierwards, as the son
of David. He solved the difficulty, appealed to
principles, and, when they demanded authority
as well as argument, ended by saying, " So have
I heard from my masters Shemaiah and Abta
lion." This vvas decisive. The sons of Bethera
withdrew. Hillel was invited by acclamation to en
ter ou his high office. Ilisnlleged descent from the
house of David may have added to his popularity.
(6.) The name of Hillel (born circ. b. c. 112^)
has hardly received the notice due to it frora stu
dents of the Gospel history. ^ The noblest and
most genial repre.sentative of his order, we may sea
in hira the best fruit which the system of the
Scribes was capable of producing.*' It is instruc
tive to mark at once how far he prepared the way
for the higher teaching which was to follow, how
far he inevitably fell short of it. The starting-
ppint of hia career is told in a cale which, though
deformed hy Kabbinic exaggerations, is yet fresh
and genial enough. The young student had come
from Golah in Babylonia to study under Shemaiah
and Abtalion. He was poor and had no money.
The new rule requiring payment was in force. For
the most part he worked for his livelihood, kept
himself with half his earnings, and paid the rest aa
the fee to the college-porter. On one day, how
ever, he had failed to find eiuployment. The door
keeper refused him entrance; but his zeal for
knowledge was not to be baffled. He stationed
himself outside, under a window, to catch what he
could of the words of the Scribes within. It waa
winter, and the snow began to fall, but he re-
mauied there still. It fell till it lay upon hira six
cubits high ( ! ) and the window was darkened and
blocked up. At last the two teachers noticed it,
sent out to see what caused it, and when they found
out, received the eager scholar without payment.
"For such a man," s:iid Shemaiah, "one might
even break the Sabbath" (Geiger, ui supra; Jost,
i. 25-t). In the earlier days of his activity Hillel
had as his colleague Menahem, probably the same
as the Essene Manaen of Josephus (Ant. xv. 10,
§ 5). He, however, was tempted by the growing
power of Herod, aud, with a large number (eighty
in the Eabbinic tradition) of his followers, entered
the king's service and abandoned at once their call
ing as Scribes and their habits of devotion. They
appeared publicly in the gorgeous apparel, glitter
ing with gold, which was inconsistent with both'
this article), one may see, in addition to the woiks al
ready referred to in the body of tbe article, or just men
tioned, Ewald's Jahrb. d. Bibl. wissenschajl, x. 56-83
(substantially reproduced in his Geschichte, as above),
and the interesting little pamphlet of Delitzsch, Jesus
und Hillel, mit Rucksickt avf Renan und Geiger ver-
glichen, 2e Aufl., Erlangen, 1867. A.
c Theexhaustive treatise by Geiger in Ugolini, 2%m.
xxi. must be mentioned as an exception.
d The reverence of later Jews for Hillel is shown in
some curious forms. To him it was given to under
stand the speech of animals as well as of men. He
who hearkened not to the words of Hillel waa worthy
of death. (Geiger, ut supra.) Of him too ifc was said
that the Divine Shecbinah rested on him : if the
heavens were parchment and all the trees of the earth
pens, and all the sea ink, it would not be enough to
write down his wisdom (comp. John xxi. 25). (See
Heubuer, De Academiis Hbhrceorum, in Ugolini, Thes
xxi.) e W6 may perhaps find in this fact au explanation
which gives a special force to words that have hitherto
been interpreted somewhat vag'.iely. When our IdfA

2870

SCRIBES

(Jost, i. 259). The place thus vacant was soon
filled by Shammai. The two were held in nearly
equal honor. One, in Jewish language, was the
Nasi, the other the Ab-beth-din of the Sanhedrim.
They did not teach, however, as their predecessors
had done, in entire harmony with each other.
Within the party of the Pharisees, within the or
der of tbe Scribes, there came for the first time to
be two schools witb distinctly opposed tendencies,
one vehemently, rigidly orthodox, the other ortho
dox also, but with an orthodoxy which, in the lan
guage of modern politics, might be classed as Lib
eral Conservative. The points ou which they dif
fered were almost innumerable (comp. Geiger, ut
mpra). In most of them, questions as to the
causes and degrees of uncleanness, as to the law of
contracts or of wills, we can tind little or no inter
est. On the former class of subjects the school of
Shammai represented the extreinest development of
the Pharisaic spirit. Everything that could possi
bly have been touched by a heathen or an unclean
Israelite, became itself unclean. "Defilement"
wag as a cont^ious disease which it was hardly
possible to avoid even with tbe careful scrupulosity
described in Mark vii. 1-4. They were, in like
manner, rigidly Sabbatarian. It was unlawful to
do anything before the Sabbath which would, in any
sense, be in operation during it, e. g. to put cloth
mto a dye-vat, or nets into the sea. It was un
lawful on the Sabbath itself to give money to the
poor, or to teach children, or to visit the sick.
They maintained the marriage law in its strictness,
and held that nothing but tlie adultery of the wife
could justify repudiation (Jost, i. 257-269). We
must not think of them, however, as rigid and
austere in their lives. The religious world of Ju
daism presented the inconsistencies which it has
often presented since. The "straitest sect" was
also the most secular. Shammai himself was said
to be rich, luxurious, self-indulgent, liillel re
mained to the day of his death as poor as in his
youth (Geiger, /. c).
(7.) The teaching of Hillel showed some capac
ity for wider thoughts. His personal character was
more lovable and attractive. While on the one
side he taught as from a mind well stored with the
traditions of the elders, he was, on the other, any-

SCBIBES
thing but a slavish follower of those traditiong
He was the first to lay down principles for so
equitable construction of the Law with a dialectic
precision which seems almost to imply a Greek cul
ture (Jost, i. 257). When the letter of a law, aa
e.. g. that of the year of release, was no longer
suited to the times, and was working, so far as it
was kept at all, only for evil, he suggested an in-
terprelation which met the difficulty or practically
set it aside. His ten.ching as to divorce was in like
manner an adaptation to the temper i)f the age. It
was lawlul for a man to put away his wife for any
cause of disfavor, even for so slight au ofFense as
that of spoiling his dinner by her bad cooking «
(Geiger, I. c). The genial character of the man
comes out in some of his sayings, wbich remind us
of the tone of Jesus the son of Sii'ach, and present
some faint approximations to a higher teaching:
" Trust not thyself to the day of thy death."
" Judge not thy neighbor till thou art in his place."
" Leave nothing dark and obscure, saying to thy
self, I will explain it when I have time; for how
knowest thou whether the time will come?"
(comp. James iv. 13-15). " He who gains a good
name gains it for himself, but he who gains a knowl
edge of the Law gains everlasting life" (comp. John
V. 39; Pirke Aboth, ii. 5-8). In one memorable
rule we find tlie nearest approach that had as yet
been made to the great commandment of the Gos
pel: " Do nothing to thy neighbor that thou would
est not that he should do to thee." ^
(8.) The contrast showed itself in the conduct
of the followers not less than in the teachers. The
disciples of Shammai were conspicuous for their
fierceness, appealed to popular passions, used the
sword to decide their controversies. Out of that
school grew the party of the Zealots, fierce, fanat
ical, vindictive, tbe Orangemen of Pharisaism (Jost,
i. 267-269). Those of Hillel were, like their mas
ter (comp. e. g. the advice of Gamaliel, Acts v. 34-
42), cautious, gentle, tolerant, unwilling to make
enemies, content to let things take their L-ourse.
One school resisted, the other was disposed to fos
ter the study of Greek literature. One sought to
impose upon the proselyte from heathenism the fiill
burden of the Law, the other that he should bl
treated with some sympathy and indulgence.

contrasted the steadfastness and austerity of the Bap
tist with the lives of those who wore soft clothing,
were gorgeously appareled, and lived delicately in
kings' houses (Matt. xi. 3 ; Luke vii. 24), those who
heard Him may at once have recognized the picture.
In the multitude of uncertain guesses as to the He-
rodians of the Gospels (Matt. xxii. 16) we may be per
mitted to hazard the conjecture that they may be
identified with the party, perhaps rather with the
clique, of Menahem and his followers (Geiger, ut sup. ;
Otho, Hist. Doctoriim Misnicornin, in Ugolini, Thes.
xxi.). The fact that the stern, sharp words of a di
vine scorn which have been quoted above, meet us
just after the first combination of Hcrodians and
Pharisees, gives ib a strong confirmation (comp. Mark
Hi. 6 ; Luke vi. 11, vii. 19).
a It is fair to add that a great Rabbioic scholar
maintains that this " spoiling the dinner " was a
well-known figurative phrase for conduct which
brought shame or discredit on the husband (Jost, i.
264). & The history connected with this saying is too
charmingly characteristic to be passed over. A pros
elyte came to Shammai and begged for some instruc
tion in the Law if it were only for as long as he, the
leainer, could stand on one foot. The Scribe was an

gry, and drove him away harshly. He went to Hillel
with the same request. He received the inquirer be-
nignantly, and gave him the precept above quoted,
adding — " Do this, and thon hast fulfilled the Law
and the Prophets " (Geiger, ut supra). [Comp. Tobit,
iv. 15, & fiia-eU iLiTiSerl jrovrjayfi, and see Wetstein's
note on Matt. vii. 12. It is' well known that the
same precppt appears repeatedly, in this negative
form, among the sayings ascribed to Confucius. See
the Lun-Yu, or " Confucian Analects," as Dr. Legge
calls the work, bk. v. c. 11 : xii. 2 ; xv. 23. In tbe
Chung-Yung, xiii. 3, 4, Confucius delivers the same
rule with a positive application, but confesses that be
has not himself been able to practice it perfectly
Comp. the L>in- Yuy iv. 15, where the whole doctrine of
Confucius ts summed up in two words, cAung- and 5Aw,
translated by Pauthier (Confucius et JWe7ic/wi, Parifl,
1858, p. 122) avoir la droiture du cceur and aimer son
prochain comme soi-mime. S. W. Williams, Tonu
Diet, of the Chinese Ijing in the Canton Dialect, (Jan-
ton, 1856, pp. 453. 454, gives among the meaniogfl of
shu, " treating others as one wishes to be treated,
and similar definitions are given by De Guignes, Mo^
rison, Medhurst, and I^egge Confucius does not ap
pear to have accepted the doctrine of returning fw
for evU (Lun-Yu, xiv. 36). — A.l

SCRIBES
[Proselyte] One subject of debate between
the schools exhibits the contrast as going deeper
than these questions, touching upon the great prob
lems of the universe. " Was the state of raan so
full of misery that it would have been better for
him never to have been ? Or was this life, with
all its sufiei'ing, still the gift of God, to be valued
and used as a training for something higher than
itself? " Ths school of Shammai took, as might
he expected, the darker, that of Hillel the brighter
and the wiser view (Jost, i. 264).
(9.) Outwardly the teaching of our Lord must
have appeared to men different in many ways from
both. While they repeated the traditions of the
elders, He " spake as one having authority," " not
as the Scribes" (Matt. vii. 29; corap. the con
stantly recurring " 1 say unto you "). While they
confined their teaching to the class of scholars. He
" had compassion on the multitudes " (Matt. ix. 36).
While they were to be found only in the council or
in their schools, He journeyed through the cities
and villages (Matt. iv. 23, ix. 35, &c., &c.). While
they spoke of the Idngdora of God vaguely, as a
thing far off, He proclaimed that it had already
corae nigh to raen (Matt. iv. 17). But in most of
the points at issue between the two parties. He
must have appeared in direct antagonism to the
school of Shammai, in sympathy with that of Hil
lel. In the questions that gathered round the law
of the Sabbath (Matt. xii. 1-14, and John v. 1-16,
&c.), and the idea of purity (Matt. xv. 1-11, and
its parallels), this was obviously the case. Even
in the controversy about divorce, while his chief
work was to assert the truth which the disputants
on both sides were losing sight of, He recognized,
it must be remembered, the rule of Hillel as being
a true interpretation of the Law (Matt. xix. 8).
When He summed up the great commandment in
which the Law and the Prophets were fulfilled. He
reproduced aud ennobled the precept which had
been given by that teacher to his disciples (Matt.
vii. 12, xxxi. 34-40). So far, on the other hand,
as the temper of the Hillel school was one of mere
adaptation to the feeling of the people, cleaving to
tradition, wanting in the huuitlon of a higher Ufe,
the teaching of Christ must have been felt as un
sparingly condemning it.
(10.) It adds to the interest of this inquiry to
remember that Hillel himself lived, according to the
tradition of the Rabbis, to the great age of 120,
and may therefore have been present araong the
doctors of Luke ii. 46, and that Gamaliel, his
grandson and successor," was at the head of this
school during the whole of the ministry of Christ,
as well as in the early portion of the history of the
Acts. We are thus able to explain the fact, which
90 many passages in the Gospels lead us to infer,
the existence all along of a party among the
Scribes themselves, more or less disposed to recog
nize Jesus of Nazareth as a teacher (John iii, 1 ;
Mark x. 17), not far from the kingdom of God
(Mark xii. 34), advocates of a policy of toleration

" Babbi Simeon, the son of Gamaliel, came between
them, but apparently for a short time only. The
[[uestlon whether he is to be identified with the Simeon
of Luke ii. 25, is one which we have not sufficient
lata to determine. Most commentators answer it in
tne negative. There seem, however, some probabilities
on the other side. One trained in the school of Hil
lel might not unnaturally be looking for the "conso
lation of Israel." Himself of the house and lineage
if David, he would readily accept the inward witness

SCRIBES 2871
(John vii. 51), but, on the other hand, timid and
tirae-serving, unable to confess even their half-belief
(John xii. 42), afraid to take their stand against
the strange alliance of extremes which brought
together the Sadducean section of the priesthood
and the ultra-Pharisaic followers of Shammai.
When the last great crisis came, they apparentlv
contented themselves with a policy of absence
(Luke xxiii. 50, 51), possibly were not even sum
moned, and thus the Council which condemned our
Lord was a packed meeting of the confederate par
ties, not a formally constituted Sanhedrim. All ita
proceedings, tbe hasty investigation, the imraediaf:^
sentence, were vitiated by irregularity (Jost, i.
407-409). Afterwards, when the fear of violence was
once over, and popular feeUng had turned, we find
GamaUel summoning courage* to maintain openly
the policy of a tolerant expectation (Acts v. 34).
IV. Education and Life. — (1.) The special
training for a Scribe's office began, probably, about
the age of thirteen. According to the Pirke
Aboth (v. 24) the child began to read the Mikra at
five and the Mishna nt ten. Three years later every
IsraeUte became a child of the Law (Bar~Miisvah),
and was bound to study and obey it. The great
mass of men rested in the scanty teaching of their
synagogues, in knowing and repeating their Te-
phiUim, the texts inscribed on their phylacteries.
For the boy who was destined by his parents, or
who devoted himself, to the calling of a Scribe,
something more was required. He made his way
to Jerusalem, and appUed for admission to the
school of sorae famous Rabbi. If he were poor, it
was the duty of the synagogue of his town or vil
lage to provide for the payment of his fees, and in
part also for his maintenance. His power to learn
was tested by an examination on entrance. If he
passed it he becarae a "chosen one" ("T^n3,
corap. John xv. 16), and entered on his work as a
disciple (Carpzov, App. Crit. i. 7). The master
and his scholars met, the forraer sitting on a high
chair, the elder pupUs (C^I^'Qvn) on a lower
bench, the younger (D'^DISp) on the ground, both
literally "at his feet." The class-room mightbe
the chamber of the Temple set apart for this pur
pose, or the private school of the Rabbi. In ad
dition to the Rabbi, or head master, there were
assistant teachers, and one interpreter or crier,
whose function it was to proclaim aloud to the
whole school what the Rjibbi had spoken in a whis
per (comp. Matt. a. 27). The education was chiefly
catechetical, the pupil submitting the cases and
asking questions, the teacher examining the pupil
(Luke ii.). The questions might be ethical, " What
was the great commandment of aU? What must
a man do to inherit eternal life? " or casuistic,
" What might a man do or leave undone on the
Sabbath? "' or ceremonial, '* What did or did not
render him unclean?"* In due tirae the pupil
passed ou to the laws of property, of contracts, and

which pointed to a child of that house as '' the Lord^a
Christ.'* There is something significant, too, in thd
silence of Rabbinic literature. In the Pirke Aboth he
is not even named. Comp. Otho, Hist, Doct. Misn. in
Ugolini xxi.
b We are left to wonder what were the questions
and answers of tho school-room of Luke ii. 46, but
those proposed to our Lord by his own disciples, or by
the Scribes, as tests of his proficiency, may fairly ba
taken as types of what was commonly discussed. The

¦2872 SCRIBES
of evidence. So far he was within the circle of
the Ilalachah, the simple exposition of the tradi
tional "Words of the Scribes." He might re
main content with this, or might pass on to the
higher knowledge of the Beth-ham-Midrash, with
its inexhaustible stores of mystical interpretation.
In both cases, preeminently in the latter, parables
entered largely into the method of ij:struction.
The teacher uttered the similitude, and left it to
his hearers to interpret for themselves. [Paka-
BLE3.J That the relation between the two was
often one of genial and kindly feeling, we may
infer fi'om the saying of one famous Scribe, " I
have learnt much from the Rabbis my teachers,
I have learnt more from the Rabbis my colleagues,
I have learnt most of all from my disciples "
(Carpzov, App. Cnt. i. 7).
(2.) After a sufficient period of training, prob
ably at the age of thirty, " the probationer was sol
emnly admitted to his office. Tbe presiding
Kabbi pronounced the formula, " 1 adrait thee, and
thou art admitted to the Chair of the Scribe,"
solemnly ordained him by the imposition of hands
(the rO^DD = ;t6£po0e(ria),* and gave to him,
as the symbol of his work, tablets on which he was to
note down the sayings of the wise, and the " bey of
knowledge " (comp. Luke xi. 52), with which he was
to open or to shut the treasures of Divine wisdom.
So admitted, he took his glace as a Chaber,, or mem
ber of the fraternity, was no longer aypdfi/xaTos
Kal iSic^Tijy (Acts iv. 13), was separated entirely
from the multitude, tlie brute herd that knew not
the Law, the "cursed" " people of the earth"
(John vii. 15, 49).c
(3.) There stiU reraained for the disciple after
his adraission the choice of a variety of functions,
the chances of failure and success. He raight give
himself to any one of the branches of study, or
combine two or more of them. He might rise to
high places, hecome a doctor of the Law, an arbi
trator in family litigations (Luke xii. 14), the head
of a school, a member of the Sanhedrim. He
might have to content himself with the humbler
work of a transcriber, copying the Law and the
Prophets for the use of synagogues, or Tephillim
for that of the devout (Otho, Lex. Rabb. s. v.
" Phylacteria " ), or a notary wTiting out contracts of
sale, covenants of espousals, biUs of repudiation.
The position of the more fortunate was of course
attractive enough. Theoretically, indeed, the office
of the Scribe was not to be a source of wealth.
It is doubtful how far the fees paid by the pupils
were appropriated by the teacher (Buxtorf, Synag.
Judaic, cap. 46). The great Hillel worked as a
day-laborer. St. Paul's work as a teut maker, our
Lord's work as a carpenter, were quite compatible
,with the popular conception of the most honored
Rabbi. The indirect payments were, however, cou-
giderable enough. Scholars brought gifts. li^ich

Apocryphal Gospels, aa usual, mock our curiosity with
the most irritating puerilities. (Comp. Evangel. In
fant, c. 45, in Tischendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha.)
a This is inferred by Schoettgen (Hor. Heb, 1. c.)
bom. the analogy of the Levite's office, and from the
&ct that the Baptist and our Lord both entered on
theu: ministry at this age.
b It was said of Hillel that he placed a limit on this
practice. It had been exercised by any Scribe. After
his timo it was reserved for the Nasi or President of
ihe Sanhedrim (Geiger, ut supra).
3 For aU the details in the above section, and many

SCRIBES
and aevout widows maintained a Rabbi as an act
of piety, often to the injury of their own kmdret
(Matt, xxiii. 14). Each act of the notary's office,
or the arbitration of the jurist, would be attended
by an honorarium.
(4.) In regard to social position there was a like
contradiction between theory and practice. The
older Scribes had had no titles [Rabbi] ; Shemaiah,
as we have seen, warned his disciples against them.
In our Lord's time the passion for distinction waa
insatiable. The ascending scale of Rab, Rabbi
Rabban (we are reminded of our own Reverend,
Very Reverend, Right Reverend), presented so
many steps on the ladder of ambition (Serupius,
de tit. R(d)bi, in UgoUni xxii.). Other forms of
worldUness were not far off.*^ The salutations in
the market-place (Matt, xxiii. 7), the reverential
kiss offered by the scholars to their master, or by
Rabbis to each other, the greeting of Abba, father
(Matt, xxiii. 9. and Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. in loe.),
the long a-ToXal, as contrasted with the simple
xlrwp and tfidriop of our Lord and his disciplea,
with the broad blue Zizith or fringe (the Kodv
treSov of Matt. xxui. 5 ), the Tephillim of ostenta
tious size. aU these go to make up the picture of a
Scribe's Ufe. Drawing to themselves, as they did,
nearly all the energy and thought of Judaism, the
close hereditary caste of the priesthood was power
less to compete with them. Unless the priest be
came a Scribe also, he remained in obscurity. The
order, as such, became contemptible and base.'
For the Scribes there were the best places at feas^,
the chief seats in synagogues (Matt, xxiii. 6; Li^e
xiv. 7).
(5.) The character of the order was marked un
der these influences by a deep, incurable hypocrisy,
aU the more perilous because, in most cases, it was
unconscious. We must not infer from this that
aU were alike tainted, or that the work which tbey
had done, and the worth of their office, were not
recognized by Him who rebuked thera for their
evil. Some there were not far from the kingdojn
of God, taldng their place side by side with proph
ets and wise men, among the instruments by which
the wisdom of God was teaching men (Matt, ixiii.
34). The name was still honorable. The Apostke
themselves were to be Scribes in the kingdom of
God (Matt. xiii. 52)." The Lord himself did not
refuse the salutations which hailed Him as a Rabbi>
In " Zenas the lawyer " (vop.iK6s^ Tit. iii. 13) and
ApoUos "mighty in the Scriptures," sent appar
ently for the special purpose of dealing with tbe ^-
Xai pofiiKal which prevailed at Crete (Tit. iii. 9),
we may recognize the work which members of the
order were capable of doing for the edifying of the
Church of Christ (comp. Winer. Realwb., and Her
zog's Encyklop. " Schriftgelehrte "). E. H. P.
* Literature. — The preceding article is so full
and satisfactory that it is not worth while to add
many references. We may name, however, the

others, comp. the elaborate treatises by Ursinus, ^
tiqq. Heb., and Heubner, De Academiis Hf*^amvtr
in Ugolini, Thes. xxi.
d The later Rabbinic saying that " the disciplea Of
the wise have a right to a goodly house, a fair wiAi
and a soft couch," reflected probably the luxury of
an earlier time. (Ursini Antiqq. Heb. cap. 5, nt f^
pra.) e The feeling is curiously prominent in the Babbinif
scale of precedence. The Wise Mau^ t. e. tbe Babbi
is higher than the High Priest himself. (Gem. Hiftrie
Horaioth, i. 84.)

SCRIP
HUtories of the Jewa (in German) by Herzfeld,
tiisetz, and Ewald; Zunz, Die goUescHenstliche
Vorirdge der Juden, Berl. 1832; Hirschfeld,
Hahchische Exegese, Berl. 1810, aud Uayadische
Jixegese, 1847 ; Ginaburg's art. " Scribes " in Kitto's
Cyclop, of Bibl. Lit. 3d ed., vol. iii. ; and Haus-
rath's Neutest. Zeitgeschichte, i. 75-114. A.
SCRIP (tSlp^V auWoyi, ¦t!i)p6,: pera).
The Hebrew word" thus translated appears in
1 Sam. xvii. 40, as a synonym for D''!^"in "'^^
(t6 xi-iiov rh ¦n-ot/iet/iKSv), the bag in which the
shepherds of Palestine carried their food or other
uecessaries. In Symmachus and the Vulg. pera,
and in the marginal reading of A. V. "scrip,"
appear in 2 K. iv. 42, for the pvp^, which in
'the text of the A. V. is translated 'husk (comp.
Gesen. s. v.). The viipa of the N. T. appears in
our Lard's command to his disciples as distin
guished from the j|(iiyj) (Matt. i. 10; Mark vi. 8)
and the paWdvriov (Luke x. 4, xxii. 35, 36), and
its nature and use are sufficiently defined by the
lexicographers. The scrip of the Galilean peasants
was of leather, used especially to carry their
food on a journey (fj Sriicii tUv dprav, Suid. ;
iepp.a Ti aproipSaoi', Ammon.), and slung over
their shoulders. In the Talmudio writers the word
/¦"JSin is used aa denoting the same thing, and
is named as part ofthe equipment both of shepherds
iu their common life and of proselytes coming on a
pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. on
Matt. X. 10). The (dvTi, on the other hand, was
the loose girdle, in the folds of which money was
often kept for the sake of safety [Gikdle] ; the
ffaWivTiov (saccidus, Vulg.), the smaller bag
used exclusively for money (Luke xii. 33). The
command given to the Twelve first, and afterwards
to the Seventy, involved therefore an absolute de
pendence upon God for each day's wants. They
were to appear in every town or village, as men
unlike all other travellers, freely doing without that
whioh others looked on as essential. The fresh rule
given iu Luke xxii. 35, 36, perhaps also the facts
that Judas was the bearer of the bag (y\oi<ra6it.o-
uott, John xii. 6), and that when the disciples
were without bread they were ashamed of their
forgetfulness (Mark viii. 14-16), show that the
command was not intended to be permanent.
The English word has a meaning precisely
equivalent to that of the Greek. Connected as it
probably is, with scrape, scrap, the scrip was used
for articles of food. It belonged especially to
shepherds (As Tou Like Jt, act iii. sc. 2). It was
made of leather (Milton, Comus, 626). A similar
article is still used by the Syrian shepherds (Por
ter's Damascus, ii. 109). The later sense of
terip as a written certificate, is, it need hardly be
«»id, of different origin or meaning ; the word, on
its first use in English, was written ^^scripV
(Chaucer). E. H. P.
SCRIPT URB (2n3, Dan. x. 21: ypai^i,
ypinnara, 2 Tim. iii. 16 : Saiptura). The chief
fats relating to the books to which, individually
and collectively, this title has been applied, will be
found under Bible and Canon. It will fall

SCRIPTURE

2873

<¦ Yalkut, the scrip, is the quaint title of some of
the most learned of the Rabbinical treatises : for in-
Btance, the YcUkut Shimoni, a misceUaneous collection
•rf fragmentary comments on the whole of the 0. T.,
181

within the scope of this article to trace the history
of the word, and to determine its exact meauing
in the language of the 0. and N. T.
(1.) It is not till the return from the Captivity
that the word meets us with any distinctive force.
In the earlier books we read of the Law, the Book
of the Law. In Ex. xxxii. 16, the commandments
written on the tables of testimony are said to be
"•the writing of God " (ypa<{>^ 6€od)j but there is
no special sense in the word taken by itself. In
the passage from Dan. i. 21 (eV ypa(j>f} ixAtj-
0e£os), where the A. V. has " the Scripture of
truth," the words do not probably mean raore
than a " true writing." The thought of ihe Scrip
ture as a whole is hardly to be found in them.
This first appears in 2 Chr. xxx. 5, 18 (^^DSS,
KaT^ T^v ypatp-f^p, LXX., "as it was written,"
A. v.), and is probably connected with the profound
reverence for the Sacred Books which led the earUer
Scribes to confine their own teaching to oral tradi
tion, and gave therefore to "the Writing" a dis
tinctive preeminence. [Sckibes.] The same feel
ing showed itself in the constant formula of quota
tion, "It is written," often without tlie addition of
any words defining the passage quoted (Matt. iv. 4,
6, xxi. 13, xxvi. 24). The Greek word, as wiU be
seen, kept its ground in this sense. A sUght change
passed over that of the Hebrew, and led to tho
substitution of another. The D*'D^n3 (cethubm
= writings), in the Jewish arrangement of the
0. T., was used for a part and not the whole of
the 0- T. (the Hagiographa; corap. Bible), while
another form of the same root (cSthib) came to
have a technical significance as applied to the text,
which, though written in the MSS. of the Hebrew
Scriptures, might, or might not be recognized as
keri, the right intelligible reading to be read in the
congregation. Another word was therefore wanted,
and it was found in the Mikra" (W^|7P, Neh.
viii. 8), or "reading," the thing read or recited,
recitation.* This accordingly we find as the equiva
lent for the collective ypaipaU The boy at the
age of five begins the study of the Mikra, at ten
passes on to the Mishna (Pirke Aboth, v. 24).
The old word has not, however, disappeared, and
n^nSn, "the writing," is used with the same
connotation (ibid.iiu 10).
(2.) With this meaning the word ypa^-i] passed
into the language of the N. T. Used in the singu
lar it is applied chiefly to this or that passage
quoted from the 0. T. (Mark xii. 10; John vu. 38,
xiii. 18, xix. 37; Luke iv. 21; Kom. ix. 17; Gal.
iii. 8, et al.). In Acts viii. 32 (^ ireptoxh t^-
ypat^ri"!) it takes a somewhat larger extension, as
denoting the wHtiny of Isaiah ; but in ver. 35 the
more limited meaning reappears. In two passages
of some difficulty, some have seen the wider, some
the narrower sense. (1.) JlatTa ypa<f>^ 9€6irv€va-
Tos (2 Tim. iii. 16) has been translated in the
A. V. '*A11 Scripture is given by the inspiration
of God," as though ypa(})'f], though without the
article, were taken as equivalent to the 0. T. as a
whole (comp. iraa-a oiKoSo/x'fi, Eph. ii. 21; ira<ra
'Upoa-6\vfia, Matt. ii. 3), and deSirvevaTos, the
predicate asserted of it. Retaining the narrower
consisting of extracts from more than fifty older Jew
ish works (Zunz, Gottesd. Vortrdge, cap. 18).
b The same root, it may be noticed, is found in th«
title of the sacred book of Islam (Koran =k recitation)

2874

SCRIPTURE

meaning, however, we might still take BeiirveuiTTOs
as the predicate. " Every Scripture — sc. every
separate portion — is divinely inspired." It has
been urged, however, that this assertion of a truth,
which both St. Paul and Timothy held in common,
would be less suitable to the context than the as
signing that truth as a ground for the further in
ference drawn from it; and so there is ¦.*. prepon
derance of authority in favor of the rendering,
"Every ypaitri], beino; inspired, is also profitable,
..." (comp. Meyer, Alford, Wordsworth, Ellicott,
Wiesinger, in loc). There does not seem any
ground lor raaking the meaning of ypaif>ii depend
ent on the adjective ee6irvev,TT0s ("every inspired
writing"), as though we recognized a ypaipi] not
inspired. The usus loquendi of the N. T. is uni
form in this respect : and the word ypatpii is never
used of any common or secular writing.
(2.) The meaning of the genitive in iratrS
vpotprtTeia ypaiprjs (2 Pet. i. 20) seems at fii-st
sight, anarthrous though it be, distinctively collec
tive. " Every prophecy of, i. e. contained in, the
O. T. Scripture." A closer examination of the
passage will perhaps lead to a different conclusion.
The Apostle, after speaking of the vision on the
holy mount, goes on, " We have as something yet
firmer, the prophetic word " (here, probably includ
ing the utterances of N. T. -jrpoipTJrai, as well
as the writings of the 0. T."). Men did well to
give heed to that word. They needed one cau
tion in dealing with it.. They were to remember
that no Trpo(l>7]Teia ypa(l>ris, no such prophetic
utterance starting from, resting on a ypaipi],^
came from the iSla iTriXvais, the individual power
of interpretation of the speaker, but was, like the
ypa<l>^ itself, inspired. It was the law of TrpoipiiTeia,
of the later as well as the earlier, that men of God
spake, " borne along by the Holy Spirit."
(3.) In the plural, as might be expected, the
collective meaning is prominent. Sometimes we
tave simply al ypaipai (Matt. xxi. 42, xxii. 29;
John V. 39; Acts xvii. 11; 1 Cor. xv. 3). Some
times iraaai ai ypaipai (Luke xxiv. 27). The
•epithets ayiai (Rom. i. 2), irpoipriTiicai (Eom.
xvi. 26), are sometimes joined with it. In 2 Pet.
iii. 16, we find an extension of the term to the
epistles of St. Paul; but it remains uncertain
whether ai Aoiiral ypaipai are the Scriptures of
the 0. T. exclusively, or include other writings,
then extant, dealing with the same topics. There
seems little doubt that such writings did exist.
A comparison of Kom. xvi. 26 with Eph. iii. 5
might even suggest the conclusion, that in both
there is the same assertion, that what bad not been
revealed before was now manifested by the Spirit
to the apostles and prcphets of the Church; and
so that the "prophetic writings" to which St.
Paul refers, are, like the spoken words of N. T.
prophets, those that reveal things not made known
before, the knowledge of the mystery of Christ.
It is noticeable, that in the [spurious] 2d Epistle
of Clement of Rome (c. xi.) we have a long citation
of this nature, not from the 0. T., quoted as 6
irpoipriTiKhs K6yos (comp. 2 Pet. i. 19), and that

SCYTHIAN
in the 1st Epistle (c. xxiii.) the same is quoted ai
Tl ypaipi). Looking to the special fullness of the
prophetic gifts in the Church of Corinth (1 Co,.
i. 5, xiv. 1), it is obviously probable that some of
the spoken prophecies would be committed to wrilr
ing ; and it is a striking coincidence, that both tbe
apostolic and post-apostolic references are connected-,
first with that church, and next with that of Koiiib,
which was so largely influenced by it.
(4.) In one passage, to iepii ypifjipara (2 Tim.
iii. 15) answers to " The Holy Scriptures" of the
A. V. Taken by itself, the word might, its in
John vii. 15, Acts xxvi. 24, have a wider range,iii-
cluding tbe whole circle of Rabbinic education.
As determined, however, by the use of other Hd-
lenistic writers, Philo (Leg. ad Caium, vol. ii, p.
574, ed. Mang.), Josephus (Ant. prooem. 3, i. lO^
§ 4; c. Ajjion. i. 26), there can be no doubt that
it is accurately translated with this special nieaii-
mg. E. H. 1'.
* SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION
[Old Testamemt, vol. iii. p. 2228 ff.]
* SCURVY. [Medicine.]
SCYTHIAN (2Kiier)s: Scytha) occure in
Col. iii. 11, as a generalized term for rude, igno
rant, degraded. In the Gospel, says Paul, *' there
is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncir-
cumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free; hut
Christ is all and in all." The same view of Scjthiaii
barbarism appears in 2 Mace. iv. 47, and 3 Mace
vii. 5. For the geographical and ethnographical
relations of the term, see Did. of (Jeoy. ii. 936-
945. The Scythians dwelt mostly on the north of
the Black Sea and the Caspian, stretching thence
indefinitely into inner Asia, and were regai'ded hj
the ancients as standing extremely low in point of
intelligence and civilization. Josephus (c. Apidi
ii. 37) says, ^Kvdai Se tp6vois xaipovre? avdpi^af
Kal ^pax^ T&v Bnpian' oiatpepovresi aod Par?
menio (ap. Athen. v. 221), av^p yap €AK»y
olvov, ws liSup Ittitos ^KvOiorl (pwvei, oiih\
Ktimra ytyyciffKioy. For other similar testimonies
see Wetstein, Nov. Test. vol. ii. p. 292. At the
same time, by the force of numbers, and by their
wildness and savage ferocity, the Scythians were a
dreaded foe, and often spread slaughter and desolar
tion through the lands which they invaded (see
Rawlinson's Ancient Monarchies, ii. 508-517). ;• 1'
is generally allowed that tbey are the hordes meant
under the name of Magog in Ez. xxxviii. and
xxxix., and are also the warriors whom Jeremiah
describes aa so terrible (iv.-vi.). Perhaps it maj
be inferred from Col. iii. 11 that there were Scj-
thians also among the early converts to Christianity.
Many of this people lived in Greek and Eonian
lands, and could have heard the Gospel there, even
if some of the first preachers had not peneti?ted
into Scythia itself. According to one of the early
Christian traditions it was the mission of the
Apostle Andrew to go to the Scythians and preach
to them the Gospel (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iii. 1).
Herodotus states (i. 103-105) that the Scjthian»
made an incursion through Palestine into Kgypti

a *0 irpoi^ijTiKbj Xd-yos is used by Philo of the words
of Moses (Leg. Alleg. iii. 14, vol. i. p. 95, ed. Mang.).
He, of course, could recognize no prophets but those
of tho 0. T. Clement of Rome [PMnrfo-CIemont, A.]
(ii. 11) uses it of a prophecy not included in tbe
Can'^n. & So in the only other instance in which the geni-
ire is found (Bom. xv. 4), ^ TrapdfcXTjo-if rwv .^pa^Stv

is the counsel, admonition, drawn from the ScriptuW-
Adyos n-apaKAijo-eois appears in Acts xiii. 15 as thfi.re-
ceived term for such an address, the Sermon of the
Synagogue, -aapixkiim itself was so closely, alW
with 7rpo<^i]Teta (comp. Barnabas = vibs 7rpo(|niT«u« ^
vibs irapaicAitircius), that the expressions of the l«
Apostles may be regarded as substantially ideut^

SCYTHOPOLIS
mder Psammetichua, the contemporary of Josiah.
In this way some would account for the Greek
pame of Beth-shean, Scythopolis. H. B. H.
SOYTHOP'OLIS (^Kveau Tr6\i5- Peshito-
Syriac, Beisan : civ-ltas Scytharum), that is, " the
sity of the Scythians," occurs in the A. V. of Jud.
Iii. 10 and 2 Mace xii. 29 only. In the LXX.
of Judg. i. 27, however, it is inserted (in both the
great MSS.) as the synonym of Beth-shkan, and
this identification is confirmed by the nari'ative of
1 Mace. V. 52, a parallel account to that of 2 Mace.
xii. 29, as well as by the repeated statements of
Josephus (Ani.,y. 1, § 22, vi. U, § 8, xii. 8, § 5).
He uniformly gives the name in the contracted
shape ('S,Kvd6rro\ts) iu which it is also given by
Eusebius (Onom. passim), FUny (H. N. y. 18),
Strabo (xvi.), etc., etc., and which is inaccurately
followed in the A. V. Polybius (v. 70, § 4) employs
the fuller form of the LXX. Beth-shean has now,
like so many other places in the Holy Land, re
gained its ancient name, and is kuown as Beisan
only. A mound close to it on the west is called
Tell Shak, in which it is perhaps just possible that
a trace of Scythopolis may linger.
But although there is no doubt whatever of the
identity of the place, there ia considerable diflference
of opinion as to the origin of the name.<^ The
LXX. (as is evident from the form in which they
present it) and Pliny (//. N. v. 16 ^) attribute it to
the Scythians, who, in the words of the Byzantine
historian, George Syncellus, '*oven'an, Palestine,
and took possession of Baisan, which from them is
called Scythopolis." This has been in modern
times generally referred to the invasion recorded by
Herodotus (i. 104-6), wlien the Scythians, after
their occupation of Media, passed through Pales
tine on their road to Egypt (about b. c. 600 — a
few years before the taking of Jerusalem by Nebu
chadnezzar), a statement nov/ recognized as a real
fact, though some of the details may be open to
question (Diet, of Geogr. ii. 940 b ; Rawlinson's
Hei od. i. 2'iQ). It is not at all improbable that
either on their passage through, or on their return
after being repulsed by Psammetichus (Herod, i.
105), sorae Scythians may have settled in the coun
try (liwaldi Gesch. iii. Q94,note); and no place
would be more likely to attract them than Beisan
— fertile, most abundantly watered, and in an ex
cellent military position. In the theu state of the
Holy Land they would hardly meet with much re
sistance. Reland, however (apparently incited thereto by
his doubts of the truth of Herodotus' account), dis
carded this explanation, and suggested that Scy
thopolis was a corruption of SuccothopoHs — the
chief town of the district of Succoth. In this he is
supported by Gesenius (Notes io Burckhardt^ p.
1058) and by Grimm (Exeg. Han^uch on 1 Mace.

o The " mo(^ern Greeks " are said to derive it from
(TKUTOB, a hide (Williams, in Diet, of Geogr.). This is,
doubtless, another appearance of the legend so well
known in connection with the foundation of Byrsa
'Carthage). One such has heen mentioned in refer-
rfnee to Hebron under Machphelah (vol. ii. p. 1729,
note c).
b The singular name Nysa, mentioned in this pas-
tage as a former appellation of Scythopolis, is ideati-
lod by Ewald (Gesch. iv. 453) with Neash, an inver-
doQ of (Beth-) Shean, actually found on coins,
" DJ, Ch. S^^, Dan. vii. 2, 3 : edKavva : mare,

SEA 2875
V. 52). Since, however, the objection of Reland to
the historical truth of Herodotus is now removed,
the necessity for this suggestion (certainly most in
genious) seems not to exist. The distance of Suc
coth from Beisan, if we identify it with SakUl, is
10 m tes, while if the arguments of Mr. Beke are
valid it would be nearly double as far. And it is
surely gratuitous to suppose that so large, inde
pendent, and important a town as Beth-shean was
in the earher history, and as the remains show it
to have been in the Greek period, should have taken
its name from a, comparatively insignificant place
at a long distiuice from it. Ur. Robinson {Bibl.
Res. iii, 330) remarks with justice, that had the
Greeks derived the name from Succoth they would
have employed that name in its transhited form as
'^K7}val, and the compound would have been Scen-
opolis. Reland's derivation is also dismissed with
out hesitation by Ewald, on the ground that the
two names Succoth and Skythes have nothing iu
common (Gesch. iii. 694, note). Dr. Rohinsou
suggests that, after all, City of the Scythians may
be riglit; the word Scythia being used as in the
N. T. as equivalent to a barbarian or savage. Iu
this sense he thinks it may have been applied t^
the wild Arabs, who then, as now, inhabited the
Ghor, and at times may have had possession of
Beth-shean. The Canaanites were never expelled from Beth-
shean, and the heathen appear to have always main
tained a footing there. It is named in the Mishna
as the seat of idolatry (Mishna, Aboda Zara, i. 4),
and as containing a double population of Jews and
heathens. At the beginning of the Roman war
(a. d. 65) the heathen rose against the Jews and
massacred a large number, according to Josephus
(B. J. ii. 18, § 3) no less than 13,000, in a wood or
grove close to the town. Scythopolis was the
largest city of the Decapolis, and the only one of
the ten which lay west of Jordan, By Eusel)ius
and 3evQm.e (Onom. "Bethsan")it is character
ized as ¦n-6\is errldrjpos and urbs nobilis. It was
surrounded by a district of its own of the most
abundant fertility. It became the seat of a Chris
tian bishop, and its name is found in the lists of
signatures as late as the Council of Constantinople,
A. D, 536. The latest mention of it under the
title of Scythopolis is probably that of William
of Tyre (xxii. 16, 26). He mentions it as if it
was then actually so-called, carefully explaining
that it was formerly Beth-shan. G.
* SCYTHOPOL'ITANS (•S.KvBoivoK'CTai :
Scyihopoliice), inhabitants of Scythopolis (2
Mace. xii. 30). H.
SEA. The Sea, ydm,^ is used in Scripture to
denote — (1.) The *' gathering of the waters " (yd-
mim) encompassing the land, or what we call in a
more or less definite sense " the Ocean." (2.) Sorae

from n^^, not used, i. q. DDn, or riDn, " roar,"
n and "^ being interchanged. Connected with this iti
D*inri : a/Svtro-os : ahyssus, " the deep " (Gen. i. 2 ;
Jon. ii.*5 ; Ges. p. 371)- It also means the west (Ges.
pp. 360, 598). When used for the sea, it very often,
but not always, takes the article.
Other words for the sea (in A. V. "deep") are : (1.)
nb^llJP, nVllSQ (only iu plural), or nb?)lJ :
a/Svtrcros, ^aflo? : ahyssus, profundum. (2.) V^2p !
KaTOjeKvtrtio^ } ditavium, " water-flood " (Ps. xxix. 101

2876 SEA
portion of this, as the Mediterranean Sea. (3.) In
land lakes, whether of salt or fresh water. (4.) Any
great collection of water, as the rivers Nile or Eu
phrates, especially in a state of overflow.
1. In the first sense it is used iu Gen. i. 2, 10,
aud elsewhere, as Deut. xxx. 13; IK. x. 22; Ps.
xxiv. 2; Job xxvi. 8, 12, xxxviii. 8; see Hom. //.
xiv. 301, 302, and Hes. Theog. 107, 109; and 2 Pet.
iii. 5.
2. In the second, it is used, with the article (a)
of the Mediterranean Sea, called the " hinder," " the
" western," and the " utmost " sea (Deut. xi. 24,
xxxiv. 2; Joel ii. 20); " sea of the Philistines " (Ex.
xxiii. 31) ; " the great sea " (Num. xxxiv. 6,7; Josh.
XV. 47) ; " the sea " (Gen. xlix. 13; Ps. Ixxx. 11, ovii.
23 ; 1 K. iv. 20, Ac), (b) Also frequently of the Red
Sea (Ex. XV. 4; Josh. xxiv. 6), or one of its gulfs
(Num. xi. 31; Is. xi. 1.5), and perhaps (IK. i. 22)
the sea traversed by Solomon's fleet. [Red Sea.]
3. The inland lakes termed seas, as the Salt or
Dead Sea. (See the special articles.)
4. The term yam, like the Arabic bahr, is also
applied to great rivers, as the Nile (Is. xix. 5 ; Am.
viii. 8, A. V. " flood; " Nah. iii. 8; Ez. xxxii. 2),
the Euphrates (Jer. li. 36). (See Stanley, S. # P.
App. p. 533.)
The qualities or characteristics of the sea and
sea-coast mentioned in Scripture are, (1.) The sand,*
whose abundance ou the coast both of Palestine
and Egypt furnishes so many illustrations (Gen.
xxii. 17, xii. 49; Judg. vii. 12; 1 Sam. xiii. 5; 1
K. iv. 20, 29; Is. x. 22; Matt. vii. 26; Strabo,
lib. xvi. 758, 759; Raumer, Pal. p. 45; Robinson,
ii. 34-38, 464 ; Shaw, Trav. p. 280; Hasselquist,
Trav. p. 119; Stanley, S. ^ P. pp. 255, 260, 264).
(2.) The shore." (3. ) Creeks "^ or inlets. (4.) Har-
bors.« (5.) Waves /or billows.
It may be remarked that almost all the figures
of speech taken from the sea in Scripture refer
either to its power or its danger, and among the
woes threatened in punishment of disobedience, one
raay be remarked as significant of the dread of the
sea entertained by a non-seafaring people, the being
brought back into Egypt "in ships " (Deut. xxviii.
68). The national feeling on this subject may be
contrasted with that of the Greeks in reference to
the sea. [Commerce.] It may be remarked, that,
as is natural, no mention of the tide is found in
Scripture. The place " where two seas met " ff (Acts xxvii.
41) is explained by Conybeare and Howson as a
pUuje where the island Salmonetta, off the coast of
Malta in St. Paul's Bay, so intercepts the passage
from the sea without to the bay within as to give
the appearance of two seas, just as Strabo repre
sents the appearance of the entrance from the Bos-

" l^"^r7^ • (SaAotrcra if) lirxo-Tri : (mare) novis-
timum. t> vin ' ap-fioq'. arena.
' f^in, joined with D"* : napa\ia. y^ : littus. In
Gen. xlix. 18, "haven ; " Acts xxvii. 39, alyioAiSs.
<* y"lQl3, from ^'nQ, " break," only in Judg.
T. 17, in plural : Siatumai : partus : A. V. " breaches."
e Tinj3, a place of retreat ; ^ifujr : partus : A. V.
" haven." /(I.) vS, lit. a heap, in plural, waves: xu^a:
largites, mare fluctuans. (2.) ^31, or HD'T : iwi-

SEA, MOLTEN
phorus into the Euxine; but it seems quite atim.
that by the " plaoe of the double sea," is mean!
one where two currents, caused by the intervention
of the island, met and produced an eddy, which
made it desirable at once to ground the ship (Cony.
beare and Howson, ii. 423; Strabo, ii. 124).
H. W. P.
* SEA, THE GBEAT. [Sea, 2.]
SEA, MOLTEN.* The name given to the
great brazen * laver of the Mosaic ritu£d. [La VER,]
In the place of the laver of the Tabernacle, Solo.
mon caused a laver to be cast for a similar purpow
which from its size was called a sea. It was made
partly or wholly of the brass, or rather copper,
which had been captured by David from " Tibha)h
and Chun, cities of Hadarezer king of Zobah"
(1 K. vii. 23-26; 1 Chr. xviii. 8). Its dimensioni
were as follows: Height, 5 cubits; diameter,' 10
cubits ; circumference, 30 cubits ; thickncBB, 1.
handbreadth ; and it is said to have been capable
of containing 2,000, or, according to 2 Chr. iv. §,
3,000 baths. Below the brimJ there was a donWe
row of "knops," * 10 (i. e. 5 -|- 5) in eachcuMt
These were probably a running border or double
fillet of tendrils, and fruits, said to be gourds, of on
oval shape (Celsius, Hierob. i. 397, and Jewish au
thorities quoted by him). I'he brim itself, or lip,
was wrought " like the brim of a cup, with flowew'
of lilies," i. c. curved outwards like a lily or lotus
flower. The laver stood on twelve oxen, three to
wards each quarter of the heavens, and all looking
outwards. It was mutilated by Ahaz, by lieing
removed from its basis of oxen and placed on a
stone base, and was finally broken up by the Asajt-
ians (2 K. xvi. 14, 17, xxv. 13).
Josephus says that the form of the sea was hemi
spherical, and that it held 3,000 baths; and beeiae.
where tells us that the bath was equal to 72 Attic
Ic'iTTOi, or 1 yucTpTjT^s = 8 gallons 6.12 pinti
(Joseph. Ani. viii. 2, § 9, and 3, § 5. The queatiiB
arises, which occurred to the Jewish writers them-
selves, how the contents of the laver, as thfij'are
given in the sacred text, are to be reconciled ffith
its dimensions. At the rate of 1 bath = 8 gallona
5.12 pints, 2,000 baths would amount to abont
17,250 gallons, and 3,000 (the more precisely staled
reading of 2 Chr. iv. 5) would amount fo 25,920
gallons. Now, supposing the vessel to be bemi-
spherical, as Josephus says it was, the cubit to be
= 20i inches (20.6250), and the pahn or hand-
breadth = 3 inches (2.9464, Wilkinson, Anc. Eggl.
ii. 258), we find the following proportions: From
the height (5 cubits ^ 102^ inches) subtract the
thickness (3 inches), the axis of the '

Tpi^cts : Jluctus ; only in Ps. xciii. 3. (3.) "12^*0 ¦
p.eT€topia-p6s : gurges, elatio : ^^ & hTe&keT." (4.) HCj*
(Job ix. 8) : Jluctus : lit. " a high plaje ' (Ez. xx. &¦
9 T6iro$ fitdaAocrcros : locus ditnalassus.
h p'S'lD : xvos : fusilis.
' ntrnp : x^^'m • <^eus.
J nSCi? : x"^"! '¦ labrum.
T T ^
* D''^pB: viroo-niptyfuiTO : seulptuTa: propedl
" gourds." ' lETltZ? rrnS: phitrroiKplvtyv: folium repani
lilii. The passage literally is, " and its Bp (™»1 *
work (such as) a cup's lip, a lily-flower."

SEA, MOLTEN
ironld be 99j inches, and its contents in gallons, at
277J cubic inches to the gallon, would be about
7,500 gallons ; or taking the cubit at 22 inches, the
contents would reach 10,045 gallons — an amount
still far below the required quantity. On the other
hand, a hemispherical ve."isel, to contain 17,250 gal
lons, must have a depth of 11 feet nearly, or rather
niot« than 6 cubits, at the highest estimate of 22
inches to the cubit, exclusive of the thickness of
the vessel. To meet the difficulty, we may imag
ine — (1.) An erroneous reading of the numbers.
iZ , We may imagine the laver, like its prototype
in the Tabernacle, to have had a " foot," which may
have been a basin which received the water as it
was drawn out by taps from the laver, so that the
priests might be said to wash " at " « not " in " it
(Ex. xxx. 18, 19; 2 Chr. iv. 6). (3.) We may
suppose the laver to have had another shape than
the hemisphere of Josephus. The Jewish writers
supposed that it had a square hollow base for 3
cubits of its height, and 2 cubits of the circular
form above (Lighlibot, Descr. Tempi, vol. i. p.
647). A far more probable suggestion is that of
Thenius, in which Keil- agrees, that it was of a
bulging forra below, but contracted at the mouth
to the dimensions named hi 1 K. vii. 23. (4.) A
fourth supposition is perhaps tenable, that when
it is said the laver contained 2,000 or 3,000 baths,
the meaning is that the supply of water required
for its use amounted, at its utmost, to that quan
tity. The quantity itself of water is not surpris
ing, when we remember the quantity mentioned as
the supply of a private house for purification,
liamely, 6 amphorse of 2 or 3 firkins (perprirai)
each, i. e. from 16 to 24 gallons eaoh (John ii. 6 ).

SEA, THE SALT

2877

Efypothetical restoration of the Laver. From Keil.

The laver is said to have been supplied in earlier
days by the Gibeonites, but afterwards by a conduit
from the pools of Bethlehem. Ben-Katin made
twelve cocks (epistomia) for drawing off the water,
and invented a contrivance for keeping it pure
during the night (Joma, iii. 10; Tamid, iii. 8;
Middoth, iii. 6; Lightfoot, I. c). Mr. Layard
mentions some circular vessels found at Nineveh,
of '6 feet m diameter and 2 feet in depth, which
eeeined to answer, in point of use, to the Molten
Sea, though far inferior in size; and on the bas-
reliefs it is remarkable that cauldrons are repre
sented supported by oxen (Layard, Nin. and Bab.
p. 180; see Thenius on 1 K. vii.; and Keil, Arch.
Bibl. i. 12T, and pi. 3, fig. i.). H. W. P.
" ^3^73 : e^ auTov : A. V. « thereat " (Ex. xxx. 19).
)2. : ei' avrfi (2 Chr. iv. 6).
^ In the Samaritan Pentateuch also in iv. 49.
0 In Zechariah and Joel, as an antithesis to " the
Wncler sea," i. e. the Mediterranean ; whence the ob-
tenie rendering of the A. V., " former sea."

SEA, THE SALT(n^^n DV ^ BdXaaxFa
TWP a\ctip; 8. 7} aKyK^fif and t^s aXu/cr)?; 0. aK6s
in Gen. mare sails, elsewhere m. salsissimum, ex
cept Josh. iii. quod nunc vocatur mortuum). The
usual, and perhaps the most ancient name for the
remarkable lake, which to the Western world is
now generally known as the Dead Sea.
I. (1.) It is found only, and but rarely, in the
Pentateuch (Gen. xiv. 3; Num. xxxiv. 3, 12; Deut.
iii. 17^), and in the book of Joshua (iii. 36, xii. 3,
XV. 2, 5, xviii. 19).
(2.) Another, and possibly a later name, is the
Sea of the Aeabah (HH^l^?^ ^'^ ¦ BdXaaaa
^Kpa^a'i 7] Bd\. ''Apa^a'-, 7] 6d\. ttjs ''Apa&a'
mare soliiudinis, or deserti ; A. V. "Sea of the
plain"), which is found in Deut. iv. 49, and 2 K.
xiv. 25; and combined with the former — "the sea
of the Arabah, the salt sea" — iu Deut. iii. 17;
Josh. iii. 16, xii. 3.
(3.) In the prophets (Joel ii. 20; Ez, xlvii, 18,
Zech. xiv. 8) it is mentioned by the title of the
Eastc Sea (^?1C7|?n Ojr? : in Ez. t^i/ BdXaa-
cap T^p irphs apaToXks ^oipikmposj'^ in Joel and
Zech. T^p Bd\. t^jp irpdiTTjp'. mare orientate),
(4.) In Ez. xlvii. 8, it is styled, without previous
reference, the sea (D*n), and distinguished from
" the great sea " — the Mediterranean (ver. 10).
(5.) Its connection with Sodom is first suggested
in the Bible in the book of 2 Esdras (v. 7) by the
name " Sodomitish sea" (mare Sodomiticum).
(6.) In the Talmudical books it is called both the
"Sea of Salt" (MPlbDl SQ**), and "Sea of
Sodom " (D1"TD ba; MD"^). See quotations frora
Talmud and Midrash Tehillim, by Reland (Pal. p.
237). (7.) Josephus, and before hira Diodorus Siculus
(ii. 48, xix. 98), names it the Asphaltic Lake —
7} ^Aa-(pa\TiTis \ifiP7} (Aid. i. 9, iv. 5, § 1, ix. 10,
§1; B.J.i.SS, §5, iii. 10, § 7, iv. 8, § 2,4),
and once A. ¦^ a(7(pa\TO<f>6pos {Ajii. xvii. 6, § 5)
Also (Ant. v. 1, § 22) jj ^oSofUTis KifiPV-
(8.) The name " Dead Sea" appears to have been
first used in Greek (Bdhaaaa p^Kpd) by l^ausanias
(v. 7) and Galen (iv. 9), and in Latin (mare mor-
tujim) by Justin (xxxvi. 3, § 6), or rather by the
older historian, Trogus Pompeiius (cir. u. c. 10),
whose work he epitomized. It is employed also hy
Eusebius (Omnn. :Z6Sofj.a). The expressions of
Pausanias and Galen imply that the name was in
use in the country. And this is corroborated by
the expression of Jerome (Comm. on Dan. xi. 45),
" mare .... quod nunc appellatur mor
tuum." The Jewish writers appear never to have
used it, and it bas become estabUshed in modern
literature, from the belief in the very exaggerated
stories of ita deadly character and gloomy aspect,
which themselves probably arose out of the name,
and were due to the preconceived notions of the
travellers who visited ita shores, or to the implicit

d The version of the LXX. is remarkable, as intru-
ducing the name of Phoenicia in both vv. 18 and 19.
This may be either an equivalent of En-gedi, originally
Hazazon-tamar, the "City of Palm-trees" {(ftotpUMv);
or may arise out of a corruption of Kadmoni into
Kanaan, which in tbis version is occasionally rendered
by Phoenicia. The only warrant for it in the existing
Hebrew text is the name Tamar(="a palm," and
rendered QaifLav koX ^oiriKupos) in ver. 19.

2878

SEA, THE SALT

faith with which they received the statements of
their guides. Thus Maundeville (eh. ix.) says
it is called the Dead Sea because it moveth not,
but is ever still — the fact being that it is fre
quently agitated, and that when in motion its
waves have great force. Hence also the fable that
no birds could fly across it alive, a notion which
the experience of almost every modern traveller to
Palestine would contradict.

SEA, THE SALT
(9.) The Arabic name is Bahr LAI, the " Sea of
Lot." The name of Lot is also specially connected
with a small piece of land, sometimes island some
times peninsula, at the north end of the lake.
II. (1.) The so-called Dkad Ska is the final re
ceptacle of the river Jordan, the lowest and largest
of the three lakes which interrupt the rush of its
downward course. It is the deepest portion of that
very deep natural fissure which runs like a furrow

Slap, and Longitudinal Sect on (from north to south) of the Bead Sea, from tbe Observations, Surveys, aod
Soundings of Lynch, Robinson, Bo Saulcy, Van de Yelde, and others, drawn under the superiutendence of
Mr. Grove by Trelawney Saunders, and engraved by J. D. Oooper.

References. — 1. Jericho. 2. Ford of Jordan.
khah. 6. Ain Terabeh. 7. Kas Mersed. 8.
beh. 12. Wady Zuweirah. 12. Um Zoghal.
17. Wady Tuflleh. 18. Ghor es-Safieh. 19.
22. The Lagoon. 23. The Frank Mountain.

8 Wady Goumran. 4. Wady Zurka Ma'in. 6. Kas el-Fesb
Wady Mojib. 9. Ain Jidy. 10. Birket el Khulil. 11. Seb-
14. Khashm Usdum. 15. Wady Fikreh. 16. Wady el-Jeib.
Plain cs-Sabkah. 20. Wady ed-Dra'ah. 21. The Peninsula.
24. Bethlehem. 25. Hebron.

The dotted lines crossing and recrossing the Lake show the places of the tranverse sections given on the oppo
site page.

from the Gulf of Akaba to the range of Lebanon,
and from the range of Lebanon to the extrerae
north of Syria. It is in fact a pool left by the
ocean, in its retreat from what there is reason
to believe was at a very remote period a channel
connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea.
As the most enduring result of the great geological
nperation which determined the present form of the

country it may be called without exaggeration the
key to the physical geography of the Holy Land.
It is therefore in every way an object of extreme
interest. The probable conditions of the formatioB '
of the lake will be alluded to in the course of this
article : we shall now attempt to describe its dinieni
sions, appearance, and natural features.
2. Viewed on the map, the lake is of an oblong

West.

SEA, THE SALT
1. Prom Ain Feshkhah to E. shore. j^^|.

SEA, THE SALT

2879

T

2. From Ain Feshkhah to Wady Zurka Ma'in.

4. From Ain Terabeh to Wady Mojib.

I asofeet—

i

..^

\

-^
1
'750 
JlDOO 
-^
J
6. From Ain Jidy to Wady Mojib.
fi. Prom Ain Jidy to the N. point of Peninsula.
J. From the W. shore to the N. point
of Peninsula
1
A^
\r
Nt
1
¦ I Ford near S. end Acroea the Lagoon from E. to W.
I ot Petiineula.
form, of tolerably regular contour, interrupted only
by a large and long peninsula which projects from
the eastern shore, near its southern end, and vir
tually divides the expanse of the water into two
portions, connected by a long, narrow, and some
what devious passage. Its longest axis is situated
nearly north and south. It lies between 31° 6'
20" and 31° W N. lat., nearly; and thus its water
surface is from N. to S. as nearly as possible 40
geographical, or 46 English miles long. On the
other hand, it lies between 35° 24' and 35° 37'
east long.,*^ nearly;, and its greatest width (some 3
miles S. of Ain Jidy) is about 9 '' geographical miles,
or 10 J English miles. The ordinary area of the up
per portion is about 174 square geographical miles ;
of the channel 29 ; and of the lower portion, here
after styled "the lagoon," 46; in all about 250
square geographical miles. These dimensions are
not very dissimilar to those of the Lake of Geneva.
They are, however, as will be seen further on, sub
ject to considerable variation according to the time
of the year.
At its northern end the lake receives the stream
ofthe Jordan: on its eastern side the Zurka Ma'in
(the ancient Oallirrhoe, and possibly the more an
cient en-Eglaim), the Mojib (the Arnon of the
Bible), and the Beni-Hemad. On the south the
Kuraby or el-Ahsy ; and on the west that of Ain
Jidy. These are probably all perennial, though
variable streams ; but, in addition, the beds of the
torrents which lead through the mountains east
and west, and over the flat shelving plains on both
north and south of the lake, show that in the
winter a very large quantity of water must he
poured into it. There are also all along the west
ern side ib considerable number of springs, some
fresh, some warm, some salt and fetid — which
appear to run continually, and all find their way,
more or less absorbed by the sand and shingle of
the beach, into its waters. The lake has no visible "^
outlet. 3. Excepting the last circumstance, nothing bas
yet been stated about the Dead Sea that may not
be stated of numerous other inland lakes. The
depression of its surface, however, and the depth
which it attains below that surface, combined with
the absence of any outlet, render it one of the most
remarkable spots on the globe. According to the
observations of Lieut. Lynch, the surface of the lake
in May, 1848, was 1,316.7 ci feet below the level of
transverse Sections (from west to east) of the D£aj>
Sea; plotted for the first time, from the Soundings
given by Lynch on the Map in his Narrative of the
U. S. Expedition, etc., London, 1849. The epota at
wbich the Sections were taken are indicated on the
Map (opposite) by the dotted lines The depths are
given in English feet.
N.B. — For the sake of clearness, the horizontal
lud vertical scales for these Sections have been en-
3iged from those adopted for the Map and Longitudi-
uJ Section on the opposite page.
a The longitudes and latitudes are giyen with car<»
by Van de Velde (Mem. p. 65), but they can none of
them be implicitly trusted.
b Lynch says 9 to 9| ; Dr. Robinson says 9 (i. 509j
The ancient writers, as is but natural, estimated its
dimensions very inaccurately. Diodorus states the
length as 500 stadia, or about 50 miles, and breadtb
60, or 6 miles. Josephus extends the length to 580
stadia, and the breadth to 150. It is not necessary to
accuse him. on tbis account, of willful exaggeration.
Nothing is more difficult to estimate accurately than
the extent of a sheet of water, especially one which
varies so much in appearance as the Dead Sea- As
regards the length, it is not impossible that at the
time of Josephus the water extended over the southern
plain, which would make the entire length over 60
geographical miles.
e Nor can there be any invisible one : the distance
of the surface below that of the ocean alone renders
it impossible ; and there is no motive for supposing it,
because the evaporation (see note to § 4) is amply
sufBcient to carry off the supply front tvithout.
rf Tbis figure waa obtained by running Irvels from
2880

SEA, THE SALT

the Mediterranean at Jafia (Repoi't of Secretary qf
Navy, etc., 8vo, p. 23), and although we cannot
absolutely rely on the accuracy of that dimension,
still there is reason to believe that it is not very
far from the fact. The measurements of the depth
of the lake taken by the same party are probably
more trustworthy. Tbe expedition consisted of
sailors, who were here in their element, and to
whom taking soundings was a matter of every day
occurrence. In the upper portion of the lake,
north of the peninsula, seven cross sections were
obtained, six of which are exhibited on the pre
ceding page." They show this portion to be a
perfect basin, descending rapidly till it attains, at
about one-third of its length from the north end,
a depth of 1,308 ^ feet. Immediately west of the
upper extremity of the peninsula, however, this
depth decreases suddenly to 336 feet, then to

Ain Terabeh up the Wady Ras el- Ghuweir and Wady
en-Nar to Jerusalem, aud thence by Ramleh to Jaffa.
If. seems to have heeu usually assumed as accurate,
and as settling tbe question. The elements of error
in leveling across such a country are very great, and
even practiced surveyors would be liable to mistake,
unless by the adoption of a series of checks which it
is inconceivable that Lynch 's party can have adopted.
The very fact that no datum on the beach is men
tioned, and that they appear to have leveled from the
then surface of the water, shows that the party was
not directed by a practiced leveler, and casts suspicion
over all the observations. Lvnch's observations with
the barometer (p. 12) gave 1,234.589 feet — 82 feet less
depression than that mentioned above. The existence
ofthe depression was for a long time unknown. Even
Seetzen (i. 425) believed that it lay higher than the
ocean. Marmont (Voyage, iii. 61) calculates the
Mount of Olives at 747 metres above the Mediterra
nean, and then estimates the Dead Sea at 500 metres
below the Mount. The fact was first ascertained by
Moore and Beek iu March, 1837, by boiling water ;
but they were unable to arrive at a figure. It may be
well here to give a list of the various observations on
the level of the lake, made by different travellers : —

Eng. ft.

Apr. 1837

Von Schubert .

Barom.

637.

1838

De Bertou . . .

Barom.

1,374.7

1838

Russegger . . .

Barom.

1,429.2

1841

Symouds . .

Trignom.

1,312.2

1845

Von Wildenbruch

Barom.

1,446.3

May, 1848

Lynch ....

Barom.

1,234.6

May, 1848

Lynch 

Level

1,816.7

Not. 1850

Rev. G.W. Bridges

Aneroid

1,367.

Oct. 27. 1855

Poole 

Aneroid

1,313.5

Apr. (?; 1857

Roth 

Barom.

1,374.6

— See Petermann, in Geogr, Journal, xviii. 90 ; for
Roth, Petermann's Mittheilungen, 1858, p. 3 ; for
Poole, Geogr. Journ. xxvi. 58- Mr. Bridges has
kindly communicated to the writer the results of bis
observations. Captain Symonds' operations are
briefly described by Mr. Hamilton in his addresses to
the Royal Geogr. Society in 1842 and 1843. He
carried levels across from Jaffa to Jerusalem by two
routes, and thence to the Dead Sea by one route :
the ultimate difference between the two observations
was less than 12 feet (Geogr. Journal, xii. p. Ix. ; xiii.
p. Ixxiv.). One ofthe sets, ending in 1,312-2 feet, is
given in Van de Velde's Mpmoir, pp, 75-81.
Widely as tbe results in the table differ, there is yet
enough agreement among them, and witb Lynch's
level-observation, to warrant the statement in the text.
.Chose of Symonds, Lynch, and Poole, are remarkably
elose, when the great difficulties of the case are con
sidered ; but it must be admitted that those of De

SEA, THE SALT
114, and by the time the west point of the pe
ninsula is reached, to 18 feet. Below this the
southern portion is a mere lagoon of almost even
bottom, varying in depth from 12 feet in the
middle to 3 at the edges. It will be convenient to
use the term " lagoon " <^ in speaking of the south
ern portion.
The depression of the lake, both of its surface
and its bottom, below tliat of the ocean is at pres
ent quite without parallel. The lake Assal, ou the
Somali coast of Eastern Africa opposite Aden, fur
nishes the nearest approach to it. Its surface is
said to be 570 feet below that of the ocean. '^
4. The level of the lake is liable to variation
according to the season of the year. Since it has
no outlet, its level is a balance struck between the
amount of water poured into it, and the amount
given off by evaporation.^ If more water is sup-

Bertou, Eoth, and Bridges are equally close. The
time of year must not be overlooked. Lynch's level
was taken about midway between the winter i-ains aad
the autumnal drought, and therefore is consistent with
that of Poole, taken 5 months later, at the very end of
the dry season.
a The map in Lynch's private Narrative (London,
1849), from which these sections have, for the first
time, been plotted, is to a much larger scale, containB
more details, and is a more valuable document, than
that in his Official Report, 4to (Baltimore, 1852), or
his Report, 8vo (Senate Papers, 30th Congr., 2d Ses
sion, No. 34).
6 Three other attempts have been made to obtain
soundings, but iu neither case with any very practi al
result. (l-)By Messrs. Moore and Beek, in March, 1837
They record a maxiraum depth of 2,400 ft. between Ain
Terabeh and W. Zurka, and a little north of the same
2,220 ft. (See Palmer's Map, to which these observa
tions were contributed by Mr. Beek himself: also
Geogr. Journ. vii. 456.) Lynch's soundings at nearly
the same spots give 1,170 and 1,309 ft. respectively, at
once reversing and greatly diminishing tbe depths.
(2.) Captain Symonds, R. E., is said to have been
upon the lake and to have obtained soundings, the
deepest of wbich was 2,100 ft. But for this the writer
can find uo authority beyond the statement of Ritter
{Erdkunde, " Jordan," p. 704), who does not name the
source of his information. (3.) Lieut. Molyneux, R.
N., iu Sept. 1847, took three soundings. The first of
these seems to have been about opposite Ain Jidy, a.Tid
gave 1,350 ft., though without certainly I'eacbing the
bottom. The other two were further north, and gaTO
1,068 and 1,098 ft. (Geogr. Journ. xviii. pp. 127, 128).
The greatest of these appears to he about coincident
with Lynch's 1,104 feet ; but there is so much vague
ness about the spots at which they were taken, that no
use can be made of the results. Lynch and Beek agree
in representing the west side as more gradual in slope
than the east, which haa a depth of more than 900 ft.
close to the brink.
c Irby and Mangles always term this part "the
back-water," and reserve the name "Dead Sea" for
the northern and deeper portion.
d Murchison in Geogr. Journal, xiv. p. cxvi. A
brief description of this lake is given in an interesting
paper by Dr. Buist on the principal depressions of the
globe, reprinted in the Edinb. N. Phil. Journal, April,
1855. e This subject has been ably and carefully investi
gated by the late Professor Marchand, the eminent
chemist of Halle, in his paper on the Dead Sea in the
Journal fiir praki. C/iemie, Leipzig, 1849, pp. 371-374.
The result of his calculations, founded on the observa
tions of Shaw, A. von Humboldt, and Balard, is that
while the average quantity supplied cannot txceeo
20,000,000 cub. ft., the evaporation may be taken %i
24,000,000 cub. ft. per diem.

SEA, IHE SALT
alied than tbe evaporation can carry off, the lake
(rill rise until the evaporating surface is so much
increased as to restore tbe balance. On the other
band, should the evaporation drive off a larger
quantity than the supply, the lake will descend
until the surface becomes so small as again to re
store the balance. This fluctuation is increased by
the fact that the winter is at once the time when
the clouds and streams supply most water, and
when the evaporation is least ; while in summer, on
the other hand, when the evaporation goes on most
furiously, the supply is at its minimum. The
extreme differences in level resulting from these
causes, have not yet been carefully observed. Dr.
Bobinson, in May, 18.38, from the lines of drift
wood which he found lieyond the then brink of the
water in the southern part of the lake, judged that
the level must be sometimes from 10 to 15 feet
higher than it then was (Bibl. Pes. i. 515, ii. 115);
but this was only the commencement of the sum
mer, and by the end of September the water
would probably have fallen much lower. The
writer, in the beginning of September, 1858, after
B very hot summer, estimated the line of drift-wood
along the steep beach of the nortli end at from
10 to 12 feet above the then level of the water.
Koblnson (i. 506) mentions a bank of shingle at
Ain Jidy, 6 or 8 feet above the then (May 10) level
of the water, but which bore marks of having been
covered. Lynch (Narr. p. 289) says that the
marks on the shore near the sahie place indicated
that the lake had already (April 22) fallen 7 feet
that season.
Possibly a more permanent rise has lately taken
place, since Mr. Poole (p. 60) saw many dead trees
standing in the lake for some distance from the
shore opposite Khashm Usdum. This too was at
the end of October, when the water must have been
at its bwest (for that year).
5. The change in level necessarily causes a
change in the dimensions of the lake. This will
chiefly affect the southern end. The shci-e of that
part slopes up from the water with an extremely
gradual incline. Over so flat a beach a very slight
rise in the lake would send the water a considerable
distance. This was found to be actually the case.
The line of drift-wood mentioned by Dr. Koliinson
(ii. 115) was about 3 miles from the brink of the
lagoon. Dr. Anderson, the geologist of the Amer
ican expedition, conjectured that the water occa
sionally extended as much as 8 or 10 miles south
of its then position ( Official Report, 4to, p. 182).
On the peninsula, the acclivity of which is much
greater than that of the southern shores of the la
goon, and in the early part of the summer (June
2), Irby and Mangles found the " high-water mark
a mile distant from the water's edge." At the
northern end, the shore being steeper, the water-
line probably remains tolerably constant. The va
riation in breadth will not be so much. At the
N. W. and N. E. comers there are some flats which
must be often overflowed. Along the lower part
of the western shore, where the beach widens, as at
B'irket el-KJiulU, it is occasionaUy covered in por
tions, but they are probably not enough to make
any great variation in the width of the lake. Of
the eastern side hardly anything is known, but the
beach there appears to be only partial, and conflned
(0 the northern end.
6. The mountains which form the walls of the
great fissui e in whose depths the lake is contained,
¦ontinue a nearly parallel course throughout ita en-

SEA, THB SALT

2881

tire length. Viewed from the beach at the north
ern end of the lake — the only view within the
reach of most travellers — • there is little perceptible
difference between the two ranges. Each is equally
bare and stern to the eye. On the left the eastern
mountains stretch their long, hazy, horizontal line,
till they are lost in the dim distance. The west^
em mountains, on the other hand, do not offer the
same appearance of continuity, since the headland
of Ras eUFeshkhah projects so far in front of the
general line as to conceal the southern portion of
the range when viewed from most points. The
horizon is formed by the water-line of the lake
itself, often lost in a thick mist which dwells on the
surface, the result of the rapid evaporation always
going on. In the centre of the horizon, when the
haze permits it, may be discovered the mysterious
peninsula. 7. Of the eastern side but little is known. One
traveller in modern times (Seetzen) has succeeded
in forcing his way along its whole length. The
American party Landed at the W. Mojib a,nd other
points. A few others have rounded the southern
end of the lake, and advanced for 10 or 12 milea
along its eastern shores. But the larger portion
of those shores — the flanks of the mountains which
stretch from the peninsula to the north end of the
lake -have been approached by travellers from
the west only on very rare occasions nearer than
the western shore.
Both Dr. Robinson from Ain Jidy (i. 502), and
Lieut. Molyneux (p. 127) from the surface of the
lake, record their impression that the eastern moun
tains are much more lofty than the western, and
much more broken by clefts and ravines than those
on the west. In color they are brown, or red — a
great contrast to the gray and white stones of the
western mountains. Both sides of the lake, how
ever, are alike in the absence of vegetation — al
most entirely barren and scorched, except where
here and there a spring, bursting up at the foot of
the mountains, covers the beach with a bright
green jungle of reeds and thorn bushes, or gives
life to a clump of stunted palms; or where, as at
Ain Jidy or the Wofly Mojib, a perennial stream
betrays its presence, and breaks the long monotony
of the precipice by fiUing the rift with acacias, or
nourishing a little oasis of verdure at its embouch
ure. 8. Seetzen's journey, just mentioned, was ac
complished in 1807. He started in January from
the ford of the Jordan through the upper country,
by Mkaur, Attarrus, and the ravine of the Wady
Mojib to the peninsula; returning immediately
after by the lower level, as near the lake as it was
possible to go. He was on foot with but a single
guide. He represents the general structure of the
mountains as limestone, capped in many places by
basalt, and having at its foot a red ferruginous
sandstone, which forms the immediate margin of
the lake." The ordinary path lies high up on the
face of the mountains, and the lower track, which
Seetzen pursued, is extremely rough, and often aU
but impassable. The rocks lie in a succession of enor
mous terraces, apparently more vertical in form than
those on the west. On the lower one of these, but
still far above the water, lies the path, if path it can
be called, where the traveller has to scramble through
and over a chaos of enormous blocks of limestone,
sandstone, and basalt, or basalt conglomerate, the
" Termed by Anderson (pp. 189*, 190) the UudercUS.

2882

SEA, THB SALT

debris of.the slopes above, or is brought abruptly
to a stand by wild clefts in the solid rock of the
precipice. The streams of the .Wofib and Zurka
issue from portals of dark red sandstone of roman
tic beauty, the overhanging sides of which no ray
of sun ever enters." The deltas of these streams,
and that portion of the shore between them, where
several smaller rivulets t> flow i..to the lake, abound
in vegetation, and form a truly grateful relief to the
rugged desolation of the remamder. Palms in
particular are numerous (Anderson, p. 192 ; Lynch,
Xarr. p. 369), and in Seetzen's opinion bear marks
of being the relics of an ancient cultivation ; but
except near the streams, there is no vegetation. It
was, says he, the greatest possible rarity to see a
plant. The northeast corner of the lake is occupied
by a plain of some extent left by the retiring moun
tains, probably often overflowed by the lake, mostly

SEA, THE SALT
salt and unproductive, and called the Ghi}r tl
Belka. 9. One remarkable feature of the northern por
tion of the eastern heights is a plateau which divides
the mountains half-way up, apparently forming a
gigantic landing-place in the slope, and stretehing
northwards from the Wady Mrka .Ma'in. It ib
very plainly to be seen from Jerusalem,, espe
cially at sunset, when many of the points of these
fascinating mountains come out into unexpected
relief. This plateau appears to be on the same
general level with a similar plateau on the western
side opposite it (Poole, p. 68), with the top of the
rock of Sebbeh^ and perhaps with the Mediterra
nean. 10. The western shores of the lake have been
more investigated than the eastern, although they
cannot be said to have been vet more than veiy

The Dmd Sea. '

-View from Ain Jidy, looking south. From a drawing made on tlie spot in 1842, by W.
Tipping, Esq.

partially explored. Two travellers have passed
over their entire length : De Saulcy in January
1851, from north to south. Voyage dans la Syrie,
tte., 1853 ; and Narrative of a Journey, ete.,
London, 1854^ and Poole in November 1855, from
south to north (Geogr. Journal, xxvi. 55). Others
have passed over considerable portions of it, and
haye recorded observations both with pen and pen
cil. Dr. Koblnson on his first journey in 1838
visited Ain Jidy, and proceeded from thence to the
Jordan and Jericho : Wolcott and Tipping, in
1842, scaled the rock of Masada (probably the first
travellers from the western world to do so), and
from thence journeyed to Ain Jidy along the shore.
The views which illustrate this article have been,
through the kuidness of Mr. Tipping, selected from

« A rude view of the emboueburo of the former of
iiese is given by Lynch (Narrative, p. 368).

those which he took during this journey. Lieut.
Van de Velde, in 1852, also visited Masada, and
then went south as far as the south end of JM
Usdum, after which he turned up to the right into
the western mountains. Lieut. Lynch's party, in
1848, landed and travelled over the greater part of
the shore from Ain Feshkhah to Usdum. Mr.
Holman Hunt, in 1854, with the Messrs. Beamont,
resided at Usdum for several days, and afterwards
went over the entire length from Usdum to the
Jordan. Of this journey one of the ultimate fruits
was Mr. Hunt's picture of the Dead Sea at sunset,
linown as " The Scapegoat." Miss Emily Beaufort
and her sister, in December 1860, accomplished tbe
ascent of Masada, and the journey from thence to
Ain Jidy ; and the same thing, including Usdum.

b Conjectured by Seetzen to bo the « aprlogs of PI*
gah."

SEA, THE SALT
vae done in April, 1863, by a party consisting of
Mr. G. Clowes, Jr., Mr. Straton, and others.
11. The western range preserves for the greater
part of its length a course hardly less regular than
the eastern. That it does not appear so regular
when viewed from the northwestern end of the
lake is owing to the projection of a mass of the
mountain eastward from the line sufficiently far to
shut out from view the range to the south of it.
It is Dr. Robinson's opinion (Bibl. Res. i. 510, 511)
th^t the projection consists of the Ras el~Feshkhah
and its " ac^acent cliffs " only, and that from that
headland the western range runs in a tolerably di
rect course as far as Usdum, at tbe S. W. corner
of the lake. The Ras el'Feshkhah stands some
six railes below the head of the lake, and forms the
northern side of the gorge by which the Wady en-
Nar (the Kidron) debouches into the lake. Dr.
Robinson is such an accurate observer, that it is
difficult to question his opinion, but it seems prob
able that the projecfion really commences further
south, at the Ras Mersed, north of Ain Jidy. At
any rate no traveller « appears to have been able to
pass along the beach between Ain Jidy and Ras
Feshkhah, and the great Arab road, which adheres
to the shore from the south as far as Ain Jidy,
leaves it at that point, and mounts to the summit.
It is much to be regretted that Lynch's party, who
had encampments of several days' duration at Ain
Feshkhah, Ain Terabeh, and Ain Jidy, did not
make such observatious as would have decided the
configuration of the shores.
12. The accompanying wood-cut represents the
view looking southward from the spring of Ain Jidy.
a point about 700 feet above the water (Poole, p. 66 ),
It is taken frpm a drawing by the accurate pencil
of Mr. Tipping, and gives a good idea of the course
of that portion of the western heights, and of their
Drdinary character, except at a few such exceptional
spots as the headlands just mentioned, or the isO'
lated rock of Sebbeh, the ancient Masada. In their
present aspect they can hardly be termed " vertical
or "perpendicular," or even "cliffs" ^ (the favorite
term for them), though from a distant point on the
surface of the lake they probably look vertical
enough (Molyneux, p. 127). Their structure was
originally in huge steps or offsets, but the horizon
tal portion of each offset is now concealed by the
slopes of ddbris, which have in the lapse of ages
rolled down from the vertical cliff above.c
13, The portion actually represented in this
view is described by Dr. Anderson (p. 175) as
" varying from 1,200 to 1,500 feet in height, bold
and steep, admitting nowhere of the ascent or de
scent of beasts of burden, and practicable only here
and there to the most intrepid climber 
The marked divisions of the great escarpment,
reckoning from above, are: (1.) Horizontal layers
of limestone from 200 to 300 feet in depth. (2.)
a Poole appears to have tried his utmoRt to keep
the shore, and to have accomplished more than others,
but with only small success. De Saulcy was obliged
to take to the heights at Ain Terabeh, and keep tr
them till he reached Ain Jidy.
& It is a pity that travellers should so often indulge
fi the use of such terms as " vertical," " perpendicu
lar," "overhanging," etc., to descrihe acclivities which
prove to be only moderately steep slopes. Even Dr.
lobioson^ usually so moderate — on more than one
tccaaion speaks of amountain-sideas " perpendicular,"
Uld immediately afterwardi? describes the ascent or de-
icent of it by his party I

SEA, THE SALT

2883

A series of tent-shaped embankments of debris,
brought down through the small ravines intersect.
ing the upper division, and lodged on the projecting
terrace below. (3.) A sharply defined, well-marked
formation, less perfectly stratified than No. 1, and
constituting by its unbroken continuity a zone of
naked rock, probably 150 feet in depth, running
like a vast frieze along the face of the cliff, and so
precipitous that the detritus pushed over the edge
of this shelf-like ledge finds no lodgment anywhere
on its almost vertical face. Above this zone is an
interrupted bed of yellow liraestone 40 feet thick.
(4. ) A broad and boldly sloping talus of limestone —
partly bare, partly covered by debris from above —
descends nearly to the base of the cliff. (5.) A
breastwork of fallen' fragments, sometimes swept
clean away, separates the upper edge of the beach
from the ground line of the escarpment. (6.) A
beach of variable width and structure — sometimes
sandy, sometimes gravelly or shiugly, sometimes
made up of loose and scattered patches of a coarse
travertine or marl — falls gradually to the border
of the Dead Sea."
14. Further south the mountain .sides assume a
more abrupt and savage aspect, and in the Wady
Zuweirah, and still more at Sebbeh — the ancient
Masada <* — reach a pitch of rugged and repulsive,
though at the same time impressive desolation,
which perhaps cannot be exceeded anywhere on the
face of the earth. Beyond Usdum the mountains
continue their general line, but the district at
their feet is occupied by a mass of lower eminences,
which, advancing inwards, gradually encroach on
the plain at the south end of the lake, and finally
shut it in completely, at about 8 miles below Jebtl
Usdum. 15. The region which lies on the top of the
western heights was probably at one time a wide
table-land, rising gradually towards the high lands
which form the central line of the country — He-
brori, Beni-naim, etc. It is now cut up by deep
and difficult ravines, separated by steep and inac
cessible summits; but portions of the table-lands
still remain in many places to testify to the orig
inal conformation. The material is a soft cre
taceous limestone, bright white in color, and con
taining a good deal of sulphur. The surface is
entirely desert, with no sign of cultivation: here
and there a .shrub of Petem, or some other desert-
plant, but only enough to make the monotonous
desolation of the scene more frightful. " II existe
au monde," says one of the most intelligent of
modern travellers, "peu de regions plus d^soldes,
plus abandonn^es de Dieu, plus ferm^es a la vie,
que la pente rocailleuse qui forme le bord occi
dental de la Mer Morte" (Eenan, Vie de Jesus,
ch. vii.).
16. Of the elevation of this region we hitherto
possess but scanty observations. Between Ain Jidy

c Lynch's view of Ain Jidy (Narr. p. 290), though
rough, is probably not inaccurate in general effect.
It agrees with Mr. Tipping's as to the structure of the
heights. That in De Saulcy by M. Belly, wbich pur
ports to be from the same spot as tbe latter, is very
poor. rf This was the fortress in which the last remnant
of the Zealots, or fanatical party of the Jews, defended
themselves against Silva, the Konian general, in a. n.
71, and at last put themselves to death to escape cap
ture. The spot is described and the tragedy related in
a very graphic and impressive manner by Dean filil.
man (Hist, ofthe Jews, 8d ed., ii. 386-38a).

2884

SEA, THE SALT

and Ain Terabeh the summit is a table-land 740
feet above the lake (Poole, p. 67).« Further north,
above Ain Terabeh, the summit of the pass is
1,305.75 feet above the lake (Lynch, Off. Rep. p.
43), within a few feet the height of the plain be
tween the Wady en-Nar and Goumran, which is
given by Mr. Poole (p. 68) at 1,340 feet. This
appears also to be about the height of the rock of
Sebbeh, and of the table-land, already mentioned,
on the eastern mountains north of the Wady
Mrka. It is also nearly coincident with that of
the ocean. In ascending from the lake to Nebi
Milsa, Mr. Poole (p. 58) passed over what he
"thought might be the original level of the old
plain, 532^ feet above the Dead Sea." That these
are the remains of ancient sea margins, chronicling
steps in the history of the lake (Allen, in Geogr.
Journ. xxiii. 163), may reasonably be conjectured,
but can only be determined by the observation of a
competent geologist on the spot.
17. A beach of varying width skirts the foot
of the mountains on the western side. Above
Ain Jidy it consists mainly of the deltas of the
torrents --fan-shaped banks of debris^ of all sizes,
at a steep slope, spreading from the outlet of the
torrent like those which become so familiar to
travellers, in Northern Italy for example. In one
or two places — as at the mouth of the Kidron and
at Ain Terabeh — ihe beach may be 1,000 to 1,400
yards wide, hut usuaUy it is much narrower, and
often is reduced to almost nothing by the advance
of the headlands. For its major part, as already
remarked, it is impassable. Below Ain Jidy, how
ever, a marked change occurs in the character of
the beach. Alternating with the shingle, solid
deposits of a new material, soft friable chalk, marl,
and gypsum, with salt, begin to make their appear
ance. These are gradually developed towards the
south, till at Sebbeh and below it they form a ter
race 80 feet or more in height at the back, though
sloping off gradually to the lake. This new mate
rial is a greenish white in color, and is ploughed
up by the cataracts from the heights behind into
very strange forms: here, hundreds of small mame-
lons, covering the plain like an eruption; there,
long rows of huge cones, looking like an encamp
ment of enormous tents; or, again, rectangular
blocks and pillars, exactly resembling the streets
of a town, with rows of houses and other edifices,
all as if constructed of white marble.^ These
appear to be the remains of strata of late- or post-
tertiary date, deposited at a time when the water
of the lake stood much higher, and covered a much
larger area, than it does at present. The fact that
they are strongly impregnated with the salts of the

« De Saulcy mentions tbis as a small rocky table
land, 250 metres above the Dead Sea. But tbis was
evidently not the actual summit, as he speaks of the
sheikh occupying a post a few hundred yards above
the level of that position, and further west {Narr. i.
169). b Lynch remarks that at Ain el-FesIUchah there waa
a " total absence of round pebbles ; the shore was
covered with small angular fragments of flint" (Narr.
p. 274). The same at Ain Jidy (p. 290).
c De Saulcy, Narr. ibid. ; Anderson, p 176. See
also a striking description of tbe "resemblance of a
great city " at the foot of Sebbeh, in Beamont's Diary,
etc., ii. 62.
d A specimen brought by Mr. Clowes from the foot
jf Sebbeh has been examined for the writer by Dr.
E^rioe, asd proves to contam no less than 6.^8 per cent.

SEA, THE SALT
lake f^ is itself presumptive evidence of this. In
many places they have completely disappeared,
doubtless washed into the lake by the action of
torrents from the hills behind, similar to, though
more violent than those which have played the
strange freaks just described : but they still linger
on this part of the shore, on the peninsula oppo-
site,^ at the southern and w^tem outskirts of the
plain south of the lake, and probably in a few
spots at the northern and northwestern end, to
testify to the condition which once existed all round
the edge of the deep basin of the lake. The width
of the beach thus formed is considerably greater
than that above Ain Jidy. From the Birket ei-
Khiilil to the wady south of Sebbeh, a distance of
six miles, it is from one to two miles wide, and ia
passable for the whole distance. The Birket el-
Khulil just alluded to is a shallow depression on
the shore, which is filled by the water of the lake
when at its greatest height, and forms a natural
salt-pan. After the lake retires the water evap
orates from the hollow, and the salt remains for
the use of the Arabs. They also collect it from
similar though smaller spots further south,/ and
on the peninsula (Irby, June 2). One feature of
the beach is too characteristic to escape mention —
the line of driftwood which encircles the hike, and
marks the highest, or the ordinary high level of
the water. It consists of branches of brushwood,
and of the limbs of trees, some of considerable
size, brought down by the Jordan and other
streams, and in course of time cast up on the
beach. They stand up out of the sand and shingle
in curiously fantastic shapes, all signs of life gone
from them, and with a charred though blanched
look very desolate to behold. Amongst them are
said to be great numbers of palm trunks (Poole, p.
69); some doubtless floated over from the palm
groves on the eastern shore aheady spoken of, and
others brought down by the Jordan in tlie distant
days when the palm flourished along its banks.
The driftwood is saturated with salt, and much of
it is probably of a very great age.
A remarkable feature of the western shore has
been mentioned to the writer by the members of
Mr. Clowes' party. This is a set of 3 parallel
beaches one above the other, the highest about
50 feet above the water; which, though often in
terrupted by ravines, and by debris, etc., can ,be
traced during tbe whole distance from Wady Zu
weirah to Ain Jidy. These terraces are possibly
alluded to by Anderson when speaking of the
" several descents " necessary to reach the floor of
Wady Seyal (p. 177).
18. At the southwest corner of the lake, below

of salts soluble in water, namely, chlor. sodium, 4.559,
chlor. calcium, 2.08. chlor. magnesium. 0-241. Bromine
was distinctly found.
« They are identified by Dr. Anderson.
/ The salt of the Dead Sea was anciently much in
request for use in tbe Temple service. It waa pre
ferred before all other kinds for its reputed effect in
hastening tbe combustion of the sacrifice, while it
diminished the unpleasant smell of the burning fiesh.
Its deliquescent character (due to the chlorides of alka
line earths it contains) is also noticed in the Talmud
(Menacoth, xxi. 1 ; Jalkut). ' It was called " Sodom
salt,"' but also went by the name of the "salt that
does not rest" (HnnW pMtt? nbtt), becauM
it was made on the Sabbath aa on other days, like tbfl
Sunday salt " of the En;;li6h salt-wo'ks. It is still
much esteemed in Jerusalem.

SEA, THE SALT
when the wadies Zuweirah and Mahauwat break
down through the inclosing heights, the beach is
sucroached on by the salt mountain or ridge of
Khashm Usdum. This remarkable object is hith
erto but imperfectly known. It is said to be quite
independent of the western mountains, lying in
front of and separated from them by a considerable
tract filled up with conical hills and short ridges
of the soft, chalky, marly deposit just described.
It is a long, level ridge or dyke, of several miles
long." Its northern portion runs S. S. E.: but
after more than half its length it makes a sudden
and decided bend to the right, and then runs S.
W. It is from 300 to 400 feet in height, of m-
considerable width,' consisting of a body of crys
tallized rock-salt, more or less solid, covered with
a capping of chalky limestone and gypsum. The
lower portion, the salt rock, rises abruptly from the
glossy plain at its eastern base, sloping back at an
angle of not more than 45°, often less. It has a
strangely dislocated, shattered look, and is all fur
rowed and worn into huge angular buttresses and
ridges, irom the face of which great fragments are
occasionally detached by tbe action of the rains,
and appear as "pillars of salt," advanced in front
of the general mass. At the foot the ground is
strewed with lumps and masses of salt, salt streams
drain continually from it into the lake, and the
whole of the beach is covered with salt — soft and
sloppy, aud of a pinkish hue in winter and spring,
though during the heat of summer dried up into
a shining, brilliant crust. An occasional patch of
the KaU plant (Saiicornice, etc.) is the only vegeta
tion to vary the monotony of this most monoto
nous spot.
Between the north end of K. Usdum and the
lake is a mound covered with stones and bearing
the name of um~Zoyhal.' It is about 60 feet in
diameter and 10 or 12 high, evidently artificial,
and not improbably the remains of an ancient
structure. A view of it, engraved from a photo
graph by Mr. James Graham, is given in Isaac's
Dead Sea (p. 21). This heap M. De Saulcy main
tained to be a portion of the remains of Sodom.
Its name is more suggestive of Zoar, but there are
great obstacles to either identification. [Sodom ;
ZOAB.] 19. It follows from the fact that the lake occu
pies a. portion of a longitudinal depression, that
its northern and southern ends are not inclosed by
highland, as its east and west sides are. The fioor
of the Ghor or Jordan Valley has heen already de
scribed. [Palestime, iii. 2298.] As it approaches
the northern shore of the lake it breaks down by
two offsets or terraces, tolei'ably regular in figure

SEA, THE SALT

288.5

" There is great imcertainty about its length. Dr.
RobiDson states it at 6 miles and "a considerable dis
tance further" (ii. 107, 112). Van de Velde makes it
10 miles (ii. 113), or 3^ hours (ii. 116). But when these
dlmensious are applied to the map they are much too
large, and it is difficult to believe that it can be more
than 5 miles in all.
b Dr. Anderson (p. 181) says it is about 2^ miles
wide. But this appears to contradict Dr. Robinson's
expressions (ii. 107). The latter are corroborated by
Mr. Clowes' party. They also noticed salt in large
quantities among the rocks in regular strata some con-
'derahle distance back from the lake.
* (J^*\ (•! (JBobmson, ii. 107). By De Saulcy
(ha name is given Redjom el-Mezorrahl (the gh aud rr
tft both attempts to represent the ghain). The " Fil-

and level. At the outside edge of tlie second of
these a range of driftwood marks the highest level
of the waters — and from this point the beach
slopes more rapidly into the clear light-green watei
of the lake.
20. A small piece of land lies off the shore about
halfway between tbe entrance of the Jordan and
the western side of the lake. It is nearly circular
in form. Its sides are sloping, and therefore its
size varies with the height of the water. When
the writer went to it in September, 1858, it was
about 100 yards in diameter, 10 or 12 feet out of
the water, and connected with the shore by a nnr-
row neck or isthmus of about 100 yards in length.
The isthmus is concealed when the water is at its
full height, and then the little peninsula becomes an
island. M. De Saulcy attributes to it the name
Rtdjum Lui — the cairn of Lot.'' It is covered
with stones, and dead wood washed up by the
waves. The stones are large, and though much
weather-worn, appear to have been origuially
rectangular. At any rate they are very differ
ent from any natural fragments on the adjacent
shores. 21. Beyond the island the northwestern corner
of the lake is bordered by a low plain, extending up
to the foot of the mountains of Ntby Musa, and
south as far as R'<s Feshkhah. This plain must
be considerably lower than the general level of the
land north of the lake, since its appearance implies
that it is often covered with water. It is described
as sloping gently upwards from the lake; flat and
barren, except rare patches of weeds round a spring.
It is soft and slimy to the tread, or in the summer
covered with a white film of salt, formed by the
evaporation of the surface water. The upper sur
face appears to be only a crust, covering a soft and
deep substratum, and often not strong enough to
bear the weight of the traveller.^ In all these par
ticulars it agrees with tbe plain at the south of the
lake, which is undoubtedly covered when the waters
rise. It further agrees with it in exhibithig at the
back remains of tbe late tertiary deposits aheady
mentioned, cut out, like those about Sebbeh, into
fantastic shapes by the rush of the torrents from
behind. A similar plain (tbe Ghor el-Bdka, or Ghor
Seisaban) appears to exist on the N. E. comer of
the lake between the embouchure of the Jordan and
the slopes of the mountains of Moab- Beyond,
however, the very brief notice of Seetzen (ii. 373),
establishing the fact that it is "salt and stony,"
nothing is known of it./
22. The southern end is, like the northern, a
wide plain, and like it retains among the Arabs the
grim " in Atheneeum, Apr. 2, 1854, expressly states that
his guide called it Kudjeim ez-Zogheir.
d This island was shown to Maundrell (March 30,
1697) aa containing, or having near it, the " monument
of Lot's wife." It forms a prominent feature in the
view of " the Dead Sea firom its northern shore," No.
429 of Frith's stereoscopic views in the Holy Land.
c This wafl especially mentioned to the writer by
Mr. David Roberts, R. A., who was nearly lost in such
a hole on his way from the Jordan to Mar Saba.
f The statement of fhe ancient traveller Thietmar
(a. d. 1217), who crossed the Jordan at the ordinary
ford, and at a mile from thence was shown the " salt
pillar " of Lot's wife, seems to imply that there are
masses of rock-salt at this spot, of the same nature
as that at Usdum, though doubtless less extensiye
(Thietmar, Perc^. xi. 47).

2886 SEA, THE SALT
Dame of El Ghdr.^ It has been visited by but few
travellers. Se^^tzen crossed it from E. to W. in
April, 1806 (Reisen, i. 426-429), Irby and Mangles
in May, 1818, De Saulcy in Jan. 1851, and Poole
in Nov. 1855, all crossed it in the opposite direc
tion at a moderate distance from the lake. Dr.
Robinson, on his way from Hebron to Petra in
May, 1838, descended the Wady Zmveirah, passed
between K. Usdum and the lake, and went along
the western side of the plain to the Wady eUJeib.
The same route was partially followed by M. Van
de Velde. The plain is bounded on the west side,
below the Khashfn Usdum, by a tract thickly
studded with a confused mass of unimportant emi
nences, '*low cliflfs and conical hills," of chalky
indurated marl (Rob. ii. 116), apparently of the
same late formation as that already mentioned fur
ther north. These eminences intervene between
the lofty mountains of Judah and the plain, and
thus diminish the width of the.6V/07* from what it
is at Ain Jidy. Their present forms are due to
the fierce rush of the winter torrents from the ele
vated tracts behind them. In height they \'ary
from 50 to 150 feet. In color they are brilliant
white (Poole, p. 61). All along their base are
springs, generally of brackish, though occasionally
of fresh water, the overflow from which forms a
tract of marshland, overgrown with canes, tama
risks, retem, ghurkud, thorn, and other shrubs.
Here and there a stunted palm is to be seen. Sev
eral principal wadies, such as the Wady Kmaz, and
the Wady Fikreh, descend into the Ghor through
these hills from the higher mountains behind, and
their wide beds, strewed with great stones and
deeply furrowed, show what vast bodies of water
they must discharge in the rainy season. The hills
themselves bend gradually round to the eastward,
and at last close the valley in to the south. In plan
they form "an irregular curve, sweeping across
the Ghor in something like the segment of a circle,
the chord of which would be 6 or 7 geographical
miles in length, extending obliquely from N. AV.
to S. E." (Kob. ii. 120). Their apparent height
remains about what it was on the west, but though
still insignificant in themselves, they occupy here
an important position as the boundary-line between
the districts of the Ghdr and the Arabah — the
central and southern compartments of the great
longitudinal valley mentioned in the outset of this
article. The Arabah is higher in level than the
Ghor. The valley takes at this point a sudden rise
or step of about 100 feet in height, and from thence
continues rising gradually to a point about 35
miles north of Akabeh, where it reaches an ele
vation of 1800 feet above the Dead Sea, or very
nearly 500 feet above the ocean .^
23. Thus the waters of two thirds of the Arabah
drain northwards into the plain at fche south of the
lake, and thence into the lake itself. The Wady
el-Jeib — the principal channel by which this vast
drainage is discharged on to the plain — is very
large, " a huce channel," " not far from half a mile
wide," " oearing traces of an immense volume of
water, rushing along with violence, and covering
the whole breadth of the valley." The body of de
tritus discharged by such a river must be enormous.

a Rohr in the spelling adopted by De Saulcy.
b See the section given by Petermann in Geogr.
^oum. xviii. 89.
c Irby, 1^ hour; De Haulcy, 1 hr. 18 min. -1-800
netres ; Toole, 1 hr. 5 mlu. Seetzen, 3 hours (i. 428).

SEA, THB SALT
We have no measure of the elevation of the pUin
at the foot of the southern line of mounds, bnl
there can be no doubt that the rise from the lake
upwards is, as the torrents are approached, consid
erable, and it seems hardly possible to avoid thf
conclusion that the silting up of the lagoon which
forms the southern portion of the lake itself Is due
to the materials brought down by this great tor
rent, and by those hardly inferior to it, which, ae
already mentioned, discharge the waters of the ex
tensive highlands both on the east and west.
24. Of the eastern boundary of the plain we
possess hardly any information. We know that it
is formed by the mountains of Moab, and we can
just discern that, adjacent to the lake, they consist
of sandstone, red and yellow, with conglomerate
containing porphyry and granite, fragments of
which have rolled down and seem to occupy the
position which on the western side is occupied by
the tertiary hills. We know also that the wadies
Ghurundel and Tufleh, which drain a district of
the mountains N". of Petra, enter at the S. E. cor
ner of the plain — but beyond this all is uncertain.
25. Of the plain itself hardly more is known
than of its boundaries Its greatest width from W.
to E. is estimated at from 6 to 6 miles, while its
length, from the cave in the salt mountain to the
range of heights on the south, appears to be about 8.
Thus the breadth of the Gh&i- seems to be here con
siderably less than it is anywhere north of the lake,
or across the lake itself. That part of it which
more immediately adjoins the lake consists of two
very distinct sections, divided by a line running
nearly N. and S. Of these the western is a region
of salt and barrenness, bounded by the salt moun
tain of Khashm Usdum, ^id fed by the liquefied
salt from its caverns and surface, or by the drain
age from the salt springs beyond it — and over
flowed periodically by the brine of the lake itself.
Near the lake it bears the narae of es-Sabkah, i. e.
the plain of salt mud (De Saulcy, p. 262). Its
width from W. to E. — from the foot of K. Usdum
to the belt of reeds which separates it firom the
Ghdr es-Safeh — is from 3 to 4 miles.'^ Of its
extent to the south nothing is known, but it is
probable that the muddy district, tbe Sahkak
proper, does not extend more, at most, than 3
miles from the lake. It is a naked, marshy plain,
often so boggy as to be impassable for camels (Rob.
ii. 115), destitute of every species of vegetation,
scored at fi-equent intervals'^ by the channels of
salt streams from the Jebel Usdum, or the salt
springs along the base of the hills to the south
thereof. As the southern boundary is approached
the plain appears to rise, and its surface is co^¦ered
with a " countless number " of those conical mame-
lons (Poole, p. 61), the remains of late aqueous
deposits, which are so characteristic of the whole of
this region. At a distance from the lake a partial
vegetation is found (Rob. ii. 103), clumps of reeda
surrounding and choking the springs, and spread
ing out as the water runs off.
' 26. To this curious and repulsive picture the
eastern section of the plain is an entire contrast. A
dense thicket of reeds, almost impenetrable, divides
it from the Sabkah. This past, the aspect of the

(^ Irby and Mangles report the number of these
"drains " between Jebel Usdum and the edge of the
GhOr es-Safifh at six ; Poole at eleven ; De Saulcy at
three, but he evidently names only the most formidiblt

SEA, THE SALT
trad completely changes. It is a thick copse of
shrubs similar to that around Jericho (Rob. ii. 113),
and, like that, cleared here and there in patches
where the Ghawarineh," or Arabs of the Oh6r,
cultivate their wheat and dun'a, and set up their
wretched villages. The variety of trees appears to
be remarkable. Irby and Mangles (p. 108 b) speak
of " an infinity of plants that they knew not
how to name or describe." D^e Saulcy expresses
himself in the same terms — "une riche moisson
botaniqne." The plants which these travellers
name are dwarf mimosa, tamarisk, dom, osher,
Asckpias procera, nubk, arek, indigo. Seetzen
(i. 427) names also the Thuja aphylla. Here, as
at Jericho, the secret of this vegetation is an
ab'indance of fresh water acting on a soil of ex
treme richness (Seetzen, ii. 355). Besides the
watercourse,'' in which the belt of reeds flourishes
(like those north of the Lake of Huleh in the

SEA, THE SALT

2887

marshes which bound the upper Jordan c), the
Wady Kurdhy (or eUAhay), a considerable stream '^
from the eastern mountains, runs through it, and
Mr. Poole mentions having passed three swift
brooks, either branches of the same,^ or hidepend-
ent streams. But this would hardly be sufficient
to account for its fertility, unless this portion of
the plain were too high to be overflowed by the
lake; and although no mention is made of any
such change of level, it is probably safe to assume
it. Perhaps, also, something is due to the nature
of the soil brought down by the Wady el-Ahsy,
of which it is virtually the delta. This district, so
well wooded and watered, is called the Ghor es-
Safieh. f Its width is less than that of the Sabkah.
No traveller has traversed it from W. to E., for
the only road through it is apparently that to
Kerak, which alone takes a N. E. direction imme
diately after passing the reeds. De Saulcy made

¦
r f

* '*fc

* - 'S

-n,

7 »l»

f» •

5 -

¦>«^*j. « ^fl

The Dbad Sea. — View from the heights behind Sebbeh (Masada), showing the wide beach ou the western side
of the lake, and the tongue-shaped peninsula. From a drawing made on the spot by W. Tipping, Esq.
the nearest approach to such a traverse on his re
turn from Kerak (Narrative, i. 492), and on his
detailed map (feuille 6) it appears about 2^ miles
in width. Its length is still more uncertain, as we
are absolutely without record of any exploration
of its southern portion. Seetzen (ii. 355) specifies
it (at second hand) as extending to the mouth of
the Wady el-Hossa (i. e, the el-Ahsy). On the
rather hand, De Saulcy, when crossing the Sabkah
« The Ghorneys of Irby and Mangles j the Rhaouar-
nas of De Saulcy.
6 Probably the Wady et-Tuflleh.
e See De Saulcy, Narr. i. 493.
rf Larger than the Wady Mojib (Seetzen. i. 427).
e Seetzen (ii. 355) states that the stream, which he
calls et-Hdssa, is conducted in artificial channels
(^and/en) through the fields (also i. 427). Poole
names them Ain Ashka.
f Mr. Tristram found even at the foot of the salt
mountain of Usdum that about 2 feet below the salt
eurfiLce there vas a splendid alluvial soil ; and he haa
for the first time from \V. to E. (Narr. i. 263),
remarked that there was no intermission in the
wood before him, between the Ghor es-Safeh and
the foot of the hills at the extreme south of the
plain. It is possible that both are right, and
that the wood extends over the whole east of
the Ghor, though it bears the name of es-Safieh
only as far as the mouth of the el-Ahsy.
27. The eastern mountains, which form the back-
sugg^ted to the writer that there is an analogy be
tween tbis plain and certain districts in North Africa,
which, though fertile aud cultivated in Roman times,
are now barren and covered with efflorescence of na
tron. The cases are to a certain degree parallel, in
asmuch as the African plains (also called Sebkha) have
their salt mountains (like the KJmshm Usdum, "iso
lated from the mountain range behind," and flanked
by small mamelons bearing stunted herbage), the
streams from which supply them with salt {The Great
Sahara, p. 71, &c.). They are also, like the Sabkah oT
Syria, overflowed every winter by the adjoining laka
2888

SEA. THE SALT

ground to this district of woodland, are no less
naked and rugged than those on the opposite side
of the valley. They consist, according to the re
ports of Seetzen (ii. 354), Poole, and Lynch, of a
red sandstone, with limestone above it — the sand
stone in horizontal strata with \ertical cleavage
(Lynch, Narr. pp. 311. 313). To judge frora the
fragments at their feet, they must also contain very
fine brecciae and conglomerates of granite, jasper,
greenstone, and felspar of varied color. Irby and
Alangles mention also porphyry, serpentine, and
basalt; but Seetzen expressly declares that of basalt
he there found no trace.
Of their height nothing is known, but all travel
lers concur in estimating them as higher than those
on the west, and as preserving a more horizontal
line to the south.
After passing from the Ghdr es-Safieh to the
north, a salt plain is encountered resembling the
Sabkah, and like it overflowed by the lake when
high (Seetzen, ii. 355). With this exception the
mountains come down abruptly on the watei- dur
ing the whole length of the eastern side of the
lagoon. In two places only is there a projecting
beach, apparently due to the deltas caused by the
wadies en-Nemeirah aud Uheimir.
28. We have now arrived at the peninsula
which projects fi-om the eastern shore and forms
the north inclosure ofthe lagoon. It is too re
markable an object, and too characteristic of the
southern portion of the lake, to be passed over with
out description.
It has been visited and described by three ex
plorers — Irby and Mangles in June, 1818; Mr.
l^oole in November, 1855; and the American expe
dition in April, 1848. Among the Arabs it appears
to bear the names Ghdr el~Mezi'a'ah and Ghbi' el-
Lisdn. The latter name — " the Tongue " " —
recalls the similar Hebrew word lashon^ 'J112?V,
which is employed three times in relation to the
lake in the specification of the boundaries of Judah
and Benjamin, contained in the book of Joshua.
Hut in its three occurrences the word is appUed to
two different places — one at the north (Josh. xv.
5, xviii. 19), and one at the south (xv. 2); and it
is probable that it signifies in both cases a tongue
of water — a bay — instead of a tongue '' of land.
29. It« entire length from north to south is about
10 geographical miles, and its breadth from 5 to
6 — though these dimensions are subject to some

« This appellation is justified by the view on the
preceding page.
b From the expression being in the first two cases
" tongue of the sea," and in the third simply
" tongue," M. de Saulcy conjectures that in the last
case a tongue of land is intended : but there is noth-
iug to warrant this. It is by no means certain
whether the two Arabic names just mentioned apply
to difi'erent parts of the peninsula, or are given indis
criminately to the whole. Ghdr el-Mezra'ah is the
only name wbich Seetzen mentions, and he attaches
it to tbe whole. It is also the only one mentioned by
Dr. Anderson, but he restricts it to the depression ou
the east side of the peninsula, which runs N. aud S.
and intervenes between the main body and the foot of
the eastern mountains (And. p. 184). M. de Saulcy is
apparently the earliest traveller to mention the name
Lis&n. He (Jan. 15) ascribes it to the whole penin-
eula, though he appears to attach it more particu
larly to its southern portion, — "Le Lifan actuel des
^.rabes, c'esfc-i-dire la pointe sud de la presqu'-ile," ( Vey-
igti i 290). And this is supported by the practice of

SEA, THE SALT
variation according to the time of year. It appean
to be formed entirely of recent aqueous deposits,
late, or post-tertiary, very similar, if not identical,
with those which fiice it on the western shore, and
with the '* mounds " which skirt the plains at the
south and N. W. of the lake. It consists of a
friable carbonate of lime intermixed with sand or
sandy marls, and with frequent masses of sulphate
of lime (gypsum). The whole is irapregnated
strongly with sulphur, lumps of which are found-
as on the plain at the north end of the lake, and
also with salt, existing in the form of lumps or
packs of rock-salt (And. p. 187). Nitre is reported
by Irby (p. 139), but neither Poole nor Anderson
succeeded in meeting with it. The strati6cation is
almost horizontal, with a slight dip to the cast
(Poole, p. 63). At the north it is worn into a sharp
ridge or mane, with very steep sides and serrated
top. Towards the south the top widens mto a
table-land, which Poole (ibid.) reports as about*
230 ft. above the level of the lake at its southern
end. It breaks down on the W., S., and N. E. sides
by steep declivities to the shore, furrowed by the
rains which are gi-adually washing it into the lake,
into cones and other fantastic forms, like those al
ready described on the western beach near Sebbeh.
It presents a brilliant white appearan.« when lit up
by the blazing sun, and contrasted with the deep blue
of the lake (Beaufort, p. 104j. A scanty growth of
shrubs (Poole, p. 64) — so scanty as to be almost
invisible (Irby, p. 139 b) — is found over the table
land. On the east the highland descends to a de
pression of Ij or 2 miles wide, which from the-
description of Dr. Anderson (p. 184) appears to run
across the neck from S- to N., at a level hardly
above that of the lake. It will doubtless be ulti
mately worn down quite to the level of the water,
and then the peninsula will become an island (Au-
derson, pp. 184, 189). Into this valley lead the tor
rents from the ravines of the mountains on the
east. The principal of these is the Wady ed-Dra^a
or W. Kerak, which leads up to the city of that
name. It is here that the few uihabitants of the
peninsula reside, in a wretched village called Mez-
ra'ah. The soil is of the most unbounded fertility,
and only requires water to burst into riotous prodi
gality of vegetation (Seetzen, ii. 351, 352).
30. There seems no reason to doubt that thii
peninsula is the remnant of a bed of late aqueous
strata, which were deposited at a period when the

Van de Telde. who on his map marks the north portion
of the peninsula as GhGr el-Mezra'ah, and the south
Ghdr fl-IAs&n. M. de Saulcy also specifies with much
de'tail the position ofthe former of these two as at the
opening of the Wady ed-Dra'a (Jan. 16). The point
is well worth the attention of future travellers, for if
tbe name Lis&n is actually restricted to the south side,
a curious confirmatioQ of the accuracy of the ancient
survey recorded in Josh. xv. 2 would be furnished,
as well as a remarkable proof of the tenacity of an old
name. c This dimension, which Mr. Poole took with his an&-
roid, is strangely at variance with tbe estimate of
Lynch's party. Lynch himself, on approaching it at
the north point (iVorr. p. 297), states it at fi'om 40 to
"" feet high, with a sharp angular central ridge some
20 feet above that. This last feature is mentioned also
by Irby (June 2). Anderson increases the dimension
of his chief to 80 or 90 ft. ( Off. Rep. p. 185) ; hut even
this falls short of Poole. The peuinsu^ probably
slopes off considerably towards the north eud, at whiok
Lynch and Anderson made their estimate.

SEA, THE SALT
irater of the lake stood very nauch higher than it
now does, but which, since it attained ita present
level, and thus exposed them to the action of the
winter torrents, are gradually being disintegrated
and carried down into the depths of the lake. It
is in fact an intrusion upon the form of the lake, as
originally determined by the rocky walls of the
great fissure of the Gitor. Its presence here, so
long after the great bulk of the same formation has
been washed away, is an interesting and fortunate
circumstance, since it furnishes distinct evidence of
a stage in the existence of the lake, which in its
absence might have been inferred from analogy,
but could never have been affirmed as certain. It
may have been deposited either by the general ac
tion of the lake, or by the special action of a river,
possibly in the direction of Wady Kerak, which
in that case formed this extensive deposit at its
mouth, just as the Jordan is now forming a similar
bank at its embouchure. If a change were to take
place which either lowered the water, or elevated
the bottom of tbe lake, the bank at the mouth
of the Jordan would be laid bare, as the Lisdn now
is, and would immediately begin to undergo the
process of disintegration which that is undergoing.
31. The extraordinary difference between the
depth of the two portions of the lake — north and
south of the peninsula — ^has been already alluded
to, and may be seen at a glance on the section
given on page 2878. The former is a bowl, which
at one place attains the depth of more than 1,300
feet, while the average depth along its axis may be
taken at not far short of 1,000. On the other hand
the southern portion is a flat plain, with the greater
part of its area nearly level, a very few feet « only
below the surface, shoaling gradually at the edges
till the brink is reached. So shallow is tbis lagoon
that it is sometimes possible to ford riglit across
from the west to the east side (Seetzen, i. 428,'' ii.
358; Rob. i. 521; Lynch, Narr. p. 304).
The channel connecting the two portions, on the
western side of the peninsula, is very gradual in
its slope from S. to N.,*^ increasing in depth from
3 fathoms to 13, and from 13 to 19, 32 and 56,
when it suddenly drops to 107 (642 feet), and
joins the upper portion.
32. Thus the circular portion above the penin
sula, and a part of the channel, form a mere la
goon, entirely distinct and separate from the basin
of the lake proper. This portion and the plain at
the south as far as the rise or offset at which the
Arabah commences — a district in all of some 16
miles by 8 — would appear to have been left by
the last great change in the form of the ground
at a level not far below its present one, and
consequently much higher than the bottom of the
lake itself But surrounded as it is on three sides
by highlands, the waters of which have no other
outlet, it has become the delta into whioh those

CE'V THE SALT

2889

" When sounded by Lynch, its depth over the
greater purt of the area was 12 feet.
& He fixes the ford at ^ an hour north of the N.
tadi of Jebel Usdum.
c Across this, too, there is a ford, described in some
detail by Irby and Mangles (June 2). The water must
have been unusually low, since they not only state
that donkeys were able to cross, but also that the
width did not exceed a mile, a matter in which the
keen eye of a practical sailor is not likely to have
been deceived. Lynch could find no trace of either
ford, and his map shows the channel as fully two
miles wide at its narrowest spot.
182

wat<*rfl discharp-** them^ai 1<.P!« Or -ts south side are
the immense torrents ot rne Jeio, the unui-undet,
and the Fikreh. On the east the somewhat less
important el-Ahsy, Numnrah, Humeir, and ed-
Dra'ah. On the west the Zuweirah, Mubughghik,d
and Senin. These streams are the drains of a dis
trict not less than 6,000 square miles in area, very
uneven in form, and composed of materials more or
less friable. They must therefore bring down
enormous quantities of silt and shingle. There
can be little doubt that they have already filled up
the southern part of the estuary as far as the pres
ent brink of the water, and the silting up of the
rest is merely a work of time. It is the same pro
cess which is going on, ou a larger and more rapid
scale, in the Sea of Azov, the upper portion of which
is fast filling up with the detritus of the river Don.
Indeed the two portions of the Dead Sea present
several points of analogy to the Sea of Azov and
the Black Sea.
It is difiiciUt to speak with confidence on any of
the geological features of the lake, iu the absence
of reports by competent observers. But the theory
that the lagoon was lowered by a recent change,
and overflowed (Robinson, Bibl. Res. ii. 189), seems
directly contrary to the natural inference from the
fact that such b,rge torrents discharge themselves
into that spot. There is nothing in the appear
ance of the ground to suggest any violent change
in recent (i. e, historical) times, or that anything
has taken place but the gradual accumulation of
the deposits of the torrents all over the delta.
33. The water of the lake is not less remarkable
than its other features. Its raost obvious pecul
iarity is its great weight.^ Its specific gravity
has been found to be as much as 12.28; that is
to say, it gallon of it would weigh over 12;^ lbs.
instead of 10 lbs., the weight of distilled water.
Water so heavy must not only be extremely
buoyant but must possess great inertia. It^
buoyancy is a common theme of remark by the
travellers who have been upon it or in it. Jose
phus (B, J. iv. 8, § 4) relates some experiments
made by Vespasian by throwing bound criminals
into it; and Lynch, bathing on the eastern shore
near the mouth of the Wady Zurka, says (Narr.
p. 371), in words curiously parallel to those of the
old historian, " With great difficulty I kept my
feet down, and when I laid upon my back, and,
drawing up my knees, placed my hands upon them,
I rolled immediately over." In the bay on the
north side of the peninsula, " a horse could with
difficulty keep himself upright. Two fresh hens'
eggs floated up one-third of their length," i. e.
with one-third exposed ; " they would have sunk in
the water of the Mediterranean or Atlantic"
(Narr. p. 342). '* A muscular raan floated nearly
breast high without the least exertion" {ibid. p. 325).
One of the things remembered by the Maltese ser-

d Pronounced Muburrik ; the Embarreg of De
Saulcy. e Of the salt lakes in Northern Persia ( Urumiyeh,
etc.) nothing is yet known. Wagner's account is very
vague. Those in Southern Russia have been fully
investigated by Goebel (Reisen, etc., Dorpat, 1837).
The heaviest water is that of the "Red Sea," near
Perekop in tho Crimea (solid contents 37.22 per cent. ;
sp. gr. 13.31). The others, including the leltouskoo
or Elton, contain from 24 to 28 per cent, of solid mat
ter in solution, and range iu sp. gr. from 12.07 f"
12.68.

2890

SEA, THE SALT

rant of Mr. Costigan — who lost his life from ex
posure on the lake — was that the boat "floated a
palm higher than before" (Stephens, Incidents,
ch. xxxii:). Dr. Robinson "could never swim be
fore, either in fi-esh or salt water," yet here he
"could sit, stand, lie, or swim without diificulty "
(Bibl. Pes. i. 506).
34. So much for its buoyancy. Of its weight
and inertia the American expedition had also prac
tical experience. In the gale in which the party
were caught on their first day on the lake, between
the mouth of the Jordan and Ain Feshkhah, " it
seemed as if the bows of the boats were encounter
ing the sledge-hammers of the Titans." When,
however, " the wind abated, the sea rapidly fell ;
the water, from its ponderous quality, settling as
soon as the agitating cause had ceased to act "
(Narr. pp. 268, 269). At ordinary times there is
nothing remarkable in the action of" the surfaoe of
the lake. Its waves rise and fall, and surf beats
on the shore, just like tbe ocean. Nor is its color
dissimilar to that of the sea. The water has a
greasy feel, owing possibly to the saponification of
the lime and other earthy salts with che perspira
tion of the skin, and this seems to have led some
observers to attribute to it a greasy look. But
such a look exists in imagination only. It is quite
transparent, of an opalescent green tint, and is
compared by Lynch (Narr. p. 337) to diluted
absinthe. Lynch (Narr. p. 296) distinctly contra
dicts the assertion that it has any smell, noxious or
not. So do the chemists " who have analyzed it.
35. One or two phenomena of the surface may
be mentioned. Many of the old travellers, and
some modern ones (as Osburn, Pal. Past and
Present, p. 443, and Churton, Land of the Morn
ing, p. 149), njention that the turbid, yellow
stream of tlie Jordan is distinguishable for a long
distance in tbe lake. Molyneux (p. 129) speaks of
a " curious broad strip of white foam which ap
peared to lie in a straight line nearly N. and S.
throughout the whole length of the sea .... some
miles W. of the mouth of the Jordan " (comp.
Lynch, Narr. pp. 279, 295 ). "It seemed to be
constantly bubbling and in motion, like a stream
that runs rapidly through still water; while nearly
over this track during both nights we observed in
tbe sky a white streak like a cloud extending also
N. and S. and aa far as the eye could reach."
Lines of foam on the surface are mentioned by
others: as Robinson (i. 503); Bomr (Journey,
etc., p. 479); Lynch (Narr. pp. 288, 289). From
Ain Jidy a current was observed by Mr. Clowes'
party running steadily to the N. not far from the
shore (comp. Lynch, Narr. p. 291). It is pos
sibly an eddy caused by the influx of the Jordan.
Both De Saulcy (Narr. January 8) and Robinson
(i. 504) speak of spots and belts of water remain
ing smooth and calm while the rest of the surface
was rippled, and presenting a strong resemblance
to islands (comp. Lynch, p. 288; Irby, June 6).
The haze or mist whieh perpetually broods over

tt With the single exception of Moldenhauer, who
when he first opened the speciraen he analyzed, found
it to smell strongly of sulphur.
6' This is chosen because the water was taken from
A considerable depth in the centre of the lake, and
therefore probably more fairly represents the average
composition than the others.
c Adopting Marchand's analysis, it appears thatthe
lusntity of this suit in the Dead Sea is 128 times a£

SEA, THE SALT
the water has been already mentioned. It is the K
suit of the prodigious evapoi-ation. Lynch continu
ally mentions it. Irliy (.lune 1) saw it in broad
transparent columns, like water-spouts, only very
much larger. Extraordinary effects of mirage due
to the unequal refraction produced by the heat and
moisture are occasionally .seen (Lynch, Narr. p. 320).
36. The remarkable weight of this water ia due
to the very large quantity of mineral salts which it
holds in solution. The details of the various anal
yses are given on p. 2891 in a tabular form, accompa ¦
nied by that of sea-water for comparison. Fron
that of the U. S. expedition ^ it appears that eacl
gallon of the water, weighing 12^ lbs., contaiiu
nearly 3 J lbs. (3.319) of matter in solution — an
immense quantity when we recollect that sea-water
weighing 10^ lbs. per gallon, contains less than \ a
lb. Of this 3^ lbs. nearly 1 lb. is common salt
(chloride of sodium); about 2 lbs. cliloride of mag
nesium, and less than J a Ib. chloride of calcium
(or muriate of lime). The most unusual ingredi
ent is bromide of magnesium, which exists in truly
extraordinary quantity." To its presence is due
the therapeutic reputation enjoyed by the lake
when its water was sent to Rome for wealthy 'm-
valids (Galen, in Reland, Pal. p. 242), or lepers
flocked to its shores (Ant. Mart. § x.). Boussin-
gault (Ann. de Chimie, 1856, xlviii. 168) remarks
that if ever bromine should loecome an article of
commerce, the Dead Sea will be the natural source
for it. It is tbe magnesian compounds which im
part so nauseous and bitter a flavor to the water.
The quantity of common salt in solution is very
large. Lynch found (Narr. p. 377) that while
distilled water would dissolve 5-17th8 of its weight
of salt, and the water of the Atlantic l-6th, the
water of the Dead Sea was so nearly saturated as
only to be able to take up 1-llth.
37. The sources of the components of the water
may be named generally without difficulty. The
lime and magnesia proceed from the dolomitic lime
stone of tbe surrounding mountains ; from the gj-p-
sum which exists on the shores, nearly pure, in
large quantities ; and from the carbonate of lime
and carbonate of magnesia found on the peninsula
and elsewhere (Anderson, p. 185). The chloride of
sodium is supplied from Khashm Usdum, and the
copious brine springs on both shores. Balls of
nearly pure sulphur (probably the deposit of some
sulphurous stream ) are found in the neighborhood
of the lake, on the peninsula (Anderson, p. 187),
on the western beach and the northwestern heights
(it/id. pp. 176, 180, 160), and on the plain S. of
Jericho (Rev. G. W. Bridges). Nitre may exist,
but the specimens mentioned by Irby and others
are more probably pieces of rock salt, since no trace
of nitric acid has been found in the water or soil
(Marchand, p. 370).'' Manganese, iron, and alu
mina have been found on the peninsula (Anderson,
pp. 185, 187), and the other constituents are the
product of the numerous mineral springs which
sun-ound the lake,« and the washings of the aque-

great as in the ocean and 74 times as (^reat as in th6
Kreuznach water, where its strength is considered re
markable. tt On the subject of the bitumen of the lake, th«
writer has nothing to add to what is said under Fai.-
ESTINE, iii. 2307, and Sijme.
e The bromine has not yet been satisfactorily traced.
The salt of KluLskm Vsihtm has been analyzed for i*
diaoovery fVtft M liWv out in vain Marchand tf

SEA, THE SALT 2891
OOMTARATIVE TABLE OE ANALYSES OF THB WATER OE TUB DEAD SEA.

1.

2.

3.

4.

6.

8.

7.

8.

».

C. 0.
Omelin, 1824.
Aa recal

Afiohn.

Mar
chand,

Hera- path,

Bootli,
of Phila
delphia ilf.8.

BoHtron- Chariard and
Henry.

Prof. W.
Gregory,

Molden hauer,

Water a.
tho

culatedby Mar
chand.

1847.

1849.

Nov. 1854.

Ocean.

tUoilde of llwrnealum

12.168

7.370

10.643

7.822

14.689

1.696

13.951

6.831

.361

7.039

7.839

6.678

12.109

7.855

11.003

7.m

2.967

2.7«t

•* Calcium . ,

S.386

2.438

2.894

2.465

•S.107

.680

2.796

1.471

" PotBBBium . .
1.086
.86a
1.398
L217
.658
.166
.571
2.391
7o7t
" Manganeae .
.161
.006
,006
-
-
-
" Ammonium .
.007
-
—
.006
-
-
-
-
•
" Aluminium .
.143
.018
.056
—
—
-
-
•
'* Iron ....
_
—
.003
_
—
-
—
•
Sulphate of Fotaah . . .
_
-
—
—
-
.062
•
" Lime . . .
.062
.076
.088
.068
.070
-
.106
—
.146
" Magnesia . .
_
-
_
-
-
.233
-
—
.230
Bromide of Magseaium .
.442
.201
.251
.251
.137
trace.
.069
.183
.002
Or^nic matter ....
;
:
.003
.062
r200
~
~
- /
BitumlnouB matter . . .
-
-
-
-
-
Carbonate of Lime . . .
"
~
~
~
7953
¦
Leas '.am
Total solid contents . . .
24.435
18.780
21.773
24.055
26.416
14.927
24.832
13.895
3.&3
96.478
Water 
75.665
81.220
78.227
75.945
73.681
85.073
75.168
86.105
lOO.OOO
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
Specific gravity ....
1.202
1.163
1.1841
at 66° r.
1.172
1.227
at60°r.
1.099
1.210
ot 60° F.
1.116
was
Boiling point 
221°
227.75
-
Water obtained ....
imile
in 1817,
in Marcll,
May 6, '48
lOSfath.
April 2,
from
in June,
fWim
at tile
1849,
1850,
Island at
1864.
Jordan,
north
1 mile
ITW.of
%T
"2 honrs
N. end.
late
end.
from the
March U,
in rainy
mouth of
A. Tera
Jordan."
1864.
season.
Jordan.
beh.
No. 1. The figures in the table are the recalcula
tions of Marchand (Journal, etc., p. 359) on the basis of
the improved chemical Bcience of his time. The orig
inal analysis is in Naturwiss. Abhandl., Tubingen, i.
(1827) 333.
No. 2. See The Athenaeum, June 15, 1839.
No. 3. Journal fur prakt. CAemie, etc., Leipzig, xlvii.
(1849), 365.
No; 4. Quarterly Journal of Chem. Soc. ii. (1850)
836. *
No. 5. Off. Report of U. S. Expedition, 4to, p. 204.
No. 6. Journal de Pharmacie et de Cliimie, Mars,
1852. No. 7. Calculated by the writer from the propor
tionate table of salts given in Stewart's Tent and Khan,
p. 881.
No 3. Liebig and Wohler's Annalen der Chemie^
xlvii. (1866) 357 ; xlviii. (1856) 129-170.
No. 9. Regnault's Cours Elim. de Chimie, ii. 190.
The older analyses have not been reprinted, the
methods employed having been imperfect and the re
sults uncertain as compared with the more modern
ones quoted. They are as follows : (1.) Macquer, La
voisier, and Lesage (Mim. de VAcad. des Sciences,
1778); (2.) Marcet(PAi7. Tmnj-, 1807, p. 296, &c.) ; (3.)
Klaproth (Mag. der Gesells. naturfor. Freunde zu
Beriin, HI. 139) ', (4.) Gay Lussac (Ann. de Chimie,
xi. (1819)197) ; (5.) Hermbstadt (Schweigger'a Journal,
xxxiv. 163).
Want of space compels the omission of the analysis
cf Boussingault of water collected in spring, 1855 (Ann.
(te Chimie, xlviii. (1856) 129-170), which corresponds
very dosely with that of Gmelin (namely, sp. gr.
1<194 ; salts, 22-785 per cent.}, as well as that of Com-
mineg (quoted in the same paper)-of water collected in
Tune, 1853, showing sp. gr. 1.196 and salts 18.26 per
cent. Another analysis by Professor W. Gregory, giv
ing 19.25 per cent, of salts, is quoted by Kitto (Phys.
Geogr. p. 874).
The writer haa been favored with specimens of
water collected 13th November, 1850, by the Rev. G.
W. Bridges, and 7th April, 1863, by Mr. R. D. Wilson.
Both were taken from the north end. The former.
which had been carefully sealed up until examination,
exhibited sp. gr. 1.1812, solid contents, 21.585 per
cent. ; the latter, sp. gr. 1.184, solid contents, 22.188 ;
the boiling point in both cases 226^^ 4 Fahr. — a singu
lar agreement, when it is remembered that one speet
men was obtained at tbe end, the. other at the begin
ning of summer. For this investigation, and much
more valuable assistance in this part ofhis article, the
writer is indebted to his friend. Dr. David Simpson
Price, F. C S.
Tbe inferiority in the quantity of the salts in Nos*.
2, 6, and 8 is very remarkable, and must be due to the
fa«t (acknowledged iu the two first) that the water was
obtained during the rainy season, or from near th«
entrance of the Jordan or other fresh water. Nos. 7
and 8 were collected within two months of each otheif^
The preceding winter, 1853-54, was one of the wettest
and coldest remembered in Syria, and yet the earlier
of the two analyses shows a largely preponderating
quantity of salts. Thee i? sufficient discrepancy itf
the whole of the results to render it desirable that
a fresh set of analyses should be made, of water oh»-
tained from various defined spots and depths, at dif
ferent times of the year, and investigated by the same
analyst. The variable density of tbe water was ob
served as early as by Galen (see quotations in Relanrf,
Pal. p. 242).
The best papers on this interesting subject are those
of Gmelin, Marchand, Herapath, and Boussingault (see
the references given above). The second of these con
tains an exceUent review of former analyses, and most
instructive observations on matters more or less con
nected with the subject.
The absence of iodine is remarkable. It was par
ticularly searched for by both Herapath and Mar
chand, but without effect. In September, 1858, the
writer obtained a large quantity of water from the
island at the north end of the lake, which he redueerf
by boiling ou the spot. The concentrated salts were
afterwards tested by Dr. D. S. Price by his nitrate oi
potash test (see Chem. Soc. Journal for 1851), with "ihe
express view of detecting iodine, but not a trace co tld
be discovered.
• Dr. Anderson t Off. tUp. p. 20fi) statea that in water ftom " another part" of the lake he found oa much as 4.8 per ceni
<f ohlor, calcium.
2892

SEA, THE SALT

Otis deposits on the shores (see § 17), which are
gradually restoring to the lake tbe salts they re
ceived from it i^es back, vphen covered by its
vraters. The strength of these ingredients is
heightened by the continual evaporation, which (as
already stated) is sufficient to carry off the whole
amount of the water supplied, leaving, of course,
the salts in the lake; and which in the Dead Sea,
as in every pther lake which has afflnents but no
outlets, is gradually concentrating the mineral con
stituents of the water, as in the alembic of the
chemist. When the water becomes saturated with
salt, or even before, deposition will take place, and
salt-beds be formed on the bottom of the lake.**
If, then, at a future epoch a convulsion should take
place which should upheave the bottom of the lake,
a salt mountain would be formed similar to the
Khashm Usdum ; and this is not improbably the
manner in which that singular mountain was formed.
It appears to have been the bed of an ancient salt
take, which, during the convulsion which depressed
the bed of the present lake, or some other remote
change, was forced up to its present position. Thus
this spot may have been from the earliest ages ihe
home of Dead Seas ; and the present lake but one
of a numerous series.
88. It has been long supposed that no life what
ever existed in the lake. But recent facts show
that some inferior organizations can and do find a
home even in these salt and acrid waters. The
Cabinet d'Hist. Naturclle at Paris contains a fine
specimen of a coral called Stylophora pistillnta,
which is stated to have been brought from the lake
m 1837 by the Marq. de I'Escalopier, and has every
appearance of having Veen a- resident there, and
not an ancient or foreign specimen.^ Ehrenberg
discovered H species of Pol3gaster, 2 of Polytha-
lamise, and 5 of Phytolitharise, in mud and water
brought home by Lepsius (Monatsb. d. Kon. Pr.
dkad. June, 1849). The mud was taken from the
north end of the lake, 1 hour N. W. of the Jor
dan, and far from the shore. Some of the speci
mens of Polygaster exhibited ovaries, and it is
worthy of remark that all the species were found
in the water of the Jordan also. The copious
phosphorescence mentioned by Lynch (Narr. p.
280) is also u. token of the existence of life in the
waters. In a warm salt stream which rose at the
foot of the Jebel Usdum, at a few yards only from
the lake, Mr. Poole (Nov. 4) caught small fish
{Cyprinodon hammonis) 1^ inch long. He is of
opinion, though he did not ascertain the fact, that
they are ' denizens of the lake. The melanopsis
shdls found by Poole (p. 67) at the fresh springs

amined a specimen of soil from a "salt-plain called
Zeph " ^ an hour W. of the lake, and found it to con
tain "an appreciable quantity of bromine" (Journal
fiir prakt. Che-mie, xlvii. 369, 370).
In addition to the obvious sources named in the
text, there are doubtless others less visible. The re
markable variation in the proportions of the constitu
ents of the water in the specimens obtained by differ
ent travellers (see the analyses) leads to the inference
that in tbo hed of the lake there are masses of min
eral matter, or mineiul springs, which may modify the
uonstitution of the water in their immediate neigh
borhood. a This is already occurring, for Lynch's sounding-
lead several times brought up cubical crystals of salt,
sometimes with mud, sometimes alone (Narr. pp. 281,
297; comp. Molyneux, p. 127). The lake of Assal, on
the E. coast of Africa, vhich has neither affluent uor

SEA, THE SALT
(? Ain Terabeh), and which other trfiTellerg haT«
brought from the shore at Ain Jidy, belong to the
spring and not to the lake. Pucua and ulva are
spoken of by some of the travellers, but nothing
certain is known of them. The ducks seen diving
by Poole must surely have been in search of some
form of life, either animal or vegetable.
39. The statements of ancient travellers and
geographers to the effect that no living creature
could exist on the shores of the lake, or bird fly
across its surface, are amply disproved by later
travellers. It is one of the first things mentioned
by Maundrell (March 30); and in our own dayg
almost every traveller has noticed tbe fable to con
tradict it. The cane brakes of Ain Feshkhah. aaA
the other springs on the margin of the lake, har
bor snipe, partridges, ducks, nightingales, and othw
birds, as well as frogs; hawks, doves, and hares
are found along the shore (Lynch, pp. 274, 277,
279, 287, 294, 371, 376); and the thickets of Ain
Jidy contain " innumerable birds," among which
were the lark, quail, and partridge, as well aa birds
of prey (Bibl. Res. i. 524). Lynch mentions the
curious fact that "all the birds, and most of the
insects and animals " which he saw on the western
side were of a stone color, so as to be almost in
visible on the rocks of the shore (Narr. pp. 279,
291, 294). Yan de Velde (S. <f P. ii. 119), Lynch
(Narr. pp. 279, 287, 308), and Poole (Nov. 2, 3,
and 7), even mention having seen ducks and other
birds, single and in flocks, swimming and divuig in
the water.
40. Of the temperature of the water more ob
servations are necessary before any inferences can
be drawn, [..ynch (Repoii, May 5) states that a
stratum at 59° Fahr. is almost invariably found at
10 fathoms below the surface. Between Wady
ZUrka and Ain Terabeh the temp, at surface was
76°, gradually decreasing to 62° at 1,044 ft. deep,
with the exception jflst named (Nan\ p. 374).
At other times, and in the 'lagoon, the temp.
ranged from 820 to 90°. and from 5° to 10° below
that of the air (ibid. pp. 310-320. Comp. Poole,
Nov. 2). Dr. Stewart (Tent and Khan, p. 381),
on llth Afarch, 1854, found the Jordan 60° Fahr.,
and the Dead Sea (N. end) 73°; the temperature
of the air being 83° in the former case, and 78° in
the latter.
41. Nor does there appear to be anything in
imical to life in the atmosphere of the lake or ita
shores, except what naturally proceeds from the
great heat of the climate. The Ghawdnneh antl
Rashaideh Arabs, who inhabit the southern and

outlet, is said to be concentrated to (or nearly to) tho
point of saturation (Edin. N. Phil. Journ. April, 18C5,
p. 259)
b This interesting fact is mentioned by Humboldt
(Views of Nat. p. 270); but the writer is indebted to
the kind courtesy of M. Valenciennes, keeper of the
Cabinet, for confirmation of it. Humboldt gives tbe
coral the name of Porites elongata, but the writer has
the authority of Dr. P. Martin Duncan for saying that
its true designation is Stylophora pist. Unfortunately
nothing whatever is known of the place or manner of
its discovery ; and it is remarkable that after 26 years
no second specimen should have been acquired. It is
quite possible for the coral in question to grow under
the conditions presented by the Dead Sea, and it is
true that it abounds also in the Red Sea ; but it will
not be safe to draw any deduction from these facts
till other specimens of it have been brought froo till
lake.

SEA, THE SALT
trestem ddes and the peninsula, are described as a
poor stunted race; but thfs is easily accounted for
by the heat and relaxing nature of the climate, and
by their meagre way of life, without inferring any
thing specially unwholesome in the exhalations of
the lake. They do not appear to be more stunted
or meagre than the natives of Jericho, or, if more,
not more than would be due to the fact that they
inhabit a spot 500 to 600 feet further below the
surface of the ocean and more effectually inclosed.
Considering the hard work which the American
party accomplished in the tremendous heat (the
thermometer on one occasion 106°, after sunset,
Nair. p. 314), and that the sounding and working
the boats necessarily brought them a great deal
into actual contact with the water of the lake, their
general good health is a proof that there is nothing
pernicious in the proximity of the lake itself A
strong smell of sulphur pervades some parts uf the
western shore, proceeding from springs or streams
impregnated with sulphuretted hydrogen (De Saul
cy, Narr. i. 192; Van de Velde,« ii. 109; Beaufort,
ii. 113). It accompanied the north whid which
blew in the evenings (Lynch, pp. 292, 294). But
this odor, though unpleasant, is not noxious, and
in fact M. de Saulcy compares it to the baths of
Barfeges. The Sabkah has in summer a " sti-ong
marshy smell," from the partial desiccation of the
ditches which convey the drainage of the salt
springs and salt rucks into the lagoon; but this
smell can hardly be stronger or more unhealthy
than it is in the marshes above the lake el-Hideh,
or in many other places where marshy' ground
exists under a sun of equal power; such, for exam
ple, aa the marshes at Iskanderun, quoted by Mr.
Forter {Handbook, p. 201 a).
42. Of the botany of the Dead Sea little or
nothing can be said. Dr. Hooker, in his portion
of the article Palestine, has spoken (iii. 2312,
2313) of the vegetation of the Ghor in general, and
of that of Ain Jidy and the N. W. shore of the
lake in particular. BeyoTid these, the only parts
of the lake which he explored, nothing accurate is
known. A few plants are named by Seetzen as
inhabiting ths Ghoi' es-Safieh and the peninsula.
These, such as they are, have been already men
tioned. In addition, the foUowing are enumerated
in the lists '^ which accompany the Official Report
(4to) of L3^)ch, and the Voyage of De Saulcy
(Atlas des Planches, etc.). At Ain Jidy, Reseda
lutea, Malva sylvesiins, Glinus lotoides, Sedum
vejlexum, Sideritis syrinca, Eupaimium syriacum,
and Withania somnij'era. On the southeastern
and eastern shore of the lake, at the Ghor es-
Safieh, and on the peninsula, they name Zilla
myagroides, Zygophylla cocclnea, Ruta bracieosa,
/typhus spina Christi, Indigofcra, Tamarix,
Aizuon canariense, Salvad(yra persica, Ifloga fon-
tanesii, Picridium tingitanum, Solanum vilhsum,
Luphorbia peplus, Erythrosticins punctatus, Car ex
sien^hylla, and Heliotropum albidum. At Ain
Feshkhah, Ain Ghuweir, Ain Terdbeh, and other
spots on the western shore, they name, in addition
U) those given by Dr. Hooker, Sida asiaiica,

SEA, THE SALT

2893

<* M. Van de Velde's watch turned black with the
Pulphur in the air of the hills and valleys south of
Masada. Miss Beaufort (at Birket el-Khulil) says it
was " very strong, immensely more nauseous than that
U the springs of Tadmor."
ft Lynch's lists were drawn up by Dr. R. Eglesfield
Srifflth ; and De Saulcy's by the Abb^ Miclion, who
fclao himself collected the bulk of the specimens.

Knauiia ai'vensis, Scabiosn papposa, Kchium iial-
icum and creticum, Straiice sinuata, Anasiaticu
hierochuniina, Heliotropum rotundifolium, and
Phragmites communis. At other places not speci
fied along the shores, Kakile and Crambe maritt-
ma, Arenaria mariiima, Chenopodium mariiimum,
Anabasis aphylla, Anemone coronrrria, Ranunculut
osiaticus, Fumaria micraniha. Sisymbrium irio,
Cleone trineroia, Anagyris fcetida, Chryso.nt/iemum
coronaria, Rhagadiolus sieWUas, Anayollls arven-
sis. Convolvulus siculus, Onosuia syriacc, Lifho-
spermum ienuijlorum^ Hyoscyamus aureus, Euphor-^
bia helioscopa, IHs caucasica, Moi^ea sisyrinchiuin,
Romulea bulbocodium and grandifiora. The mouth
of the Wady Zuweirah contains large quantities
of oleanders.
43. Of the zoology of the shores, it is hardly
too much to say that nothing is known, 'i'he birds
and animals mentioned by Lynch and Robinson
have been already named, but their accurate identi
fication must await the visit of a traveller versed in
natural history. On the question of the existence
of life in the lake itself, the writer has already said
all that occurs to him.
44. The appearance of the lake does not fulfill
the idea conveyed by its popular name. " The
Dead Sea," says a recent traveller,^ "did not strike
me with that sense of desolation and dreariness
which I suppose it ought. I thought it a pretty,
smiling lake — a nice ripple on its surface." f^ord
Nugent (Lands, etc., ii. ch. 5) expresses himself in
similar terms. Schubert came to it from the Gulf
of Akabeh, and he contrasts the " desert look " of
that with the remarkable beauties of this, "the
most glorious spot he had ever seen " (Ritter, p.
557). This was the view from its northern end.
The same of the southern portion. " 1 expected a
scene of unequaled horror," says Mr. Van de
Velde (ii. 117), "instead of which I found a lake
calm and glassy, blue and transparent, with an un
clouded heaven, a smooth beach, and surrounded
by mountains whose blue tints were of rare beauty,
. . . . It bears a remarkable resemblance tc
[joeh. Awe." ''It reminded me of the beautiful
lake of Nice" (Paxton, in Kitto, Phys. Geogr. p.
383). "Nothing of gloom and desolation," saya
another tra\'eUer, " . . . . even the shore waa
richly studded with bright ^ yellow flowers growing
to the edge of the rippling waters." Of the view
frum Masada, Miss Beaufort (ii. 110) thus speaks:
" Some one says there is no beauty in it . . . ,
but this view is beyond all others for the splendoi
of its savage and yet beautiful wildness." Seetzen,
in a lengthened and unusually enthusiastic passage
(ii. 364, 365) extols the beauties of the view from
the delta at the mouth of the Wady M<jib, and
the advantages of that situation for a permanent
residence. These testimonies might be multiplied
at pleasure, and they contrast strangely with the
statements of some of the raediteval pilgrims (on
whose accounts the ordinary conceptions of the
lake are based), and 'even those of some modem
traveUers,^ of the perpetual gloom which broods
over the lake, and the thick vapors which roll

c Rev. W. Lea (1847), who has kindly allowed the
writer the use of his MS. journal.. See very nearly tha
same remarks by Dr. Stewart {Tent and Khan).
d Probably Inula crithmoides.
e As, for instance, the Patriarch of Jerusalem,
quoted by Brocardus (A. D. 1290), and the terrific de
scription given by Qu:iresmius (ii. 759, &c.), as if from
Brocardus, though it is not in the Received Text of his

2894

SEA, I'HE SALT

from its waters like the smoke of some infernal fur-
Dace, filling tbe whole neighborhood with a mias
ma which has destroyed all life within its reach.
45. The truth lies, as usual, somewhere between
these two extremes. On the one hand the lake
certainly is not a gloomy, deadly, smoking gulf.
In this respect it does not at all fulfiU the promise
of its name.o The name is more suggestive of the
dead solitude of the mountain tarns of Wales or
Scotland, the perpetual twilight and undisturbed
lingering decay ofthe Great Dismal Swamp, or the
reekmg miasma of the Putrid Sea of the CJrimea.
Death can never be associated with the wonderful
brightness of the sun of Syria, with the cheerful
reflection of the calm bosom of the lake at some
periods of the day, or with the regular alternation
»f the breezes which ruflBe ita surface at others. At
sunrise and sunset the saene must be astonishingly
beautiful. Everj* one who has been in the West
of Scotland knows what extraordinary pictures are
sometimes seen miiTored in the sea-water lochs
when they lie unruffled in the calm of early morn
ing or of sunset. The reflections from the bosom
of the Dead Sea are said to surpass those, as far as
the hues of the mountains which encircle it, when
lit up by the gorgeous rising and setting suns of
Syria, surpass in brilliancy and richness those ofthe
hills around Loch Fyne and Loch Goyle. One
such aspect may be seen — and it is said by com
petent judgM to be no exaggerated representation
— in " The Scapegoat " of Mr. Holman Hunt, which
is a view ofthe Moab mountains at sunset, painted
from the foot of Jebel Usdum, looking across the
lower part of the lagoon.^ But on the other hand,
with all the brilUancy of its illumination, ita fre
quent beauty of coloring, the fantastic grandeur of
its inclosing mountains, and the tranquil charm
afforded by the reflection of that unequaled sky on
the no less unequaled mirror of the surface — with
all these there is something in the prevalent sterility
and the dry, burnt look of the shores, the over
powering heat, the occasional smell of sulphur, the
dreary salt marsh at the southern eud, and the
ftinge of dead driftwood round the margin, which
must go far to excuse the title which so many ages
have attached to the lake, and which we may be
sure it will never lose.
46- It does notappearprobablethat the condition
or aspect of the lake in Biblical times was mate
rially different from what it is at present. Other
parts of Syria may have deteriorated in climate and
appearance owing to the destruction of the wood
which once covered them, but there are no traces
either of the ancient existence of wood in the neigh
borhood of the lake, or of anything which would
vforks (Amst. 1711); Sir R. Guylforde (a. d. 1506);
Si-hwarz (a. d. 1845). It is, however, surprising how
free the beat of the old travellers are from such fables.
Tbe descriptions of tbe Bordeaux Pilgrim, of Arcul-
fus, Maundeville, Thietmar, Doubdan, Maundrell, bar
ring a little exaggeration of the buoyancy of the water
and of itb repulsion to life, are sober, and, as far as
they go, accurate. It is to be lamented that the pop
ular conception of the lake was not founded on these
^counts, instead of the sensation-descriptions of others
at second hand.
a " It is not gloom but desolation that is its prevail
ing characteristic," is the remark of Prof. Stanley, in
bis exceUent chapter on the lake in Sinai and Palestine
(ch. vii.) "So mournful a landscape, for one having
teftl beauty, I have never seen " (Miss Martineau, East-
vn Lije, pt iii. ch. 4).

SEA, THE SALT
account for its destruction, supposing it to h»n
existed. A few spots, such as Ain Jidy, the month
of the Wady ^u}eirahj and that of the Wady ed-
Bra'a, were more cultivated, and consequently mow
populous than they are under the discouraging iu-
fluences of Mohammedanism. But such attempts
must always have been partial, confined to the imme
diate neighborhood of the fresh springs and toa
certain degree of elevation, and ceasing directly irri
gation was neglected. In fact the climate of the
shores of the lake is too sultry and trying to allow
of any considerable amount of civilized occupation
being conducted there. Nothing will grow without
irrigation, and artificial irrigation is too laborious
for such a situation. The plain of Jericho, we know
was cultivated like a garden, but the plain of Jeri
cho is very nearly on a level with the spring ol
Ain Jidy, some 600 feet above the Ghdr el~Litdn
the Ghor es-Safieh, or other cultivable portions of
the beach of the Dead Sea. Of course, as far as
the capabilities of the ground are concerned, pro
vided there is plenty of water, the hotter the
climate the better, and it is not too much to say
that, if some system of irrigation could be carried out
and maintained, the plain of Jericho, and, still more,
the shores of the lake (such as the peninsula and
the southern plain), might be the most productive
spots in the world. But this is not possible, and the
diflaculty of communication with the external world
would alone be (as it must always have been) a
serious bar to any great agricultural efforts in this
district. When Machserus and Callirrhoe were inhabited
(if indeed the former was ever more than a fortress,
and the latter a bathing establishment occasionally
resorted to), and when the plain of Jericho was
occupied with the crowded population necessary
for the cultivation of its balsam -gardens, vineyards,
sugar-plantations, and palm-groves, there may have
been a little more life on the shores. But this can
never have materially affected the lake. The track
along the western shore and over Ain Jiriywas then,
as now, used for secret marauding expeditions, not for
peaceable or commercial traffic. What transport
there may have been between Idumsea and Jericho
came by some other channel. A doubtful passage
in Josephus,^ and a reference by Edrisi (ed. <lau-
bert, in Ritter, Jordan, p. 700) to an occasional ven
ture ofthe people of " Zara and Dara " m the 12th
century, are all the allusions known to exist to
the navigation of the lake, until Englishmen and
Americans "^ launched their boats on it within the
last twenty years for purposes of scientific inves
tigation. The temptation to the dwellers in the
environs must always have been to ascend to the

b The remarks in the text refer to the mounbiins
which form the background to this remarkable painting
The title of the picture and the accidents of the fore
ground give the key to the sentiment which itconveyn,
which is certainly that of loneliness and death. But tbe
mountains would form an appropriate background toa
scene ofa very different description.
c Quoted by Reland ( Po/ p. 252jas"liber v. debell.
cap. 3." But this — if it can be verified, which tte
writer has not yet succeeded iu doing — only showB
that the Romans on one occasion, sooner than let thaii
fugitives escape them, got some boats over and pu
them on the lake. It does not indicate any continued
naTigatioD. d Costigan in 1835, Moore and Beek in 1837, Symoodl
In 1841, Molyneux in 1847, Lynch in 1848.

SEA, 'J'HE SAL'l
fresher air of the heights, rather than descend to
tbe sultry climate of the shores.
47. The connection between this singular lake
and the Biblical history is very slight. In the topo
graphical records of the Pentateuch and the book
of Joshua^ it forms one among the landmarks of the
boundaries of the whole country, as well as of the
inferior divisions of Judah and Benjamin ; and atten
tion has been already drawn to the minute accuracy
with which, according to the frequent custom of
these remarkable records, one of the salient features
of tbe lake is singled out for mention. As a land
mark it is once named in wbat appears to be a
quotation from a lost work of the prophet Jonah
(2 IC. xiv. 25), itself apparently a reminiscence of
the old Mosaic statement (Num. xxxiv. 8, 12).
Besides this the name occurs once or twice in the
imagery of the Prophets.'' In the New Testament
there is not even an allusion to it. There is, how
ever, one passage in which the " Salt Sea " is men
tioned in a different manner to any of those already
quoted, namely, as having been in the time of Abra
ham the Vale of Siddim (Gen. xiv. 3). The narrative
in which this occurs is now generally acknowledged
to be one of the most ancient of those venerable
documents from which the early part of the book of
Genesis was compiled. But a careful examination
shows that it contains a nuraber of explanatory
Btatementa which cannot, from the very nature of
the case, have come from the pen of its original
author. The sentences, "Bela which is Zoar " "
(2 and 8); "En-Mishpat which is Kadesh" (7);
"The Valley of Shaveh which is the King's Valley "
(17); and the one in question, "the Vale of Siddim
which is the Salt Sea" (H), are evidently explana
tions added by a later hand at a time when the
ancient names had become obsolete. These remarks
(or, as they may be termed, " annotations ") stand
on a perfectly diff'erent footing to tbe words of the
original record whioh they are intended to elucidate,
and whose antiquity they enhance, it bears every
mark of being contemporary with the events it nar
rates. They merely embodv the opinion of a later
person, and must stand or fall by their own merits.
48. Now the evidence of the spot is sufiBcient to
show that no material change has taken place in the
upper and deeper portion of the lake for a period
very long anterior to the time of Abraham. In the
lower portion — the lagoon and the plain below it —
if any change has occurred, it appears to have been
rather one of reclamation than of submersion — the
gradual silting up of tlie district by the torrents
which discharge their contents into it (see §23).
We have seen that, owing to the gentle slope of the
plain, temporary fluctuations in the level of the lake
would .affect this portion very materially ; and it is
quite allowable to believe that a few wet winters fol
lowed by cold summers, would raise the level of the
lake sufficiently to lay the whole ofthe district south

SEA, THB SALT

2895

o See the quotations at the head of the article.
6 One of these (Ez. xlvii. ) is remarkable for the man
ner in which the characteristics of the lake and its en
virons — the dry ravines of the western mountains ;
the noxious waters ; the want of fish ; the southern
lagnoa— are brought out. See Prof. Stanley's notice
(5. ^ P. p. 294).
e 1p!J"M''n V vS : such is the formula adopted
Id each of the instance's quoted. It is the same whioh
» used in the precisely parallel case, " Hazazon-Tamar,
which is En-gedi " (2 Chr. xx. 2). In other cases, where
Kie remark seems to have proceeded from the original

of the lagoon under water, and convert it for the tim*
into a part ofthe "Salt Sea." A rise of 20 feet be
yond the ordinary high-water point would i>robablj
do this, and it would take some years to bring thinga
back to their former condition. Such an exceptional
state of things the writer ofthe words in Gfcu. xiv.
may have witnessed and placed on record.
49. This is merely stated as a possible explanation ;
and it assumes the Vale of Siddim to have been the
plain at the south end of the lake, for which there
is no evidence. But it seems to the writer more
natural to believe that the author of this note on
a document which even in his time was probably
of great antiquity, believed that the present lake
covered a district which in historic times had been
permanently habitable dry land. Such was the im
plicit belief of the whole modern world — with the
exception perhaps of Reland *^ — till within less than
half a century. Even so lately as 1830 the for
mation of the Dead Sea was described by a divine
of our Church, remarkable alike for learning and
discernment, in the following terms : —
" The Valley of the Jordan, in which the cities
of Sodom, Gomorrah, Adma, and Tseboim, were
situated, was rich and highly cultivated. It ia
most probable that the river then flowed in a deep
and uninterrupted channel down a regular descent^
and discharged itself into the eastern gulf of the
Red Sea, The cities stood on a soil broken and
undermined with veins of bitumen and sulphur.
These inflammable substances set on tire by light
ning caused a terrible convulsion; tlie water
courses — both the river and the canals by which the
land was extensively irrigated — burst their banks;
the cities, the walls of which were, perhaps buill
from the combustible materials of the soil, were
entirely swallowed up by the fiery inundation, and
the whole valley, which had been compared to Par
adise and the well-watered corn-fields of the Nile,
became a dead and fetid lake" (Milman, Hist, of
the Jews, 2d ed., i. 15).
In similar language does the usually cautious Dr.
Robinson express himself, writing on the spot, before
the researches of his countrymen had revealed the
depth and nature of the chasm, and the consequent
remote date ofthe formation of the lake: " Shat
tered mountains and the deep chasms of the rent
earth are here tokens of the wrath of God, and of
his vengeance upon the guilty inhabitants of the
plain " {Bibl. Res. i. 525). ^
Now if these explanations — so entirely ground
less, when it is recollected that the identity of the
Vale of Siddim with the Plain of Jordan, and the
submersion of the cities, find no warrant whatever
in Scripture — are promulgated by persons of learn
ing and experience in the 19th centm'y after Christ,
surely it need occasion no surprise to find a similar
view put forward at the time when the contradic
tions involved in the statement that the Salt Sea

writer, another form is used — 'Htl^W — as in "El-
Paran, which is by the Wilderness*" (6), "Hobah,
which is on the left hand of Damascus " (15).
d See his chapter De lacu Asphaltile iu PalcBStina,
lib. i. cap. xxxviii — truly admirable, considering the
scanty materials at his disposal. Ue seems to have
heen the first to disprove the idea tha the cities ol
the plain were submerged.
e Even Lieut. Lynch can pause between the casts ol
the lead to apostrophize the " unhallowed sea . . . the
record of God's wrath," or to notice the "sepulchra;
light " cast around by the phosphorence, etc., eto
(Narr. pp. 284, 288, 280).

2896

SEA, THE SALT

had once been the Vale of Siddim could not have
presented themselves to the ancient commentator
who added that explanatory note to the original rec
ord of Gen. xiv. At the same time it must not be
overlooked that the passage in question is the only
one in the whole Bible — Old Testament, Apocrypha,
or New Testament — to countenance the notion that
the cities of the plain were submerged ; a notion which
the present writer has endeavored elsewhere ^ to
show does not date earlier than the Christian era.
50. The writer has there also attempted to prove
that the belief which prompted the statements just
quoted from modern writers, namely, that the Dead
Sea was formed by the catastrophe which over
threw the "Cities of the Plain," is a mere as
sumption. It is not only unsupported by Scrip
ture, but is directly in the teeth of the evidence
of the ground itself. Of the situation of those
cities we only know that, being in the " Plain of
the Jordan," they must have been to the north of
the lake. Of the catastrophe which destroyed
them, we only know that it is described as a shower
of ignited sulphur descending from the skies. Its
date is uncertain, but we shall be safe in placing it
within the limit of 2,000 years before Christ,
Now, how the chasm in which the Jordan and its
lakes were contained was produced out of the lime
stone block wliich forms the main body of Syria,
we ai'e not at present sufficiently informed to know.
It may have been the effect of a' sudden fissure
of dislocation,* or of gradual erosion,^ or of a com
bination of both. iJut there can be no doubt that,
however the operation was performed, it was of far
older date than the time of Abraham, or any other
historic event.** And not only this, but the details
of the geology, so far as we can at present discern
them, all point in a direction opposite to the popu
lar hypothesis. That hypothesis is to the eflect
that the valley was once dry, and at a certain
historic period was covered with water and con
verted into a lake. The evidence of the spot goes
to show that the very reverse was the case; the
plateaus and terraces traceable round its sides, the

a Under the heads of Sodom, Sidddw, Zoae,
6 See the remarks of Sir 11. Murchison before the
B. Association (iu Atheneeum, 29 Sept. 1849).
c This is the opinion of Dr. Anderson.
d Dr Anderson i.s compelled to infer from the fea
tures of the eastern shore that the GhSr existed " be
fore the tertiary age " (p. 189 ; and see his interesting
remarks on pp. 190, 192).
e This Report is the only document which purports
to give a scientific account of the geology of the Dead
Sea. The author was formerly Proft.ssor at Columbia
College, U. S. It forms a part of hi.<t Geological Re
connaissance of those portions of the Holy Land which
were visited by the American expedition. The writer
is not qualified to pass judgment on its scientific merits,
bul he can speak to its fullness and clearness, and to
the modesty with which the author submits his con
clusions, and which contrasts very favorably with the
loose bombast in which the chief of the expedition is
too prone to indulge. Its usefulness would be greatly
increased by the addition of sections, showing the order
of succession of the strata, and diagrams of some of
the more remarkable phenomena.
/ An instance of the loose maitner in which these
expressions are used is found in Lynch's Narraiice (p.
283), where he characterizes as " scathed by fire " a
rock near the mouth of the Kidron, which in the same
sentence he states was in rapid progress of disintegra-
ion, with a "sloping hill of half its own height" at
¦ts base formed by the dust of its daily decay.
g There is a slight coiTcspondence, though probably

SEA, THE SALT
aqueous deposits of the peninsula and the weateni
and southern shores, saturated with the salts of
their ancient immersion, speak of a depth at one
time far greater than it is at present, and of a
gradual subsidence, until the present level (the
balance, as already explained, between supply ani
evaporation) waa reached.
Beyond these and similar tokens of the action of
water, there are no marks of any geological action
nearly so recent as the date of Abraham. Inci-
perienced and enthusiastic travellers have reportiMi
craters, lava, pumice, scoriae, as marks of modem
volcanic action, at every step. But theae things
are not so easily recognized by inexperienced ob
servers, nor, if seen, is the deduction from them so
obvious. The very few competent geologists who
have visited the spot — both those who have pub
lished their observations (a.s Dr. Anderson, geol
ogist to the American expedition «), and those who
have not, concur in stating that no certain indica
tions exist in or about tbe lake, of volcanic action
within the historical or human period, no volcanic
craters, and no coulees of lava traceable to any
vent. The igneous rocks described aa lava are more
probably basalt of great antiquity; the bitumen of
the lake has nothing necessarily to do with volcanic
action. The scorched, calcined look of the rocks
in the immediate neighborhood, of which sc many
traveUers have spoken / as an evident token bl the
conflagration of the cities, is due to natural cauiss
— to the gradual action of the atmosphere on the
constituents of the stone.
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah may
have been by volcanic action, but it raay be safely
asserted that no traces of it have yet been discov
ered, and that, whatever it was, it can have had
no connection with that far vaster and far more
ancient event which opened the great valley of the
Jordan and the Dead Sea, and at some subsequent
tirae cut it off from communication with the Ked
Sea by forcing up between thcKn the tract of the
Wady Arahah.o G.
* The theory advanced in the preceding article,

bnt a superficial -one, between the Dead Sea at the
apex of the Gulf of Akabeh and the Bitter Lakes at
the apex of the Gulf of Suez. Each was probably at
one time a portion of the sea, and each has been cnt
off by some change in the elevation of the land, and
left to concentrate ite waters at a distance from the
parent branch of the ocean. The change in the latter
case was probably far more recent than in the former,
and may eveu have occurred since tbe Exodus.
The parallel between the Euxiue and the Dead Sea
has been already spoken of. If by some geological
change the strait of tbe Bosphorus should ever be
cl(»ed, and the outlet thus stopped, the parallel would
in some respects be very close — the Danube and the
Dnieper would correspond to the Jordan and the
ZUrka: the Sea of Azov with the Sivash would answer
to the lagoon and the Sabkah — the' river Don to the
Wady el-Jeib. Tbe process of adjustment between
supply and evaporation would at once conmience, ani
from the day the straits were closed the saltncRi of tbe
water would begin to concentrate. If. further, the
evaporation should be greater than the present sup
ply, the water would sink and sink until the great
Euxine became a little lake in a deep hollow far below
the level of the Mediterranean ; and the parallel would
then be complete.
The likeness between the Jordan with its lakes and
the river of Utah has been so often alluded to. that It
need not be more than mentioned here. See Dr Bais*
in Edin. N. Phil. Journal, April, 1855 ; Burton's Citf
ofthe Saints, p. 394.

«EA, THE SALl
(hat the cities of the plain " must have been to the
north of tho lake," the reader will find critically
examined in the articles Sodom and Zoab (Amer.
ed.). We propose to review here the theory advanced
in the preceiiing article, and in the articles Sodom
and Siddim, The Vale of, respecting the sub
mergence of ihe plain. The question of the sub
mergence of the site of the cities is distinct from
that of the submergence of a portion of the valley.
It is only on the latter point that we claim any
clear hiatorical data; the former is a matter of in
ference merely.
The evidences which bear on the question of
submergence are mainly of two classes, the his
torical and the geological. The latter we pass over,
concurring with Mr. Grove in the conviction that
the data as yet ascertained would not furnish the
raost scientific observer with the basis of a solid
and adequate theory. It is sufficient that no points
have thus far been established by geological ex
ploration which conflict with the historical testi
mony ag we understand it.
The earliest historical evidence is contained in
the oldest record extant: "All these were joined
together in the Vale of Siddim, which is the Salt
Sea*' (Gen. xiv. 3). The writer here asserts that
what was the Vale of Siddim at the time of the
battle described, was at the time of his writing the
Salt Sea. If we are to accept tbe unity of the
authorship of the book, it was so when tlie original
record was made. If we may regard the book as
a compilation, and the last clause of this verse as
the gloss of the compiler, it was so when the com
pilation was made. Both theories leave us the an
cient, indisputable. Biblical testimony to the iden
tity, in whole or in part, of tbe site of the Vale
of Siddim and of that of the Salt Sea. This, in
terpretation is sustained by Gesenius, who defines
the Vale of Siddim (valley of the plains) as the
plain "now occupied by the Dead Sea'' (Lex.
Mr. Grove adopts the second of the theories just
named, but he places on this passage the same in
terpretation that we do. He rejects the transla
tion of these who would construe the latter clause
of the veree, " which is near, at, or by the Salt
Sea,*' and insists on the other interpretation. He
says: "The original of the passage will not bear
even tbis slight acconmiodation, and it is evident
that in the mind of the author of the words, no
less than of the learned and eloquent divine and
historian of our own time already alluded to, the
Salt Sea covers the actual space formerly occupied
by the Vale of Siddim " (Siddim, the Vale of).
This is decisive: and thus understanding the Scrip
tural testimony, which pointedly contradicts his
theory, how does he dispose of it? His explana
tion given above is concisely repeated in the article
just quoted, as follows: " The words which more
especially bear on the subject of this article (v. 3)
do not form part of the original document. That
venerable record has — with a care which shows
how greatly it was valued at a very early date —
been annotated throughout by a later, though still
very ancient chronicler, who has added what in his
day were believed to be the equivalents for names
>f places that had beconie obsolete. Bela is ex-

SEA, THE SALT

2897

" • "The clause is found in all the ancient MSS.
»nd versions, and in tlie Targum of Onlcelog. Its
lenulDeness iv^ts on tha very same basis as tiie otiier
portions of tlie narrative. We liave the sane evidence

plained to be Zoar; En-Mishpat to be Kadesh; tt'
Emek-Shaveh to be the Valley of the Kinir; the
Emek has-Siddim to be the Salt Sea, Ihat" is, in
modern phraseology, the Dead Sea. And when
we remember how persistently the notion has been
entertained for the last eighteen centuries that the
Dead Sea covers a district which before its submer
sion was not only the Valley of Siddim but also
the Plain of the Jordan, and what an elaborate
account of the catastrophe of its submersion hw
been constructed even very recently by one of the
most able scholars of our day, we can hardly be
surprised that a chronicler in an age far less able
to interpret natural phenomena, and at the saniu
time long subsequent to the date of the actual
event, should have shared in the belief." [Siddim.
THE Vale of.]
This reasoning from the modem to the ancient,
from Dean Milman to Moses, or the ancient chron
icler who wrote these words, is very unsatisfactory
to those who believe in the integrity of the sacrod
canon." Any theory which may be held respecting
the authorship of the book is of no consequence in
this matter, if we have here an unblemished copy
of the Divine revelation. Any theory which gives
us this, leaves this testimony of equal value to us.
If the authenticity of the record is conceded in
this passage, but it is alleged that the later, yet
very ancient chronicler, who compiled or annotated
the original document, and gave it to us in ita
present shape, was in point of fact mistaken, we
consider the surmise wholly unwarranted and un
warrantable, and believe the writer to have had far
better data for his statement than any modern
critic can possibly have for correcting him. The
reason assigned for the supposed error, moreover, ia
irrelevant. The submergence of the Vale of Sid
dim, the conversion of its site to the waters of the
¦Dead Sea, is simply a question of historic fact, the
statement of which does not require a chronicler
who is "able to interpret natural phenomena."
If, in the above extracts and in the remark in the
present article that these " annotations " '* must
stand or fall by their own merits," the writer means
to impeach the inspired record, or fasten the sus
picion of corruption upon it, it is an uncalled-for
disparagement of the Received Text.
The other glosses or annotations, as Mr. Grove
claims them to be, he does not hesitate to accept
as valid historic testimony. He says of Zoar,
that " its original name was Bela," of Uethleheni,
that "its earliest name was Ephrath," and of
Hazezon-Tamar, that it "afterwards became En-
gedi," on exactly the .authority, and no other, which
he rejects as inconclusive here. " Bela, which is
Zoar;" "the Vale of Siddim, which is the Salt
Sea;" "En-Mishpat, which is Ksdesh;" "tho
valley of Shaveh, which is the kiug'j dale; "
"Ephrath, which is Bethlehem ; " " Hazezon-Tamar,
which is En-gedi ; " annotations or glosses like these.
if they are such (the first four occurring in the same
narrative), are equally reliable or equally worthless.
No law of interpretation will permit us to accept
one and reject another ou the ground that the
writer was not a naturalist. Such a claim, if it
were conceded, would establish the fact that prioi
to the composition or completion of our book of

of its Mosaic authorship as we Uive of anj other pari
of the hook " (Porter, i'ido's I>W. Cyc. Ui. 801)
S.W.

2898

SEA. THE SALT

Genesis, the belief was current that the chasm now
filled by the waters of the Dead Sea had been, in
part at least, a valley or plain ; and then the ques
tion would remain: Whence could such a belief
have originated ? In attempting to withdraw from
the view which he opposes the support of the an
cient record, the writer is obliged to grant it the
weight of a tradition older than the chronicler.
The sacred narrative names a single physical
feature of the Vale of Siddim, namely, that it
abounded with " slime-pits " (Gen. xiv. 10). These
pits were wells of asphaltum, or bitumen, probably
of various dimensions, "sufficient," either from
their number, or size, or both, " materially to affect
the issue of the battle." These asphaltic wells
have disappeared ; but bitumen is still found around
the southern section of the sea, and it rises to the
surface of the water in large quantities, in that
portion of it, when dislodged by an earthquake
(Bibl. Res. ii. 229); and the supply was formerly
more copious than now. We have modern test!-'
mony to this effect, and we have that of three
eminent ancient historians in the century before
Christ, and the following : Diodorus Siculus, Jose
phus, and Tacitus, who represent the asphaltum as
rising to the surface of the water in black and
bulky masses. The theory that the Vale of Sid
dim is covered by the southern part of the sea
reconciles the ancient record and the late phe
nomena. It sustains the statement that it was full
of bituminous wells; it accounts for their disap
pearance, and it explains the occasional spectacle
since, down to the present time, of large quantities
of asphaltum on the surface of the water. Thus
far we have a consistent, confirmed, uncontradicted
testimony. As we pass from the simple affirmation of the
sacred writer, with the confirmation, in subsequent
ages, of Uie only physical feature of the territory
which he names, we leave behind us, of course, all
direct testimony. The only remaining evidence,
exclusively historical, is of that secondary and con
firmatory kind which may be drawn from the in
vestigations and impressions of later writers most
competent to form a judgment, who have exam
ined the subject, or who, as historians, have re
corded the prevalent tradition, or the most intelli
gent opinion. The testirtiony of these writers the
reader will find quoted in an article by the present
writer on " The Site of Sodom," Bihl. Sacra
(1868), xxv. 121-126.
Whether the flame which kindled on Sodom and
the guilty cities and consumed thera, the inflam
mable bitumen entering largely into the composi
tion of their walls, devoured also the adjacent Vale
of Siddim, whose soil, abounding with asphalt-
wells, would under a storm of fire be a magazine
of quenchless fuel, and thus burned out a chasm,
which in whole or in part, now forms the lagoon ;
or whether some volcanic convulsion, an agency of
which that region has been the known theatre, up
heaved the combustible strata, exposing them to
the action of fire, and thus secured the result, each
supposition confirming the sacred narrative that as
Abraham, from his high point of observation sur
veying the terrible destruction, "looked toward
Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of
the plain, and behold, and lo, the smoke of the
Bountry went up as the smoke of a furnace;" or
whether, in connection with the destruction of the
cities by fire, some earthquake-throe, such as that
gtupendou£ crevasse has more than once felt, suul^

SEAL
a portion of the soil out of BigM, leaving the stag
nant waters above as its memorial, cannot now bt
known. The agency which destroyed the cities
was plainly igneous. The agency which converted
the Vale of Siddim into a sheet of water is not
stated. Any theory is admissible which coDaist<
ently explains the two facts.
The submergence of the Vale of Siddim and the
submergence of the cities of the plain, or of their
site, are distinct questions, because the cities were
not in this valley. On this point we concur with
the judicious Reland: —
"The inspired writer does not say that the five
cities, Sodom and the rest, were situated in the
Valley of Siddim ; on the contrary, the text (Gen.
xiv. 3) leads to an opposite conclusion; shice the
kings of these five cities, after having collected their
armies, joined together towards the Valley of Sid
dim. Supposing the translation fo be in the valley,
the meaning is still the same. The probability is,
then, that the Valley of Siddim was quite distinct
from the country in which the five cities were sit
uated " (PaUesiina, i. 151).
We see not how any other opinion than thia
could have obtained currency among scholars. The
vale and the territory of the cities, though distinct,
were evidently contiguous and may have shared,
and to some extent probably did share a common
catastrophe. The former may have been consumed
with the latter, or the latter may have been de
pressed with the fornier. Neither the exact loca
tion nor extent of the Vale of Siddim can be ascer
tained. If it covered the whole breadth of the
southern part of the sea, the plain which borders
on the south, ten miles long by six broad, waa
ample enough for the cities; but in all probability
it was confined to a part of its width, leaving the
rest for fruitful fields and walled towns, the sites
of which are entombed by the sea. The \ale was
the battle-tield between Cbedorlaomer and his alliee,
and the confederate kings of the cities; and as the
invaders apparently menaced the cities from the
present point of Ain Jidy, and the kings went forth
to meet them in this vale, it must have lain west
or north of the cities.
If the rich vegetation of the well-watered plain
of the Jordan, on whose tropical luxuriance Lot
looked down from the highlands of Judsea, extended
southward skirting fresh water along the site of a
part of the present basin of the Salt Sea, and
embosoming the Vale of Siddim with the citiea
which bordered it, the allusions in the Scripture
narrative are all adjusted and explauied. Thia
theory encounters no historic difficulty, nor any
insuperable scientific difficulty, so far as is known.
If there be a fatal objection to it, it lies buried in
that vast, mysterious fissure, and awaits the resur
rection of some future explorer. Should geology
ever compel the substitution of a diflTerent theory,
we may expect from some quarter the additional
light which will enable us to reconcile it with the
inspired record. In the meantime we rest on thu
hypothesis. [Siddim, tiik Valk of, Amer. ed.]
S. W.
SEAL." The importance attached to seals in

" 1. Dnin (Arab-^A^sL^) : ff^payi^,avotr^
yiofia: annitlus (Gen. xxxviii. 25). Httrin/!
fioicrvXios: annulus from OnP," close' or "flwl-

SEAL
the East is so great that without one no document
ia regarded as authentic (Layard, Nin. t^ Bab. p.
608; Chardin, >%. v. 454). The use of some
method of sealing is obviously, therefore, of remote
antiquity. Among such methods used in Egypt
at a very early period were engraved atones, pierced
through their length and hung by a string or chain
from the arm or neck, or set in rings for the finger.
The most ancient form used for this purpose was
the Bcarabaeus, formed of precious or common stone,
; or even of blue pottery or porcelain, on the flat side
of which the inscription or device was engraved.
Cylinders of stone or pottery bearing devices were
also used as signets. One in the Alnwick Museum
baars the date of Osirtasen I., or between 2000
and 3000 B. c. Besides finger-rings, the Egyp'
tians, and also the Assyrians and Babylonians,
made use of cylinders of precious stone or terra
cotta, which were probably set in a frame and
rolled over the document which was to be sealed.
The document, especially among the two latter
nations, was itself often made of baked clay, sealed
while it was wet and burnt afterwards. But in
many cases the seal consisted of a lump of clay,
impressed with the seal and attached to the docu
ment, whether of papyrus or other material, by
strings. These clay lumps often bear the impress
of the finger, and also the remains of the strings
by which they had been fastened. One such found
at Nimroud was the seal of Sabaco king of Egypt,
B. c. 711, and another is believed by Mr. Layard
to have been the seal of Sennacherib, of nearly
the same date (Birch, Hist, of Pottery, i. 101, 118;
Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt, ii. .S41, 364; Layard, Nin.
(f Bab. pp. 154-160). In a somewhat similar
manner doovs of tombs or other places intended to
be closed were sealed with lumps of clay. The
custom prevalent among the Babylonians of carry
ing seals is mentioned by Herodotus, i. 195, who
dso notices the seals on tombs, ii. 121 ; Wilkin
son, i. 15, ii. 364; Matt, xxvii. 66; Dan. vi. 17.
The use of clay in sealing is noticed in the book
of Job (xxxviii. 14), and the signet-ring as an
ordinary part of a man's equipment in the case of
Judah (Gen. xxxviii. 18), who probably, like many
modern Arabs, wore it suspended by a string a from
his neck or arm. (See Cant. viii. 6; Ges. pp. 538,
1140; Koblnson, i. 36; Niebuhr, Descr. de I'Ar.
p. 90; Chardin, I. c. Olearius, Trav. p. 317; Knobel
on Gen. xxxviii. in Escey. Hdb.) The ring or
the seal as an emblem of authority both in Egypt,
in Persia, and elsewhere, is mentioned in the cases
of Pharaoh with Joseph, Gen. xii. 42; of Ahab,
1 K. xxi. 8; of Ahasuerus, Esth. iii. 10, 12, viii.
2; of Darius, Dan. I. c, also 1 Mace vi. 15;
Joseph. Ant. xx. 2, § 2; Herod, iii. 128 ; Curtius, iii.
6, 7, X. 6, 4; Sandys, Trav. p. 62; Chardin, ii.
291, v. 451, 462; and as an evidence of a covenant
in Jer. xxxii. 10, 44; Neh. ix. 38, x. 1; Hag. ii.
23. Its general importance is denoted by the
Jietaphorical use of the word (Rev. v. 1, ix. 4).
Rings with seals are mentioned in the Mishna
(Shabb. vi. 3), and earth or clay* as used for seals
ot bags (viii. 5). Seals of four sorts used in the
Temple, as well as special guardians of them, are
mentioned in Shehal. v. 1.

ffll. Dnrr : a^payt^ofiat : signum imprimere, sig.
lUri.

i. Blng, or BigEat-ring, njaEl.

SEBA 2899
Among modern Orientals the size and place of
the seal vary according to the importance both
of the sender of a letter and of the person to whom
it is sent. In sealing, the seal itself, not the paper,
is smeared with the sealing-substance. Thus illit
erate persons sometimes use the object nearest a
hand — their own finger, or a stick notched foi the
purpose — and, daubing it with ink, smear the
paper therewith (Chardin, v. 454, ix. 347; Arvicux,
Trav, p. 161 ; Kauwolff, Trav. in Kay, ii. 61 ;
Niebuhr, /. c. ; Kobinson, i. 36). Engraved sig
nets were in use among the Hebrews in early times,
as is evident in the description of the high-priest'e
breastplate (Ex. xxviii. 11, 36, xxxix. 6), and tht
work of the engraver as a distinct occupation ia
mentioned in Ecclus. xxxviii. 27. [Clay, i. 471.]
H. W. P.
* SEALED FOUNTAIN. [Fou.ntais.]
* SEALS' SKINS. [Badgers' Skins.]
SB'BA (N2P [see below]: Xa^i, ^Soiivri;
[Vat. in 1 Chr. SafiarQ Scdia: gent. n. pi.
D''N2P : [Is. xiv. 14,] Xaffaeiix, [FA.l Xaffaety,
Alex. 2e^m£(/i:] Sabaim: A. V. incorrectly ren
dered Sabeans, a name there given with more
probability to the CS3t£?, Joel iii. 8 [Heb. text,
iv. 8] ; and to Sheba, used for the people, Job i.
15 ; but it would have been better had the original
orthography been followed in both cases by such
renderings a.s "people of Seba," "people of Sheba,'*
where the gent, nouns occur). Seba heads the list
of the sons of Cush. If Seba be of Hebrew or
cognate origin, it may be connected with the root
S3D, "he or it drank, drank to excess," which
would not be inappropriate to a nation seated, as
we shall see was that of Seba, in a well-watered
country; but the comparison of two other similar
names of Cushites, Sabtah (HnSp) and Sab
techah (S3i^riD), does not favor this supposition,
as they were probably seated in Arabia, like the
Cushite Sheba (M3tt?), which is not renjote from
Seba (H3p), the two letters being not unfrequentiy
interchanged. Gesenius has suggested the Ethiopic
rt'll tl '• sablay, " a man," as the origin of both
Seba and Sheba, but this seems unlikely. Tho
ancient Egyptian names of nations or tribes, possi
bly countries, of Ethiopia, probal)]y mainly, if not
wholly, of Nigritian race, SAHAHA, S.ABARA
(Brugsch, Geogr. Inschr. ii. 9, tav. xii. K. 1.), are
more to the point; and it is needless to cite later
geographical names of cities, though that of one
of the upper confluents of the Nile, Astasobas,
compared with Astaboras, -and Astapus, seems wor
thy of notice, as perhaps indicating the name of a
nation. The proper names of the first and second
kings of the Ethiopian XXVth dynasty of Egypt,
SHEBEK (S'lD) and SHEBETEK, may also be
compared. Gesenius was led, by an error of the
Egyptologists, to connect Sevechus, a Greek tran
scription of SHEBETEK, with SABK or SBAK
8. Sn*"^7, Ch. : SoKTiiAios: annulus.
t: • '
o ^^n^ : opjuiffjeos: armilla; A. Y. " bracol«fr "
" naiS (Me Gea. p. 271

2900 SEBA
the crocodile-headed divinity of Ombos (Iax. a. v.
KID). The list of the sons of Cush seems to indicate
the position of the Cushite nation or country Seba.
Nimrod, who is mentioned at the close of the list,
ruled at first in Babylonia, and apparently after
wards in Assyria: of the names enumerated be
tween Seba and Nimrod, it is highly probable that
lome belong to Arabia. We thus may conjecture
t cuiTe of Cushite settlements, one extremity of
Tvhich is to be placed in Babylonia, the other, if
prolonged far enough in accordance with the men
tion of the African Cush, in Ethiopia. The more
exact position of Seba wUl be later discussed.
Besides the mention of Seba in the list of the
jons of Cush (Gen. x. 7; 1 Chr. i. 9), there are
but three, or, as some hold, four notices of the
nation. In Psalm Ixxii., which has evidently a
first reference to the reign of Solomon, Seba is thus
spoken of among the distant nations which should
do honor Ut the king : " The kings of Tarshish
and of the isles shall bring presents : the kings of
She', a and Seba shall offer gifts" (10) This
mtntion of Sheba and Seba together is to be com
pared with the occurrence of a Sheba among the
descendants of Cush (Gen. x. 7), and its fulfilhnent
is found in the queen of Sheba's coming to Sol
omon. There can be little doubt that the Arabian
kingdom of Sheba was Cushite as well as Joktan-
itc ; and thia occurrence of Sheba and Seba together
certainly lenda some support to this view. On the
other band, the connection of Seba with an Asiatic
kingdom is important in reference to the race of
its people, which, or at least the ruling class was,
no doubt, not Nigritian. In Isaiah xliii., Seba
is spoken of with Egypt, and more particularly
with Cush, apparently with some reference to the
Exodus, where we read : "I g.ave Egypt [for] thy
ransom, Cush and Seba for thee " (3). Here,
to render Cush by Ethiopia, as in the A. V., is
perhaps to miss the sense of the passage, which
does not allow us to infer, though it is by no
nieans impossible, that Cush, as a geographical
designation, includes Seba, as it would do if here
meaning Ethiopia. Later in the book there is a
passage parallel in its indications : "The labor of
Egypt, and merchandise of Cush, and of the people
of Seba, men of stature, shall come over unto thee,
and they ahall be thine '* (xiv. 14). Here there is
the same mention together of the three nations,
and the same special association of Cush and Seba.
The great stature and beauty of the Ethiopians is
mentioned by Herodotus, who speaks of tliem as
by report the tallest and handsomest men in the
world (iii. 20; comp. 114); and in the present day
some of the tribes of the dark races of a type inter
mediate between the Nigritians and the Egyptians,
as well as the Caucasian Abyssinians, are remark
able for their fine form, and certain of the former
for their height. The doubtful notice is in Eze
kiel, in a difficult passage : " and with men of the
multitude of Adam [were] brought drunkards
[D''M3TO, but the Keri reads C'SnO, 'people
of Seba '] from the wilderness, which put bracelets
upon their hands, and beautiful crowns upon their
heads " " (xxiii. 42). The first clause would seem
to favor the idea that a nation is meant, but the

« The reading of the A. V. in the text \b, " with
the men of the common sort," and in the margin,
* witb thu men of the multitude of men."

SEBA
reading of the text is i'ather ?upport«d by what fo|.
lows the mention of the " drunkards." Nor ia i|
clear why people of Seba should come from the
wilderness. The passages we have examined thug'
seem to show (if we omit the last) that Seba was a
nation of Africa, bordering on or included iu Cusb,
and in Solomon's time independent and of political
importance. We are thus able to conjecture the
position of Seba. No ancient Ethiopian kingdom
of importance could have excluded the island of
Meroij, and therefore this one of Solomon's time
may be identified with that whicb must have arisen
in the period of weakness and division of Egypt
that followed the Empire, and have laid tbe basis
of that power that made SHEBEK, or Sahacn,
able to conquer Egypt, and found the Ethiopian
dynasty which ruled that country as well as Ethi
opia. Josephus says that Saba (%afii) was the ancieni
name of the Ethiopian island and city of Meioe
(A. J. ii. 10, § 2), but he writes Seba, in the no.
tice of the Noachian settlements, Sabas (ibid. i. 6.
§ 2). Certainly the kingdom of Meroe succeeded
that of Seba ; and the ancient city of the same
name may have been the capital, or one of the cap
itals, of Seba, though we do not find any of its
monuments to be even as early as the XXVth dy
nasty. . There can be no connection letween the
two names. According to Josephus and others,
Meroii was named after a sister of Cambyses; but
this is extremely unlikely, and we prefer taking it
from the ancient Egyptian MEKU, an island,
which occurs in a name of a part of Ethiopia that
can only be this or a similar tract, MERU-PET,
" the island of PET [Phut?] the bow," where the
bow may have a geographical reference to a hend
of the river, and the word island to the country
incloeed by that bend and a tributary [Phut].
As Merosj, from its fertility, must have been the
most important portion of any Ethiopian kingdom
in the dominions of which it was included, it n]aj
be well here to mention the chief facts respecting
it which are known. It may be remarked that it
seems certain that, from a remote tirae, Ethiopia
below Meroe could never have formed a separate
powerful kingdom, and was probably always de
pendent upon either Meroe or Egypt. The island
of Meroe lay between the Astaboras, the Atbara,
the most northern tributary of the Nile, and the
Astapus, the Bahr el-Azrak or " Blue Kiver," the
eastern of its two great confluents; it is also de
scribed as bounded by the Astaboras, the Astapus,
and the Astasobas, the latter two uniting to fonu
the Blue Kiver (Strab. xvii. 821), but this is essen
tially the same thing. It was in the time of the
kingdom rich and productive. Tbe chief city waa
Meroe, where was an oracle of Jupiter Ammon.
Modern research confirms these particulars. The
country is capable of being rendered very wealthy,
though its neighborhood to Abyssinia has checked
its commerce in that direction, from the natural
dread that the Abyssinians have of their countrj
being absorbed like Kurdufan, Darfoor, and Fay-
zoglu, by their powerful neighbor Egypt. Tlie n-
mains of the city Meroii have not been identified
with certainty, but between N. lat. 16° and 17°,
temples, one of them dedicated to the ram-headed
Num, confounded with Amnion by the Greeks, and
pyramids, indicate that there must have been a
great population, and at least one important city
When ancient writers speak of sovereigns of MetcS,
they may either mean rulers of Meroii alone, or, in

aEBAT
addition, of Ethiopia to the nortn nearly as far, or
18 far aa Egypt. ll. S. I'.
SB'BAT. [Month.]
SEC'ACAH (naSP [thicket, Dietr.] : A.'o-
yuffct; Alex. Soxox"' 'Sc/wcAa, or Sachacha).
One of the six cities of Judah which were situated
in the Midbar ("wilderness"), that is, the tract
bordering on the Dead Sea (Josh. xv. 61). It oc
curs in the list between Middin and han-Nibshan.
It was not known to Eusebius and Jerome, nor has
the name been yet encountered in that direction in
more modern times. From Sin/il, among the
hicrhlands of Ephraim, near Seiliin, Dr. Kobinson
saw a place called Sekdkeh (Bibl. Res. ii. 267,
BO<e). G.
SEOHENI'AS (Xex^ylas ; [Vat. omits:]
Scecilias). 1. Shechaniah (1 Esdr. viii. 29;
comp. Ezr. viii. 3).
2. ([Vat. Etcxonas:] Jechonias.) Siiecha-
niah (1 Esdr. viii. 32; comp. Ezr. viii. 5).
SE'CHU piston with the article [the watcii-
(oMier] : h T^ -Zi^i [Vat. 26((>ei] ; Alex, ev 2oic-
Yto: Socho). A place raentioned once only (1
Sam. xix. 22), apparently as lying on the route be
tween Saul's residence, Gibeah, and Ramah (Ra
mathaim Zophim), that of Samuel. It was noto
rious for " the great well " (or rather cistern, "^IS)
which it contained. The name is derivable from a
root signifying elevation, thus perhaps implying
that the place was situated on an eminence.
Assuming that Saul started from Gibeah ( Tuleil
el-Ful), and that Neby Samwil is Ramah, then
Bir NebaUa (the well of Neballa), alleged by a
modern traveller (Schwarz, p. 127) to contain a
large pit, would be in a suitable position for the
great well of Sechu. Schwarz would identify it
with Askar, on the S. E. end of Mount Ebal, and
the well with Jacob's Well in the plain below ; and
Van de Velde (S. # P. ii. 63, 54) hesitatingly
places it at ShAk, in the mountains of Judah N.
E. ot Hebron; but this they are forced into by
their respective theories as to the position of Rama
thaim Zophim.
The Vat. LXX. alters the passage, and has " the
well of the threshing-floor that is in Sephei," sub
stituting, in the first case, 1'~0i for 7^^, or aKa
for niydXov, and in the latter ''Qt£7 for 13ti7.
The Alex. MS., as usual, adheres more closely to
the Hebrew. C.
* SECT. This word is used five times in the
Bible, always in the singular, and always as a trans
lation of alpea-is- of the Sadducees, Acts v. 17:
of the Pharisees, xv. 5, xxvi. 5; and of the Chris
tians (by Jews or heathen), xxiv. 5, xxviii. 22.
tilpeais occurs once more in the singular, xxiv. 14
(A. V. "heresy"), and three times in the plural,
1 Cor. xi. 19, Gal. ». 20, 2 Pet, ii. 1 (A. V.
"heresies," but 1 Cor. xi. 19 "sects" in the mar
gin). The word seems in tbe N. T. to be used in
the twofold sense which it had before in classical,
and afterwards in ecclesiastical Greek (cf. Sopho-
des: Glossary of Later and Byzantine Greek):
denoting now a " chosen " set of doctrines or mode
of life (e. g. Acts xxiv. 14, a-V dShi' V Xeyouirw
¦Upetrtv, 2 Pet. ii. 1, perhaps also Acts xxviii. 22,
3al. V. 20), now a party adhering to the doctrines.
That aipciris denotes in the N. T. religious
iwuliarities or parties is evident from the six

SEDITIONS

'01

cases in which it is used in the singular. Ths
presumption therefore is that in the three othei
cases the atpeaeis have the same characteristic
It is evident also that the word has (as it did not
have in classical Greek) a bad sense The reason
for this is to be found in the N. T. conception of
the Church as a unit, a body united to Christ the
Head (1 Cor. xii. 27; Eph. i. 22), so that diver
sities of opinion which produce a schism in the
body or divide any part of it from the Head (cf.
1 Cor. xii. 25; Col. ii. 19) cannot be tolerated, as
could differences on merely philosophical or indif
ferent matters. Especially instnictive is 1 Cor. xi.
18, 19. While Paul has spoken of epides, i- 11,
and of ^Aos koI eptSi iii- 3, as undoubtedly ex
isting among the Corinthians, he is reluctant to
give to the report that there are ax^<^/^^'^^ among
them more than qualified credit (xi. 18, p4pos ti
TTicTTeoo)), and founds even this qualified belief not
so much on the reports, as on the general principle
(ver. 19) that there is a providential necessity that
there should be even alpeaeis (Bel yap Kal alp'
eJuai), that the 5(jKt^oi niay be made manifest
(cf 1 John. ii. 19). The a^SKipoi are those who
do not have Christ in them (2 Cor. xiii. 5). Atpeaets
then are divisions (distinguished from a-^iaixaTa,
as the cause from the effect) which imply or leaf,l
to a separation of false from true Christians. In
strict accordance with this is the use of aip^aeis in
Gal. V. 20, and especially in 2 Pet. ii. 1; as also
Paul's injunction (Tit. iii. 10), to reject an alpert-
Khv &y6pi»>irov-
The term a'lpeo'is-, as far as parties in the Church
are concerned, is in the N. T. confined to general
or hypotheticiil statements, and is not applied to
any particular heretical body, though the existence
of heretical tendencies is recognized. But the
prominent notion in the N. T. conception of
a'lpeois is that of apostasy from Christ. Mere
variations in belief among those who " hold the
Head " are nowhere branded with the name of
aipta-is (cf. Rom. xiv.; 1 Cor. viii.). C M. M.
SEOUN'DITS {-^^Kodi^bos: Secundus) was
one of the party who went with the Apostle Paul
from CoriTith as far as Asia {^XP'- '^^'^ 'Atr^os),
probably to Troas or Miletus (all of them so far,
some further), on his return to Jerusalem from his
third missionary tour (see Acts xx. 4). He and
Aristarchus are there said to have been Thessa-
lonians. He is otherwise unknown. H. B. H.
* SECURE formerly differed from " safe," aa
the feeling of safety (which may be unfounded'
differs from the reality. Thus, in Judg. xfiii. 7,
10, 27, the people of Laish are said to have beer
"secure"; i. e. in their own belief, which their
speedy and utter overthrow showed to be a delu
sion. It is in the same sense that the A. V. ren
ders vpi-as afiepifivovs iroii}ffo/j.€v by " we will ae-
cure you," in Matt, xxviii. 14. (See Trench's
Glossary of Knglish Words, p. 147, Amer. ed.) H.
SEDECI'AS (SeScKios: Se^^ecirrs), the Greek
form of Zedekiah. 1. A man mentioned in Bar.
i. 1, as the father of Maaseiah, himself the grand
father of Baruch, and apparently identical with the
false prophet in Jer. xxix. 21, 22.
2. The " son of Josiah, king of Judah " (Bar.
i. 8). [Zedekiah.] B. F. W.
* SEDITIONS, in the current sense of the
word, appears out of place in Paul's catalogue oi
the sins of the flesh (Gal. v. 19-21). It stands foi

2902

blli!b.x\i

SiXoiTTairfai, correctly rendered "divisions" in
Rom. xvi. 16 and 1 Cor. iii. 3, as it should be in
the above passage. The restricted political sense,
if included at all in this instance, is only a part of
the sense. Archdeacon Hare ascribes the mistake
of the A. V. to Tyndale's following Erasmus' ver
sion, where sediliones means " divisions " as one of
its Latin significations (Mission of the Ct^ nt'rnier,
p. 225 f. Amer. ed.). fl.
SEER. [Prophet.]
SE'GTJB (n^aC? ; Kri, 3^2^ [elevated] :
ieyoi^ [Vat. M. Zeyovfi'^ Segub). 1. The
youngest son of Hid the Bethelite, who rebuilt
Jericho (1 K. xvi. 34). According to Rabbinical
tradition he died when his father had set up the
gates of the city. One story says tliat his father
Blew him as a sacrifice on the same occasion.
2. (Scpoix; Alex. Ssyou0.) Son of Hezron,
by the daughter of Machir the fiither of Gilead (1
Chr. ii. 21, 22).
* SEIR ("'""ytp, rough, bristly: STjeip; in
1 Chr. 27)(p, Alex. XvSip: Seir), a Horite chief,
who, perhaps, gave his name to tbe mountainous
region in which he dwelt (Gen. xxxvi. 20, 21 ; 1
Chr. i. 38). [Seik, Moust, 1.] A.
SE'IR, MOUNT O'^'SW, rough or rugged:
2i»e.>: Seir). We have both ~I"'1JC? VT?>?,
"land of Seir" (Gen. xxxii. 3, xxxvi. 30), and ~n
1'^VW, "Mount Seir" (Gen. xiv. 6). 1. The
original name of the mountain ridge extending
along the east side of the Valley of Arabah, from the
Dead Sea to the Elanitic Gulf. The name may
either have been derived from Seir the Horite, who
appears to have been the chief of the aboriginal
inhabitants (Gen. xxxvi. 20), or, what is perhaps
more probable, from the rough aspect of the whole
country. The view from Aaron's tomb on Hor, in
the centre of Mount Seir, is enough to show the
appropriateness of the appellation. The sharp and
serrated ridges, tbe jagged rocks and cliffs, the
straggling bushes and stunted trees, give the whole
scene a sternness and ruggedness almost unparal
leled. In the Samaritan Pentateuch, instead of
T'57ti7, the name nvD3 is used; and in the Je
rusalem Targum, in place of " Mount Seir " we find
SbaaT NTIQ, Mount Gabla. The word Gabla
signifies " mountain," and is thus descriptive of the
region (Reland, Pal. p. 83). The name Gebala, or
Gebalene, was applied to this province by Josephus,
and also by Kusebius and Jerome (Joseph. Ant. ii.
1, § 2 ; Onoinasl. "Iduinsea"). The northern
section of Mount Seir, as far as Petra, is still called
Jebdl, the Arabic form of Gebal. The Mount Seir
of the Bible extended much further south than the
modern province, as is shown by the words of Deut.
ii. 1-8. In fact its boundaries are there defined
with tolerable exactness. It had the Arabah on
he west (vv. 1, 8); it extended as far south as
4e head of the Gulf of Akabah (ver. 8); its east-
em border ran along the base of the mountain

a ' Atro-ap. This looks as if the Heb. name had once
bad the article prefixed.
6 Possibly the Sup^? which, in the Alex. MS., is
<ne of the eleven names inserted by the LXX. in Josh.
XT. 59. The neighboring names agree. In the Vat.
HS. it is 'Eui^i)!.

SEIR, MOUNT
range where the plateau of Arabia begin}, i^
northern border ia not so accurately determined.
The land of Israel, as described by Joshua, ex
tended from " the Mount Halak that goeth up tr
Seir, even unto Baal Gad " (Josh. xi. 17). As no
part of Edom was given to Israel, Mount Halak
must have been on its northern border. Now then.
is a line of "naked" (halak signified "naked")
white hills or clifis which runs across the great val
ley about eight miles south of the Dead Sea, form
ing the division between the Arabah proper and
the deep Giwr north of it. The view of these
cliffs, from the shore of the Dead Sea, is very
striking. They appear as a line of hills shutting
in the valley, and extending up to the niountainB
of Seir. The impression left by them on the mind
of the writer was that this is the very " Mount Ha
lak, that goeth up to Seir " (Robinson, Bibl. Hes. ii.
113, (fee.; see Keil on Josh. xi. 17). The northern
border of the modem district of Jebdl is Wady el-
Ahsy, wbich falls into the Ghor a few miles further
north (Burckhardt, Syr. p. 401).
In Deut. xxxiii. 2, Seir appears to be connected
with Sinai and l^aran; but a careful consideration
of that difficult pa.ssage proves that the connection
is not a geographical one. Moses there only sums
up the several glorious manifestations of the Dirine
Majesty to the Israelites, without regard either to
time or place (comp. Judg. v. 4, 5).
Mount Seir was originally inhabited by the
Horites, or " troglodytes," who were doubtless the
excavators of those singular rock-dwellings found
in such numbers in the ravines and cliffe around
Petra. They were dispossessed, and apparently
annihilated, by the postei-ity of Esau, who " dwelt
in their stead " (Deut. ii. 12). The history of
Seir thus early merges into that of Edom. Though
the comitry was afterwards called Edom, yet the
older name, Seir, did not pass away; it is fre
quently mentioned in the subsequent history of the
Israelites (1 Chr. iv. 42; 2 Chr. xx. 10). Mount
Seir is the subject of a terrible prophetic curae
pronounced by Ezekiel (ch. xxxv.), which seems
now to be literally fulfilled : " Thus saith the
Lord God, Behold, O Mount Seir, I am against
thee, and I will make thee most desolate. I will
lay thy cities waste, .... when the whole earth
rejoiceth I will make thee desolate  I will
make thee perpetual desolations, and thy cities
shall not return, and ye shall know that I am the
Lord." J. L. P.
2. (~)*'17K7 -in : ipos 'Affffdp; "Alex. o. 2i)«f :
Mons Seir.) An entirely diflferent place frora the
foregoing; one of the landmarks on the north
boundary of the territory of Judah (Josh. xv. 10
only). It lay westward of Kirjath-jearim, and
between it and Beth-shemesh. If Kuiiet eUKmli
be the former, and Ain-shems the latter of these
two, then Mount Seir cannot fail to be the ridge
which lies between the Wady Aly and the Wady
Ghurab (Rob. iii. 155). A village called Srim'
stands on the southern site of this ridge, which Tob
ler (3tte Wanderung, ]). 203) uni Schwarz (p. 97)
would identify with Seir. The obstacle to this is
that the names are radically different." The Sa'irah

° , ufcj .Lw is 'be orthography of Saris (lisB «1
Dr. Smith in 1st ed. of Robinson, iii. App. 123), om
taining no Ain and a duplicate B.

SEIRAH
^SyULw) on tbe south of the Wady Surar (Kob.
Bihl. Res. Ist ed. ii. 364), is nearer in orthogra
phy, but not so suitable in position.
How the name of Seir came to be located so far
to the north of the main seats of the Seirites we
have no means of knowing. Perhaps, like other
names occuring in the tribe of Benjamin, it is a
monument of an incursion by the Edomites which
has escaped record. [Ophxi, etc.] But it is more
probable that it derived its name from some pecul
iarity in the form or appearance of the spot. Dr.
Kobinson (iii. 155), apparently without intending
any allusion to the name of Seir, speaks of the
•'rugged points which composed the main ridge"
of the mountain hi question. Such is the meaning
of the Hebrew word Seir. Whether there is any
connection between this mountain and Skihath
or has-Seirah (see the next article) is doubtful. The
name is not a common one, aud it is not unlikely
that it may have been attached to the more north
ern continuation of the hills of Judah which ran up
into Benjamin — or, as it was then called, Mcmnt
Ephraim. G.
* SEFRAH. [Seirath.]
SEFRATH (nn^'Vt^^n, with the definite
article \ihe hairy, perh. ^it'OOC?(/] : Seretpw^tii '*
Alex. Seeipwfla: Seirath). The place to which
Ehud fled after his murder of Eglon (Judg. iii. 2t)),
and whither, by blasts of his cowhorn, he collected
his countrymen for the attack of the Moabites in
Jeiicho (27). It was in " Mount [mountains of]
Ephraim " (27), a continuation, perhaps, of the
same wooded, shaggy hills (such seems to be the
signification of Seir, and Seirath) wbich stretched
even so far south as' to enter the territory of Judah
(Josh. XV. 10). The definite article prefixed to the
name in the original shows that it was a well-
known spot in its day. It has, 'however, hitherto
escaped observation in modern times.'' G.
SE'LA and SE'LAH (2?bp, or l?b^n :
trerpa, or ^ irerpa), 2 K. xiv. 7; Is. xvi. 1: ren
dered " the rock " in the A. V., in Judg. i. 36, 2
Chr. xxv. 12, Obad. 3. Probably the city later
known as Petra, 500 Roman miles irom Gaza (Plin.
vi. 32), the ruins of which are found about two days'
jomney N. of the top of the Gulf of Akaba, and
' three or four S. from Jericho. It was in the midst
of Mount Seir, in the neighborhood of Mount Hor
(Joseph. Ant* iv. 4, § 7), and therefore Edomite
territory, taken by Amaziah, and called Joktheel
(not therefore to be confounded with Joktheel,
Josh. XV. 38, which ^jcrtained to Judah in the time
of Joshua), but seems to have afterwards come un
der the dominion of Moab. In the end of the
fourth century b. c. it appears as the head-quarters
of the Nabathseans, who successfully resisted the

^ This is the reading of the Vat. Codex according
to Mai. If accurate, it furnishes an inptauce of tbe
3? being represented by t, which is of the greatest
larity, and ia not mentioned by Frankel ( Vorstudien,
«to., p. 1121). y and K are the ordinary equivalents of 37
^ the LXX.
b * The name for us is properly Seirah, and not
Seirath {which is only the directive local form). It
waa properly a district rather than a town, and was
wnoQg *be mountains of Ephraim (the Heb. being a
coUectave lingular). U.

SELA-HAM-MAHLEKOTH 2903
atufcoks of Antigonus (Diod. Sic. xix. 731, ed.
Hanov. 1604), and under them became one of tht
greatest stations for the approach of eastern com
merce to Rome (ibid. 94; Strabo, xvi. p. 799; Apul-
Flo7\ i. 6). About 70 B. c. Petra appears as the
residence of the Arab princes named Aretiw
(Joseph. Ant. xiv. 1, § 4, and 5, § 1; fi. J. i. 6,
§ 2, and 29, § 3). It was by Trajan reduced to
subjection to the Roman empire (Dion Cass. Ixviii.
14), and from the next emperor received the name
of Hadriana,c as appears from the legend of a coin.
Josephus (Ant. iv. 4, § 7) gives the name of Arce
^ApKTj) as an earlier synonym for Petra, where,
however, it is probable that 'ApK-fj/j. or 'ApKCfi ^
(alleged by Euseb. Onom., as found in Josephus,
should be read. The city Petra lay, though at a
high level,^ in a hollow shut in by raountain cliffs_
and approached only by a narrow ravine through
which, and across the city's site, ihe river winds
(Plin. vi. 32; Strabo, xvi. p. 779). The principal
ruins are — (I.) el-Khui»-eh , (2) the theatre; (3) a
tomb with three rows of columns^ (4) a tomb with
a Latin inscription; (5) ruined briJges; (6) a tri
umphal arch: (7) Zub Far' on ,- (8) Kiisr Far'dn ;
and are chiefly known by the illustrations of La^
horde and Linant, who also thought that they
traced the outhne of a naumachia or theatre for
sea-fights, which would be flooded from cisterns, in
which the water of the torrents in the wet sSison
had been reserved — a remarkable proof, if the hy
pothesis be correct, of the copiousness of the water
supply, if properly husbanded, and a confirmation
of what we are told of the exuberant fertility of
the region, and its contrast to the barren Arabah
on its immediate west (Robinson, ii. 169). Prof.
Stanley (S. cf P. p. 95) kavfs little doubt that Pe
tra was the seat of a primeval sanctuary, which he
fixes at tbe spot now called the '' Deir " or " Con
vent," and with which fact tbe choice of the site
of Aaron's tomb may, he thinks, have been con
nected (p. 96). As regards the question of its iden
tity with Kadesh, see Kadesh ; and, for the gen
eral subject, Ritter, xiv. 69, 997 ff., and Robinson,
il. 1. H. H.
SE'LA-HAMAMAH^LEKOTH (i. e.
"the cliff of escapes" or "of divisions," S^T^D
mp^riKin : ireVpa 7} fiepta-deToa, in both MSS. :
Ptiradihidens). A rock or cliff in the wild erneas
of Maon, the scene of one of those remarkable es
capes which are so frequent in the history of Saul's
pursuit of David (1 Sam. xxiii. 28). Its narae, if
interpreted as Hebrew, signifies tbe " cliff of
escapes," or "of divisions." The former is the
explanation of Gesenius ( Thes. p. 485), the latter of
the Targum and the ancient Jewish interpreters
(Midrash; Rashi). The escape is that of David;
the divisions are those of Saul's mind undecided

c Nummi in quibus AAPIANH HHTPA MHTPO-
nOAIS, Reland, s. v.
d Eusebius (Onow.), under a later article, identi
fies Petra and 'Petcefj., which appears (Num. xxxi. 8)
as tbe name of a Midianitish prince (see Stanley, iS
^ P. p. 94, note).
e Robinson (ii. 124) computes the Wady Mousa ai
about 2,000 feet or more above the Arabah.
/ One of the few cases in which the Hebrew article
has been retained in our translation. Ham-molebetb
and Helkath baz-Zurim are examples of the same.

290-1

SELAH

whether to reraain in pursuit of his enemy or to
go after the Philistines; but such explanations,
though appropriate to either interpretation, and
consistent with the oriental habit of playing on
words, are doubtless mere accommodations. The
analogy of topographical nomenclature makes it
almost certain that this cliff must have derived its
name either from its smoothness (tbe radical mean
ing ot p^n) or from some peculiarity of shape or
position, such as is indicated in the translations of
the LXX. and Vulgate. No identification has yet
been suggested. G.
SEXAH (nbO). This word, whicb is only
found in the poetical books of the Old Testament,
occurs seventy one times in the Psalms, and three
times in Habakkuk. In sixteen psalms it is found
once, in fifteen twice, in seven three times, and in
one four times — always at the end of a verse, ex
cept in Ps. lv. 19 [20], Ivii. 3 [4], and Hab. iii. 3,
9, where it is in the middle, though at the end of
a clause. Ail the psalms in which it occurs, except
eleven (iii , vii., xxiv., xxxii., xl\ili , i., Ixxxii., Ixxxiii.,
Ixixvii., kxxix., cxliii.), have also the musical direc
tion, " to the Chief Musician " (comp. also Hab.
iii. 19); and in these exceptions we find the words
^J2?D, mizmdr (A. V. "Psalm "), Shiggaion, or
Maschil, which sufficiently indicate that they were
intended for music. Besides these, in the titles of
the Psalms in which Selah occurs, we meet with
the musical terms .\lamoth (xUi. ), Altaschith (Ivii.,
Iix., Ixxv.), Gittith (kxxi., Ixxxiv.), Mahalath Lean-
noth (Ixxxviii.), Michtam (Ivii., Iix., Ix.), Neginah
(1x1.), Neginoth (iv., liv., lv., Ixvii., Ixxvi.: comp.
Hab. iii. 19), and Shushan-eduth (ix.); and on this
association alone might be formed a strong pre
sumption that, like these, Selah itself is a term
which had a meaning in the musical nomenclature
of the Hebrews. What that meaning may have
been is now a matter of pure conjecture. Of the
many theories which have been framed, it is easier
to say wbat is not likely to be the true one than to
pronounce certainly upou what is. The Versious
are first deserving of attention.
In by far the greater number of instances the
Targum renders tlie word by ^''D^l? c> li'almin,
"for ever; " four times (Ps. xxxii. 4, 7; xxxix. 11
[12]; 4 [6]) Sab^b, IS' alma; once (Ps. xliv. 8
[9]) rnb? "^abpb, U'alme •almln ; and (Ps.
xlviii. 8 [9]) ri^b? ''5^5 IV, 'ad 'alme 'aU
min, with the same meaning, " for ever and ever.''
In Ps. xlix. 13 [14] it has \nSl Sttb^b, le-
'almd diilhe, "for the world to come;" in Ps.
xxxix. 5 [6] WnbV \*nb, Uchayye 'alma, " for
the life everlasting; " and in Ps. cxl. 5 [6] N"1''"Tri,
lidirA, " continually." This interpretation, wbich
IS the one adopted by the majority of Rabbinical
writers, is purely traditional, and based upon no
etymology whatever. It is followed by Aquila, who
renders " Selah " oei; by the Edilio quinta and
Editio sexta, wbich give respectively Siairoi/Ti^s
and els reKos:" by Symmachus (els rhv al^va)
and Theodotion (eiv teXos), in Habakkuk; by the

a Except in Ps. ix. 16 [17], Ixxv. 3 [4], Ixxvi. 8, 9
4. 10], where Ed. 5iahaa id. Vs. xxi. 2 [3], where it
has SiTivcKoic, and in Ilab. iii. 3. 13, where it repro-

SELAH
reading of tbe Alex. MS. (eis TeAos) in Hab. li'.
13; by the Peshito-Syriac in Ps. iii. 8 [9], iv. S
[3], xxiv. 10, and Hab. iii. 13; and by Jeromt;
who has semper. In Ps. lv. 19 [20] rtbo Dlrl,
kedem selah, is rendered in the Peshito " from be
fore the world." That this rendering is mamfestj;
inappropriate in some passages, as for instance Pa.
xxi. 2 [3], xxxii. 4, Ixxxi. 7 [8], and Hah. iii. 3,
and superfluous in others, as Ps. xliv. 8 [9], Ixxxiv.
4 [5], Ixxxix. 4 [5], was pointed out long since bv
Aben Ezra. In the Psalms the uniform rendering
of the LXX. is dii^aKua- Symmachus and Theo
dotion give the same, except in Ps. ix. 16 [17],
where Theodotion has aei, and Ps. Iii. 5 [7], where
Symmachus has els ael. In Hab. iii. 13, the Alex.
MS. gives eis reXos. In Ps. xxxviii. (in LXX.)
7, Ixxx. 7 [8], Sioi/'ttA/ta is added in the LXX.,
and in Hab. iii. 7 in the Alex. MS. Jn Ps. Ivii. it ia
put at the end of ver. 2; and in Ps. iii. 8 [9], xxiv.
10, Ixxxiiii. 10 [11], it is omitted altogether. In
all passages except those already referred to, in
which it follows the Targum, the Peshito-Syriac has
vCQ£3./y^ an abbreviation for Siai/'oA/zo. This ab
breviation is added in Ps. xlviii. 13 [14], 1. 15 [16],
Ixviii. 13 [14], Ivii. 2, Ixxx. 7 [8], at the end
of tbe verse ; and in Ps. Iii. 3 in the middle of
the verse after 3')t£U ; n Ps. xlix. it is pul
after 7^5S3 in ver. 14 [15], and in Ps. Ixviii. af
ter nttJl?-! in ver. 8 [9], and after DTlbs^
in ver. 32 [33]. The Vulgate omits it entiielj,
whUe in Hab. iii. 3 the Fditio sexta and othos
give /ierajSoAT? Siai^/aKfiaTos.
The rendering Sitv^aXfia of the LXX. and other
translators is in every way as traditional as thatof
the Targum '• for ever," and has no foundation in
any known etymology. AVith regard to the mean
ing of SmifaAjua itself there are many opinions.
Both Origen { Comm. ad. Ps.j 0pp. ed. IJelarue,
ii. 516) and Athanasius (Syncps. Script Saci'.jiu.)
are silent upon this point. Eusebius of Caesarea
{Prcef in Ps.) says it marked those passages in
which the Holy Spirit ceased for a time to work
upon the choir. Gregory of Nyssa (Tract. 2 in
Ps. cap. X.) interprets it :is a sudden lull in tbe
midst of the psalmody, in order to receive anew
the Divine inspiration. Chrysostom (Oi^. ed.
Montfaucon, v. 540) takes it to indicate the por
tion of the psalm which was given to another choir.
Augustine (on Ps. iv.) regards it as an interval of
silence in the psalmody. Jerome (Ep. ad Marcel
lam) enumerates the various opinions wlnci have
been held upon the subject; that diapsalma de
notes a change of metre, a cessation of the Spirit's
induence, or the beginnmg of another sense. Others.
he says, regard it as indicating a difference of
rhythm, and the silence of some kind of music in
the choir ; but for himself he falls back upon the
version of Aquila, and renders Selah by semper,
with a reference to the custom of the Jevrs to put
at the end of their writings Amen, Selah, or Sha
lom. In his commentary on Ps. ill. he is doubtful
whether to regard it as simply a musical sign, or
as indicating the perpetuity of the truth contained
in the passage after which it is placed ; so that, he
duces the Hebrew creAa. In Ps. ix 16 [17] Editio dtu
has oet, iu Ps. Ixxv. 3 [4] fitan-ain-os and in Ps. Ixsi'
3 [41 ets Tb Te'Aos.

SELAH
lays, " wheresoever Selah, that is diapsalma or
semper, ia put, there we may know that what fol
lows, a« well as what precedes, belongs not only to
the present time, but to eteruity." Theodoret
(Prof, in Ps.) explains diapsalma. by fjLe\ou9 fier-
affoKi or iraWayli (as Suidas), "a change ofthe
melody," On the whole, the rendering 8tai//oA/.to
rather increases the difficulty, for it does not ap
pear to be the true nieaning of Selah, and its own
signification is obscure.
Leaving the Versions and the Fathers, we corae
to the Rabbinical writers, the majority of whom
follow the Targum and the dictum of R. Eliezer
(Talm. Babl. ICrubin, v. 54) in rendering Selah
"for ever." But Aben Ezra (on Ps. iii. 3) showed
that in some passages this rendering was inap
propriate, and expressed his own opinion that Selah
1I..B a word of emphasis, used to give weight and
importance to what was said, and to indicate its
truth: "But the right explanation is that the
meaning of Selah is like ' so it is ' or ' thus, ' and
'the matter is true and right.'" Kimchi (Lex.
8. V.) doubted whether it had any special meaning
at all in connection with the sense of the passage
in which it was found, and explained it as a musi
cal term. He derives it from v7D, to raise,
elevate, with H paragogic, and interprets it as sig
nifying a raising or elevating the voice, as much
as to say, in this place there was an elevation of the
voice in song.
Among modern writers there is the same diver
sity of opinion. Gesenius (Thes. s. v.) derives
Selah from "^^^j sdldh, to suspend, of which he
thinks it is the imperative Kal, witb H paragogic,
nvD, in pause nvD. But this form is sup
ported by no parallel instance. In accordance with
his derivation, which is harsh, he interprets Selah
to mean either "suspend the voice," that is, "be
silent," a hint to the singers; or "raise, elevate
the stringed instruments." In either case he re
gards it as denoting a pause in the song, which
waa filled up by an interlude played by the choir
of Levites. Ewald (Die Dichter des A. B. i. 179)
arrives at substantially the same result by a differ
ent process. He derives Selah from ^/O, sdlal,
1 to rise, whence the substantive vD, which with H
paragogic becomes in pause H vD (comp. n^n,
from "iri, root T^n, Gen. xiv. 10). So far as
the form of the word is concerned, this derivation
is more tenable than the former. Ewald regards
the phrase " Iliggaion, Selah," in Ps. ix. 16 [17],
as the Jiill form, signifying " music, strike up ! " —
an indication that tlie voices of the choir were to
cease while the instruments alone came in. Heng
stenberg follows Gesenius, De Wette, and others,
in the rendering piuse ! but refers it to the con
tents of the psalm, and understands it of the silence
of the music in order to give room for quiet reflec
tion. If this were the case, Selah at the end
of a pialm would be superfluous. The same
meaning of pause or end is arrived at by Fiirst
(Bandiff. u. v.) who derives Selah from a root H^D,
ittlah, to cut off (a meaning which is perfectly ar
bitrary), whence the substantive 7D, sel, which
*ith n paragogic becomes in pause H /D; a
183

SELAII

2905

form which is without parallel. While etymolo
gists have recourse to such shifts as these, it can
scarcely be expected that the true meanuig of the
word will be evolved by their investigations. In
deed the question is as far from solution as ever.
Beyond the fact that Selah is a musical term, we
know absolutely nothing about it, and are entirelv
in the dark as to its meaning. Sommer (Bib*
Abhandl. i. 1-84) has devoted an elaborate dis
course to its explanation." After observing that
Selah everywhere appears to mark critical
moments in the religious consciousness of the
Israelites, and that the music was employed to
give expression to the energy of the poet's sen
timents on these occasions, he (p. 40) arrives at
the conclusion that the word is used "in those
passages where, in the Temple Song, the choir of
priests, who stood opposite to the stage occupied by
the Levites, were to raise their trumpets (v7D),
and with the strong tones of this instrument mark
the words just spoken, and bear them upwards to
the hearing of Jehovah. Probably the Levite
minstrels supported this priestly intercessory music
by vigorously striking their harps and psalterira;
whence the Greek expression Siai^aAjUa. To thia
points, moreover, the fuller direction, ' Higgaion,
Selah' (Ps. ix. 16); the first word of which de
notes the whirr of the stringed instruments (Ps.
xcii. 3), the other tbe raising of the trumpets, both
which were here to sound together. The less im
portant Higgaion fell away, when the expression
was abbreviated, and Selah alone remained." Dr.
Davidson (Introd. io ihe 0. T. ii. 248) with good
reason rejects this explanation as labored and arti
ficial, though it is adopted by Keil in Havernick'a
Einleiiung (iii. 120-129). He shows that in some
passages (as Ps. xxxii. 4, 5, Hi. 3, lv. 7, 8) the
playing of the priests on the trumpets would be
unsuitable, and proposes the following as his own
solution of the difficulty: " The word denotes te-
vation or ascent, i. e. hud, clear. The music
which commonly accompanied the singing was soft
and feeble. In cases where it was to burst in more
strongly during the silence of the song, Selah was
the sign. At the end of a verse or strophe, where
it commonly stands, the music may have readily
been strongest and loudest." It may be remarked
of this, as of all the other explanations which havt
been given, that it is mere conjecture, based ou an
etymology which, in any other language than He
brew, would at once be rejected as unsound. A
few other opinions may be noticed as belonging to
the history of the subject. Michaelis, in despair at
being unable to assign any meaning to the word,
regarded it as an abbreviation, formed by taking
the first or other letters of three other words
(Suppl. ad Lex. Hebr.), though he declines to
conjecture what these may have been, and rejects
at once the guess of Meibomius, who extracts the
meaning da capo from the three words which he
suggests. For other conjectures of this kind, see
Eichhorn's Bibliothek, v. 545. Mattheson was of
opinion that the passages where Selah occurred
were repeated either by the instruments or by
another choir: hence he took it as equal, to i-iior-
nello. Herder regarded it as marking a change of
key; while Paulus Burgensis and Schindler as
signed to it no meaning, but looked upon it as an

« * For a translation of this treatise by Prof. B. P
Edwards, see Bibl. Sacra, v. fiB-'?'* H

2P06 SELED
enclitic word used to fill up the verse. Buxtorf
{Lex. Hebr.) derived it from n|?D, saMh, to
spread, lay low : hence used as a sign to lower the
voice, like ^iano. In Eichhorn's Bibliothek (v. 550)
it is suggested that Selah may perhaps signify a
scale in music, or indicate a rising or falling in the
tone. Kiister (Slud. und Krit. 1831) saw in it
only a mark to indicate the stropbical divisions of
the Psalms, but its position in the middle of
verses is against this theory. Augusti (Pract.
Einl. in d. Ps. p. 125) thought it was an exclama
tion, like hallelujah ! and the same view was taken
by the late Prof. I^e (Heb. Ur. § 243, 2), who
classes it among the interjections, and renders
'upraise! "For my own part," he says, " I be
lieve it to be descended from the root ^k.»0, 'he
blessed,' etc., and used uot unlike the word amen,
or the doxology among ourselves." If any further
information be sought on this hopeless subject,
it may be found in the treatises contained in
Ugolini, vol. xxii., in Noldius (Concord. Part.
Ann. et Vind. No. 1877), in Saalschiitz (flelrr.
Poes. p. 346) and in the essay of Sommer quoted
above. W. A. W.
SE'LED (ll^P [exultation-]: Sa\dS; [Vat.
once AXo-aAaSO Saled). One of the sons of Na^
dab, a descendant of Jerahmeel (1 Chr. ii. 30).
SBLEMI'A (Salemia). Oue of the five men
" ready to write swiftly," whom Esdras was com
manded to take (2 Esdr. xiv. 24).
SBLEMI'AS (SeXe/iias: om. in Vulg.).
Shelemiah of the sons of Bani (1 Esdr. ix. 34;
comp. Ezr. x. 39-).
SELETJ'CIA (^eXeiiceia: Seleucia) was
practically the seaport of Antioch, as Ostia was
of Rome, Neapolis of Phiiippi, Cenchrese of Cor
inth, and tbe Piraeus of Athens. The river Oron
tes, after flowing past Antioch, entered the sea uot
far from Seleucia. The distance between tbe two
towns was about 16 miles. We are expressly
told that St. Paul, in corapany with Barnabas,
sailed from Seleucia at tbe beginnmg of his first
missionary circuit (Acts. xiii. 4) ; and it is almost
certain that he landed there on his return from it
(hv. 26). The name of the place shows at once
that its history was connected with that line of
Seleucidse who reigned at Antioch from tbe death
of Alexander the Great to the close of the Roman
Republic, and whose dynasty had so close a con
nection with .Jewish annals. This strong fortress
and convenient seaport was in fact constructed by
the first Seleucus, and here he was buried. It re
tained its importance in Roman times, and in St.
Paul's day it bad the privileges of a free city (Plin.
fl. N. v. 18). The remains are numerous, tbe
most considerable being an immense excavation
extending from tbe higher part of the city to tbe
sea: but to us the most interesting are the two
piers of the old harbor, which still bear the names
of Paul and Barnabas. The masonry continues so
good, that the idea of clearing out and repairing
the harbor has recently been entertained. Ac
counts of Seleucia will be found in the narrative
of the Euphrates Expedition by General Chesney,
snd in his papers in the Journal of the Royal Geo-

a * For a description of Seleucia, see Thomson's
Travels in Northern Syria, an article in the Eibl.

SEMIS
graphical Society, and also in a paper by Dr. Yslm
in the Museum of Classical AntiquUies." J. S. H.
SELETJ'CUS (Se\evKos : Seleucus) IV.
Philopator, "king of Asia" (2 Mace. iii. 3), that
is, of the provinces included in the Syrian mon
archy, according to the title claimed by the Seleu
cidse, even when they had lost their footing in Asia
Minor (comp. 1 Mace. viii. 6, xi. 13, xii. 39, xiii.
32), was the son and successor of Antiochus tbe
Great. He took part in the disastrous battle of
Magnesia (b. c. 190), and three years afterwards,
on the death of his father, ascended the throue.
He seems to have devoted himself to strengthenitg
the Syrian power, which had been broken down at
Magnesia, seeking to keep ou good terms with lioiue
and Egypt till he could find a favorable opportu
nity for war. He was, however, murdered, after a
reign of twelve years (b. c. 175), by Hehodortis,
one of his own courtiers [Heliodords], "neither
in [sudden] anger nor in battle" (Dan. xi. 20,aiid
Jerome, ad he), but by ambitious treachery,
without having effected anything of importance.
His son Demetrius I. Soter [DemetridsJ, whom
he had sent, while still a boy, as a hostage to Rome,
after a series of romantic adventures gained the
crown in 162 B. c. (1 Mace. vii. 1 ; 2 Mace. xiv. 1).
The general policy of Seleucus towards the Jews,
like that of his father (2 Mace. iii. 2, 3, koI
XeXevKov), was conciliatory, as the possession of
Palestine was of tbe highest importance in tbe
prospect of an Egyptian war; and he undertook a
large share of tbe expenses of the Temple-service
(2 Mace. iii. 3, 6). On one occasion, by the liilw
representations of Simon, a Jewish officer [Simon,
3], he was induced to make an attempt to cany
away the treasures deposited in the Temple, by
means of tbe sarae Heliodorus who murdered him.
The attempt signally &iled, but it does not appear
that he afterwards showed any resentment againat
the Jews (2 Mace. iv. 5, 6); though his want of
raoney to pay the enormous tribute due to the Ro
mans [Antiochus III., vol. i p. 115] may have
compeUed him to raise extraordinary revenues, for
which cause he is described in Daniel as " a raiser
of taxes" (Dan. xi. I.C.; Liv. xii. 19). B. F. W.
SEM (Siifi: Sem). Shem the patriarch (Luke
iii. 36).
SEMACHI'AH (^n;:3CD: Safiaxia; [Vat
SaPaxeia;] Alex. :Safiaxias: Samachias). One
of the sons of Shemaiah, the son of Obed-edom
(1 Chr. xxvi. 7).
SEM'EI (26/iei; [Vat. Se^eei:] Semei).
1. Shimei of the sons of Hashum (1 Esdr. ix. 33;
comp. Ezr. x. 33).
2. (Se/ieias; [Vat. Se^eeioi; FA. 2€;u6iaj]).
ShimeS, the ancestor of Mordecai (Esth. xi. 2).
3. (iepet: [Tisch. Treg. Se/ueefv]). The
father of Mattathias in the geneidogy of Jesin
Christ (Luke iii. 26).
SEMELTLIUS (^a/ieWtos; [Alex, also 2e-
/jLeWtos, SeSiWios:] SabeUim). Shimshai the
scribe (1 Esdr. li. 16, 17, 25, 30 ; comp. Ezr. iv.).
SE'MIS (2eyuefs; [Vat. Seweij; Aid. Sefii'sO
Semeis). Shimei the Invite in the time of Ezra
(1 Esdr. ix. 23; comp. Ezr. x. 23).

Saera, v. 461 ff. He mentions the incidents of a ri^
of five hours from Seleucia to An^ocli B.

SEMITIC LANGUAGES
SEMIT'IC LANGUAGES. [Shemitic
Languages.] SBNA'AH (nS3P [thorny] : [S^yad, Sav
avi, 'Affayd', Vat.] Saava, Sayaua; [in Neh.
iii. 3, Vat. Ao-ai', FA. Atravaa; Alex, in Ezr.
Sei'i'aaO Senaa). The "chiidrsn of Senaah "
ire enumerated amongst the " people of Israel "
who returned from the Captivity with Zerubbabel
(Kzr. ii. 35; Neh. vii. 38). In Neh. iii. 3, the
name is given with tbe article has-Senaah.
Tho names in these lists are mostly those of
towns ; hut Senaah docs uot occur elsewhere in the
Bible as attached to a town."
The Magdal-Senna, or " great Senna " of Eu-
icbius and Jerome, seven miles N. of Jericho
(Onom. "Senna"), however, is not inappropriate
in position. There is a variation in the numbers
given by Ezra and Nehemiah ; but even adopting
the smaller figure, it is difficult to understand
how the people of Senaah should have been so
much m"ore numerous than those of the other places
in the catalogue. Bertheau (Exeg. Handb.) sug
gests that Senaah represents not a single place but
a district; but there is nothing to corroborate
this. In the parallel passages of 1 Esdras (iv. 23) the
name is given Annaas, and the number 3,330. G.
* SENATE occurs in the N. T. only in Acts
V. 21, the translation of yepovala, also peculiar to
that place. As a-vyeSpioi/ accompanies the term, it
cannot be equivalent to Sanhedrim, but must denote
a branch of that body, and no doubt, as the affinity
of meaning itself indicates, is interchangeable with
vpitr^vTfpioy, *' eldership," one of the three classes
(priests, elders, scribes) collectively designated as
the Sanhedrim (see Acts iv. 5). We find yepovaia
in 1 Mace. xii. 6 ; 2 Maco. i. 10, iv. 44, xi. 27 ;
3 Mace. i. 8, where it designates the highest Jewish
Council of that earlier period, but whether the Coun
cil was then organized precisely like the Sanhedrim
in the time of the Saviour is not easily determined.
(See Fritzsche, Handb. zu den Apokryphen, iii.
184 f ) The Latin Vulgate renders yepovffia by
senatus and semores. On the general topic, see in
the Dictionary, Elders ; Sanhedrim. H.
SE'NEH (n5p [thorn]: %evv,i, [Vat. Ev-
vaap ;] Alex, omits : Sene). The name of one of the
two isolated rocks whieh stood in tbe " passage of
llichmash," at the time of the adventure of Jona
than and Ms armor-bearer (1 Sam. xiv. 4). It was
the southern one of the two (ver. 5), and the near
est to Geba. The name in Hebrew means a " thorn,"
or thorn -bush, and is applied elsewhere only to the
memorable thorn of Horeb ; but whether it refers
in this instance to tbe shape of the rock, or to the
growth of seneh upon it, we cannot ascertain. The
bitter is more consistent witb analogy. It is re
markable that Josephus (B. J. v. 2, §1), in de
scribing the route of Titus from the north to Jeru
salem, mentions that the last encampment of his
irmy waa at a spot " which in tbe Jews' tongue is
Balled the valley " or perhaps the plain " of thorns
[ii,KavSS,v auK^v), near a certain village called Ga-
bathsaoul^," i. e. Gibeath of Saul. The ravine of
Michmash is about four miles from the hill which
V, with tolerable certsiinty, identified with Gibeah.

SENNACHERIB

2907

o The rock of Skneh of 1 Sam. xiv. 4 is hardly ap-
DTOiyiate.

This distance is perhaps too great to suit Josephus
expression; still the point ia worth notice. G.
SE'NIR n'^^ip [coat of mail]: [^avip, 2r
i/e/p ; Alex.] ^auetp, [and so Vat. in 1 Chr. :] Sanir).
This name occurs twice in the A. V., namely, 1 Chr.
v. 23, and Kz. xxvii. 5 ; but it should be found in
two other passages, in each of which the Hebrew
word is exactly similar to the above, namely, Deut.
iii. 9, and Cant. iv. 8. In these it appears in the
A. V. as Shenik. Even this slight change is un
fortunate, since, as one ofthe few Amorite words pre
served, the name possesses an interest which should
have protected it from the addition of a single letter.
It is the Amorite name for the mountain in the north
of Palestine which the Hebrews called Hermon, and
the Phmnicians SiuiON ; or perhaps it was rather
the name for a portion of the mountain than the
whole. In 1 Chr. v. 23, and Cant. iv. 8, Hermon
and it are mentioned as distinct. Abulfeda (ed.
Kohler, p. 164, quoted by Gesenius) reports that
the part of Anti-Lebanon north of Damascus — that
usually denominated Jebel esh-Shurky, " the Kast
Mountain " — was in his day called Se?iir. The use
of the word in Ezekiel is singular. In describing
Tyre we should natundly expect to find the Phnc-
nician name (Sirion) of the mountain employed,
if the ordinary Israelite name (Hermon) were dis
carded. That it is not so may show that in the
time of Ezekiel the name of Senir had lost its orig
inal significance as an Amorite name, and was em
ployed without that restriction.
The Targum of Joseph on 1 Chr. v. 23 (ed. Beck)
renders Senir by ^p? ''Tlt?*^? "I^S, of which
the most probable translation is •¦' the mountain of
the plauis of the Perizzites." In the edition oi
Wilkins the text is altered to '^^T^ ^T!P^ '^i
" the mountain that corrupteth fruits," in agree
ment with the Targums on Deut. iii. 9, though it
is there given as the equivalent of Sirion. Which
of these is the original it is perhaps impossible now
to decide. The former has the slight consideration
in its favor, that the Hivites are specially mentioned
as " under Mount Hermon," and thus may have
been connected or confounded with the Perizzites ;
or the reading may have arisen frora mere caprice,
as that of the Sam. version of Deut. iii. 9 appeara
to have done. [See Samaritan Pentateuch,
p. 2812 6.] G.
SENJSf ACH'ERIB or SENNACHE RIB
(D*^"]n5P [see below] : [Rom. in 2 K. and 2
Chr.] Xet/pax7ipip,i [in Is.] ^evvax'r}p^ifi\ [Vat.
Alex, and Sin. '2,evvaxfipeip. throughout, exc. 2 K.
xviii. 13, Alex. Ser^ax., ^'i^d Is. xxxvii. 21, Sin.
"X'JP'Mi] X^vax'hpi^os, Joseph.; 'Stavax'^pt^os-,
Herod.: Sennacherib) was the son and successor of
Sargon. [Sargon.] His name in the original is
read as Tsin-akki-irib, which is understood to mean.
Sin (or the Moon) increases brothers: " an indica
tion that be was not the first-born of his fa*^l;or. The
LXX. have thus approached much more nearly to
the native articulation than the Jews of Palestine,
having kept the vowel-sounds almost exactly, and
merely changed the labial at the close from ^ to ^
Josephus has been even more entirely correct, hav
ing only added the Greek nominatival ending.
We know little or nothing of Sennacherib during
his father's lifetime. From hia name, and from a
circumstance related by Polyhistor, we may gather
that he was not the eldest son, and not the heir to
the crown till the year before his father's death.

2908

SENNACHERIB

Polyhistor (following Berosus) related that the trib
utary kingdom of Babylon was held by a brother
— who would doubtless be an elder brother — of
Sennacherib's, not long before that prince came to
the throne (Beros. Fr. 12). Sennacherib's brother
iras succeeded by a certain Hagisa, who reigned
anly a month, being murdered by Merodach-Bala-
dan, wbo then took the throne and held it six
months. . These events belong to the year b. c. 703,
which seems to have been the last year of Sargon.
Sennacherib mounted the throne b. c. 702. His
first efforts were directed to crushing the revolt of
Babylonia, which he invaded with a large army.
Merodach-Baladan ventured on a battle, but was
defeated and driven from the country. Sennacherib
then made Belibus, an oflficer of his court, viceroy,
and, quitting Babylonia, ravaged the lands of the
Aramaean tribes on the Tigris and Euphrates,
whence he carried off 200,000 captives. In the
ensuing year (b.c. 701) he made war upon the
independent tribes in Mount Zagros, and penetrated
thence to Media, where he reduced a portion of the
nation which had been previously independent. In
his third year (b. c. 700) he turned his arms towards
the west, chastised Sidon, took tribute frora Tyre,
Aradus, and the other Phcenician cities, as well as
from Edom and Ashdod, besieged and captured
Ascalon, made war on Egypt, which was still de
pendent on Ethiopia, took Libnah and Lachish on
the Egyptian frontier, and, having probably con
cluded a convention with his chief enemy," finally
marched against Hezekiah, king of Judah. Heze
kiah, apparently, had not only revolted and with
held his tribute, but had intermeddled with the
affairs of the Philistian cities, and given his support
to . the party opposed to the influence of Assyria.
It was at this time that " Sennacherib came up
gainst all the fenced cities of Judah, and took
them" (2 K. xviii. 13). There can be no doubt
that the record which he has left of his campaign
dgiinst "Hiskiah" in his third year, is the war
with Hezekiah so briefly touched in the four verses
of this chapter (vv. 13-16). The Jewish monarch
vras compelled to make a most humble submission.
He agreed to bear whatever the Great King laid
upon him ; and that monarch, besides carrying off
a rich booty and more than 200,000 captives, ap
pointed him a fixed tribute of 300 talents of silver,
and 30 talents of gold. He also deprived him of a
considerable portion of his territory, which he be-
utowed on the petty khigs of Ashdod, Ekron, and
tiaza. Having made these arrangements, he left
Palestine and returned into his own country.
In the following year (b. u. 699), Sennacherib
invaded Babylonia for the second time. Merodach-
Bahidan continued to have a party in that country,
where his brothers still resided; and it may be
suspected that the viceroy, Belibus, either secretly
favored his cause, or at any rate was remiss in
opposing it. The Assyrian monarch, therefore,
took the field in person, defeated a Chaldasan chief
who had taken up arms on behalf of the banished
king, expelled the king's brothers, and displacing
Belibus, put one of his own sons on the throne in
fais stead.
It waa perhaps in this same year that Sen
nacherib made his second expedition into Palestine.
I^ezekiah had again revolted, and claimed the pro-

SENNAGHERIB
tection of Egypt, which seems to have been r^arded
by Sennacherib as the true cause of the Syrian
troubles. Instead, therefore, of besieging Jeru
salem, the Assyrian king marched past it to the
Egyptian frontier, attacked once more Lachish and
Libnah, but apparently failed to take them, sent
messengers from the former to Hezekiah {2K.
xviii. 17), and on their return without his submis
sion wrote him a threatening letter (2 K. xix. 14)
while he still continued to pr^s the war against
Egypt, which had called in the assistance of Tir-
hakah, king of Ethiopia (ibid. ver. 9). Tirhakah
was hastening to the aid of the Egyptians, but prob
ably had not yet united his troops with theirs,
when an event occurred which relieved both Egypt
and Judsea from their danger. In one night the
Assyrians lost either by a pestilence or by some
more awful manifestation of Divine power, 185,000
men ! The camp immediately broke up — the king
fled — the Egj-ptians, naturally enough, as the de-
struction happened upon their borders, ascribed it to
their own gods, and made a boast of it centuries after
(Herod, ii. 141). Sennacherib reached his capital
in safety, and was not deterred, by the terrible dis
aster which had befallen his arms, from engaging
in other wars, though be seems thenceforward to
have carefully avoided Palestine. In his fifth year
he led an expedition into Armenia and Media; after
which, from his sixth to his eighth year, he was
engaged in wars with Susiana and Babylonia. From
this point his annals fail us.
Sennacherib reigned twenty-two years. The date
of his accession is fixed by the Canon of Ptolemy to
b. c. 702, the first year of Belibus or Elibus. The ,
date of his death is marked in the same document
by the accession of Asaridanus (Esar-Haddon) to
the throne of Babylon in b. c. 680. The monumenta
are in exact conformity with these dates, for the
22d year of Sennacherib has been found upon
them, while they have not furnished any notice of
a later year.
It is impossible to reconcile these dates with the
chronology of Hezekiah's reign, according to the
numbers of the'present Hebrew text Those num
bers assign to Hezekiah the space between b. c. 72()
and b. c. 697. Onsequently the first invasion of
Sennacherib" falls into Hezekiah's iweniy-sevenlk
year instead of his fourteenth, as stated in 2 K.
xviii. 13, and Is. xxxvi. 1. Various solutions have
been proposed of this difificulty. According to some,
there has been a dislocation as well as an alteration
of the text. Originally the words ran, "Now it
came to pass in the fourteenth year of king Heze
kiah, that the king of Assyria [Sargon] came up
against the fenced cities of Judah." Then followed
ch. XX. (Is. xxxviii. ) — "In those days was Hezekiah
sick unto death," etc.; after which came the nar
rative of Sennacherib's two invasions. [See Heze
kiah.] Another suggestion is, that the year has
been altered in 2 K. xviiL 13 and Is. xxxvi. 1, by a
scribe, who, referring the narrative in ch. xx. (Is.
xxxviii.) to the period of Sennacherib's first inva
sion, concluded (from xx. 6) that the whole hap
pened in Hezekiah's fourteenth year (Rawlinson's
Herodotus, voL i. p. 479, note 2), and therefore
boldly changed " twenty-seventh " into " four
teenth." Sennacherib was one of the most magnificent of
the Assyrian kin^. He seems to have heeu the
first who fixed the seat of government permanently

a The impression on clay of the seal of Sabaco, found ^
In Sennacherib's palace at Koyui^ik, had probably lat Nineveh, which he carefully repaired and adorned
W«u app«nded to this treaty. I with splendid buildings. Hia greatest work is th*

SENUAH
pund palace at Koyuiyik, whioh covered a space of
Above eight acres, and was adorned throughout with
sculpture of finished execution. He built also, or
repaired, a second palace at Nineveh on the mound
of Nebbi Yunus, confined tbe Tigris to its channel
by an. embankment of brick, restored the ancient
aqueducts which had gone to decay, and gave to
Nineveh that splendor which she thenceforth re
tained till the ruin of the empire. He also erected
monuaents in distant countries. It is his memorial
which still remains » at the mouth of the Nahr-el-
Kelb on the coast of Syria, side by side with an
hiscription of Rameses tbe Great, recording his con
quests six centuries earlier.
Of the death of Sennacherib nothing is known
beyond the brief statement of Scripture, that *' aa
he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch (?), his
god, Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him
with the sword, and escaped into the land of Ar
menia " (2 K. xix. 37 i Is. xxxvii. 38 ). It is curious
that Moses of Chorene and Alexander Polyhistor
should both call the elder of these two sons by a
difierent name (Arduniazanes or Argaraozanus};
»iid it is still more curious that Abydenus, who
generally drew from Berosus, should interpose a king
Nergilus between Sennacherib and Adrammelech,
and make the latter be slain by Esarhaddon (Euseb.
Chr. Can. i. 9 ; comp. i. 0, and see also Mos. Chor.
Arm. Hist. i. 22). Moses, on the contrary, confirms
the escape of both brothers, and mentions the parts
of Armenia where they settied, and which were
afterwards peopled by their descendants. G. R.
SENU'AH (nSI!i:p [bristling, Ges.] : "Ao-a-
i/ii: Senna). Properly Hassenuah, with the def.
article. A Benjamite, tbe father of Judah, who
was second over the city after the return from Baby
lon (Neh. xi. 9). In 1 Chr. ix. 7, " .ludah the son
of Senuah " is " Hodaviah the son of Hasenuah."
[Hasenuah.] SEO'RIM (?n,^^ [barley]: -Xeaipl/j.; [Vat.
SEupei/t;] Alex, ^ieapiy: Seorim). The chief of
the fourth of the twenty-four courses of priests in
stituted hy David (1 Chr. xxiv. 8).
SETHAR ("I3P [book]: 2a(^„p<i; Alex.Sw-
^pa: Sephar). It is written, after the enumera
tion of the sons of .Toktan, " and their dwelling was
from Mesha as thou goest unto Sephar, a mount of
the east" (Gen. x. 30). The immigration of the
Joktanites was probably from west to east, as we
have shown in Arabia, Mksha, etc., and they oc
cupied the southwestern portion of the peninsula.
The undoubted identifications of Arabian places
and tribes with their Joktanite originals are in
cluded within these limits and point to Sephar as
the eastern boundary. There appears to be little
doubt that the ancient sea-port town called Dhu-
fan or Zafari, and Phafdr or Zafdr, without
the inflexional terraination, represents the Biblical
lite or district: thus tlie etymology is sufficiently
near, and the situation exactly agrees with the re
quirements of the case. Accordingly, it has been
generally accepted as tbe Sephar of Genesis. But
'ia etymological fitness of this site opens out an-

a It haa been stated that in 1861 the French occu
pants of Syria destroyed thia tablet, and replaced it by
vn inscription in their own honor ; but such an act
tf barbarism aeema scarcely possible in the nineteenth
notury. ^ Abu-1-Fidii has fallen into an absurd error in his

SEPHAR 2909
other question, inasmuch as there are no less than
four places be^kring the same name, besides several.
others bearing names that are merely variations
from the same root. The frequent recurrence ol
these variations is curious ; but we need only here
concern ourselves with the four first named places,
and of these two only are important to the subject
of this articlf. They are of twofold importance, as
bearing on the site of Sephar, and as being closely
connected with the ancient history of the Joktanite
kingdom of Southern Arabia, the kingdom founded
by the tribes sprung from the sons of Joktan. Tlie
following extracts will put in a clear light what the
best Arabian writers themselves say on the subject.
The first is from the most important of the Arable
I..exicons : —
" Dhnfdri U\jub) is a town of the Yemen;
one says, ' He who enters Dhafdri learns the Hini-
yeritic' .... Es-Saghanee says, ' In the Y'einen
are four places, every one of which is called Dhar-
fori; two cities and two fortresses. The two'
cities -are Dhtfdrt-l-flakl, near San'd, two days'
journey from it on the south; and the Tubbaaa
used lo abide there, and it is said that it is San'a '
[itself]. In relation to it is called tbe onyx of
Dliafdr'i. (Ibn-es-Sikkeet says that the onyx ol
Dhnfdri is so called in relation to Dhafdri-Asad,
a city in the Yemen.) Another is in the Yemen,
near .Uirbdl, in the extremity of the Yemen, and
is known by the name of Dhafdri-s-Sdhib [that is,
ofthe sea-coast], and in relation to it is called the
Kwit-Dhafdri [either costus or aloes-wood], that
is, the wood with which one fumigates, because it
is brought thither from India, and from it to [the
rest of ] the Yemen.' .... And it Yakoot meant,
for be said, ' Dhafdri .... is a city in the ex- '
tremity of the Yemen, near to Esh-tihihr,' As to
the two fortresses, one of them is a fortress on the '
south of San'd, two days' journey from it, in the
country of [the tribe of] Benoo-Murdd, and it ia
called Dhafdri-l- Wadiyeyn [that is, of the Two
Valleys]. It is also called Dliafdri^Ztyd ; and
another is on the north thereof, also two days' jour
ney from it, in the country of Hemddn, and is
ca,lled Dhafdri dh-Dhdhir " (TdJ-el-' Aroos, MS,
s. v.).>> Yakoot, in his Homonymous Dictionary (El-
Mushtarak, s. v.) says: ^^ Dhnfdri is a celebrated
city in the extremity of the country of the Yenie'
between ' Omdn and Mirbdt, on the shore of the
sea of India: I have been informed of this by one
who has seen it prosperous, abounding in good
things. It is near Esh-Shihr. DIutfdri-Zeyd is a
fortress in the Yemen, in the territory of Ilahb ,
and Dhafdri is a city near to Sand, and in relation
to it is called the Dhafdri onyx; in it \v.is tbe
abode of the kings of Hiniyer, and of it was said
' He wlio enters Dliafdri learns the Himyeritic • '
and it is said that San'd itself is Dhafdri."
Lastly, in the Geogi'aphical Dictionary called the
Marasid, wbich is ascribed to Yakoot, we read,
s. v.: "Dhafdri: two cities in the Yemen, one ol

Geography, noticed by M. Fresnel (IVe Lettre, p. 317).
He endeavors to prove that the two Zafdris were only
one, by supposing that the inland town, which hi
places only twenty-four leagues from San'a, wu or^
iually on the sea-coaat.

2910 SEPHAR
them near to San^dj in relation to which is called
the Dhafdri onyx: in it was the dwelling of the
kings of Himyer; and it is said that Dhafdri is the
eity of San'd itself. And DhafdH of this day is a
sity on the shore of the sea of India, between it and
Mirbdt are five parasangs of the territories of /isA-
Shihr,l3uX\A it is] near to Suhdr, and Mirbdt is the
other anchorage besides Dhafdii. l^rankincense is
anly found on the mountain of Dhafdri of Esh-
Shihr:' These extracts show that the city of Dhafdri
near San'a was very little known to the writers,
and that little only by tradition: it was even sup
posed to be the same as, or another name for
San'd, and its site had evidently fallen into obliv
ion at their day. But the seaport of this name
was a celebrated city, still flourishing, and identified
on the authority of an eye-witness. M. Iresnel has
endeavored to prove that this city, and not the
western one, was the Himyerite capital; and cer
tainly his opinion appears to be borne out by most
of the facts that have been brought to light.
Niebuhr, however, mentions the ruins of Dhafdri
near Yereem, which would be those of the western
city (Descr, p. 206). While Dhafdri is often
mentioned as the capital in the history of the Him-
jerite kingdom (Caussin, Essai, i. passim), it was
also in the later times of the kingdom the seat of a
Christian Church (Philostorgius, Hist. Eccles. iii. 4).
But, leaving this curious point, it remains to
give what is known respecting Dhafdri the sea
port, or as it will be more convenient to call it,
alter the usual pronunciation, Zafdr. All the evi
dence is clearly hi favor of this site being that of
the Sephar of the Bible, and the identification has
accordingly been generally accepted by critics.
More accurately, it appears to preserve the name
mentioned in Gen. a. 30, and to be in the district
anciently so named. It is situate on the coast, in
the provhice of Hudrajndwt, and near to the district
which adjoins that province on the east, called Esh-
Shihr (or, as M. PYesnel says it is pronounced in
the modern Himyeritic, Shher). Wellsted says of
it, *' D'fdr is situated beneath a lofty mountain ''
(ii. 453). In the Marasid it is said, as we have
seen, that frankincense (in the author's time) was
found only in the "mountain of DhafdH; " and
Niebuhr (Descr. p. 248) says that it exports the
best frankincense. M. Fresnel gives almost all that
is known of tlie present state of this old site in his
Lettres sur t Hist, des Arabes avant I'Jslamisme
(Ve Lettre, Journ. Asiat. iiie s^rie, tome v.). Za
fdr, he tells us, pronounced by the modern inhab
itants " Isf'or," is now the name of a series of vil
lages situate some of them on the shore, and some
close to the shore, of the Indian Ocean, between
Mirbdt and Rds-Sdji?; extending a distance of two
(lays' journey, or 17 or 18 hours, from east to west.
^roceetiintj in this direction, those near the shore
Hre named Tdkah, Ed-Dnhdreez, El-Bdeed, El-
Hdfth, Sfildhah, and Awkad. The first four are on
the sea-shore, and the last two at a small distance
from it. El-Belted, otherwise called Harkdm, is,
in M. yreanel's opinion, the ancient Zafdr. It is
In ruins, hut ruins that attest its former prosperity.
The inhabitants were celebrated for their hospital-
*ty. There are now only three or four inhabited

a Obtained by taking the prefixed preposition as
part of the tiame — T^tD^ J and at the same time
rtyectinfr tha final D.

SEPHARAD
houses in ELBeleed. It is on a small peiiinsuU
lying between the ocean and a bay, and the port is
on the land side of the town. In the present day
during nearly the whole of the year, at least at Ion
tide, the bay is a lake, and the peninsula an isth
mus, but the lake is of sweet water. In the rainy
season, which is in the spring, it is a gulf, of sweet
water at low tide and of salt water at high tide.
The classical writers mention Sapphar metrop
olis {'S.aTT^d.pa fnfjTpSwoXis) or Saphar (in Anon.
Peripl. p. 274), in long. 88°, lat. 14° 30', according
to Ptol., the capital of the Sappharitse (XaTr<papiTcu)i
placed by Ptol. (vi. 6, § 25) near the Homeritie;
but their accounts are obscure, and probably from
hearsay. In later times, as we have already said,
it was the seat ofa Christian Church: one of three
which were founded A. D. 343, by permission of the
reigning Tubbaa, in Dhafdri (written Topharun,
T<i<papoy, by Philostorgius, Hist. Eccles. iii. 4), in
'Aden, and on the shores of the Persian (julf.
Theophilus, who was sent with an embassy by or
der of the emperor Constantine to eflTect this pur
pose, was the first bishop (Caussin, i. Ill fi*.). In
the reigh of Abrahah (A. D. 537-570), S. Gregen-
tius was bishop of these churches, having been sent
by tbe Patriarch of Alexandria (cf. authorities cited
by Caussin, 1. 112-145). E. S. P.
SEPH'ARAD ("ITJ?? [see below]: Targ.
S^TpDP^) *• «• " Ispania": eas ^Etppadd, in botb
MSS.: in Bospo^'o). A name which occurs in
Obad. ver. 20 only, as that of a place in which tbe
Jews of Jerusalem were then held in captivity, and
whence they were to return to possess the cities of
the south.
Its situation has always been a matter of un
certainty, and cannot even now be said to be
settled. 1. The reading of the LXX. given above, and
followed by the Arabic Version, is probably a mere
conjecture, though it may point to a modified form
of the name in the then original, namely, Sepba-
rath. In Jerome's copy of the LXX. it appears to
have been Ev<pp6.Ttis, since (Comm. in Abd.) be
renders their version of the verse transmigrntio Je
rusalem usque Euphraihem. This is certainly' ex
tremely ingenious, but will hardly hold water when
we turn it back into Hebrew.
2. The reading of the Vulgate, Bosporm,^ was
adopted by Jerome from his Jewish instructor.
who considered it to be " the place to which Har
drian had transported the captives from Jerusalem"
(Comm. in Abdiam). This interpretation Jerome
did not accept, but preferred rather to treat Seph
arad as connected with a similar Assyrian word
signifying a " boundary," and to consider the pas
sage as denoting the dispereion of the Jews into aO
regions. We have no means of knowing to which Bospo
rus Jerome's teacher alluded — the Cimmerian or
the Thracian. If the former (Strait of Yeni-kak),
which was in Iberia, it is not impossible that this
Rabbi, as ignorant of geography outside the Holy
Land as most of his brethren, confounded it witb
Iberia in Spain, and thus agreed with the rest of
the Jews whose opinions have come down tous. H
the latter (Strait of Constantinople), then he may
be taken as confirming the most modem opinion
(noticed below), that Sepharad was Sardis in Lydia-
The Targura Jonathan (see above) and tlie
Peshito-Syriac, and from them the modem Jewa,
interpret Sepharad aa Spain (Ispaniia and lapanial.

SEPHARAD
me common variation of which name, Hesperia
(IHct. of Geogr. i. 1074 b), does certainly bear con-
¦iderable resemblance to Sepharad ; and so deeply
has this taken root that at the present day the
Spanish Jews, wlio form the chief of the two
great sections into which the Jewish nation is
divided, are called by tbe Jews themselves the
Sephardim, German Jews being known as the
Ashkenazlm, It is difBcult to suppose that either of these can
be the true explanation of Sepharad. Tbe proph
ecy of Obadiah has every appearance of referring to
the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar,
and there is no reason to believe that any Jews had
been at that early date transported to Spain.
3. Others have suggested the identity of Seph
arad with Sipphara in Mesopotamia, but that is
more probably Sepharvaim.
4. The name has perhaps been discovered in
the cuneiform Persian inscriptions of Naksh-i-Bus-
tum and Beh'istun ; and also in a list of Asiatic na
tions given by Niebuhr (Reiseb. ii. pi. 31). In the
latter it occurs between Ka Ta Pa TUK (Cappa
docia) aud Ta UNA (Ionia). De Sacy was the
first to propose the identiBcation of this with Seph-
arah, aud subsequently it was suggested by Lassen
that S Pa Ra D was identical with Sardis, the an
cient capital of Lydia. This identification is ap
proved of by Winer, and adopted by Dr. Pusey
(Introd. to Obad. p. 232, rmte, also p. 245). In
support of this, Fiirst (Handtob. ii. 95 a) points
out that Antigonus (cir. b. c. 320) may very prob
ably have taken some of his Jewish captives to Sar
dis; but it is more consistent with the apparent
date of Obadiah's prophecy to believe that he is
referring to the event mentioned by Joel (iii. 6 ),
when " children of Judah and Jerusalem " were
Bold to the "sons of the Javanim " (lonians),
which — as the first captivity that Iiad befaUen
the' kingdom of Judah, and a transportation to a
strange land, and that beyond tbe sea — could
hardly fail to make an enduring impression upon
the nation.
5. Ewald (Propheien, i. 404) considers that
Sepharad has a connection with Zarephath in tlie
preceding verse; and while deprecating the "pen
etration " of those who have discovered the name
in a cuneiform inscription, suggests that the true
reading is Sepharani, and tliat it is to be found
in a place three hours from Akka, i. e. doubtless
the modern Shefa ' Omar, a place of much an
cient repute and veneration among the Jews of
Palestine (see Zunz, note to " Parchi," p. 428) ;
but it is not obvious how a residence within the
Holy Land can have been spoken of as a captivity,
nnd there are considerable differences in the form
of the two names.
6. Michaelis (Suppl. No. 1778) has devoted
icnie space to this name; and, among other con
jectures, ingeniously suggests that the " Spartans "
of 1 Maoc. xii. 5 are accurately " Sepharadites."
This suggestion, however, does not appear to have
stood the test of later investigation. [See Spak-
TANS.] Gr.

SEPHELA

2911

n When Phny places Hippara or Sippara on the
Narrogam (Nahr Agam), instead of ou the Euphrates,
his reference is to the artificial channel which branched
dS ftom tbe Euphrates at Sippara, and led to the
yreat toAe (Ohald. N'^33S) excavated by Nebuchadnez-
tar Abydenus called this brancli " Aracanus "
.^Afldftavo?), Ar Akan (Fr. 10).

SEPHARVA'IM (D^lVjOP [see below] j
2e7r(^apouai/i,'E7r<papouat^: ^epharvaim) is men
tioned by Sennacherib in his letter to Hezekiah as
a city whose king had been unable to resist the
Assyrians (2 K. xix. 13; Is. xxxvii. 13; comp.
2 K. xviii. 34). It is coupled with Hena and
Ava, or Ivah, which were towns on the Euphrates
above Babylon. Again, it is mentioned, in 2 K.
xvii. 24, as one of the places from which colonists
were transported to people the desolate Samaria,
after the Israelites had been carried into captivity,
where it was again joined with Ava, and also with
Cuthah and Babylon. These indications are enough
to justify us in identifying the place with the
famous town of Sippara, on the Euphrates above
Babylon (Ptol. v. 18), which was neai* the site of
the modern Mosail). Sippara was mentioned by
Berosus as the place where, according to him,
Xithrus (or Noah) buried the records of the ante
diluvian world at the time of the Deluge, and from
which his posterity recovered them afterwards.
(Fragm. Hist. Gr. ii. 501, iv. 280.) Abydenus
calls it 7r6\iy 'Znnrapr}i^aiu (Fr. 9), and says that
Nebuchadnezzar excavated a vast lake in its vicin
ity for the purposes of irrigation. Pliny seems to
intend the same place by his "oppida Hippareno-
rum »' a — where, according to him, was a great
seat ofthe Chaldaic learning (//. N. vi. 30). The
plural form here used by l^Uny may be compared
with the dual form in use among the Jews; and
the explanation of both is to be found in the fact
that there were two Sipparas, one on either side
of the river. Berosus called Sippara, " a city of
the sun-' ('HAiou ir6\iu); and in the inscriptions
it bears ihe same title, being called Tsipnr sha
Shamas, or " Sippara of the sun " — the sun being
the chief object of worship there. Hence the Se-
pharvites are said, in 2 K. xvii. 31, to have '^ burnt
their children in the fire to Adrammelech and
Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim " — these
two distinct deities representing respectively the
male and female powers of the sun, as Lunus and
Luna represented the male and female powers of
the moon among the Romans. G. R.
* SE'PHARVITES (n^llDP: 2e7r(/»ap-
ovaifl'^ Vat. 'Xs(p(f>apov|/^^ Alex. Xetjxfyapovatfi ¦
hi qui erani de Sephai^aim), 2 K. xvii. 31. Thj
people of Sephakvaim. H.
SEPHE'LA (^ :Se.^7j\a: Sephela). The
Greek form of the ancient word has- ShSfiUJd;
(n^Ot^n), the native name for the southern di
vision of the low-lying fiat district which intervenes
between the central highlands of the Holy Land
and the Mediterranean, the other and northern por
tion of which was known as Sharox. The name
occurs throughout the topographical records of
Joshua, the historical works, and the topographical
passages in the Prophets ; always with the article
prefixed, and always denoting the same region *
(Deut. i. 7; Josh. ix. 1, x. 40, xi. 2, 16 a, xii. 8,
XV. 33; Judg. i. 9; 1 K. x. 27; 1 Chr. xxviL 28;
2 Chr. i. 15, ix. 27, xxvi. 10, xxviii. 18; Jer. xvii.
26, xxxii. 44, xxxiii. 13; Obad. 19; Zech. vii. 7).
In each of these passages, however, the word is
b So absolute is this nsage, that on the single occa
sion where it is used without the article (Josh. xi. 16 &
it evidently does not denote the regiou referred tc
above, but the plains surrounding the moxutains of
Ephraim.

2912

oJiTHBLA

treated in the A. Y. not as a proper name, analo
gous to ihe Campagna^ the Wolds, ihe Carse, but
as a mere appellative, and rendered "the vale,''
*the valley," "the plain," "the low plains,"
and "the low country." How destructive this is
to the force of the narrative may be realized by im
agining what confusion would he caused in the
translation of an English historical work into a
foreign tongue, if such a name as "The Dovms "
were rendered by some general term applicable to
any other district in the country of similar forma
tion. Fortunately the book of Maccabees has re
deemed our Version from the charge of having
entirely suppressed this interesting name. In
1 Mace. xii. 38 the name Sephela is found, though
even here stripped of the article, which was at
tached to it in Hebrew, and still accompanies
it in the Greek of the passage.
Whether the name is given in the Hebrew
Scriptures ¦ in the shape in which the Israelites en
countered it on entering the country, or modified
so as to conform it to the Hebrew root shafal, and
thus (according to the constant tendency of lan
guage) bring it to a form inteUigent to Hebrews —
we shall probably never know. The root to which
it is related is in common use both in Hebrew and
Arabic. In the latter it has originated more than
one proper name — as Me^nla, now known as
Koyunjik; el-Mesfde, one of the quartera of the
city of Mecca (Burckhardt, Arabia, i. 203, 204) ; and
Seville, originally Hi-spalls, probably so called from
ita wide plain (Arias Montano, in Ford, Handbook
of' Spain).
The name Shefelah is retained in the old ver-
Bions, even those of the Samaritans, and Rabbi
Joseph on Chronicles (probably as late as the llth
century a. d.). It was actually in use down to
the 5th century. Eusebius, and after him Jerome,
(Onom. "Sephela," and Comm. on Obad.),
distinctly state that " the region round Eleuthe
ropolis on the north and west was so called." «
And a careful investigation might not improbably
discover the name still lingering about its ancient
home even at the present day.
No definite limits are mentioned to the Shefelah,
nor is it probable that there were any. In the list
of Joshua (xv. 33-47) it contains 43 "cities" as
well as the ham.lets and temporary villages depend
ent upon them. Of these, as far as our knowl
edge avails us, the most northern was Ekron, the
most southern Gaza, and the most western Nezib
(about 7 miles N. N. "VV. of Hebron). A large
number of these towns, however, were situated not
in the plain, nor even on the western slopes of the
central mountains, but in the mountains themselves.
[Jakmuth; Keilah; Nkzib, etc.] This seems
to show, either that on the ancient principle of
dividing territory one district might intrude into
the limits of another, or, which is more probable,
that, as already suggested, the name Shefelah did
not originally m&m a lowland, as it came to do in
its accommodated Hebrew form.
The Sheftlah was, and is, one of the most pro
ductive regions in the Holy Land. Sloping as it
does gently to the sea, it receives every year a fresh
dressing from the materials washed down from the
mountains behind it by the furious rains of winter.
This natural manure, aided by the great heat of
Its climate, is sufficient to enable it to reward the

o In his comment on Obadiah, St. Jerome appears
V) extend it to Lydda and Emmaus-Nicopolis ; aud at

SEPTUAGINT
rude husbandry of its inhabitants year after yew
with crops of corn which are described by the trav-
ellers as prodigious.
Thus it was in ancient times the corn-field of
Syria, and as such the constant subject of warlaiv
between Philistines and Israelites, and the refuge
of the latter when the harvests in the central coun
try were ruined by drought (2 K. viii. 1-3). But
it was also, from its evenness, and from its gitu^
tion on the road between Egypt and Assyria, ex
posed to continual visits from foreign armies, visits
which at last led to the destruction of the Israel
ite kingdom. In the earlier history of the country
the Israelites do not appear to have ventured into
the Shefelah, but to have awaited the approach of
their enemies from thence. Under the Maccabees,
however, their tactics were changed, and it became
the field where some of the most hardly contested
and successful of their battles were fought.
These conditions have hardly altered in modern
times. Any invasion of Palestine must take place
through the maritime plain, the natural and only
road to the highlands. It did so in Napoleon's
case, as has already been noticed under Palestine
[iii. 2291 a]. The Shefelah is still one vast com-
field, but the contests which take place on it are
now reduced to those between the oppr^sed peas
ants and the insolent and rapacious officials of the
Turkish government, who are gradually putting
a stop by their extortions to all the industry of
this district, and driving active and willing hai^ds
to better governed regions. [See Judah, vol. ii.
p. 1490; PALESTINE, vol. iii. pp. 2290 f., 2196 f.;
Plains, 2547.] G.
SEPTUAGINT. The Greek version of the
Old Testament known by this name, is like tlie
Nile, fontium qui celat origines. The causes
which produced it, the number and names of tbe
translators, the times at which different portions
were translated, are all uncertain.
It will therefore be best to launch our skiff on
known waters, and try to track the stream upwards
towards its source.
This Version appears at the present day in four
principal editions.
1. Biblia Polyglotta Complutensis, A. d. 1514-
1517. [The publication of the work was not au
thorized till 1520, and it did not get uito genial
circulation before 1522. — A.]
2. The Aldine Mition, Venice, A. d. 1518.
3. The Roman Edition, edited under Pope
Sixtus v., A. D. 1587. [Some copies have the
date 1586. These want the " Corrigenda hi Nota-
tionibus Psalterii," etc., and the Privileyiim of
Sixtus v., dated May 9, 1587. The copies of thia
later issue have the date 1586 changed to 1587
with a pen. Before the work was publislied it
was carefully revised, and mauy MS. corrections
were made in all the copies. — A.]
4. Fac-simile Edition of the Codex Alexandri
nus, by H. H. Baber, a. d. 1816 [-1828].
1, 2. The text^ of (1) and (2) were probably
formed by collation of several MSS.
3. The Roman edition (3) is printed from the
venerable Codex Vaiicanu,s, hut not without many
errors. The text has been follojved in moat of the
modern editions.
A transcript of the Codex Vaticanus, prepared
by Cardinal Mai, was lately published at Rome, b)

the same time to extend Sharon so far (louth ns to in*
elude the Philistine cities.

SEPTUAGINT
Vercellone. [Published in 186T, in 5 vols, foi.,
Including the N. T.] It is to be regretted that
this edition is not so accurate as to preclude the
necessity of consulting the MS. The text of the
Codex, and the parts added by a later hand, to com
plete the Codex (among them nearly all Genesis),
are printed in the same Greek type, with distin
guishing notes. [See addition below.]
4. The Fac-simile Edition, by Mr. Baber, is
printed with types made after the form of the let^
ters in the Codex Alexandrinus (Brit. Museum
Library) for the Fac-siraile Edition of the New
Testament, by Woide, in 1786. Great care was
bestowed on the sheets as they passed through the
press. * Some further account of the first three edi
tions here mentioned seems desirable. The Com
plutensian text has been supposed by many critics
(e. y. Walton) to have been arbitrarily formed by
the editors, partly from the Septuagint and partly
from the other Greelc versions and even the Greek
commentators, in order to make it more conforma
ble to the Hebrew or the Vulgate. The ffict, how
ever, is now well established, that it represents a cer
tain class of manuscripts, agreeing particularly with
those numliered by Holmes and Parsons 19, 61, 72
(in part), 93, 108, 119, and 248. Of these we
know that Nos. 108 and 248 were borrowed from
the Vatican Library for the use of the editors.
(See Vercellone's Preface to Cardinal Mai's Vet.
et Nov. Test, e Cod. Vat., Rom. 1857, vol. i. p. v.)
The Complutensiati text was reprinted in the Ant
werp Polyglott (1569-72), that of Vatable or rather
C. B. Bertram (ex offidna Sanctandreana [Heidel
berg], 1586 or 1587; ex off. Comindiniana [ibid.],
1599, 1616), Welder's (Hamb. 1596), and the Paris
Polyglott (1628-45). It does not contain the
first ( Vulg. third) book of Esdras.
In the dedication of the Aldine edition the text
is said to have been formed from the collation of
many very ancient manuscripts, " multis vetustissi-
mis exemplaribus collatis;" but such expressions
must be taken with lai'ge allowance. Its text in
the Pentateuch accords with tlie MS. numbered by
Holmes 29, of the lOtb or llth century, belonging
to tiie Library of St. Mark in Venice, with which
the other Venice MSS. numbered by Holmes 68,
120, 121, 122 agree, being all apparently tran
scripts of the same original. Copies of this edition,
the first of the whole Bible in Greek, are now ex
ceedingly rare. There is one, however, in the Li
brary of Harvard College, deposited by the late
George Livermore of Cambridge The variations
of the Aldine text from that of the Roman edition
are given, though very imperfectly, in Walton's
Polyglott, from which they have been copied by,
Hos in his edition of the Septuagint. As we have
had frequent occasion to observe in this Dictionary,
the ibrms of the proper names in the common
English version of the Apocrypha generally agree
with this edition, where it differs from the Roman
text. Among the editions of the whole Bible in
Greek derived mainly from the Aldine, may be
mentioned those printed Argentoiati, op. Wolph.
C^halceum, 1526 (some copies dated 1529);
Basilese, per J. tiervagium, 1545; ibid., per N.
Bj-ylinyerum, 1550; and Francof., np. A. Wecheli
\eredes, 1597. The variations of the last frora
iie Aldine text are considerable.
The Homan edition of the Septuagint has been
{enerally supposed to represent tbe text of the
kmons Vatican MS No. 1209, and its readings

SEPTUAGINT

2913

are continually quoted in the English edition oi
this Dictionary as those of that MS. But this is
a grave error. It is safe to say that in the forms
of proper names alone it differs from the Vatican
MS. in more than 1,000 places. The Vat. MS
was indeed used as the basis of the Roman edition,
and was understood by the editors to be of the
highest value; but many other ancient MSS. were
collated for it, particularly one belonging to Cardi
nal Bessarion, an uncial of the Sth or 9th century,
numbered 23 in the edition of Holmes and Par
sons, another in the possession of Cardinal Carafa,
and several from the Medicean Libiary at Florence.
The language of the Preface to the Roman edition
(written by P. Morinus) might indeed lead the
reader to suppose the text of the Vat. MS. to have
been more closely followed than it really waa,
though he admits that the editoi's have changed
the old ortliography, and have corrected evident
mistakes of the copyist. The Preface of Cardhial
Carafa to the Latin translation published the next
year (1588) as a complement to the edition gives a
more correct account of the matter. (See on this
subject Vercellone's Preface to Card. Mai's edition
of the Vat. MS., vol. i. p. vi., note, and comp.
Tischendorf 's Prolegom. to his 4th ed. of the Sept.,
p. Ixxxix,) It should further be observed that the
Vat. MS. wants the larger part of the book of
Genesis (it commences with the word '}r6\iv, Gen.
xlvi. 28), Ps. cv. 27-cxxxviii. 6, and the books of
Maccabees. The poetical and prophetical books of
the 0. T. (with the exception of Job), and the
apocryphal books of Baruch, Wisdom, and Ecclesi-
asticus, were not collated for the edition of Holmes
and Parsons. The edition of Cardinal Mai men
tioned above is unsatisfactory (comp. Tischendorf,
ut supra, p. Ixxxix. ff.), though we may generally
place confidence in its readings where its text dif
fers from that of the Roman edition. It will be
wholly superseded by tbe magnificent edition now
publishing at Rome under the direction of Vercel
lone, Cozza, and Sergio, to be completed in six vols.,
of which two at least (one containing the N. T.)
have already (Eeb. 1870) appeared. Comp, the
art. New Testament, vol. iii. p. 2121 a. A.
Oiher Editions.
The Septuagint in Walton's Polyglott (1657) ia
the Roman text, with the various readings of tho
Codex Alexandrinus.
* The readings of other MSS. and of the Com
plutensian and Aldine editions are alsc gireiii and
Walton reprints (vol. vi.) the valuable critical »iotes
to the Roman edition, and' to the Latin transla
tion by Flaminius Nobilius which accompanied it.
The text of the Roman edition is not very faith
fully reproduced; see the Prolegomena to Bos's
edition of the Septuagint (1709). A.
The Cambridge edition (1665), (Roman text,) ia
only valuable for the Preface by Pearson.
An edition of the Cod. Alex, was published by
Grnbe (Oxford, 1707-1720), but iU critical value
is far below that of Baber's. It is printed in com
mon type, and the editor has exercis&l his judg-
n'.cjnt on the text, putting some woi-ds of the Codex
in the margin, and replacing them by what he
thought better readings, distinguished by a smaller
type. This edition was reproduced by Brdtinger
(Zurich, 1730 [-02]), 4 vols. 4to, with the various
readings of the Vatican text [the Roman edition].
The edition of Bos (Franeq. 1709) follows the
Roman text, with its Scholia and the various real-

2914

SEPTUAGINT

toga given in Walton's Polyglott, especially those
of the Cod. Alex.
The valuable Critical Edition of Holmes, con
tinued by Parsons, is similar in plan to the He
brew Bible of Kennicott; it has the Roman text,
with a large body of various readings from numer
ous MSS. and editions, Oxford, 1798-1827 [in 5
vols., foi.].
* For a fuU list of the MSS. used, see the end
of vol. v.; they are described in the introductions
to the different books. The uncials are numbered
I. to XIIL, IX. also being numbered by mistake
294, and XIIL, 13. Nos. IV. aud V. are really
only parts of the same MS. To these are to be
added Nos. 23, 27, 43, 258, and 262, making 17
uncials in all. The whole number of cursives, after
making allowance for these which are designated
by two diflferent numbers, appears to be 285 ; but
several of these are either mere transcripts of others
on the list, or copied from the same archetype.
Very few, if any, of these MSS. contain the whole
of the Septuagint. A.
The Oxford Edition, by Gaisfbrd, 1848, has the
Roman text, with the various readings of the Codex
Alexandrinus below.
Tischendorf 's Editions (the 2d, 1856, [3d, 1860,
4th, 1869,]) are on the same plan; he haa added
readings from some other MSS. discovered by him
self, with very useful Prolegomena.
* Besides the readings of the Cod. Alex., he
bas given those of the Codex Friderico-Augus
tanus, and of the Ephrem MS. (See note b be
low.) The 2d and subsequent editions contain the
Beptuagint version of the book of Daniel in addition
to that of Theodotion. The first edition (1850)
having been stereotyped, the important matei-ials

Ot Tbere are some singular variations ia 1 Kings
(see the article on Kings, vol. ii. p. 1.549 f.).
b An uncial MS., brought by Tischendorf from St,
Catherine's Monastery, and named Codex Slnaiticuf, is
supposed by him to beas ancient as Cod. Vaticanus (II.).
• This important manuscript was published by
Tischendorf at St. Petersburg in 1862 in 4 vols, folio,
the laet containing the N. T. (For a description of
the edition, see art. New Testament, iii. 2120 b.) Of
the Old Testament, it contains 1 Chr. ix 27-xi. 22;
Tobit ii. 2 to the end ; Judith, except xi. 14-xiii. 8 ;
Ist and 4th Mace. ; Isaiah ; Jer. i. 1-x. 25 ; the Minor
Prophets from Joel to Malachi inclusive (wanting
Hosea, Amos, Micah); and all the remaining poetical
books (Psalms, Prov., Eccles., Cant., Wisdom of Sol.,
Ecclus., Job). The Codex Friderico-Augustanus, dis
covered by Tischendorf in 1844, and published in fac
simile at Leipzig in 1846, consists of 43 leaves of tbe
same manuscript, containing 1 Chr. xi. 22-xix, 17 ;
Ezr. ix. 9 to the end; Neh.; Esther; Tobit i. l-ii. 2;
Jor. X. 25 to the eud ; Lam i. l-ii. 20. A few more
fragm^'ots, most of which had been used by tbe monks
of St. Catberiuc for binding MSS., contain small por
tions of Oen. xxiii., xxiv., and Num. v., vi , vii., and
were published by Tischendorf in his Mon. Sacr. med.
Nov. Coil. vol. ii. p. 321 (1857), and Appendix Codd.
Sin. Vat Alex. pp. 3-6 (1867). The books of Tobit
and Judith in tbe Sinaitic MS. present a recension of
the text differing very widely from that in the Codex
Vaticanus. Respecting the uncial MSS. mentioned in the text
above, it should be stated that the fragments of tbe
Codex Coilonianus (I.), containing part of Genesis,
have been published by Tischendorf in his Mon. Sacr.
ined. Nova Coll. vol. ii. pp. 95-176 (1857). The new
editmn nf the Codex Vaticanus (II.) by Vercellone and
others has already been referred to. The Codex Am-
Woiianus (VU,), cootaimng portions of tbe Pent, and

SEPTUAGINT
gathered by Tischendorf since its publioatiun havi
not been used (except to a small extent in hit
4th edition) in the apparatus of various readiura
wbich accompanies the text. For a translation of
the Prolegomena to Tischendorf 'a first edition, by
Mr. Charles Short, see the Bibl. Sacra for Oct.
1852 and Jan. 1853, A.
Some convenient editions have been published
by Mr. Bagster, one in 8vo, and others of smaller
size forming part of his Polyglott series of Bibles.
His text is the Roman.
The latest edition, by Mr. Field (l^h^) differa
from any of the preceding. He takes as his basis
the Codex Alexandrinus, but corrects all the mani
fest errors of transcription, by the help of other
MSS. ; and brings the dislocated portions of the
Septuagint into agreement with the order of the
Hebrew Bible." ManuscHpts.
The various readings given by Holmes aud
Parsons, enable us to judge, in some measure, of
the character of the several MSS. and of the d^;ree
of their accordance with the Hebrew text.
They are distinguished thus by Holmes; the
uncial by Roman numerals [see the exceptioni
above], the cursive by Arabic figures.
Among them may be specially noted, with their
probable dates and estimates of value as given by
Holmes in his Preface to the Pentateuch: —
UkCIAL,'' date.
Centutf.
1. CoTTONiAsus. Brit. Mus. (fragments) 4
II. Vaticamds. Vat. Library, Home . . 4
III. ALEXANDRmns. Brit. Mus  6
VII. Ambeosiands. Ambros. Lib., Milan . . 7
X. CoiSLmiANDS. Bibl. Imp., Paris ... 7

Joshua, is in course of publication by Ceriani in vol,
iii. of his Monumenta sacra et jfrofana ex Codicilmi
preesertim Biblioth. Ambrosianm, Milan, 1864 ff. Tisch.
endorf assigns it to the 5th century instead of tbe
7th; and he (with Montfaucon) regards the Codei
Coislinianus (X.) aa probably belonging to the 6th
century. The latter MS. has the Ilexaplar text.
The fragments of the 0. T. contained iu the Ephrem
manuscript, a palimp.sest of the 5th century beloDgiag
to the Imperial Library at Paris, — namely, parte of
Job, Proverbs. Ecclfesia.«te3, Canticles, the IVisdom of
Solomon, and Ecclesiaaticus, — were published by Tisch
endorf in 1845. On his edition of the N. T. portion
of the same MS. (designated by the letter C), seethe
art. New Testaiiient, vol. iii. p. 2121.
Among the uncial MSS. collated for the edition of
Holmes and Parsons, we may mention further the
Codex Sarravianus (numbered by Uolmes IV. andV.),
of which 130 leaves, are preserved at Leyden, 22 at
Paris, and 1 at St. Petersburg. It has been published
in part by Tischendorf in his Mon. Sacr. ined. Nova
Coll. vol. iii. (1860), — the 22 Paris leaves are reserved
for vol. viii., — and la referred by him to the 4th cen
tury or the beginning of the 5th. This MS. \b of
great importance for the Hexaplar text of Origen. It
contains parts of the Pentateuch, Joshua, and Judgea.
The Codex Marchalianvs (XII. Holmes) of the 7th cen
tury, now in the Vatican Library, ia also an Importenl
Uexaplar MS., containing the Prophets. The pjirt
containing Daniel has been published by Tlscbendtirf
in vol. iv. of his Monum. (1869). Another unciid
codex of the 8th or 9th century which has the Hex
aplar text ia Holmes's No. 28, belonging to the Library
of St. Mark in Venice, containing Proverbs and all the
following books of the 0. T., with part of the book of
Job. Next to the Vatican, this seems to have been
tbe most important MS. used for tbe Roman editioB
of the Sej t 0587) Se« above, p. 2913 6. No. 262 i»

SEPTUAGINT
-, Probable
Cursive. date.
Century.
16 UecUoeoB. Med. Laurentian Lib., Flor
ence  11
19, Chigianua. Similar to Complut. Text
and 108, 118  10
25. Monacbiensis. Munich  10
58. Vaticanus (num. x.). Vat. Lib., similar
to 72  13
59. Olasguensis  12
61. Bodleianus. Laud 36, notse optimse . 12
64. Parisiensis (11). Imperial Library . 10 or 11
72. Venetus. Maxiini faciendua .... 13
75. Oxoniensis. Univ. Coll. ... .12
84. Vaticanus (1901), optima© notae ... 11
106 ) f 14
y!z' } Ferrarienses. These two agree . j -.^
108. ( Vaticanus (330) \ Similar to Comp. ( 14
118. ( Parisienaia. Imp. Lib. ) Text and (19) \ 13
The texts of these MSS. differ considerably from
sach other, and consequently diflfer in various de
grees from the Hebrew original.
The following are the results of a comparison
of the readings in the first eight chapters of Ex
odus : —
1. Several of the MSS. agree well with the He
brew; others differ very much.
2. The chief variance from the Hebrew is in
the addition, or omission, of words and clauses.
3. Taking the Roman text as the basis, there
are found 80 places (o) where some of the MSS.
differ from the Roman text, either by addition or
.\mission, in agreement with ihe Hebrew ; 26 places
()8) where differences of the same kind are not in
agreement wiih the Hebrew. There ia therefore a
large balance against the Roman text, in point of
accordance with the Hebrew.
4. Those MSS. which have the largest number
of differences of class (a) have the smallest num
ber of class {^). There is evidently some strong
reason for this close accordance with the Hebrew in
these MSS.
5. The divergence between the extreme points
of the series of MSS. may be estimated from the
following statement : —

SEPTUAGINT

2915

72 differs from the Roman ( in 40 places, with Hebrew,
Text  I in 4 " against "
.„ ,.,. .... ( in 40 " with "
59 ditto ditto j .^ g „ ^^^;„,, „
Between these and the Roman text lie many
shades of variety.
The Alexandrine text falls about halfway between
the two extremes: —
iN.n . <¦ _ D „ rr > ( '" 25 places, with Hebrew.
DiSfenng from Roman Text { .^ jg »' „ ^^.^^ „
The diagram below, drawn on a scale represent
ing the comparison thus instituted (by Ihe test cf
agreement with the Hebrew in respect of additions
or omissions), may help to bring these results mora
clearly into view.
The base-line K. T. represents the Eoman text.

§ I «
^ I i

Holmes and Parsons's edition also represents an uncial
MS., being the celebrated Ziirich Psalter, to be noticed
belovr. For an account of 21 other very ancient MSS. of the
Sept. not used by Holmes, see Tiscbendorfs Prole
gomena to his 4th edition, p. Ivii. flf. Many of these
have been published by Tischendorf in vols, i.- iv. and
yi. of his Mon. Sacr. ined. Nova Coll. (1855-1869),
and others are destined for vol. viii. of the same collec
tion. The most remarkable of them are the (1) Verona
MS, of the Psalms, of the 5th or 6th century, in
wbich the (ireck text is written in Latin letters, with
the Old Latin version in a parallel column. This was
published by Blanchinus (Bianchini; at i^ome iu 1740,
as an appendix to his VindicuB Canon. Scripturarum,
(2.) Fragments of the Psalms on papyrus, in the Brit
ish Museum, ascribed by Tischendorf to the 4th cen
tury, and formerly, at least, regarded by him aa the old
est known Biblical Md. They are published in hia
Mon. Sacr. ined. Nova Coll. vol. i. pp. 217-278 (1855).
(8.) Palimpsest fragments of the book of Numbers (now
»t St. Petersburg), of the 6th century, published by
Tischendorf iu his Mon. Sacr. ived. Nova Colt. vol. i. pp.
B1-13S (1855). (4.) Codex Tischendorjinnrnt IL (Leip-
lig), a palimpseBt, containing fragments of Num. , Deut. ,
Josh., and Judges, of the 7th century. Publiithed
iy Tischendorf in the vol. just mentioned, pp. 141-
176. ih.) Tbe Codex Oxoniensis (Bodl. Libr.) of the

I 1

I I 1
I I I
I I I

I I

I I I
I I I

I 1

I 1
I I

.a («
-^ a
3

0 S

I I I

The above can only be taken as an approxiniar-
tion, the range of comparison being limited. A

Sth century, discovered by Tischendorf in 1853, and
published in his Mon. Sacr. ined. Nova Coll. vol. ii.
pp. 179-308 (1857). It contains the larger part of
Genesis. (6) Codex Cnjptaferratensis, a pafimpfjest
of the 7th century, containing fragments of most of
the prophetical books, belonging to tbe monastery of
Grotta Ferrata near Bome, and published by Giuseppe
Cozza in his Sacrorum Bibliorum retustiss. Froi^menta
Grmca et Latina ex paiimpseslis Cnddi Biblioth. Cryp-
tqfcrratenxis eritta^ etc., Komse, 1867. The Ziirich
Psalter (No. 262, Holmes), a beautiful MS. in silver
letters with the titles in gold, on purple vellnm, haa
also just been published by Tischendorf in his Mon.
Sacr. mfd. Nova Colt. vol. iv. (1869).
For further information respecting the MSS. of
the Septuagint one may consult, in addition to th«
Prolegomena of Holmes and Parsons and Tischendorf,
F. A. Stroth'a Versuch e.ine.s Verzeichnis.i der Hand-.
sckriften der LXX., in Eichhorn's Re^iertorinm, y
94 ff., viii. 177 ff., xi. 45 ff. (1779, 1780, 1782); th-a
Preface to Lagarde's Genesis Grmce, Lips. 1868 ; and
the review of that work by Kamphausen in the Theol.
Stud. u. Krit., 1869. p. 721 ff. Valuable contributiona
towards a classification of these MSS., with reference
to the character of their text, have Iieen made by O
F. Fritzsche in the works referred to at the end of tMl
article. A.

2916

SEPTUAGINT

more extended comparison might enable us to
discriminate the several MSS. more accurately, but
the result would, perhaps, hardly repay the labor.
But whence these varieties of text ? Was the
Version at first more in accordance with the He
brew, aa in 72 and 59, and did it afterwards de-
geneia-te into the less accurate state of the Codex
Vaticanus ?
Or was the Version at first less accurate, like the
Vatican text, and afterwards brought, by critical
labors, into the more accurate form of the MSS.
which stand highest in the scale?
History supplies the answer.
Hieronymus (Ep. ad Suniam et Fretelam, tom.
ii. p. 627) speaks of two copies, one older and less
accurate, Koivfj., fragments of which are believed to
be rpr)reRent,ed by the stiU extant remains of the
old Latin Version; the other more faithful to the
Hebrew, which he took as the basis of his own new
Latin Version.
" In quo illud breviter admoneo, ut aciatis, aliam
esse editionem, quam Origenes, et Caesariensis Eu
sebius, omnesque Grseciae tractatores Koiv^y, id
est, communem, appellant, atque vulgatam., et a
plerisque nunc AovKiavhs dicitur; aliam LXX. in-
tcrpretura, quae et in k^airKoTs codicibus reperitur,
et a nobis in Latlnum sermonem fideliter versa est,
et HierosoljTuse atque in Orientis Ecclesiis decan-
tatur .... Koiv)) autem ista, hoc est, com
munis editio, ipsa est quae et LXX. sed hoc interest
inter utramque, quod koiv^ pro locis et temporibus,
et pro voluntate scriptorum, vetus corrupta editio,
est; ea autem quae habetur in efo7rAo?s-, et quam
nos vertimus, ipsa est quae in eruditorura Hbris in-
corrupta et immaculaf^ LXX. interpretum trans-
latio resen'atur. Quicquid ergo ab hoc discrepat,
Qulli dubium est, quin ita et ab Hebrseorum auc
toritate discordet."
In another place (Proefat. in Paralip. tom. i.
col. 1022) he speaks of the corruption of the an
cient translation, and the great variety of copies
used in different countries: —
"Cum germana ilia antiquaque translatio cor
rupta sit."^ .... " Alexandria et ^gyptus
in LXX, suis Hesychium laudant auctorem: Con-
stautinopolis usque Autiocfaiam Luciani ilartyris
exemplaria probat ; mediae inter has provincise
Palaestinos codices l^unt: quos ab Origene elab-
oraios Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt: to-
tusfjue orbis hac inter se contraria varietate com-
pugnat." The labors of Origen, designed to remedy the
conflict of discordant copies, are best described in
his own words (Commeni. in Matt. tom. i. p. 381,
ed. Huet).
" Now there is plainly a great difference in the
copies, either from the carelessness of scribes, or
the rash and mischievous correction of the text by
others, or from the additions or omissions made by
others at their own discretion. The discrepance
in the copies of the Old Covenant, we have found
means to remedy, by the help of God, using as our
criterion ihe other versions. In all passa^jes of the
LXX. rendered doubtful by the discordance of the
copies, foi'ming a judgment from the other ver
sions, we have preserv&d what agreed with them ;
aud some words we have marked with an <^elos as
not found in the Hebrew, not venturing to omit
them entu-ely; and some we have added with aster
isks affixed, to show that they are not found in the
LXX., but added by us from the other versions, in
icorirdance with the Hebrew."

SEPTUAGINT
The other eMtr^is, or versions, are these rf
Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus.
Origen, Comm. in Joann. (tom. ii. p. 131^ ed.
Huet.). " The sarae errors in names may be ob
served frequently in the Law and the Prophete, a«
we have learnt by diligent inquiry of the HebrewB,
and by comparing our copies with their copies, ae
represented in the still uncorrupted versions of
Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus.'*
It appears, from these and other passages, that
Origen, finding great discordance in the several
copies of the LXX., laid this version side by side
with the other three translations, and, taking their
accordance with eacfi other as ihe test o/* their
agreement vAth ihe Hebrew, marked the copy of
the LXX. with an obelos, -s-, where he found su
perfluous words, and supplied the deficiencies of the
LXX. by words taken from the other versions, with
an asterisk, *, prefixed.
The additions to the LXX. were chiefly made
from Theodotion (Hieronymus, ProhgAn Genesin
tom. 1).
« Quod ut auderera, Origenis me studium pro-
vocavit, qui Editioni antiquie translationem Theo-
dotionis miscuit, asterisco * et obelo .^ id est,
Stella et veru, opus omne distingueus: dum aut
illucescere facit quse minus ante fuerant, aut supers
flua quseque jugulat et confodit *' (see also Praf.
in Job, p. 795).
From Eusebius, as quoted below, we leam that
this work of Origen was called TerpairKa, ihe four
fold Bible. The specimen which follows is given
by Montfaucon. Gen. i. 1.

AKYAA2.

2YM-
MAX02.

oto.

eeo6<nmv.

61/ K€^aXai.t^

ev apxQ

evapxn

evapxv

eKTKTeV 0

eKTtaev o

liToiqa-ev

sKTurevo

0ebs avv TOV

0ebs TOi*

b eeos

©ebsTov

ovpavov Kat

ovpavov Kat

TOV ovpavov

oupavbi' Koi

avv ¦nji' yyji'.

T-qv y^v.

Ktu Ti}v y^v.

Tiji'yiji'. |j^.

But this was only the earlier and the smaller
portion of Origen's labors; he rested not till he
had acquired the knowledge of Hebrew, and com
pared the Septuagint directly with the Hebrew
copies. Eusebius (Ilisl. Eccl. vi. 16, p. 217, ed.
Vales. ) thus describes the labors which led to the
greater work, the Tlexapla ; the last clause of the
passage refers to the Tetrapla : —
" So careful was Origen's investigation of the
sacred oracles, that he learnt the Hebrew tongue,
and made himself master of the original Scriptures
received among the Jews, in the Hebrew letters;
and reviewed the versions of the other interpreter!
of the Sacred Scriptures, besides the LXX.; and
discovered some translations varjing from the well-
known versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theo
dotion, which he searched out, and brought to light
from their long concealment in neglected comers
. . . . and in his Ilexapla, after the four
principal versions of the Psahns, added a fifth, yea,
a sixth and seventh translation, stating that one
of these was found in a cask at Jericho, in the time
of Antoninus, son of Severus : and bringing these
all into one view, and dividing them in columns,
over against one another, together with the Hebrew
text, he left to us the work called Hexapla ; having
arranged separately, in the Tetrapla, the versions
of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, together
with the version of the Seventy."

SEPTUAGINT
So Jerome (in Caial. Script. Eccl. torn. iv. P. 2,
p. 116): "Quis iguorat, quod tantum in Scrip-
turis divinia habuerit studii, ut etiam Hebrseam
linguara contra setatis gentisque suae naturam
edisceret; et acoeptis LXX. interpretibus, alias
juoque editiones in unum volumen congregaret:
Aquilse scilicet Pontioi proselyti, et Theodotionis
Ebionsei, et Symmachi ejusdem dogmatis. . .
Prseterea Quintam et Sextam et Septimam Edi
tionem, quas etiam nos de ejus Bibliotheca habe-
mus, miro labore reperit, et cum 'ceteris editionibus
eomparavit."

SEPTUAGINT

2917

From another passage of Jerome (in Fpist, ad
Titum, tom. iv. P. 1, p. 437) we learn that in the
Hexapla the Hebrew text was placed in one column
in Hebrew letters, in the next column in Greek
letters ; —
" Unde et nobis curae fuit omnes veteris l^is
libros, quos vir doctus Adamantius (Origenes) in
Hexapla digesserat, de Csesariensi BibliothecS, de-
scriptos, ex ipsis authenticis emendare, in quibus et
ipsa Hebrsea propriis sunt characteribus verba de-
scripta, et Grtecis Uteris tramite expressa vicino,"

HEXAPLA. (ilOS.

xi. 1).

To EBPAIKON.
To EBP.
EAAHNIK0I2 TV.
AKYAA2-
2YMMAX02.
01 0.
©EOAOTinN.
bSHt:?'' ")y3 •'D
X'vep
OTi irais
OTt Trats
OTt ur}Trtos
OTt VT)TriOS
"inansi
IffpmiK
la-pa7}\,
la-pa7}\
la-part^ /cat
lo-paTjK
oveafi7]QV
Kat TiyaTTTja'a
Kai
€7« fiyairyiffa
Kat 7?7a7r?jo'a
nnsniai
ovfiefxeffpaip,
aVTOV, KUl
7}yaTr7}pe vos
avToy Kai
aVTOV KUl
••anb •»ns-ip
KapaOi
a-rro Aiyvtrrov
e^ Ai7i'7rTOu
c| Ai7U7rTOu
e/ca\c(Ta
\i$ayi.
eKaXeo'a
KeK\7?TO(
KeK\r}Tat
viop poif
.
TOU VtOU UOV,
VIOS flOV.
uios pov.
e^ Ai7U7rTOi;.
It should here be mentioned that some take the
Tetrapla as denoting, not a separate work, but
only that portion of the Hexapla which contains the
four columns filled by the four principal Greek ver
sions. Valesius (Notes on Eusebius, p. 106) thinks
that the Tetrapla was formed by taking those four
(iolumns out of the Hexapla, and making them into
A separate book.
But the testimony of Origen himself (i. .381,
ii. 131), above cited, is clear that he formed one
corrected text of the Septuagint, by comparison of
the three other Greek versions (A, 5, 0), using
them as his criterion. If he had known Hebrew
at this time, would he have confined himself to the
Greek versions ? Would he have appealed to the
Hebrew, as represented by Aquila, etc. ? It seems
very evident that he must have learnt Hebrew at a
later time, and therefore that the Hexapla, which
rests on a comparison with the Hebrew, must have
followed the Tetrapla, which Wivs formed by the
help of Greek versions only.
The words of Eusebius also (II. E. vi. 16) ap
pear to distinguish very clearly between the Hex
apla and Tetrapla as separate works, and to imply
that the Tetrapla preceded the Hexapla.
The order of precedence is not a mere literary
question; the view above stated, which is supported
by Montfaucon, Ussher, etc., strengthens the force
of Origen's example as a diligent student of Scrip
ture, showing his increasing desire integros acce-
deref antes.
The labors of Origen, pursued through a long
course of years, first in procuring by personal travel
the materials for his great work, and then in com
paring and aiTanging tbem, made him worthy of
the name Adamantius.
But what was the result of all this toil? Where
is now his great work, the Hexapla, prepared with
» much care, and written by so many skillful
nands ? Too large for transcription, too early by
senturics for printing (whicb alone could have saved
tt), it was destined to .a short existence. It was
brought from Tyre and laid up in the Library at
Ceesarea, and there ijrobably perished by tbe flames,
t. D. 653.
One copy, however, had been made, by Pam
philus and ICusebius, of the column containing the
corrected text of the Septuagint, with Origen's
asterisks and obeU, and tbe letters denoting from
which of the other translators each addition waa
taken. This copy is probably the ancestor of those
Codices which now approach most nearly to the
Hebrew, and are entitled Ilexaplar; but in the
course of transcription the distinguishing marks
have disappeared or become confused ; and we have
thus a text composed partly of the old Septuagint
text, partly of insertions from the three other chief
Greek versions, especially that of Theodotion.
The facts above related agree well with the phe
nomena of the MSS. before stated. As we have
Codices derived from the Hexaplar text, e. g. 72,
59, 58 ; and at tbe other extreme the Codex Vati
canus (II.), probably representing nearly the an
cient uncorrected text, Koivrj; so between these we
find texts of intermediate character in the Codex
Alexandrinus (III.), and others, which may per
haps be derived from the text of tbe Tetrapla.
To these main sources of our existing MSS. must
be added the recensions of the Septuagint mentioned
by Jerome and others, namely, those of Lucian of
Antioch and Hesychius of Egypt, not long after the
time of Origen. We have seen above that each ot
these had a wide range; that of Lucian (supposed
to be corrected by the -Hebrew) in the churches
from Constantinople to Antioch ; that of Hesychius
in Alexandria and Egypt; while the churches ly
ing between these two regions used the Hexaplar
text copied by Eusebius and Pamphilus (Hieron.
tom. i. col. 1022).
The great variety of text in the existing MSS. is
thus accounted for by the variety of sources from
which they have descended.
I. History of the \ Er.«Tr>it.
AVe have now to pursue our course upwards, by
such guidance as we can find. The ancient text,
called Kowi\, which was current before the time ol
Origen, whence came it?
We find it quoted by the early Christiac Fathers,
in Greek by Clemens Romanus, Justin Martyr
2918

SEPTUAGINT

Irenseus; in Latin versions by Tertullian and
Cyprian; we find it questioned as inaccurate by
the Jews (Just. Martyr, Apol.), and provoking
them to obtain a better version (hence the versions
of Aquila, etc.); we find it quoted by Josephus
and Philo: and thus we are brought to the time
of tbe Apostles and Evangelists, whose writings are
full of citations and references, and imbued with
tbe phraseology of the Septuagint.
But when we attempt to trace it to its origin,
our path is beset with difficulties. Before we enter
on this doubtful ground we may pause awhile to
mark the wide circulation which the Version ha^
obtained at the Christian era, and the important
services it rendered, first, in preparing the way of
Christ, secondly, in promoting the spread of the
Gospel. 1. This version was highly esteemed by the Hel
lenistic Jews before the coming of Christ. An an
nual festival was held at Alexandria in remem
brance of the completion of the work (Philo, De
Vita Mosis, lib. ii.). The manner in which it is
quoted by the writers of the New Testament proves
that it had been long in general use. Wherever,
by the conquests of Alexander, or by colonization,
the Greek language prevailed : wherever Jews were
settled, and the attention of the neighboring Gen
tiles was drawn to their wondrous history and law,
there was found the Septuagint, which thus be
came, by Divine Providence, the nieans of spread
ing widely the knowledge of the one true God, and
his promises of a Saviour to come, throughout the
nations; it was indeed ostium gentibus ad Chris
tum. To tbe wide dispersion of this version we
may ascribe in great measure that general persua
sion which prevailed over the whole East (percre-
buerat m-iente toto) of tbe near approach of tbe
Redeemer, and led the Magi to recognize the star
which proclaimed the birth of tbe King of the Jews.
2. Not less wide was the influence of the Sep
tuagint in the spread of the Gospel. Many of
those Jews who were assembled at Jerusalem on
the day of Pentecost, from Asia Minor, from Africa,
from Crete and Home, used tbe Greek language;
the testimonies to Christ from the Law and the
Prophets came to them in tbe words of the Septua
gint; St. Stephen probably quoted Irom it in his
address to the Jews; the Ethiopian eunuch was
reading the Septuagint version of Isaiah in his char-
jot (. . . . ijs ¦np6&arov iirX fftpay^y ^X^V ••••);
they who were scattered abroad went forth into
many lands speaking of Christ in Greek, and point
ing to tbe things written of Him in the Greek ver
sion of Moses and the Prophets ; from Antioch and
Alexandria in the East to Rome and Massilia in the
West tbe voice of the Gospel sounded forth in
Greek; Clemens of Rome, Ignatius at Antioch,
Justin Martyr in Palestine, Irenffius at Lyons, and
raany more, taught and wrote in the words of
the Greek Scriptures ; and a still wider range
was given to them by the Latin version (or ver-
lions) made from the LXX. for the use of the Latin
Churches in Italy and Africa; and in later times
gy the numerous other versions into tbe tongues of
/Egypt, .Ethiopia, Armenia, Arabia, and Georgia.
For a long period the Septuagint was tbe Old
Testament of the far larger part of the Christian
Church."

a On this part of the subject see an Hulscan Prize
Essay, by W. R. Churton, On the hifluence of th*
KXX. on tlu Progress of Christianity.

SEPTUAGINT
Let us now try to ascend towards the 80uii»,
Can we find any clear, united, consistent teitimouj
to the origin of the Septuagint? (1) Where snd
(2) when was it made? and (3) by whom? and
(4) whence the title ? The testimonies of ancient
writers, or (to speak more properly) their tradi
tions, have been weighed and examined by manv
learned men, and the result is well described by
Pearson (Prcef. ad LXX.., 1665):
" Neque vero de ejus antiquitate digiiitateque
quicquam imprssentiarunij dicemus, de quibus viri
docti multa, hoc prsesertim sseculo, scripsere; qui
cum maxime inter se dissentiant, nildl adhuc satit
certi et exploraii videntur tradidisse.""
1. The only point in wbich all agree is that
Alexandria was tbe birthplace of the Version: the
Septuagint begins where the Nile ends his course.
2. On one other point there is a near agree
ment, namely, as to time, that the Version was
made, or at least commenced, in the time of tbe
earlier Ptolemies, in the fu:st half of the third cen
tury B. o.
3. By whom was it made ? The following
are some of the traditions current among ths
FaChera: —
Irenieus (lib. iii. c. 24) relates that Ptolemj
Lagi, wishing to adorn his Alexandrian Library
with the writings of all nations, requested from the
Jews of Jerusalem a Greek version of their Scrip-
tures; that they sent seventy elders well skilled in
the Scriptures and in later languages; that the
king separated them from one anothef, and bade
tbem all translate the several books. When they
came together before Ptolemy and showed their
versions, God was glorified, for they oil agreed
exactly, from beginning to end, in every phrase
and word, so that all men may know thai tlie
Sa-iptures are translated by the inspiratim af
God. Justin Martyr (Cohort, ad Graces, p. 34) gites
the same account, and adds that he was taken to
see the cells in which the interpreters worked.
Epiphanius says that the translators were divided
into pairs, in 36 cells, eaeh pair being provided
with two scribes ; and that 36 versions, agreeing
in every point, were produced, by the gift ofthe.
Holy Spirit (De Pond, et Mens. cap. iii.-vi.).
Among the'Latin Fathers Augustine adheres to
the inspiration of the translators : " Non autem
secundum LXX. interpretes, qui etiam ipsi divino
Spiritu interpretati, ob hoc aliter videntur nonnuUa
dixisse, ut ad splritualem sensum scrutanduni ma
gis adnioneretur lectoris intentio . . . ." (^^
Doctr. Christ, iv. 15).
But Jerome boldly throws aside the whole story
of the cells and the inspiration : " Et nescio quis
primus auctor Septuaginta cellulaa Alexandria
mendacio suo extruxerit, quibus divisi ea<Jeni scrip-
titarent, cum Aristieus ejusdem Ptolenicei lyjrtpaa-
triOTiis, et nmlto post tempore Josephns, nihil tel''
retulerint: sed in una basilica congregates, contn
lisse scribant, non prophetasse. Aliud est enim
vatem, aliud esse interpretem. Ibi spiritus ventuni
praedicit; hie eruditio et verborum copia ea que
intelligit transfert " (Prcef. ad Pent.).
Tbe decision between these conflicting reports a
to the inspiration may be best made by careful
study of the Version itself.
It will be observed that Jerome, while rejecting
the stories of others, refers to the relation of Aril
tseus, or Aristeas, and to Josephus, the fcrmer 1*
ing followed by the latter.

SEPTUAGINT
ThiA (so-called) letter of Aristeas to hia brother
Philocrates is still extant; it may be found at the
beginning of the folio volume of Hody (De Bibli
orum Textibus Originalibus, etc., Oxon. aiDCCV.),
and separately in a small volume published at Ox
ford (1692). It gives a splendid account of the
origin of the Septuagint; of the embassy and pres
ents sent by King Ptolemy to the high-priest at
Jerusalem, by the advice of Demeirius Phalereus,
his librarian, 50 talents of gold and 70 talents of
silver, etc. ; the Jewish slaves wiiom he set free,
payhig their ransom himself; the letter of the
king; the answer of the high-priest; the choosing
of six interpreters from each of the twelve tribes,
and their names; the copy of the Law, in letters
of gold; their arrival at Alexandria on the anni
versary of the king's victory over Antigonus ; the
feast prepared for the seventy-two, which continued
for seven days ; the questions proposed to each of
the interpreters in tunij with the answers of each ;
their lodging by the sea-shore; and the accom
plishment of their work in seventy-two days, by
conference and comparison.
ot 8^ iirsTeKouv e/caffTa a-6fx<pwva woiovvres
vphs kavTohs Ta7s avTi^ohals, Th 5e iK tt^s
avfitptavlas ytySfievoi/ Trpeir6vTajs avaypa(f)7}s oH-
TOis ^T-byxo-v^ tvapa tov Ar]/j.7}Tpiov' ....
The king rejoiced greatly, and commanded the
books to be carefully kept ; gave to each three robes,
two talents of gold, etc. ; to Eleazar the high-priest
he sent ten silver-footed tables, a cup of thirty
talents, etc., and begged him to let any of the
interpreters who wished come and see him again,
for he loved to have such men and to spend his
wealth upon them.
This is the story which probably gave to this
version the title of the Septuagint. It differs from
the later accounts above cited, being more embel
lished, but less marvelous. It speaks much of
royal pomp and munificence, but says nothing of
inspiration. The triinsl.vtors met together and con
ferred, and produced the best version they could.
A simpler accoimt, and probably more genuine,
is that given by Aristobulus (2d century B. c.) in
a fragment preserved by Clemens Alexandrinus
(Stroinata, lib. v. p. 595) and by Eusebius (Prcep.
Evang. bk. xiii. c. 12): —
" It is manifest that Plato has followed our Law,
and studied diligently all its particulars. For be
fore Demetrius Phalereus a translation had been
made, by others, of the history of the Hebrews'
going fortli out of Egypt, and of all that happened
to thera, and of the conquest of the land, and of
the exposition of the whole Law. Hence it is
manifest that the aforesaid philosopher borrowed
many things ; for he was very learned, as was Py-
thagoi-as, wlio aUo transferred many of our doc
trines into his system, liut tlie entire translation
of our whole Law (^ Se o\7j epiJ.-f}V€ia twp Sick tov
VQfiov TtivToiv) was made in the time of the king
named Philadelphus, a man of greater zeal, under
the direction of Demetrius Phalereus." «
This probably expresses the belief which pre
vailed in the 2d century b. c, namely, that some
portions of the Jewish history had been published
hi Greek before Demetrius, but that in his time
ftud under his direction the whole Law was trans
lated: and this agrees with the story of Aristeas.

SEPTUAGINT

2919

<* Some doubts have been raisvl of the genuineness
rfthlfl fragment, but it is well defended l.y Valckenaer
'piatribe de Aristobulo Juilao).

The Prologue of the Wisdom of Jesus the Son
of Sirach (ascribed to the time of Ptolemy I'hys-
con, about 133 b. c.) makes mention of " the L\\\\
itself, the Prophets, and the rest of the books '¦
having been translated from the Hebrew into
another tongue.
The letter of Aristeas was received as genuine
and true for many centuries; by Josephus and Je
rome, and by learned men in modern times. The
first who expressed doubts were Lud. de Vivea
(Note on Augustin. De Civil. Dei, xviii. 42) and
Julius Scaliger, who boldly declared his belief that
it was a forgery: "a Judceo quodam Aristece nom
ine confeciam esse : " and the general belief of
scholars now is, that it was the work of son:e Al
exandrian Jew, whether with the object of tnhan-
clng the dignity of his Law, or the credit *of the
Greek vereion, or for the meaner purpose of gain.
The age in which the letter of Aristeas makes its
appearance was fertile in such fictitious writings
(see Bentley on Phalaris, p. 85, ed. Dyce).
. " The passage in Galen that I refer to is this.
* When the Attali and the Ptolemies were in emu
lation about their libraries, the knavery of forging
books and titles began. For there were those
that, to enhance the price of their books, put the
names of great authors before them, and so sold
them to those princes.' "
It is worth while to look through the letter of
Aristeas, that the reader may see for himself how
exactly the characters of the writing correspond tn
those of the fictitious writings of the Sophists, so
ably exposed by Bentley.
Here are the same kind of errors and anachro
nisms in history, the same embeUishments, eminent
characters and great events, splendid gilts of gold
and silver and purple, of which the writers of fic
tion were so 'lavish. These are well exposed by
Hody ; and we of later times, with our inherited
wisdom, wonder how such a story could have ob
tained credit with scholars of former days.
" What clumsie cheats, those Sibylline oracles
now" extant, and Aristeas' story of the Septuagint,
passed without contest, even among many learned
men " (Bentley on Phalaris, Introd. p. 83).
But the Pseudo- Aristeas had a basis of fact for
his fiction; on three points of his story there is no
material difference of opinion, and they are con
firmed by the study of the Version itself: —
1. The Version was raade at Alexandria.
2. It was begun in the time of the earlier Ptole
mies, about 280 b. %j.
3- The Law (i. e. the Pentateuch) alone was
translated at first.
It is also very possible that there is some truth
iu the statement of a copy being placed in the royal
library. (The emperor Akbar caused the New
Testament to be translated into Persian.)
But by whom was the Version nr.ide? As Ilody
justly remarks, " It is of little moment whether it
was made at the command of the king or sponta
neously by the Jews ; but it is a question of great
importance whether the Hebrew copy of the Law,
and the interpreters (as Pseudo-Aristeas and hia
followers relate), were summoned from Jerusalem,
and sent by the high-priest to Alexandria."
On this question no testimony can be so conclu
sive as the evidence of the Version itself, which
bears upon its face the marks of imperfect knowl
edge of Hebrew, and exhibits the forms and phrases
of the Macedonic Greek prevalent in Alexandria,
with a plentiful sprinkling of Egyptian words. The

2920

SEPTUAGINT

forms 'fjKQoerav, Trapev60i\oa'ay, bewray the
fellow-citizens of Lycophron, the Alexandrian poet,
who closes his iambic line with 'Kanh y^s iffxa^o-
aav. ' Hody (ii. c. iv.) gives several examples of
Egyptian renderings of names, and coins, and
measures ; among them the hippodrome of Alexan
dria, for the Hebrew Cibraih (Gen. xlviii. 7), and
the papyrus of the Nile for the rush of Job (viii.
11). The reader of the LXX. will readily agree
with his conclusion, " Sive regis jussu, sive sponte
a Judseis, a Judseis Alexaudrinis fuisse factam.**
The question as to the moving cause which gave
birth to the Aversion is one which cannot be so de
cisively answered either by internal evidence or by
historical testimony. The balance of probability
must be struck between the tradition, so widely
and permanently prevalent, of the king's interven
tion, and the simpler account suggested by the
facts of history, and the phenomena of the Version
itself. It is well known that, after the Jews returned
from the Captivity of Babylon, having lost in great
measure the familiar knowledge of the ancient He
brew, the readings from the Books of Moses in the
synagogues of Palestine were explained to them in
the Chaldaic tongue, in Targums or Paraphrases;
and the same was done with the Books of the
Prophets when, at a later time, they also were read
in the synagogues.
The Jews of Alexandria had probably still less
knowledge of Hebrew; their familiar language was
Alexandrian Greek. They had settled in Alexan
dria in large numbers soon after the time of Alex
ander, and under the earlier Ptolemies. They
would naturally follow the same practice as their
brethren in Palestine; the Law first and afterwards
the Prophets would be explained in Greek, and
from this practice would arise in time an entire
Greek Version.
All the phenomena of the Version seem to con
firm this view; the Pentateuch is the best part of
the Version ; the other books are more defective,
betraying probably tbe increasing degeneracy of
the Hebrew MSS., and the decay of Hebrew leam
ing with the lap.se of time.
4. Whence the tide ? It seems unnecessary to
suppose, with Eichhorn, that the title Septuagint
arose frora the approval given to the Version by
an Alexandrian Sanhedrim of 70 or 72 ; that title
appears sufficiently accounted for above by the prev
alence of the letter of Aristeas, describing the
mission of 72 interpreters from Jerusalem. [For a
different view of tbe origin of this name, founded
on a curious I^tin scholion, see art. Versions,
Akcient (Grkek). — A.]
II. Character of the Septuagint.
We come now to consider the character of the
Version, and the help which it affords in the crit
icism and interpretation of the Scriptures.
The Character of the Version. — Is it faithful
in substance ? Is it minutely accurate in details ?
Does it bear witness for or against the tradition of
its ha™g been made by special inspiration ?
These are some of the chief questions : there are
others which relate to particuUrs, and it will be
well to discuss these latter first, as they throw some
Ught on the more general questions.
S. Was the Version made from Hebrew MSS.
irith the vowel-points now used ?
A few examplt'S will indicate the answer.

SEPTUAGINT 1. PBOPEa Names
Hebrew. Septua^iht
Ex. vi. 17. "'357, LibnL Aopewi,
vi. 19. ''bna, Machli. MooA«i.
xiii. 20. DnS, Etham. 'OtifL.
Deut. iii. 10. HD/D, Salchah. 'EAxo.
lv. 43. -)V2, Bezer. Boirop.
xxxiv. 1. nSpS, Pisgah. 4airyd.
2. Othee Words.
Heljrew. Septuagint,
Gen. i. 9. Dipn, place, mvaymyij (ni|7D).
XV. 11. nns 3"'*1, tal avreKdeuro' ami
and ke drove them away. (D^M ^tll?*1)
Ex. xii. 17. n T arrriM, ¦ntv molaiv ramr
unleavmtd bread. (mSjariTlN),
Num. xvi. 5. "1|22, «'» the tma-Ke-irriu
morning. ("1|72),
Dent. XV. 18. TOtt'O, double, irrireutv (Hat^C),
Is. ix. 7. "13'^, a word. Bavarov iPS^).
Examples of these two kinds are innuraerabb.
Plainly the Greek translators had not Hebrew
MSS. pointed as at present.
In many cases (e. y. Ex. ii. 25 ; Nahum iii. 8)
the LXX. have probably preserved the true pro
nunciation and sense where the Masoretic pointing
has gone wrong.
3. Were the Hebrew words divided from om
another, and were the final letters, y, ?), ], D, "],
in use when the Septuagint was made?
Take a few out of many examples : —
Hebrew. LXX.
(1.) Deut. xxiv. 6. 15'S ''13'IN, Ivpiox iwcfialar
a perishing Syrian. {1'D!^'' CTlH).
(2.) 2K.ii. 14. s-"in-?is, i#»
heaho. [aeyjoipthetw. words m ooej.
(3.) 2 K. xxii. 20. ]'dh, oixoviw
therefore. 0?'^'').
(4.1 1 Chr. xvii. 10. ?jb ^3S^, icol avtijw
and I wiU tell thee.

(5.) Hos vi. 5. "IIN ?r'<C5Btt,'a!l KalTOicpifa^m
• "r S ' (*,5 ^5 £^eAev.
S^^*], a-ertu.
and thy judgments (are The LXX. real:
as) the light (that) _-.^_ SKBttJJM
goethforlh. ''f^? L.B»tM.
(6.) Zech.xi. 7. ]S!Jn "'.I'a^ "[Sb, lUrrivXcyim-
even you, O poor ofthe [they join the two
/lock. first words].
Here we find three cases (2, 4, 6) where tie
LXX. read as one word what makes two in th«
present Hebrew text : one case (3) where one He
brew word is made into two by the LXX.; two
cases (1, 5) where the LXX. transfer a letter from
the end of one word to the beginning of the uexL

SEPTUAGINT
Cy inspection of the Hebrew in these cases it will
be easily seen that the Hebrew MSS. must have
been written without intervals between the words,
and that the present final forms were uot then in
use. In three of the above examples (4, 5, 6), the
Septuagint has probably preserved the true division
and sense.
In the study of these minute particulars, which
enable us to examine closely the work of the trans-
iitors, great help is afforded by Cappetti Critica
Sacra, and by the Vorstudien of Frankel, who has
a'.ost diligently anatomized the text of the LXX.
His projected work on the whole of the Version has
DJt been completed, but he has published a part of
it in his treatise Veber den Einjluss der Palas-
tinis:hen Exegese auf die Alexandrinische Her^
meneutik, in which he reviews minutely the Septu
agint Vereion of the Pentateuch.
We now proceed to the larger questions.
A, Is the Septuagint faithful in substance f
Here we cannot answer by citing a few examples ;
the question refers to the general texture, and any
opinion we express must be verified by continuous
reading. 1. And first it has been clearly shown by Hody,
Frankel, aud others, that the several books were
translated by different persons, without any com
prehensive revision to harmonize the several parts.
Names and words are rendered differently iu dif
ferent books; c. g, npS, the passover, in the Pen
tateuch is rendered 7rd<rxa, in 2 Chr. xxxv. 6,
D'^n^lM, Urim. Ex. xxviii. 30 (LXX. 26),S^\ai-
o-is, Deut. xxxiii. 8, SrjKot, Ezr. ii. 63, ipaTi^ov-
TES, Neh. vii. 65,<^wtiVoj»'.
D'^a..', Thwnmim, in Ex. xxviii. 30 (LXX. 26),
8 iXtiBeia; in Ezr. ii. 63, reAeiov.
The Philistines iu the Pentateuch and Joshua
«re (poMaTiei/i, in the other hooka, a\\6cj)u\ot.
The books of Judges, Euth, Samuel, and Kings.
are distinguished by the use of eyd^ eijUi, instead of
iyi. These are a few out of many like variations.
2. Thus the character of the Version varies
rauch in the several books ; those of the Pentateuch
are the best, as .Jerome says ( Conf lemur plus quam
aeleris cum Hebraicis consonare), and this agrees
well with the external evidence that the Law was
translated first, when Hebrew MSS. were more cor
rect and Hebrew better known. Perhaps the sim
plicity of the style in these early books facilitated
the fideUty of the Version.
3. The poetical parts are, generally speaking, in
ferior to the liisturical, the original abounding with
rarer words and expressions. In these parts the
I'eader of the LXX. muist be continually on the
\7atch lest an Imperfect rendering of a difficult
word mar the whole sentence. The Psalms and
Proverbs are perhaps the best.
4. In the Major Prophets (probably translated
nearly 100 years after the Pentateuch) some of the
most important prophecies are sadly obscured : e. g.
U. ix. 1, TovTo irpSyrov irU Tax^ Troiet, X'^P"
Za$ov\iii/, K. T. \., and in ix. 6, Esaias nactus
est interpretem sese indignum (Zuingli); Jer. xxiii.
t'l Kal toGto ri 6vofia aiiTov t /caAecei avrhy
Kvpios 'lajfffSe/c ^y toTs irootp-firais,
Ezekiel and tbe Minor Prophets (speaking gen-
•rally) seem to be better rendered. The LXX. ver-
184

SEPTUAGINT

2921

sion of Daniel was not used, that of Theodotion
being substituted for it.
5. Supposing the numerous glosses and dupli
cate renderings, which have evidently crept from
the margin into the text, to be removed (e. g. Is.
vii. 16; Hab. iii. 2; Joel i. 8), — for these are
blemishes, not of the Version itself, but of the
copies, — and forming a rough estiraate of what the
Septuagint was in its earliest state, we may per
haps say of it, in the words of the well-known sim
ile, that it was, in many parts, the wrong side of
the Hebrew tapestry, exhibiting the general out
lines of the pattern, but confused in the more deli
cate lines, and with many ends of threads visible;
or, to use a more dignified illustration, the Sep
tuagint is the image of the original seen through
a glass not adjusted to the proper focus ; the larger
features are shown, but the sharpness of definition
is lost. B. We have anticipated the answer to the sec
ond question — Is the Version minutely accurate
in details f — but will give a few examples ;
1. The same word in the same chapter is
often rendered by differing words, — Ex. xii. 13.
TnnDQ, " I will pass over," LXX. aKerriaai,
but 23, npQ, " will pass over," LXX. TrapeAeu-
o'€Tai. 2. Differing words by the same word, — Ex.
xii. 23, 1?3?, "pass through," and 1109, "pass
over," both by irapeXEiJo-eToi; Num. xv. 4, 5,
nn3Q, " offering," and H^T, " sacrifice," both
by Suo-la.
3. The divine names are frequently inter
changed ; Kipios is put for ?''H 7N, God, and
0€ds for nin^, Jehovah ; and the two are often
wrongly combined or wrongly separated.
4. Proper naraes are sometimes translated,
sometimes not. In Gen. xxiii. by translating the
name Maclipelah (rh SnTKovv), the Version is
made to speak first of the cave being in the field
(ver. 9), and then of the feld being in the cave
(ver. 17), 0 ayphs 'E<l>p(iv, %s -tiv er t^ 8nr\^>
a"7r7j\aitii, the last word not warranted by the He
brew. Zech. vi. 14 is a curious example of foul
names of persons being translated, e. g. H^'Il'ltO/i
"to Tobijah," LXX. rois XP'H^^I^^^^ avTrjs', Pis
gah in Deut. xxxiv. 1 is <j>aaya, but in Deut. iii.
27, ToiJ \e\a^evp.€vou.
5. The translators are often misled by the sim
ilarity of Hebrew words; c. g. Num. iii. 26,
T'"}n"'a, "the cords of it," LXX. ra /carti-
Xoiira, and iv. 26, rh Trepurird. In other places,
ol Ka\ot, and Is. liv. 2, rh. ax°^^^^P-°''^^i '^''^'^
rightly. Ex. iv. 31, ^V'aVP'^_, "they heard,"
LXX. ^xm (^nab^); Num. xvi. 15, "I have
not taken one ass " (TIDn), LXX. ovk iiri0i-
p^THn.ai'TOn) e-l\7),pa; Deut. xxxii. 10, ^nWSp";,
"he found him," LXX. avTa.pKi\iTev ahriv; 1
Sam. xii. 2, ^i^5?' " I ^™ grayheaded," LXX.
Ka.B4t<roixat C'wi?®); Gen. iii. 17, 'flTl^iaj?,
" for thy sake," LXX. ^v rots ipyn.s aov ("T fin

2922

SEPTUAGINT

In very many cases the error may be thus traced
to the similarity of some of the Hebrew letters,
T and ~), n and H, "" and 1, etc. ; in some it is
difficult to see any connection between the original
and the Version : e. g. Deut. xxxii. 8, bS'lCP'^ ""D?,
"the sons of Israel," LXX. ayyeKay @eov.
Aquila and Symmachus, vliiv '\iTpai\K.
Is. xxi. 11, 12. LXX.
Watchman, what of the night? itniXatTiTsre cTroA^ets.
^yatchman, what of the night ? 4>vAda'(r(u ronfuaX koI
The watchman said, ttjv vvkto.
The morning cometh, and also 'Eav fi^r^s fjjTef
the night : Kal rrap eixol oixeL,
If ye will inquire, inquire ye.
Return, come.
6. Besides the above deviations, and many like
them, which are probably due to accidental causes,
the change of a letter, or doubtful writing in the
Hebrew, there are some passages which seem to ex
hibit a studied variation in the LXX. from the He
brew: e. g. Gen. ii. 2, on the seventh (''y^DIZJn)
day God ended his work, LXX. avv^e\eaev &

e>shs

ep T77 ijfiepa Tij €kt71 ra epya avTOv.

The

addition in Ex. xii. 40, Kal iv rp yf, Xavaiv,
appears to be of this kind, inserted to solve a diffi
culty. Frequently the strong expressions of the Hebrew
are softened down ; where human parts are ascribed
to God, for hand the LXX. substitute power ; for
moulh — uxrrd, etc. Ex. iv. 16, " Thou shalt be to
him instead of God " (n''n'bNb), LXX. ah 8f
ouT^ eari rh. trphs rhy Qe6v', see Ex. iv. 15.
These and many more savor of design, rather than
of accident or error.
The Version is, therefore, not minutely accurate
in details ; and it may be laid down as a principle,
nevei- to builfl any argument on words or phrases
uf the Septuagint, without comparing ihem with
the Hebrew. The Greek may be right; but very
often its variations are wrong.
r. We shall now be prepared to weigh the tia^
dition of the Fathers, that the Version was made
by inspiration: kot' ivirrvoiav tov @€ov, Ire
nseus; "divino Spiritu interpretati," Augustine.
Even Jerome himself seems to think that the LXX.
may have sometimes added words to the original,
" ob Spiritus Sancti auctorilatem, licet iu Hehrteis
voluminibus rum legaiur " (Prcefai. in Paral^. tom.
i. col. 1419).
Let us try to form some conception of what is
meant by the inspiration of translators. It cannot
mean what Jerome here seems to allow, that the
translators were divinely moved to add to the orig
uial, for this would be the inspiration of Prcphets ;
as be himself says in another passage (Prolog, in
Genesin, tom. i.) " aliud est enim vertere, aliud
esse inteipretem." Every such addition would be,
in fact, a new revelation.
Nor can it be, as some have thought, that the
deviations of the Septuagint from the original were
divinely directed, whether in order to adapt the
Scriptures to the mind of the heathen, or for other
purposes. This would be, pro tanio, a new revela
tion, and it is difficult to conceive of such a revela
tion; for, be it observed, the discrepance between
the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures would tend to
separate tbe Jews of Palestine from those of Alex-
uidria, and of other places where the Greek Scrip
tures were Lsed ; there would be two different cop-

SEPTUAGINT
ies of the same books dispersed throughout Uk
world, each cMming Divine authority; the appeal
to Moses and the Prophets would lose much of its
force; the standard of Divine truth would be ren
dered doubtful; the trumpet would give an uncer
tain soimd.
No ! If there be such a thing as an inspiratim
of translators, it must be an effect of the Holy
Spirit on their minds, enabling them to do their
worlc of translation more perfeetly than by their
own abilities and acquirements; to overcome the
difficulties arising from defective knowledge, fiom
imperfect MSS., from similarity of letters, from
human infirmity and weariness ; and so to produce
a copy of the Scriptures, setting forth the Word of
God, and the history of his people, in its oriinnal
truth and purity. This is the kind of inspiratHin
ckimed for the translators by Philo ( ViL Mijsis
lib. ii.): "We look upon the persons who made this
Version, not merely as translators, but as persons
chosen and set apart by Divine appointment, lo
whom it was given to comprehend and express the
sense and meaning of Moses in the fullest and
clearest manner."
The reader will be able to judge, from the fore
going examples, whether the Septuagint Version
satisfies tbis test. If it does, it will be found not
only substantially faithful, but minutely accurate
in details ; it will enable us to correct the Hebrew
in every place where an error has crept in ; it wiB
give evidence of that faculty of intuition in its
highest form, which enables our great critics to
divine from the feulty text the true reading; it wiB
be, in short, a repubhcation of the original text,
purified from the errors of human hands and eyes,
stamped with fresh authority from Heaven.
This is a question to be decided by facts, by the
phenomena of the Version itself. We will simply
declare our own con\iction that, instead of such a
Divine repubhcation of the original, we find a
marked distinction between the original and the
Septuagint; a distinction which is well expressed in
the words of Jerome (Prolog, in Genesin): "Ibi
Spiritus Ventura prsedicit; hie eruditio et verbonim
copia ea quse intelligit transfert."
And it will be remembered that this agrees with
the ancient narrative of the Version, known hy the
name of Aristeas, which represents the interpreters
as meeting in one house, forming one council, con
ferring together, and agreeing on the sense (see
Hody, lib. ii. c. vi.).
There are some, perhaps, who will deem this
estimate of the LXX. too low; who think that tbe
use of this version in the N. T. stamps it with au
authority above that of a mere translation. But
as the Apostles and EvangeHsts do not invariably
cite the O. T. according to this version, we are left
to judge by the light of facts and evidence. Stu
dents of Holy Scripture, as well as students of the
natural world, should bear in mind the maxim of
Bacon : " Sola spes est in vera inductione."
in. What, then, are the benefits to be
DERIVED FROM THE STUDY OF THE SUP-
TUAGINT ?
After all the notices of imperfection above given,
it may seem strange to say, but we beUeve it to 1*
the truth, that the student of Scripture can scarcelj
read a chapter without some benefit, especially if he
be a student of Hebrew, and able, even in a v«7
humble way, to compare the Version with tte
OriginaK

SEPTUAGINT
1. For the Old Testament. We have seen
tbove, that the Septuagint gives evidence of the
tharacter and condition of the Hebrew MSS. from
which it was made, with respect to vowel-points
»nd the mode of writing.
This evidence often renders very material help in
the correction and establishment of the Hebrew text.
lieing made from MSS. far older than the Maso
retic recension, the Septuagint often indicates read
ings more ancient and more correct than those of
our present Hebrew MSS. and editions ; and often
speaks decisively between the conflicting readings
of the present MSS.
£. g. Ps. xxii. 17 (in LXX. xxi. 16), the printed
Hebrew text is "''HMD ; but several MSS. have a
verb in 3d pers. plural, nS3 : the LXX. steps in
to decide the doubt, Upv^av x^^P^s fiov Kal v6Sas
fiav, confirmed by Aquila, ¦jjo'xvvttv.
Ps. xvi. 10. The printed text is "fT'On, in
the plural ; but near 200 MSS. have the singular,
"^T'Dn, which is clearly confirmed by the evi
dence of the LXX., ovSe St^aeis Thv ttri&v aov
Iheiv diaipOopay.
In passages Hke these, which touch on the cardi
nal truths of tbe Gospel, it is of great importance
to have tbe testimony of an unsuspected witness,
ill the LXX., long before the controversy between
Christians and Jews.
In Hosea vi. 5, the context clearly requires that
the first person should be mahitained throughout
the verse ; the LXX. corrects the present Hebrew
text, without a change except in the position of one
letter, rh Kpip.a. fiou &is (pus e^eXe6aerat, render
ing unnecessary the addition of words in ItaUcs, in
our Engfish Version.
More examples might be given, but we must
content ourselves with one signal ' instance, of a
clause omitted in the Hebrew (probably by what
is called b/jLoioTeXevTor), and preserved in the
LXX.' In Genesis iv. 8, is a passage which in the
Hebrew, and in our English Version, is evidently
incomplete ; —
"And Cain talked (~ipS»1) with Abel his
brother; and ic came to pass when they were in
the field," etc.
Here the Hebrew word ^^M^'l is the word con
stantly used as the introduction to words spoken,
" Cain said unto Abel "...., but, as the text
stands, tbere are no words spoken ; and the follow
ing words " . . . . when they were in the feld,'
come in abruptly. The LXX. fills up the lacuna
llebraorum codiaum (Pearson), koI etire KaiV
Ttphs *Aj8^X rliv ci.Se\<phv avrov, Bi4\dojfiev els rh
Tteiloy ( = r\'Wr[ n?'?.?). The Sara. Penta
teuch and the Syriac Version agree with the LXX.,
md the passage is thus cited by Clemens Eomanus
yEp. i. c. iv.). The Hebrew transcriber's eye was
probably misled by the word TTJW, terminating
both the clauses. [For a different view, see p.
«09n, 2dpar. (1). — A.]
In all the foregoing cases, we do not attribute
any paramount authority to the LXX. on account
of its superior antiquity to the extant Hebrew
.MSS. ; but we take it as an evidence of i more

SEPTUAGINT

2923

ancient tiebrew text, as an eye-witness of the texts,
280 or 180 years b. c. The decision as to any
particular reading must be made by weighing tliia
evidence, together with that of other ancient AVr-
sions, with the arguments from the context, the
rules of grammar, the genius of the language, and
the comparison of parallel passages. And thus
the Hebrew will sometimes correct the Greek, and
sometimes the Greek the Hebrew; both liable k
err through the infirmity of human eyes and hands,
but each checking the other's errors.
2. The close connection between the Old and
New Testaraent makes the study ofthe Septuagint
extremely valuable, and almost indispensable to the
theological student. Pearson quotes from Ire
nseus and Jerome, as to tlie citation of the word;*
of prophecy from the Septuagint. The forraer, as
Pearson observes, speaks too universally, when ho
says that the Apostles, " prophetica omnia ita enun-
ciaverunt quemadmodura Seniorum interpretatio
continet." But it was manifestly the chief store
house from which they drew their proofs and pre
cepts. Mr. Grinfield « says that '* the number of
direct quotations from the Old Testament in the
Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, may be estimated at
350, of which not more than 50 materially differ
from the LXX. But the indirect verbal allusions
would swell the number to a far greater amount "
(Apol. for IjXX., p. 37). The comparison of th«*
citations with the Septuagint is much facilitated
by Mr. Grinfield's "Editio Hellenistica " of ths
New Testament, and by Mr. Gough's New TtsU
Q^lOtaiions, in which the Hebrew and Greek pas
sages of the Old Test, are placed side by side with
the citations in the New. (On this subject see
Hody, pp. 248,281; Kennicott, Z>/si;er(:. f/'en. §84;
Cappelli, Critica Sacra, vol. ii.) [See also Turpie's
The Old Test, in the New (Lond. 1868), which '
gives various readings of the Hebrew and Greek ;
Kautzsch, De Vet. Test. Lods a Paulo Apost. al~
legaiis, Lips. 1869; and the works referred to at
the end of the art. Old Testament, vol. iii. pp.
2239 6, 2240 a. — A.]
.3. Further, the language of the LXX. is the
mould in which the thoughts and expressions of the
Apostles and Evangelists are cast. In this version
Divine Truth has taken the Greek language as its
shrine, and adapted it to the things of God. Here
the peculiar idioms of the Hebrew are grafted upon
tbe stock ofthe Greek tongue; words and phrases
take a new sense. The terms of the Mosaic ritual
in the Greek Version are employed by the Apostles
to express the great truths of the Gospel, e. g. ap-
X*epei5y, duaia, oa/j.^ euwBlas. Hence tbe LXX. is
a treasury of illustration for the Greek Testament.
Many examples are given by Pearson (Prcef. ad
LXX.), e. g. o-dp^, irvevfia, BiKai6a}, (pp6vr}^a t/)$
capKiis. "Frustra apud veteres Graicos qua^riia
quid sit TrttTTeiJeiv rt^ ©ey, vel cts Tbv ©ecJi/,
quid sit els ThvKvpiov, yeXirphs rhv®G6v trla-TiSf
quse toties in Novo Foedere inculcantur, et ex lec
tione Seniorum facile intelliguntur."
Valckenaer also (on Luke i. 51) speaks strongly
on this sulgect: " Graecum Novi Testamenti cou-
textum rite intellecturo nihil est utilius. quam dili-
genter versasse Alexandrinani antiqui Foederis in-
terpretationem, e qua una plus peti poterit auxilii,
quam ex veteribus scriptoribus Graecis simul suratis.
Centena reperientur in N. T. nusquam obvia in

o One of the most diligent students of the LXX.,
rho has devoted his Ufe to the promotion of this

branch of Scripture study, aud has lately founded t
Lecture on the LXX. in the University of Oxford

2924

SEPTUAGINT

•cripiia GroECorum veterum, sed frequentata in Alex^-
Versione." E. g. the sense of t& irao-xa '^^ Deut. i^vi. 2,
including the sacrifices of the Paschal week, throws
light on the question as to the day on which our Lord
kept his last Passover, arising out of the words in
John xviii. 28, a\V %va <pdyroa-i Th vdaxa-
4. The frequent citations of the LXX. by the
Greek Fathers, and of the Latin Version of the
LXX. by the Fathers who ^vrote in Latin, form
another strong reason for the study of the Septua
gint. Pearson cites the appellation of Scarabceus
bonus, applied to Christ by Ambrose and Augus
tine, as explained by reference to the LXX. in
Habak. ii. 11, KdvOapos e/c |uAou.
5. On the value of the LXX. as a monument of
the Greek language in one of its most curious
phases, this is not tbe place to dwell. Our busi
ness is with the use of this Version, as it bears on
the criticLsm and interpretation ofthe Bible. And
we may safely urge the theological student who
wishes to be " thoroughly furnished " to have al
ways at his side the Septuagint. Let the Hebrew,
if possible, be placed before him; and at his right,
in the next place of honor, the Alexandrian Version ;
the close and careful study of this Version will be
more profitable than the most learned inquiry into
its origin ; it will help him to a better knowledge
both of the Old Testament and the New.
Objects to be attained by the Critical
Scholar.
1. A question of much interest still waits for a
solution. In many of the passages which show a
studied variation from the Hebrew (some of which
are above noted), the SeptuE^int aud the Samar
itan Pentateuch agree together: e. g. Gen. ii. 2;
Ex. xii. 40.
They also agree in many of the ages of the
post-dUuvian Patriarchs, adding 100 years to the
age at which the first son of each was born, ac
cording to the Hebrew. (See Cappelli Crit. Sacr.
iii., XX., vii.)
They agree in the addition of the words SieXOa;-
U€P els Th TTeSiov, Gen. iv. 8, which we have seen
reason to think rightly added.
Various reasons have been conjectured for this
agreement; translation into Greek from a Samar
itan text, interpolation from the Samaritan into
the Greek, or vice versa ; but the question does not
seem to have found a satisfactory answer. [Sama r-
itan Pentateuch, p. 2811 b; Versions, An
cient (Greek).]
2. For the critical scholar it would be a worthy
object of pursuit to ascertain, as nearly as possible,
the original text of the Septuagint as it stood in
the time of the Apostles and Philo. If this could
be accomplished with any tolerable completeness, it
would possess a. strong interest, as being the first
translation of any writing into another tongue, and
the first repository of Divine truth to the great
colony of Hellenistic Jews at Alexandria.
The critic would probably take as his basis the
Roman edition, from tbe C^dex Vaticanus, as rep
resenting most nearly the auclent (koiv^) texts.
The collection of fragments of Origen's Hexapla,
foy Montfaucon and others, would help him to
eliminate the additions which have been made to
the LXX. from other sources, and to purge out
the glosses and double renderings; the citations in
the New Tratament and in Philo, in the early
CLrisLian Fathers, both Greek and Latin, would

SEPTUAGINT
render assistance of the same kind; and perliapi
the most effective aid of all would be found in the
figments of the Old Latin Version collected by
Sabatier in 3 vols, folio (Rheims, 1743).
3. Another work, of more practical and general
intermt, still remains to be done, namely, to provide
a Greek version, accurate and faithful to the He<
brew original, for the use of the Greek Church, and
of students reading the Scriptures in that language
for purposes of devotion or njentai improvement.
Mr. Field's edition is as yet the best edition of
this kind ; It originated in the desire to supply the
Greek Church with such a faithful copy of the
Scriptures; but as the editor has followed tbe text
of the Alexandrian MS., only correcting, by the
help of other MSS., the evident errors of transcrip
tion (e. g. in Gen. xv. 15, correcting Tpafels iu
the Alex. MS. to ro^eis, the reading of the Gmi-
plut. text), and as we have seen above that the
Alexandrian text is far from being the nearest to
the Hebrew, it is evident that a more faithful and
complete copy of the Old Testament in Greak
might yet be provided.
We raay here remark, in conclusion, that such
an edition might prepare the way for the correction
of the blemishes which remain in our Authorized
English Version. Embracing the results of the
criticism of the last 250 years, it might exhibit
several passages in their original purity; and the
corrections thus made, being approved by the judg
ment of the best scholars, woi^d probably, after a
time, find their way into the margin, at least, of our
English Bibles.
One example only can be here given, in a passage
which has caused no small perplexity and toads of
commentary. Is. ix. 3 is thus rendered in the
LXX.: rh TrKe7aT0V tov Xaov, h KaT-fiyayes iv
€V(ppoa{ivTj aov Koi ev<ppavd-f}aovTai ivi&7ri6v aov,
Qjs ol eutppaivSpevot ev afi-fjTtp, Kal hv Tp6vov ot
Siaipovpevoi aKvKa.
It is easy to see how the faulty rendering of the
first part of this has arisen from the similarity of
Hebrew letters, i~\ and PI, T and ^, and from
an ancient error in the Hebrew text. The follow
ing translation restores the whole passage to its
original clearness and force : —
eir\r}6was ttjv ayoAA.uuni' (/^2m}j
ejtteyoAuj'as tt)v ein^poaiitnuV
ev^paCvovTOL evutTTtov aov tits ol evi^paivofieiot
€V OftiJTtf,
Zv Tpoirov ayaAAutfrrai ol Btaipovfievoi aKv/ui,
Thou hast multiplied the gladness,
Thou haat increased the joy ;
They r^oice before thee as with the joy.of harvent,
As men are glad when they divide the spoil.
Here ayaWiaais and ayaWiavrah i" the first
ftnd fourth lines, correspond to '"^S ^°*^ ^^^?I'
tvtppoavvT} and ev<ppaiyovTai, in the second aud
third, to r\ni:iW and ^r\12W,
The fourfold introverted parallelism is complete,
and the connection with the context ofthe prophecy
perfect. It is scarcely necessary to remark that in such
an edition the apocryphal additions to the book
of Esther, and those to the book of Daniel, which
are not recognized by the Hebrew Canon, would
be either omitted, or (perhaps more properly, sinci
they appear to have been incorporated with thfi

SEPTUAGINT
Septuagint at an early date) would be placed sepa-
¦^tely, as iu Mr. Field's edition and our English
Version. [See Apocrypha; Canon; Daniel,
Apoc. Additions; Esther; Samaritan Pent.]
Literature.
Cappelli Critica Sacra, 1651. Waltonl Proleg.
ad Bibl. Polyglott. 1657. Pearsoni Prmf. ParcB-
netica ad LXX, 1655. Voss, I., de LXX. Interp.
Hag. 1661; App. 1663. Montfajicon, Hexaplorum
Ongenis quce supersunt, Paris, 1710; ed. Bahrdt.
Lips. 1740. Hody, de Bibl. Text. OHginal. Vers.
Greeds, et Latina Vulgaid,^ 1705. Hottinger,
Thesaurus. Owen, Dr. H., Enquiry into ihe LXX.,
1769 ; Brief Account, etc. 1787. Kennicott's Dis-
tertaiions. Holmes, Prolegg. ad LXX., 1798.
Valckenaer, Diatribe de Amsi-obulo Judceo, 1806.
Schleusner, Opusc. Crit. ad Vei'ss. Gr. V. 7'. 1812.
Uiihue, JUdisch-Alexandrinische Philosophic, 1834.
Topler, de Pentat. inteip. Alex, indole crit. et
hermen. 1830. Pliischke, Lectiones Alex, et Hebr.
1837. Thiersch, de Pentnteuchi P'crs. Alexan-
drina, 1841.« Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septua
ginta, 1841 ; Ueber den Einjliiss der Paldstimschen
Exegese auf' die Alex. Henneneutik, 1851. Grin-
field, E. W., N. T. Editio Hellenistica, 1843, and
Apology for the Septuagint. Selwyn, W., Notce
ihiticcB in Ex. i.-xxiv., Numeros, Deuieronomlum,
1856-58 (comparing LXX. with Hebrew, etc.).
Hor. Hebr. on Is. ix. Churton, Huhean Essay,
1861. Journal of Sacred Lit, Papers (by G.
Pearson) on LXX.; Vols, i., iv., vii., 3d series.
introduction to Old Test., Carpzov, Eichhorn, Ha
vernick, Davidson [De Wette, Keil, Bleek],
Concoi'dances, Kircher, 1607; Trommius, 1718.
LeMca, Biel, 1780; Schleusner, 1820.
On the Language of the LXX. — Winer, Gram
mar; StuTZ, de Dialecto Macedonicd ; Maltby, Ed.,
Two Sermons befoi'e University of Durham, 1843.
W. S.
* We have as yet no critical edition of the
Septuagint, — none in which the existing materials
for settling the text have been applied fur that pur
pose. The available materials are indeed inade
quate. It ia to be hoped, however, that through
the labors of Bianchini, Baber, Tischendorf, Ver
cellone and Cozza, Ceriani, and others, we shall
soon have the text of all the known uncial MSS.
of this version published in a trustworthy form.
When this is accomplished, Tischendorf promises,
- if his life is spared, to undertake a new edition,
"talera qualem litters sacrae poscunt et per instru-
menta critica perfici licebit " (Pref. to his 4th ed.,
1869, p. vii. J. But before a thoroughly satisfac
tory edition can be prepared a great amount of
labor must still be spent on tbe cursive manuscripts,
the ancient versions made from the Greek (the Old
Latin, Egyptian in dififerent dialects, JBthiopic,
Armenian, and Hexaplar Syriac), and on the quo-
« • A special value of this treatise by Dr. Thiersch.
Is the testimony which it furnishes to the accuracy
of our present Hebrew text. His decision after an
elaborate collation of the two works is, that in the
Sreat bulk of the passages the Qreek Septuagint of
he Pentateuch and the traditionary Masoretic text
orrespoad to each other as nearly as the different
¦•enius of the two languages will permit. Variations
sxist, it is true, but we can refer these for the most
lart to principles of translation on the part of the
Seventy, rhetorical or dogmatic, which will account
r<?i ihem without assuming the existence of different
ttebrevi readings. The conclusion of Br. Thierscb

SEPTUAGINT

2925

tations from the Sept. in the vmtings of tae
Fathers. The edition of Holmes and Parsons
leaves very much to be desired in all these respects.
A formidable programme of the work required, and
a small but thankworthy contribution towards it,
are given by P. A. de Lagarde in his Genesis Gree
ce, e Fide Ed. Sixtince addita Scripturce Discre-
pantia e Libris Manu scriptis a se ipso conlatis el
Edd. Compl. et Aid. adcuratissvnie enotaia (Lips.
1868); comp. the review by Kamphausen iu the
Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1869, pp. 721-758. Useful
preliminary labor has also been performed by 0. F.
Fritzsche, especially in regard to the classification
of the MSS., in his editions of several books, namely,
E20HP- Duplicem Libri Textum ad optimos Cod
ices edidit, Turici, 1848; 'Poi/0 Kara, rohs O'l
ihid. 1864 ; Liber ludicum secundum LXX. Inter
pretes. Triplicem Textum Confjrmaiionetn reccnr-
suit, etc. ibid. 1867, first published as two Univer
sity programmes with the title, Specimen novce Ed
crit. LXX. Interpretum. H*" has also paid partic
ular attention to the text in the Kurzgef. exeg.
Handb. zu d. Apokryphen d. A. T., edited by him
and C. L. W. Grimm (1851-59); and the valuable
articles AlexandHnische Uebersei: mg and Vul-
gata in Herzog's Real-Encykl. are from his pen.
On the MSS. of the Sept. see before, p. 2914 f.
and note b; see also Amersfoordt, De variis Lec-
tionihus Holmesianis Locoj^m quarundam Penia-
teuchi, Lugd. Bat. 1815. Respecting the Hexaplaf
text there are a number of important articles by
Doederlein, Matthsei, Eichhorn, Bruns, and De
Rossi in Eichhorn's Repertoi'ium ; see also Ver
sions, AxciENX (Sykiac), I, B, and the editions
of Jeremiah (by Spohn) and Ezekiel mentioned
below. The more important MSS. containing this
text have already been referred to (p. 2914 f. note b).
For the quotations of the Christian Fathers, seo
F. A. Stroth, Beitrdge zur Kriiik Ub. d. 70 Doll-
metscher, in Eichhorn's Repert. ii. 66 ff., iii. 213 ff.
vi. 124 ff., xiii. 158 ff. ; comp. Credner's Beitrdge
zur Einl. in d. bibl. SchHfien (1838), Bd. ii. A
new edition of the Hexapla has been begun by F.
Field, Tom. ii. fasc. 1, 2, Lond. 1867-68, 4to.
Among the monographs relating to the Septua
gint version of particular books, we may also men
tion the following: G. Bickell, T)e Indole et Rat..
Vers. Alas, in interpretando Libro Jubi, Marb
1863. J. G. Jager, Obss. in Prov. Salomcynis
Vers. Alex. 1788. P. A. de Lagarde, Anmerkuiir-
gen zur griech. iibers. d. Proverbien, Leipz. 1863.
G. L. Spohn, Jeremias Vaies e Vers. Jud. Alex.
ac reliq. Interp. Grcecorum emend. Notisque ait.
illustr, 2 vols. Lips. 1794-1824. F. C. Movers,
.De uiriusque Recent. Vaiicin. Jerem. Indole ei
Origine, Hamb. 1837. J. Wichelliaus, De Jerem.
Vers. Alex. Indole et Auctoritate, Hal. 1846. ^t-
zeciel seamdvm LXX. ex Tetraplis Origenis c
singidari Chisiano Codice, ... op. A. Vincentii de
under this head is : ^^ Hac dissertatione videmur de-
monstrasse earn esse versionis Pentateuchi Alex.
andrinse indolem, ut ad explicandum quidem textum
Masorethicimi uon parum conferat, ad mutanUum
vero nisi magna cum temeritate adhiberi nequeat;"
The other two parts of the treatise relate to the char
acter of tbe Greek dialect represented in this version,
and to the unconsciously transferred Hebraisms whicb
are mixed with it. The author's view as to the basil
of the Greek dialect iu distinction from its Hebre\f
coloring is substantially that fi Sturz, Buttmana, Wi>
ner, and others. II.

2yii6

SEPULCHRE

Begibus, Rom. 18i0, foi. Daniel sec. LXX. ex
Tetraplis Origenis nunc primum ed. e sing. Chi
siano Codice, Hom. 1772, foi., reprinted in several
sditions, the best by Hahn, Lips. 18i5. J. G. C.
Hoepfiier, Curarum ei-it. et exeg. in LXX. viralem
Vers. Vaiicin. Jonce Specim. i.-iii. Lips. 1787-88.
The Septuagint version of the books of Samuel
»nd Kings is particularly discussed by Thenius
(Kurzgef. exeg. Handb. zum A. T. vols, iv., ix.).
He regards it as a very important help in the correc
tion of the Hebrew text.
Other dissertations worth naming are by L. T.
Spittler, De Usu Vers. Alex. ap. Josepkum, Gott.
1779; J. G. Scharfenberg, De Josejthi et Vers.
Alex. Consensu, Lips. 1780; and T. Studer, De
Ve7s. Alex. Origine, Hist, et Abusu critico, Bern.
1823. See also Geiger, Urschrift u. Uebersetzuur-
gen der Bibel, Bresl. 1857 ; Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes
Israel, 3^ Ausg. (1863), iv. 322 ff.; and the art.
Tebsioms, Ancient (Greek), iu this X'ic^ionnj^.
A good Lexicon to the Sept. is still a desidera
tum. The Nomis Thesaurus philol. sive Lex. in
LXX. etc. of ,1. C. Biel, 3 vols. Hagas-Com. 1779
-80, and the Noms Thes. phil.-criticus of J. F.
Schleusner, 5 pts. Lips. 1820-21, reprinted at Glas
gow in 1822 in 3 vols. 8vo, are but httle more than
collections of valuable materials for a dictionary,
rudely arranged. Much better (for the Apocrypha)
is C. A. Wahl's Clavis Librorum Vet. Test. Apocr.
Philologica, Lips. 1863. A.
SEPULCHtlB. [BuEiAi.]
SE'EAH (n"]£I? [abundance] : Opa in Gen.,
Sope in 1 Chr.; Alex., Soap in Gen., :Zapai in
1 Chr.: Sara). The daughter of Asher (Gen.
xlvi. 17; 1 Chr. vii. 30); called in Num. xxvi. 46,
Saeah. SERA'IAH [3 syl.] (nnt?; [warrior ofJe-
hovali] : 2o{rc£; [Vat. Atra;] Alex, '^apaias'. SarO'
ias). 1. Seraiah, the king's scribe or secretary in
the reign of Uavid (2 Sam. viii. 17). In the Vat
ican MS. [Homan ed.] of the LXX. 2o(ra appears
to be the result of a confusion between Seraiah and
Shisha, whose sons were secretaries to Solomon
(1 K. iv. 3).
2. (^apaias, ['Sapala',] Alex. [Sapai'a,] 2Sapa-
idy: Saraias.) The high-priest in the reign of
Zedekiah. He was taken captive to Babylon by
Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard, and slain
with others at Kiblah (2 K. xxv. 18; IChr. vi. li;
Jer. hi. 24).
3. (\Xapalas; Vat. in Jer., Sopaia:] Saraia,
Sa/rea.) The son of Tanhumeth the Netophathite,
according to 2 K. xiv. 23, who came with Ishmael,
Johanan, and Jaazaniah to Gedaliah, and was per
suaded by him to submit quietly to the ChaldEeans
and settle in the land (Jer. xl. 8).
4. CZapata; [Alex, in ver. 14, Sapia:] Saraia.)
The son of Keuaz, brother of Othniel, and father
of Joab, the father or founder of the valley ot Cha-
rashim (1 Chr. iv. 13, 14).
5. dapav; [Vat. 2opoau;] Alex. 2apoia.)
Ancestor of Jehu, a chief of one of the Simeonite
famihes (1 Chr. iv. 35).
6. (Sapafos; [Vat. Apaiaj.]) One of the
(hildren of the province who returned with Zerub
babel (Ezr. ii. 2,. In Neh. vii. 7 he is called AzA-
BiAii, and in 1 Esdr. \ . 8, Zachakias.
7. [Sapaias.] One of the ancestors of Ezra the
scribe (Ezr. vii. 1), but whether or not the same as
tieraiah the high-priest seems uncertain. Called
ilso Sakaias (1 Esdr. viii. I; 2 Esdr. i. 1).

SERAPHIM
8. (vihs Apala; Alex. [FA.] vios SapoM!
[Saraias.] ) A priest, or priestly family, who ngned
the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 2).
9. (2apa(o: [Saraia.]) A priest, the son of
Hilkiah (Neh. xi. 11), who was ruler of the house
of God after the return ftom Babylon. In 1 Chr.
ix. 11 he is called AzABiAH.
10. (Sapaia.) The head of a priestly hooM
which went up from Babylon with Zerubbabel.
His representative in the days of Joiakim the high-
priest was Meraiah (Neh. xii. 1, 12).
11- (Sopoiar; [FA. in ver. 59, 2opeaj.]) The
son of Neriah, and brother of Baruch (Jer. IL 59,
61). He went with Zedekiah to Babylon m the
4th year of his reign, or, as the Targum haa it,
" in the mission of Zedekiah," and is described ai
nn-T3P "It?, sar minichdh (lit. "prince of
rest ; " A. V. "a quiet prince; " marg. "or, prince
of Menucha, or. chief chamberlain "), a title which
is interpreted by Kimchi as that of the office of
chamberlain, "for he was a friend of the king, and
was with the king at the time of his rest, to talk
and to delight himself with him." The LXX.
and Targum read nnjO, minchah, " an offering,"
and so Rashi, who says, " under his hand were
those who saw the king's face, who brought him a
present." The Peshito-Syriac renders " chief of
the camp," apparently reading Hjinp, machdneh,
unless the translator understood minuchah of the
halting-place of an army, in which sense it occuis
in Num. x. 33. Gesenius adopts the ktter view,
and makes Seraiah hold an office similar to that of
"quartermaster-general" in the Babylonian army.
It is perfectly clear, however, that he was in attend
ance upon Zedekiah, and an officer of the Jewish
court. The suggestion of Maurer, adopted by Hit
zig, has more to commend it, that he was an officer
who took charge of the royal caravan on its march,
and fixed the plare where it should halt. Hiller
(Onom.) says Seraiah was prince of Menuchah,
a place on the borders of Judah and Dan, elsewhere
called Manahath. The rendermg of the Vulgate is
unaccountable, princeps jrrophetice.
Seraiah was commissioned by the prophet Jere
miah to take with him on his journey the roll in
which he had written the doom of Babylon, and
sink it in the midst of the Euphrates, as a token
that Babylon should sink, never to rise again (Jer.
11. 60-64). W. A. W.
SER'APHIM (a"'Sni? [seebelow]: 2epa-
^eip: Seraphim). An order of celestial beings,
whom Isaiah beheld in vision standing above Jeho
vah (not as in A. V., "above it." i. e. the throne)
as He sat upon his throne (Is. vi. 2). They are
described as having each of them three pahs of
wings, with one of which they covered thcb faces
(a token of humility ; comp. Ex. iii. 6 ; IK. xix.
13; Plutarch, Qucest. Rom. 10); with the second
they covered their feet (a token of respect; see
Lowth on Is. vi. who quotes Chardin in illustra
tion); while with the thuil they flew. They seem
to have borne a general resemblance to the human
figure, for they are represented as having a face, »
voice, feet, and hands (ver. 6). Their occupation
was twofold — to celebrate the praises of Jehovah's
holiness and power (ver. 3), and to aet as the me
dium of communication between heaven and earth
(ver. 6). From their antiphonal chant ("o"«
cried unto another") we raay conceive them to
have been ranged In opposite rows on each side oi

SERED
ttie throne. As tbe Seraphim a.ri> nowhere else
mentioned in the Bible, our conceptions of their ap
pearance must be restricted to the above particulars,
aided by such uncertain light as etymology and
analogy will supply. We may observe that the
idea of a winged hutuan figure was not peculiar to
the Hebrews : among the sculptures found at
Mourghaub in Persia, we meet with a representa
tion of a man with two pairs of wings, springing
from the shoulders, and extending, the one pair up
wards, the other downwards, so as to admit of
covering the head and the feet (Vaux's Nin. and
Persep. p. 322). The wings in this instance imply
deification; for speed and ease of motion stand, in
man's imagination, among the most prominent to
kens of Divinity. Tbe meaning of the word " ser
aph " is extremely doubtful; the only word which
resembles it in the current Hebrew is saraph,"' " to
burn," whence tbe idea of brilliancy has been ex
tracted. Such a sense would harmonize with other
descriptions of celestial beings (e. g. Ez. i. 13;
Matt, xxviii. 3); but it is objected that the Hebrew
term never bears this secondary sense. Gesenius
(Thes. p. 1341) connects it with an Arabic term
signifying high or exalted ,- and this may be re
garded as the generally received etymology ; but
the absence of any cognate Hebrew term is certainly
worthy of remark. The similarity between the
names Seraphim and Sarapis, led Hitzig (in Is. vi.
2) to identify the two, and to give to the former
the figure of a winged serpent. But Sarapis was
unknown in the Egyptian Pantheon until the time
of Ptolemy Soter (Wilkinson's Anc. Eg. iv. 360
if.); and, even had it beeu otherwise, we can hardly
conceive that the Hebrews would have borrowed
their imagery from such a source. Knobel's con
jecture that Seraphim is merely a false reading for
shar&ildni,^ *' ministers," is ingenious, but the lat
ter word is not Hebrew. The relation subsisting
between the Cherubim and Seraphim presents an
other difficulty: the "living creatures" described
In Rev. iv. S resemble the Seraphim in their occu
pation and the number of the wings ; and the
Cherubim in their general appearance and number,
as described in Ez. i. 5 ff., x. 12. The difference
between the two may not, therefore, be great, but
we cannot believe them to be identical so long as
the distinction of name holds good. W. L. B.
SE'RBD (1^5 {fear'\ : Sepe'S in Gen., 2a-
p^5 iu Num. : Sared). The firstborn of Zebulon,
and ancestor of the family of the Sabdites (Gen.
xlvi. 14; Num. xxvi. 26).
* SERGEANTS occurs only in Acts xvi. 35,
38, answering to ^a^Sovxot, properly " rod-bearers "
(in Latin, lictores). They were the official attend
ants of the higher Roman magistrates, and exe
cuted their orders, especially for the arrest and pun
ishment of criminals. Their duties were civil
rather than miUtary, and "sergeants," in its older
English sense, was less inappropriate than it is at
present. In the colonies the lictors carried staves,
not fasces, as at Rome. It waa to them that tbe
rulers at Phiiippi gave the command to beat Paul
and Silas (iKeKevov ^a^di^eiv). Luke speaks of
the presence of "rod-bearers " only in his account
of what took place at Phiiippi ; and it is almost
khe only place in his narrative where he could
rightly introduce them. Phiiippi being a Roman

Pl-lW.

b a\"i"^'';

SERPENT 2927
colony, unlike other Grecian cities, was goveined
after the Roman mode; its chief officers, thongh
properly called according to their nuraber duumviri
or quaiuoi'vin, assumed the more honorary title oi
prcEtors (aTpaTr}yoi, five times here in Acts), and
in token of the Roman sovereignty, had rod-bear
ers or lictors as at Rome [Oolojjy, Amer. ed.]
The lictors exercised their highest functions during
the time of the republic, but still existed under the
emperors. (See Pauly's Heal. Encykl. iv. 1082 f.)
Paul was at Phiiippi in the time of Claudius, about
A. D. 52. H.
SER'GIUS PAU'LUS {¦S.4pyios UaZKos'
Sergius Paulus) was the name of the proconsul of
Cyprus when the Apostle Paul visited that island
with Barnabas on his first missiunary tour (Acts
xiii. 7 ff. ). He is described as an inteUigent man
(o-uvertfs), truth-seeking, eager for information
from aU sources within his reach. It was this trait
of his character which led him in the first instance
to admit to his society Elymas the Magian, and
afterwards to seek out the missionary strangers and
learn from them the nature of the Christian doc
trine. The strongest minds at that period were .
drawn with a singular fascination to tbe occult
studies of the East; and the ascendancy which
Luke represents the "sorcerer" as having gained
over Sergius illustrates a characteristic feature ol
the times. For other examples of a similar char
acter, see Howson's Life and Epistles of Paul, vol.
i. p. 177 f. But Sergius was not effectually or long
deceived by the arts of the impostor; for on becom
ing acquainted with the Vpostle he examined at
once the claims of the Gospel, and yielded his mind
to the evidence of its truth.
It is unfortunate that this officer is styled " dep
uty " in the Common Version, and not " procon
sul," according to the import of the Greek term
(avOviraTos)- Though Cyprus was originally an
imperial province (Dion Cassius, liii. 12), and as
such governed by propraetors or legates (avriaTpd-
TTfyoi, irpea&evTal), it was afterwards tran.sferred
to the Roman senate, and henceforth governed by
proconsuls (Kal o0tws avdviraTOi Kal is eKeiva to
eUvrj Trepireadai ^p^avTo, Dion Cassius, liv. 4).
For the value of this attestation of Luke's accuracy,
see Lardner's Credibility ofthe Gospel History, vol.
i. p. 32 ff. Coins too are stiU extant, on which
this very title, ascribed in the Acts to Sergius
Paulus, occurs as the title of the Roman governors
of Cyprus. (See Akerman's Numismatic JUustta-
tions, p. 41; and Howson's Life a-nd Epistles of
Paul, vol. i. pp. 176, 187.) H. B. H.
SE'RON {2-f}pwv: in Syr. and one Gk. MS.
"Hpwv: Seroii), a general of Antiochus Epiph., in
chief command of the Syrian army (1 Mace. iii. 13,
6 &PX03V T. Suj/. 2.), who was defeated at Beth-
horon by Judas Maccabseus (B. c. 166), as in the
day when Joshua pursued the five kings " in the
going down of Beth-horon " (1 Mace. iii. 24; Josh.
X. 11). According to Josephus, he was the gov
ernor of Ccele-Syria and fell in the battle (Josh.
Ant. xii. 7, § 1), nor is there any reason to suppose
that his statements are mere deductions from the
language of 1 Mace. B. F. "W".
SERPENT. The following Hebrew words
denote serpents of some kind or other. McsAtii,
pethen, izepha^ or tziph'oni, shephiphon, ndchdsh,
and eph'eh. There is great uncertainty with re
spect to the identification of some of these terms,
the first four of which are noticed under the arti-

2928 SERPENT
cles AiJDEK and Asf: the two remaining names
we proceed to discuss.
1. Ndchdsh (CCTT^ : &(pis, SpoKaV. serpens^
coluber), the generic name of any serpent, occurs
frequently in the 0- T. The foUowing are the
principal BibUcal aUusions to this animal : its sub-
tilty is mentioned in Gen. iii. 1 ; its wisdom is
aUuded to by our Lord in Matt. x. 16 ; the poison
ous properties of some species are often mentioned
(see Ps. Iviu. 4; Prov. xxiii. 32); the sharp tongue
of the serpent, which it would appear some of the
ancient Hebrews beUeved to be the instrument of
poison, is mentioned in Ps. cxl. 3; Job xx, 16,
'* the viper's tongue shall slay him; " although in
other places, as in Prov. xxiii. 32; Eccl. x. 8, 11;
Num, xxi. 9, the venom is correctly ascribed to the
bite, while in Job xx. 14 the gall is said to be the
poison ; the habit serpents have of lying concealed
in hedges is aUuded to in Eccl. x. 8, and in holes
of waUs, in Am. v. 19 ; their dweUing in dry sandy
places, in Deut. viii. 15; their wonderful mode of
progression did not escape the observation of the
author of Prov. xxx. who expressly mentions it as
" one of the three things which were too wonder
ful for him" (ver. 19); the oviparous nature of
most of the order is aUuded to in Is. Ux. 5, where
the A. v., however, has the unfortunate rendering
of " cockatrice."' The art of taming and charming
serpents is of great antiquity, and is aUuded to in
Ps, Iviii. 5; Eccl. x 11; Jer. viu. 17, and doubt
less intimated by St. James (iii. 7), who particu
larizes serpents among aU other animals that
" have been tamed by man." [Serpent-chakm-
ING.] It was under the form of a serpent that the devil
seduced Eve: hence in Scripture Satan is called
*' the old serpent" (Rev. xiL 9, and comp. 2 Cor.
xi. 3).
The part which the serpent played in the trans
action of the Fall must not be passed over without
some brief comment, being fuU of deep and curious
interest. First of all, then, we have to note the
subtilty ascribed to this reptile, which was the
reason for its having been selected as the instru
ment of Satan's wUes, and to compare with it the
quaUty of wisdom mentioned by our Lord as be
longing to it, " Be ye wise as serpents," Matt, x..
16. It was an ancient beUef, both amongst Orien
tals and the people of the western world, that the
serjtent was endued with a large share of sagacity.
1'he Hebrew word translated " subtle," though fre
quently used in a good sense, implies, it is proba^
ble, in this passage, " mischievous and malignant
craftiness," and is weU rendered by Aquila and
Theodotion by iravovpyos, and thus commented
upon by Jerome, " magis itaque hoc verbo calUditas
et versutia quam sapientia - demonstratur " (see
liosenmiiUer, Schol. I. c). The ancients give va
rious reasons for regarding serpents as being endued
ivith wisdom, as that one species, the Cerastes,
lides itself in the sand, and bites the heels of ani
mals as they pass, or that, as the head was consid
ered the only vulnerable part, the serpent takes care
to conceal it under the folds of the body. Serpents
have in all ages been r^arded as emblems of cun-
uing craftiness. The particular wisdom aUuded to
by our Lord refers, it is probable, to the sagacity
displayed by serpents in avoiding danger. The
disciples were warned to be as prudent in not in-
wrring unnecessary persecution.
I^ has been supposed by many commentatora

SERPENT
[ that the serpent, prior to the FaU, moved akmiF ig
an erect attitude, as Milton (Pai: Loti, ix. 496)
says, — " Not wia, indented irave
Prone ou the ground, as since, but on his rear
Circular base of risng folds that tower'd
Fold above fold, a surging maze."
Compare also Josephus, Antiq. i. 1, § 4, who be
Ueved that God now for the first time inserted poi
son under the serpent's tongue, and deprived him
of the use of feet, causing him to crawl low on the
ground by the midulating inflexions of the body
(kotA TTJs yrjs i^vawcJofievov). Patrick (CommeiU.
I. c.) entertained the extraordinary notion that the
serpent of the FaU was a winged kind (Saraph).
It is quite clear that an erect mode of progres
sion is utterly incompatible with the structure of a
serpent, whose motion on the ground is so beanti-
fuUy effected by the mechanism of the vertebral
column and the multitudinous ribs which, forming
as it were so many pairs of levers, enable the ani
mal to move its body from place to place ; conse
quently, had the snakes before the FaU moved in
an erect attitude, they must have been formed on a
different plan altogether. It is true that tbere Me
saurian reptUes, such as the Saurophis teiradac-
iylus and the ChamcBsaura anguina of S. Afiica,
which iu external form are very like serpents, but
with quasi-feet; indeed, even in the boar^nnstric-
tor, underneath the skin near the extremity, there
exist rudimentary legs; some have Ijeen disposed to
believe that the snakes before the FaU were similar
to the Saurophis. Such an hypothesis, however,
is untenable, for aU the fossil ophidia that have
hitherto been found differ in no essential respecU
from modem representatives of that order: it is,
moreover, beside the mark, for the words of the
curse, " upon thy beUy shalt thou go," are as char
acteristic of the progression of a saarophoid serpent
before the Fall as of a true ophidian after it.
There is no reason whatever to conclude fi^^ni the
language of Scripture that the serpent underwent
any change of form on account of the part it played
in the history of the FalL The sun and the moon
were in the heavens long before they were appointed
" for signs and for seasons, and for days and for
years." The typical form of the serpent and its
mode of progression were in aU probabiUty the
same before the FaU as after it; but subsequent to
the FaU its form and progression were to be re
garded with hatred and disgust by aU mankind,
and thus the auimal was cursed '• above aU cattle,"
and a mark of condemnation was forever stamped
upon it. There can be no necessity to show how
that part of the curse is literaUy fiilfiUed which
speaks of the " enmity " that was henceforth to
exist between the serpent and mankind ; aud
though, of coiu^e, this has more special aUusion
to the devU, whose histrument the serpent was iu
bis deceit, yet it is perfectly true of the serpent
Few will be inclined to differ with Theocritus {Id.
XV. 58): — tov ifnj}^ov o^ii' TafidXiara SeSoixm
*£k TraiSos.
Serpents are said in Scripture to " eat dust " (see
Gen. iii. 14; Is. Ixv. 25; Mic. vii. 17); these ani
mals, which for the most part take their food on
tbe ground, do consequently sw^low with it la^
portions of sand and dust.
" Almost throughout the East," writes Dr. Kal
isch (Hist, and CHi. Comment. Gen. iii. l), "^

SERPENT
lerpent was used as an emblem of the evil princi
ple, of the spu'it of disobedience and contumacy.
A few exceptions only can be discovered. The
Phcenicians adored that animal as a beneficent
genius; and the Chinese consider it as a symbol of
superior wisdom and power, and ascribe to the
kiogs of heaven (tieri-hoangs) bodies of serpents.

Uneph Agathodaemon, denoting Immortality (see
Horapollo, i. 1).
Some other nations fluctuated in their conceptions
regarding the serpent. The Egyptians represented
the eternal spirit Kneph, the author of aU good,
under the mythic form of that reptUe; they under
stood the art of taming it, and embalmed it after
death; but they applied the same symbol forthe
god of revenge and punishment (Tithrambo), and
for Typhon, the author of aU moral and physical
evU; and in the Egyptian symbolical alphabet the
serpent represents subtlety and cunning, lust and
sensual pleasure. In Greek mythology it is cer
tainly, on the one hand, the attribute of Ceres, of
Mercury, and of iEsculapius, in their most benefi
cent qualities ; but it forms, onthe other hand, a
part of the terrible Furies or Eumenides : it appears
in the form of a Python as a fearful monster,
which the arrows of a god only were able to destroy ;
and it is the most hideous and most formidable
part of the impious giants who despise and blas
pheme the power of Heaven. The Indians, Uke

Agathodfemon. Trom Egyptian Monuments.
o. Sacred symbol of the winged globe and serpent.
^ Head of hawk surmounted by globe and serpent.
the savage tribes of Africa and America, suffer and
Qourish, indeed, serpents in their temples, and even
n their houses ; they believe that they bring hap
piness to the places whieh they inhabit; they
worship them as the symbols of eternity; but they
Wgard "Jiem also as evil genii, or as the inimical
powers of nature ivhich is gradually depraved by

SERPENT 2929
them, and as the eneraies of the goda, who eithei
tear them in pieces or tread their venomous head
under their all-conquering feet. So contradictory
is aU auimal worship. Its principle is, in some
inptances, gratitude, and in others fear; but if a
noxious animal is very dangerous the fear may
manifest itself iu two ways, either by the resolute
desire of extirpating the beast, or by the wish of
averting the conflict with its superior power; thus
the same fear may, on the one hand, cause fierce
enmity, and on tbe other submission and worship."
(See on the subject of serpent worship, Vossius, de
Ong. Mil. i. 5; Bryant's Mythology, i. 420-490;
it is well iUustrated in the apocryphal story of " Bel
and the Dragon; " corap. Steindorff, de 'O<pio\a-
Tpela', Winer's Bib. Realwort. ii. 488.) The sub
joined wood-cut represents the horned cerastes, aa
very frequently depicted on the Egyptian monu -
ments.

Horned Cerastes. From Egyptinn Monmnents.
The evil spirit in the form of a serpent appears
in the Ahriman, or lord of evil, who, according to
the doctrine of Zoroaster, first taught men to sin
under the guise of this reptile (Z^udavesta, ed.
Kleuk. i. 25, iii. 84; see J. Reinh. Rus de ser
pente seduclore non naturnli sed Uiabob, Jen. 1712,
and Z. Grapius, de tenialione Evce et Christi a
diaboh in assumpto coipore facta, Rostoch. 1712).
But compare the opinion of Dr. Kalisch, who
(Comment, on Gen. iii. 14, 15) says "the serpent
is the reptUe, not an evil demon that had assumed
its shape ... If the serpent represented
Satan, it would be extremely surprising that the
forraer only was cursed; and that the latter is not
even mentioned .... it would be entirely
at variance with the Divine justice forever to curse
the animal whose shape it had pleased the evil one
to assume." According to the Talmudists, the
name of the evU spirit that beguiled Eve was
SammSfil (^SSD); "R. Moses ben Majemon
scribit in More Ub. 2, cap. 30, Sammaelem inequi-
tasse serpenti antiquo et sedusisse Evam. Dicit
etiam noraen hoc absolute usurpari de Satana, et
Sammaelem nihil aliud esse quam ipsum Satanam "
(Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. 1495).
Much has been written on the question of the
"fiery serpents" (D'^pntt?n D^l^n^n) of
Num. xxi. 6, 8, with which it is usual erroneously
to identify the " fiery flying serpent " of Is. xxx. 6,
and xiv. 29. In the transaction recorded (Num.
I. c. ; Deut. viii. 15 ) as having occurred at the
time of the Exodus, when the rebellious IsraeUtes
were visited with a plague of serpents, there is not
a word about tlieir having been " flying " creatures;
there is therefore no occasion to refer the venomous
snakes in question to the kind of which Niebuhr
(Descript. de I' Arab. p. 156) speaks, and which
the Arabs at Basra denominate Heie sursurie, or
Heie ihiare, "flying serpents," which obtained that
name from their habit of " springing " irom branch
to branch of the date-trees they inhabit. Besides
these are tree-serpents (Dendrophidce), a harmless
faraily of the Colubrine snakes, and therefore quite
out of the question. The Heb. term rendered
fiery " by the A. V. is by the Alexandrine edi
tion of the LXX. represented by BavarovvT^i

2930

SERPENT

SEKPENT, BRAZEN

"deadly; " Onkelos, the Arabic version of Saadias,
and the Vulg. translate the word " burning," iu
allusion to the sensation produced by the bite;
other authorities understand a reference to the
bright color of the serpents. It is impossible to
point out the species of poisonous snalte which de
stroyed the people in the Arabian desert. Niebuhr
says that the only truly formidable kind is that
called BcEtan, a small slender creature spotted black
and white, whose bite is instant death, and whose
poison causes the dead body to swell in au extraor
dinary manner (see Forskal, Descript. Animal, p.
15). What the modem name of this serpent is we
have tieen unable to ascertain; it is obvious, how
ever, that either the Cerastes, or- the Naiahaje, or
any other venomous species frequenting AJabi.i,
may denote the "serpent of the burning bite"
which destroyed the children of Isi-ael. The " fiery
flying serpent " of Isaiah (I. c.) can have no exis
tence in nature, though it is curious to notice that
Herodotus (ii. 75, iii. 108) speaks of serpents with
wings whose bones he imagined he had himself
seen near Buto in Arabia. Monstrous forms of
snakes with birds' wings occur on the Egyptian
sculptures ; it is probable that some kind of flying
lizard (Draco, DracoceUa, or Dracuncalus) may
have beeu the "flying serpent" of which Herodo
tus speaks: and perhaps, as this animal, though
harmless, is yet calculated to inspire horror by its
appearance, it may denote the flying serpent of the
prophet, and have been regarded by the ancient
Hebrews as an animal as terrible as a venomous

2. £pA'e/i (nV^K : i(pis, aavis, ^oaiXurKos:
vipera, regulus) occurs in .lob xx. 16, Is. xxx. 6,
and Iix. 5, in all of which passages the A. V. has
" viper." There is no Scriptural allusion by means
of which it is possible to determine the species of
serpent indicated by the Heb. term, which is de
rived from a root which signifies " to hiss." Shaw

Common Viper. ( Vipera berus.)
(Trac. p. 251) speaks of sorae poisonous snake
whieh the Arabs call I.cffah (KUff'nh)- " it is the
most malignant of the tribe, and rarely above a
foot long." Jackson also (Morocco, p. 110) men
tions this serpent ; from his description it would
seem to be the Algerine adder (Echidna arielans
¦/ar. Mauritanica). The snake dxi^ya.) that fast-
a The theory which aecribes the healing to myste
rious powers known to the astrologers or alchemists of
Kgypt may be mentioned, but hardly calls for exam-
lipiition (Marsham, Can. Cliron. pp. 148, 149; H. Tiraa,
(Q Deyling, Exercil Sacr. li. 210).
^ (/ One of the Jowish interlocutors in the dialogue of |

ened on St Paul's hand when he was st Meli.
(Acts xxviii. 3) was probably the common viperd
this country (Pelias berus), which is widely dis
tributed throughout Europe and the islands of tiii
Mediterranean, or else the Vipera aspis, a not nn
common species on the coasts of the same sea.
W.H.
SERPENT, BRAZEN. The famUiar ik
tory of the brazen serpent need not be repeated
here. The natiu-e of the fiery snakes by which tii
Israelites were attacked has been discussed undo
Sekpent. The scene of the history, determined
by a comparison of Num. xxi. 3 and xxxiii. 42,
must have been either Zahnonah or Punon. He
names of both places probably connect themselves
with it, Zaimonah as meaning " the place of the
image," Punon as probably identical with tlie
iatvot mentioned by Greek writers as famous for
its copper-mines, and therefore possibly supplying
the materials (Bochart, Hieroz. ii. 3, 13). [Pusos;
Zalmonah.] The chief interest of the narrative
lies in the thoughts which have at difi'erent tima
gathered round it. We meet with these in three
distinct stages. We have to ask by what associa
tions each was connected with the others.
I. The truth of the history will, ui this place, be
taken for granted. Those who prefer it maychcose
among the hypotheses by which men halting be.
tween two opinions have endeavored to retain the
historical and to eliminate the supernatural ele
ment." They may look on the cures as having
been efi'ected by the force of imagination, which
the visible symbol served to heighten, or by the
rapid rushing of the serpent-bitten from all parte
of the camp to the standard thus erected, curing
them, as men are said to be cured by dancing of
the bite of the tarantula (Bauer, Bd>. Gesch. ii.
320; Paulus, Comm. IV. i. 198, in Winer,
Realwb.). They may see in the serpent the ein-
blematic signpost, as it were, of the camp hospital
to which the suflerers were brought for special ttestr
ment, the form in this instance, as in that of the rod
of jEsculapius, being a symbol of the art of healing
(Hofl'iii.ann, in Scherer's Scliriftforsch. i. 576:
Winer, Realwb.). Leaving these conjectuieg ot
one side, it remains for, us to inquire into the fit
ness of the symbol thus eraployed as the mstmmeol
of healing. To most of the Israehtes it must have
seemed as strange then as it did afierwards to the
later Rabbis,'' that any such symbol should be em
ployed. The Second Commandment appeared t<
forbid the likeness of any hving thing. The golden
calf had been destroyed as an abomination. Now
the colossal serpent (the narrative imphes that it
was visible from all parts of the encampment),
made, we may conjecture, by the hands of Bezaleel
or AhoUab, was exposed to thek gaze, and thej
were told to look to it as gifted with a supematura.
power. What reason was there for the difference?
In pait, of course, the answer may be, that the Sec
ond Commandment forbade, not all symbolic forms
as such, but those that men made for themselvis (o
worship ; but the question still remains, why n«
litis form chosen ? It is hardly enough to say, witb
Jewish commentators, that any outward nieani

Justin Martyr with Trypho (p. 322) declares that iK
had often asked his teachers to solve the difficult,
and had never found one who explained it satiefwtfr
rily. J ustin himsf If, of cojile, explains it as « tjf
of Christ.

SERPENT, BRAZEN
tn^ht have been chosen, like the lump of fi^ in
Hezekiah's sickne^, the salt which healed the
bitter waters, aud that tbe brazen serpent made tbe
miracle yet more miraculous, inasmuch as the glare
of burnished brass, the gaze upon the serpent foiTa,
were, of all things, most likely to be fatal to those
who had been bitten (Gem. Bab. Joma ; Aben Ezra
and others in Buxtorf, Hist jEn. Serp. c. 5). The
fact is doubtful, the reason inadequate. It is hardly
enough again to say, with most Christian interpret
ers, that it was intended to be a type of Christ.
Some meaning it must have had for those to whom
it was actually presented, and we have no grounds
for assuming, even in Moses himself, still less in the
multitude of Israelites slowly rising out of sensual
ity, unbelief, rebelhon, a knowledge of the far-off
mystery of redemption. If the words of our Lord
m John iii. 14, 15 point to the fulfillment of the
type, there must yet have been another meaning
for the symbol. Taking its part in the education
of the Israelites, it must have had its starting-point
in the associations' previously connected with it.
Two views, very different from each other, have
been held as to the nature of those associations.
On the one side It has been maintained that, either
from its simply physical effects or from the mys
terious history of the temptation in Gen. iii., the
serpent was the representative of evil. To present
the serpent-form as deprived of its power to hurt,
.Tnpaled as the trophy of a conqueror, was to as
sert that evil, physical and spiritual, had been over
come, and thus help to strengthen the weak faith
of the Israelites in a victory over both. The ser
pent, on this view, expressed the same idea as the
dragon in the popular representations of the Arch
angel Michael and St. George (Ewald, Geschichte,
ii. 228).« To some writers, as to Ewald, this has
commended itself as the simplest and most obvious
view. It has been adopted by some orthodox divines
who have been unable to convince themselves ^hat
the same form could ever really have been at once
a type of Satan and of Christ (Jackson, Humili
ation ofthe Son of God, u. 31; Patrick, Comm. in
be. ; Espagnaeus, Burmann, Vitringa, in Deyling,
Obsei^ait. Sac. ii. 15). Others, again, havestarted
from a different ground. They raise the question
whether Gen. iii. was then written, or if written,
known to the great body of the Israelites. They
look to Egypt as the starting-point for all the
thoughts which the serpent could suggest, and they
find there that it was worshipped as an agathodcBr
mon, the symbol of health and Ufe.& This, for
them, explains the mystery. It was as the known
emblem of a power to heal that it served a& the
aign and sacrament on which the faith of the people
might fasten and sustain itself.
Contrasted as these views appear, they have, it
is believed, a. point of contact. The idea primarily
connected with the serpent in the history of the
FaU, as throughout the proverbial language of
Scripture, is that of wisdom (Gen. iii. 1 ; Matt. x.
16; 2 Cor. xi. 3). Wisdom, apart from obedience

a Another view, verging almost on the ludicrous,
has been maintained by some Jewish writers. The
serpent was aet up in terrorem, as a man who has
Bhastised his son hangs up the rod against the wall as
I warning (Otho, Lexic. Rabbin, s. v. Serpens).
^ Comp. Serpent, and, in addition to the authori-
ttes there referred to, Wilkinson's Anc. Egyptians, ii.
IW, \\ . 895, V. 64, 238 ; Kurtz, History of the Old Cov-

SERPENT, BRAZEN 2931
to a divine order, allying itself to man's lower na
ture, passes into cunning. Man's nature is enven.
omed and degraded by it. But wisdom, the self.
same power of understanding, yielding to the di
vine law, is the source of all healing and restoring
influences, and the serpent-form thus becomes a
symbol of delivenmce and health. The Israehtes
were taught that it would be so to them in pro
portion as they ceased to be sensual and rebellious.
There were facts in the life of Moses himself which
must have connected themselves with this twofold
symbolism. When he was to be taught that the
Divine Wisdom could work with any instruments,
his rod became a serpent (Ex. iv. 1-5). (Comp.
Cyril. Alex. Schol. 15. Glaphyra in Ex. ii.)"^
When he and Aaron were called to their great
conflict with the perverted wisdom of Egypt, the
many serpents of the magicians were overcome by
the one serpent of the future high-pri^t. The
conqueror and the conquered were alike in outward
form (Ex. vii. 10-12).
II. The next stage in the history of the bi-azen
serpent shows how easily even a legitimate symbol,
retained beyond its time, after it had done it?
work, might become the occasion of idolatry. Il
appears in the reign of Hezekiah as having been
for some undefined period, an object of worship
The zeal of that king leads him to destroy it. It
receives from him, or had borne before, the name
Nehushtan. [Corap. Nehushtan.] We are left
to conjecture when the worship began, or what was
its locality. It is hardly likely that it should have
been tolerated by the reforming zeal of kings like
Asa and Jehoshaphat. It must, we may believe,
have received a fresh character and become more
conspicuous In the period which preceded its de
struction. All that we know of the reign of Ahaz
makes It probable that it was under his auspices
that it received a new development,^ that it thus
became the object of a marked aversion to the
iconoclastic party who were prominent among the
counsellors of Hezekiah. Intercourse with countries
in which Ophiolatry, prevailed — Syria, Assyria,
possibly Egypt also — acting on the feeling which
led him to bring together the idolatries of aU
neighboring nations, might easily bring about this
perversion of the reverence felt for the time
honored relic.
' Here we might expect the history of the mate
rial object would cease, but the passion for relics
has prevailed even against the hiitcry oi the Bible.
The Church of St. Ambrose, at Milan, has boasted,
for centuries, of possessing the brazen serpent
which Moses set up in the wilderness. The earliei
history of the relic, so called, is matler for conjec
ture. Our knowledge ofit begins in the year a. d.
971, when an envoy was sent by the Milan^e to
the court of the Emperor John Ziniisces, at Con
stantinople. He was taken through the imperial
cabinet of treasures and invited to make his
choice, and be chose this, which, the Greeks as
sured him, was made of the same metal as the

enant, iii. 348, Eng. transl. ; Witsius, JEgypiiaca, in
UgoUni, i. 852.
c The explanation given by Cyril is, as might be
expected, more mystical than that in the text. Th«
rod transformed into a serpent represents the Divins
Word taking on Himself the likeness of sinful flesh.
d JEwald's conjeetare ( GescA. iv. 622) that, till then,
the serpent may have remained at Zalmonah, the olv
ject of cccasional pilgrimages, is probable enough.

2932 SERPENT, BRAZEN
original serpent (Sigonius, Hist.. Regn. Ital. b. vii.).
On his return it was placed in the Church of St.
Ambrose, and popularly identified with that which
it professed to represent. It is, at least, a possible
hypothesis that the Western Church has in this
way been led to venerate what was originally the
object of the worship of some Ophite sect.
III. When the material symbol bad perished, its
history b^an to suggest deeper thoughts to the
minds of men. The writer of the Book of Wis
dom, in the elaborate contrast which he draws
between true and false rehgions in their use of
outward signs, sees in it a avp.^o\ov auTrjplas,
els a.vdfjLVt]aiv ivToXr^s v6(j.ov aovX "he that
turned himself was not saved by the thing that he
saw (Sicfc Th Becopoifievov), but by Thee that art
tlie J^aviour of all" (Wisd. xvi. 6, 7). The Tar
gum of Jonathan paraphrases Num. xxi. 8, " He
shall be healed if he direct his heart unto the
Name of the Word of the Lord." Philo, with his
characteristic taste for an ethical, mystical interpre
tation, represents the history as a parable of man's
victor- over his lower sensuous nature. The
metal, the symbol of permanence and strength, has
changed the meaning of the symbol, and that
which had before been the emblem of tbe will,
yielding to and poisoned by the serpent pleasure,
now represents aw(ppoavvTj, the avTinaBes aKo-
\aaias ^dpfiaxov (De Agricult). The facts just
stated may help us to enter into the bearing of
the words of John iii. 14, 15. If the paraphrase
of Jonathan represents, as it does, the current in
terpretation of the schools of Jerusalem, the devout
Kabbi to whom the words were spoken could not
have been i^uOTant of it. The new teacher car
ried the lesson a step further. He led him to
identify the "Name of the Word of the Lord"
with that of the Son of Man. He prepared him
to see in the lifting-up of the Crucifixion that
which should answer, in its power to heal and save,
to the serpent in the wilderness.
IV. A full discussion of the typical meaning
here unfolded belongs to Exegesis rather than to
a Dictionary. It will be enough to note here that
which connects itself with facts or theories already
mentioned. On the one side the typical interpre
tation has been extended to all the details. The
pole on which the serpent was placed was not only
a type of the cross, but was itself cnicial in fomt
(Just. Mart. Di'd. c. Tryph. p. 322). The serpent
was nailed to it as Christ was nailed. As the
symbol of sin it represented his being made sin for
us. The very metal, like the fine brass of Rev. i.
15, was an emblem of the might and glory of the
Son of Man (comp. Lampe, in loc). On the
other it has been maintained (Patrick and Jack-
sou, ut supra) that the serpent was from the begin
ning, and remains still, exclusively the symbol of
evil, that the lifting-up of the Son of Man answered
to that of the serpent because on the cross the vic
tory over the serpent was accomplished. The point
of comparison lay not between the serpent and
Christ, but between the look of the Israelite to the
outward sign, the look of a justifying faith to the
cross of Christ. It will not surprise us to find
that, in the spiritual, as in the historical interpre
tation, both theories have an element of truth.
The serpent heie also is primarily the emblem of
the "knowledge of good and evU.'* To man, as
having obtained that knowledge by doing evil, it
ttas been as a venomous serpent, poisoning and
corrupting. In the nature of the Son of Man it

SERPENT-CHARMING
is once more in harmony with the Divine will, and
leaves the humanity pure and untainted. The
Crucifixion is the witness that the evil has been
overcome by the good. Those who are bitten b?
the serpent find their deUverance in looking to
Him who knew evil only by subduing it, and who
is therefore mighty to save. Well would it have
been for the Church of Christ if it had been con
tent to rest in this truth. Its history shows how
easy it was for the old perversion to reproduce
itself. The highest of all symbols might share the
fate of the lower. It was possible even for the
cross of Christ to pass into a Nehushtan. (Comp.
Stier, Words of ihe Loid Jesus, on John iii., and
Kurtz, Hist, of the Old Covenant, iii. Si4r-Zb%.
Eng. transl.) E. H. P.
SERPENT-CHARMING. Some few re-
marks on this subject are made under Asp (vol.
i. p. 180 tt), where it is shown that the p&hm
OrM) probably denotes the Egyptian cobra.
There can be no question at all of the remarkable
power which, from time immemorial, bas been ex
ercised by certain people in the East over poison
ous serpents. The art is most distinctly mentioned
in the Bible, and probably alluded to by St. James
(iii. 7 ). The usual species operated upon both in
Africa and India, are the hooded snakes (Naia
tiipudians, and Naia haje) and the horned Ceras
tes. The skill of the ItaUan Marsi and the Libyan
PsyUi in taming serpents was celebrated through
out the world ; and to this day, as we are told by
Sir G. Wilkinson (RawUnson's Herodotus, iii. 124,
Tiote, ed. 1862), the snake-players of tihe coast of
Barbary are worthy successors of the Psylli (see
PUny, vui. 25, xi. 25, and especially Lucan's ac
count of the PsyUi, Pharsal. ix. 892). See nu
merous references cited by Bochart (Hieroz. iii.
164, &c.) on the subject of serpent-taming.
That the charmers frequently, and perhaps
generaUy, take the precaution of extracting the
poison fangs before tbe snakes are subjected to
their skiU, there is much probabiUty for belienng,
but that this operation is not always attended to
is clear from the testimony of Bruce and numerous
other writers. " Some people," says the traveller
just mentioned, " have doubted that it was a tricli,
and that the animals so handled had been first
trained and then disarmed of their power of hurt
ing, and, fond of the discovery, they have rested
themselves upon it without experiment, in the fece
of aU antiquity. But I wiU not hesitate to aver
that I have seen at Cairo a man . . . who bas
taken a cerastes with his naked hand from a num
ber of others lying at the bottom of the tub, has put
it upon his bare bead, covered it with the common
red cap he wears, then taken it out, put it in his
breast and tied it about his neck Uke a necklace,
after which it has been appUed to a hen and bit it,
which has died in a few minutes." Dr. Davy, in
his Interior of Ceykm, speaking of the snaks-
cbarmers, says on this sutject: "The ignorant
vulgar beUeve that these men really possess a
charm by which they thus play without dread, and
with impunity from danger. The more enlight
ened, laughing at this idea, consider the men im
postors, and that in playing their tricks there is no
danger to be avoided, it being removed by the ab
straction of the poison fangs. The enlightened in
this instance are mistaken, and the vulgar an
nearer the truth in their opinion. I haveexamiDM
the snakef I have seen exhibited, and have found

SERUG
Iheir poison fangs in ' and uninjured. These men
Jo possess a charm, though not a supernatural
tne — namely, that of conflden !e and courage. . . .
They will play their tricks with any hooded snakes
(Naja tripudians), whether just taken or long in
jonfinement, but with no other kind of poisonous
snake." See also Tennent, Ceykm, i. 199, 3d ed.
Some have supposed that the practice of taking
out or breaking off the poison fangs is alluded to
in Pb. Iviii. 6, " Break their teeth, 0 God, in their
mouth."

SEllVITOR

2933

>...'- ^

vr I

(

4 J >>i -^ J

Serpent-charming .
The serpent-charmer's usual instrument is a
flute. Shrill sounds, it would appear, are those
which serpents, with their imperfect sense of hear
ing, are able most easily to discern ; hence it is that
the Chinese summon their tame fish by whistling
or by ringmg a beU.
The r^er wiU find much interesting matter on
the art of serpent-charming, as practiced by the
ancients, in Bochart (Hieroz. iii. 161) in the dis
sertation by Bohmer entitled De Psyll&rum, Mar-
S(yrum, et Ophiogenum adversus seipenies virtute,
Lips. 1745; and in Ksempfer's Amcenitates Exot-
icoB, iii. ix. 565; see also Broderip's Note Book
of a Naturalist, and Anecdotes of Serpents, pub-
Ikhed by Chambers; Lane's Modern Egyptians,
ii. 106. Those who professed the art of taming
serpents were called by the Hebrews mSndchashim
(U^^ni^)j whUe the art itself was caUed lachash
(ffin^), Jer. viii. 17; Eccl. x. 11; but these terms
were not always used in this restricted sense.
[Divination; Ekchantment.] W. H.
SE'RUG {TnW [shoot, tendriq-. 'S.epo<,x'
Sarug, [Serug] ). [Gen. xi. 20-23 ; 1 Chr. i. 26 ;
in Luke iu. 35, Saruch.] Son of Eeu, and great
grandfather of Abraham. His age is given in the
Hebrew Bible as 230 years — 30 years before he
begat Nahor, and 200 years afterwards. But in
the LXX. 130 years are assigned to him before he
begat Nahor (making his total age 330), being one
of those systematic variations in the ages of the

patriarchs between Shem and Terah, aa given by
the LXX., by which the interval between the Flood
and Abraham is lengthened from 292 (as in tha
Heb. B.) to 1172 (or Alex. 1072) years. [Chro
nology, vol. i. p 440.] Bochart (Phal. n. cxiv.)
conjectures that the town of Sei-uj, a day's journey
from Charrae in Mesopotamia, was named from this
patriarch. Suidas and others ascribe to him the
deification of dead benefactors of mankind. Epi
phanius (Adv. Hceres. i. 6, 8), who says that his
name signifies "provocation," states that, though
in hia time idolatry took its rise, yet it was con
fined to pictures ; and that the deification of dead
men, as well as the making of idols, was subse
quent. He characterizes the rehgion of mankind
up to Serug's days as Scythic; after Serug and
the building of the Tower of Babel, the Hellenic
or Greek form of religion was introduced, and con
tinued to the writer's time (see Petavius, Aniin.
adv. Epiplu Oper. ii. 13). The account given by
John of Antioch, is as follows: Serug, of the race
of Japhet, taught tbe duty of honoring eminent
deceased men, either by images or statues," of wor
shipping them on certain anniversaries as if still
living, of preserving a record of their actions in
the sacred books of the priests, and of calUng them
gods, as being benefactors of mankind. Hence
arose Polytheism and idolatry (see Fragm. Hisloiic
Grcec. iv. 345, and the note). It is in accordance
with his bein^ caUed of the race of Japhet that
Epiphanius sends Phaleg and Reu to Thrace (Epist.
ad Descr. Paul. § ii.). There is, of course, Uttle
or no historical value in any of these statements. A. C. H.
SERVANT ("ip?; n"irrn). The Hebrew
terms nn^ 'r and mtshdreth, which alone answer to
our " servant," in as far as this implies the notions
of Uberty and voluntariness, are of comparatively .
rare occurrence. On the other hand, ^ebed, which
is common and is equaUy rendered "servant" in
tbe A. v., properly means a slave.^ Slavery was
in point of fact the normal condition ofthe under
ling in the Hebrew commonwealth [Slave], while
the terms above given refer to the exceptional cases
of young or confidential attendants. Joshua, for
instance, is described as at once the na'ar and me-
shdreth of Moses (Ex. xxxiii. 11); Elisha's servant
sometimes as the former (2 K. iv. 12, v. 20), some
times as the latter X2 K. iv. 43, vi. 15). Amnon's
servant was a meshdreth (2 Sam. xiii. 17, 18),
while young Joseph was a na'ar to the sons of
Bilhah (Gen. xxxvii. 2, where instead of "the lad
was with," we should read, "he was the servant-
boy to" the sons of Bilhah). The confidential
, designation meshdreth is applied to the priests and
IjCvites, in their relation to Jehovah (Ezr. viii. 17;
Is, Ixi. 6; Ez. xliv. 11), and the cognate verb to
Joseph after he found favor with Potiphar (Gen.
xxxix. 4), and to the nephews of Ahaziah (2 Chr
xxii. 8). In 1 K. xx. 14, 15, we should substitute
" servants " (nd'ar) for " young men." W. L. B.
* SERVITOR, only in 2 K. iv. 43, used ot
EUsha's personal attendant or servant. The He-

" But perhaps eUoves and avdpCavres may here be
Wed of pictures.
» In many passages the correct reading would add
wnslderable force to the meaning, e. g. in Gen. ix. 25,
-'Cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be
Mito hia brethren ; " in Deut. , 15, " Remember that

thou wast a slave in the land of Egypt ; " in Job Iii.
19, "The slave is free from his master;" and par
ticularly in passages where the speaker uses the term
of himself, as in Gen. xviii. 3, " Pass not away, I praj
thee, from thy slave."

2934

SESIS

brew term, wbich is n^ltt^D, the A. V. commonly
renders "servant" or "minister." H.
SE'SIS (Seels; [Tat. Secrets;] Alex. 2eo-<reis:
om. in Vulg.). Shashai (1 Esdr. ix. 34; comp.
Ezr. X. 40).
SES'THEL (Sea-B^X : Beseel). Bezaleel
of the sons of Fahath-Moab (1 Esdr. ix. 31 ; Ezr.
I. 30).
SETH inw, i. e. Sheth [see below] : 2^6:
Seth), Gen. iv. 25, v. 3; 1 Chr. i. 1. The third
son of Adam, and father of Enos. The significa^
tion of his name (given in Gen. iv. 25) is ''ap
pointed" or "put" in the place of the murdered
Abel, and Delitzsch speaks of him as the second
Abel; but Ewald (Gesch. i. 353) thinks that
another signification, which he prefere, is indicated
in the text, namely, "seedling," or "germ." The
phrase, "children of Sheth" (Num. xxiv. 17) has
been underetood as equivalent to all mankind, or
as denoting the tribe of some unknown Moabitish
chieftain ; but later critics, among whom are Rosen
miiller and Gesenius ( Thes. i. 346), bearing in mind
the parallel passage (Jer. xlviii. 45), render the
phrase, " children of noise, tumultuous ones," i. e.
hostile armies. [Sheth.]
In the 4th century there existed in Egypt a sect
calling themselves Sethians, who are classed by
Neander (Ch. Hist. ii. 115, ed. Bohn) among those
Gnostic sects which, in opposing Judaism, approxi
mated to paganism. (See also Tillemont, Me
moires, ii. 318.) Irenseus (i. 30; comp. Massnet,
Dissert, i. 3, § 14) and Theodoret (floiret. Fab.
xiv. 306), without distinguishing between them
and the Ophites, or worshippers of the serpent, say
that in their system Seth was regarded as a divine
effluence or virtue. Epiphanius, who devotes a
'chapter to them (Adv. Ho^r. i. 3, § 39), says that
they identified Seth with our Lord. W. T. B.
SE'THTJR("^nP [hidden]: SaBoip: Sthwr).
The Asherite spy, son of Michael (Num. xiii. 13).
SEVEN. The frequent recurrence of certain
numbers in the sacred literature of the Hebrews is
obvious to the most superficial reader; and it is
almost equally obvious that these numbers are as
sociated with certain ideas, so as in some instances
to lose their numerical force, and to pass over into
the province of symbolic signs. This is more or
less true of the numbers three, four, seven, twelve,
and forty; but seven so far surpasses the rest, both
in the frequency with which it recurs, and in the
importance of the objects with which it is asso
ciated, that it may fairly be termed the representor-
tive symbolic number. It has hence attracted
considerable attention, and may be said to be the
keystone on which the symbolism of numbers de
pends. The origin of this symbolism ia a question
that meets us at the threshold of any discussion as
to the number seven. Our limits will not permit
us to follow out this question to its legitimate ex
tent, but we may briefly state that the views of
Biblical critics may be ranged under two heads,
iccording as the symbolism is attributed to theo
retical speculations as to the internal properties of
the number itself, or to external associations of a
physical or historical character. According to the
rormer of these views, the symbolism of the num
ber seven would be traced back to the symbolism
of its component elements three and four, the first
of which = Divinity, and the second ^ Humanity,

SEVEN
whence se^-en ^ Divinity -f- Humanity, or, in otbei
words, the uniou between God and Man, as ellectal
by the manifestations of the Divinity in creatioip
and revelation. So again the symbolism of twelve
is explained as the symbolism of 3 X 4, i. e. or
a second combination of the same two elementi
though in difierent proportions, the representativt
number of Humanity, as a multiplier, aasuming a
more prominent position (Bahr's Symbolik, i. ]87
201, 224). This theory is seductive froni'itg in.
genuity, and ite appeal to the imagination, but
there appears to be little foundation for it. For
(1) we do not find any indication, in early times st
all events, that the number seven was resolved into
three and four, rather than into any other arith
metical elements, such as two and five. Bengel
notes such a division as running through tbe hep-
tads of the Apocalypse (Gnomon, m .ffieu. xvi. 1),
and the remark undoubtedly holds good in certain
instances, e. g. the trumpets, the three latter belni;
distinguished from the four former by the tripla
"woe" (Rev. viii. 13), but in other instances, e.g.
in reference to the promises ( Grumwn, in Rev. ii. 7),
the distinction is not so well established, and even
if it were, an explanation might be found in the
adaptation of such a division to the subject in
hand. The attempt to discover such a distinction
in the Mosaic writings — as, for instance, where an
act is to be done on the third day out of seven
(Num. xix. 12) — appears to be a failure. (2.) It
would be difficult to show that any associationi
of a sacred nature were assigned to three and four
previously to the sanctity of seven. This latter
number is so far tbe sacred number Kar^ HoxllV
that we should he less surprised if, by a process
the reverse of the one assumed, sanctity had been
subsequently attached to three and four as the
supposed elements of seven. But (3) all such
speculations on mere numbers are alien to the
spirit of Hebrew thought; they belong to a dif
ferent stage of society, in which speculation is rife,
and is systemathied by the existence of schools of
philosophy'. ^
We turn to the second class of opinions which
attribute the symbolism of the number seven ta
external associations. This class may be a^n
sui)divided into two, according as the symbolism
is supposed to have originated in Iheobseryatia^of
purely physical phenomena, or, on the other haniii
in the peculiar religious enactments of Moaaism.
The influence of the number seven was not re
stricted to the Hebrews; it prevailed among the
Persians (Esth. i. 10, 14), among the ancient
Indians (Von Bohlen's Alt. Indien, ii. 224 ff.),
among the Greeks and Romans to a certain extent,
and probably among all nations where the week of
seven days was established, as in China, Egjp'i
Arabia, etc. (Meier's Chronol. i. 88, 178, ii. 473).
The wide range of the word seven is in this respect
an interesting and significant fact: with tbe ei-
ception of " six," it is fhe only numeral which tbe
Semitic languages have in common with the Indo-
European; for the Hebrew sheba" is essentially tlB
same as iirri, septem, seven, and the San»l0!it)>
Persian, and Gothic naraes for this number (Pottjt
Etym. Forsch. i. 129). In the countries above
enumerated, the institution of seven as a cjclienl
number is attributed to the observation of til
changes of the moon, or fo the supposed numbexof

a 'S'^XB.

SEVEN
tho planets. The Hebrews are held by some writers
to have borrowed their notions of the sanctity of
¦even from their heathen neighbor, either wholly
or partially (Von Bohlen's Introd. to Gen. i. 21fi
ff*.; Hengstenberg' 8 Balaam, p. 393, Clark's ed.);
but the peculiarity of the Hebrew view consists in
the special dignity of the seventh, and uot simply
in that of seven. Whatever influence, therefore,
may be assigned to astronomical observation or to
prescriptive usage, in regard to the original insti
tution of the week, we cannot trace back the pe
culiar associations of the Hebrews farther than to
the point when the seventh day was consecrated to
the purposes of religious rest.
Assuming this, therefore, as our starting-point,
the first idea associated with seven would be that
oi religious periodicity. The Sabbath, being the
seventh day, suggested the adoption of seven as the
^efficient, so to say, for the appointment of all
Bacred periods ; and we thus find the 7th month
ushered in by the Fe^t of Trumpets, and signal
ized by the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles
and the great Day of Atonement; 7 weeks as the
mterval between the Passover and the Pentecost;
the 7th year as the Sabbatical jear; and the year
aucceedmg 7x7 years as the Jubilee year. From
the idea of periodicity, it passed by an easy transi
tion to the duration or repetition of religious pro
ceedings; and thus 7 days were appointed as the
length of the Feasts of Passover and Tabernacles ;
7 days for the ceremonies of the consecration of
priests ; 7 days for the interval to elapse between
the occasion and the removal of various kinds of
legal uncleanness, as after childbirth, after contact
with a corpse, etc. ; 7 times appointed for aspersion
either of the blood of the victim (e. g. Lev. iv. 6,
xvi. 14), or of the water of purification (Lev. xiv.
61; comp. 2 K. v. 10, 14); 7 things to be offered
iu sacrifice (oxen, sheep, goats, pigeons, wheat, oil,
wine) ; 7 victims to be offered on any special occa
sion, as iu Balaam's sacrifice (Num. xxiii. 1), and
especially at the ratification of a treaty, the notion
of seven being embodied in the very term" signify
ing to swear, literally meaning to do seven times
(Gen. xxi. 28 ; corap. Herod, iii. 8, for a similar
custom among the Arabians). The same idea is
further carried out in the vessels and arrangements
of the Tabernacle — in the 7 arms of the golden
pandlestick, and the 7 chief utensils (altar of bumt-
offeriiigs, laver, shewbread table, altar of incense,
candlestick, ark, mercy-seat).
The number seven, having thus been impressed
with the seal of sanctity as the symbol of all con
nected with the Divinity, was adopted generally as
a cyclical number, with the subordinate notions of
perfection or completeness. It hence appeara in
cases where the notion of satisfaction is required,
oa in reference to punishment for wrongs (Gen. iv.
15; Lev. xxvi. 18, 28; Ps. Ixxix. 12; Prov. vi. 31),
or to forgiveness of them (Matt, xviii. 21). It is
again mentioned in a variety of passages too nu
merous for quotation (e. g. Job v. 19 ; Jer. xv. 9 ;
Matt. xii. 45) in a sense analogous to that of a
"round number," but witn the additional idea of
lutficiency and completeness. To the same head
ffe may refer the numerous instances in which per
sons or things are mentioned by sevens in the his
torical porlions of the Bible ¦— e. g. the 7 kine and
the 7 ears of corn in Pharaoh's dream, the 7

« vaty3.

SEVENTY DISCIPLES 2936
daughters of the priest of Midian, the 7 sons of
Jesse, the 7 deacons, the 7 sons of Sceva, the twice
7 generations in the pedigree of Jesus (Matt. i. J 7);
and again the still more numerous instances in
which periods of seven days or seven years, occa
sionally combined "with the repetition of an act
seven times ; as, in the taking of Jericho, the town
was surrounded for 7 days, and on the 7th day ic
fell at the blast of 7 trumpets borne round tho
town 7 times by 7 priests; or again at the Flood,
an interval of 7 days elapsed between the notice to
enter the ark and the coming of the Flood, the
beasts entered by sevens, 7 days elapsed between
the two missions of the dove, etc. So again in
private life, 7 years appear to have been the usual
period of a hiring (Gen. xxix. 18), 7 days for a
marriage-festival (Gen. xxix. 27;. Judg. xiv. 12),
and the same, or in some cases 70 days, for
mourning for the dead (Gen. 1. 3, 10; 1 Sam.
xxxi. 13).
The foregoing applications of the number seven
become of great practical importance in connection
with the interpretation of some of the prophetical
portions of the Bible, and particularly of the Apoc
alypse. For in this latter book the ever-recurring
number seven both serves as the mould which has
decided the external form of the work, and also to
a certain degree penetrates into the essence of it.
We have but to run over the chief subjects of that
book — the 7 churches, the 7 seals, the 7 trumpets,
the 7 vials, the 7 angels, the 7 spirits before the
throne, the 7 horns and 7 eyes of the Lamb, etc.—
in order to see the necessity of deciding whether
the number is to be accepted in a literal or a met
aphorical sense — in other words, whether it repre
sents a number or a quality. The decision of this
question affects not only the number seven, but also
the number which stands in a relation of antagonism
to seven, namely, the half of seven, which appears
under the form of forty-two months, = 3^ years
(Rev. xiii. 5), twelve hundred and sixty days, also
= 3^ years (xi. 3, xii. 6), and again a time, times,
and half a time = 3|r years (xii. 14). We find thia
number frequently recurring in the Old Testament,
as in the forty-two stations of the wilderness
(Num. xxxiii.), the three and a half years of the
famine in Elijah's time (Luke iv. 25), the "time,
times, and the dividing of time," during which the
persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes was to last
(Dan. vii. 25), the same period being again de
scribed as " the midst of the week," i. e. the half
of seven years (Dan. ix. 27). "a tirae, times, and a
half" (Dan. xii. 7), and ^ain probably in the
number of days specified in Dan. viii. 14, xii. 11,
12. If the number seven express the notion of
completeness, then the nuraber half-seven = incom
pleteness and the secondary ideas of suffering and
disaster: if the one represent Divine agency, the
other we may expect to represent human agency.
Mere numerical calculations would thus, in regard
to unfulfilled prophecy, be either wholly superseded,
or at all events take a subordinate position to the
general idea conveyed. W. L. B.
* SEVENTY DISCIPLES. A body of
disciples whom Christ appointed for the immediate
purpose of going " two and two before his face into
every city and plaoe, whither He himself would
come" (Luke x. 1). They are only mentioned by
St. Luke, and nothing further is said of them by
him than is contained in the first half of the tenth
chapter of his Gospel. Neither the whole body noi

29S6

SEVENTY DISCIPLES

iny members of it are ever mentioned, as such, in
the Acts of the AposU^, nor in any of ths Epistles.
The time of their appointment appears to have
been near the close of our Lord's ministry, just as
He was taking his final departure from Galilee
(Luke ix. 51-x. 1). Different chronological ar
rangements of the life of our Lord would, of coui-se,
lead to a difierence of opinion here also; but the
most probable supposition seems to be that Jesus
himself, on finally leaving Gahlee, made a rapid and
somewhat private journey to Jerusalem to attend the
Feast of Tabernacles (John vii. 2-10), sending forth
the seventy just as He set out, probably into Perea,
where they were to prepare the way for liis own com
ing to teach during the greater part of the interval
before his last Passover.
However this may be, after the fulfillment of this
their immediate mission the seventy returned again
rejoicing in their possession of miraculous powers
(Luke X. 17). From our Lord's answer, '¦ Behold
I give unto you power to tread on serpents and
scorpions, and over all tbe power of the enemy:
and nothing shall by any means hurt you " (ver.
19), it is manifest that their office did not cease
with the fulfillment of their immediate and tem
porary mission, but was to continue, as indeed
was already probable from tbe use of the technical
av4Sei^ev in ver. 1. Yet we hear nothing further
of them in the books of the N. T.
In the writings of Christian antiquity there is
frequent mention of them, sometimes as seventy,
sometimes as seventy-two in number (Recog,
Clem. i. 40), and comparison is very naturally
made to the seventy elders of Israel (Num. xi. 16)
appointed to assist Moses (e. g. Euseb. De Evang.
iii. c. 2); but there is very little to throw light
upon their history or their names. The earliest
notice of this kind is by Clement of Alexandria, who
incidentally mentions that Barnabas was one of
them (Strom, ii. c 20), and is also quoted by Euse
bius (//. E. i. u. 12) as saying the same thiug of
Sostlienes, and also of a certain Cephas whom Paul
'" withstood to his lace,'' whom he, curiously enough,
supposes to have been not the Apostle, but one of
the seventy of the same name. Eusebius gives a
variety of reports without himself apparently at
taching any weight to them. In addition to those
already mentioned, he says (H. E. i. c. 12): "And
that Matthias, who was numbered with the Apos-
Ues in place of Judas, and he who had been hon
ored to be a candidate with him, is also said to
have been deemed worthy of the same calling with
the seventy. They also say that Thaddeus was one
of them." In the following chapter he speaks of
I'haddeus positively as one of then* number. Half
a century later Epiphanius (Hceres. h.) speaks of
their number as seventy-two, and of Mark and Luke
as among them. Also (Hoej'es. xx.), he says that
our Lord " sent forth also seventy-two others to
preach, of whose number were the seven appointed

SHAALBIM
over the widows, Stephen, Phihp, Prochoros, Niia
nor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolaus: before these
also Matthias, who was numbered among the Apos
tles in the place of Judas; but after these seven and
Matthias before them, Mark, Luke, Justus, Bwna
bas and Apelles, Kufus. Niger, and the remaindei
of the seventy-two."
It does not appear what authority Epiphanius
had for these statements. He seems to he quite
alone in this supposition as to the seven deacons.
The names of the seven indicate that they were
Hellenists, and as such were not likely to have been
of the seventy. Tn regard to some of the others.
]\Iatthias and Justus, it is certain that they were
personal companions of our Lord durujg his minis
try (Acts i. 21-23), and therefore probable that
they were selected from among the seventy. Bar
nabas also rests on the much earlier authority of
Clement of Alexandria, and according to FuseMuB,
Sosthenes also, but the original work of Clement in
this case is lost. In regard to the others Epipha
nius must be considered to have simply gatjiered
up the current traditions of his time; these are
not quite the same with those mentioned earlier by
Eusebius, but even those he does not appear to
have considered as of much authority. F. 6.
SHAALABTBIN (r?^S^') but in many
MSS. U^dhVil) [cntyoffoxesoT jackals}: [Eom.
^aKafiiy; Vat.] 2aAaj8eiv; Alex. ^oKafieiv:'^
Seltbin). A town in the allotment of Dan, named
between Ir-Shk»iesh and Ajalon (Josh. xix.
42). There is some uncertainty about the form of
the name. The MSS. preponderate in favor of
Shaalbim, in which form it is found in two other
passages. But there is also some ground for sub-
pecting that it was Shaalbon. [See Shaalbim
and SHAALBONrrE.]
SHAAL-BIM (D*'S^?2? {place of foxes ¦
OT jackals']: @a\a^eiv,'^ Alex, ai oAonre/cfs; in
1 K. [Kom. SaAajBtV, Vat.] BjjfloAo/iei, Alex.
2aA.aj8ei/i: Salubiii), Salebini). The commoner
form of the name of a town of Dan which in one
passage is found as Shaalabbin. It occurs in m
ancient fragment of history inserted in Judg. i.
enumerating the towns of which the original inhab- .
itants of Canaan succeeded in keeping possession;
after the general conquest. Mount Heres,*^ AiJ8r
Ion, and Shaalbim were held against the Danitea
by the Amorites (ver. 35) till, the help of the great
tribe of Ephraim being called in, they were at last
compelled to succumb. It is mentioned with Ai-
jalon again in Josh. xix. 42 (Shaalabbin) and ffith
Beth-shemesh both there and in 1 K. iv. 9, m the
last passage as making up one of Solomon's com
missariat districts. By Eusebius and Jerome it is
mentioned in the OncyinasUcon ("Selah") asa
large village in the district of Sebaste (i. e. Sama
ria), and as then called Selaba. But this is not

a A city called 2oAa^iiV, or SaAofitV, formerly lay
at the east end of the island of Cyprus, between which
and Phoenicia, or Canaan, there was a constant inter-
"Msurse and close connection. Perhaps this also was
Shaalabbin. h This passage in the Vatican Codex (Mai's ed.) con
tains a curious specimen of a double reading, each of
the two being a translation of tho Hebrew proper
names : tv tu opec tu JxrrpaicuiScL ei^ u ai apKOt. Kal ei'
Z ai oActiTreKes ev tu MuptrLi'Ui't, Kal kv &aKa^eiv. [So
Rom., exc. QaAa^iV.] Here ooTpaxiii&r^s and iAvpaivMV

are both attempts to render D"7)nj ^^^ading it W^Jj
and Crn respectively. The oKtaireKes is due to the
hVW in Shaalbin ; at opKot, " the she-bears," is foi
Ajalon, thuugh that signifies dbcr or gazelle.
c * The A. V. represents Heres as situated mi Ofi-
Ion, whereas a comma should separate Ueres (more
correctly Har-heres) from Agalon as well as from the
other names which follow. This coutufion is as old
at least as the Bi.-«hop's Bible. ^'

SHAALBONITE, THE
w»ry inteUigible, for except in the statement of Jo
sephus (Ant. V. 1, § 22), that the allotment of the
Danites extended as far north as Dor ( Tantura),
there is nothing to lead to the belief that any of
their towns were at all near Samaria, while the per
sistent enumeration of Shaalbim with Aijalon and
Beth-shemesh, the sites of both which are known
ffith tolerable certainty as within a radius of 15
miles west of Jerusalem, is strongly against it. It
ia also at variance with another notice of Jerome,
ill his commentary on Ez. xlviii. 22, where he men
tions the " towers of Ailon and Selebi and Emma
us-Nicopolis," in connection with Joppa, as three
landmarks of the tribe of Dan. No trace appears
to have been yet discovered of any name reserabhng
Shialbim, in the neighborhood of Yah or Ain-
s'l&ms, or indeed anywhere else, unless it be a place
called ^Esilin, . .waJLml£j mentioned in the lists
of Eli Smith and Robinson (Bibl. Res. 1st ed. iii.
App. 120 b) as lying next to SHrah, the ancient
Zorah, a position which is very suitable.
The ShakCbun, discovered by M. Renan's expe
dition about 4 railes N. W. of Bint^Jtbnl, in the
Belad Besharrah (see the Carte dressee p'tr la
brigade topographique, etc., 1862), may be an an
cient Shaalbim, possibly so named by the northern
colony of Danites after the town of their original
dwelling-place. But it is obvious from the fore
going description that it cannot be identical with
it. G.
SHAAL30NITE, THE C'ph^^^^n [see
below]: [in 2 Sam., Rom.] 6 'S.a.Xa^wviT'qs [Vat.
Alex. -j/6i-; in 1 Chr., Rom. Alex. 6 ^aXa^ojvi,
Vat. 0 Ojuei, FA. o So'/tei] ¦ ^ Salbnni, [Salabo-
mt6s]). Eliahba th'e Shaalbonite was one of Da
vid's thirty-seven heroes (2 Sara, xxiii. 32; 1 Chr.
xi. 33). He was the native of a place named Sha
albon, which is unmentioned elsewhere, unless it is
identic^ with Shaalbim or Shaalabbin of the
tribe of Dan. In this case it becomes difficult to
decide which of the three is the original form of the
name. G.
SHAAPH {^VP [division] : :^aya.4; Alex.
Sa^ot/i; [Comp. 2aa^:] Saaph). 1. The son of
Jahdai (1 Chr. ii. 47). -
2. The son of Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel by
his concubine Maachah. He is called the father,
that is, the founder, of the town Madmaniiah (1
Chr.ii. 49).
SHAARAIM {^)^W \t»>o gnies] : [in 1
Sam.] ruv ttuAwj' in both MSS.; [in Chr., Vat.
Alex.] Sewpeiju; [Rom., joined with preceding
word, BapoycTcwptju; Comp. Sapei^:] Saraim, Sa-
iirim). A city in the territory allotted to Judah
(Josh. XV. 3G; in A. V. incorrectly Shakaim). It
is one of the first group of the towns of the Shefe-
tth, or lowland district, which contains also Zoreab,
'larmuth, Socoh, besides others not yet recognized.
It is mentioned again in the account of the rout
which followed the fall of Gohath, where the
wounded fell down on the road to Shaaraim and as
far as Gath and Ekron (1 Sam. xvii. 52). These

<* The word shaaraim means " two gateways " ; and
bat for the mention of the town in Joshua, and the
oonsiatency of its position with 1 Sam. xvii. 52, it
would be perhaps more natural in that passage to take
't S8 meanitig the gates of Gath and Kfcron, as tho
185

SHACHIA 2937
two notices are consistent with each other. GoU-
ath probably fell in the Wady es-Sumt, on oppo
site sides of which stand the representatives of
Socoh and Jarmuth; Gath was at or near Tell es-
Safeh, a few miles west of Socoh at the mouth of
the sarae Wady; whilst Ekron (if 'Akir be Ekron)
lies farther north. Shaaraim is therefore probably
to be looked for somewhere west of Sliuioeikeh, on
the lower slopes of the hills, where they subside
into the great plain. «
We find the name mentioned once more in a list
of the towns of Simeon (1 Chr. iv. 31),'' occupying
the sarae place with Sharuchen and Sansannah, in
the corresponding hsts of Joshua. Lying as the
allotment of Simeon did in the lowest pajt of Ju
dah, many miles south of the region indicated
above, it is impossible that the same Shaaraim can
be intended, and indeed it is quite doubtful whether
it be not a mere corruption of one of the other two
names. Taken as Htbrew, the wprd is a dual, and means
"two gateways," as tbe LXX. have rendered it in
1 Sam. xvii. It is remarkable that the group in
which Shaaraim is included ia Josh. xv. should con
tain more names in dual form than all the rest ofthe
list put together; namely, besides itself, Adlthaim,
and Gederothaim, and probably also Enam and
Adullam. For the possible mention of Shaaraim
in 1 Mace. v. 66, see Samaria, p. 2798. G.
SHAASH'GAZ (T2t;7i'tt? [Pers. se7T;tm( o/
(lie beautiful, Ges.] : not fotind in the LXX., who
substitute Tai, Hegai, as in W'. 8, 15: Susagazus)
The eunuch in the palace of" Xerxes who had the
custody of the woraen in the second house, i. e. of
those who had been in to the king (Esth. ii. 14).
.'[Hkgai.] A. C. H.
' SHAB'BETHAI [3 syl] OOjlW [sabbath-
bnrn] : [in Ezr.j 2a(3j8a6at; Alex. Ka^^aOai; [Vat.
KA. 2aj8a0ai ; in Neh., Rom. Vat. Alex. FA. omit;
Comp. 2a^ad9a7os, Aid. ^a^adaVos-] Sebeihai in
Ezr., Sepiha'i in Neh.). 1. A Levite in the time
of Ezra, who assisted him in investigating the mar
riages with foreigners whicli had taken place araong
the people (Ezr. x. 15). It is apparently the same
who with Jeshua and others instructed the people
in the knowledge of the Law (Neh. viii. 7). He
is called Sabbatheus (1 Esdr. ix. 14) and Saba-
teas (1 Esdr. ix. 48).
2. (Dm. in LXX. [i. t. Rom. Vat. FA.i Alex.;
but Comp. :Sa0aeea7os, Aid. 2a;8a0a?os, FA.»
'Xo^^aOaOaios] '¦ Snbathai.) Shabbethai and Jo-
zabad, of the chief of the Levites, were over the
outward business of the house of God after the re
turn from Babylon (Neh. xi. 16). Possibly 1
and 2 are identical, although Burrington {Geneal
i. 167) regards Shabbethai, who is mentioned in
Neh. viii. 7, as a priest.
* * SHABPAH. [Shachia.]
SHACHIA (rr^?K7 lfameofJah,FuTst].
ZajSto; [Vat. 2aj3ia; Alex. 2ej8ia:] Sechia).
Properly *'Shabiah," a son of Shaharaim by his
wife Hodesh (1 Chr. viii. 10). This form of the
narae is retained from the Geneva Version. The
translators have followed the Vulgate in reading

LXX. have done. In that case, however, it ought to
have the article, which it has not.
6 Here there is a slight difiference in the vowels, due
to the pause — D'^'^^tC? — which is reflected in botb
LXX. and Vulgate (se'e above, at head of articlei

2938

SHADDAI

D for 2. Seven of Kennicott's MSS. read S^^2?,
and fifteen Tl'^'DW [= announcemeTU^ Fiirst].
SHADDAI [2 syl.] O^tT, in pause, ''J??).
An ancient name of God, rendered " Almighty "
everywhere in the A. V. In all passages of Gen
esis, except one (xlix. 25 **), in Ex. vi. 3, and in Ez.
X. 5, it is found in connection with 7S, el, " God,''
El Shaddai being there rendered " God Almighty,"
or "the Almighty God.'' It occurs six times in
Genesis, once in Exodus (vi. 3), twice in Numbers
(xxiv. 4, 16), twice in Ruth (i. 20, 21), thirty-one
limes in Job, twice in the Psalms (Ixviii. 14 [15],
xoi. 1), once in Isaiah fxiii. 6), twice in Ezekiel
(i. 24, X. 5), and once in Joel (i. 15). In Genesis
and Exodus it is found in wbat are called fhe
Elohistic portions of those books, in Numbers in
the Jehovistic portion, and throughout Job the
name Shaddai stands in parallelism with Elohim,
and never with Jehovah. By the name or in the
character of El Shaddai, God was known to the
patriarchs — to Abraham (Gen. xvii. 1), to Isaac
(Gen. xxviii. 3), and to Jacob (Gen. xliii. 14, xlviii.
3, xlix. 25), before tbe narae Jehovah, in its full
significance, was revealed {Ex. vi. 3). By this
title He was known to the Midianite Balaam
(Num. xxiv. 4, 16), as God the Giver of Visions,
the Most High (comp. Ps. xci. 1); and the iden
tity of Jehovah and Shaddai, who dealt bitterly
with her, was recognized by Naomi in her sorrov^
(Ruth i. 20, 21). Shaddai, the Almighty, is the
God who chastens men (Job v. 17,* vi. 4, xxiii. 16,
xxvii. 2); the just God (Job viii. 3, xxxiv. 10)
who hears prayer (Job viii. 5, xxii. 26, xxvii.
10) ; the God of power who cannot be resisted (Job
XV. 25), who punishes the wicked (J«b xxi. 20,
xxvii. 13), and rewards and protects those who
trust in IJim (Job xxii. 23, 25, xxix. 5); the God
of providence (Job xxii. 17, 23, xxvii. 11) and of
fore-knowledge (Job xxiv. 1), who gives to men
understanding (Job xxxii. 8) and hfe (Job xxxiii.
4): "excellent in power, and in judgment, and in
plenty of justice," whom none can perfectly know
(Job xi. 7, xxxvii. 23). The prevalent idea at
taching to the name in all these passages is that
of strength and power, and our translators have
probably given to "Shaddai" its true meaning
when they rendered it "Almighty."
In the Targum throughout, the Hebrew word is
retained, as in the Peshito-Syriac of Genesis and
Exodus and of Ruth i. 20. The LXX. gives
tKav6s, laxvp^s, OeSs, Kvpios, iravroKpdToip,
KVpiOS vavTOKpaTOip, 6 tci irdvTa iroffjaas (Job
viii. 3), eirovpdvios (Ps. Ixviii. 14 [15]), d d^hs tov
ovpavov (Ps. xoi. L), ffo55ot (Ez. x. 5), and tu-
Kaitrajpia (Joel i. 15). In Job xxix. 5, we find the
Kti-ange rendering v\iodr}S' In Gen. and Ex. "El
Shaddai " is translated 6 de6s )Udu, or aov, or ai/Tuv,
lis the case may be. The Vulgate has omnipotens
in all cases, except Dominus (Job v. 17, vi. 4, 14;
Is. xiii. 6), Deus (Job xxii. 3, xl. 2), Deus ccdi (Ps.
xci. 1 ), svblimis Deus (Ez. i. 24), ccelesiis (Ps. Ixviii.
14 [15]), 2}<>i^^^ (Joel i. 15), and digne (Job xxxvii.
23). TheVeneto-Greekhas KpaToitfy. The Peshito-
Syriac, in many passages, renders " Shaddai "simply
"God," in others h * * rf^^, chasind, "strong,

a Even here some MSS. and the Samaritan Text
iwl bs, ^l, for ns, eth.

SHADRACH
powerful " (Job v. 17. vi. 4, 4-c.), and oa«
) * tN, ^eloyoj " Most High " (Job vi 14). The
Samaritan Version of Gen. xvii. 1 has for "El Shad
dai," "powerful, sufficient," though in the othff
passages of Genesis and Exodus it simply retains
the Hebrew word ; while in Num. xxiv. 4, 16, the
translator must have read T^'JW, sddeh, « a field,"
for he renders " the vision of Shaddai," the "vision
of the field," i. e. the vision seen in the open
plain. Aben Ezra and Kimchi render it " power
ful." The derivations assigned to Shaddai are vanons.
We may mention, only to reject, the Kabbinical
etymology which connects it with ^^, dai, "snffi-
ciency," given by Rashi (on Gen. xvii. 1), "lam
He in whose Godhead there is sufficiency for tb«
whole creation;'* and in the Talmud (Chngign,
foi. 12, col. 1), "I am He who said to the world,
Enough ! " According to this, ^^^ = ^^^ nffN,
" He who is sufficient," -'the all-sufficient One;''
and so "He who is sufhcient in himself," and
therefore self-existent. This is the origin of Qu^.
lKav6s of the LXX., Theodoret, and Hesychiu^.
and of the Arabic ^jLxJf, alkaf'i, of Saadias,
which has the same meaning. Gesenius (Oram.
§ 86, and Jesain, xiii. 6) regards '^Utt)', shaddtti,
as the plural of majesty, from a singular noun,
"Tti"', shad, root *T*ItE?, shadad, of which the pri
mary notion seems to be, " to be strong *' (Fiirrt,
Handwb.). It is evident that this derivation was
present to the mind of the prophet from the play
.of words in Is. xiii. 6. Ewald (Lehrb. § 155 c
bte Ausg.) takes it from a root mt^^TTtf,
and compares it with ^"^"^ dawdi, from Hl^,
ddvdh, the older termination **~ being retained.
He also refers to the proper naraes ''^^j Yithd
(Jesse), and "^53, Baiwai (Neh. iii. 18). Roedigw
(Ges. Thes. a. v.) disputes Ewald's explanatioDj
and proposes, as one less open to objection, that
Shaddai originally signified " my powerlul" ones,"
and afterwards becarae the name of God Almighty,
like the analogous form Adonai. In favor of thi«
is the fact that it is never found with the definite
article, but such would be equally *he case if Shad
dai were regarded as' a proper name. On the
whole there seems no reasonable objection to the
view taken by Gesenius, \\hich Lee also adopts
(Gram. 139, 6).
Shaddai is found as an element in the piwper
names Ammishaddai, Zurishaddai, and possibly
also in Shedeur there may be a trace of it.
W. A. W.
SHAa)RACH (Tllltr Icircuil of ihe sun,
sun-god, or royal one (?) FUrst] : [LXX.] SeSpaX!
[in Dan. iii. (Theodot.) Alex. SeSpaff:] Sii/rocA:
of uncertain etymology). The Chaldee. name of
Hananiah [Hanakiah 7; Shk&hbazzar], the
chief of the " three children," whose song, as giwn
in the apocryphal Daniel, forms part of the service
of the Church of Kngland, under the name of
" Benedicite, omnia opera." A long prayer m the
furnace is also ascribed to him in the LXX. and
Vulgate, but this is thought to be by a diffeMt
hand from that which added the sonj; The hi»-

SHADRACH
tory of Shadrach, or Hananiah, is briefly this. He
was taken captive with Daniel, Mishael, and Aza
riah, at the first invasion of Judah by Nebuchad
nezzar, in the fourth, or. as Daniel (i. 1) reckons,
in tlie third " year of Jehoiakim, at the tirae when
the Jewish king himself was bound in fetters to be
carried off to Babylon. [Jehoiakim.] Being,
vvith his three companions, apparently of royal
birtli (Dan. i. 3), of superior understanding, and of
goodly person, he was selected, with them, for the
king's immediate service, and was for this end in-
Btruf terl in the lanj^uage and in all the learning and
wisdom of the Chaldseans, as taught in the college
of the raaj^icians. Like Daniel, he avoided the
pollution of the meat and wine wliich formed their
daily provision at the king's cost, and obtained per
mission to Uve on pulse and water. W'hen the
tirae of his probation was over, he and his three
companions, being found superior to all the other
magicians, were advanced to stand before the king.
When the decree for the slaughter of all the ma
gicians went forth from Nebuchadnezzar, we find
Shadrach uniting with his companions in prayer to
God to reveal the dream to Daniel; and when, in
answer to that prayer, Daniel had successfully in
terpreted the dream, and been made ruler of the
province of Babylon, and head of the college of
magicians, Shadrach was promoted to a high civil
office. But the penalty of oriental greatness,
especially when combuied with honesty and up
rightness, soon had to be paid by him, on the ac
cusation of certain envious Chaldieans. For refus-
mg to worship the golden image he was cast with
Meshach and Abed-nego, into the burning fur
nace. But his faith stood firm ; and his victory
was complete when he carae out of the furnace,
with his two companions, unhurt, heard the king's
testimony to the glory of God, and was " promoted
in the province of Babylon." We hear no more
of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego in the 0. T.
after this; neither are they spoken of in the N. T..
except in the pointed allusion to them in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, as having " through faith
quenched the violence of fire" (Heb. xi. 33, 34).
But there are repeated allusions to them in the
later apocryphal books, and the martyrs of the
Maccahaean period seem to have been much en
couraged by their example. See 1 Mace. ii. 59,
60; 3 Mace. vi. 6; 4 Maec. xiii. 9, xvi. 3, 21,
xviii. 12. Ewald (Geschichte, iv. 557) observes,
indeed, that next to the Pentateuch no book is so
often referred to in these times, in proportion, as
the book of Daniel. The apocryphal additions to
Daniel contain, as usual, many supplementary par
ticulars about the furnace, the angel, and Nebu-
eliadnezzai', besides the introduction of the prayer
of Shadrach, and the hymn. Theodore Parker
observes with truth, in opposition to Bertholdt,
that these additions of the Alexandrine prove that
Hie Hebrew was the original text, because they are
obviously inserted to introduce a better connection
.nto the narrative (Joseph. Ant. x.. 10: Prideaux,
Co7inect. i. 69, 60; Parker's De Wette, Jntrod. iL
183-510; Grimm, on 1 Mace. ii. 60; Hitzig (who
.akes a thoroughly skeptical view), on Dan. iii.;
Ewald, iv. 106, 107, 557-559; Keil, Einleii.
Daniel). A. C. H.

« Keil explains the discrepancy by supposing that
Nebuchadnezzar may have set off from Babylon to-
varda tbe end of the third year, but not have reached
Judaea till the fourth (Einteit. p. 387).

SHALEM 2939
SHA'GB (S?d[err%]: '2,w\d\ Alex.Savij.!
Sage). Father of Jonathan the Hararite, one of
David's guard (1 Chr. xi. 34). In the parallel
list of 2 Sam. xxiii. 33, be is called Shammah:
unless, as seems probable, there is a confusion be
tween Jonathan the sou of " Shage the Hararite,"
Jonathan the son of Shammah, David's brother,
and "Shammah, the son of Agee the Hararite."
[See Shammah, 5.]
SHAHAKA'IM (D^'^qt? [two danms]:
'Xaaplv; [Vat. 2aapr;A;] Alex. SaapTj^: Saha^
raim). A Benjamite whose history and descent
are alike obscure in the present text (1 Chr.
viii. 8). It is more intelligible if we remove the
full stop from the end of ver. 7, and read on thus :
"and begat Uzza and Ahihud, and Shaharaim lie
begat in the field of Moab," etc. This would
make Shaharaim the son of Gera. He had. three
wives and nine children.
SHAHAZ'IMAH (Hp'^Vrit^ [height,
Ges.]; but in the orig. text (Cethib) rTOl!JnU?,
i. e. Shahatsdmah : 2aA//i [Vat. SaAet/i] ttarcfe^
Bd\aaaav\ Alex. '2,aa^ipaQ\ [Comp. Aid. "Zaaifxd'^
Si-hesima). One of the towns of the allotment of
Issachar, apparently between Tabor and the Jordan
(Josh. xix. 22 only). The name is accurately Sha-
hatsim, the termination ah being the particle of
motion — "to Shahatsim." G.
SHA'LEM {dhW [safe, whole]: Samar
DIvK?: els 'SaX-ftfi' in Salem), Gen. xxxiii. 18.
It seems more than probable that this word should
not here be taken as a proper name, but that the
sentence should be rendered, " Jacob came safe to
the city of Shechem." Our translators have fol
lowed the LXX., Peshito-Syriac, and Vulgate,
among ancient, and Luther's among modern ver
sions, in all of which Shalem is treated as a proper
name, and considered as a town dependent on or
related to Shechem. And it is certainly remark
able that there should be a modern viUage bearing
the narae of Salim in a position to a certain degree
consistent with the requirements of the narrative
when so interpreted : namely, three miles east of
Nablus (the ancient Shechem), and therefore be
tween it and the Jordan Valley, where the preced
ing verse (ver. 17) leaves Jacob settled (Rob. Bib.l.
Res. ii. 279; Wilson, Lands, ii. 72; Van de Velde
Syr. and Pal. ii. 302, 334).
But there are several considerations which weigh
very much against this being more than a fortuitous
coincidence. 1. If Shalem was the city in front of which
Jacob pitched his tent, then it certainly was the
scene of the events of chap, xxxiv. ; and the well
of Jacob and the tomb of Joseph must be remo\fd
from the situation in which tradition has so ap[)ro-
priately placed them to some spot further eastwai-d
and nearer to Salim. Eusebius and Jerome felt
this, and they accordingly make Sychem and Salem
one and the same (Onom., under both these

2. Though east of Nablus, Salim does not ap
pear to lie neai" any actual line of communication
between it and the Jordan Valley. The road from
Sahut to Nablus would be either by Wady Malek,

b Reading the final syllable as TM^Ij '*to tbe

2940 SHALIM, THE LAND. OF
through Teyasir, Tufjos, and the Wady Bld&n, or
by Kerawa, Yanun, and Beit-Furik. The former
passes two miles to the north, the latter two miles
to the south of Salim, but neither approach it in
the direct way which the naiTative of Gen. xxxiii.
18 seems fo denote that Jacob's route did.
3. With the exceptions already named, the unan
imous voice of translators and scholars is in favor
of treating shalem as a mere appellative. Among
the ancients, Josephus (by his silence. Ant. i. 21,
§. 1), the 1'argums of Onkelos and Pseudojonathan,
th& Samaritan Codex, the Arabic Version Among
the modems, the Ven eto Greek Version, Rashi,''
Junius, and TremeUius, Meyer (Annot. on Seder
01am), Ainsworth, Reland (Ped. and Dissert.
Misc.), Schumann, RosenmuUer, J. D. MichaeUs
(Bibtl fiir Ungelehrt.), and the great Hebrew
scholars of our ovm day, Gesenius (I'hes. p. 1422),
Zunz (24 Biicher, and Handwb.), De Wette, Luz
zatto, Knobel, and Kalisch — aU these take shalem
to mean "safe and sound," and the city before
which Jacob pitched to be the city of Shechem.
Salim does not appear to have been visited by
any traveller.'' It could be done M-ithout difficulty
from Nablus, and the investigation might be of
importance. The springs which are reported to be
there should not be overlooked, for their bearing on
its possible identity with the Salim of St. John
the Baptist. G.
SHAXIM, THE LAND OF iy^i^
U^'hy^W, i. e. ShaaUm [land of foxes] : [Vat.]
rr}s yrjs EaaaKep, [Rom. 'Seyahlfj.] ; ^ Alex. t. y.
5aaAei/t: [Comp. t. y. Sceayf/i,:] terra Salim).
A district through which Saul passed on his jour
ney in quest of his father's asses (1 Sam. ix. 4 only).
It appears to have lain between the " land of Sha
lisha" and the *'land of Yemhii " (probably, but
by no means certainly, that of Benjamin).
In the complete uncertainty which attends the
route — its starting-point and termination, no less
than its whole course — it is very difficult to hazard
any conjecture on the position of Shalim. The
spellinc; of the name in the original shows that it
had no connection with Shalem, or with tbe modem
Salim east of Nablus (though between these two
there is probably nothing in common except the
name). It is more possibly identical with the
"land of Shual,"'' tlie situation of which appears,
from some circumstances attending its mention, to
be almost necessarily fixed in the neighborhood of
Taiyibeh, i. e. nearly six miles north of Michmash,
and about nine from Gibeah of Saul. But this can
only be taken as a conjecture. [Ramah.] G.
SHALISHA, THE LAND OF ("VT^W
T\Whw, i. e. ShaUshah [third-land, Fiiret] : ^
y% teXxd'-, Alex, -q y. 2aAi(r(ro; [Comp. ^aKiad'\
terra Salisa). One of the districts traversed by
a The traditional explanation of the word among
the Jews, as stated by Rashi, is that Jacob arrived
before Shechem sound from his lameness (incurred at
Peniel), and with hie wealth and his faith alike un-
iojureil. 6 • Tristram visited this village, which he repre
sents as " modero and insignificant," but, as he says,
" took only a hasty glance at it." He thinks that
Jacob may have crossed the Jabbok at one point
whence his route would have brought him to the vi-
slrlty of Salim (Land of Israel, p. 146). This possi
bility, however, is not sufficient to outweigh the op-
pMing considerations staled in the text above. H.

SHALLUM
Saul when in search of the asses of Kish (1 Ssan
ix. 4, only). It apparently lay between " Mount
Ephraira" and the "land of ShaaUm," a specifi
cation which with aU its evident preciaeness is ir-
recognizable, because the extent of Alount Kphraun
is so uncertain; and Shaalira, though probably
near Taiyibeh, is not yet definitely fixed there
'I'he difiBculty is increased by locating Shalisha at
Saris or Khirbet Saris, a village a few miles west
of Jerusalem, south of Abu Gosh (Tobler, Zitt
Wand. p. 178), which sorae have proposed. Ifthe
Innd of Shalisha contained, as it not impossibly
did, the place caUed Baal-Shalisha (2 K. iv.
42), which, according to the testimony of Eusebius
and Jerome (Onom. " Beth Salisha"), lay fifteen
Roman (or twelve English) miles north of Ludd
then the whole disposition of Saul's route would be
changed. The words Eglaih ShaHshiyah in Jer. xlviiL 34
(A. V. "a heifer of three years old") are by some
translators rendered as if denoting a place named
Shalisha. But even if this be correct, it is obvious
that the Shalisha of the prophet was on the coast
of the Dead Sea, and therefore by no means appro
priate for that of Saul. G.
SHALLE'CHETH, THE GATE ("Iptf
^"^.V.^ [see below] : 7} irvK-q iraaTOfbopiov' poiia
gucB ducit). One of the gates of the "house of
Jehovah," whether by that expression be intended
the sacred tent of David or the Temple of Solomon.
It is mentioned only in 1 Chr. xxvi. 16, in what
purports to be a list of the staff of the sacred
establishment as settled by David (xxiii. 6, 25.
xxiv. 31, xxv. 1, xxvi. 31, 32). It was the gate
"to the causeway of the ascent," that is, to the
long embankment which led up from the central
vaUey of tbe town to the sacred inclosure. As the
causeway is actually in existence, though very much
concealed under the mass of houses whieh fiU the
vaUey, the gate Shallccheth can hardly fail to be
identical vrith the Bab Silsileh, or Sinsleh, which
enters the west waU of tbe Haram area opposite
the south end of the platform of the Dome of the
Rock, about 60G feet from the southwest comer
of the Huram walL For the bearing of this posi
tion on the topography of the Temple, see that
article. Tbe signification of shalleceth is "falling or
casting down." The LXX., however, appear to
have read HStp y, the word which they usually
render by 7raaTo<poplov. This would point to thi
"chambers" of the Temple. G.
SHAL'LUM (D-"lVC7 [reiribulion]: SeA-
Kovfi: Sellum).
1. The fifteenth king of Israel, son of Jabesh,
conspired against Zechariah, son of Jeroboam II,
killed him, and brought the dynasty of Jehu to i
close, B. c. 770, according to the prophecy in 2 K-

c Many MSS. have SeyoAi/i, or SeyoAei/i (see Holmei
and Parsons), the reading followed by Tischendorf in
his text (1856). The reading of the Alex, is remark
able for its suppression of the presence of the 3? i°
the Hebrew word, usually rendered in Greek by y.
'i It will be seen that Shalim contains the Ain whicb
is absent from Shalem. It is, however, present in
Shual. e At the same time omittlDg H vDD, " the caon
way," or confoonding it with the word before it.

SHALLUM
1. SO, where it is promised that Jehu's children
jhould occupy the throne of Israel to the fourth
generation. In the English version of 2 K. xv.
10, we I'ead, " And Shallum the son of Jabesh
conspired against him, and smote him before the
people, and slew him, and reigned in his stead."
And so the Vulg. percussitque eum palam et inter-
fecit. But in the LXX. we find Ke^Kaip. in
stead of befm-e the people, i. e. Shallum and
Keblaam killed Zechariah. The common editions
read iv Ke^Aua/i, meaning that Shallum killed
Zechariah in Keblaam; but no place of such a
name is known, and there is nothing in the Hebrew
to answer to ey. The words translated before
Ihe people, palam, YiefiKain, are Q^ '^ir"
ICwald (Geschichte, iii. 598) maintains tl.at 7D|7
never occurs in prose," aud that t2V would be
Dl?n if the Latin and EngUsh translations were
correct. He also observes that in vv. 14, 25, 31),
where almost the same expression is used of the
deaths ot Shallum, Pekahiah, and Pekah, the words
before ihe people are omitted. Hence he accepts
the translation in the Vatican MS. of the LXX.,
and considers that Qobolani ' or KeP\aa/j. was a
fellow-conspirator or rival of Shallum, of whose
subsequent fate we have no information. On the
death of Zechariah, Shallum was made king, but,
after reigning in Samaria for a month only, was in
his turn detlironed and killed by Menahem. To
these events Ewald refers- the obscure pa,ssage in
Zech. xi. 8; Three shepherds also J cut off in one
month, and my soul abhorred them — the three shep
herds being Zechariah, Qobolam, and Shallum.
This is very ingenious; we must remember, how
ever, that Ewald, like certain English divines
(Mede, Hammond, Newcome, Seeker, Pye Smith),
thinks that the latter chapters of the prophecies
of Zechariah belong to an earlier date than the
rest of the book. G. E. L. C.
2. (26X\^/i; Alex. SeWovp in 2 K.) The
husband (or son, according to the LXX. in 2 K.)
of Huldah the prophetess (2 K. xxii. 14; 2 Chr.
xxxiv. 22) in the reign of .losiah. He appears to
have been keeper of the priestly vestments in the
Teniple, though in the LXX. of 2 Chr. this office
is wrongly assigned to his wife.
3. (Sa\oip.; Alex. SaWovp.) A descendant
of Sheshau (1 Chr. ii. 40, 41).
4. {[Kom. SaXoip.,] Alex. SaWovu in 1 Chr.,
[both] SeWiip in Jer.) The third son of Josiah
king of Judah, known in the hooks of Khigs and
Chronicles as Jehoaiaz (1 Chr. iii. 15; Jer. xxii.
11). Hengstenberg (Chrislology of the 0. T. ii.
iOO, Eng. transl.) regards the name as symbolical,
"the recompensed one," and given to Jehoahaz in
token of his fate, as one whom Cod recompensed
according to his deserts. This would be plausible
enough if it were only found in the prophecy ; but
a genealogical table is the last place where we
should expect to find a symbolical name, and Shal
lum is more probably the original name of the
sing, which was changed to Jehoahaz when he
iame to the crown. Upon a comparison of the

<* Ib not the objection rather that the word is Cnal-
1»? It occurs repeatedly in Daniel (ii. 31 ; iii. 3 ; iv.
M 6) 10), aud also in the Chaldee portions of Ezra (v.
ISiTi.lS). ^ Q is tbe best representatjve of the Hebrew p.

SHALMAI 2941
ages of Jehoiakim, Jehoahaz or Shallum, and Zede
kiah, it is evident that of the two last Zedekiah
must have been the younger, and therefore that
Shallum was the tiiird, not the fourth, son of
Josiah, as stated in 1 Chr. iii. 15.
5. (2o\6|ii.) Son of Shaul the son of Simeon
(1 Chr. iv. 25).
6. (SuKiifi in Chr., Se\oip [Vat. SaXovp] ii
Ezr.; Alex. SeKKovp.) A high-priest, son of
Zadok and ancestor of Ezra (1 Cbr. vi. 12, 13;
Ezr. \ii. 2). Called also Salum (1 Esdr. viii. 1),
and Sadamias (2 Esdr. i. 1).
7. ('SeWovp; [Vat. Sa\a>iiuy.]) A son of
Naphthali (1 (Jhr. vii. 13). He and his brethren
are ca'led " sons of Bilhah," but in the Vat. MS.
of the IjXX., Shallum and the rest are the sons
of Xaphthali, and Balam (not Bilhah) is the son of
Shallum. Called also Simi.lem.
8. (Sa\<ip, Alex. Sa\\o>p in 1 Chr. ix. 17;
SeK\o\>p [Vat. 'Sa^ovp] in Ezr. ii. 42; SaXoi/i,
Alex. SeWou/j. in Neh. vii. 45.) The chief of a
family of porters or gatekeepers of the east gatfi
of the Temple, for the camps of the sons of Levi.
His descendants were among those who returned
with Zerubbabel. In 1 Esdr. v. 28 he is called
Salum, and in Neh. xii. 25 Meshullam.
9. (SeWoip. [Vat. Sa\a>po>y], SaKd/j.; Alex.
Sa\Q)iX.) Son of Kore, a Korahite, who with his
brethren was keeper of the thresholds of the Taber
nacle (1 Chr. ix. 19, 31), "and their fathers (were)
over the camp of Jehovah, keepers of the entry."
On comparing this with the expression in ver. 18,
it would appear that Shallum the son of Kore and
his brethren were gatekeepers of a higher rank
than Shallum, Akkub, Talmon, and Ahiman, who
were only " for the camp of the sons of Levi.'*
With this Shallum we may identify Meshelemiah
and Shelemiah (1 Cbr. xxvi. 1, 2, 9, 14), but he
seems to be different from the last-mentioned Shal
lum. 10. (SeAA^/i.) Father of Jehizkiah, one of
the heads of the children of Ephraim (2 Chr.
xxviii. 12).
11. (SoXpAiv; [Vat. TeKXriit.: FA. raiAA.ei^;]
Alex. SoWriii..) One of the porters of the Tem
ple who had married a foreign wife (Ezr. i. 24).
12. (SeWoip; [Vat. FA. SaXovp.]) Son of
Bani, who put away his foreign wife at the com
mand of Ezra (Ezr. x. 42).
13. (SaXKoiiJ.; [Vat.] FA. SaXovp.) The sen
of Halohesh and ruler of a district of Jerusalem.
With his daughters he assisted Nehemiah in re
building the wail of the city (Neh. iii. 12).
14. (SaXdp; [FA. SaXpuiy.']) The uncle of
Jeremiah (Jer. xxxii. 7); perhaps the same as
Shallum the husliand of Huldah the prophetess.
[Jebemiah, vol. ii. p. 1254 a.]
15. (SeXtip; [FA.l i^^txap, FA.3 2aiXco/t.]i
Father or ancestor of Maaseiah, " keeper of the
threshold " of the Temple in the time of Jeremiah
(Jer. xxxv. 4); perhaps the same as 9.
SHAL'LUN Cl^vE? [perh. retribution'] :
[Rom.] SaXapiiv; [Vat. Alex. FA. omit:] Sel
lum). The son of Cfl-hozeh, and ruler of a dis
trict of the Mizpah. He assisted Nehemiah in
repairing the spring gate, and "the wall of the
pool of Hasshelach" (A. V. "Siloah") belonging
to the king's garden, " even up to the stairs that
go down from tbe city of David " (Neh. iii. 15).
SHAL'MAI [2 syl] (^IpatT, Keri; "'a^ittJ

2942

SHALMAK

in Ezr., *^1$ fW in Neh. [my thanks] : ^e\ap,l,
3SeX/tet: [V^*-- Sa^aoy, SoAa^we* ;] Alex. SeAajuet,
2eA/i« [FA. ^apaei]'. Sendai, Selmai). The
ehildren of Shalmai (or Shamlai, as bi the margin
of Ezr. ii. 46) were among the Nethinim who re
turned with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 46; Neh. vii. 48).
In Neh. the name is properly Salmai. In 1 Esdr.
V. 30 it is written Subai.
SHALTMAN iV^^ [as below]: S.aKapdv.
Salmana). , Shalmaneser, king of Assyria (Hos.
I. 14). The versions differ in a remarkable man
ner in their rendering of this verse. The LXX.
read "1tt7, sar {&px(ii}y)j for "Tti7, shod (in which
they are followed by the Arabic of the Polyglot),
and "Jeroboam" (Alex. " -Jerubbaal ") for "Arbel."
The Vulgate, reading '* Jerubbaal," appears to have
confounded Shalman with Zalmunna, aud renders
the clause, sicut vastatus est Salmana a domo ejus
quijudicavit Baal in die prcelH. The Targum of
Jonathan and Peshito-Syriac both give " Shalma; "
the former for VS3")S D''?, reading ^^WOa,
"by an ambush," the latter, bw rT^?, "Beth-el."
The Chaldee translator seems to have caught only
the first letters of the word "Arbel," while the
Syrian only saw the last two. The Targum pos
sibly regards "Shalman "as an appellative, "the
peaceable," following in this the traditional inter
pretation of the veree recorded by Kashi, whose
note is as follows: " As spoilers that conje upon a
people dwelling in peace, suddenly by meaus of an
ambush, who have not been warned against them
to flee before them, and destroy all."
SHALMANE'SER OPSSabtt? [perh./re-
wo7'shipper; see Ges. s. v.] : iakapavaaadp; [Vat.
2 K. xvii., 2,ap€vi/aaaap; Ales.. ^aXaixavaaap,
%apavaaaap\] Joseph. Xahpavaaadprjs ' Salmor-
nasar) was the Assyrian king who reigned imme
diately before Snrgon, and probably immediately
after Tiglath-pileser. Very little is known of him,
sbice Sargon, his successor, who was of a different
family, and most likely a rebel against his authority
[Sargon], seems to have destroyed his monu
ments. He can scarcely have ascended the throne
earlier than b. c. 730, and may possibly not have
done so till a few years later. [Tiglath pileser.]
It must have been soon after his accession that he
led the forces of Assyria into Palestine, where Ho
shea, the last king of Israel, had revolted against
his authority (2 K. xvii. 3). No sooner was he
come than Hoshea submitte<l, acknowledged him
self a "servant " ofthe Great King, and consented
to pay him a fixed tribute ammally. Shalmaneser
u|joii this returned home; but soon afierwards he
" found conspiracy in Hoshea," who had concluded
an alliance with the king of Egypt, and withheld
his tribute in consequence. In b. c 723 Shalmane
ser invaded Palestine for the second time, and, as
Hoshea refused to submit, laid siege to Samaria.
The siege lasted to the third year (b. c. 721),
when the Assyrian arms prevailed; Samaria fell;
Hoshea was taken captive and shut up in prison,
and the bulk of the Samaritans were transported
from their own country to Upper Mesopotamia (2 K.
xvii. 4-6, xviii. 9-11 ). It is uncertain whether Shal-

o In 2 K. xvii. 6, the expression is simply " the
king of Assyria took it." In 2 K. xviii. 9. 10, we
)Dd,ntiU more remarkably, "Sbalmaneser, kinfc of As-

SHAMER
maneser conducted the sic^e to its close, or ffhetber
he did not lose his crown to Sargon before the citv
was taken. Sargon claims the capture as his own
exploit in his first year; and Scripture, it will be
found, avoids saying that Shalmaneser took the
place.** Perhaps Shalmaneser died before Samaria,
or perhaps, hearing of Sargon's revolt, he left hia
troops, or a part of them, to continue the siege,
and returned to Assyria, where he was defeated
and deposed (or murdered) by his enemy.
According to Josephus, who professes to follow
the Phcenician history of Menander of Ephesus
Shalmaneser engaged in an important war with
Phoenicia in defense of Cyprus (Ant. ix. 14, § 2),
It is possible that he may have done so, though we
have no other evidence of the fact; but it is perhaps
more probable that Josephus, or Menander, made
some confusion between him and Sargon, who cer
tainly warred with Phoenicia, and set up a memo
rial in Cyprus. [Sargoa'.] G. It
SHA'MA ^T2W [heai-ing, obedient] : ^apoBi'^
Alex. "Xappa '¦ Samma ), One of Darid's guard, bod
of Hothan of Aroer (1 Chr. xi. 44). and brother (rf
Jehiel. Probably a Reubenite (see 1 Chr. v. 8).
SHAMARI'AH (n^nOtt? [whom Jehovah
protects]: ^apopia: [Vat.] Mex. 'S.ap.apia'. So-
moi'ia). Son of Kehoboam by Abihail the daugh
ter of Eliab (2 Chr. xi. 19).
* SHAMBLES, 1 Cor. x.25 (pdKeWoy from
the Latin macellum = y^petinr^\iov as explained by
Plutarch), fesh-market. Meat which had been
offered in sacrifice to idols was often brought to
such places for sale. Some of the fii^t ChristiaDa
doubted whether they could lawfully eat such meat.
Paul decides that the scruple was unnecessary; but
f any one entertained it he was bound by it, and
even if free from it should forego his own liberty
out of regard to the weak consciences of othere.
Shambles" is from the Anglo-Saxon scanw^
scamul, which meant a bench or stool. H.
SHA'MED ("lt?l» [perh. watch, keeper]:
^epp-fip; [Vat. Stj/tti's; Comp. 2a^7?S:] SnmaS).
Properly Shamer, or Shemer; one of the sons of
Elpaal the Benjamite, who built Ono and Lod, with
the towns thereof (1 Chr. viii. 12). The A. V. baa
followed the Vulg., as in the case of Shachia, and
retains the reading of the Geneva Version. Thir
teen of Kennicott's MSS. have "TQU7.
* SHAMEFACEDNESS is a current mis
print or corruption in 1 Tim. ii. 9, for" Shamefast-
ness," in the sense of being fast or established in
modesty and decorum. The old English versiona
(Wickliffe, Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva), as well aa
the, original ed. of 1611, have " shamefestness."
The word is formed from shamefast, Uke steadfast
ness from steadfast, rootfastness from rootfast, etc
(See Trench On ihe Authoi-ized Version, p. 66.)
The Greek word is aidws, which the A- V. rendere
" reverence " in Heb. xii. 28. »•
? SHAMEFASTNESS. [Shamefaced-
NESS.] SHA'MER (^'^^^" [keeper, or lees of
V]i Se/i^p; [Vat.] Alex, ^epfifip- ^°^^^^

wine

Syria, came up against Samaria, and besl^sedit; IN
at the end of three years they took it."

SHAMGAR
1. A Merarite Levite, ancestor of Ethan (1 Chr.
ri. 46).
2. (Sspp'fip; Alex. Sai/tijp.) Shomee the son
jf Heber an Asherite (1 Chr. vii. 34). His four
ions are mentioned by name. W. A. W.
SHAM'GAR ("12^2' [posaibly, cup-bearer] :
Sapeyip; [Vat. in Judg. iii. 31, Sapayap:'] Sam-
gar: of' uncertain etymology; compare Samgar-
neho). Son of Auath, judge of Israel after Khud,
and before Barak, though possibly contemporary
with the latter, since he seems to be spoken of in
Jud". V. 6 as a contemporary of Jael, if the reading
is correct.** It is not improbable from his patronymic
that Shamgar may have been of the tribe of Naph
tali, since Beth-anath is in that tribe (Judg. 1. 33).
Kwald conjectures that he was'of Dan — an opinion
in which Bertheau ( On Judg. iii. 31) does not coin
cide. And since the tribe of NaphtaU bore a chief
part in the war against Jabin and Sisera (Judg. iv.
6, 10, V. 18), we seem to have a point of contact
between Shamgar and Barak. Anyhow, in the
days of Shamgar, Israel was in a most depressed
condition; the tributary Canaanites (Judg. i. 33),
in league apparently with their independent kins
men, the Philistines, rose against their Israelite
masters, and the country became so unsafe, that
the highways were deserted, and Hebrew travellers
were obhged to creep unobserved by cross-roads and
by-ways. The open villages were deserted, the
wells were hiaccessible, and the people hid them
selves in the mountains. Their arms were ap
parently taken from them, by the same policy as
was adopted later by the same people (Judg. iii. 31,
f. 8; comp. with 1 Sam. xiii. 19-22), and the
whole nation was cowed. At this conjuncture
Shamgar was raised up to be a deliverer. With no
arms in his hand but an ox-goad (Judg. iii. 31;
comp. 1 Sam xiii. 21), he made a desperate as.sault
upon the Philistines, and slew 600 of them ; an aet
of valor by which he procured a teinpoi-ary respite
for his people, and struck terror into the hearts of
the Canaanites and their Philistine allies. But it
was reserved for Deboi-ah and Barak to complete
the deliverance ; and whether Shamgar lived to wit
ness or participate in it we have no certain informa
tion. Prom the position of " the Philistines " in
1 Sam. xii. 9, between " Aloab " and " Hazor,"
the allusion seems to be to the time of Shamgar.
EwaUl observes with truth that the way in which
Shamgar is mentioned in Deborah's song indicates
that his career was very recent. The resemblance
to Sam.son, pointed out by him, does not seem to
lead to anything. A. C. H.
* It may have been as leader and not by his own
luigle hand that Shamgar slew the 600 Philistines.
The subjugated Hebrews being disarmed (comp.
Judg. V. 8), he may hiive put himself at the head
of a band of peasants armed with ox-goads, the only
weapons left to them, and with such warriors may
have achieved the victory. In common speech we
ascribe to the leader what is done under his leader
ship. [Shechem.] One of Homer's heroes put to
flight Dionysius and the Bacchantes with his
,3oi«rX^{ (Il.y'\. 135). Mr. Porter states (Kitto's
Daily Bible Illustr. ii. 340) that he "once saw a
goad of a Druse ploughman, on the mountains of
Bashan — of which the shaft was ten feet long
•nd made of an oak sapling ; the goad appeared to
'* The mention of Jael seems scarcely natural. It
IM occurred to the writer to coiyecture for ^^"^2

SHAMMA

2943

be an old spear-head, very sharp *jd firmly fast
ened. The Druse remarked that it was for the
Arabs as well as the oxen." Thomson describes
this formidable weapon in his Land and Book, i.
500. [See also Ox-goad.] H.
SHAM'HUTH (n^HXitt? [perh. desolation,
waste]: '2,apa{^B: [Vat. 2aAaa>0:] Samaoth). The
fifth captain for the fifth month in David's arrange
ment of his army (1 Chr. xxvii. 8). His designar-
tion n"Tr*n, hayylzrach, i. e. the Yizrach, is
probably for ^^n^'Tn, hazzarcht, the Zarhitc, or
descendant of Zerah the son of Judah. From a
comparison of the lists in 1 Chr. xi., xxvii., it
would seem that Shamhuth is the same as Shabi
MOTH the Harorite. W. A. W.
SHA'MIR ("1"^^^ [thornr-hedge]: [Rom.
%ap.ip\ Vat.] 2ajU6ip; Alex, in Josh, ^acpeip, in
Judg. 'Zapapeta' Samir). The name of two placea
in the Holy Land.
1. A town in the mountain district of Judah
(Joah. XV. 48, only). It is the first in this division
of the catalogue, and occurs in company with Jat-
TiJt in the group containing 8ocho and Kstite-
MOH. It therefore probably lay some eight or ten
miles south of Hebron, in the neighborhood of the
three places just named, all of which liave been
identiHed with tolerable certainty. But it has
not itself been yet discovered.
2. A place in Alount Ephraim, the residence
and burial-place of Tola the Judge (-Juilg. x. 1, 2).
It is singular that this judge, a man of Issachar,
should have taken up his official residence out of
his own tribe. AVe raay account for it by sup
posing that the phiin of Esdraelon, which formed
the greater part of the territory of Issachar^ was
overrun, as in Gideon's time, by the Canaanites or
other marauders, of whose incursions nofhing what
ever is told us — though their existence is certain
— driving Tola to the more secure n)0untauis of
Ephraim. Or, as Manasseh had certain cities out
of Issachar allotted to him, so Issachar on the
other hand may have possessed sorae towns in the
mountains of Ephraim. Both these suppositions,
however, are but conjecture, and have no corrobora
tion in any statement of the records.
Shamir is not mentioned by the ancient topog
raphers. Schwarz (p. 151) proposes to identify it
with Sanur, a place of great natural strength (which
has some claims to be Bethulia), situated in the
mountains, half-way between Samaria and Jenin,
about eight miles from each. Van de Velde ( Mem. p.
348) proposes Khirbet Sainmer, a ruined site in the
mountains overlooking the Jordan valley, ten miles
E. S. E. of Nablus. There is no connection be
tween the names Shamir and Samaria, as proposed
in the Alex. LXX. (see above), beyond the acci
dental one which arises from the inaccurate form
of the latter in that Version, and iu our own, it
being correctly Shomron. G.
SHA'MIR ("llt?^ [iHed, pi'oved, Yuv&i];
Keri, "l^'tttt? : :S,a/j.7}p: Samir). A Kohathite,
son of Micah, or Michah, the firstborn of Uzziei (1
Chr. xxiv. 24).
SHAM'MA (STSr*^ [desolation] : ¦:Zapd; [Yai.
b^?**, 7M"lCi?'^D, as in ver. 7. Dr. Donal Ison (JiuAor,
pp. 271, 272) conjectures n^^?^*!, " and previouBlT.'*

2944 SHAMMAH
Se/ta;] Alex. Sappa: Samma). One of the sons
of Zophar, an Asherite (1 Chr. vii. 37).
SHAM'MAH (nK!t» [desolatum]: Sope;
Alex. Soppe in 1 Chr. 1. 37: Samma). 1. The
son of Keuel the son of Esau, and one of the chief
tains of his tribe (Gen. xxxvi. 13, 17; 1 Chr. i. 37).
2. (So/ia; Alex. Sappa: Samma.) The third
son of Jesse, and brother of David (1 Sam. xvi. 9,
xvii. 13). Called also Shimea, Shimeah, and
Shimma. He was present when Samuel anointed
David, and with his two elder brothers joined the
Hebrew army in the valley of Elah to fight with
the Philistines. ¦
3. (Sapa'ta; Alex. Sappeas: Semma.) One of
the three greatest of David's mighty men. He was
with him during his outlaw life in the cave of
Adullam, and signalized himself by defending a
piece of ground full of lentlles against the Philis
tines on one of their marauding incursions. This
achievement gave him a place among the first three
heroes, who on another occasion cut their way
through the Philistine garrison, and brought
David water from the well of Bethlehem (2 Sam.
xxiii. 11-17). The text of Chronicles at this part
is clearly very fragmentary, and what Is there at
tributed to Eleazar the son of Dodo properly he-
longs to Shammah. Tbere is still, however, a
discrepancy in the two nairatlves. The scene of
Shammah's exploit is said in Samuel to be a field
of lentiles (CHJll!), and In 1 Chr. a field of bar
ley (D'^"]1^tt7). Kennicott proposes In both cases
to read " barley," the words being In Hebrew so
similar that one is produced from the other by a
very slight change and transposition of tbe letters
(Diss. p. 141)- It is more likely, too, that the
Philistines should attack and the Israelites defend
a field of barley than a field of lentiles. In the
Peshito-Syriac, instead of being called " the Ha
rarite," he is said to be '• from the king's mountain "
(I ^1 >'^ "^li t"^)? ^""^ the vsanie is repeated
at ver. 25. The Vat. MS. of the LXX. makes
him the son of Asa (vibs "Aaa i 'ApovxaTos,
where 'ApovSaios was perhaps the original read
ing). Josephus (Ant. vil. 12, § 4) calls him Cesa-
bsEus the son of Ilus ('lAoo per vihs Kri(ra$a7os
5e 6vopa).
4. ('Saipa.; A]ex. Sa/ipaf. Semma.) The Ha-
rodite, one of David's mightles (2 Sam. xxlll. 25).
He is called " Siiaiimoth tbe Harorite " In 1
Chr. xi. -27, and in 1 Chr. xxvii. 8 " Shamhuth
the Izrahite." Kennicott maintained the true
reading in both to be " Shamhoth the Harodlte "
(Diss. p. 181).
5. (Safivdy; Alex. Sapras, [and so Vat.2;
Comp. Aid. 2a;na: Semma.]) In the list of David's
mighty men in 2 Sam. xxiii. 32, 33, we find " Jona
than, Shammah tbe Hararite;" while In the cor
responding verse of 1 Chr. xi. 34, it is " Jonathan,
the son of Shage the Hararite." Combining the
two, Kennicott proposes to read " Jonathan, the
son of Shamha, the Hararite," David's nephew
who slew the giant in Gath (2 Sam. xxi. 21). In
stead of "ths Hararite," the Peshito-Syriac has
" of the mount of OUves " () ^) 'a^ r^?)?
m 2 Sam. xxlll. 33, and In 1 Chr. xl. 34, " of
Mcunt Carmel" (IJ-^C;-^ 'Q^J t^?); but the
irigui of both these interpretations is obscure.
W. A. W.

SHAPHAN
SHAM'MAI [2 syl.] CSiW [(fejflhtaq,
Sapai; Alex. SappaZ: Semei). 1. The son of
Onam, and brother of Jada (1 Chr. il. 28, 32).
In the lastHjuoted verse the LXX. give 'Axurauis
for " the brother of Shammai."
2. (Sammai.) Son of Bekem, and father oi
founder of Maon (1 Chr. ll. 44, 45).
3. (Sepet; [Va.t.Sepey;] Alex. 'Sappal: [Sam.
mai.]) The brother of Miriam and Ishbah the
founder of Eshtemoa, in an obscure genealogy of
the descendants of Judah (1 Chr. iv. 17). RabbiD
Kimchi conjectures that these were the children
of Mered by his Egyptian wife Bithiah, the daugh
ter of Pharaoh. [Meded.] The LXX. makes
Jether the father of all three. The tradition- in
the Qucest. in Libr. Parol, identifies Shammai
with Moses, and Ishbah with Aaron.
SHAMiaOTH (n'lStt' [desolatims,fkt.]:
SapadB; Alex. SapaB; [Comp. SappjiBi] Sam-
moth). The Harorite, one of David's guard (I
Chr. xi. 27). He is apparently the same wifli
" Shammah the Harodite " (2 Sam. xxiii. 25),
and with " Shamhuth " (1 Chr. xxvii. 8).
SHAMMtT'A (37^Bt» [renoumed] : Sap-
otrliX; Alex. SapaXrriX: Sammuri). 1. The son
of Zaccur (Num. xiii. 4) and the spy selected fi'om
tbe tribe of Reuben.
2. ('Sapad.; Alex. Sapfiaovi [FA. Sapputuui]
Samua ) Son of David by his wife Bathsheba,
born to him In Jerusalem (1 Chr. xiv. 4). In ihe
A. V. of 2 Sam. v. 14 he Is called Srammuah,
and In 1 Chr. III. 5 Shimea.
3. (Safiovi; [Vat.] PA. Sapovef. [Sanvm.])
A Levite, the father of Abda (Neh. xl. 37). He il
the same as Shemaiah the father of Obadiah (I
Chr. ix. 16).
4. (Sap.oue; [Vat. Alex. FA.l omit :] Sammmi.)
The representative of fhe priestly family of Bilgab,
or Bllgal, in the days of the high-priest Joiakim
(Neh. xii. 18).
SHAMMU'AH (SA'BW [renowned]: 2ap.-
pais; Alex. 'Safi/iove : Samun). Son of David
(2 Sam. V. 14) ; elsewhere called Shammva, and
Shimea. SHAMS'HERAI [3 syL] O^WDW [ierofc,
Fiirst]: Sapaapi; [Vat. la/jiaa-apm;] Alex. Soji-
trapia: Samsari). One of the sons of Jeroham, a
Benjamite, whose family lived In Jerusalem (1 dr.
vlll. 26).
SHATHAM (C^a? [perh. bald, bare]: Sir
(pap; [Vat. iaffar:] Saphnn). A Gadlte who
dwelt In Bashan (1 Chr. v. 12). He was second
In authority in his tribe.
SHATHAN neP' [coney]: ^arrfdy; [Vat.]
Alex, iaipipav in 2 K. xxii. [exc. ver. 3, Alei.
^eipipav, and 14, Vat. I.eip^aSa, Alex. 2o^ai'].biit
elsewhere both MSS. have 'S.a^du [exc. 2 Chr.
xxxiv. 15, Alex. Ao-o(^] : Snpltan). The scribe or
secretary of king Josiah. He was the son of Aza-
liah (2 K. xxii. 3; 2 Chr. xxxiv. 8), father of Ahl-
kam (2 K. xxll. 12; 2 Chr. xxxiv. 20), Elaaah
(Jer. xxix. 3), and Geniariah (Jer. xxxvi. 10, 11,
12), and grandfather of Gedaliah (Jer. xxxix. H.
xl. 5, 9, 11, xll. 2, xliii. 6), Michaiah (Jer. xixvi
11), and probably of -Liazaniah (Ez. viii. ID
Tiiere seems to be no sufficient reason for suppo*
Ing that Shaphan tlie father of Ahlkam and Sh»-
phan the scribe, were different persons. The Hi*

SHAPHAT
tory of Shaphan brings out some points with regard
bo the office of scribe which he held. He appears
on an equality with the governor of the city and
fche royal recordir, with whom he was sent by the
king to Hilkiah to take an account of the money
which had been coUected by the l^evites for the
repair of the Temple and to pay the workmen (2
K. xxii. 4; 2 Chr. xxxiv. 9; comp. 2 K. xii. 10).
Ewald calls him Minister of Finance (Gesch. iii.
697). It was on this occasion that Hilkiah com
municated his discovery of a copy of the Law,
which he had probally found while making prep
arations for the repair of the Temple. [Hilkiah,
vol. ii. p. 1075 f.] ¦ Shaphan was entrusted to de
liver it to the king. Whatever may have been
the portion of the Pentateuch thus discovered, the
manner of its discovery, and the conduct of the
king upon hearing it read by Shaphan, prove that
for many years it must have been lost and its con
tents forgotten. The ])art read was apparently
from Deuteronomy, and when Shaphan ended, the
king sent him with the high-priest Hilkiah, and
other men of high rank, to consult Huldah the
prophetess. Her answer moved Josiah deeply, and
the work which began with the restoration of the
decayed fabric of tlie Temple, quickly took the form
ofa thorough reformation of religion and revival of
the Levitical services, while all traces of idolatry
were for a time swept away. Shaphan was then
probably an old man, for his son Ahikam must
have been in a position of importance, and his
grandson Gedaliah was aheady born, as we may
uifer frora the fact that thirty-five 3 ears afterwards
he is made governor of the country by the Chaldse
ans, an office which would hardly be given to a very
young man. He this as it may, Shaphan disap
pears from the scene, and prol)ably died before
the fifth ' year of Jehoiakim, eighteen years later,
when we find lilishama was scribe (Jer. xxxvi. 12).
There is just one point in the narrative of fhe burn
ing of the roll of Jeremiah's prophecies by the
ordei'of the king, which seems to identify Shaphan
the father of Ahikam with Shaphan the scribe. It
is well known that Ahikam was Jeremiah's great
friend and protector ut court, and it was therefore
consistent with this friendship of his brother for
the prophet that Geniariah the son of Shaphan
should warn Jeremiah and Baruch to hide them
selves, and should intercede with the king for the
preservation of the roll (Jer. xxxvi. 12, 19, 25).
W. A. W.
SHATHAT (tDpb [judge] : :Za<pdT '. Sa-
phat). 1. The son of Hori, selected from the tribe
of Simeon to spy out the land of Canaan (Num.
xiii. 5).
2. [Vat. 1 K. xix. 16, 2a(^a0; 2 K. iii. 11, Iw-
ffcupad, see Eri-aia in Mai.] The father of the
prophet Elisha (1 K. xix. 16, 19; 2 K. iii. 11,
vi.31). 3. (^a^dQ'y Alex. Sa^ar.) One of the six sons
uf Shemaiah in the royal line of Judah (1 Chr.
iii. 22).
^- {6ypapp.aT€vs; [Comp. ^atpdvJ]) One of
Ihe chiefs of the Gadites in Bashan (1 Chr. v. 12).
<* Codex A here retains the y as the equivalent for
(he V, whicb has disappeared from the name in Codex
B. The first p. however, is unusual. [Oomp. TroxL.]
^ Two siugular variations of this are found in the
ff*t. MS. (Mill's ed.), namely, 1 Chr. v. 16, Tepidfi ; and
ixTil. 29, ' Vo-ei&oi' [Rom. Sapwi*], where the A is a rem-

SHARON 294£
5. (Sw^f^T ; [Vat. Sax/joi/.] ) The son of Adla.,
who was over David's oxen in the valleys (1 Chr.
xxvii. 29).
SHA'PHEB, MOUNT ("IpttJ-nPT [see be
low]: SoAtip; [Alex. Ap(ra(^ap, 5apo-ai^ap : mon*
Sej^her,] Num. xxxiii. 2a, 24). The name of a
desert station where the Israelites encamped, of
which no other mention occurs. The name prob
ably means " mount of pleasantness," but no site
has been suggested for it. H. H.
SHA'RAI [2 syl.] {'^'^^ [beginning, or re
lease?]: 2apmi>; [Alex. Apou;] EA. ^apove: Sa
rai). One of the sons of Bani who put away his
foreign wife at the command of ICzra (Ezr. a. 40).
He is called Eskil in 1 Esdr. ix. 31.
SHARA'IM (D^ll^??^; ^- e- Shaaraim [two
gcttes] : [Kom. 'S.aKaplv ; Vat] %aKapeip\ Alex.
^ "Zapyapeip.'-. [Aid. iSapaei/t:] Sarim mid Saraim).
An imperfect version (Josh. xv. 36 only) of the
narae which is elsewhere more accurately given
Shaaraim. The discrepancy does not exist in
the original, and doubtless aro^e in the A. V. frora
adherence to the Vulgate. G.
SHA'RAR ("t^y:? [co^d, Ges.]: 'Apai; Alex.
ApoS: Snrar), The father of Ahiam the Harar
ite, one of David's guard (2 Sam. xxiii. 33). In 1
Chr. xi. 35 he is called Sacar, which Kennicott
(Diss. p. 203) thhiks the true reading.
SHARE'ZER ("l^M"??? [Pers. p-mce of
fre]: ^apaadp; [in Is. xxxvii. 38, Sin. Alex. 2a-
paaa'] Sariisir) was a son of Sennacherib, whom,
in. conjunction with his brother Adrammelech, he
murdered (2 K. xix. 37)- Moses of Chorene calls
him Sanasar, and says that he was favorably re
ceived by the Armenian king to whom he fled, and
given a tract of country on the Assyrian frontier,
where his descendants became very numerous
(Hist. Armen. i. 22). He is not mentioned as
engaged in the murder, either by Polyhistor or
Abydenus, who both speak of Adrammelech. G. E.
SHA'RON 0'l"l^^n, with the def. article,
[the plain]: 6 'S,apd>v',^ 6 dpvfxosi Th -rrt^lov:
Saron, campestria, campus). A district of the
Holy Land occasionally referred to in the Bible >=
(1 Chr. V. 16, xxvii. 29; Is. xxxiii. 9, xxxv. 2, Ixv.
10; Cant. ii. 1; Acts ix. 35, A. V. Saron). The
name has on each occurrence, with one exception
only, the definite article — has-Sliaroji — as is the
case also with other districts — the Arabah, the
Shefelah, the Ciccar; and on that single occasion
(1 Chr. V. 16), it is obvious that a different spot
must be intended to that referred to in the other
passages. This will be noticed further on. It
would therefore appear that "the Sharon" was
some well-defined region familiar to the Israelites,
though its omission in the formal topographical
documents of the nation shows that it was not a
recognized division of the country, as the Shefelah
for example. [Sephela.] Erom the passages above
nant of the Hebrew def- article. It is worthy of remark
that a more decided trace of the Heb. article appeara
iu Acta ix. 35, where some MSS. have aaa-apiova.
c The Lasharon of Josh. xii. 18, which aome schol
ars cftDBider to be Sharon with a preposition pretixM,
appears to the writer more probably correctly given ia
the A. V. [Lashakon.]

2946

SHARON

cited we gather that it was a place of pasture for
cattle, where the royal herds of David grazed (1
Chr. xxvii. 29); the beauty of which was as gener
ally recogniaed as that of Carmel itself (Is. xxxv.
2); and the desolation of which would be indeed a
calamity (xxxiii. 9), and its rees tablishm ent a sym
bol of the highest prosperity (Ixv. 10). 1'he rose
of Sharon (possibly the tall, graceful, and striking
squill) was a simile for all that a lover would ex
press (Cant. ii. 1). [Rose, note, Amer. ed.] Add
to these slight traits the indications contained in
the renderings of the LXX. Th ireSioi', '' the plain,"
and 6 Spvp6s, "the wood," and we have exhausted
all that we can gather from the Bible of the char
acteristics of Sharon.
The only guide to its locahty furnished by
Scripture is its mention with Lydda in Acts ix.
35. There is, however, no doubt of the identifica
tion of Sharon. It is that broad rich tract of land
which lies between the mountains of the central
part of the Holy Land and the Mediterranean —
the northern continuation ofthe Shefelah. Jo
sephus but rarely alludes to it, and then so ob
scurely that it is impossible to pronounce vrifli
certainty, from his words alone, that he does refer
to it. He employs the same term as the LXX.,
" woodlaiid." Apvfiol Th x^p'^^y Ka\€7Tai, says
he (Ant. xiv. I'-i, § 3; and corap. B. J. i. 13, § 2),
but beyond its connection with Carmel there is no
clew to be gained from either passage. The same
may be said of Strabo (xvi. 28), who applies the
same name, and at the same time mentions Car
mel. Sharcm is derived by Gesenius ( Thes. p. 642) from
"Itr." "^, to be straight or even — the root also of
Mishor, the name of a district east of Jordan.
The application to it, however, by the LXX., by
Josephus, and by Strabo, of the name Apvp6s or
Apupoi — " woodland," is singidar. It does not
seera certain that that terra iraphqs the existence of
wood on the plain of Sharon. Keland has pointed
out (Pal. p. 190) that the Saronicus Sinus, or Bay of
Saron, in Greece, was so called (Pliny, //. A. iv. 5)
because of ita woods, adpwvis meaning an oak.
Thus it is not irajiossible that Apup6s Was used as
an equivalent of the nanje Sharon, and was not
intended to denote the presence of oaks or woods on
the spot. May it not be a token that the original
meaning of Saron, or Sharon, is not that which its
received Hebrew root would imply, and that it has
perished except in tbis one instance? The Alex
andrine Jews who translated the LXX. are not
likely to have known much either of the Saronic
gulf, or of its connection with a rare Greek word.
Eusebius and Jerome (Omunast. "Saron "), un
der the name of Saroiias, specify it as the region
extending from Caesarea to Joppa. And this is
corroborated by Jerome in his comments on the
three passages in Isaiah, in one of which (on Ixv.
10) he appears to extend it as far south as Jamuia.
There are occasional allusions to wood in the de
scription of the events which occurred in this dis
trict in later times. Thus, in the Chronicles of
the Crusades, the 'Forest of Saron " was tbe scene
of one of the niosl romai Mc adventures of Kiohard
(Michaud, Hisioirt viii.;, the " forest of Assur "
(i. e. Arsuf) is mentioned by Vinisauf (iv. 16). To
the S. E. of Kaisar^yeh there is still "a dreary
wood of (natural) dwarf pines and entangled
nushea " (Thomson, Land and Book, ch. 33).
The orchai'ds and palm-groves round Jimzu, Lydd,

SHARUHEN
and Ramleh, and the dense thickets of i^i in y^
ndghborhood of the two last — as well as tbe iml-
berry plantations in the Yalley of the Aujeh a fev
miles from Jaffa — an industry happily increaa^g
every day — show how easily wood might be main-
tained by care aud cultivation (see Stanley, j8. rf
P. p. 260 note).
A general sketch of the district is given under
the head of Palestine (vol. iii. p. 2296 f.). Je-
rome (Comm. on Is. xxxv. 2) characterizes it in
words which admirably portray its aspects even at
the present : " Omnis igitnr candor (the white sand
hills of the coast), cultus Dei (the wide crops ofthe
finest corn), et circuracisionis scientia (the weD
trimmed plantations) et loca uberrima et campes
tria (the long, gentle swells of rich red and black
earth) quse appellantur Saron."
2. {fnW: [Vat.] repia/t; [Rom.] Alex. Jo-
pwv: Sarun.) The Shakox of 1 Chr. v. 16, to
which allusion has already been made, is disft].
guished from the western plain by not ha\-ing the
article attached to its narae as the other invariably
has. It is also apparent frora the passage itadi
that it was some district on the east of Jordan \a
the neighborhood of Gilead and Bashan. The ex
pression "suburbs" OtK^'^riD) is in itself remaA-
able. The name has not been met with in thai
direction, and the only approach to an expknaUoil
of it is that of Prof. Stanley (S. ^ P. App. §7),
that Sharon may here be a sj'nonym for the ift
shor — a word probably derived from the same
root, describing a region with some of the same
characteristics, and attached to the pastoral plaini
east of the Jordan. (j.
SHA'RONITE, THE 0?1"l^n [see
above]: [Vat.] o ^apicveiTiis'i [Rom.] Alex. 2o-
p(iiviTT\s: Saronites). Shitrai, who had charge of
the royal herds pastured in Sharon (1 Chr. xxrii.
29), is the only Sharonite mentioned in the Bible. G.
SHARXJ'HEN (in^^'lK? [pleasant lodging,
Ges.]: ol ctypol " auriiv, in both MSS.: Sarm
[? Sari hen]) A town named in Josh. xix. 6 only
amongst those which were allotted within Judah
to Simeon. Sharuhen does not appear in tbe cat-
idogue of the cities of Judah ; but instead of it,
and occupying the same position with re^rd to
the other names, we find Siiiliiim (xv. 32). In
the hst of 1 Chr. on the other hand, the sarae po
sition is occupied by Shaaraim (iv. 31). WbethH"
these are different places, or different names of tie
same place, or mere variations of careless copyists;
and, in the last case, which is the original form, it
is perhaps impossible now to determine. Of il^^
three, Shaaraim would seem to have the strongeri
claim, since we know that it was the narae of a
place in another direction, while Shilhim and Sba-
ruhen are found once only. If so, then the.^"i i
which exists in Shaaraim has disappeared in the
others. Knobel (Exeg. Handb. on Josh. xv. 32) calh
attention to Ttll SherVnh, about 10 miles west of
Bir es-Stba, at the head of Wady Shei-Vah (the
"watering-place"). The position is not unsuit
able, but as to its identity with Shaaraim or Sha-
ruhen we can say nothing. ^'

« Probably reading ^TT^ID, as Relanl cOni«
tares.

SHASHAI
SHA'SHAI [2 syl.] OEJtt? [perh. whitisli]:
Seffft; [Vat. FA. with preceding word, Na/Souire-
jed] Sisai). One of the sons of Bani who had
married a foreign wife and put her away in the time
of Ezra (Ezr. x. 40).
SHA'SHAK (ptt7^: 2<o<r^Ki [Vat.2a.Kr,\,
tmiiK :] Sesac). A Benjamite, one of the sons of
lieriah (1 Chr. viii. 14, 25).
SHA'UL (b^N^ [Img'mg, Sim. Ges.] : 2a-
„ix\ Alex. tapov-nX in Gen.: Saiil). 1. The son
of Simeon by a Canaanitish woman (Gen. xlvi. 10;
Kx. vi. 15; Num. xxvi. 13; 1 Cbr. iv. 24), and
founder of tbe faraily of the Shaulites. Tbe Jew-
i.<li traditions identify him with Zimri, " who did
tlie work of the Canaanites iu Shittim " (Targ.
Pseudojon. on Gen. xlvi.).
2. Shaul of Eehoboth by the river was one of
tlie kings of Edora, and successor of Samlah (1
Chr. i. 48, 49). In the A. V. of Gen. xxxvi. 37,
lie is less accurately called Saul.
3. A Kohathite, son of Uzziah (1 Chr. vi. 24).
» SHATJLITES, THE ("'b^Stt?, patro-
rivm. ; i SaovAi'; Vat. Alex. -\ei: Saulilw), de-
icendants of Shaul, 1 (Num. xxvi. 13). A.
SHA'VEH, THE VALLEY OF {'T^V
nitt7 [see note c below] ; the Samar. Cod. adds the
article, mtI7n V, Sam. Vers. TOEO:" Trjc
KoiXiSa T^v Sawij'i Alex. t. k. t. l,aur)v: vallis
Save quce est vallis regis). A name found only in
Gen. xiv. Tt is one of those archaic names with
which tbis venerable chapter abounds — such as
Bela, En-Mishpat, Ham, Hazezon-tamar — so ar
chaic, that many of them have been elucidated by
the insertion of their more modern e equivalents in
the body of tlie document, by a later but still very
ancient hand. In the present case the explanation
does not throw any liirht upon the locaUty of Sha
veh: " The valley of Shaveh, that is the Valley of
the King" (ver. 17). True, the "Valley of the
King " is mentioned again in 2 Sam. xxiii. 18, as
the site of a pillar set up by Absalom ; but this
passage again conveys no indication of its position,
and it is by no means certain that the two passages
refer to the same spot. The extreme obscurity in
which the whole account of Abram's route from
Damascus is involved, has been already noticed
under Salem. A notion has been long ^ prevalent
that the pillar of Absalom is tbe well-known pyram
idal structure which forms the northern member
of the group of monuments at the western foot of
Olivet. This is perhaps originally founded on the
statement of Josephus (Ant. vii. 10, § 3) that Ab
salom erected (co-tjjke) a column ((tttiAt)) of mar
ble (xlBou pappapiyou) at a distance of two stadia

SHAWM

2947

" The Targum of Ookelos gives the same equiva
lent, but with a curious addition, " the plain of Me-
liina, which ia the king's place of racing ; " recalling
the !irn-o8pofi,09 so strangely inserted by the LXX. in
Gen. xlviii. 7.
^ This is one of the numerous instances in which
the Vatican Cod. (Mai) agrees with the Alex., and dis-
^rrei'S with the ordinary text, which in this case has
roi) SojSu. [This part of Genesis is wanting in the
("atican MS. (see art. Septuagint, p. 2913 6), and is
Printed in Mai's ed. from a comparatively modern MS.
No. 65, Holmes). — A.]
c It the signification of Shaveh be " valley," as Ge-
tmios and first assert, then its extreme antiquity is

from Jerusalem. But neither the spot nor the
structure of the so-called " Absalom's tomb " agree
either with this description, or with the terms of
2 Sam. xviii. 18. The " Valley of the King" waa
an Emek, that is, a broad, open valley, having few
or no features in coramon with the deep, rugged
ravine of the Kedron. [Valley.] The pillar of
Absalom — which went by the name of " Absalom's
hand " — was set up, erected C^^**), according to
Josephus in marble — while the lower existing part
of the monument (which alone has any pretension
to great antiquity) is a monolith not erected, but
excavated out of the ordinary limestone of the hill,
and almpst exactly similar to the so-called "tomb
of Zechariah," the second from it on the south.
And even this cannot claim any very great age
since its Ionic capitals and the ornaments of tho
frieze speak with unfaltering voice of Roman art.
Shaveh occurs also in conjunction with another
ancient word in the name
SHA'VEH KIRIATHA'IM (HW
D'jn'^'^)? [plainof ihe double city]: 4v "^avft rij
irt^Aei: Sat^e Cariathaim), raentioned in the same
early document (Gen. xiv. 5) as the residence of
the Emim at the time of Chedoflaomer's incur
sion. Kiriathaim is named in the later history,
and, though it has not been identified, is known
to have been a town on the e;ist of the Jordan;
and Shaveh Kiriathaim, which was also in the
same region, was (if Shaveh mean " valley *')
probably the valley in or by which the town lay. G.
SHAVSHA (Ktt^lt? [wai-rioi- of Jehovah]:
:$ovad; [Vat. Itjoous',] FA. :Zovs' Susa). The
royal secretary in the reign of David (1 Chr. xviii.
16). He is apparently the sarae with Seraiah
(2 Sam. viii. 17), who is called "Zetad by Josephus
(Ant. vii. 5, § 4), and 'S.aad in the Vat. MS- of
the LXX. [Satra in the Roman ed., but Ao^a in
the Vat. MS. (Mai). — A.] Shisha is the read
ing of two MSS. and of the Tai^um in 1 Chr.
xviii. 16. In 2 Sam. xx. 25 he is called Sheva,
and in 1 K. iv. 3, Shisha.
SHAWM. In the Prayer-book version of Ps.
xcviii. 6, "with trumpets also and shaivins^^ is the
rendering of what stands in the A- V. " with trum
pets and sound of corjiet."' The Hebrew word
translated " cornet " will be found treated under
that head. The "shawm*' was a musical instru
ment resembling the clarionet. The word occurfl
in the forms shalm, s/ialmie, and is connected with
the Germ, scalameie, a reed-pipe.
" With shauines and trompets and with clarions swpet. '
Sposeb, F. Q. j. 12, § 13.
^' Even from the shrillest sAaum unto the cctnamnte ^^
Drayton, Poiyolb. iv. 306.

involved in the very expression " the Emek. Shaveh,"
which shows that the word had ceased to be infolli-
gible to the writer, who added to it a modan word ol
the same meaning with itself. It is equivalent to
such names as '^ Puente d'Alcantara," " the Greesen
Steps," etc., where the one part of the name is a mere
repetition or translation of the other, and which can
not exist till the meaning of the older term is ob-

* Both Gesenius and Fiirst define H^tt? as " plain "
(ptanities, Ebene). H.
d Perhaps first mentioned by Benjamin of Tudeia
(A. D. 1160), and next by Maundevillf a32i;v

2948

SHEAF

Mr. Chappell says (Pop. Mus. i. 35, note b), " The
modem clarionet is an improvement upon the
shawm, which was played with a reed like the
wayte, or hautboy, but being a bass instrument,
with about the compass of an octave, had probably
more the tone of a bassoon." In the same note he
quotes one of the " proverbis " written about the
time of Henry VII. on the walls of the Manor
House at Leckingfleld, near Beverley, Yorkshire: —
" Ji. shaw/'ne maketh a swetfi sounde, for he tunythe
th<f basse ;
It mountithe not to hye, but kepith rule and space.
Yet yf it be blowne with to vehement a wynde,
It makithe it to mysgoverne out of his kinde."
Kroni a passage quoted by Xares (Glossary) it ap
pears that the shawm had a mournful sound : —
"He —
That never wants a Gilead full of balm
F.ir his elect, shall turn thy woful shaLm
Ijito the merry pipe." G. ToOKi;, Selidts, p. 18.
W. A. W.
• SHEAF. [Passover, vol. iii. p. 2.346.]
SHE'AL (bW^ [asldnff]: SaXouta; Alex.
SaaX : Saal). One of the sons of Bani who had
married a foreign wife (Ezr. x. 29). In 1 Esdr.
ix. 30 he is called Jasael.
SHEALTIEL (bS'^ribstP, but three times
in Haggai bw-p'^P [whom I asked of God] :
XaXaSi^X: Salathiel). Father of Zerubbabel. the
leader of the Eetum from Captivity (Ezr. iii. 2, 8,
V. 2; Neb. xii. 1; Hag. i. 1, 12, 14, ii. 2, 23).
The name occurs also iu the original of 1 Chr. iii.
17, though there rendered in the A. V. Sala
thiel.. That is its equivalent in the Ixioks of the
Apocrypha and the N. T. ; and under that head
the curious questions connected with his person are
examined. SHEARI'AH (n^lVV' ['ehom Jehovah es-
limaies]: :Sapdta; [Vat. Sin.] Alex. "Sapta in
1 Chr. ix. 44; Saria). One of the six sons of
Azel, a descendant of Saul (1 Chr. viii. 38. ix.
44). SHEARING-HOUSE, THE (ip.5? jT'S
^^V~"7'" 'BaiBaxiB ray iroipdyuv; Alex. Bai-
dafcaS T. TT.: camera pastorum). A place on the
road between Jezreel and Samaria, at which Jehu,
on bis way to the latter, encountered forty-two mem
bers of tbe royal faraily of Judah, whom he slaugh
tered at the well or pit aft.ached to the place (2 K.
X. 12. 14). The translators of our version have given
in the margin the literal meaning of the name —
" house of binding of the shepherds," and in tbe
text an interpretation perhaps adopted from Jos.
Kimchi. Binding, however, is but a. sul)ordinate
part of tbe operation of shearing, and the word
akad is not anywhere used in the Bible in connec
tion therewith. The interpretation of the Targum
and Arabic version, adopted by Rashi, namely,
*' house of the meeting of sheplierds," is accepted
by Simonis (Onom. p. 186) and Gesenius (Thes.
p. 195 b). Other renderings are given by Aquila
«id Symmachus. None of them, however, seem
satisfaetory, and it is probable that the origi-

« The last word of the three is omitted In Ter. 14 in
Ihe original, and in both the Versions.

SHEBA
nal meaning has escaped. By the LXX., Ztm-
bius, and Jerome, it is treated as a proper name,
as they also treat the " garden-house " of ii. 27.
Eusebius ( Onom.) mentions it as a village of Satna.
ria " in the great plain [of Esdraelon] 15 miles
from Legeon." It is remarkable, that at a distance
of precisely 15 Eoman miles from Lejjiin the name
of Beth-kad appears in Van de Velde's map (see
also Rob. Bibl. Res. ii. 316) ; but this place, though
coincident in point of distance, is not on the plain,
nor can it either belong to Samaria, or be on the
road from Jezreel thither, being behind (south of)
Mount Giiboa. The slaughter at the well recalls tbe
massacre of the pilgrims by Ishmael ben-Netfaaniali
at Mizpah, and the recent tragedy at Cawnpore. G.
SHE'AR-JA'SHUB (niEJJ ~mi [a rem
nant shall return] : i Ka-raXeupBels laaoip: qia
derelictus est Jasub). The son of Isaiah tlu
prophet, who accompanied him when he went to
meet Ahaz in the causeway of the fuller's field (Is.
vii. 3). The name, like that of the prophet's other
son, Maher-sfaalal-bash-baz, had a mystical signifi
cance, and appears to have been given with mixed
feelings of sorrow and hope — sorrow for the cap
tivity of the people, aud hope that in the end s
remnant should return to the land of their fathen
(comp. Is. X. 20-22).
SHE'BA (3?3tt7 [seven, an cath]: 2o|8ee',
[Alex. 2 Sam. xx. 1, 7, A/See;] Joseph. 2ai3<uos.
Seba). The son of Bichri, a Benjamite from the
mountains of Ephraim (2 Sam. xx. 1-22), the last
chief of the Absalom insurrection. He is described
as a ''man of Belial," which seems [comp. Shuiei]
to have been the usual term of invective cast to ajid
fro between tbe two parties. But he must have
been a person of some consequence, from the im
mense effect produced by his appearance. It was
in fact all but an anticipation of the revolt of Jero
boam. It was not, as in tbe case of Absalom, a
mere conflict between two factions in tbe coiut of
Judah, but a struggle, arising out of that conflict,
on the part of tbe tribe of Benjamin to recover its
lost ascendancy ; a struggle of which some indica
tions had been already manifested in the excessive
bitterness of the Benjamite Shimei. The occasion
seized by Sheba was the enmlation, as if from loy
alty, between the northern and southeni tribes on
David's return. Through the ancient custom, he
sunjmoned all the tribes "to their tents;" atjd
then, and afterwards, Judah alone remained faith
ful to the house of David (2 Sam. xx. 1, 2). The
king might well say, '• Sheba the son of Bichri
shall do us more harm than did Absalom " (ibid.^).
Wbat he feared was Sheba's occupation of the for
tified cities. This fear was justified by the result
Sheba traversal tbe whole of Palestine, apparentlv
rousing the population, Joab following Bim in foil
pursuit, and so deeply impressed with the graritj
of the occasion, that the murder even of the peat
Amasa was but a passing incident in tlie campaign.
He stayed but for the moment of the deed, and
" pursued alter Sheba the son of Bichri." Th«
mass of the army halted for an instant by the
bloody corpse, and then they also " went on after
Joab to pursue after Sheba the son of Eichri." "
seems to have been his intention to establish him
self in the fortress of Abel-Beth-maacah, in the
northmost extremity of Palestine, possibly allied is
the cause of Absalom through his mother Maacah.
aud famous for the prudence of its inhabitiuits (i

SHEBA
9am. XX 13). That prudence was put to the test
on tbe present occasion. Joab's terms were — the
head of the insurgent chief. A woman of the place
[Midertook the mission to her city, and proposed
the execution to her fellow-citizens. The head of
Sheba was thrown over the wall, and the insturec-
tiou ended.
2. (SejSee; Alex. So/Soflc: Sebe.) A Gadite,
one of the chiefs of his tribe who dwelt in Bashan
(1 Chr. V. 13). A. P. S.
SHE'BA {M3^ [see below]). The name
of three fathers of tribes in the early genealogies
of Genesis, often referred to in the sacred books.
They are: —
1. (2a/3a'; [Vat. in 1 Chr. So/SarO Saba.) A
«on cf Raamah, son of Cush (Gen. x. 7 ; 1 Chr.
i.9). 2. (Alex. 2a;8€u, So^af.) A son of Joktan
[fien. X. 28; 1 Chr. i. 22); the tenth in order of
bis sons.
3. (5ai8a, 2aj8aii Alex. %a.$!iy, Sa$a.) A
son of Jokshan, sou of Keturah (Gen. xxv. 3; 1
Chr. i. 32).
We shall consider, first, the history of the Jok
tanite Sheba; and, secondly, tbe Cushite Sheba
and the Keturahite Sheba together.
I. It has been shown, iu Arabia and other
articles, that the Joktanites were among the early
colonists of southern Arabia, and that the kingdom
which they there founded was, for many centuries,
called the kingdom of Sheba, after one of the sons
of Joktan. They appear to have been preceded by
an aboriginal race, which the Arabian historians
describe as a people of gigantic stature, who culti
vated the land and peopled the deserts alike, living
with the Jinn in the " deserted quarter," or, like
the tribe of Thamood, dwelling in caves. This
people correspond, in their traditions, to the abo
riginal races of whom remains are found wherever
a civilized nation has supplanted and dispossessed
the ruder race. Bnt besides these extuict tribes,
there are the evidences of Cushite settlers, who
appear to have passed along the south coast from
west to east, and who probably preceded the Jok
tanites, and mixed with them when they arrived in
the country.
Sheba seems to have been the name of the great
south Arabian kingdom and the peoples which
composed it, until that of Himyer took its place in
later times. On this point much obscurity re
mains; but the Sabseans are mentioned by. Diod.
Sic, who refers to the historical Ijooks of the
kings of Egypt in tlie Alexandrian Library, and
by Eratosthenes, as well as Artemidorus, or Aga-
tharchides (iii. 38, 46), who is Strabo's chief au
thority; and the Honieritas or Himyerites are first
raentioned by Strabo, in the expedition of Mlms
Gallus (b. c. 24). Nowhere earher, in sacred or
profane records, are the latter people mentioned,
except by the Arabian historians themselves, who
phice Himyer very high in their list, and ascribe
iraportance to his family from that early date.
We have endeavored, in other articles, to .show
reasons for supposing that in this very name of
Himyer we have the Red Man, and the origin of
Erythrus, Erythraean Sea, Phcenicians, etc. [See
Arabia ; Red Sea.] The .ipparent difficulties of
ihe case are reconciled by supposing, as M. Caussin
«e Perceval (£ssai, i. 54, 55) has done, that the
kingdom and its people received the name of Sheba
[AraUc, Sehk), but that its chief and sometiines

SHEBA

2049

reigning family or tribe was that ot Ilimyei ; and
that an old name was thus preserved until tht
foundation of the modern kingdom of Himyer or
the Tubbaas, which M. Caussin is inclined to place
(hut there is much uncertainty about this date)
about a century before our era, when the two great
rival families of Himyer and Kahlan, together with
smaller tribes, were united under the former. Ii
support of the view that the 'name of Sheba ap
plied to the kingdom and its people as a generic
or national name, we find in the Kdnwos " the
name of Seba comprises the tribes of the Yemen
in common" (s. v. Seba); and this was written
long after the later kingdom of Himyer had tlour-
ished and fallen. And further, as Himyer meant
the " Red Man," so probably did Seba. In Arabic,
the verb seba, Laaw) said of the sun, or of a
journey, or of a fever, means "it altered " a man,
i. e. by turning him red ; the noun seba, as well as
sibd and sebee-ab, signifies " wine " ( Taj el-'Ai-oos
MS.). The Arabiai; wine was red; for we read
'•kumeyt is a name of wine, l)ecanse there is in it
blackness and redness" (Sihdh JIS.)- It appears,
then, that in Seba we very possibly have the oldest
name of the Red Man, whence came (pdivi^, Him
yer, and Erythrus.
We have assumed the identity of the Ai'abij
Seba, La*w, with Sheba (S^tt?). The pi. form
D^'MDU? corresponds with the Greek SajSaTos and
the Latin Sabsei. Gesenius compares the Heb.
with Eth. A'lln ''man." The Hebrew shin is,
in by far the greater number of instances, sin in
Arabic (see Gesenius); and the historical, ethno
logical, and geographical circumstances of the case,
all require the identification.
In the Bible, the Joktanite Sheba, mentioned
genealogically in Gen. x. 28, recurs, as a kingdom,
in the account of the visit of the queen of Sheba
to king Solomon, when she heard of his fame con
cerning the name of the Lord, and came to prove
him with hard questions (1 K. a. 1); "and she'
came to Jerusalera with a very great train, with
camels that bare spices, and \ery much gold, and
precious stones" (ver. 2). And, again, "she gave
the king an hundred and twenty talents of gold,
and of spices very great store, and precious stones:
there came no more such abundance of spices as
these which the queen of Sheba gave to king Solo
mon " (ver. 10). She was attracted hy the fiime
of Solomon's wisdom, which she had heard in her
own land ; but the dedication of the Temple bad
recently been solemnized, and, no doubt, the people
of Arabia wei'e desirous to see this famous house.
That the queen was of Sheba in Arabia, and not of
Seba the Cushite kingdom of Ethiopia, is unques
tionable; Josephus and some of the Rabbinical writ
ers " perversely, as usual, refer her to the latter ; and
the Ethiopian (or Abyssinian) Church has a con
venient tradition to the same effect (comp. Joseph.
Ani. viii. 6, § 5; Ludolf, His!. .Ethiop. ii. 3; Har
ris's Abyssinia, ii. 105). The Arabs call her Bilkees
(or Yelkamah or Balkamah; Ibn Khaldoon), a
queen ofthe later Himyerites, who, if M. Caussin's
a Aben-Ezra (on Dan. xi. 6), however, remarks that
tbe queen of Sheba came from the Yemen, for shf
spoke an Ishmaelite (or rather a Shemitic) language.

2950

SHEBA

chronological adjustments of the early history of
the Yemen be correct, reigned in the first century
Df our era (Essai, i. 75, &c.); and an edifice at
Ma^rib (Mariaba) still hears her name, while M.
Fresnel read the name of "Almacah" or " Bal-
macah " in many of tbe Himyeritic inscriptions.
The Arab story of this queen is, in the present
state of our knowledge, altogether unhistorical and
unworthy of credit; but the attempt to make her
Solomon's queen of Sheba probably arose (as M.
<"aussin conjectures) from the latter being men
tioned in tlie Kur-an witjiout any name, and the
commentators adopting Bilkees as the most ancient
queen of Sheba in the Hsts of the Yemen. The
Kur-an, as usual, contains a very poor version of
the Biblical narrative, diluted with nonsense and
encumbered with fables (ch. xxvii. ver. 2-1, &c.).
The other passages in the Bible which seem to
refer to the Joktanite Sheba occur in Is. Ix. 6,
where we read, "all they from Sheba shall come:
they shall bring gold and incense," in conjunction
with Midian, Ephah, Kedar, and Nebaioth. Here
reference is made to the commerce that took the
road fi-om Sheba along the western borders of
Arabia (unless, as is possible, the Cushite or Ketu
rahite Sheba l>e meant); and again in Jer. vi. 20,
it is ^vritten, " To what purpose con eth there to
me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a
far country? " (hut compare iCz. xxvii. 22, 2-3, aud
see below). On the other hand, in Ps. Ixxii. 10,
the -Joktanite Sheba is undoubtedly meant; for
the kingdoms of Sheba and Seba are named to
gether, and in ver. 15 the gold of Sheba is men
tioned. The kingdom of Sheba embraced tibe greater
part of the Yemen, or Arabia Jelix. Its chief
cities, and probably successive capitals, were Seba,
San'a (Uzal), and Zaf^ (Sephar). Seba was
probably the name of the eity, and generally of the
country and nation; but the statements of the
Arabian writers are conflicting on this point, and
they are not made clearer by the accounts of the
classical geographers. Ma-rib was another name
of the city, or of the fortress or royal palace in it:
* Seba is a city known by the name of Mar-rib,
,hree nights' journey from San'a" (Ez-Zejjaj, in
the Tdj-eP Aroos MS.). Again, "Seba was the
city of Ma-rib (Mushtarak, s. v.), or the country
in the Yemen, of which the city was Ma-rib "
(Marasid, in voc ). Near Seba was the famous
Dyke of El-'Arini, said by tradition to have been
built hy Lukman the 'Adite, to store water for the
inhabitants of the place, and to avert the descent
of the mountaiti torrents. The catastrophe of the
rupture of tbis dyke i.s an important point in Arab
history, and marks the dlspereion in the 2d century
of the Joktanite tribes. This, like all we know of
Seba, points irresistibly to the great importance of
the city as the ancient centre of Joktanite power.
Although tJzid (which is said to he the existing
San'a) has been supposed to be of earlier founda
tion, and Zafar (Skvhak) was a royal residence,
we cannot doubt that Seba was the most important
of these chief towns of the Yemen. Its value in
the eyes of the old dynasties is shown hy their
Btruggles to obtain and hold it; and it is narrated
that it passed several times into the hands alter
nately of the so-called Himyerites and the people
if Hadramiiwt (Hazar-mavktii). Eratosthenes,
Artemidorus, Strabo, and Pliny, speak of MaHoba .
Diodorus, Agatharchides, Steph. Byzani, of Saba.
Soj3of (Steph. Byzant.). Sa^as (Agath.). Ptol.

SHEBA
(vi. 7,.§§ 30, 42), and Plin. (vi. 23, § 34) mentia.
^d^T}. But the foi;mer all say that Mariaba wai
the metropolis of the Sabaei ; and we may conclude
that both names applied to the same place, one the
city, the other its palace or fortress (though prob.
ably these writers were not aware of this fact);
unless indeed the form Sabota (with tbe variait*
Sabatha, Sobatale, etc ) of Pliny (H. N. ri, 28, \
32), have reference to Shibara, capital of Hadra-
mawt, and the name also of -another celebrated
city, of which the Arabian writers ( Marasid, s. v. )
gi\e curious accounts. The classics, are generaUy
agreed in ascribing to the Sabaei tbe chief riches.
the best territory, and tbe gi-eatest Tjumbere of tlie
four principal peoples of the Arabs which they
name: the Sabaei, Atramitse (= HadramawtJ, Ka-
tabeni (= Kahtan = Joktan), and Minaei (for
which see Diklah). See Bochart (Plialeg, xvii.),
and Miiller's Geog. Min. p. 186 fi".
The history of the Sabseans has been examined
by M. Caussin de Perceval (Essai sur fBisL det
Arabes), but much remains to be adjusted brfore
its details can be received as trustworthy, Uie
earliest safe chronological point being about the
commencement of our era. An examination of
the existing remains of Sabsean and Himyerite
cities and buildings will, it cannot be doubted, add
more facts to our present knowledge; and afm^er
acquaintance with the language, from inscriptions,
aided, as M. Fresnel believes, by an existing dialect,
will probably give us some safe grounds for phmg
the building, or era, of the dyke. In the art
Arabia (vol. i. p. 142 b), it is stated that there
are dates on the ruins of the dyke, and the conclu
sions which De Sacy and Caussin have drawn froni
those dates and other indications respecting the
date of the rupture of the dyke, which forma
then an important poi'it in Arabian history; but
it must be placed in the 2d century of our era, and
the older era of the building is altogether unfixed,
or indeed any date before the expedition of ^lius
Gallus. The ancient buildings are of massive
masonry, and evidently of Cushite workmanship,
or origin. Later temples, and palace-temples, of
which the Arabs give us descriptions, were prob
ably of less massive character ; but SabEcan art it
an almost unknown and interesting subject of in
quiry. The religion celebrated in those temples
was cosmic ; but this subject is too obscure and too
little known to admit of discu$sion in this place-
It may be necessary to obsen-e that whatever con
nection there was in religion between tbe Sabseau!
and tlie Sabians, there was none in name or hi
race. Respecting the latter, the reader may con
sult Chwolson's Ssabier, a work that may I*
recommended with more confidence than the eauie
author's NabaOicean Agriculture. [See Neha-
loTi!.] Some curious papers have also appeared
in the Journal of the German Oriental Society of
Leipsic, by Or. Osiander. [Arabia, i. 142, note
c, Amer. ed.]
II. Sheba, son of Ramah son of Cush, settkrf
somewhere on the shores of the Persian Gulf, h
the Marasid (s. v.) the writer has found an identi
fication which appears to he satisfactory — thatoD
the island of Awal (one of the " Bahreyn Islanda ")
are the ruins of an ancient city called Sena
Viewed in connection with Raamah, and theother
facts which we know respecting Sheba, traces of
his settlements ought to be found on or near tiie
shores of the gulf. It was this Sheba that cairied
on the great Indian trafiSc with Paleatine, in cop

SHEBA
Innction with, as we hold, the other Sheba, son of
Jokshan son of Keturah, who,like Dedan, appears
lo have formed with the Cushite of the same name,
Dne trihe; the Cushites dwelling on the shores of
the Persian Gulf, and carrying on the desert trade
thence to Palestine in conjunction with the noraade
Keturahite tribes, whose pasturages were mostly on
the western frontier. The trade is mentioned by
Ez. xxvii. 22, 23, in an unmistak.able manner; and
possibly by Is. Ix. 6, and .ler. vi. 20, but these
latter, we thhik, r.ither refer to the Joktanite Sheba.
The predatory bands of the Keturahites are men-
ti:)ned in Job i. 15, and vi. 19. in a manner that
recalls the forays of modem Bedawees. [Comp.
Ababu, Deda.\, Teman, etc.] E. S. P.
SHE'BA (273tf7 [seven, an oath]: Sapaa;
Alex. 2a^€e: Sabee). One of the towns of the
allotment of Simeon (Josh. xix. 2). tt occurs be^
tween Beer-sheba and iiloladah. In the list of the
cities of the south of Judah, /Out of which those
of Simeon v/ere selected, no Sheba appears apart
from Beer-sheba; but there is a Shema (xv. 26)
which stands next to Jloladah, and which is prob
ably the Sheba in question. This suggestion is
supported by the reading of the Vatican LXX.
The change from 6 to m is ,an easy one both in
speaking and in writing, and in their other letters
the words are ideiiticd. Some have supposed tliat
the name Sheba is a mere repetition of the latter
portion of tlie preceding name, Beer-sheba, — by
the common error called honioioteleuton, — and this
is supported by the facts that the immber of names
given in xix. 2-6 is, including Sheba, fourteen,
though the number stated is thirteen, and that in
the list of Simeon of 1 Chr. (iv. 28) Shel-a is
entirely omitted. Ge'seiiius suggests that the words
in xix. 2 may be rendered '* Beer sheba, the town,
with Sheba, the well; " but this seems forced, and
is besides hiconsisteiit with the fact that the list is
a list of " cities " ( Thes. p. 1355 a, where other
suggestions are cited). G.
SHE'BAH {rrS^W, i. e. Shibah [fem. seven
or an oath] ; opKos: Abundantai). The famous.
well which gave its name to the city of Beer-sheba
(Gen. xxvi. 33). According to this version of the
occurrence, Shebah, or more accurately, Shibeah,
was the fourth of the series of wells dug by Isaac's
people, and received its name from him, apparently
in allusion to the oaths (31, ^375®^ yisshdbe'u)
whioh had passed between himself and the Philis
tine chieftains the day before. It should not be
overlooked that according to the narrative of an
earlier chapter the well owed its existence and its
name to Isa.ic's fatlier (xxi. .32). Indeed, its pre
vious existence may be said to be implied in the
narrative now directly under consideration (xxvi.
23). The two transactions are curiously identical
in many oftheir circumstances — the rank and
names of the Philistine chieftains, the strife be
tween the subordinates on either side, the covenant,
tlie adjurations, the city that took its name from
the well. They differ alone in the fact that the
chief figure in the one case is Abraham, in the
other Isaac. Some commentators, as Kalisch
{Gen. p. 500), looking to the fact that there are two
luge wells at Bir es-Seba, propose to consider the
two transactions as distinct, and as belonging the
sne to the one well, the other to the other. Others
see in the two narratives merely two versions of
the circumstances under which this renowned well

SHEBARIM

2951

was first dug. And certainly in the analogy of the
early history of other nations, and in tbe very close
correspondence between the details of the two ac
counts, there is much to support this. The varioui
plays on the nieaning of the name V^W, inter
preting it as " seven " — as an " oath " — as " abun
dance"** — as "alion"^ — are all io many direct
testimonies to the remote date and archaic form of
this most venerable of names, and to the fact that
the narratives of the early history of the Hebrews
are under tiie control of the same laws which regu
late the early history ofother nations. Ci.
SHE'S AM (03 Jp, !. e. Sebam: 2e$apd-
S(d)an). One ofthe towns in the pastoral distriot
on the east of Jordan — the " land of Jazer and
the land of Gilead " — demanded and finally ceded
to the tribes of lieubeii and Gad (Num. xxxii. 3,
only). It is named between Elealeh aud Nebo,
and is probably the same \\hich in a subsequent
verse of the chapter, and on later occasions, appears
in the altered fornis of Shibmah and .Sibmaif.
The change from Sebam to Sibmah is perhaps due
to tiie difference between the Amorite and Moabite
and Hebrew languages. G.
SHEBANI'AH (n^3rit» [whom Jehovah
built up] : in Neh. ix-, Sex^yia, [V»'- 2apa,8m,
FA. SapaSia,] Alex. 'Saxavia; in Neh. x., 2a-
Savia, [Alex. FA. 'Se$ayia:] Suban'ui, Sebnia
in Neh. ix., Sebenia in Neh. x.).
1- A Levite in the time of Ezra, one of those
who stood upon the steps of tlie Levites and sang
the psalm of thanksgiving and confession which is
one ofthe last efforts of Hebrew psalmody (Neh.
ix. 4, 5). He sealed the covenant with Nehemiah
(Neh. X. 10). In the LXX. of Neh. ix. 4 he is
made the son of Sherebiah.
2. (SfiSai/i [Vat. -vei, FA- with preced. word
rou(ra;8ai'ei] in Nch. x., ¦S.exevia. [Kom., but Vat.
Alex. F.A.i omit] in Neh. xii. 14: Sebenia.) A
priest, or priestly family, who sealed the covenant
with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 4, xii. 14). Called She-
CHANiAH in Neh. xii. 3.
3. ('Sefiayia: Sabania.) Another Levite who
sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 12).
*. (^n^pnrp :iopyia; Alex. 2(o;8ei/.a; [FA
Sofiyeia :] Sebenias. ) One of the priests appointed
by David to blow with the trumpets before the ark
of God (1 Chr. XV. 24). W. A. W.
SHBB'AEIM (annt^n, with the def
article [breaches, 7-uins]: a-uyerpttfiay: Sabariin)
A place named in Josh. vii. 5 only, as one of the
points in the flight from Ai. The root of the word
has the force of "dividing" or "breaking," and
it is therefore suggested that the name was at
tached to a spot where there were fissures or rents
in the soil, gradually deepening till they ended in
a sheer descent or precipice to the ravine by which
the Israelites had come from Gilgal — " the going
down" (Tnl^ri; see verse 5 and the margin of
the A. V. ). The ground around the site of Ai, on
any hypothesis of its locality, was very much of
this character. No trace of the name has, how
ever, been yet remarked.
Keil (Josua, ad loc.) interprets Shebarim bj

a This is Jerome's ( Qutrst. in Genesim and Vutgaie}
as if the word was ri3?2Ci.^. as in £z. xvi. 49.
o The modem Arabic Bir es-Seba\

29r)2

SHBBER

'* stone quarries;" but this does not appear to be
supported by other commentators or by lexicog
raphers. The ancient interpreters usually discard
it as a proper name, and render it " till they were
broken up," etc. G.
SHE'BER ("•?!.'¦' [breaking, ruin]: 'Safiep;
Alex. Seffep: Saber). Son of Caleb ben-Hezron
hy his concubine Maachah (I Chr. ii. 48).
SHEB'NA (W35?p b"«tlh Ges.]: iopyds,
[exc. 2 K., Rom. -Zaipyds: Is. xxxvi. 3, Vat. Soff-
casO Sobnas). A persop of high position in
Hezekiah's court, holding at one time the office
of prefect of the palace (Is. xxii. 15), but subse
quently the subordinate office of secretary (Is. xxxvi.
;i; 2 K. xviii. 37, fliix. 2). This change appears
to have been effected by Isaiah's interposition; for
Hhebna had incurred the prophet's extreme dis
pleasure, partly ou account of his pride (Is. xxii.
16), his luxury (ver. 18), and his tyranny (as im
pUed in the title of " father '' bestowed on his suc
cessor, ver. 21), and partly (as appears from his
successor being termed a " servant of Jehovah "
ver. 20), on account of his belonging to the political
party which was opposed to the theocracy, and in
favor of the Egyptian alliance. From the omission
of the usual notice of his father's name, it has been
^conjectured that he was a mn^s homo. W. L. B.
SHEBU'EL (bSl^ro [capike of God]).
1. (tov$aitX; [1 Chr. xxvi. 24, Vat. IoitjA.:] Subuel,
Subael.) A descendant of Gershom (1 Chr. xxiii.
(.6, xxvi. 24), who was ruler of the treasures of the
house of God; called also Shubael (1 Chr. xxiv.
20). The Targum of 1 Chr. xxvi. 24 has a strange
piece of confusion : "And Shebuel, that is, Jona^
than the son of Gershom the son of Moses, returned
to the fear of .lehovah, and when David saw that
he was skillful in money matters he appointed him
chief over the treasures." He is the hist descendant
of Moses of whom there is any trace.
2. [SouSo^A: Subuel] Oue of the fourteen
sons of lleman the minstrel (1 Chr. xxv. 4); called
also SHL'BAi':L(lClir. xxv. 20), which was the read
ing of the LXX. and Vulgate. He was chief of
the thirteenth band of twelve hi the Temple choir.
SHECANI'AH (•in^.^pP [familiar with
Jehovah]: 'iex^viai; [Vat. lo-^ai'io:] Sec/ienia).
1. The tenth in order of the priests who were ap
pointed by lot in the reign of David (1 Chr. xxiv. 11).
2. (^exoyias'. Sechenias.) A priest in the reign
of Hezekiah, one of those appointed in the cities of
the priests to distribute to their brethren their daily
portion for their service (2 Chr. xxxi. 15).
SHBCHANrAH (nlji^tp [see above]: Se-
veylas [V^t. -yia] : Sechenias). 1. A descendant
of Zerubbabel of the line royal of Judah (1 Chr. iii.
21, 22).
2. (Sox'w'ar [<"' -yia; Vat. Sarax'aJ or
-Xia.]) Some descendants of Shechaniah appear
to have returned with Ezra (Ezr. viii. 3). He is
called Sechenias in 1 Esdr. viii. 29.
3. (Sex^yias : [Vat. omits.] ) The sons of She-
cnaniah were another family who returned with
Ezra, three hundred strong, with the son of Jaha-
ziel at their head (Ezr. viii. 5). In this verse some
name appears to have been omitted. The LXX.

SHECHEM
has " of the sons of Zathoe, Sechenias tho son o'
Aziel," and in this it is followed by 1 Esdr. viii. 32,
of the sons of Zathoe, Sechenias the son of Je-
zelus." Perhaps tho readuig should be: "ofthe
sons of 'Zattu, Shechaniah, the son of Jahaziel."
4. The son of Jehiel of the sons of Elam, who
proposed to Ezra to put an end to the foreign mar
riages whioh had been contracted after the retuni
from Babylon (Ezr. x. 2).
5. The father of Shemaiah the keeper of the
east gate of Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 29).
6. The son of Arab, aud father-in-law to Tobiah
the Ammonite (Neh. vi. 18).
7. (Sexevia: Sebenias. ) The head of a priestly
family who returned with Zerubbabel (Neh. xii. 3),
He is also called Siiebaniah, and Sheoamiaii,
and was tenth in order of the priests in the reign
of David.
SHE'CHEM (D.???, shoulder, ridge, like
lorsum in Latin : ^oxep i" ™ost passages, but alto
7] ^tKtpa in I K. xii. 25, and ri SUtjUa, as in Josh.
xxiv. 32, the form used by Josephus and Eusebiiu,
with still other variations [as sijicLpa, and in Josh.
xxiv. 1, 25, SrjXii]: Sichem, [Sichima (both sing.
and pi.)]). There may be some doubt respecting
the origin of tbe name. It has been made a question
whether the place was so called from Sliechem the
son of Hanior, head of their tribe in the time ol
Jacob (Gen. xxxiii. 18 ff), or whether he received
his name from the city. The import ofthe name
favors certainly the latter supposition, since the po
sition of the place on the " saddle " or "shoulder"
of the heights which divide the waters there that
flow to the Mediterranean on the west and the Jor
dan on the east,'-" would -naturally originate such a
name ; and the name, having been thus introduced,
would be likely to appear again and again in the
family of the hereditary nilers of the city or region.
The name, too, if first given to the city in the time
of Hamor, would have been taken, according to
historical analogy, from the father rather than the
son. Some interpret Gen. xxxiii. 18, 19 as show
ing that Shechem in that passage may have been
called also Shalem. But this opinion has no sup
port except from that passage ; and the meaning
even there more naturally is, that Jacob came Hi
safely to Shechem (Qlptf, as an adjective, safe ;
comp. Gen. xviii. 21); or (a.s recognized in the
Eng. Bible) that Sbjilem belonged to Shechera asa
dependent tributary village. [Shalem.] Tbenauje
is also given in the Auth. Version in the form of
Sichem, and Sychem, to which, as well as Sy
char, the reader is referred.
The etymology of the Hebrew word Sheclirt in-'*™
dicates, at the outset, that the place was situated
on some mountain or hill-side; and that presump
tion agrees with Josh. xx. 7, which places it in
Mount Ephraim (see, also, 1 K. xii. 25), and with
Judg. ix. 7, which represents it as under the Buni-
mit of Gerizim, which belonged to the Ephraira
range. The other Biblical intimations iu regard to
its situation are only indirect. They are worth no--
ticing, though no great stress is to be laid on theni.
Thus, for example, Shechem must have been not
far from Shiloh, since Shiloh is said (Judg. xxi. 191
to be a little to the east of "the highway" which
led from Beth-el to Shechem. Again, if Shalem

From the foot of the mountain'^ on either side of of the Mediterranean. The latter appears in the Uln»
the town can be discerneil on the one hand the range tration to this article.
!>eyond .lordau Valley, and on thu other the blue waters I

SHECHEM
In Gen. xxxiii. 18 be a proper name, as our version
assumes, and identical with *he present Salim on
the left of the plain of the Mukhna, then Shechem,
which is said to be east of Shtdiirt, must have been
among the hills on the opposite side. Further,
Shechem, as we leam from Joseph's history (Gen.
xxxvii. 1.2, &c.), must have been nearDothan; and,
assuming Dothan to be the place of that name a
few miles northeast of Ndbulus, Shechem must
have been among the same mountains, not far dis
tant. So, too, as the Sychar in John iv. 5 was
probably the ancient Shechem, that town must
have been near Mount Gerizim, to which the Sa
maritan woman pointed or glanced as she stood by
the well at its foot.
Bnt the historical and traditional data which
exist outside of the Bible are abundant and decisive.
Josephus (Ant. iv. 8, §-44) describes Shechem as
Iietween Gerizim and Ebal: rrjs Sixtpaiy v6Xeus

SHECHEM

2963

pera^b Suo7y opoiy, FapiCaioj pey tov Ik Se^iSr
Keipeyou, tov 5' ix Kaiuy Fi^dXav wpoaayopevo-
pevov. The present Nabulus is a corruption
merely of Neapolis: and Neapohs succeeded the
more ancient Shechem. All the early writers who
touch on the topography of Palestine, testify to
this identity of the two. Josephus usually retains
the old name, but has Neapolis in B. J. iv. 8, § 1.
Epiphanius says (Adv. Heer. iii. 1055): iv SikI-
ft-ots, tout' ea-Tiy, iy T-ij yvvl NedwoXei. Jerome
says in the Epit. PaulcB: " Transivit Sichem. quie
nunc Neapolis appellatur." The city received its
new name (Neti7roAis= .V«4uf«s) from Vespasian,
and on coins still extant (Eckhel, Doctr. Nicmm. iii.
433) is called Flavia Neapolis. It had been laid
waste, in all probability, during the .Jewish war'
aud the overthrow had been so complete that, con
trary to what is generally true in such instances
of the substitution of a foreign narae for the native

The Vallej
westwa
from a sKefch by W. Tipping, Esq. "''

southwestern flank of Mount Ebal, looking
.sditerranean is discernible in the distance

one,^ the original appellation of Shechem never
regained its currency among the people of the
•oountry. Its situation accounts for another name
wnich It bore among the natives, while it was
known dacfly as Neapolis to foreigners, ft is
nearly midway between Judsea and Galilee; and.
It being customary to make four staces of the
journey between those provinces, the second day's
^ Halt occurs most conveniently at this place. Being
«*> a "thoroughfare" (= Nm217a) on this
mportant route, it was called a" also kaflopffa or
^apBi, as Josephus states (B. J. iv. 8, § 1)
He says there that Vespasian marched from Ara-
niaus, S,a T^j SafiapelriSos Kal Tropct riiy Ned-
nMv KoKovpivriy, UafiopBh. SJ imh ray irr.-

mU.TH'^''^^^ conjecture, in explanation ofa name
h«-„ ,"lf?f.'' °™° "" '°'f^">°^ Belaud, is due to 01s-
""¦"n 'Bitter, as above). 186

Xapta>v. Phny (//. N'. v. 13) writes the same
name " Mamortha." Others would restrict the term
somewhat, and understand it rather of the " pass "
or " gorge " through the mountains where the town
was situated (Ritter's Krdkunde, Pal. p. 646).
'I'he ancient town, in its most flourishing age.
may have filled a wider circuit than its m°odern'
representative. It could easily have extended
further up the side of Gerizim, and eastward nearer
to the opening into the valley from the plain. But
any great change in this respect, certainly the idea
of an altogether different position, the natural con
ditions of the locality render doubtful. That the
suburbs of the town, in the age of Christ, ap
proached nearer than at present to the entrance
mto the valley between Gerizim and Ebal, may
be infen-ed from the implied lidnity of Jacob's
well to Sychar, in John's narrative (if I Jf .
The impression made there on the reader is, that
the people could be readily seen as -they came forth

2954

SHECHEM

ftom the town to rep,air to Jesus at the well, whereas
Nabulus is more than a mile distant, and not vis
ible from that point. The present inhabitanf«
have a beUef or tradition that Shechem occupied a
portion of the valley on the east beyond the Umits
of the modem town ; and certain travellers speak
of ruins there, which they regard as evidence of the
same fact. The statement of Eusebius that Sychar
.4y east of NeapoUs, may be explained by the cir
cumstance, that the part of Neapolis in that quar
ter had fallen into such a state of ruin when he
lived, as to be mistaken for the site of a separate
own (see Eeland's FaUest. p. 1004). The portion
01 the town on the edge of the plain was more ex
posed than that in the recess of the valley, and, in
.he natural course of things, would be destroyed
first, or be left to desertion and decay. Josephus
says that more than ten thousand Samaritans (in
habitants of Shechem are meant) were destroyed
by the Romans on one occasion (B. J. iii. 7, § 32).
The population, therefore, must have been much
greater than Ndbulus with its present dimensions
would contain.
The situation of the town is one of surpassing
beauty. " The land of Syria," said Mohammed,
" is beloved by Allah beyond all lands, and the part
of Syria "which He loveth most is the district of Je
rusalem, and the place which He loveth most in the
district of Jerusalem is the mountain of Nablus ''
(Fundgr. des Orients, ii. 139). Its appearance has
called forth the admiration of all travellers who have
any sensibility to the charms of nature. It lies in a
sheltered valley, protected by Gerizim on the soutli,
and Ebal on the north. The feet of these moun
tains, where they rise from the town, are not more
than five hundred yards apart. The bottom ofthe
valley is about 1800 feet above the level of the sea,
and the top of Gerizim 800 feet higher still. Those
who have been at Heidelberg will assent to 0. von
Richter's remark, that the scenery, as viewed from.
the foot of the bills, is not unlike that of the beauti
ful German town. The site of the present city,
wbich we believe to have been also that of the He
brew city, occurs exactly on the water- summit; and
streams issuing from the numerous springs there,
flow down the opposite slopes of the valley, spread
ing verdure and fertility in every direction. lYavel-
lers vie with each other in the language which they
employ to describe the scene that bursts here so
suddenly upon them on arriving in spring or early
summer at this paradise of the Holy Land. The
somewhat sterile aspect of the adjacent mountains
becomes itself a foil, as it were, to set off the effect
of the verdant fields and orchards which fill up the
valley. " There is nothing finer in all Palestine,"
says Dr. Clarke, " than a view of Ndbulus from the
heights around it. As the traveller descends to
wards it from the hills, it appears luxuriantly em
bosomed in the most delightful and fragrant bow
ers, half concealed by rich gardens and by stately
trees collected into groves, all around the bold, and
beautiful valley in which it stands." " The whole
valley," says Dr. Robin.son, " was filled with gar
dens of vegetables, and orchards of all kinds of
fruits, watered by fountains, which burst forth in
various parts and flow westwards in refreshing
(treams. It came upon us suddenly like a scene

o The rendering '^plains of Moreh " in the Auth.
Vers, is Infiorrect. The Samaritan Pentateuch trans-
lutat rr vS in Geu. xxxv. i '' Iww " or " arch : " and

SHECHEM
of fairy enchantment. We saw uothim to eogii
pare with it in all Palestine. Here, beneath tlii
shadow of an immense mulbeiTy-tree, by the sidf
of a purling rill, we pitched our tent for the re
mainder of the day and the night. . . ,
We rose early, awakened by the songs of nightin
gales and other birds, of which the gardens aromid
us were full." "There is no wildernesa hei-e"
says Van de Velde (i. 386), " there are no wild
thickets, yet there is always verdure, always shade
not of the oak, the terebinth, and the carob-tree, but
of the olive-grove, so soft in color, so picturesque
in form, that, for its sake, we can willingly dis
pense vrith all other wood. There is a singuWitj
about the vale of Shechem, and that is the pecu].
iar coloring which objects assume in it. You
know that wherever there is water the air heasra
charged with watery particles, and that distant ob
jects beheld through that medium seem to be en
veloped in a pale blue or gray mist, such as
contributes not a little to give a charm to tbe land
scape. But it is precisely those atmospheric^- tints
that we miss sc much iu Palestine. Fiery tinta
are to be seen both iu the morning and the even
ing, and glittering violet .>r purple cobred hues
where the light falls next to the long, deep shad
ows ; but there is an absence of coloring, and of
that charming dusky hue in which objects assume
such softly blended forms, and in which also the
transition in color from the foreground to tbe
furthest distance loses the hardness of outlme pe-
cuUar to the perfect transparency of an eastern sky.
It is otherwise in the vale of Shechem, at least in
the morning and the evening. Here the exiala-
tioiis remain hovering among the blanches and
leaves of the olive-trees, and hence that lovely blu.
ish haze. The valley is far from broad, not ex
ceeding in some places a few hundred feet This
you find generally inclosed on all sides; here, like
wise, the vapors are condensed. And so you
advance under the shade of the foliage, along tbe
living waters, and charmed by the mdody of abott
of singing birds — for they, too, know where lo
find their best quarters — while the perapectite
fades away and is lost in the damp, vapory atmoj-
phere." Apart entirely from the historic interest
of the place, such are the natural attraetioiis of tbis
favorite resort of the patriarchs of old, such tbe
beauty of the scenery, and the indescribable air of
tranquilhty and repose which hangs over the scene,
that the traveller, anxious .as he may be to hasten
forward in his journey, feels that he would gladly
linger, and could pass here days and weeks vitbout
impatience. The allusions to Shechem in the Bible are nu
merous, and show how important the place OTS iu
Jewish history. Abraham, on his first migitllini
to the Land of Promise, pitched his fent and buUt
an altar under the Oak " (or Terebmth) of Mo«b
at Shechem. " The Canaanite was then in Ibe
land; " and it is evident that the region, if not tbe
city, was already in possession of the aborigiual
race (see Gen. xii. 6). Some have mfeired from
the expression, "place of Shechem," {D''P?
D3tt7), that it was not inhabited as a city in the

on the basis of that error the Samaritans at »*
show a structure of that sort under an accllTityJf
Gerizim, which they say waa the spot where J«**
buried the Mesoiotamian idols.

SHECHEM
time ot Abraham. But we have the same expres-
lion used of cities or towns in other instances (Gen.
xviii. 24, xix. 12, xxix. 22); and it may have been
interchanged here, without any difference of mean
ing, with the phrase, "city of Shechem," which
occurs in xxxiii. 18. A position affording such
natural advantages would hardly fail to be occupied,
as soon as any population existed in the country.
The narrative shows incontestably that at the time
of Jacob's arrival here, after his sojourn in Meso
potamia (Gen. xxxiii. 18, xxxiv.), Shechem was a
Hivite city, of which Hamor, the father of Shechem,
was the head-man. It was at this time that the
patriarch purchased from that chieftain " the parcel
of the field," which he subsequently bequeathed, as
a special patrimony, to his son Joseph (Gen. xliii.
22; Josh. xxiv. 32; John iv. 5). The field lay un
doubtedly on the rich plain of the Mukhna, and
its value was the greater on account of the well
which Jacob had dug there, so as not to be depend
ent on hia neighbors for a supply of water. The
defilement of Dinah, Jacob's daughter, and the
capture of Shechem and massacre of all the male
inhabitants by Simeon and Levi, are events that
belong to this period' (Gen. xxxiv. 1. f.). As this
bloody act, whioh Jacob so entirely condemned
(Gen. xxxiv. 30) and reprobated with his dying
breath (Gen. xUx. 5-7), ia ascribed to two persons,
some urge that as evidence of the very insignificant
character of the town at the time of that transac
tion. But the argument is by no means decisive.
Those sons of Jacob were already at the head of
households of their own, and may hitve had the
support, in that achievement, of their numerous
slaves and retainers. We speak, in like manner,
of a commander as taking this or that city, when
we mean that it was done under his leadership.
The oak under which Abraham had worshipped,
survived to Jacob's time; and the latter, as he was
aliout to remove to Beth-el, collected the images and
amulets which some of his family had brought with
them from Padan-aram, and buried them- " under
the oak which was by Shechem " (Gen. xxxv. 1-4).
The " oak of the monument " (if we adopt that
lendering of 3SO P7N in Judg. ix. 6), where
the Shechemites made Abimelech king, marked,
perhaps, the veneration with which the Hebrews
looked back to these earliest footsteps (the incunab
ula gentis) of the patriarchs in the Holy Land."
During Jacob's sojourn at Hebron, his sons, in the
course of their pastoral wanderings, drove their
flocks to Shechem, and at Dothan, in that neigh
borhood, Joseph, who had heen sent to look after
their welfare, was seized and sold to the Ishmaelites
(Gen. xxxvii. 12, 28). In the distribution of the
land after its conquest by the Hebrews, Shechem
fell to the lot of Ephraim (Josh. xx. 7), but was
assigned to the Levites, and became a city of
refuge (Josh. xxi. 20, 21). It acquired new ini-
" Here again the Auth. Vers., which renders " the
Jlaiu of the pillar," ia certainly wrong. It will not
wawer to insist on the explanation suggested in the
text of the article The Hebrew expression may re-
'er to " the stone " which Joshua erected at Shechem
« a witness of the covenant between God and hia peo
ple (Josh. xxiv. 26) ; or may mean « the oak of the
pirrison," i. e. the one where a military post was es-
¦sblished. (See Gesen. Jirb. Lex. s. v.) [PniAB,
PiiiK OF THE, vol. iii. p. 2532-]
t> * The possibility of hearing such responsive
•<*»» has been questioned ; but travellers have now

SHECHEM

2955

portance as the scene of the renewed promulgation
of the Law, when its blessings were heard froiB
Gerizim and its curses from Ebal, and the people
bowed their heads and acknowledged Jehovah as
their king and ruler (Deut. xxvii. 11 ; and Josh
viii. 33-35)-'' It was here Joshua assembled tht
people, shortly before his death, and delivered tc
them his last counsels (.losh. xxiv. 1, 25). Afte.
the death of Gideon, Abimelech, his bastard son,
induced the Shechemites to revolt from the Hebrew
commonwealth and elect him as kni^ (Judg. ix. )
It was to denounce this act of usurpation and trea
son that Jotham delivered his parable of the trees
to the men of Shechem from the top of Gerieiii..
as recorded at length in Judg. ix. 22 f. The pic
turesque traits of the allegory, as Prof. Stanley
suggests (<S. (f P. p. 236; Jewish Church, p. 348),
are strikingly appropriate to the diversified foliage
of the region. c In revenge for his expulsion, after
a reign of three years, Abimelech destroyed the city,
and, as an emblem of the fate to which he would
consign it, sowed the ground with salt (Judg. ix.
34-45 ). It was soon restored, however, for we are
told iu 1 K. xii. that all Israel assembled at
Shechem, and Rehoboam, Solomon's successor,
went thither to be inaugurated as king. Its cen
tral position made it convenient for such assemblies ;
its history was fraught with recollections which
would give the sanctions of religion as well as of
patriotism to the vows of sovereign and people.
The new king's obstinacy made him insensible to
such influences. Here, at this same place, the ten
tribes renounced the house of David, and trans
ferred their allegiance to Jeroboam (1 K. xii. 16),
under whom Shechem became for a time the capi
tal of his kingdom. We come next to the epoch
of the exile. The people of Shechem doubtless
shared the fate of the other inhabitants, and were,
most of them at least, carried into captivity (2 K.
xvii. 5, 6, xviii. 9 f.). But Shalmaneser, the con
queror, sent colonies from Babylonia to occupy the
place of the exiles (2 K. xvii. 24). It would seem
that there was another influx of strangers, at a
later period, under Esar-haddon (Ezr. iv. 2). The
" certain men from Shechem," mentioned in Jer.
xii. 5, who were slain on their way to Jerusalem,
were possibly Cuthites, i. e. Babylonian immigrants
who had become proselytes or worshippers of Jeho
vah (see Hitzig, der Prcph. Jer. p. 331). These
Babylonian settlers in the land, intermixed no
doubt to someextent with the old inhabitants, were
the Samaritans, who erected at length a rival tem
ple on Gerizim (b. c. 300), and between whom and
the Jews a bitter hostiUty existed for so many ages
(.Joseph. Ant. xii. 1, § 1, xiii. 3, § 4). The son of
Sirach (I. 26) says, that "a foolish people," i. e.
the Samai'itans, " dwell at Shechem " (tA XiKipa).
From its vicinity to their place of worship, it be
came the principal' city of the Samaritans, a rank
which it maintained at least till the destruction of
frequently made the experiment and find they can
hear others with perfect distinctness from the opposite
heights. See Sepp's Jertts. u. das heil. hand, ii. 29 ;
and Tobler's Drilte Wantterung, p. 164 t. H.
c * Dr. Rosen points out a huore projecting crag of
Gerizim which overlooks Shechem ttnd the entire val
ley, as in all probability the rock-pulpit from which
Jotham addressed the Shechemites (Judg. ix. 7 ff.).
From that position as " he lifted up his voice " he
could easily be heard by the dwellers in the city. Kh.
same thing occurred iu a recent attempt there to insti
gate a revolt. H.

2956

SHECHEM

their t*^i'.'!e, about b. c. 129, a j«»noQ or nearly
two hundred years (Joseph. Ani. xiii. 9, § 1 ; B. J.
i. 2, 6). It is unnecessary to pursue this sketch
further. From the time of the origin of the Sa^
maritaiis, the history of Shechem blends itself with
that of this people and of their sacred mount,
Gerizim ; and the reader will find the proper iu-
formation on this part of the subject under those
heads (see Herzog, Real-Encyk. xiii. 362). [Sa
maria; Samakitak Pent.]
As intimated already, Shechem reappears in the
New Testament. It is the Sychar of John iv. 5,
near which the Saviour conversed with the Samari
tan woman at Jacob's Well." 2uxc^p» ^ ^^^ P^^^
is termed there (2ix**P ^° ^^'^' "^^^^ ^^ Incorrect),
found only in that passage, was no doubt current
among the Jews in the age of Christ, and was
either a term of reproach ("1|2^> "a lie,") with
reference to the Samaritan faith and worship, or,
possibly, a provincial mispronunciation of that
period (see Liicke's Comm. Ub. Johan. i. 577). The
Saviour, with his disciples, remained two days at
Sychar on his journey from Judaea to Galilee. He
preached the Word there, and many of the people
believed on Him (John iv. 39, 40). In Acts vii.
16, Stephen reminds his hearers that certain of
the patriarchs (meaning Joseph, as we see in
Josh. xxiv. 32, and following, perhaps, some tra
dition as to Jacob's other sons) were buried at
Sychem. Jerome, who lived so long hardly more
than a day's journey from Shechem, says that the
tombs of the twelve patriarchs were to be seen''
there in his day. The anonymous ^ ciiy in Acts
viii. 5, where Philip preached with such effect, may
have been Sychem, though many would refer that
narrative to Samaria, the capital of the province.
It is interesting to remember that Justin Martyr,
who follows so soon after the age of the apostles,
was born at Shechem.
It only remains to add a few words relating
more especially to Ndbulus, the heir, under a dif
ferent name,' of the site and honors of the ancient
Shechem. It would be inexcusable not to avail
ourselves here of some recent observations of Dr.
Rosen, in the Zeiischr. der D. M. Gesellschaft,
for 18G0 (pp. 622-639). He has inserted in that
journal a careful plan of Nahulus and the environs,
with various accompanying remarks. The popu
lation consists of about five thousand, among
whora are five hundred Greek Christians, one hun
dred and fifty Samaritans, and a few Jews. The
enmity between the Samaritans and Jews is as
inveterate still as it was in the days of Christ.
The Mohammedans, of course, make up the bulk of
the population. The main street follows the line
of the valley from east to west, and contains a well-
stocked bazaar. Most of the other streets cross
this: here are the smaller shops and the workstands
of the artisans. Most of the streets are narrow and
dark, as the houses hang over them on arches, very

o * Some suppose Sbechem and Sychar to be differ
ent places. See the arguments for ihat view under
SrcHAR. Dr. Robinson reaffirms hia belief that they
are identical (Later Res. iii. 131 ; see also ii. 290-292).
And Mr. Tristram says : " Jacob's well is only half
an hour trom the modern city " (Ndbtdus, Shechem),
irhile " it U evident that the ancient town lay more
"o the east, among the rough rocks and stone that
ftrew thA uninclosed and scattered olive yards for
» mile and a half" (Land of Israel, 2d ed. p. 146).

SHECHEM
much as in tbe closest parts of Cairo. Tbe hoiuei
are of stone, and of the most ordinary style, with
the exception of those of the wealthy sheikhs of
Samaria who live here. There are no public build
ings of any note. The Kenxseh or synagogue (rf
the Samaritans is a smaU edifice, in the interior of
which there is nothing remarkable, unless it be an
alcove, screened by a curtain, in which their sacred
writings are kept. The structure may be three
or four centuries old. A description and eketch
plan of it is given in Mr. Grove's paper " On the
Modem Samaritans " in Vacation TirniisisioxWM.
Nabulus has five mosques, two of which, according
to a tradition in wbich Mohammedans, ChristiauB,
and Samaritans agree, were originally churches.
One of them, it is said, was dedicated to John the
Baptist; its eastern portal, still well preserved,
shows the European taste of its founders. The '
domes of the houses and the minarets, as the;
show themselves above the sea of luxuriant vegetfr-
tion which surrounds thera, present a striking view
to the traveller approaching from the east or tbo
w^t. Dr. Kosen says that the inhabitants boast of the
existence of not less than eighty springs of water
within and around the eity. He gives the names
of twenty-seven of the principal of them. One ol
the most remarkable among them is ^Ain el-Ktmn,
which rises in the town under a vaulted dome, to
which a long flight of steps leads down, from which
the abundant water is conveyed by canals to two of
the mosques and many of the private houses, and I
after that serves to water the gardens on tLe north
side of the city. The various streams derived from
this and other fountains, after being distributed
thus among the gardens, fall at length into a single
channel and turn a mill, kept going summer and
winter. Of the fountains out of the city, three
only belong to the eastern water-shed. One of
them, ^Ain Baldta, close to the hamlet of that
name, rises in a partly subterranean chamber sup
ported by three pillars, hardly a stone's throw
from Jacob's Well, and is so lai'ge that Dr. Rosea
observed small fish in it. Another, Mmi "Askar,
issues frora an arched passage which leads into
the base of Ebal, and flows thence into a tank
inclosed by hewn stone, the workmanship of which,
as well as the archway, indicates an ancient origuL
The third, 'Ain Defna, which comes from the same
mountains, reminds us, by its name {^d^yi\^
the time when Shechem was called Ne^lis
Some of the gardens are watered from the fountains, ^
while others have a soil so moist as not to need
such irrigation. The olive, as in the days when
Jotham delivered his famous parable, is still ths
principal tree. Figs, almonds, walnuts, mulbemes,
grapes, oranges, apricots, promegranates, are ahnn-
dant. The valley of the Nile itself hardly surpassa
Nabulus in the production of v^etablw of cverj
sort. Being, as it is, the gateway of the trade between
6 Probably at the Rejel el-AmUd, a icely at the fbol
of Gerizim, east of the city, which is still belicveil to .
contain the remains of forty eminent Jewifili J^aiou
(Rosen, as above). Dr. Stanley appears to have been
the first to notice the possible connectioo between
the name Amitd, "pillar," attached to thi-' web/fai
well as to one on the west end of Ebal, aud theoW .
Hebrew locality the " oak of the Pillar." ^
c The Auth. Vers, inaccurately adds the articU. t*
is simply " & city of Samari b.'*

SHECHEM
< j/o and Beirut o: the one side, and the trans-
jordauio districts ou the other, and the centre also
of a province so rich in wool, grain, and oil, Ndb-
utus be;x:mes, necessarily, the seat of au active
commerce, and of a comparative luxurj' to be found
m very few cf the inland oriental cities. It pro
duces, in its own manufactories, mauy of the
coarser woolen fabrics, delicate silk goods, cloth of
camel's hair, and especially soap, of which last com
modity large quantities, after supplying the imme
diate country, are seut to Kgypt and other parts
of the I^ast. The ashes and other sedimeuts
thrown out of the city, as the result of the soap
manufacture, have grown to the size of hills, and
give to the environs of the town a pecuUar aspect.
[Ashes, Amer. ed.]
Dr. Eoseu, during his stay at Ndliulus, examined
anew the Samaritan uiscriptions found there, sup
posed to be among the oldest written monuments
in Palestine. He has furnished, as Professor Rodi
ger admits, the best copy of them that has been
taken (see a fac-simile in Zeitschi-ift, as above, p.
621). The inscriptions on stone- tablets, distin
guished in his account as No. 1 and No. 2, belonged
«riginally to a Samaritan synagogue whioh stood
just out of the city, near the Samaritan quarter,
of which synagogue a few remains only are now
left. They are thought to be as old at least as
the age of Justinian, who (A. i>. 529) destroyed
so mauy of the Samaritan places of worship. Some,
with less reason, think they may have been saved
from the temple on Gerizim, having been transferred
afterwards to a later synagogue. One of the tab
lets is now inserted in the wall of a minaret ; « the
other was discovered not long ago in a heap of
rubbish not far from it. The inscriptions consist
of brief extracts from the Samaritan Pentateuch,
prabably valuable as palseographic documents.
Similar slabs are to be found built into the walls
of several of the sanctuaries in the neighborhood
of Nabulus; as at the tombs of Eleazar, Phinehas,
and Ithamar at Awertah. H. 13. H.
To the preceding account some notice should be
appended of the two spots in the neighborhood of
Nabulus wbich bear the names of the Well of Jacob
and tbe Tomb of Joseph. Of these the former is
the more remarkable. It lies about a mile and a
halt east of the city, close to the lower road, aud
just beyond the wretched hamlet of Baldta.
Among the Mahommedans and Samaritans it is
known as Bir el- Yakub, or Min Yakub ; the Chris
tians sometimes call it Bir es-Samariyeh, — " the
well of the Samaritan woman." " A low spur pro
jects from the base of Gerizim in a northeastern
direction, between the plain and the opening of the
/ a * A more perfect copy of this tablet " immured
(upside down) ia the soutbern wall of the minaret "
lias been lately taken (1836) by ttie explorers of the
Palestiue Exploration Fund. Dr. Rosen's copy left
,^ tliree of its ten lines incomplete, with some of the char-
^ttcte[B in other parts very indistinct. Mr. Deutsch of
tliB British Museum, to whom the photograph was sub
mitted, had tavored us with a report of the contents of
, tile atone. These are, first, an abbreviated form of
ttie Ten Commandments as found in the Samaritan
Hecension (8 linai) ; secondly, a sentence taken from
.ht] Interpolated passage following these command-
Beats iu tlie Samaritan Codex (line 9) ; and finally
iliaa 10), the formula, "Arise, 0 Lord! Return, 0 Lord I "
which is of frequent occurrence in Samaritan worship.
^ It is probably the oldest Samaritan epigraph in exist-
nm. (See Atlurueum, June 30, 1866. ) H.

SHECHEM

2951

valley. On the point of this spur is a little mound
of shapeless ruins, with several fragments of granite
columns. Beside these is the well, t'ormerly there
was a square hole, opening into a carefully-built
aulted charaber, about 10 feet square, in the flooi
of which was the true raouth of the well. Now a
portion of the vault has fallen in and completely
covered up the mouth, so that nothing can be seen
above but a shallow pit half filled with stones and
rubbish. The well is deep — 75 feet * when last
measui'ed — aud there was probably a considerable
accumulation of rubbish at the bottom. Sometimes
it contains a few feet of water, but at others it is
quite dry. It is entirely excavated in the solid
rock, perfectly round, 9 feet in diameter, with the
sides hewn smooth and regular " (Porter, Handbook,
p. 340). " It has every claim to be considered the
original well, sunk deep into the rocky ground by
'our father Jacob.' " This at least was the tradi
tion of the place in the last days of the Jewish peo
ple (John iv. 6, 12). And its position adds proba
bility to the conclusion, indicating, as has beeu well
observed, that it was there dug by one who could
uot trust to the springs so near in the adjacent
vale — the springs of 'Ain Baldta and ""Ain Def-
neh — which still belonged to the Canaanites. Of
all the special localities of our Lord's life, this is
almost the only one absolutely undisputed. " The
tradition, in which by a singular coincidence Jews
and Samaritans, Christians and Mohammedans, all
agree, goes back," says Dr. Robinson (Bibl. Res. ii.
284:), "at least to the time of Eusebius, in the
early part of the 4th century. That writer indeed
speaks only of the sepulchre; but the Bordeaux
Pilgrim in a. d. 333, mentions also the well; and
neither of these writers has any allusion to a church.
But Jerome in Epitaphiuvi Panics, which is re
ferred to A. D. 404, makes her visit the church
erected at the side of Mount Gerizim around the
well of Jacob, where our Lord met the Samaritan
woipan. The church would seem therefore to have
been built during the 4th century; though not by
Helena, as is reported in modem times. It was
visited and is mentioned, as around the well, by
Antoninus Martyr near the close of the 6th cen
tury ; by Arculfus a century later, who describes it
as built in the form of a cross; and again hy St.
Willibald in the Sth century. Yet Ssewulf about
A. D. 1103, and Phocas in 1185, who speak of the
well, make no mention of the church; whence we
may conclude that the latter had been destroyed
before the period of the crusades. Brocardus speaks
of ruins around the well, blocks of marble and col
umns, which he held to be the ruins of a town,
the ancient Thebez ; they were probably those of

b The well is fast fiUing up with the stones thrown
in by travellers and others. At Maundreli's visit
(1697) it was 105 feet deep, and the same measure
ment is given by Dr. Robinson as having been biken
in May, 1838. But, five years later, wheu Dr. U'iliJon
recovered Mr. A. Bonar's Bible from it, the depth
had decreased to " exactly 76 " (Wilson's Lands, ii. 57).
Maundrell (March 24) found 15 feet of water standing
iu the well. It appears now to be always dry. [The
water varies from time to time, but appears to b€
rarely if ever entirely gone. Near the end of De
cember, says Mr. Tristram, " there was no water
but broken stones and some wet mud, showing that i
had recently coutained water, which indeed was founc
there afterwards in the month of March" (Land oj
Israel, 2d ed., p. 147). — H.]

2968

SHECHEM

the church, to which he makes no allusion. Othet
travellers, both of that age and later, speak of the
church only as destroyed, and the well as already
deserted. Before the days of Eusebius, there seems
to be no historical testimony to show the identity
of this well with that which our Saviour visited ;
and the proof must therefore rest, so far as it can
be made out at all, on circumstantial evidence. I
am not aware of anything, in the nature of the
case, that goes to contradict the common tradition ;
but, on the other hand, I see much in the circum
stances, tending to confirm the supposition that
this is actually the spot where our Lord held
his conversation with the Samaritan woman.
Jesus was journeying from Jerusalem to Galilee,
and rested at the well, while ' his disciples were
gone away into the city to buy meat.' The well
therefore lay apparently before the city, and at
some distance from it. In passing along the east-
em plain, Jesus had halted at the well, and sent his
disciples to the city situated in the narrow valley,
intending on their return to proceed along the
plain on his way to GalUee, without himself visit
ing the city. All this corresponds exactly to the
present character of the ground. The well too
was Jacob's well, of high antiquity, a known and
venerated spot; which, after having already lived
for so many ages in tradition, would not be
likely to be forgotten in the two and a half cen
turies intervening between St. John and Euse
bius." "
It is understood that the well, and the site around
it, have been lately purchased by the Russian
Church, not, it is to be hoped, with the intention
of erecting a church over it, and thus forever
destroying the reality and the sentiment of the
place.' The second of the spots alluded to is the Tomb
of Joseph. It lies about a quarter of a mile north
of the well, exactly in the centre of the opening of
the valley between Gerizim and Ebal. It is a small
square inclosure of high whitewashed walls, sur
rounding a tomb of the ordinary kind, but with
the peculiarity that it is placed diagonally to the
walls, instead of parallel, as usual. A rough pillar
used as an altar, and black with the traces of fire,
is at the head, and another at the foot of the tomb.
In the left-hand comer as you enter is a vine.
whose branches " run over the wall," recalling
exactly the metaphor of Jacob's blessing (Gen. xlix.
22). In the walls are two slabs with Hebrew in
scriptions,*^ and the interior is almost covered with
the names of Pilgrims in Hebrew, Arabic, and Sa
maritan. Beyond this there is nothing to remark
in the structure itself. It pui'ports to cover the
tomb of Joseph, buried there in the "parcel of

a * Among the proofs of tliis identity one should not
overlook the striking incidental connection between
John's narrative and the locality (iv. 20). Gerizim
is not named by the Evangelist ; bnt as we read the
words "our fathers worshipped in this mountain,''
how readily do we think of the woman's glance of the
eye or outstretched hand in that direction, which
made the expression definite on the spot thuugh in
definite to us. Gerizim stood at that moment within
full sight only a short distance from the scene of the
conversation. H.
& * No church or chapel has yet been erected there
3870), as waa feared might be done at the time of
writing the above article. H.
0 One of these is given by Dr. Wilson (Lands, etc.,
U. 61).

SHECHEM
ground " which his father bequeatned espedaOy fr
him hiy favorite son, and in which his bonea iroi
deposited after the conquest of the country wai
completed (Josh. xxiv. 32).
The local tradition of the Tomb, like that of tin
well, is as old as the beginning of the 4th century.
Both Eusebius ( Onomast. :ivxep) and the Bor
deaux Pilgrim mention its existence. So do Ben
jamin of Tudela (1160-79), and llaundeville (1322)
and so — to pass over intermediate travellers —
does Maundrell (1697). AU that is wanting In
these accounts is to fix the tomb which they men
tion to the present spot. But this is difficnlt-.^
Maundrell describes it as on his right hand, in
leaving Nablus for Jemsalem; "just without tbe
city " — a small mosque, '• built over the sepulchM
of Joseph " (March 25). Some time after passing
it he arrives at the well. This description is qilitii
inapplicable to the tomb just described, but perfectly
suits the Wely at the northeast foot of Gerlziil,
which also bears (among the Moslems) the name
of Joseph. And when the expressions of the two
oldest authorities '' cited above are examined, it will
be seen that tbey are quite as suitable, if not more
so, to this latter spot as to the tomb on the open
plain. On the other hand, the Jewish travellers,'
from hap-Parchi (cir. 1320) downwards, spedfy the
tomb as in the immediate neighborhood of the vil
lage el-Baldta.f
In this conflict of testimony, and in the absence
of any information on the date and nature of th(
Moslem tr tomb, it is Impossible to come to a dei
inite conclusion. There is some force, and that in
favor of the received site, in the remarks of a learned
and intelligent Jewish traveller (Loewe, in AUt/.
Zeilung des Jua'eni/iums, Leipzig, 1839, No. 50)
on the peculiar form and nature of the ground sur
rounding the tomb near the well : the more so be
cause they are suggested by the natural features
of the spot, as reflected in the curiously minute,
the almost technical language, of the ancient rec
ord, and not based on any mere traditional or arti
ficial considerations. " The thought," sayj he,
" forced itself upon me, how impossible it is to un
derstand the details of the Bible without examiniifg
thera on the spot. This place is called m tift
Scripture, neither emeh ('valley') nor shefek
(' plain '), but by the individual name of Chelkni
has-Sade ; and in the whole of Palestine there is
not such another plot to be found, — a dead level,
without the least hollow or swelling iu a circuit of
two hours. In addition to this it is the loveliest
and most fertile spot I have ever seen."
SHE'CHEM. The names of three persons ia
the annals of Israel.
1. (QpW [shoulder, ridge]: ivxepi [inJ™''i
d Eusebius : er rrpoairreiots VioK noXew, fvBa Kai i
Tai^tK 6eiKWTat tov 'lucr^^.
Bordeaux Pilgrim : " Ad pedem mentis locus estm
nomen est Sechim : ibi positum est monumentoni «ti
positus est Joseph. Inde pa^sus mille .... ubi pu-
teum," etc.
e "Benjamin of Tudela (cir. 1165) says, "The Si-
maritans are in possession of the tomb of Joseph tt"
righteous ; " but does not define. its position.
/ See the Itineraries entitled Jichus hat-tsadiUil
(A. D. 1561), and Jiclius ha-Aboth (1537), in Camoly'i
Itindraires de la Terre Sainte.
u It apVars from a note in Prof. Stanley's *""
§¦ Fat. p. 241, that a later Joseph is also commemnSW
iu this sanctuary. ¦

SHECHEMITES, THB
JIkiuo, pl.:] Sichem.) The son of Hamor the
chieftain of the Hivite settlement of Shechem at
the tirae of Jacob's arrival (Gen. xxxiii. 19, xxxiv.
2-26; Josh. xxiv. 32; Judg. ix. 28).
2. (SuYfV Sechem.) A man of Manasseh, of
the clan ot Gilead, and head of the family of the
Shechemites (Num. xxvi. 31). His family are
again mentioned as the Bene-Shechem [sons of S.]
(Josh. xvii. 2).
3. (Sux^M- A'ccAem.) In the lists of 1 Chr.
another Shechem is named amongst the Gileadites
as a son of Shemida, the younger brother of the
foregoing (vii. 19). It must have been the recol
lection of one of these two Gileadites which led
Cyril of Alexandria into his strange fancy (quoted
by Belaud, Pal. p. 1007, from his Coram, on Hosea)
of placing the city of Shechem on the eastern side
of the Jordan. G.
SHE'CHBMITES, THE Oa5I2?rT [patr.,
•ee above]: d ^vxepi; [Vat. M. -pei, l.m. -peet:]
Sechemitw). The faraily of Sechem, son of Gilead :
one of the minor clans of the Eastern Manasseh
(Num. xxvi. 31; comp. Josh. xvii. 2).
SHECHI'NAH (in Chaldee and neo-Hebrew,
n3''3tp, majestas Dei, prcesentia Dei, Spiritus
SttBCtes, Buxtorf, fi?om ^5^ and ^^^, "to rest,'
"settle," "dwell," whence ^3C?p "a tent," the
fabernacle ; comp. CKrivit)- This terra is not
found iu the Bible. It was used by the later Jews,
and borrowed by Christians from them, to express
the visible majesty of the Divine Presence, espe
cially when resting, or dwelling, between the cher
ubim on the mercy-seat in the Tabernacle, and in
the Temple of Solomon ; but not iu Zerubbabel's
temple, for it was one of the five particulars which
the Jews reckon to have been wanting iu the sec
ond temple <" (Castell, Lexic. s. v. ; Prideaux, Con
nect, i. 138). The use of the term is first found
in the Targums, where it forms a frequent peri
phrasis for God, considered as dwelling amongst
the children of Israel, and is thus used, especially
by Onkelos, to avoid ascribing corporeity ' to God
himself, as Castell tells us, and may be compared
to the analogous periphrasis so frequent in the
Targum of Jonathan, " the Word of the Lord."
Many Christian writere have thought that this
threefold expression for the Deity — the Lord, the
word of the Lord, and the Shecbinah — indicates
the knowledge of a Trinity of Persons in the God
head, and accordingly, following sorae Eabbinical
writers, identify the Shecbinah with the Holy
Spuit. Others, however, deny this (Calmet's Diet.
ofthe Bib.; Joh. Saubert, On the Logos, § xix. in
CrilM. Sacr.; Glass. Philolog. Sacr. lib. v. 1, vii.
etc.). Without stopping to discuss this question, it
will most conduce to give an accurate knowledge
of the use of the term Shecbinah by the Jews
themselves, if we produce a few of the most strik
ing passages in the Targums where it occurs. In
Ex. xxv. 8, where the Hebrew has " Let thera raake
me a sanctuary that I may dwell (^PliStt^l) among
" Dr. Bernard, in his notes on Josephus, tries to
Drove that these five things were all in the second
temple, because Josephus says the Urim and Thum-
ahn wure. See Wotton's Trcuiitions, etc., p. xi.
' B»v. I. g.^ Ps. Ixix. 17, and Kalisch on Ex. xxiv.

SHECHINAH 2959
them," Onkelos has, " I will make my Shechinak
to dwell among thera." In xxix. .15, 16, for the
Hebrew " I will dwell among the children of Is
rael," Onkelos has, " I will make my Shecbinah to
dwell," eto. In Ps. Ixxiv. 2, for " this Mount
Zion wherein thou bast dwelt," the Targum has
" wherein thy Shecbinah hath dwelt." In the de
scription of the dedication of Solomon's Temple
(1 K. viii. 12, 13), the Targum of Jonathan runs
thus : "The Lord is pleased to make his Shecbinah
dwell in Jerusalem. I have built the house of the
sanctuary for the house of thy Shecbinah for ever,"
where it should be noticed that in ver. 13 tbe He
brew T3K7 is nof^ used, but ^3?, and StC''
And in 1 K. vi. 13, for the Heb. " I will dwell
among the children of Israel," Jonathan has " I
will make my Shecbinah dwell," etc. In Is. vL
5 he has the combination,*' " the glory of the She
cbinah of the King of ages, the Lord of Hosts ; "
and in the next verse he paraphrases " from off the
altar," by "from before his Shecbinah on the
throne of glory in the lofty heavens that are above
the altar." Compare also Num. v. 3, xxxv. 34;
Ps. Ixviii. 17, 18, cxxxv. 21; Is. xxxiii. 5, Ivii. 15;
Joel iii. 17, 21, and numerous other passages. On
the other hand, it should be noticed that tbe Tar
gums never render "the cloud" or "the glory"
by Shecbinah, but by S33V and mp'', and that
*' ^ ' '' ttt; _ T t:'
even in such passages as Ex. xxiv. 16, 17; Num.
ix. 17, 18, 22, X. 12, neither the mention of the
cloud, nor the constant use of the verb I'^V^ in
the Hebrew provoke any refei-ence to the Shecbi
nah. Hence, as regards the use of the word She-
chinah in the Targums, it may be defined as a
periphrasis for God whenever He is said to dwell
on Zion, amongst Israel, or between the cheru
bim, and so on, in order, as before said, to avoid
the slightest approach to materialism. Far most
frequently this terra is introduced wheu the verb
1507 occurs in the Heb. text; but occasionally, as
in some of the above-cited instances, where it does
not, but where the Paraphrast wished to interpose
an abstraction, corresponding to Presence, to break
the bolder anthropopathy of the Hebrew writer.
Our view of the 'Targumistic notion of the She
cbinah would not be coraplete if we did not add,
that though, as we have seen, the Jews reckoned
the Shecbinah among tbe marks of the Divine fa
vor which were wanting to the seeond temple, they
manifestly expected the return of tbe Shecbinah in
the days of the Messiah. Thus Hag. i. 8, " Build
tbe house, and I will take pleasure in it, and I will
be glorified, saith the Lord," is paraphrased by
Jonathan, " I will cause ray Shecbinah to dwell in
it in glory." Zech. ii. 10, " Lo I corae, and I will
dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord," is para
phrased " I will be revealed, and will cause my
Shecbinah to dwell in the midst of thee ; " and viii.
3, " I ara returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the
midst of Jerusalem," is paraphrased " I will make
my Shecbinah dwell in the midst of Jerusalem; "
and lastly, in Ez. xliii. 7, 9, in the vision of the re
turn of the Glory of God to tbe Temple, Jonathan
c In Ps Ixviii. 17 (16, A. T.), the Targum has " the
Word of the Lord has desired to place his Shechhiaii
upon Zion."
d Always (as far as I have observed) rendered Ifl
the Chaldee VTW-

2960

SHECHINAH

paraphra.sps thus, " Son of man, this is the place
of the house of the throne of my glory, aud this is
the place of the house of fhe dwelling of my
Shecbinah, where I will make niy Shecbinah dwell
in the midst of the children of Israel for ever. . . .
Now let them cast away their idols . . . and I
will make my Shecbinah dwell in the midst of tbem
for ever." Compare Is. iv. 5, where the return of
the pillar of cloud by day and fire by night is
foretold as to take place iu tbe days of the Messiah.
As regards tbe visible manifestation of the Di
vine Presence dweUing amongst the Israelites, to
which the terra Shecbinah has attached itself, the
idea which the difierent accounts in Scripture con
vey is that of a raost brilliant and glorious light,"
enveloped in a cloud, and usually concealed by the
cloud, so that the cloud itself was for the most part
alone visible ; but on particular occasions the glory '
appeared. Thus at the Exodus, " the Lord went
before " the Israelites " by day in a pillar of cloud
.... and by night in a pillar of fire to give
them light." And again we read, that this pillar
" was a cloud and darkness " to the Egyptians,
" but it gave light by night " to the Israelites.
But in the morning watch " the Lord looked unto
the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire
and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the
Egyptians: " i. e. as Philo (quoted by Patrick) ex
plains it, " the fiery appearance of the Deity shone
forth from the cloud," and by its amazing bright
ness confounded them. So too in the Pirke Eliezer
it is said, " The Blessed God appeared in his
glory upon the sea, and it fled back ; " with which
Patrick compares Ps. Ixxvii. 16, " The waters saw
thee, O God, the waters saw thee; they were
afraid : " where the Targum has, " They saw thy
Shecbinah in the midst of the waters." In Ex.
xix. 9, " the Ixird said to Moses, Lo, I come unto
thee in a thick cloud," and accordingly in ver. 16
we read that " a thick cloud " rested " upon the
mount," and in ver. 18, that " Mount Sinai was
altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended
upon it in fire." And this is further explained,
"Ex. xxiv. 16, where we read that " the glory ofthe
Lord abode upon Mount Sinai, and the cloud cov
ered it (i. e. as Aben Ezra explains it, the glory)
six days." But upon the seventh day, when the
Lord called " unto Moses out of the midst of the
cloud," tbere was a breaking forth of the glory
through tbe cloud, for " the sight of the glory of
the Lord was like devouring fire on the top of tbe
mount in the eyes of the children of Israel,*' ver.
17. So again when God as it were took possession
of the Tabemacle at its first completion (Ex. xl. 34,
35), "tbe cloud covered the tent of the congrega
tion (externally), and the glory of the Ixird filled
tiie Tabemacle -(within), and Moses was not able to
enter into the tent of the congregation " (rather,
of meeting)', just as at the dedication of Solomon's
Temple (1 K. viii. 10, 11), " the cloud filled the
house of the Lord, so that the priests could not
stand to rainister because of the cloud, for the glory
of the Lord had filled the bouse of the Ixird." In
the Tabernacle, however, as in the Temple, this was
only a temporary state of things ; for throughout
the books of Leviticus and Numbers we find Moses
jonstantly entering into tbe Tabemacle. And when
je did so, the cloud which rested over it externally,
.'lark by day, and luminous at night (Num. ix. 15,

o The Arabic expression, corresponding to the
AtokituA of thf Targums, is a word signifying light.

3HECHLN.\H
16 ), came dowu and stood at the door of the tsh^
nacle, and the Lord talked with Moses inside, " face
to face, as a uiaii talketh with his friend " (Ei.
xxxiii 7-11). It na« on such occasions that Mosei
" heard the voice of one speaking unto him from
off the mercy-seat that was upon the ark of testi.
mony, from between the two chembims " (Num.
vii. 89), in accordance with Ex. xxv. 22; l.ev. ivi
2. But it does not appear that the glory was habit
ually seen either by Moses or the people. Occasion
ally, however, it flashed foith fi-om the cloud whicb
concealed it; as Ex. xvi. 7, 10; I^v. ix. 6, 23, when
" the glory of the Lord appeared unto all the peo
ple," according to a previous promise; or as Nnm.
xiv. 10, xvi. 19, 42, xx. 6, suddenly, to strike terror
in the people in their rebellion. The hst occasion
on which the glory of the Lord appeared was that
mentioned in Num. xx. 6, when they were in Ka
desh in the 40th year of the Exodus, and niurmored
for want of water; and the last express ineiition of
the cloud as visibly present over the Tabemacle is
iu Deut. xxxi. 15, just before the death of Moses.
The cloud had not been raentioned l^fore since the
second year ofthe Exodus (Num. i. U, 34. xiL 5
10); but as the description in Num. ix. 15-23;Ex.
xl. 38, relates to the whole time of their wanderings
in the wildemess, we may conclude that at all
events the cloud visibly accompanied them tbrongb
all the migrations mentioned in Num. xxxiii., till
they reached the plains of Moab, and till JIosss
died. From this time we have no mention what
ever in the histoiy either of the cloud, or of the
glory, or of the voice firom between tbe cherubim,
till the dedication of Solomon's Temple. But smce
it is certain that the Ark was still the special sym
bol of God's presence and power (Josh, iii., iv., vi.,
1 Sam. iv. ; Ps. Ixviii. 1 S. ; compared «ith Nnm.
X. 35 ; Ps. cxxxii. 8, Ixxx. 1, xcix. 1 ), and shice such
passages as 1 Sam. iv. 4, 21, 22; 2 Sam vi. 2; Ps.
xcix. 7 ; 2 K. xix. 15, seem to imply tbe continnei!
manifestation of God's Presence in the cloud be
tween the cherubim, and that Lev. xri. 2 seemed
to promise so much, and that more general expres
sions, such as Ps. ix. 11, cxxxii. 7, 8, 13, 14, IxivL
2; Is. viil. 18, Ac, thus acquire much more point,
we may perhaps conclude that the cloud did '
contuiue, though with shorter or longer iutemip-
tious, to dwell between " the cherubims of gloiy
shadowing the mercy-seat," until the destruction
of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar- [Olives,
MoLXT OF, iii- 2249 a-]
The allusions in the N. T. to the Shecbinah are
not unfrequent. Thus in the account of the Xa-
tirity, the words, " Lo, the angel of the Lord camf
upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone rouni*
about them " (Luke ii. 9), followed by the appari
tion of " the multitude of the heavenly ho»t," n.-
call the appearance of tbe Divine glory on Sinai,
when " He shined forth from Paran, and came vrith
ten thousands of saints" (Deut. xxxiii. 2; comp.
Ps. Ixviii. 17 ; Acts vii. 53 ; Heb. ii. 2 ; Ez. xliii %
The " God of glory " (Acts vii. 2, 65), " the cher
ubims of glory " (Heb. ix. 5), " the glory '' (Rom.
ix. 4), and other like passages, are distinct refer
ences to the manifestations of the glory in the 0.
T. When we read in John i. 14, that " the Woni
was made flesh, and dwelt among us (eff(cfiymii'
iy Tifiiy), and we beheld his glory; " or in 2 Cor-
xii. 9, " that the power of Christ may rest upon

il Tn Hebrew ^ 'i'133 ; in Chaldee ^ "Ip.

SHEDEtTR
ine"'"(^iriffK7)i'i6ir!) iv' ipi); or in Rev. xxi. 3,
' Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and
He will dwell with them " (rj fTK'qv^ too ®eov
.... Kal ffKTjydKrei per* ai/ruv), we have not
only references to the Shecbinah, but are dis
tinctly taught to connect it with the incarnation
and future coming of Messiah, as type with anti
type. Nor can it be doubted that ^he Constant
connection of the second advent with a cloud, or
clouds, and attendant angels, points in the same
direction (Matt. xxvi. 64 ; Luke xxi. 27 ; .\cts i. 9,
U; 2 Thess. i. 7, 8; Kev. i. 7).
It should also be specially noticed that the at
tendance of angels is usually associated with the
Shecbinah. These are most frequently called (Ez.
X., xi.) cherubim; but sometimes, as in Is. vi.,
seraphim (comp. Rev. iv. 7, 8). In Ex. xiv. 19,
"the angel of God" is spoken of in connection
with the cloud, and ni Deut. xxxiii. 2, the descent
upon Sinai is described as being " with ten thou
sands of saints" (comp. Ps. Ixviii. 17; Zech. xiv.
5). The predorainant association, however, is with
the cherubim, of which tbe golden cherubim on the
mercy-scat were the representation. And this
gives force to the interpretation that bas been put
upon Gen. iii. 24,'' as being the earliest notice of
the Shecbinah, under the symbol of a pointed
flame, dwelling between the cherubim, and consti-
tutmg that local I'resence of the Lord from which
Cain we:it forth, and before which the worship of
Adain and, succeeding patriarchs was performed
(see Hale's Chronol. ii 94; Smith's Sacr. Annal.
i. 173, 176, 177). Parkhurst went so far as to im
agine a taberuacL contauiiug the cherubim and tbe
glory all the time from Adam to Moses (Heb. Lex.
p. 623 ). It is, however, pretty certain that the
various appearances to Abraham, and that to Moses
in the bush, were manifestations of the Divine
Majesty similar to those later ones to which the
term Shecbinah is applied (see especially Acts vii.
2). For further information the reader is referred,
besides the works quoted above, to the articles
Cloud, Akk, Cherub, to Winer, Reahob. art.
Cherubim ; to Bishop Patrick's Commentary ; to
Buxtorf, Hist. Arc. Feed. c. xi. ; and to Lowman,
On the Sliechinah. A. C. H.
SHBD'EUK ("I^N""!!?? [darting of fire, Ges. ;
sender of a revelation, Fiirst] : SeSioup ; [Vat.
SeSiiroup in Num. vii. 30 ;] Alex. ESioup in Num.
i. 5, ii. 10 : Sedeilr). Tbe father of Elizur, chief
of the tribe of Reuben at the time of the Exodus
(Num. i. 5, ii. 10, vii. 30, 35, i.l8). It has been
conjectured (Zeitschr. d. Deut. Morg. Ges. xv.
809) that the narae is compounded of Shaddai.
SHEEP. The well-known domestic animal
which from the earliest period bas contributed to
the wants of mankind. Sheep were an important
part of the possessions of tbe ancient Hebrews and
of eastern nations generally. The first mention
of sheep occurs in Gen. iv. 2. The following are
the principal Biblical allusions to these animals.
They were used in the sacrificial offerings, both the
adult animal (Ex. xx. 24; IK. viii. 63; 2 Chr.
txix. 33) and the lamb, ££75?» i. e. "a male

SHEEP

2961

<¦ Ihis expression of St. Paul's has a singular re
semblance to the Rabbinical saying, that of eighty
jupils of )aillel the elder, thirty were worthy that <A«
akechinah s**ould rest upon them ; and of these Jona-
Jian (author of the Targum) was the first (Wolf. Bill.
Heb U lloS;.

from one to three years old," but young Iambs of
the first year were more geneially used in the offer
ings (see Ex. xxix. 38; Lev. ix. 3, xii. 6; Num
xxviii. 9, &c.). No lamb under eight days old wai
allowed to be killed (Lev. xxii. 27). A very young
lamb was called n.7l3 idleh (see 1 Sam. vii. 9;
Is. Ixv. 25). Sheep and lambs formed an impor
tant .article of food (1 Sam. xxv. 18; 1 K. i. 19, iv.
23; Ps. xliv. 11, &c.). The wool was used as
clothing (l^ev. xiii. 47: Deut. xxii. 11; Prov. xxxi.
13; Job xxxi. 20, &c.). [Wool.] Tmmpets may
have been made of tbe horns of rams (Josh. vi. 4).
though the rendering of tbe A. V. in this passage
is generaUy thought to be incorrect. " Rams'
skins dyed red " were used as a covering for the
Tabernacle (Ex. xxv. 5). Sheep and lambs were
sometimes paid as tribute (2 K. iii. 4). It is very
striking to notice the immense numbers of sheep
that were reared in Palestine in Biblical times: see
for instance 1 Cbr. v. 21 ; 2 Chr. xv. 11, xxx.
24; 2 K. iii. 4; Job xiii. 12. Especial raention
is made of the sheep of Bozrah (Mic. ii. 12;
Is. xxxiv. 6) in tbe land of Fxiom, a, district well
suited for pasturing sheep. " Bashan and Gilead "
are also mentioned as pastures (Mic. vii; 14).
" Large parts of Carmel, Bashan, and Gilead, " says
Thomson (Larul and Book, p. 205), "are at their
proper seasons alive with countless flocks " (see
also p. 331). "The flocks of Kedar" and "the
rams of Nebaioth," two sons of Ishmael (Gen. xxv.
13) that settled in Arabia, are referred to in Is. Ix. 7.
Sheep-shearing is alluded to Gen. xxxi. 19, xxxviii.
13; Deut. xv. 19; 1 Sam. xxv. 4; Is. liii. 7, &c.
Sheep-dogs were eraployed in Biblical times, as is
evident from Job xxx. 1, " tbe dogs of my flock."
From the raanner in which they are spoken of by
the patriarch it is clear, as Thomson (Land ami
Book, p. 202) well observes, that the oriental shep
herd-dogs were very different animals from the
sheep-dogs of our own land. The existing breed
are described as being " a mean, sinister, ill-con
ditioned generation, which are kept at a distance,
kicked about, and half-starved, with nothing noble
or attractive about them." Tbey were, however,
without doubt, useful to the shepherds, more espe
cially at night, iu keeping off the wild beasts that
prowled about the hills and vallej-s (comp. Theoc.
Id. V. 106). Shepherds in Palestine and the East
generally go before their flocks, wbich they induce
to follow by calling to them (comp. John x. 4 ; Ps.
Ixxvii. 20, Ixxx. 1), though they also drove them
(Gen. xxxiii. 13). [Shkpherd.] It was usual
amongst the ancient Jews to give names to sheep
and goats, as in England we do to our dairy cattle
(see John x. 3). This practice prevailed amongst
the ancient Greeks (see Theoc. Id. v. 103): —
Ovk airb Tas Spvbs oStos o Kufapos, a re KvfaiSa ;
The following quotation from Hartley's Researches
in Greece aiul the Levant, p. 321, is so strikingly
illustrative of the allusions in John x. 1-16, that we
cannot do better than quote it: "Having had my
attention directed last night to tbe words in John
X. 3, I asked my man if it was usual in Greece tc
give names to the sheep. He informed me that it
6 t< He drove out the man, and stationed his She-
cbinah of old between the two cherubim " (JerusaL
Targum); D"'3'13n-nt5 1???!] (Heb. Bib.)
See Patrick On Gen. iii. 21. '

2962

SHEEP

was, and that tbe sheep obeyed the shepherd when
he called them by their names. This morning I
had an opportunity of verifying ihe tmth of this
reraark. Passing by a flock of sheep, I asked the
shepherd the same question which I had put to
the senant, and he gave me the same answer. I
then bade him call one of his sheep. He did so,
and it instantly left its pasturage and its compan
ions and ran up to the hands of the shepherd
with signs of pleasure and with a prompt obedience
which I had never before observed in any other
animal. It is also true in this country that 'a
stranger will they not follow, but will flee from
him.' The shepherd told rae that many of his
sheep were still wild, that they had not yet learned
their names, but that by teaching them they would
all learn them." See also Thomson (p. 203) : " The
shepherd calls sharply from time to time to remind
the sheep of his presence ; they know his voice and
follow on ; but if a stranger call they stop short,
lift up their heads in alarm, and if it is repeated
they turn and flee, because they know not the
voice of a stranger." "

Broad-tailed Sheep.
The common sheep of Syria and Palestine are
the broad-tail ( Oris laticaudatus). and a variety of
the common sheep of this country ( Ovis aries)
called the Bldoween according to Russell (Aleppo,
ii. 147). The broad-tailed kind has long been
reared hi Syria. Aristotle, who lived more than
2,000 years ago, expressly mentions Syrian sheep
vrith tails a cubit wide. This or another variety of
the species is also noticed by Herodotus (iii. 113) as
occurring in Arabia. The fat tail of the sheep is
probably alluded to in Lev. iii. 9, vii. 3, etc., as the
fat and the whole ramp that was to be taken oflF
hard by the back-bone, and was to be consumed on
the altar. The cooks in Syria use this mass of fat
instead of Arab butter, which is often rancid (see
Thomson, Land and Book, p. 97). [Bottek,
Amer. ed.]

a * Dr. ThoEiBOn's remarks in illustration of these
traits of pastoral life in the East are very interesting
(Land and Book, i. 303, 304). H.
t* None of the instances cited by Jerome and others
ftte exact parallels with that in question. The quota
tions adduced, with the exception of those wbich speak
Df painted images spt before Spartan women inter con-
iptriiJum nSar to cases in whicb living animals tbem-

SHEEP
The whole passage in (^n. xxx. which bean og
the subject of Jacob's stratagem with I.aban'a shee;
is involved in considerable perplexity, and Jacob'i
conduct in this matter bas been severely and un
compromisingly condemned by some writen. We
touch upon the question briefly in its zoological
bearing. It is altogether impossible to account for
the complete success which attended Jacob's device
of setting peeled rods before tbe ewes and sh&goats
as they came to drink in the watering troughs, on
natural grounds. The Greek fathers for the most
part ascribe the result to the direct operation of the
Deity, whereas Jerome and the I^tm fatheis i^anl
it as a mere natural operation of the imagination
adducing as illustratious in point various dericea
that have been resorted to by the ancients in the
cases of mares, asses, etc. (see Oppian, Cyneg. i.
327, 357; Pliny, H. N. vii. 10, and the passages
from QuintUian, Hippocrates, and Galen, as cited
by Jerome, Grotius, and Bochart). Even grautuig
the general truth of these instances, and ackno«l<.
edging the curious effect which peculiar sights bv
the power of the imagination do occasionally pro
duce in the &tus of many animals, yet we must
agree with the Greek fathers and ascribe the pro
duction of Jacob's spotted sheep and goats to Iiivine
agency. The whole question has been carefully
considered by Nitschmanu (De Corylo Jaaibi, m
Thes. Nov. Theol. Phil. i. 202-206), from whom
we quote the following passage: "Fatemur itaque,
cum Vossio aliisque piis viris, iUam pecudum im-
aginationem tantum fuisse causam adjwoantem, ac
plus in hoc negotio dirinte tribuendum esse virtuti,
qu£e suo concursu sic debilem causae secundse vim
adauxit ut^quod ea sola secundum naturam pr^
stare non valeret id divina benedictione supra na
turam pr^estaret; " and then Nitschmanu cites the
passage in Gen. xxad. 5-13, where Jacob expressly
states that his success was due to Dirine interfer
ence ; for it is hard to believe that Jacob is here
uttering nothing but a tissue of falsehoods, whicb
appears to be the opinion of Kalisch (Hist, am
Crit. Comment. Gen. xxx. and xxxi.), who repre
sents the patriarch as " unblushingly executuig
frauds suggested by his fertile invention, and then
abusing the authority of God in covering or justi
fying them." We are aware that a still graver
difficulty in the minds of some persons remains, if
tbe above explanation be adopted ; but we have no
other alternative, for, as Patrick has observed, '-let
any shepherd now try this device, and he will not
find it do what it did then by a Divine operation."'
The greater difficulty alluded to is the supposuig
that God would have directly interfered to help Ja
cob to act fraudulently towards his uncle. But are
we quite sure that there was any fraud, fairly called
such, in the matter? Had Jacob not been thus
aided, he might have remained the dupe of Laban's
niggardly conduct all his days. He had served his
money-loving uncle faithfiiUy for fourteen years;
Laban confesses bis cattle had increased consider
ably under Jacob's management; but all the return
he got was unfair treatment and a constant desire

selves, and not reflections of inanimate objecte, wer*
the cause of some marked peculiarity in tbe fetna-
Rosenmiiller. however (Sehol. tn loe.), cites Hastfeel
(De Re oviaria, German version, pp. 17,30,43,46,471
as a writer by whom the contrary opinion is con*
firmed. We have been unable Ui gain access to thit
work.

SHEEP
on the part of Laban to strike a hard bargain with
him (Gen. xxxi. 7). God vouchsafed to deliver
Jacob out of the hands of his hard master, aud to
punish Laban for his cruelty, whicb He did by
pointing out to Jacob how he could secure to him
self large flocks and abundant cattle. God was only
helping Jacob to obtaui that wbich justly belonged
to him, but wbich Laban's rapacity refused to
grant. " Were it lawful," says Stackhouse, " for
any private person to make reprisals, the injurious
treatment Jacob bad received from Laban, both in
imposing a wife upon bim aud prolonging his servi
tude without wages, was enough to give him both
the provocation and the privilege to do so. God
Almighty, however, was pleased to take the deter-
hiination of tbe whole matter into his own hands."
This seems to us the best way of understanding
this disputed subject."
The following Hebrew words occur as the names
of sheep: iS2, I'lS?, S32, or np, a collec
tive noun to denote " a flock of sheep or goats,"
to which is opposed the noun of unity, Hti?, " a
sheep" or "a goat," joined to a raasc. where
"rams" or "he-goals " are signified, and with a
fem. when " ewes " or " she-goats " are meant,
though even in this case sometimes to a niasc. (as
in Gen. xxxi. 10): ^''S, "a ram;" vHI, "a
ewe; ' t2?!Il3 or DU^3, "a lamb," or rather "a
Bheep of a year old or above," opposed to H vIO,
" a sucking or very young lamb; " "13 is another
term applied to a lamb as it skips (T^S) iu the
pastm^es.

SHEEPFOIiD

2963

As the sheep is an tmblKn of meekness, patience,
and submission, it is expressly raentioned as typi
fying these qualities in the person of our blessed
Lord (Is. liii. 7; Acts viii. 32, &C.). Tbe relation
that exists between Christ, " the chief Shepherd,"
aud his raerabers, is beautifully compared to that
which in the East is so strikingly exhibited by the
shepherds to their flocks (see Thomson, Land arux
Book, p. 203). W. H
» SHEBPCOTB. [Sheepfold.]
* SHEEPEOLD. The original words for
this expression in the Old Testament are nT13,
nbpp, i3\'lQt£?p (dual, with reference to the
troughs which divided them), and ^NS m~)73,
and in the N. T., ahX^ Tay irpo^aTOiy (John xi.
1) and auXii and iroipyn (the latter erroneously)
(John X. 16). Sheepfolds as usually constructed
ill the East, according to Thomson (Land ana
Book, i. 299), are " low, flat buildings, erected on
the sheltered side of the valleys, and, when the
nights are cold, the flocks are shut up in them,
but in ordinary weather they are merely kept
within tbe yard." During the day of course tbey
are led forth to pasture by the shepherds. The
folds " are defended by a wide stone wall, crowned
by sharp thorns whicb the wolf will rarely attempt
to scale. The leopard and panther, however, when
pressed with hunger, will overleap tbe thorny
hedge," and make havoc of the flock. Many little
villages in Syria, especiaUy in the Buka'a between
Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, consist of sheepcotes or
have sprung from them, and bavfe the syllable
Haush (herd-fold) prefixed to their names. In
.Greece the writer has seen folds built merely of a

Sheepfold.

parapet of bushes or branches, placed at the en
trance of caves, natural, or made for the purpose
in the side of hills or rocky ledges. A poi'lier kept
the door of the larger sheepfolds. [Portee, Amer.
A mistranslation in John x. 16, or at least am
biguity (" fold " being susceptible of a twofold
sense), mars the exquisite beauty of the passage.
Instead of " there shall be one fold and one shep-

^ We haye considered this perplexing question in
•ccordance with the generaUy received opinion that
ihp vhole account is the work of one and the same
intliOL ; at the same time, we must allow that there
a Krong probabiUty that those portions of the narra-

herd," it should read: "and there shall be ons
flock, one shepherd." The A. V. confuses avXi)
and TTolpvitj, and we necessarily lose in any render
ing tbe alliterative succession of iroipyT] and rrot-
p^y. The Saviour no doubt refers more immedi
ately in the figure to the union of Jews and Gentiles
in the faith and blessings of the gospel. " Sheep-
cote " occurs in the A. V. three times interchange
ably with "sheepfold." H.

tive which relate to Jacob's stratagem with the
"peeled rods," are attributable, not to the Elohistie
or ancient source, but to the supplementary .Ti \0msU4
writer.

296-1

SHEEP-MASTER

* SHEEP-MASTER (2 K. iu. 4). [Shep-
HEBD.] SHEEP GATE, THE ()t?55n nVW: ij
rrvKn tj irpopariK^ : poj-ta gregis). One of the
gates of Jtxusalem as rebuilt by Nehemiah (Neh.
iii. 1, 32; xii. 39). It stood between the tower of
Meah and ihe chamber of the comer (iii. 32, 1) or
gate of the guard-house (xii. 39, A. V. " prison-
gate"). 'I'he latter seems to have been at the
au^le forraed by the junction of the wall of the city
of David with that of the city of Jerusalem proper,
having the Sheep Gate on the north of it. (See the
diagram in p. 1322, vol. ii.) According to the view
taken in the article Jerusalem," the city of Da
vid occupied a space on the mount Moriah about
coinciding with that between the south wall of the
platform of the Dome of the Rock and the south
wall ofthe Haram es-Sherif. The position of the
Sheep Gate may therefore have been on or near that
of the Bed) el-Kattdnin. Bertheau (Exeg. Hand
buch, on Nehemiah, p. 144) is right iu placing it
on the east side of the city and on the north of the
comer; but is wi'ong in placing it at the present
St. Stephen's Gate, since no wall existed nearly so
fer to the east as that, till after the death of Christ.
[Jerusalem.] The pool which was near the Sheep Gate (.John
V. 2; A. V. inaccurately " market ") was probably
the present Hammdm esh-Shefa. G.
SHEEP-MARKET, THE (John v. 2).
The word "market" is an interpolation of our
translators, possibly after Luther, who has Schaf-
haus. The words of the original are cttI rp irpo-
BariK^, to which should probably be supplied not
market but gate, -jtvAt], as in the LXX. version of
the passages in Nehemiah quoted in the foregoing
article. The Vulgate connects the TrpofiaTiK-f}
with the Ko\vp$-{}6pa^ and reads Probatica pis-
inna ; while the Syriac omits all mention of the
sheep, and names only "a place of baptism." G.
* SHEETS, only in Judg. xiv. 12, 13, and there
"shirts" in the margin. The Hebrew is I^^^D,
elsewhere only in Prov. xxxi. 24 and Is. iii. 23,
where the A. V. renders " fine linen.*' The LXX.
has in the different places atpZ6ves or fivaaiua,
and the Vulg. dndones. It was something worn
by men and women, as the above passages show,
and must have been an article of dress. It may
have been a thin covering of linen worn next to the
body as a shirt (Fiirst, Keil), or a loose night-
wrapper thrown around one on taking off his other
garments (Saalschutz). In the latter case it cor
responds nearly to the Greek aipSwy (comp. Mark's
ffivS6va iirl yvpvov, xiv. 51). It forraed part of
the raiment which Samson was to give to the
Philistines if they should discover his riddle within
the appointed time (Judg. xiv. 12 ff.). It was
evidently at that period an article of value or lux
ury among the Philistines, as it was still later
among the Hebrews (Is. iii. 23; Prov. xxxi. 24).

a * Against this theory respecting the site of " the
city of David," see under Jekosalem, § iv., near the
eud (Amer. ed.). S. W.
6 The character nearly resembles that of Samaritan
H8B., although it is not quite identical with it. The
&brew and Samaritan alphabets appear to be diver
gent repreeeotatives of some older form, as may be
iD&Red frnm several of the letters. Thus tbe Betk

SHEKEL
Fiirst calls in question the commonly adstuned il
finity between aiv^dav and l^lp (Lex. o. y.). H.
* SHEFETiAH. [Sephela.]
SHEHARFAH (nnn?7 [Jehovah seeh].
'S.axLpias't [Vat. "Xapaia'^ Alex. 'Zaapia'- Soho-
j-ia). A Benjamite, son of Jeroham (1 Chr. viii
26). SHEKEL. In a former article, [Money] a
full account has been given of the coins calkd
shekels, which are found with inscriptions in the
Samaritan* character: so that the present articlp
will only contain notices of a few particuhrs relatr
ing to the Jewish coinage which did not fall
within the plan of the former.
It may, in the first place, be desirable to men
tion, that although some shekels are found with
Hebrew letters instead of Samaritan, these are un
doubtedly all forgeries. It is the more needfiil to
make this statement, as in some books of high
reputation, e. g. Walton's PolyghU, these sLekele
are engraved as if they were Ejenuine. It is hardly
necessary to suggest the reasons which may have
led to this series of forgeries. But the di^reuce
between the two is iiot confined to the letters only;
the Hebrew shekels are much larger and thiDiier
than the Samaritan, so that a person might dis
tinguish them merely by the touch, e\en mider a
covering. Our attention is, iu the next place, directed to
the early notices of these shekels in Kabbinical
writers. It might be supposed that in the Mishna,
where one of the treatises bears the title of " &heka-
Um,^^ or Shekels, we should find some information
on the subject. But this treatise, being devoted ^6
the consideration of the laws relating to the pay
ment of the half-shekel for the Temple, is of course
useless for our purpose.
Some references are given to tiie works of Easii
and Maimonides (contempoi'ary writers of the 12th
century) for information relative to shekels and llie
forms of Hebrew letters in ancient times; but the
most important Rabbinical quotation g^ven by
Bayer is that from Ramban, i. e. RalM-Moses
Bar-Nachman, who Uved about the commence
ment of the 13th century. He describes a shekel
which he had seen, and of which the Cuthmm
read the inscription with ease. The explanation
which they gave of the inscription was, on one side:
Shekel ha-ShekaUm, "the shekel of shekels," and
on the other " Jerusalem the Holy." 1'he fomwr
was doubtless a misinterpretation of the usual in
scription "the shekel of Israel;" but the latter
coiTesponds with the inscription on our shekelf
(Bayer, Ht Numis. p. 11). In the 16th centurj
R. Azarias de liossi states that K. Moses Basula
had arranged a Cuthjean, i. e. Samaritan, alphabet
from coins, and H. Moses Alaskar (of whom litUe
is known ) is quoted by Bayer as having read in
some Samaritan coins, " in such a year of the con
solation of Israel, in such a year of such a king."
And the same R. Azarias de Rossi (or de Adumim.
as he is Ciilled by Bartolocci, Bibl. Rabb. vol. iv- 1^

and several other letters are evidently identical fa
their origin. And the W (Sfdn) of the Hebrew siph*
bet is the same as that of the Samaritan ; fbr if *•
make the two middle strokes of the Samaritan Ifltttf
coalesce, it takes the Hebrew form.

SHEKEL
158), ill his 2'*3^V")1WD, "The Light of the
Kyes," (not Fofns Oculoi~um, as Bayer translates
it, which would require I^^D, not ^ISXD),
discusses the Transfluvial or Samaritan letters, and
describes a shekel of Israel which he had seen.
But the most important passage of all is that in
whieh this writer quotes the description of a shekel
jeen by Ramban at St. Jean d'Acre, a. d. 1210.
He gives inscriptions as above, " the Shekel of
Shekels," and " Jerusalem the Holy ; " but he also
determines the weight, which he makes about half'
an ounce.
We find, therefore, that in early tiraes shekels
were known to the Jewish Rabbis with Samaritan
inscriptions, corresponding with those now found
(except in one point, which is probably an error),
and corresponding with them in weight. These
are important considerations in tracing the his
tory of this coinage, and we pass on now to the
earliest mention of these shekels by Christian writ
ers. We believe that W. Postell is the first Chris
tian writer who saw and described a shekel. He
was a Parisian traveller who visited Jeiiisalem
early in the 16th century. In a curious work pub
lished by him in 1538, entitled Alphabttum JDuo-
decini Linguarum, the following passage occurs.
After stating that the Samaritan alphabet was the
origmal form of the Hebrew, he proceeds thus: —
" I draw this inference from silver coins of great
antiquity, which I found among the .lews. They
set such store by them that I could not get one of
them (not otherwise worth a quincunx) foi" two
gold pieces. The Jews say they are of the time of
Solomon, and they added that, hating the Samari
tans as they do, worse than dogs, and never speak
ing to them, nothing endears these coins so much
to them as the consideration that these characters
were once in their coramon usage, nature, as it
were, yearning after the things of old. They say
that at Jerusalem, now called Chus or Chussem-
banch, in the masonry and in the deepest pai't of
the ruins, these coins are dug up daily." °-
Postell gives a very bad wood-cut of one of these
shekels, but the inscription is correct. He was un
able to explain the letters over the vase, which
.soon became the subject of a discussion araong the
learned men of Europe, which lasted fbr nearly two
centuries. Their attempts to explain thera are enu
merated by Baj-er in his Treatise De Numis //e-
bi'{eo- Samar iianis, which may be considered as the
first work which placed the explanation of these
coins on a satisfactory basis. But it would obvi
ously be useless here to record so many unsuc
cessful guesses as Ba^'er enumerates. The work of
Bayer, although sorae of the authors nearly solved
the problem, called forth an antagonist in Professor
Tychsen of Rostock, a learned Orientalist of that

SHEKEL

298£

** Postell appears to have arranged his Samaritan
I alphabet from theso coins.
I b Ile q,uote3, c. g., the following passage from the
I' Jerusalem Tahnud : ]')^^ 0"inU7) 1^72W VDlliQ
(bbna) ibna id'^s t?^a'^TiD p; "Revoiu-
Uon (Samaritan) money, Uke that of Ben Coziba, does
L not defile." The meaning of this ia not very obvious,
i> ior does Tycbsen's explanation appear quite satisfac
tory. He adds, "does not defile, if used as an amu-
tet" We should rather inquire whether the expres-
*loQ may not have some relation to that of " delihug
3ie hands," as applied to the canoQical books of the

period. Several publications passed between theni
which it is unnecessary to enuoierate, as Tychset
gave a summary of his objections, in a small pam
phlet, entitled O. G. Tychsen. De Numi^ He-
hraicis Diatribe, qua simul ad Superas ill. F. P.
Bayeril Objeciiones resjjondttur (Rostochii, 1791).
His first position is — That either (1) all th*>
coins, whether with Hebrew or Samaritan inscrip
tions, are false, or (2) if any are genuine, they
belong to Barcoceba — p. 6. This he modifies
slightly in a subsequent part of the treatise, pp.
52, 53, where he states it to be his conclusion (1)
that the Jews had no coined money before the time
of our Saviour; (2) that during the rebellion of
Barcoceba (or Barcoziba), Samaritan money waa
coined either by the Samaritans to please the Jews,
or by the Jews to please the Samaritans, aud that
the Samaritan letters were used in order to make
the coins desirable as amulets! and (3) that the
coins attributed to Simon Maccabaeus belong to
this period. Tychsen has quoted some curious
passages,^ but his arguments are wholly untenable.
In the first place, no numismatist can doubt tlie
genuineness of the shekels attributed to Simoo
Maccabaeus, or believe that they belong to the same
epoch as the coins of Barcoceba. But as Tychsen
never saw a shekel, he was not a competent judge.
There is another consideration, which, if further
demonstration were needed, would supply a very
strong argument. These coins were first made
known to Europe through Postell, who does not ap
pear to have been aware of the description given of
them in Rabbinical writers. The correspondence
of the newly-found coins with the earlier descrip
tion is almost demonstrative. But they bear such
undoubted marks of genuhieness, that no judge of
ancient coins could doubt thera for a raoraent.
On the contrary, to a practical eye, those with He
brew inscriptions bear undoubted marlcs of spuri
ousness-'^ Among the symbols found on this series of coins
is one which is considered to represent that whicb
was called Lukd) by the Jews. This terra was ap
plied (see Maimon. on the section of the Mishna
called Rosh Hashanah, or Commencement of the
Year, ch. vii. 1, and the Mishna itself in Succah,
riDID, or Booths, ch. ii. 1, both of which passages
are quoted by Bayer, De Num. p. 129) to the
branches of the three trees mentioned in Lev. xxiii.
40, which are thought to be the Palm, the Myrtle,
and the Willow. These, which were to be carried
by the Israelites at the Eeast of Tabernacles, were
usually accompanied by tbe fruit of the Citron,
which is also found in this representation. Some
times two of these Lulnbs are found together. At
least such is the explanation given by some authori
ties of the symbols called in the article Moxky by

0. T. See Ginsburg, Commentary on the Song' nf
Songs, p. 3. The word for polluting is different, but
the expressions may be analogous. Sut, on the other
hand, these coi')S are often perforated, which gives
countenance tr the notion that they were used as
amulets. The passage is from the division of the
Jerusalem Talmud entitled "^^W '^WV'D, Maaser
Shcni, or " The Second Tithe."
c The statement here made will not be disputed by
any practical numismatist. It ia made on the au
thority of the late Mr. T. Burgon, of the British Mu*
seum, whose knowledge and skill in these questioni
was known throughout Europe.

2966

SHEKEL

tbe name of Sheaves. The subject is involved in
much difficulty aud obscurity, and we speak there
fore with some hesitation aiid diffidence, especially
BS exp^tenced numismatists dif!er in their explana
tions. Tbis explanation is, however, adopted by
Bayer (De Num. pp. 128, 219, &c.), and by Cave-
doni (Bibl. Num. ^p. HI, 32 ofthe (jjerman transla^
tion, who adds references to 1 Mace. iv. 59 ; John
i. 22), as he considers that the Ltdab was in use
at the Feast of the Dedication on the 25th day of
the 9th month as well as at that of Tabernacles.
He also refers to 2 Mace. i. 18, ^. 6, 7, where the
celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles is described,
and the branches caiTied by the worshippers are
§pecified. The symbol on the reverse of the shekels, repre-
aentuig a twig with three buds, appears to bear
more resemblance to the buds of the pomegranate
than to any other plant.
The following list is given by Cavedoni (p. 11 of
the German translation) as an enumeration of tdl
the coins which can be attributed with any cer
tainty to Simon Maccabseus.
I. Shekels of three ye^^, with the inscription
Shekel Israel on the obverse with a vase, over
which appears (1) SiuAleph; (2) the letter Shin
with a Beth; (3j the letter Shin with a Gimel.
R. On the reverse is the twig with three buds,
and the inscription Jerusalem Kedushah or Hak-
kedushah."' II. The same as the above, only half the weight,
which is indicated by the word "'^H, chdisi, " a
half." These occur only in the first and second

The above are silver.
III. '^l^n rn"lM n^W, ShSnathArb-a Chdtsi.
The fourth year — a half. A Citron between two
Lulabs. R. ]V!5 nbSib, LegeuUath Tsion, " Of the
Liberation of Zion." A palm-tree between two
baskets of fruit.
IV. 3?''3"1 57n")W nat£7, Shenath Arb'a,
RebVa. The fourth year — a fourth. Two Lvr-
labs. R. ]V^ nbWlab — as before. Citron-fiaiit.
V. ^D"1H r)3tZ7, Shenath Arb'a. The fourth
year. L/uhb between two citrons.
R. ]V!S nbW^b, LegeuUath Tsion, as before.
The vase as on the shekel and half-shekel.
These are of copper.
The other coins which belong to this series have
been sufficiently illustrated in the article Money.
In the course of 1862 a work of considerable
importance was published at Breslau by Dr. M. A.
I^evy, entitled Geschichte der Judischen Miinzen.^
It appears likely to be useful in the elucidation of
the questions relating to the Jewish coinage which
have been touched upon in the present volume.
« The spelling varies with the year. The shekel
of the frst year has only ntt^lTp cbu?!")^;
while those of the second and third years hare the
hiller form, ntt?1"Tpn D'^btt?1'T». The "* of the
lemsalem is important as showing that both modes
9f spelling were in use at the same time.
b I'zom the time ol i^e publication, it was not

SHELAH
There are one or two points on which it is desirable
to state the views of the author, especially as he
quotes coins which have only become known lately
Some coins have been described in the Reme
NumisniaUque (1860, p. 260 sey.), to which the
name of Eleazar coins has been given. A coin was
published some time ago by De Saulcy which in
supposed by that author to be a counterfeit coin.
It is scarcely liible, but it appears to contain
the name Kleazar on one side, and that of
Simon on the other. During the troubles which
preceded the final destruction of Jerusalem, Elea
zar (the son of Simon), who was a priest, and
Simon Ben Giora, were at the head of large fac
tions. It is suggested by Dr. Levy that money
may have been struck which bfjre the names of
both these leaders ; but It seema scarcely probable,
as they do not appear to have acted in concert
But a copper coin has been published in the Revut
Numisviaiique which . undoubtedly bears the in
scription of " Eleazar the priest." Its types are—
I. A vase with one handle and the inscription
]mDn "iT^bW, " Eleazer the priest," in
Samaritan letters.
R. A bunch of grapes with the inscription
[bs-)]tt7'» rh^ nn wn3tt?,"yMr
one of the redemption of Israel."
Some silver coins also, first published by Reichardt.
bear the sarae inscription on the obverse, under a
palm-tree, but the letters run from left to right.
The reverse bears the same type and inscription aa
the copper coins.
These coins are attributed, as well as some that
bear the name of Simon or Simeon, to the period
of this first rebellion, by Dr. Levy. It is, however,
quite clear that some of the coins bearing similar
inscriptions belong to the p^od of Bar-cocaVa
rebellion (or Barcoceba^s as the name is often
spelt) under Hadrian, because they are stamped
upon denarii of Trajan, his predecessor. The work
of Dr. I-evy wiU be found very useful as collecting
together notices of all these coins, aud throwing
out very useful suggestions as to their attribution;
but we must still look to further researches and
fresh collections of these coins for full satisfaction
on many points. ^ The attribution of the shekels
and half-shekels to Simon Maccabseus may be con
sidered as well established, and several of the othw
coins described in the article Money oflfer no
grounds for hesitation or doubt. But still this
series is very much isolated from other classes of
coins, and the nature of the work hardly corresponds
in some cases with the periods to which we are
constrained from the existing evidence to attribute
the coins. We must therefore still look for further
light from future inquiries. Drawings of shekels
are given in the article Money. H. J. R-
* SHE'L ACH. [Siloaii, The Pool of.]
SHE'LAH (nbtt? lpemim\ : 27?X<^/ii l^V
\(ov, Vat. Alex, in Num., Vat. 1 Chr. ii. 3; 0>inp-

available for the article Monet ; but I am iDdebted to
the author of that article for calling my attention to
this book. I was, however, unable to procure it until
the article Shekel was in type. H. 3. B.
e The passage from the Jerusalem Talmud, quotBd
in a former note, is considered by Dr. Levy (p. 127k
and a different explanation given. The word tis»
lated by Tychsen « to pollute," is translated by hia
" to pay " or " redeem the tithe," which seems betttf

SHELANITES, THE
tn Chr., Si)\ii:] Sela). 1. The youngest son of
Judah by the daughter of Shuah the Canaanite,
ind ancestor of the family of the Shelanites
(Gen. xxxviii. 5, 11, 14, 26, xlvi. 12; Num. xxvi.
20; 1 Chr. ii. 3, iv. 21). Some of his descendants
are enumerated in a remarkable passage, 1 Chr. iv.
21-23. 2. (nbttJ: SaAd: Sale.) The proper form of
ihe name of Salah the son of Arphaxad (1 Chr.
i. 18, 24).
SHE'LANITES, THB Ojb^n [patr., see
above] : d SriXayi [Vat. -cei] : Selaitce). The
descendants of Shelah 1 (Num. xxvi. 20).
SHELEMI'AH (n^Q^^ [whom Jehmah
repays]: 2e\epla; Alex. SeXepias; [FA. 2eAe-
/iciaO Salmias). 1. One of the sons of Bani who
had married a foreign wife in tbe time of Ezi-a
(Ezr. X. 39). Called Selemlas in 1 Esdr. ix. 34.
2. ([Gen.] 2eXipia; Alex. Xeepia; [Vat. Te-
\f/iia; FA. T€A.6;Uios:] Selemics.) The father of
Hananiah (Neh. iii. 30), who assisted in restoring
the wall of Jerusalem. If this Hananiah be the
same as is mentioned in Neh. iii. 8, Shelemiah was
one of the priests who made the sacred perfumes
and incense.
3. [Gen. 'S.eXepia ; Vat. 'BXepia ; FA. leAc-
pia'. Ace. SeUm'iam.] A priest in the time of Ne
hemiah, who was made one of the treasurers over
the treasuries of the Levitical tithes (Neh. xiii. 13).
4. [2e\e;ii(as.] The father of Jehucal, or Jucal,
in the time of Zedekiah (Jer. xxxvii. 3).
5. The father of Irijah, the captain of the ward
who arrested Jeremiah (Jer. xxxvii. 13). In Jer.
xxxviii. 1, his name appears in the lengthened form,
Hke the following.
6. {^n^J?bt»: -S,eXepla; [Vat. laXapeia.])
The same asMESHELEMHH and Shallum 8 (1
Chr. xxvi. 14).
7. ([SeAe/iio, Alex, -/iios, FA. -peia.'^ Sele-
miaii.) Another of the sons of Bani who had
married a foreign wife in the time of Ezra (Ezr. x.
41). 8. (ieXepltts; Alex. 'SaXaptas: Selemia [or
-as].) Ancestor of Jehudi in the time of Jehoia-
Itim (Jer. xxxvi. 14).
9. (Ora. in LXX.) Son of Abdeel; one ofthose
who received the orders of Jehoiakim to take Baruch
and Jeremiah (Jer. xxxvi. 26).
SHE'LEPH (^!?E^ [draioing oul, plucking] :
[in Gen., Eom. SoXe'fl, in Chr., omits, with Vat. ;]
Alex. 2oA.€(() [in both]: Saleph), Gen. k. 26; 1
Chr. i. 20. The second in order of the sons of
Joktan. The tribe which sprang from him has
been satisfactorily identified, both in modern and
classical times ; as well as the district of the Ye
men named after him. It has been shown in other
articles [A^ablv; Joktan, etc.] that the evidence
of Joktan's colonization of Southern Arabia is in
disputably proved, and that it has received the
assent of critics. Sheleph is found where we should
expect to meet with him, in the district (Mikhtdf,
u the ancient divisions of the Yemen are called by
Ihe Arabs) of Sulaf (v_a<Lw, Marasid, s. v.),
vhich appears to be the same as Nlebuhr's Salfie
(flesci'. p. 215), written in his map Selfia. He
jives the Arabic XaaXmi, with the vowels prob-

SHELOMITH 2967
abiy Sulafeeyeh. Niebuhr says of it, "grande
I'tendue de pays gouvern<!e par sept Schechs:" it
is situate in N. lat. 14° 30', and about 60 miles
nearly south of San'^.
Besides this geographical trace of Sheleph, we
have the tribe of Shelif or Shulaf, of which the
iirst notice appeared in the Zeilschrift d. Deutschen
Morgenldiulischen Gesellschaft, xi. 153, by Dr
Osiander, and to which we are indebted for thi
following information. Yakoot in the Moajam, s
v., says, " Es-Selif or Es-Sulaf they are two ancient
tribes of the tribes of Yemen; Hisham Ibn-Mo-
hammed says they are the children of Yuktan (Jok
tan); and Yuktan was the son of Eber the son of
Salah the son of Arphaxad the son of Shem the
son of Noah .... And a district in El-Yemen is
named after the Sulaf." El-Kalkasander (in the
British Museum library) says, " El-Sulaf, called
also Beni-s-Silfan, a tribe of the descendants of
Kahtan (Joktan). . . . The name of their father
has remained with them, and they are called Es-
Sulaf: they are children of Es-Suiaf son of Yuktan
who is Kahtan. . . . Es-Sulaf originally signifies
one of the httle ones of the partridge, and Es-Silfan
is its plural : the tribe was named after that on ac
count of tnin.<!lation." Yakoot also says (s. v.
Muntdbtk) that El-Muntabik was an idol belong
ing to Es-Sulaf Finally, according to the Kdnwos
(and the Lubb-el-Lubab, cited in the Marasid, s.
v.), Sulaf was a branch-tribe of Dhu-1-Kilaa; [a
Himyerite family or tribe (Causshi, Essai i, 113),
not to be confounded with the later king or Tub
baa of that name.]
This identification is conclusively satisfactory,
especially when we recollect that Hazarmaveth
(Hadramawt), Sheba (Seba), and other Joktanite
names are in the inimediate neighborhood. It is
strengthened, if further evidence were required, by
the classical mention of the 2aAain)ra(, Salapeni,
also written 'A.XaTrnyol, Alapeni (Ptol. vi. 7). Bo
chart puts forward this people, with rare brevity
The more recent researches in Arabic MSS. have,
as we have shown, confirmed in this instance Ma
theory; for we do not lay much stress on the point
that Ptolemy's Salapeni are placed by him in N.
lat. 22°. E. S. P.
SHE'LESH (t£7bt» [triad, Ges.]: SeXX'fis
[Vat. Zepri :] SeUes). One of the sons of Helen:
the brother of Shamer (1 Chr. vii. 35).
SHEL'OMI ( "'O'btr [pacific] : SeXepii [Va*.
-pst] : Salomi). Father of Ahihud, the prince of
the tribe of Asher (Num. xxxiv. 27):
SHEL'OMITH (.~l"'a''lbtr [Ime of peace]:
iaXaipelS : Salumith). 1. The daughter of Dibri
of the tribe of Dan (Lev. xxiv. 11). She had
married an Egyptian, and their son was stoned for
blasphemy. 2. (taXaipM , [Vat. -Bei; Comp. SaXaiple:]
Salomith.) The daughter of Zerubbabel (1 Chr.
iii. 19).
3. (2a\o)/it59; Alex. ^aXovpaO.) Cljief of the
Izhaiites, one of the fpur families of the sons o(
Kohath (1 Chr. xxiii. 18). He is called Shelo-
MOTH in 1 Chr. xxiv. 22.
4. (ma'btt?; Keri H'^n'bp in 1 Chr. xxvi.
25; n'lD'ba? in 1 Chr. xxvi. 26; rT^ffbE? in 1
Chr. xxvi. 28 : [SaXaipdB :] Selemith ) A de
scendant of EUezer the son of Moses, who with hii

2968

SHELOMOTH

brethren had charge of the treasures dedicated for
the Temple in the reign of David.
5 (mabtp; Ken jT'n'btp : SaXaipie;
[Vat. AAaiflei/tj] Alex. 'ZaXapeiB: Salomith.) A
Gershonite, son of Shimei (1 Chr. xxiii. 9).
"Shimei" is probably a mistake, as Shelomith and
hLs brothers are afterwards described as chief of the
fathers of Laadan, who was the brother of Shimei,
and the sons of Shimei are then enumerated.
6. (j'T'a'btt; : SeXtpoie [Vat. -Xei] ; Alex.
2aJ^eipov8: Selonfith.) According to the present
text, the sons of Shelomith, with the son of Josi-
phiah at their head, returned from Babylon with
Ezra (Ezr. viii. .10). There appears, however, to
he an omission, which may be supplied from the
LXX., and the true reading is probably, '¦ Of the
sous of Bani, Shelomith the son of Josiphiah."
See also 1 Esdr. viii. 36, where he is called " AssA-
LIMOTH son of Josaphias."
SHEL'OMOTH (nia'bp [Ime of peace] :
iaXaptiB: Salenioth). The same as Shelomith
3 (1 Chr. xxiv. 22).
SHELU'MIBL (bS''abt?5 [friend of God] :
^aXaprliX: Salamiel). The son of Zurishaddai,
and prince of the tribe of Simeon at the time of
the Exodus. He had 69,300 men under him
(Num. i. 6, ii. 12, vii. 36, 41, i. 19). In Judith
(viii. 1) hs is called Sam ael.
SHEM (Dtp [mme, si^fn] : 2^^: Sem). The
eldest son of Noah, born (Gen. v. 32) when his
father had attained the a^ge of 500 years. He waa
98 years old, married, and childless, at the time of
the Flood. After it, he, with his father, brothers,
sisters-in-law, and wife, received the blessing of
God (ix. 1), and entered into the covenant. Two
years afterwards he became the father of Arphaxad
(xi. 10), and other children were born to him sub
sequently. ^^'ith the help of -his brother Japheth,
be covered the nakedness of their father, which Ca
naan and Ham did not cai-e to hide.' In the
prophecy of Noah which is connected with this ui-
cident (ix. 25-27), the fu:st blessing falls on Shem.
He died at the age of 600 years.
Assuming that the years ascribed to the patri
archs in the present copies of the Hebrew Bible are
coiTect, it appears that Methuselah, who in his first
243 years was contemporary with Adam, had still
nearly 100 years of his long hfe to run after Shem
was born. And when Shem died, Abraham was
148 years old, and Isaac had been 9 years married.
Tbere are, therefore, but two links — Methuselah
and Shem — between Adam and Isaac. So that
the early records of the Creation and the Fall of
Man, which came down to Isaac, would challenge
(apart fi*om their inspiration) the same confidence
which is readily yielded to a tale that reaches the
hearer through two well-known persons between
himself and the original chief actor in the events
related. There is no chronological improbabiUty in that an
cient Jewish tradition which brings Shem and Abra
ham into personal conference. [Melchizedek.]
A mistake in translating x. 21, which is admit
ted into the Septuagint, and is followed by the A.
V. and Luther, has suggested the supposition that
Shem was younger than Japheth (see A. Pfeifferi
Opera, p. 30). There can be, however, no doubt
(see Rosenmuller, in loc, with whom Osenius,
Tketaurus, p. 1 433, seems to agree) that the trans-

SHBMAAH
lation ought to be, according to grammatical rule,
'* the elder brotlier of Japheth." Iu the six placet
(v. 32, vi. 10, vii. 13, ix. 18, x. 1; 1 Chr. i. 4;
where the three sons of Noah are named to^ethe/
precedence is uniformly as.iigned to Shem. In ch.
X. -the descendants of Ham and Japheth are enu
merated first, possibly because the sacred historian
regarding the Shemitic people as his proper subject
took the earUest opportunity to disencumber his
narrative of a digression. The verse v. 32 com
pared with xi. 10 may be fairly understood to mean
that the three sons of Noah were born after their
father had attained the age of 500 years; hut it
cannot be reasonably infeiTed from thence either
that Shem was the second son, or that they were
all born in one year.
The portion of the earth occupied hy the de
scendants of Shem (x. 21-31) intersects the por
tions of Japheth and Ham, and stretches iu an un
interrupted line from the Mediterranean Sea to the
Indian'Ocean. Beginning at its northwestern ex
tremity with Lydia (according to all ancient author
ities, though doubted by tlichaelis ; see Gesen.
Thes. p. 745), it includes Syria (.iram), Chaldtra
(Arphaxad), parts of Assyria (Asshur), of Persia
(Elam), and of the Arabian Peninsula (Joktan).
The various question^ connected with the disper
sion of the Shemitic people are discussed in the
article Shemitic Languages.
The servitude of Canaan under Shem, predicted
by Xoah (ix. 26), was fulfilled primarily in the
subjugation of the people of Palestine (Josh, xxiii.
4, and 2 Chr. viii. 7, 8). It is doubtful whether
verse 27 God or Japheth is mentioned as the
dweller in the tents of Shem: in tlie former sense
the verse may refer to the special presence of God
with the .Tews, and to the descent of Christ from
tbem ; or, in the latter sense, to the occupation of
Palestine and adjacent countries by the Romans,.
and (spiritually understood) to the accession of the
Gentiles to the Church of God (Eph. iii. 6). See A.
Pfeifferi Opera, p. 40; Newton, On the Prophecies,
Diss. i. W. T. B.
SHE'MA (2?at» [hearing, rumor] : [in Josh.]
'S.aXpa.a; Alex. 'Zapaa; [in 1 Chr., Rom. Ja/joi
Vat. Alex. 2efmo:] Same). One of the towns of
Judah. It lay in the r^ion of the south, and is
named between Ama:« and Moladah (Josh. xv.
26). In the hst of the towns of Simeon selected
from those in the south of Judah, Sheba takes the
place of Shema, probably by an error of transcrip
tion or a change of pronunciation. The genealog--
ical lists of 1 Chr. (ii. 43, 44) inform us that Shema
originally proceeded from Hebron, and iu its turn
colonized Maon. 6.
SHE'MA (57a^ [rumor]: Sapd: Samma).
1. A Reubenite, ancestor of Bela (1 Chr. v. 8).
2. (Sama.) Son of Elpaal, and one of the heads
of the fathers of tbe inhabitants of Aijalon ffho
drove out the inhabitants of Gath (1 CJir. viii. 13)
Probably the same as Shimhi.
3. (Sapatas: Semeia.) One of those who stoods
at Ezra's right hand when he read the Law to tht
people (Neh. viii. 4). Called Sammi-s. 1 F-sdr. ii|
43. SHEM'AAH (n^aW [fem., see above]'
'Aixpd; [Vat.] FA. AMa:^[Alex. Sa/ioa;] SnmtM',.
A Benjamite of Gibeah, and father of ,A.hiezer m
.loash, two warriors of their tribe who joined Pavid
at Ziklag (1 Chr. xii. 3). His name is written

SHEMAIAH
with the article, and is properly " Hasshemaah."
The margin of A. V. gives " Hasmaah."
SHEMAIAH [3 syl.] O^^V'O^ [Jehovah
hears]: 'Sapalas; [Vat. in 1 Chr. xii., :Sappacas:]
Semeias). 1. A prophet in the reign of Rehoboam.
When the king had assembled 180,000 men of Ben-
larain and Judah to reconquer the northern king
dom after its revolt, Shemaiah was commissioned
to charge them to return to their homes, and not
to war against their brethren (1 K. xii. 22; 2 Chr.
li. 2). His second and last appearance upon the
sti^e was upon the occasion of the invasion of Judah
and siege of Jerusalem by Shishak king of Egypt.
His message was then one of comfort, to assure the
princes of Judah that the punishment of their
idohitry should not come by the hand of Shishak
(2 Chr. xii. 5, 7). This event is in the order of
narrative subsequent to the first, but from some
circumstances it would seem to have occurred before
the disruption of the two kingdoms. Compare xii,
1, where the people of Rehoboam are called " Isi-ael,"
and xii. 5, 6, where the princes are called indiffer
ently " of Judah " and "of Israel" He wrote a
chronicle containing the events of Rehoboam's reign
(2 Chr. xii. 15). In 2 Chr. xi. 2 his name is
given in the lengthened form ^n^ya27.
2. (2a;iuc'fa; [in Neh., EA. ^epeia:] Semeia,
Se^mia.) The son of Shechaniah, among the de
scendants of Zerubbabel (1 Chr. iii. 22). He was
keeper of the east gate of the city, and assisted
Nehemiah in restoring the wall (Neh. iii. 29). Lord
A. Hervey (Geneal. p. 107) proposes to omit tlie
words at the beginning of 1 Chr. iii. 22 as spurious,
and to consider Shemaiah identical with Shimei
6, the brother of Zerubbabel.
3. (Sapaias; [Vat. 2u,ue»i'0 Samaia.) An
cestor of Ziza, a prince of the tribe of Simeon (1
Chr. iv. 37). Perhaps the same as Shimei 6.
4. ('Zipei; [Vat. tepeei; Alex. 2e;iieii':] Sa-
m'm.) Son of Joel a Reubenite; perhaps the same
as Shema (1 Chr. v. 4). See Joel 5.
5. dapaia; Semeia.) Son of Hasshub, a Me-
farite Levite who lived in Jerusalem after the
Captivity (1 Chr. ix. 14; Neh. xi. 15), and had
oversight of the outward business of the house of
God.
I' 6- ('ia.ida; [Vat. "Xapeia; Alex. 2o;iias: Se
meia.]) Father of Obadiah, or Abda, » Levite who
returned to Jerusalem after the Captivity (1 Chr.
ii. 16). Ue is elsewhere called Shammua (Neh.
xi. 17).
1- (if pit, 'Sepaia; [Vat. 2aM«iosi FA. 2o-
' fleas, 'iapaiasi] Alex. OF^oi'a, ^epem'- Semeias.)
Son of Elizaphan, and chief of his house in the
reign of David (1 Cbr. xv. 8, 11). He took part
; in the ceremonial with which the king brought the
Ark frora the house of Obed-edom.
8- ('Sapa'ias; Alex. Sappaias: [Semeias.']) A
] Urite, son of Nethaneel, aud also a scribe in the
, time of David. He registered the divisions of the
priests by lot iuto twenty-four orders (1 Chr. xxiv. 6 ).
9- (:Sapalas; [Rom. Vat. ver. 7, Sapuit;] Alex.
' 2o/i6ias: [Semeias, Semei.]) The eldest son of
'; Obed-edom the Gittite. He and his brethren and
his sons were gate-keepers of the Temple (1 Chr.
«vi. 4, 6, 7).
. IO' {[iapalas;] Alex. 2aueias: [Semeias.'])
^ A descendant of Jeduthun the singer who lived in
j! the reign of Hezekiah (2 Chr. xxix. 14). He as-
.ijMW m the purification of the Temple and the
187

(SHEMAIAH

2969

reformation of the service, and with Uzziei repre
sented his family on that occasion.
11. (Supa'ta; Alex. ':iapaeia: Samaias.) One
of the sons of Adonikam who returned in the second
caravan with Ezra (Ezr. viii. 13). Called Samaias
in 1 Esdr. viii. 39.
12. CSf pitas; [Vat. 2a/toios:] Semeias.)
One of the "heads" whom Ezra sent for to his
camp hy the river of Ahava, for the purpose of ob
taining Levites and ministers for the Temple from
" the place Casiphia " (Ezr. viii. 16). Called Mas-
man in 1 Esdr. viii. 43.
13. ('Sapaia: Semeia.) A priest of the family
of Harim, who put away his foreign wife at Ezra's
bidding (Ezr. x. 21). He is called Sameics in
1 Esdr. ix. 21.
14. (Sapa'ias ; [Vat. 2o;uaia ; FA. 2e/i€a :]
Semeias.) A layman of Israel, son of another Ha
rim, who also had married a foreigner (Ezr. x. 31).
Called Sabbeus in 1 Esdr. ix. 32.
15. (2epe't; [Vat. F.4. Sepeei: Semaias.]) Son
of Delaiah the son of Mehetabeel, a prophet in the
time of Nehemiah, who was bribed by Sanballat
and his confederates to frighten the Jews from their
task of rebuilding the wall, and to put Nehemiah
in fear (Neh. vi. 10). In his assumed terror he
appears to have shut up his house and to have pro
posed that all should retire into the Temple and
close the doors.
16. (Janata, :Sepias; Alex, [rather FA.^] 2£-
pe'ias in Neh. xii. [6, 18; Vat. Alex. FA.l omit,
and so Rom. ver. 6; in Neh. xii. 35, Sapaia'.] Se
meia, [Samaia or -as.] ) The head of a priestly
house who signed the covenant with Nehemiah
(Neh. X. 8). His family went up with Zerubbabel,
and were represented in the time of Joiakim by Je-
honathan (Neh. xii. 6, 18). Probably the same
who is mentioned again in Neh. xii. 35.
17. ('Sapa'ias; [Vat. Alex. 2opoia;] Alex. 2ao-
pa'ias: [Semeia.]) One of the princes of Judah
who went hi procession with Ezra, in the right
hand of the two thanksgiving companies who cele
brated the solemn dedication of the wall of Jeru
salem (Neh. xii. 34).
18. (Sapaia : [Semeia.] ) One o£ the choir who
took part in the procession with which the dedica
tion of the new wall of Jerusalera by Ezra was ac
companied (Neh. xii. 36). He appears to have been
a Gershonite Levite, and descendant of Asaph, for
reasons which are given under Mattaniah 2.
19. (Om. in Vat. MS. [also Rom. Alex. FA.l];
Alex, [rather FA.3] Sepflas.) A priest who blew
a trumpet on the same occasion (Neh. xii. 42'
20. (Sapaias; [FA. Sapeas:] Semeias.) She
maiah the Nehelamite, a false prophet in the time
of Jeremiah. He prophesied to the people of the
Captivity in the name of Jehovah, and attempted
to counteract the influence of Jeremiah's advice that
they should settle quietly in the land of their exile,
build houses, plant vineyards, and wait patiently for
the period of their return at the end of seventy
years. His animosity to Jeremiah exhibited itself
in the more active form of a letter to the high-priest
Zephaniah, urging him to exercise the functions of
his office, and lay the prophet in prison and in the
stocks. The letter was read by Zephaniah to Jer
emiah, who instantly pronounced the message o€
doom against Shemaiah for his presuoiption, that
he should have none of his family to dwell among
the people, and that himself should not live to see
their return from captivity (Jer. xxix. 24-32). Ui>

2970

SHEMAKIAH

name is written in ver. 24 in the lengthened form
!in"'»aE7. t: - :¦
21. (Sapaias; [Vat. Sapovas; Alex. Sapov-
i'os.] ) A Levite in the third year of Jehoshaphat,
who was sent with other Levites, accompanied by
two priests and some of the princes of Judah, to
teach tbe people the book of the Law (2 Chr. xvii. 8).
22. (2e/iei; [Vat. Sepeiy:] Semeias.) One of
the Levites in the reign of Hezeldah, who were
placed in the cities of the priests to distribute the
tithes among their brethren (2 Chr. xxxi. 15).
23. (SapataS') A Levite in the reign of Josiah,
who assisted at the solemn passover (2 Chr. xxxv. 9 ).
He is called the brother of Conaniah, and in 2 Chr.
xxxi. 12 we find Cononiah and Shimei his brother
mentioned in the reign of Hezekiah as chief Levites ;
but if Cononiah and Conaniah are the names of
persons and not of families, they cannot be identical,
nor can Shemaiah be the same as Shimei, who
lived at least eighty-five years before him.
24. ([FA. Mao-eos:] Semei.) The father of
Urijah of Kirjath-jearim (Jer. xxvi. 20).
25. (SeXeptas; FA. 2e8eKios; [Comp. Se-
fieias:] Semeias.) The father of Delaiah (Jer.
xxxvi. 12). W. A. W.
SHEMARI'AH (^n^"iat|? [whom Jehovah
keeps]: Sapapaia; Ahx. [FA.] Sa/xapia: Sama
ria). 1. One of the Benjamite warriors, " helpers
of the battle," who came to David at Ziklag (1 Chr.
xii. 5).
2. (n;j"ia^: SapapU [Vat. -ptio] : Sama-
rias.) One of the family of Harim, a layman of
Israel, who put away his foreign wife in the time
of Ezra (Ezr. x. 32).
3. ([Vat. FA. Sapapeta; Alex. Sapapeias:]
Semeria.') One of the family of Bani, under the
same circumstances as the preceding (Ezr. i. 41).
SHBMB'BER (igSiptp [lofty flight, Ges.] :
Svpo$6p: Semeber). King of Zebolm, and ally
of the king of Sodoin when he was attacked by the
northeastern invaders under Cbedorlaomer (Gen.
xiv. 2) The Sam. Text and Version give " She-
mebel." SHE'MEE (~IP^ U^^pt, thence lees of wine] -.
Sepifp; [Vat. once 2a,ur)p :] Somer). The owner
of the hill on which the city of Samaria was built
(1 K. xvi. 24), and after whom it was called Sho
meron by its founder Omri, who bought the site for
two silver talents. We should rather have expected
that the name of the city would have heen Shimron,
from Shemer; for Shomeron would have been the
name given after an owner Shomer. This latter
form, which occurs 1 Chr. vii. 32, appears to he
that adopted by the Vulgate and Syriae, who read
Somer and Shomir respectively ; but the Vat. MS.
of the LXX. retains the present form " Shemer,"
and changes the name of the city to Sepeptiy or Se-
ur\piiy [so Rom., but Vat. Saprjpaiv]. W. A. W.
SHEMI'DA (3JT)p?7 [fame of knowledge]:
ivpaip, Svpaplp [Vat. -peip] ; Alex. Sepipae in
Josh. : Semida). A son of Gilead, and ancestor of
the family ofthe Shemidaites (Num. xxvi. 32; Josh.
xvii. 2). Called Shemidah in the [later editions
of the] A. V. of 1 Chr. vii. 19.
SHBMI'DAH (VTB^ [see above] : Siptpd;
[Vat. Se/ieipo:] Semida), The same as Shemida
the son of (lilead (1 Chr. vii. 19). [The name is
ban spelled Shemida in A. V. ed. 1611. — A.]

SHBMIEAMOTH
SHEMIT)AITBS, THB CyTat^H
[patr., above] : d Svpaspi [Vat. -pet] : SemidaUiB).
The descendants of Shemida the son of Gilead
(Num. xxvi. 32). They obtained their lot among
the male children of .Manasseh (Josh. xvii. 2).
SHEM'INITH (jT'^a^n [the eighth, see
below]). The title of Ps. vi. contains a direction
to the leader ofthe stringed instruments of the
Temple choir concerning the manner in which the
Psalm was to be sung. " To the chief Musician
on Neginoth upon Sheminith," or " the eighth,"
as the margin of the A. V. bas it. A similar di
rection is found in the title of I's. xii. The LXX.
in both passages renders iirep t^s oyS(/j)s, and
the Vulgate pro octavd. The Geneva Version gives
" upon the eighth tune." Referring to 1 Chr. xv.
21, we find certain Levites were appointed by David
to play " with harps on the Sheminith," wliich the
Vulgate renders as above, and the LXX. by apti-
trevid, which is merely a corruption of the Hebrew.
The Geneva Version explains in the margin, " which
was the eighth tune, over the which he that was
the most excellent had charge." As we know
nothing whatever of the music of the Hebrews, all
conjectures as to the meaning oftheir musical terms
are necessarily vague and contradictory. With re
spect to Sheminith, most Eabbinicd writers, as
Bashi and Aben Ezra, follow the -Targum on the
Psalms in regarding it as a harp with eight strings ;
but this has no foundation, and depends upon a
misconstruction of 1 Chr. xv. 21. Gesenius ( Thes.
s. V. nS3) says it denotes the bass, in opposition
to Alamoth (1 Chr. xv. 20), which signifies the
treble. But as the meaning of Alamoth itself is
very obscure, we cannot make use of it for deter
mining the meaning of a term which, though dis
tinct from, is not necessarily contrasted with it.
Others, with the author of Shilte Haggibborim, in
terpret "the sheminith^'' as the octave; but there
is no evidence that the ancient Hebrews were ac
quainted with the octave as understood by our
selves. On comparing the manner in which the
word occurs in the titles of the two psalms already
mentioned, with the position of the terms Aijeleth
Shahar, Gittith, Jonath-elem-rechokim, etc., in
other psalms, which are generally regarded as in
dicating the melody to be employed by the singers,
it seems most probable that Sheminith is of the
same kind, and denotes a certain air known as the
eighth, or a certain key in which the psalm was
to be sung. Maurer (Comm. in Ps. vi.) regards
Sheminith as an instrument of deep tone like tho
violoncello, while Alamoth he compares with the
vioUn ; and such also appears to be the view taken
by Junius and TremeUius. It is impossible in such
a case to do more than point to the most probable
conjecture. W. A. W.
SHBMIB'AMOTH {r\^^n'^'^^1;Xp [mme
most high, Ges., name of ihe height = Jehovah,
Fiirst]: Sfptpapide; Alex. SipipapwB, 1 Chr. xv.
18; [Vat.] FA. Seij.fipap!,>e, 1 Chr. xv. 18; [Vat.
Sap.eipapw6eie, FA. SeiupapaSfid, 1 Chr. xv.]
20 ; [Vat. Saptapupue, FA.] SapapipaB, 1 Chr.
xvi. 5: Semiramoth). 1. A Levite of the second
degree, appointed to play with a psaltery "on Ala
moth," in the choir formed by David. He was is
the division which Asaph led with cymbals (1 Chr
XT. 18, 20, xvi. 5).
2. (SeptpapdB; [Vat. 2auEi/)o/iaifl.]) A I*

SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING

2971

rite in the reign of Jehoshaphat, who was sent
with others through the cities of Judah to teach
the book of the Law to the people (2 Chr. xvii. 8).
SHEMIT'IC LANGUAGES and WRIT
ING. Introduction, §§ 1-5. — 1. The expres
sions, "Shemitic family," and "Shemitic lan
guages," are based, as is well known, on a reference
to Gen. X. 21 ff [See Shem.] Subsequently,
the obvious inaccuracy of the expression has led to
an attempt to substitute others, such as Western
Asiatic, or Syro-Arabic — this last a happily chosen
designation, as bringing at once before us the two
geographical extremes of this family of languages.
But the earlier, though incorrect one, has main
tained its ground : and for purposes of convenience
we shall continue to use it."
2. It is impossible to lay down with accuracy
the boundaries of the area occupied by the tribes
employing so-called Shemitic dialects. Various
disturbing causes led to fluctuations, especially (as
on the northern side) in the neighborhood of rest
less Aryan tribes. For general purposes, the high
lands of Armenia may be taken as the northern
boundary — the river Tigris and the ranges beyond
it as the eastern — and the Red Sea, the Levant,
and certain portions of Asia Minor as the western.
Within these Umits lies the proper home of the
Shemitic family, which has exercised so mighty an
influence on the history of the world. The area
named may seem small, in comparison with the
wider regions occupied by the Aryan stock. But
its geographical position in respect of so much of
the old world — its two noble rivers, ahke faoilita-
tmg foreign and internal intercourse — the extent
of seaboard and desert, presenting long lines of
protection against foreign invasion — have proved
eminently favorable to the undisturbed growth and
development of this faraily of languages, as well as
investing some branches (at certain periods of their
history) with very considerable influence abroad.*

3. Varieties of the great Shemitic language-
family are to be found in use in the following
locaUties withui the area named. In those ordi
narily known as Syria, Mesopotamia, Babylonia.
and Assyria, there prevailed Aramaic dialects of
different kinds, e. g. Biblical Chaldaic — that of
the Targums and of the Syriac versions of Scrip
ture — to which may be added other varieties of
the same stock — such as that of the Palmyrece
inscriptions — and of different Sabian fragments.
Along the Mediterranean seaboard, and among tbe
tribes settled in Canaan, must be placed the home
of the language of the canonical books of the Old
Testament, among which were interspersed some
relics of that of the Phcenicians. In the south,
amid the seclusion of Arabia, was preserved the
dialect destined at a subsequent period so widely
to surpass its sisters in the extent of territory over
which it is spoken. A variety, allied to this last.
is found to have been domiciliated for a long time
in Abyssinia.
In addition to the singular tenacity and exclu
slveness of the Shemitic character, as tending to
preserve unaltered the main features of their lan
guage, we may allow a good deal for the tolerably
uniform climate of their geographical locations.
But (as compared with variations from the parent
stock in the Japhetian family), in the case of the
Shemitic, the adherence to the original type is very
remarkable. Turn where we will, from whatever
causes springhig, tbe same tenacity is discernible —
whether we look to the simple pastoral tribes of the
wilderness — the fierce and rapacious inhabitants
of mountain regions — the craftsmen of cities, the
tillers of the soil, or the traffickers in distant marts
and havens.c
The following table is taken from Professor M.
Miiller's late volume On the Science of Language
(p. 381) — a volume equally remarkable for re
search, fidelity, and graphic description: -

lAving Languages.
Dialects of Arabic .
Amharic . . . .

The Jews

Neo-Syrlac

Genealogical Table op the Shesutic PAMn.T of Languages.
Dead Languages. Classics.
Ethiopic  I Arabic, op
Himyaritic Inscriptions  ) Southern.
Biblical Hebrew .  ^ Hebraic,
Samaritan Pentateuch  ( or
Oartbaginian-Phoeaiciaa Inscriptions  ) Middle.
Chaldee, Masora, Talmud, Targum, Biblical Chaldee . \ Aramaic,
Syriac (Peshito, 2d cent. A. n.)  | or
Cuneiform Inscriptions of Babylon and Nineveh . . . ) Northern.

Few inquiries , would be more interesting, were
sufficiently trustworthy means at hand, than that
into the original Shemitic dialect, and as to
whether or not the Aram.iic was — not only in the
first instance, bnt more long and widely than we
ordinarily suppose — the principal means of inter
communication among all tribes of Shemitic origin,
with tbe exception perhaps of those of the Arabian
oeninsula. The historical books of the Old Testa-
Qient show plainly, that between the occupation of
Canaan and the victories of Nebuchadnezzar, many

a " La denomination de s^mitiques ne peut avoir
i'inconv^nlent, du moment qu'on la prend comme
une simple appellation conventionnelle et que I'on
(est expliqui! sur cs qu'elle renferme do profond^ment
inexact" (Renan, Hist. Gin. des Langues S6mitiques,
\. 2). English scbolats have lately adopted, from the
Cranch, the form '' Semitic ; " but there is no reason

causes led to the extension of the Aramaic, to tho
restriction of pure Hebrew. But there is much
that is probable in the notion held by more than
one scholar, that the spoken dialect of the Shemitic
tribes external to Arabia (in the earliest periods of
their history) closely resembled, or was in fact a
better variety of Aramaic. This notion is cor
roborated by the traces still discernible in the
Scriptures of Aramaisms, where the language (as
in poetical fragments) would seem to have been
preserved in a form most nearly resembling its

why we should abandon the Hebrew sound because
the Jj'rench find the pronunciation diflicult.
6 Bertheau, in Herzog's Real-Encyktopddie, v. 609,
613 ; Fiirst, LehrgebduUe der Aramdischen Idiome, § 1.
c Scholz, Einleiiung in das A. T, Coin, 1833, 21-28 ;
Purst, Lehrgeb. §§ 1, 20, 22.

2972

SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING

original one:" and also from the resemblances
which may be detected between the Aramaic and
the earliest monument of Arabic speech — the
Himyaritic fragments.*
4. The history of the Shemitic people tells us of
various movements undertaken by them, but sup
plies no remarkable instances of their assimilating.
Though carrying with them their language, insti
tutions, and habits, they are not found to have
struck root, but remained strangers and exotics in
several instances, passing away without traces of
their occupancy. So late as the times of Augus
tine, a dialect, derived from the old Phoenician
settlera, was spoken in some of the more remote
districts of Roman Africa. But no traces remained
of the power, or arts of the former lords of sea
and land, from whom these fragments were in
herited. Equally striking is the absence of results,
from the occupation of a vast aggregate of coun
tries by the victorious armies of Islam. The cen
turies since elapsed prove in tbe clearest manner,
that the vocation of the Arab branch of the Shem
itic family was not to leaven the nations whom
their first onset laid prostrate. They brought
nothing with them but their own stern, subjective,
unsocial rehgion. They borrowed many intellects
ual treasures from the conquered nations, yet
were these never fully engrafted upon the alien
Shemitic nature, but remained, under the most
favorable circumstances, only external adjuncts and
ornaments. And the same inveterate isolation still
characterizes tribes of the race, when on new soil.
5. The peculiar elements of the Shemitic char
acter will be found to have exercised considerable
influence on their literature. Indeed, accordance
is seldom more close, than in the case of the
Shemitic race (where not checked by external
causes) between the generic type of thought, and
its outward expression. Like other languages, this
one is mainly resolvable into monosyllabic prim
itives. These, as far as they may be traced by
research and analysis, carry us back to the early
times, when the broad line of separation, to which
we have been so long accustomed, was not yet
drawn between the Japhetian and the Shemitic
languages. Instances of this will be brought for
ward ill the sequel, but subsequent researches have
amply confirmed the substance of Halhed's predic-
tiou of the ultimate recognition of the affinities
between Sanskrit (^= tlie Indo-Germanic family)
and Arabic (= the Shemitic) " in the main ground
work of language, in monosyllables, in the names
of numbers, and the appellations of such things,
as would be first discriminated on the immediate
dawn of civihzation." ^
These monosyllabic primitives may still be traced
ill particles, and words least exposed to the ordi
nary causes of variation. But differences are ob
servable ill the principal parts of speech — the verb
a t! Un autre foit, non moins digne de remarque,
c'eat I'analogie frappante qn'oot toutes ces irregu-
larites provinciales avec I'Arainffen. 11 semble que,
m&me avant la captivity, le patois populaire se rap-
prochait beaucoup de cette langue, en sorte qu'il nous
est maintenant impossible de separer bien nettenient,
4an8 le style de certains Merits, ce qui appartient au
dialecte populaire, ou au patois du royaume d'lsrael,
ou A I'influence des temps de la captivite." *' 11 est iV
remarquer, du reste, que les langues si^niitiques dif
ferent moins dans la bouche du peuple que dans les
livres " (Benan, i. 141, 142 , and also Fiirst, Lehrgeb.
H 3, 4, 8, 11;.

and the noun. Secondary notions, and those oi
relation, are grouped round the primary ones of
meaning in a single word, susceptible of various
internal changes according to the particular re
quirement. Ilence, in the Shemitic family, the
prominence of foi'malion, and tliat mainly interna!
(or contained willdn the root form). By such in
strumentality are expressed the differences between
noun and verb, adjective and substantive. This
mechanism, within certain limits, invests the Shem
itic languages with considerable fre.shnes8 and sharp-
ness ; but, as will be seen in the sequel, this lan
guage-family does not (for higher purposes) possess
distinct powers of expression equal to those pos
sessed by the Japhetian family. Another leading
peculiarity of this branch of languages is the
absence (save in the case of proper names) of com
pound words — to wliich the sister family is in
debted for so much life and variety. In the Shem
itic family — agglutination, not logical sequence —
independent roots, not compound appropriate deri
vations from the same root, are used to express
respectively a train of thought, or different modifi
cations of a particular notion. Logical sequence
is replaced by simple material sequence.
Both language-families are full of life; but the
life of the Japhetian is organic — of the Shemitic,
an aggregate of units. The one looks around to
be taught, and pauses to gather up its lessons into
form and shape : the other contains a lore within
itself, and pours out its thoughts and fancies as
they arise.^

i 6-13. -

¦ Hebrew Language. -
Geo^vtii.

¦ Period of

6. The Hebrew language is a branch of the so-
called Shemitic family, extending over a large por
tion of Southwestern Asia. The development
and culture of this latter will be found to have
been considerably influenced by the situation or
fortunes of its different districts. In the north
(or Aram, under which designation are compre
hended Syria, Mesopotamia, Babylonia), and under
a climate partially cold and ungenial — in the close
proximity of tribes of a different origin, not un
frequentiy masters by conquest — the Shemitic
dialect became in places harsher, and its general
character less pure and distinct. Towards the
south, opposite causes contributed to maintain the
language in its purity. In Arabia, preserved hy
many causes from foreign invasion, the language
maintained more euphony and delicacy, and ex
hibited greater variety of words and construction.
A reference to the inaji will serve to explain this —
lying as did Judaea between Aram and Arabia, and
chiefly inhabited by the Hebrew race, with the
exception of Canaanite and Phoenician tribes. Of
the language of these last few distinctive remains
have hitherto been brought to light.^ But its

6 Hoffmann, Gramm. Syr. pp. 5, 6; Scholz, i.p. 41,
ill. p. 8, 9 ; Gesenius, Lehrgebaude (1817), pp. 194-190 ;
Fiirst, Lehrgeb. §§ 4, 14 ; Rawlinson, Journal of Asiatic
Society, xv. 283.
c Halhed's Grammar ofthe Bengal Lfingitage, 177H,
quoted in Delitzsch, Jesuriin, p. 113 ; Fiirst, Lehrgeb
Zweiter Haupttheil.
rf Ewald, Gramm. d. A. T. 1883, pp. 4-8 ; Bertheau,
in Herzog, v. 611, 612; Reuss, ibid. pp. 598, 6U0 ;
Franck, Etudes Orientates, p. 887.
e " The name of their cour try, HP'^Q = the
land of, Inunigiatlon, — points to the ikct 'that tbt

SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING

2973

^neral resemblance to that of the Terachite set
tlers is beyond all doubt, both in the case of the
Hamite tribes, and of the Philistine tribes, another
branch of the same stock.
Originally, the language of the Hebrews pre
sented more aflSnities witli the Aramaic, in accord
ance with their own family accounts, which bring
the Patriarchs from the N. E., — more directly from
uortheiTi Mesopotamia. In consequence of vicinity,
as was to be anticipated, many features of resem
blance to the Arabic may be traced; but subse
quently, the Hebrew language will be found to have
followed an uidependent course of growth and de
velopment. 7. Two questions, in direct connection with the
early movements of the ancestors of the subsequent
Hebrew nation, have been discussed with great
earnestness by many writers — the first bearing on
the causes which set the Terachite family in mo
tion towards the south and west; the second, on
the origin and langu<^ge of the tribes in possession
of Canaan at tbe arrival of Abraham.
In Geu. X. and xi. we are told of five sons of
Shem — Elam, .\ssbur, Arphaxad, Lud, and Aram.
The last of these (or rather the peoples descended
from him) will be considered subsequently. The
fourth has been supposed to be either the progeni
tor (or the collective appellation) of the tribes
which originally occupied Canaan and tlie so-called
Shemitic regions to the south. Of the remaining
three, the tribes descended from Elam and called
by his name were probably subjugated at an early
period, for in Gen. xiv. mention is made of the
headship of an anti- Terachite league being vested
in the king of Elam, Cbedorlaomer, whose name
points to a Cushite origin. Whether Shemitic oc
cupation was succeeded at once (in the case of
Elam ") by Aryan, or wliether a Cushite (Hamite)
dommation intervened, cannot now be decided.
But in the case of the second, Asshur, there can be
little doubt, ou the showing of Scripture (Geu. x.
11), that his descendants were disturbed in their
home by the advance of the clearly traceable Cush
ite stream of population, flowing upwards on a re
turn course through Arabia, where plain marks are
to be found of its presence.' When we bear in
mind the strongly marked differences existing be
tween the Shemitic and Cushite (== Hamite) races
in habits and thought,'-' and the manifestation of
God's wrath left on record, we can well understand
an uneasiness and a desire of removal among the
Shemitic population of the plains by the river.
Scripture only tells us that, led in a way which they
knew not, chosen Shemitic wanderers of the lineage
of Arphaxad set forth on the journey fraught with
such enduring consequences to tlie history of the
world, as recorded in Scripture, in its second stage
of progress. There is at least nothing unreason
able in the tliought, that the movement of Terah
from Ur of tbe Chaldees (if moderu scholarship is
right in the locality selected) was caused by Divine
uggestion, acting ou a mind ill at ease in the

Philistines did not reaxih the line of coast from the
tnterior at all events" (quart. Rev. Ixxviii. 172).
a The word Klam is simply tlie pronunciation, ac
cording to the organs of Western Asia, of Iran = Airy-
ama = Airjana. Renan, i. 41, oa the autbonty of
Burnouf and M. Miiller; J. G. Miiller, R. E. xiv.
B33 ; Rawlinson, Journal of Asiatic Society, xv. 222.
6 Renan, i. 34, 312, 316 ; Spiegel, in Herzog, x. 365,
K6. e Compare Gen. xi. 6 with Oen. xviii. 20, and note 1,

neighborhood of Cushite thought and habits. It
may be that the active cause of the movement re
corded in Gen. xi. 31 was a renewed manifestation
of tlie One True God, the influences of which were
to be stamped on all that was of Israel, and not
least palpably on its language in its purity and
proper development. The leading particulars of
tliat memorable journey are preserved to us in
Scripture, which is also distinct upon tlie fact, that
the new comers and the earlie;; settlers in Canaan
found no difficulty in convei'sing. Indeed, neither
at tbe first entrance of Teracbites, nor at the re
turn of their descendants after their long sojourn
in Egypt, does there appear to have been any diffi
culty in this respect in the case of any of the nu
merous tribes of either Shemitic or Hamitic origin
of which mention is made in Scripture. But, as
was to be expected, very great difference of opinion
is to be found, and very much learned discussion
has taken place, as to whether the Teracbites adopt
ed the language of the earlier settlers, or established
their own in its place. The latter alternative is
liardly probable, although for a loug time, and
among the earlier writers on Biblical subjects, it waa
maintained with great earnestness — Walton, for
example, holding the advanced knowledge and civ
ilization of the Terachite immigration in all im
portant particulars. It may be doubted, with a
writer of the present day,'' whether this is a sound
line of reasoning, and whether " this contrast be
tween the inferiority of tbe chosen people in all
secular advantages, and their preeminence in re
ligious privileges,' is not " an argument which
cannot be too strongly insisted on by a Christian
advocate." The whole history of the Jewish peo
ple anterior to the advent of Christ would seem to
indicate that any great early amount of civilization,
being built necessarily on closer intercourse with
the surrounding peoples, would have tended to re
tard rather than pi'oniote the object for which that
people was chosen. The probability is, that a
great original similarity existing between the dia
lects of the actual possessors of the country in
their various localities, and thatof the immigrants,
the latter were less likely to impart than to borrow
from their more ailvanced neighbors.
On what grounds is the undoubted similarity
of the dialect of the Teracbites to that of the oc
cupants at the time of their immigration, to be ex
plained y Of the origin of its earUest occupants,
known to us in the sacred records by the mysteri
ous and boding names of Nephilim, Zamzummim,
and the like, and of whose probable Titanic size
traces have heen brought to light by recent travel
lers, history records nothing certain. Some assert,
that no reliable traces of Shemitic language are to
be found north of Mount Taurus, and claim for the
early inhabitants of Asia Minor a Japhetian origin.
Others affirm the descent of these eariy tribes
from Lud, the fourth son of Shem, and their mi
gration from "Lydia to Arabia Petriea and the
southern borders of Palestine." " But these must

Rawlinson, J. A. S. xv. 231. Does the cuneiform or
thography Bab-Il =s " the gate of God," point to the act
of Titanic audacity recorded in Gen.? and is the punish
ment recorded in the confusion expressed in a Shemitic
word of kindred sound '! Quatremfere, Melanges d'iiis.
taire, 113, 164.
d Bishop of St. David's letter to the Rei . R. Wil
liams, D. D., p. 65.
e lieuan, i. 45, 107; Arnold, in Hertog, viil. 310
11 ; Grahari, Cambridge Essays, 1858.

2974

SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING

have disappeared at an early period, no mention
being made of them in Gen. x., and their remains
being only aUuded to in references to the tribes
which, under a well-known designation, we find in
occupation of Palestine on the return from Egypt.
8. Another view is that put forward by our coun
tryman Kawlinson, and shared by other scholars.
" Either from ancient monuments, or from tradi
tion, or from the dialects now spoken by their de
scendants, we are authorized to mfer that at some
very remote period, before the rise of tbe Shemitic
or Aryan nations, a great Scythic " (= Hamitic)
" population must have overepread Europe, Asia,
and Africa, speaking languages all more or less dis
similar in their vocabulary, but possessing in com
mon certain organic characteristics of grammar
and construction." «
And this statement would appear, in its leading
features, to be historically sound. As was to be
anticipated, both from its importance and from its
extreme obscurity, few subjects connected with Bib
Ucal antiquities have been more warmly discussed
than fche origin of the Canaanitish occupants of
Palestine. Looking to the authoritative records
(Gen. ix. 18, x. 6, 15-20) there would seem to be
no reason for doubt as to the Hamitic origin of
these tribes.* Nor can the singular accordances
discernible between the language of these Canaan
itish (:= Hamitic) occupants, and the Shemitic
family be justly pleaded in bar of this view of the
origin of the former. " If we examine the inval
uable ethnography of the book of Genesis we shall
find that, while Ham is the brother of Shem, and
therefore a relationship between his descendants and
the Shemitic nations fuUy recognized, the Hamites
are described as those who previously occupied the
different countries into which the Aramiean race
afterwards forced their way. Thus Scripture (Gen.
i. ff.) attributes to the race of Ham not only the
aboriginal population of Canaan, with its w^thy
and civilized communities on the coast, but also the
mighty empires of Babylon and Nineveh, the rich
kingdoms of Sheba and Havilah in Arabia Felix,
and the wonderful realm of Egypt. There is every
reason to beUeve — indeed in some cases the proof
amounts to demonstration — that aU these Hamitic
nations spoke languages wbich differed only dialec-
ticaUy from those of the Syro-Arabic family." ^
9. Connected with this subject of the relation
ship discernible among the early Noachidse is that
of the origin and extension of the art of writing
among the Shemites, the branch with which we
are at present concerned. Our limits preclude a
discussion upon the many theories by which the
student is stiU bewildered: the question would
seem to be, in the case of the Terachite branch of
the -Shemitic stock, did they acquii'e the art of
writing from the Phcenicians, or Egj-ptians, or
Assyrians — or was it evolved from given elements
among themselves ?
But while the truth with respect to the origin
of Shemitic writing is as yet involved in obscurity,

a Rawlinson, J. of A. S. xv. 230, 232.
b " All the Canaanites were, I am satiatied, Scytha ;
ftad the iDhabitants of Syria retained their distinctive
sthnio character until quite a late period of history.
According to the inscriptions, the Khettu or Hittites
were the dominant Scythian race from the earliest
times." Aawlinson, J. A. S. xv. 230.
^ Quarterly Rev. Ixxviii. 173. See a quotation in

there can be no doubt that an indeUble influence
was exercised by Egypt upon fche Terachite branch
iu thia particulau:. The language of Egypt cannot
be considered as a bar to this theory, for, in the
opinion of most who have studied the subject, the
Egyptian language may claim an Asiatic, and in
deed a Sheoritic origin. Nor can the changes
wrought be justly attributed to the Hyksos, instead
of the Egyptians. These people, when scattered
after their long sojourn, doubtless carried with
them many traces and results of the sujwrior cul
ture of Egypt; but there is no evidence to show
that they can be considered iu any way as instruc-
tors of the Teracbites. The claim, so long acqui
esced in, of the Phoenicians in this respect, has
been set aside on distinct gi-ounds. What was the
precise amount of cultivation, in respect of the art
of writing, possessed by the Teracbites at the im
migration or at their removal to Ii^gypt, we cannot
now tell, — probably but limited, when estimated
by their social position. Hut the Exodus found
them possessed of that priceless treasure, the germ
of the alphabet of the civiUzed world, built on a
pure Shemitic basis, but modified by I'^yptian cul
ture. " There can be no doubt that tbe phonetic
signs are subsequent to tbe objective and determi
native hieroglyphics, and showing as they do a
much higher power of abstraction, tbey must be
considered as infinitely more valuable contributions
to the art of writing. But the Egyptians have
conferred a stiU greater boon on the world, if their
hieroglyphics were to any extent the origin of fche
Shemitic, which has formed the basis of almost
every known system of letters. Tbe long contin
uance of a pictorial and figurative system of
writing among the Egyptians, and their low, and
after aU, imperfect syUabarium, must be referred to
the same source as tbeir pictorial and figurative
representation of theii- idea of the Deifcy; just as,
on the contrary, the early adoption by the people
of Israel of an alphabet properly so caUed, must
be regarded as one among many proofs which, they
gave of their powei"s of abstraction, and conse
quently of tbeir fitness for a. more spiritual wor
ship." ^ '
10. Between tbe dialects of Aram and Arabia,
thatof the Teracbites occupied a middle place —
superior to the first, as being the language in
which are preserved to us the inspired outpouringa
of so many great prophets and poets — wise,
learned, and eloquent — and different from the
second (which does not appear in history untU a
comparatively recent period) in its antique sim-
pUcity and majesty.
The dialect which we are now considering bai
been ordinai'ily designated as that of the Hebrews,
rather than of fche Israelites, apparently for the fol
lowing reasons. The appellation Hebrew is of old
standing, but has no reference to the history of tho
people, as connected with its glories or eminence,
while that of Israel is bound up witb its historical
grandeur. The people is addressed as Israel by their

J. A. S. XV. 238, on the corruption of manners flowing
from the advanced civilization of tbe Ilamites.
<i q. R. IxxviU. 156; Ewald, Chsch. i. 472-474;
Hoffmann, Gramyn. Syriac. pp. 60-62 ; Leyrer, Her
zog, xiv. 358, 359 ; Lepsius, Zivei Abkandtungen, 39,
40, 56, 65 ; J. G. Muller, in Uerzog, xiv 232 j iUwlin-
son, J. A. S. XT 222, 226, 230 ; Saalschiitz, Zur Ge.
scAichte d. Buchstabensckrijl, §§ 6, 17, 18; YaihiaeeT
in Uerzog, xi. 802.

SHHMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING

2975

prieata and prophets, on solemn occasions, while by
foreigners they are designated as Hebrews (Gen. xl.
15), and indeed by some of their own early writers,
where no point is raised in connection with their
reUgion (Gen. xUii. S2; Ex. xxi. 2; i Sam. xiii.
3, 7, xiv. 21), It was long assumed that their
designation (?*'"^3^ =: ol irepdTai) had reference
to Eber, the ancestor of Abraham. More probably
it should be regarded as designating all tbe Shem-
itic-speaking tribes, which had migrated fco the
south frora the other side of fche Euphrates; and in
that case, might have been applied by the earlier
inhabitants of Canaan. But in either case, fche
term "Hebrews" would comprise all tbe descend
ants of Abraham, and their language therefore
should be designated as the Hebrew, in accordance
with the more usual name of the people. " The
language of Canaan" is used instead (Is. xix. 18),
but in tbis passage the country of Canaan is con-
tnated wifch that of Egypt. The expression " the
Jews' language" (Is. xxxvi. 11, 13) appUes merely
to fche dialect of the kingdom of Judah, in all
probabiUty, more widely used after fche faU of
Samaria. 11. Many causes, aU obvious and inteUigible,
combine to make diflBculfc, if not impossible, any
formal or detached account of the Hebrew lan
guage anterior to its assumuig a written shape.
But various reasons occur to render difficult, even
wifchin this latter period, such a reliable history of
the Hebrew language as befits the exceeding in
terest of the subject. In the first place, very Uttle
has come down to us, of what appears to have been
an extensive and diversified Uterature. AVhere the
fects requisite for a judgment are so Umited, any
attempt of tbe kind is likely to mislead, as being
built on speculatious, erecting into characteristics
of an entire period what may be simply the pecul
iarities of fche author, or incidental to his subject
or style. Again, attempts at a philological history
of the Hebrew language wiU be much impeded by
the fact — that the chronological order of the ex-
taut Scriptures is not hi aU instances clear — and
that the history of fche Hebrew nafcion from its
settlement to the seventh century b. c. is without
changes or progress of the marked and promi
nent nature required for a satisfactory critical
judgment. Unlike languages of tbe Japhetian
stock, such as tbe Greek or German, the Hebrew
language, like aU her Shemitic sisters, is firm and
hard as from a mould — not susceptible of change.
In addition to these characteristics of their lan
guage, tbe people by whom it was spoken were
of a retired and exclusive cast, and, for a long time,
exempt from foreign sway. The dialects also of
the few conterminous tribes with whom they had
any intercourse were alUed closely with their own.
The extant remains of Hebrew literature are
destitute of any important changes in language,
during the period from Moses fco the Captivity. A
certain and intelligible amount of progress, but no
considerable or remarkable difference (according to
one school), is reaUy observable in the language of
the Pentateuch, the books of Joshua, Judges, Kuth,
Samuel, the Kings, the Psalms, or the prophecies
if Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, Joel, Micah, Nahum,

a M. Miiller, Science of Language, pp. 57-59: a most
natructive passage, Jorster, Voice of Israel, 77.
* Vielea auch. was uns jetzt zum ersten Male in den
Itonkmalern der macedonischen Weltzeit begegnet, mag

Habakkuk, and Jeremiah — widely separated from
each ofcher by time as are many of these writings
Grammars and lexicons are confidently referred to
iis supplying abundant evidence of unchanged ma
terials and fashioning; and foreign words, when
occurring, are easily to be recognized under their
Shemitic dress, or their introduction as easily tc
be explained.
At the first sight, and fco modern judgment,
much of this appears sfcrange, and possibly unfcen-
able. But an explanafcion of the difiicnlty is sought
in the unbroken residence of the Hebrew people,
without removal or molestafcion — a feature of his
tory not unexpecfced or surprising in the case of a
people preserved by Providence simply as fche guar
dians of a sacred deposit of truth, not yefc ripe for
publication. An additional iUustration of the im
munity from change, is to be drawn from the his
tory of the other branches of the Shemitic stock.
The Aramaic dialect, as used by various writers for
eleven hundred years, although inferior to the He
brew in many respects, is almost without change,
and not essentially different from the language of
Daniel and Ezra. And the Arabic language, sub
sequently to its second birth, in connection with
Mohammedanism, wiU be found to present the
same phenomena.
12. Moreover, is ifc alfcogether a wild conjecture
to assume as not impossible, the formation of a
sacred language among the chosen people, afc so
marked a period of their history as thafc of Moses ?
Every argumenfc leads to a belief, that the popular
dialect of fche Hebrews from a very early period
waa deeply fcinged with Aramaic, and thafc it con
tinued so. But tbere is surely nothing unHkely
or inconsistent in the notion thafc he who was
"learned in aU fche wisdom of tbe Egyptians"
should have been taught fco introduce a sacred
language, akin, but superior to the every-day dia-
lecfc of his people — the property of fche rulers, and
which subsequent writers should be guided to copy.
Such a language woidd be the sacred and learned
one, — that of the few, — and no clearer proof of
the limited hold exercised by this classical Hebrew
on the ordinary language of the people can be re
quired than its rapid withdrawal, after the Cap-
fcivifcy, before a language composed of dialects
hitherto disregarded, but stiU Uving in popular
use. It has been weU said that " literary dialects,
or what are commonly called classical languages,
pay for their temporary greatness by inevitable de
cay." "If later in history we meet with a new
body of stationary language forming or formed, we
may be sure thafc its tributaries were those ri\'Ti-
lets which for a time were alraost lost fco our
sight." «
13. A few remarks may not be out of place here
wifch reference to some leading Unguisfcic pecul
iarities in different books of the 0. T. For ordi
nary purposes fche old division infco the golden and
silver ages is sufiBcient. A detailed Usfc of pecul
iarities observable in the Pentateuch (without,
however, destroying its close similarity to other
0. T. writings) is given by Scholz, divided under
lexical, grammatical, and syntactical heads. Wifch
the style of the Pentateuch (as might be expected)
that of Joshua very closely corresponds. The feel-

wohl alter seyn, aber dauials zuerst aus dem Dunkel
der Yolksaprache, die ja iiberall reicher ist als die
der classiBchen Legitimitat." Keuf^, in Hurz^g, T
707.

2976

SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING

[ng of hosfciUty to the neighboring peoples of mixed
descent, so prevalent at the time of the restoration,
makes strongly against tbe asserted late origin of
the book of Kuth, in which it cannot be traced.
But (with which we are at present concerned) the
style points fco an earlier dafce, fche asserfced Ara
maisms being probably relics of the popular dia
lect.** The same linguistic pecuUarities are ob
servable (among other merits of style) in the books
of Samuel.''
The books of Job and Ecclesiastes contain many
asserted Aramaisms, whicb have been pleaded in
support of a late origin of these two poems. In
the case of tbe first, it is argued (on the other side)
that these peculiarities are not to be considered so
much poetical ornaraents as ordinary expressions
and usages of the early Hebrew language, affected
necessarily to a certain extent by intercourse wifch
neighboring tribes. And the asserted want of
study and polish in the diction of this book leads
to the same conclusion. As respects the book of
Ecclesiastes the case is more obscure, as in many
instances the peculiarities of style seem rather ref
erable to the secondary Hebrew of a late periSd
of Hebrew history, than to an Aramaic origin.
But our acquaintance with Hebrew literature is too
Umited to allow tbe formation of a positive opinion
on the subject, in opposition to that of ecclesiastical
antiquity.^ In addition to roughness of diction,
growing probably out ofthe same cause — close in
tercourse with the people — so-called Aramaisms are
to be found in the remains of Jonah and Hosea,
and expressions closely aUied in those of Amos'.'^
This is not the case in the writhigs of Nahum,
Zephaniah, and Habakkuk, and in the stiU later
ones of the minor prophets; the treasures of past
times, which filled their hearts, served as models
of sfcyle.«
As wifch respect fco the book of Ecclesiastes (afc
the hands of modern crifcics), so, in the case of
Ezekiel, Jewish critics have sought fco assign its
pecuUarities of style and expression to a secondary
Hebrew origin. / But the references above given
may serve to aid tbe consideration of a most in
teresting question, as to the extent to which Ara
maic elements entered into the ordinary dialect of
the Hebrew people, from early times to the Cap
tivity. The pecuUarifcies of language in Daniel belong
-to anofcher field of inquiry; and under impartial
consideration more difficulties may be found t<i dis
appear, as in the case of those with regard to the
asserted Greek words. The language and subject-
matter of Daniel (especially tbe latter), in the
opinion of scholars, led Ezra and Nehemiah to
place this book elsewhere than among the prophet
ical writings. To tbeir minds, the apocalyptic char-
acfcer of tbe book raight seem to assign it rather to
the Hagiographa than the roll of prophecy, prop
erly so called. Inquiries, with respect to tbe clos-

a Scholz, Einl. 313, and note ; Nagelsbach, in Uer-
KOi^, xiii 188.
6 Nagelsbach, ibid. 412.
c Scholz, Einl. ui. 65-67, 180, 181 ; Ewald, Hiob, 65.
d Scholz, ibid, 581, 537, 549.
e Scholz, ibid. 595, 600, 606; Esvald, Gesch. in. t.2,
§215. / Zunz. Gottesdienattiche Vortrdge der Juden, 162.
g See also Rawlinson, / A. S. xv. 247 ; Delitzsch,
In Herzog, iii. 274 ; Vaihinger, Stud. «. Erit. 1857, pp.
aB-U9.

ing of the canon, tend to shake the comparatively
recent date wbich it has been so customary to as
sign to this book.ff
"With these exceptions (if so fco be considered)
few traces of dialects are discernible in the small
remains stUl extant, for tbe most part composed in
Judah and Jerusalem. Tbe dialects of the north
ern districts probably were influenced by their Ara^
maic neighbors; and local expressions are to be
detected in Judg. v. and xn. 6. At a later period
Philistine dialects are aUuded to (Neh. xui. 23, 24),
and that of GaUlee (Matt. xxvi. 73).
As has been remarked, the Ai-amaic elements
above aUuded to, are most plainly obsen-able in the
remains of some of fche less educated writers. Tbe
general style of Hebrew prose Uterature is plain
and simple, but lively and pictorial, and risuig wifch
the subject, at times, fco considerable elevafcion. But
the strength of the Hebrew language lies in ita
poetical and prophetical remains. For simple and
historical narrative, ordinary words and formations
sufficed. But the requisite elevation of poetical
composition, and the necessity (growing out of the
general use of paralleUsm) for enlarging the supply
of striking words and expressions at command, led
to fche introduction of many expressions whicb we
do not commonly find in Hebrew prose literature.^
For the origin*' and existence of these we raust
look especiaUy to the Aramaic, from which expres
sions were borrowed, whose force and pecidiarities
might give an addifcional ornament and point not
otherwise attainable. Closely resembling that of
the poetical books, in its general character, is the
style of the prophetical writings, but, as raight be
anticipated, more oratorical, and running into
longer sentences. Nor should it be forgotten, by
the side of so much that is uniform in langu^e
and construction throughout so long a period, thafc
diversities of individual dispositions nnd standing
are strongly mai'ked, in the instances of several
writers. But from the earliest period of the exist
ence of a Uterature among tbe Hebrew people to
B. c. 600, the Hebrew language continued singu
larly exempt from change, in all leading and gen
eral features, and in tbe general laws of its expres
sion, forms, and combinations.
From that period the Hebrew dialect will be
found to give way before the Aramaic, in what has
been preserved to us of its literature, although, as
is not unfrequentiy the case, some later writers
copy, with almost regretful accuracy, the classical
and consecrated language of a brighter period.
§§14-19. Aramaic Language. — Scholastic
Pekiod.
14. The language ordinarily caUed Aramaic is a
dialect of the great Shemitic family, deri\ing its
name from the district over which it was spoken,
Aram = the high or hiU country (as Canaan = the
low country). But fche name is appUed, bofch by

A " L'importance du verset dans le style des S^mitea
est la meiUeute preuve du manque absolu de con
struction intt^rjeure qui caracttirise leur phrase. Ijo
vei-set n'a rien de commun avec la p6riode grecque et
latine, pui^qu'il n'offre pas une suite de membrM
dtSpendants lea uns des autres : c'est une coupe a
peu pr^s arbltraire dans une s^rie de proportions
st^part^ea par des virgules." Renan, i. 21.
i Reuss, in Herzog, v. 606-608; Bleek, Einleitu^
pp. 80-89.

SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING

2977

Biblical and other writers, in a wider and a, more
lestricted sense. The designation — Aram — was
imperfectly kuown to the Greeks and Romans, by
whom the country was caUed Syria, an abbrevia
tion of Assyria, according to Herodotus (vii. 63)."
In general practice Aram was divided into Eastern
and Western. The dialects of these two districts
were severally called Chaldaic and Syriac — desig
nations not happily chosen, but, as in the case of
Shemitic, of too long currency to be changed with
out great inconvenience. No traces remain of the
numerous dialects whicb must have existed in so
large an aggregate of many very populous districts.
Nothing can be more erroneous than the apphca
tion of the word "Chaldaic" to the East Aramaic
dialecfc. It seems probable that the Chaldseans
were a people of Japhetian extraction, who proba
bly took the name of the Shemitic tribe whom they
dislodged before their connection with Babylon, so
long, so varied, and so full of interest. But it
would be an error to attribute to these conquerors
any great or early amount of cultivation. The ori
gin of the peculiar and advanced civilizafcion to be
traced in the basin of Mesopotamia raust be as
signed to another cause — the influences of Cushite
immigration. The colossal scientific and industrial
characteristics of Assyrian civilization are not rea
sonably deducible from Japhefcian influences, that
race, in those early times, having evinced no re
markable tendency for construction or the study of
the appUed sciences. Accordingly, it would seem
not unreasonable to place on the two rivers a popu
lation of Cushite (Hamite) accomplishments, if not
origin, subsequent to the Shemitic occupation,
which established its own language as tbe ordinary
one of these districts ; and thirdly a body of war
riors and influential raen of Japhetian origin, the
true Chaldseans, whose narae has been applied to a
Shemitic district and dialect,'*
The eastern boundary of fche Shemitic languages
is obscure; but this much may be safely assumed,
that this family had its earliest settlement on the
upper basin of the Tigris, from which extensions
were doubtless made to the south. And (as has
been before said) history points to another stream,
flowing northward (at a subsequent but equaUy
ante-historic period), of Cushite population, with
its distinctive accomplishments. These settlements
would seem to comprise the wide extent of country
extending from the ranges bounding the watershed
of fche Tigris fco the N. and E., to the plains in the
S. and W. towards the lower course of the " great
river," = Assyria (fco a greafc exfcent), Mesopotamia
and Babylonia, witb its soutbern district, Cbaldsea.
Tbere are few more interesting linguistic questions
than the nature of the vernacular language of this
last-named region, at the period of the Jewish de
portation by Nebuchadnezzar. It was, mainly and
incontestably, Shemitic; but by tbe side of it an
Aryan one, chiefly official, is said to be discern
ible. [Chaldea; Chaldkans.] The passages
ordinarily relied on (Dan. i. 4, ii. 4) are not very
conclusive in support of this latter theory, which
derives more aid from the fact, that many proper
names of ordinary occurrence (Belshazzar, Mere-
flach- Baladan, Nabonassar, Nabopolassar, Nebo,
Nebuchadnezzar) are cex-tainly not Shemitic. As
-ttie, perhaps, are they Aryan — but in any ease

fchey may be naturalized relics of the issyrlan su
premacy. The same question has been raised as to the
Shemitic or Aryan origin of the vernacular language
of Assyria — i. e, the country to the E. of the Eu
phrates. As in the case of Babylonia, the language
appears to have been, ordinarily, that of a blended
Shemitic and Cushite population, and a similar dif
ficulty to be connected with the ordinary proper
names — Nibcbaz, Pul. Salmanassar, Sardanapalus,
Sennacherib, Tarttdc, and Tiglath-Pileser. Is. xxxiii.
19, and Jer. v. 15, have been referred to as estab
Ushing the difference of the vernacular language of
Assyria from the Shemitic. Our knowledge of the
so-called Cushite stock in the basins of fche two rivers
is but. limited; but in any case a strong Shemitic if
not Cushite element is so clearly discernible in raany
old local and proper names, as to make an Aryan
or other vernacular language unlikely, although in
corporations may be found to have taken place, from
some other language, probably that of a conquering
race. Until recently, the literature of these wide dis
tricts was a blank. Yet '¦ there must have been
a Babylonian Uterature, as the wisdom of the
Chaldseans had acquired a reputation, which could
hardly have been sustained without a lifcerafcure.
If we are ever fco recover a knowledge of fchafc an
cient Babylonian literature, ifc must be from the
cuneiform inscriptions lately brought home from
Babylon and Nineveh. They are clearly written in
a Shemitic language '* (M. Miiller, S. of L. p. 263).
As has been before remarked [Babylonia, § 16],
the civilization of Assyria was derived from Baby
lonia in its leading features — Assyrian art, how
ever, being progressive, and marked by local fea
tures, such as fche subsfcitution of alabaster for
bricks as a material for sculpture. Wifch regard to
the dialects used for the class of inscriptions with
which we are concerned, namely, fche Assyrian, as
disfcinguisbed from the Zend (or Persian) and Tar
tar (? ) families of cuneiform memorials, the opin
ion of scholars is all but unanimous — Lassen,
Burnouf (as far as he pronounces an opinion),
Layard, Spiegel, all agree with the great authority
above cited. Renan difters, unwilUngly, from them.
From what source, then, does it seem most
probable that future scholars will find this peculiar
form of writing deducible? One of the latest writ
ers on the subject, Oppert, divides the family, instead
of three, into two large classes — the Aryan or Old
Persian, and another large class containing various
subdivisions of which tbe Assyrian forms one. The
character itself he asserts to be neither Aryan nor
Shemitic ui its origin, but ancient Central Asiatic,
and appUed wifch difficulty, as extraneous and ex
otic, to the languages of totally different races. But
it is quite as likely that the true origin raay be
found in an exactly different direction — tbe S. W.
— lor this pecuUar system of chai-acfcers, wbich, be
sides occupying fche great river basins of which we
have spoken, may be traced westward as far aa
Beyrout and Cyprus, and eastward, although less
plEdnly, to Bactra. Scholars, including Oppert,
incUne to the judgment, that (as Hebrew, Greek,
and Arabic writers all show) from a Cushite stock
(Gen. i. 8-12) there grew up Babylon and Nine
veh, and other great homes of civilization, extend-

a Other derivations are given and refuted by Quatre-
n/ire, XUtanges d^Histoi'*, p. 122.

b Renan, p. 211. Quatremfere, Milanges d^ITistoin
pp. 58-190, and especially 118-lfi4.

SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING

2978
ing from the level plains of ChaldEea far away to
fche N. and E. of Assyria. In these disfcricfcs, far
anterior to the deporfcafcion of fche Jews, bufc down
to that period, flourished the schools of learning
that gave birth to results, material and inteUectual,
stamped with affinity to those of Egypt. It may
weU be, that in the progress of discovery, from
Shemitic-Cushite records — akin to fche Himyaritic
and Ethiopic — scholars may carry back these re
searches fco Shemitic-Cushite imitations of kindred
writing from southern lands. Already the notion
bas obtained currency that fche so-called primitive
Shemitic alphabet, of Assyrian or Babylonian ori
gin, is transitional, built on the older formal and
syllabic one, preserved in cuneiform remains. To
this fact we shaU in the sequel recur — passing now
to fche condition of the Aramaic language at the
time of the Captivity. Little weight can be attrib
uted fco fche argument thafc tbe ancient literature of
the district being called "Chaldsean," an Aryan
origin is impUed. The word "ChaldaBan" natu
rally drove out " Babylonian," after the establish
ment of Chaldsean ascendency, in the latter country ;
but as in the case of Greece and Rome, intellectual
ascendency held its ground after the loss of mate
rial power and rule."
15. Without entering infco the discussions re-
specfcing the exact propriety of the expressions, it
will be sufficient to follow the ordinary division of
the Aramaic into the Chaldaic or Elastern, and fche
Wratern or Syriac dialecfcs.
Thefcerm "Chaldaic " is now (Uke "Shemitic")
firmly estabUshed, but " Babylonian " would appear
more suitable. We know thafc ifc was a spoken lan
guage afc the time of fche Captivity.
A valuable outline of the different ages and styles
observable in the Aramaic branch of the Shemitic
family has been given by both Delitzsch and Fiirst,
which (with some additions) is here reproduced for
the reader.^
(1.) The earUest extant fragments are the weU-
known ones to be found at Dan. ii. 4-vii. 28; Ezr.
iv. 8-vi. 18, vii. 12-26. Affinities are fco be traced,
without difficulty, between these fragments, which
differ again in some very marked particulars from
the earUest Targums.^
To those who in the course of travel have ob
served the ease, almost the unconsciousness, with
which persons, Uving on the confines of cognate
dialects, pass from the use of one to anofcher, or
who are aware bow close is fche connection and how
very sUghfc fche difference befcween confcerminous di-
alecfcical varieties of one common stock, tbere can
be nothing strange iu this juxtaposition of Hebrew
and Aramaic portions. The. prophet Daniel, we
may be sure, cherished with true Israelite affection
the holy language of his early home, whUe his high
official position must have involved a thorough
acquaintance not only wifch fche ordinary Babylon-

« Lepsius, Zwei Abhandlungen, p. 58. Quatremfere,
Etudes Historique.s^ as quoted above. Renan, pp.
56-79. Herzog's Real-Enc, vol. i. Babel, Babplonien
(Ruetschi) ; vol. ii. Chaldda (Arnold) ; vol. x. Ninive
(Spiegel), pp. 363, 379, 381. Bleek, Einl. i. d. A. T.
pp. 43-48.
6 Delitzsch, Jesurim, pp. 65-70 ; Slirst, Lehrgeb.
S19. c Hengstenberg, Daniel, pp. 302-306.
d Hengstenberg, ibid. p. 298. Hence In our own
time, Latin and Welsh, and Latin and Saxon passages,
tre to be found in the same juxtaposition in cbartu-

ish-Aramaic, .^-ufc wifch the Chaldaic (properly so
called). Accordingly, we may understand how ihe
prophet might pass w'thout remark from tbe i se
of one dialect to the other. Again, in the case
of Ezra, although writing at a later period, when
the holy language bad again been adopted as a
standard of style and means of expression by Jew
ish writers, there is nothing difficult to be under
stood iu his incorporating with his own com
position accounts, written by an eye-witness v
Aramaic, of events which took place before his owe
arrival.*^ (2.) The Syro-Chaldaic originals of several of
the Apocryphal books are lost; many Hebraisms
were engrafted on the Aramaic as spoken by the
Jews, but the dialect of the earlier Targums con
tains a perceptibly smaller amount of such admix
ture than later compUations,
(3. ) The language of the Gemaras is extremely
composite — that of the Jerusalem Gemara beuig
less pure than that of Babylon. StiU lower in the
scale, according to the same authority, are those
of the fast-expiring Samaritan dialect, and that of
Galilee. (4. ) The curious book Zohar — an adaptation of
Aramaic expressions to Judaizing Gnosticism —
araong its foreign additions contains very many
from the Arabic, indicative (according to Delitzsch)
of a Spanish origin.^
(5.) The Masora, brief and symbolical, is chiefly
remarkable for what may be caUed vernacular pe
cuUarities. (6.) The Christian or ecclesiaatical Aramaic is
that ordinarily known as Syriac — the language ol
early Christianity, as Hebrew and Arabic, respect
ively, of the Jewish religion and Mohammedanism.
The above classification may be useful as a guide
to the two great divisions of the Aramaic dialect
wifch which a Biblical student is directly concerned.
For that ordinarily caUed fche Samaritan contains
very Uttle calculated to afford iUustration among
its scanty remains ; and future discoveries in that
branch of pagan Aramaic known as the dialect of
the Nabathseans, Mendaites, or Zabians of Meso
potamia (not the Sabeans of Southern Arabia), can
only pxercise a remote or secondary influence on
the study of Aramaic as connected with the Scrip
tures. The following sketch of the three leading varie
ties of the West-Aramaic dialect, is built on the
account given by Fiirst./
(a.) What is known of the condition of GaUlee
corroborates the disparaging statements given by
the Talmudists of the sub-dialect (for it is no
more) of this disfcrict. Close and constant com-
.munication with the fcribes to the north, and a
large admixture of heafchens araong the inhabitants,
would necessarily contribute to this. Tlie dialect
of Galilee appears to have been marked by confu-

laries and historical records ; but the instances are
more apposite (given in Delitzsch, Wisicnschq/l, Kunst,
Judenthum, p. 256 ff.) of the simultaneous use of He
brew, Rabbinic, and Arabic, among Jewish writers
after the so called revival of Uterature under Mobam-
medun influeuce.
c • This book is now clearly proved to have been
the production of Moses de Leon, a Spanish Jew of the
13th century. See fiusburg, The Kabbalah (Lond
1865), p 90 ff. A
f Le/o-geb. §f 16-19.

SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING

•2979

lion of letters — D and ^2, 3 with p (as in vari
ous European dialects) — and aphaeresis of the gut
tural — a habit of connecting words otherwise
separate (also not uncommon in rude dialecfcs);
carelessness about vowel-sounds, and the substitu
tion of tJ iinal for PT.
(&. ) The Samaritan dialect appears to have been
a compound of tbe vulgar Hebrew with Aramaic,
as might have been anticipated from the elements
of whicb the population was composed, remains of
the "Ephraimite" occupiers, and Aramaic immi
grants. A confusion of the raute letters and also
of tbe gutturals, with a predilection for the letter
V, has been noticed.
(c.) The dialect called that of Jerusalem or Ju
dsea, befcween which and tbe purer one of the Bab
ylonish Jews so many invidious distinctions have
been drawn, seems to have been variable, from fre
quent changes among the inhabitants, and also to
have contained a large amount of words different
from those in use in Babylonia, besides being some
what incorrect in its orthography.
Each dialect, ifc will be seen, was directly influ
enced by the circumstances — physical or social —
of its locality. For instance, in the remote and
unlettered Galilee, peculiarities and words could
not fail to be engrafted from the neighboring tribes.
The bitter hatred which existed between the Sa
maritans and the Jews effectually precluded the
admission of any leavening influences frora the
latter source. A dialect originaUy impure — the
Samaritan became m course of time largely inter
spersed with Aramaic words. That of Judsea,
alone being spoken by Jews to whom nationality
was raost precious, was preserved in tolerable im
munity from corresponding degradation, until over
powered by Greek and Roman heathenism.
The sraall amount of real difference between the
two branches of Aramaic has been often urged as
an argument for making any division superfluous.
But it has been weU observed by Fiirst,« that each
is animated by a very different spirit. The chief
relics of Chaldaic, or Eastern Aramaic — the Tar
gums — are filled with traditional faith in the va
ried pages of Jewish history : they combine much
of the better Pharisaism — nourished as it was on
lively conceptions of hallowed, national lore, with
warm, earnest longings for the kingdom of the
Messiah. Western Aramaic, or Syriac Uterature,
on the other hand, is essentially Christian, with a
new terminology especially framed for its necessi
ties. Accordingly, tbe tendency and linguistic
character of the first is essentially Hebrew, that of
the second Hellenic. One is fuU of Hebraisms, tbe
other of HeUenisms.
16. Perhaps few lines of demarcation are traced
with greater difficulty, than those by which one age
of a language is separated from another. This is
remarkably the case in respect of the cessation of
the Hebrew, and the ascendency of the Aramaic,

a Lehrgeb. § 14.
& Ranke, D. G. im Zeitalter d. Reformation, b. iv.
rap. V. p. 476 ; Barthelemy St. Hilaire, Le Bouddha
\t sa Religion^ Paris, 1860, p. 385. " Ordinairement
»n ne ri^cite que le texte Pali tout seul, et alors le
peuple n'en comprend pas un mot ; mais quelquefois
Bussi, quand le texte P§.li a 6ti5 r6cit6, un pretre en
ionue une interpretation en Singhalais pour le vul-
faire"

or, as it may be put, in respect of the date at which
tbe period of growth terminates, and that of expo
sition and scholasticism begins, in the Uterature of
tbe chosen people.
Much unnecessary discussion has been roused
with respect to the introduction of interpretation.
Not only in any missionary station araong the
heathen, but in Europe at the Reformation, we can
find substantially the germ of Targums. During
the 16fcb century, in the eastern districts of the
present kingdom of Prussia, the deSire to bring the
Gospel home to the humbler classes, hitherto but
little touched by its doctrines, opened a new field
of activity among tbe non-German inhabitants of
those provinces, at that time a very numerous body.
Assistants were appointed, under the name of Tol-
ken (interpreters), who rendered the sermon, sen
tence by senteuce, into the vernacular old Prussian
dialect.'' Just so in Palestine, on the return, an
eager desire to bring their own Scriptures within
the reach of the people led to measures such as
that described in Nehemiah viii. 8, a passage of dif
ficult interpretation. It is possible, thafc the ap
parent vagueness of fchis passage may represenfc the
two methods, which would be naturally adopted for
such different purposes as rendering Biblical He
brew intelligible to tbe common people, who only
spoke a dialect of Aramaic — and supplying a com
mentary affcer such deliberate reading.
Of the several Targums which are preserved, the
dates, style, character, and value are exceedingly
different. An account of them is given under
Versions, Ancient (Tahgum).
17. In the scholastic period, of whicb we now
treat, the schools of the prophets were succeeded by
" houses of inquiry," — ti7"l7D "^^ilS. For with
Vitringa, in preference to Rabbinical writers, we
prefer considering the first named institutions as
pastoral and devotional seminaries, if not raouastie
retreats — rather than schools of law and dialectics,
as sorae would explain them. Ifc was not untU the
scholastic period that all Jewish studies were so
employed. Two ways only of extending the bless
ings hence derivable seem to have presented them
selves to the national mind, by commentary —
?^S"]i;il, and inquiry — tt?^?. In the first of
these, Targumic literature, but Umited openings
occurred for critical studies ; in the second still
fewer.f^ The vast storehouse of Hebrew thought
reaching through so many centuries — known by
the name of the Talmud — and the coUectlons of a
simUar nature called the Midrashim, extending in
the case of the first, dimly but tangibly, from the
period of the Captivity to fche times of Rabbi Asher
— the closer of the Talmud (a. d. 426), contain
comparafcively few accessions to linguistic knowl
edge. The terms by which serious or philosophical
inquiry is described, with the names of its subor
dinate branches — Halacha (rule) — Hagada (what
is said or preached) — Tosiphta (addition) — Bo-
raitha (statements not in the Mishna) — MechUta

e Vitringa, De Synagogd,, 1696, p. 1, caps. t. vi. vii.,
p. 11, caps, v.-viii. — no scholar should he without
thia storehouse of learning ; Cassel, in Herzog, 5x, 526-
529 ; Franck, Etitdes Orientates, p. 127 ; Oehler, in
Herzog, xii. 215, 225 ; Zunz, Gottesd ienstliche Vorlrage
der Juden, cap. 10. This last volume is most valuable
as a guiding summary, in a little kuown and bewilder
ing field.

2980

SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WAITING

(Etieasure, form) ; the successive designations of
learned dignitaries — Sopherim (scribes) — Chaca^
mim (sages) — Tannaim (=Shonim, teachers) —
Amoraira (speakers) — Seburaim (disputante^ — Ge-
onim (eminences) — aU bear reference to the study
and exposition of the rules and bearing of the Mo
saic law, with none, or very Uttle to the critical
study of their own prized language — the vehicle of
fche law. The two component parts of tbe Talmud,
the Mishna and Gemara — republication and final
explanafcion — are conceived in the same spirit.
Th'S style and composite nafcure of fchese works be
long to the history of Rabbinical literature.
18. Of the other main division of the Aramaic
language — the AYestem or Syriac dialect — the
earliest existing document is the Peshito version
of the Scriptures, which not improbably belongs to
tbe middle of tbe second century. Various sub-
dialects probably existed within the wide area over
which this Western one was current: but there are
no means now attainable for pursuing the inquiry
— what we know of the Palmyrene being only de
rivable from in'scriptions ranging from A. d. 49 to
the middle of the third century. The Syriac dia
lect is thickly studded with foreign words, Arabic,
Persian, Greek, and Latin, especially with the third.
A comparison of this dialect with the Eastern branch
wiU show fchat tbey are closely aUied in all tbe most
important pecuUarities of grararaar and syntax, as
well as in their store of original words — the true
standard in Unguistic researches.
A few lines may be here aUowable on tbe for
tunes of a dialect wbich (as wiU be shown hereafter)
has been so conspicuous an instrument in extend
ing a knowledge of the truths originally given, and
BO long preserved in the sacred language of the He
brews- Subsequently to tbe fall of Jemsalem its
chief seat of learning and Uterature was at Edessa
— from A. D. 440, at Nisibis. Before the Sth and
9th centuries its decUne had commenced, in spite
of the protests made by James of Edessa in favor
of its own classical writers. But, as of old the He
brew language had given way to the Aramaic, so
in her turn, the Western Aramaic was driven out
by the advances of fche Arabic during the lOfch and
llfch centuries. Somewhat later it may be said to
have died out — its last writer of mark, Barhebrseus
(or Abulpharagius) composing in Arabic as weU as
Syriac. «
19. The Chaldaic paraphrases of Scripture are
exceedingly valuable for tbe Ught which they throw
on Jewish manners and customs, and tbe meaning
of passages otherwise obscure, as likewise for many
happy renderings of fche original text. But they
are valuable also on higher reasons — the Christian
interpretation put by their authors on controverted
passages. Their testimony is of the greatest value,
as showing that Messianic interpretations of many
important passages must have been current araong
the Jews of the period. Walton, alluding to Jew
ish attempts to evade their own orthodox traditions,
says that "many such passages," i. e. of the later
and evasive kind, " might be produced which find
HO sanction among the Jews. Those very passages,
o Bleek, Einleitung, pp. 51-57.
6 Walton, Prol. xii. 18, 19. See also Delitzsch, Wis-
tenxchaft, Kunst^ Judenthum, p. 173 ff. (in respect of
Christian anticipations in the Targums and Synagogal
jevotional poetry), and also p. 190, note (hi respect of
lOoderate tone of Talmud) ; Oehler, in Herzog, ix. 431-
Ul J and Westcott, Inlroductiany pp. 110-116.

which were appUed by their own teachers fco fche
Messiah, and are incapable of any other fair appli
cation save to Him in whora they aU centre, are
not unfrequentiy warped into meanings irreconcil
able alike with the truth, and the judgment of theii
own most valued writers." *
A comparative estimate is not yet attainable, as
to what in Targumic literature is the pure expres
sion and development of the Jewish mind, and what
is of foreign (growth. But, as has been said, the
Targums and kindred writings are of considerable
dogmatical and exegetical value ; and a similar good
work has been effected by means of the cognate
dialect, Western Aramaic or Syriac. From the
3d to the 9th century, Syriac was to a great part
of Asia — what in their spheres HeUenic Greek and
mediseval I^tin have respectively been — the one
ecclesiastical language of the district named. Be
tween the literally preserved records of Holy Scrip
ture, as delivered to the Teracbites in tbe inf^icy
of the world, and the understandings and hearts of
Aryan peoples, who were intended to share in those
treasures ftdly and to their latest posterity, some
connecting medium was necessary. This was sup
plied by the dialect in question — neither so spe
cific nor so clear, nor so sharply subjective as the
pure Hebrew, but for those very reasons (while in
itself essentially Shemitic) open to impressions and
thoughts as well as words from without, and there
fore weU calculated to act as the pioneer and intro
ducer of Biblical thoughts and Biblical truths
among minds, to whora these treasures would
otherwise long have remained obscure and unintel
ligible. §§ 20-24. Arabic Language. — Peeiod of
Revival.
20. The early population of Arabia, its antiqui
ties and pecuUarities, have been described under
Akabia.c We find Arabia occupied by a conflu
ence of tribes, the leading one of undoubted Tsh-
raaelitish descent — the others of the seed or Un-
eage of Abraham, and blended by aUiance, language
neighborhood, and habits. Before these any ab
original inhabitants must have disappeared, as the
Canaanitish nations before their brethren, the chil
dren of the greater promise — as fche Edomites
and IshmaeUtes were of a lesser, but equally certain
one. We have seen [Arabia] that the peninsula of
Arabia lay in the track of Cushite civilization, in
itg supposed return -course towards the northeast.
As in the basin of Mesopotamia, so in Arabia it
has left traces of its constructive tendencies, and
predilections for grand and colossal undertakings.
Modern research bas brought to light in addition
many valuable reraalns, full of phUological interest.
There may now be found abundant illustration of
the relationship of the Himyaritic with the early
Shemitic before adverted to; and the language of
the Ehkili (or Mabrah), on which so much light
has recently been thrown, presents us with the sin
gular phenomenon, not merely of a specimen oi
what the Himyaritic (or language of Yemen) must

c Comp. for the early history of fche Arabic language
the recent work by Freytag (Bonn, 1861), alike remark
able for interest and research, Einleitung in das Sta
dium der Arabischen Sprache bis Mohammed tmd zuvn
Theil spdter.

SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING

2981

have been before its expulsion by the Koreishite,
out of a dialect less Arabic than Hebrew, and pos
sessing close affinity wifch the Ghez, or Ethiopi-
an.« . 21. The affinifcy of the Ghez (Cush? the sacred
language of Ethiopia) with the Shemitic has been
long remarked. WaUon supposes ita introduction
to have been consequent on that of Christianity.
Bufc the tradition is probably correct, according to
which Ethiopia was colonized frora S. W. Arabia,
aud accordmg to which this language should be
considered a relic of tlie liirayaritic. In the O. T.,
Cush, in addition to Ethiopia in Africa, comprises
S. Arabia (Gen. x. 7, 8 ; 2 Chr. xiv. 9, xxi. 16 ;
Hab. iii. 7), and by many the stream of Hamite
civilization is supposed to have flowed in a northerly
course from that point into Egypt. In its lexical
pecuUarities, the Ghez is said to resemble the Ara
maic, in its grammatical the Arabic. The alpha
bet is very curious, differing from Shemitic alpha
bets in the number, order, and name and form of
the letters, by tbe direction of the writing, and
especially by the form of vowel notation. This is
extremely singular. Each consonant contains a
short 7' — the vowels are expressed by additions to
the consonants. The alphabet is, by this means,
converted into a " syUabarium " of 202 signs. Va
rious points of resemblance have been traced be
tween this alphabet and the Samaritan ; but recent
discoveries establish its kindred (alraost its identity)
with that of the Himyaritic inscriptions. The lan
guage and character of which we have spoken
briefly, have now been succeeded for general pur
poses by the Amharic — probably in the first in
stance a kindred dialect with tbe Ghez, but now
altered by subsequent extraneous additions-^
22. Internal evidence demonstrates thafc the
Arabic language, at the time when ifc firsfc appears
on the field of history, was being gradually de
veloped in its remote and barren peninsular home.
Not fco dwell on its broken (or internal) plurals,
and its system of cases, there are peculiarities in
the earliest extant remains, which evince progress
made in the cultivation of the language, at a date
long anterior to the period of which we speak.
A weU-known legend speaks of the present
Arabic language as being a fusion of different
dialects, effected by the tribe of Koreish settled
round Mecca, and the reputed wardens of the
Caaba. In any case, the paramount purity of the
Koreishite dialect is asserted by Arabic writers on
grammar, in whose judgment the quality of the
spoken dialects appears to have declined, in pro
portion to their distance from Mecca. It is also
asserted, that the stores of the Koreishite dialect
were increased by a sort of philological eclecticism
— all striking elegancies of construction or expres
sion, observable in the dialects of the mauy dif
ferent tribes visiting Mecca, being engrafted upon
the one in question.^ But the recognition of the
Koran, as the ultimate standard in linguistic as in
reUgious matters, established in Arabic judgment
ghe superior purity of the Koreishite dialect.
That the Arabs possessed a Uterature anterior to
ihe birth of Mohammed, and expressed in a. lan

guage marked with many grammatical pecuUarities
is beyond doubt. There is no satisfactory proof of
tbe assertion, that all early Arabic literature was
destroyed by the jealous disciples of Islam. "Of
old, the Arab gloried in nothing but his sword, his
hospitality, and his fluent speech." ^^ The last gift,
if we raay judge from what has been preserved
to us of the history of those early tiroes, seems
fco have been held in especial honor. A zealous
purism, strange as it sounds amid the rude and
uneducated children of the desert, seems, as in
later tiraes, to have kept almost Masoretic watch
over the exactitude of the transmission of these
early outpourings.^
Even in our own times, scholars have seemed un
willing altogether to abandon the legend — how at
the fair of Oc^db ("the mart of proud rivalry"/)
goods and trafl&c — wants and profit — were alike
neglected, while bards contended amid their listen
ing countrymen, anxious for such a verdict as should
entitle their lays to a place among the Moallakat,
the hvaQ-hfxaTa of the Caaba, or national temple at
Mecca. But the appearance of Mohammed put an
end for a season fco commerce and bardic contests;
nor was ifc until the work of conquest was done,
that the faithful rraumed .the pursuits of peace.
And enough remains to show that poetry was
not alone cultivated among the ante-Mohammedan
Arabians. " Seeds of raoral truth appear to have
been embodied in sentences and aphorisms, a form
of instructiou peculiarly congenial to the temper of
Orientals, and proverbiaUy cultivated by the inhab
itants of the Arabian peninsula." 9 Poetry and
romance, as raight be expected from the degree of
Arab civilization, would seem to have been the
chief objects of attention.
Against these views it has been urged, that
although of such compositions as the Moallakat,
and others less generally known, the substance may,
be considered as undoubfcedly very ancient, and
illustrative accordingly of manners and customs —
yet the same anfciquifcy, according to competent
judges,' cannot reasonably be assigned to their
present form. Granting (what is borne out from
analogy and frora references in the Hebrew Scrip
tures) the existence of philosophical compositions
among the Arabs at an early period, still no traces
of these remain. The earliest reliable relics of
Arabic lifcerafcure are only fragmenfcs, to be found
in what has come down fco us of pre-Islamite com
positions. And, as has been said already, various
arguments have been put forward against the prob
ability of the present forra of these remains being
their original one. Their obscurities, it is con
tended, are less those of age than of individual
style, whUe their uniforraity of language is at vari
ance with the demonstrably late cultivation and
ascendency of the Koreishite dialect. Another,
and not a feeble argument, is the utter absence of
allusion to the early reUgion of the Arabs. Most
just is Renan's remark that, skeptical or volup
tuaries as were most of their poets, still such a
silence would be inexplicable, but on the supposi
tion of a systematic removal of aU traces of former
paganism. No great critical value, accordingly,

a Renan, i. 802-517.
6 Walton, Prol. u. 685 ; Jones, Comm. 1774, p. 18 ;
pepsius, Zwei Abh. pp. 78, 79 ; Renan, j. 317-330 ;
Prichard, Physical Hist, of Mankind, ii. 169, quoted
iy Forster.
« Pococke (ed. White, Oxford), pp. 157. 158.

d Pococke, pp. 166-168.
e Umbreit in Theologische Stud. u. Kritiken 1841,
pp. 223, 224 ; Ewald, Gesch. i. 24, 25.
/ Fresnel, Ire Lettre sur les Arabes, p. S3.
0 Forster, ii. 298, 319.

2982

SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING

»n fairly be assigned to any Arabic remains ante
rior to the publication of the Koran."
It is not within the scope of this sketch to touch
upon the theological teaching of the Koran, its
objects, sources, merits, or deficiencies. But its
style is very peculiar. Assuming that it represents
the best forms of the Koreishite dialect about the
middle of the 7th century, we may say of the
Koran, that its linguistic approached its religious
supremacy. The Koran may be characterized as
marking the transition from versification to prose,
from poetry to eloquence, llohammed himself has
adverted to his want of poetical skill — a blemish
whieh required explanation in the judgment of his
countrymen — but of the effect of his forcible lan
guage and powers of address (we can hardly call it
oratory) there can be no doubt. The Koran itself
contains distinct traces of the change (to which
allusion has been made) then in progress in Arabic
literature. The balance of proof incHnes to the
conclusion, that the Suras of the Koran, which are
placed last in order, are earliest in point of com
position — outpourings bearing some faint resem
blance to those of Hebrew prophecy .&
23. It would lead to discussions foreign to the
present subject, were we to attempt to follow the
thoughts respecting the future, suggested by the
almost universal prevalence of the Arabic idiom
over so wide a portion of the globe. A comparison
of some leading features of the Arabic language,
with its two sisters, is reserved for the next division
of this sketch. With regard to its value in illus
tration two different judgments obtain. Accord
ing to one, all the lexical riches and grammatical
varieties of the Shemitic family are to be found
combined in the Arabic. What elsewhere is im
perfect or exceptional is here said to be fully
developed — forms elsewhere rare or anomalous are
(here found in regular use. Great faults of style
cannot be denied, but its superiority in lexical
riches and grammatical precision and variety is
incontestable. Without this means of illustration,
the position of the Hebrew student may be likened
to that of the geologist, who should have nothing
whereon to found a judgment, bej'ond the scat
tered and imperfect remains of some few primeval
creatures. But the Arabic, it is maintained, for
purposes of illustration, is to the Hebrew precisely
what, to such an inquirer, would be the discovery
of an imbedded multitude of kindred creatures in
all their fullness and completeness — even more, for
the Arabic (it is urged) — as a means of comparison
and illustration — is a living, breathing reality.
2i. Another school maintains very different opin
ions with respect to the value of Arabic in iUus
tration. The comparatively recent date (in their
present form at least) and limited amoimt of Arabic
remains are pleaded against its claims, as a stand
ard of reference in respect of the Hebrew. Its
verbal copiousness, elaborate mechanism, subtlety
of thought, \Ade and diversified fields of literature,
cannot be called in question. But it is urged (and
Tolorably) that its riches are not all pure metal,
ind that no great attention to etymology haa been
evinced by native writers on the language. Nor
should the follies and perversions of scholasticism

a Benan, Lang. Sem. 1. iv. c. 11, a lucid sununary
5f recent researches on this subject.
S Benan, pp. 358-360 ; Umbreit, Stud. u. Krit. 1841,
238 ff.
e Delltisscb, Jesurun, pp. 76-89.

(in the case of Eabbinical writers) blind us to tlie
superior purity of the spirit by which the Hebrew
language is animated, and the reflected influences,
for elevation of tone and character, from the sub
jects on which it was so long exclusively employed.
"My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech
shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the
tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass."
No more fitting description of the spirit and power
of the holy language can be found than these words
of the lawgiver's last address to his people. The
Arabic language, on the other hand, ia first, that
of wandering robbers and herdsmen, destitute of
religion, or filled with second-hand superstitions,
in its more cultivated state, that of a self-satisfied,
luxurious, licentious people, the vehicle of a bor
rowed philosophy, and a dogmatism of the most
wearisome and captious ldnd.<=
Unduubtecjly schools such as that of Albert
Schultens (d. 1730) have unduly exalted the value
of Arabic in illustration ; but in what may be
designated as the field of lower criticism its im
portance cannot be disputed. The total extent of
the canonical writings of the Old Testament is so
very limited as in this respect to make the assist
ance of the Arabic at once welcome, trustworthy,
and copious. Nor can the proposed substitute lie
accepted without demur — the later Hebrew, which
has found an advocate so learned and able ui
Delitzsch.'' That its claims and usefulness have
been undesen-edly overlooked few will dispute or
deny; but it would seem to be recent, uncertain,
and heterogeneous, to a degree which lays it open
to many objections taken by the admirers of the
Arabic, as a trustworthy means of illustration.
25-33, Stp.uctuef, of the Shemitic Lan
guages.
25. The question, as to whether any large amount
of primitives in the Shemitic languages is fairly
deducible from imitation of sounds, has been an
swered very differently by high authorities. Gese
nius thought instances of onomatopoeia very rare in
extant remains, although probably more numerous
at an early period. Hoffmann's judgment is the
same, in respect of Western Aramaic On the
other hand, Renan qualifies his admission of the
identity of numerous Shemitic and Japhetian prim
itives by a suggestion, that these, for the most part,
raay be assigned to biliteral words, originating in
the imitation of the simplest and most obvious
sounds. Scholz also has an interesting passage in
which he maintains the same proposition with con
siderable force, and attempts to follow, in some
particular cases, the analogy between the simple
original sign and its distant derivatives. But on a
careful examination, it is not unlikely that, although
many are lost, or overlaid, or no longer as appre
ciable by our organs as by the keener ones of earlier
races, yet the truth is, as the case has been put by
a great living comparative philologist — " The 400
or 500 roota which remain as the constituent ele
ments in different families of languages ai'c not
inteijections, nor are they imitations. They are
phonetic types, produced by a power inherent in
human nature." '

d Ibid., pp. 89-108.
e Gesenius, Lehrgebdude, pp. 183-185 ; Hoffmann.
Gr. Sijr. p. 7; Benan, pp 449, 454; Scholz, I'M
i. 81, 32, 37; M. MiUler, Sc. of Lang. pp. 358, 869
870.

SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING

2983

36. The deeply cuiious inquiry, as to the ex^
tent of affinity still discernible between Shemitic
and Japhetian roots, belongs to another article.
[Tongues.] Nothing in the Scripture which bears
upon tbe subject, can be fairly pleaded against such
an affinity being possible. A literal belief of Bibli
cal records does not at all call upon ns to suppose
an entire abrogation, by Divine interference, of all
existing elements of what must have been the com
mon language ofthe early NoacbidEe." That such
resemblance is not dimly to be traced cannot be
denied — although the means used for establishing
instances, by Delitzsch and tbe analytical school,
cannot be admitted without great reserve.^ But
in treating the Shemitic languages in connection
with Scripture, it is most prudent to turn away
from this tempting field of inquiry to the consid
eration of the simple elements — the primitives —
the true base of every language, in that these^ rather
than the mechanism of grammar, are to be regarded
as exponents of internal spirit and character. It
is not denied, that these apparently inorganic bodies
may very frequently be found resolvable into con
stituent parts, and that kindred instances may be
easily found in conterminous Japhetian dialects. ^
27. Humboldt has named two very remarkable
points of difference between tbe Japhetian and
Shemitic language families — tbe latter of wbich he
also, for the second reason about to be named,
assigns to tbe number of those which have deviated
from the regular course of development. The first
peculiarity is tbe'jiriliteral root (as tbe language is
at present known) — the second the expression of
significations by consonants, and relations by vowels
— both forming part of the flexions within words,
so remarkable in the Shemitic, family. Widely dif
ferent from the Japhetian primitive, a fully formed
and independent word — the Shemitic one (even in
its present triliteral state) appears to have consisted
of three separate articulations, aided by an indefinite
sound like the Shtva of the Hebrews, and to have
varied in the shades of its meaning according to
the vowels assigned to it. In the opinion of the
same scholar, the prevalent triliteral root was sub
stituted for an earlier or biliteral, as being found
impracticable and obscure in use.^
IVaces of this survive in the rudest, or Aramaic,
branch, where what is pronounced as one syllable,
in the Hebrew forms two, and in the more elaborate
Arabic three — e. g. ktal, katal, katala. It is need
less to say, that much has been written on the
question of this pecuUarity being original or sec
ondary. A writer among ourselves has thus stated
the case: "An uniform root-formation by three
letters or two syllables developed itself out of the
original monosyllabic state by the addition of a
third letter. This tendency to enlargement presents
itself hi the Indo-Germanic also; but there is this
difference, that in the latter monosyllabic roots
remain besides those that have been enlarged, while
in the other they have almost disappeared." ^ In
this judgment most will agree. Many now triliteral
o Walton, Prol. (ed. Wrangbam), i. 121. "Hoc
ration! minime conseutaneum est, ut Deus in illo loco
linguam primam servarefc, ubi linguarum diversitatem
immiserat, ne coepto opere progrederentur. Proba-
bilius Itaque est, liuguas alias in eos Deum infudisse,
1U1 ibi commorati sunt, ne se mutuo intelUgerent, et
\b iDS:ina structura de^isterent.^' M. Muller, <S<r. of
i^ng. p. 269.

root-words (especially those expressive of the pri
mary relations of life) were at first biliteral only.
Thus ^S is not really from H^M, nor DM from
DQM. In many cases a third (assumed) root-letter
has been obviously added by repetition, or by tb^
use ofa weak or movable letter, or by prefixing the
letter Nun. Additional instances may be found in
connection with the biliterals ^^, ^"^j and "13,
and many others. Illustrations may also be drawn
from another quarter nearer home — in the Japhe
tian languages of I'Europe. P'ear is variously ex
pressed by (Pp €U) or <p piff a-w, pavere, peur, pa-
ura, pavor {S])9i.n.),fear.furcht,fryht{Scandm ),
and braw (Old Celtic). In all these cognate words,
the common rudimentary idea is expressed by the
same two sounds, tbe third corresponding with tbe
various non-essential additions, by which apparent
triliteral uniformity is secured in Shemitic dialects.
Again, in the Shemitic family many primitives
may be found, having the same two letters in
common in the first and second places, with a dif
ferent one in the third, yet all expressive of different
modifications of tbe same idea, as 1. *13 and its
family; 2. 111= _i>5 etc.; 3. "^0 = ^.J, etc.;
4. \^p = ,^JSj etc. — -each with a similar train of
cognate words, containing tbe same two consonants
of the biUteral fi)rm, but with a third active con
sonant added./
28. We now approach a question of great inter
est. Was the art of writing invented by Moses
and his contemporaries, or from what source did
the Hebrew nation acquire it ? It can hardly be
doubted, that the art of writing was known to the
Israelites in the time of Moses. An art, such as
that of writing, is neither acquired nor invented at
once. No trustworthy evidence can be alleged of
such an exception to the ordinary course. The
writing on the two tables of tbe law (Ex. xxiv. 4) —
the list of stations attributed to the hand of Moses
himself (Num. xxxiii. 2) — the prohibition of print
ing on the body (Lev. xix. 28) — the writing of
" the curses in a book " by the priest, in the trial
of jealousy (Num. v. 23) — the description of the
land (literally, the writing) required by Joshua
(Josh, xviii. 6) — all point to the probability of the
art of writing being an accomplishment already
possessed by the Hebrews at that period. So com
plex a system as alphabetic writing could hardly
have been invented in the haste aud excitement of
the desert pilgrimage.
Great difference of opinion haa prevailed as to
which of the Shemitic peoples may justly claim the
invention of letters. As has been said, the award
to the Phoenicians, so long unchallenged, is now
practically set aside. The so-called Phoenician al
phabet bears no distinctive traces of a Phoenician
origin. None of the selected objects, whose initial
letters were to rule the sounds of the several pho
netic characters, are in keeping with the habits and
6 Comparative tables are to be foimd in Debtzsch,
.Tesitran, p. Ill; Renan, pp. 451-454; Scholz, i. 37-
'-¦ Merian, ' Principes de VJ^tude Comparative des
Lnn^ues, Paris, 1828. pp. 10, 11, 19, 20.
rf Humboldt, tjfbet die Verschiedenkeit d. mensi Michen
SprachbaiKS, pp. 307-311.
e Davidson, Biblical Criticism., 1. 11.
/ Gtesenius, Lehrgebdude, p. 181 ; Eenan, La.ng
^Sem. pp. 100, 412, 450- M. Miiller, Si;, of Uing p. 871

2984

SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING

occupations of the Phcenicians. On the contrary,
while no references to the sea and commerce are to
be found, the majority of the objects selected are
such as would suggest themselves to an inland and
nomadic people, e. g. Aleph = an ox, Gimel = a
camel, Teth = a snake, Lamed = an ox-goad.
A more probable theory would seem that which
represents lette?^ as having passed from the Egyp
tians to the Phcenicians and Hebrews. Either
people may have acquired this accomplishment from
the same source, at the same time and independ
ently — or one may have preceded the other, and
subsequently imparted the acquisition. Either
case is quite possible, on the assmnption that the
E^ptian alphabet consisted of only such characters
as were equivalent to those used by the Hebrews
and Phcenicians — that is, that tbe multiplicity of
signs, which is found to exist in the Egyptian al
phabet, was only introduced at a later period. But
the contrary would seem to be the case — namely,
that the Egyptian alphabet existed at a very early
period in its present form. And it is hardly likely
that two tribes would separately have made the
same selection from a larger amount of signs than
they required. But as the Hebrew and Phoenician
alphabets do correspond, and (as has been said)
the character is less Phoenician than Hebrew — the
latter people would seem to have been the first
possessors of this accomplishment, and to have im
parted it subsequently to tbe Phoenicians.
The theory (now almost passed into a general
belief) of an early uniform language ovei^preading
the range of countries comprehended in Gen. x.
serves to illustrate this question. There can be no
doubt as to the fact of the Hamite occupants of
Egypt having migrated thither from Asia ; nor (on
this hypothesis) can tbere be any difficulty in ad
mitting, in a certain degree, the correspondence of
their written character with the Hebrew. That
changes should subsequently have been introduced
in the Eg3rptian characters, is peifectly intelligible,
when their advances in civilization are considered
— so different from the nomadic, unlettered con
dition of the Hebrew people. On such a primary,
generic agreement as this between the advanced
language of Egypt, and that of the Hebrews — in
ferior from necessary causes at the time, the mighty
intellect of Moses, divinely guided for such a task
(as has been before suggested), would find little
difficulty in grafting improvements. The theory
that the Hyksos built a syllabic alphabet on the
Egyptian, is full of difficulties."
According to the elaborate analysis of Lepsius,
the original alphabet of the language-family, of
which the Shemitic formed a part, stood as fol
lows : —
Weak GutturqJs. Lpibials. Gutturals. Dentals.
Aleph = A . Eetb -f- Gimel + I>aletb = Media
lie = E 4- i . Vav -j- Heth -|- Teth = Aspirates
Ohain = 0-f u Pe -}- ^^V^ -j- Tau =tTenues
As the processes of enunciation became more
delicate, the liquids Lamed, Mem, Nun, were ap
parently interposed as the third row, with the
original S, Samech, from which were derived Zain,
Tsaddi, and Shin — Caph (soft k), frpm its limited

a " Sont-ce les Hyksos, ainsi que le suppose M.
Ewald, qui firent pa^seT T^criture ^gyptienne de P^tat
phon^tique h. P^tat syllabique ou alphab^tique, comme
«s Japonais et les Cor^ens l^out £ut pour Tticriture
diinoise " (Renan, p. 112). Saalschiitz, Zur Geschichte

functions, ia apparently of later growth ; and the
separate existence of Kesh, in many languages, is
demonstrably of compitratively recent date, as dis
tinguished from the kindred sound Lamed. In
this manner (according to Lepsius), and by such
Shemite equivalents, may be traced the progress of
the parent alphabet. In the one letter yet to be
mentioned — Yod — as in Kuph and I^med, the
same scholar finds remains of the ancient vowel
strokes, which carry us back to the early sj'llabaria,
whose existence he maintains, with great force and
learning. Apparently, in the case of all Indo-Germanic
and Shemitic alphabets, a parent alphabet may be
traced, in which each letter possessed a con;ibined
vowel and consonant sound — each in fact forming
a distinct, well understood syllable. It is curious
to mark the different processes, by which (in the
instances given by Lepsius) these early syllabaria
have been affected by the course of enunciation in
different families. What has been said above
(§ 21), may serve to show how far the system is
still in force in the Ethiopic. In the Indo-Ger
manic languages of Europe, where a strong ten
dency existed to draw a line of demarcation between
vowels and consonants, the primary syllables aleph,
he, gho = a, i, u, were soon stripped of their weak
guttural (or consonant) element, to be treated sim
ply as the vowel sounds named, in combination
with the more obvious consonant sounds. A very
similar course was followed by the Shemitic family,
the vowel element being in most lettere disregarded;
but the guttural one in the breath -syllables was
apparently too congenial, and too firmly fixed to
allow of these being converted (as in the case of the
Indo-Germanic family) into simple vowels. Aleph,
the weakest, for that reason forms the exception.
As apparently containing (like the DfivanSgari)
traces of its people's syUabarium, as well for its
majestic forms, befitting Babylonian leaming, Lep
sius with others attributes a very high antiquity
to the square Hebrew character. But this is dif
ficult to be maintained.^
29. Passing from the growth of the alphabet, to
the history of the formation of their written char
acters among tbe three leading branches of the
Shemitic family, that of the Hebrews has been thus
sketched, " In its oldest, though not its original
state, it exists in Phoenician monuments, both
stones and coins. It consists of 22 letters, written
from right to left, and is characterized generally by
stiff straight down strokes, without regularity, and
beauty, and by closed heads round or pointed. W"e
have also a twofold memorial of it, namely, the
inscriptions on Jewish coins, struck under the Mac
cabean princes, where it is evident that its char
acters resemble the Phcenician, and the Samaritan
character, in which the Pentateuch of the Samari
tans is written.^ This latter differs from the first
named, merely by a few freer and finer strokes.
The development of the written character in the
Aramaic branch of the Shemitic family illustrates
the passage from the stiff early character, spoken
of above, to the more fully formed angular one of
later times in the case of the Hebrew family, and
in that of the Arabic, to the Cufic and Neshki

der Buchstabensckrifl, Konigsberg, 1838, §§ 16, 17, U
Comp. also Leyrer, in Herzog, xiv. 9.
b Lepsius, Zwei Abliandlungen, pp. 9-29.
c Davidson, Biblical Criticism, i, 28.

SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING

2985

Aramaic writing may be divided into two principal
families — (1.) ancient Aramaic, and (2.) Syriac,
more properly so called. Of the first, the most early
specimen extant is the well-known Carpentraa stone,
preserved at that place in France, since the end of
the 17th century." Its date is very doubtful, but
anterior to those of the inscriptions from Palmyra,
which extend from A. D. 49, to the 3d century.
The first very closely resembles the Phcenician
character — the tops of the lettera being but slightly
opened; in the second, these are more fully opened,
and many horizontal strokes of union added, show
ing its cursive character. From these remains may
be fairly deduced the transitional nature of the
written character of the period preceding the in
vention (or according to others the revival) of the
square character.
Hupfeld, Fiirst, and all leading writers on the
subject, concur in designatmg this last as a gradual
development from the sources mentioned above. A
reference to these authors will show how confused
were even Jewish notions at an early period as to
its origin, from the different explanations of the
word rr^'IWS (Assyriaca), substituted by the
Rabbins for l^^pD ("square"), by which this
character was distinguished from their own —
V^yS DD? — "round writing," as it was called.
But assuming with Hupfeld and FUrst, the presence
of two active principles — a wish to write quickly,
and to write pictorially — the growth of the square
Hebrew character from the old Phoenician is easily
discernible through the Carpentras and Palmyrene
relics. " Thus we find in it the points of the letters
blunted off, the horizontal union-strokes enlarged,
figures that had been divided rounded and closed,
the position and length of many cross lines altered,
and final letters introduced agreeably to tacbyg-
raphy. On the other hand, the caligraphical pi'iu-
ciple is seen in tbe extraordinary uniformity and
symmetry of the letters, their separation from one
another, and in the peculiar taste which adorns
thera with a stiff and angular form.'" *
Few important changes are to be found from
the period of Ezra, until the close of the 5th cen
tury of our era. During this period, the written
character of the text (as well as the text itself) was
settled as at present, and likewise, to a great ex
tent, the reading and divisions of the text. During
thia period, the groundwork of very much con
tained in the subsequent Masora was laid, but as
yet only in an unwritten, traditional shape. Tbe
old character gave way to the square, or Assyrian
character — not at once and by the authority of
lilzra, but (as has been proved with much clearness)
by gradual transitions. ^ The square character is,
demonstrably, not an exact copy of any existing
Aramaic style, but grew by degrees out of the
ea,rlier one, although greatly modified by Aramaic
influence. No exact date can be assigned to t-he
actual change, which probably was very gradual;
but that the new character had become generally
adopted by the first century of our era, may be
inferred from the Gospels (Matt. v. 18). It is,
moreover, alluded to in the Mishna as the Assyrian
character, and by Origen as settled by long usage,

" A copy of it is given in Fiirst, Lehrgeb. p. 23.
b Davidson, Biblic. Criticism, \. 29 ; Hoffmann,
Gramm. Si/riaca, § 6, 1-6 j and Fiirst, Lehrg. 1. §§
23-27 188

and was obviously well-known to Jerome and the
Talmudists. Tbe latter writers, aided powerfully
by the ceremonious (uot to say superstitious) tone
engendered among tbe Jews by the fall of Jeru
salem, secured the exclusive use of its square char
acter for sacred purposes. All that external care
and scrupulous veneration could accomplish for the
exact transmission of the received text, in the con
secrated character, was secured. It is true that
much of a secondary, much of an erroneous kind
was included among the objects of this devout ven
eration ; but in the absence of sound principles of
criticism, not only in those early, but many sub
sequent generations, this is the less to be deplored.
The character called Rabbinic is best described as
an attempt at Hebrew cursive writing.
The history of the characters ordinarily used in
the Syriac (or Western) branch of the Aramaic
family, is blended with that of those used in Judaea.
Like the square characters, they were derived from
the old Phcenician, but passed through some inter
mediate stages. The first variety is that known
by the name of Estrangelo — a heavy, cumbrous
character, said to be derived from the Greek adj.
CTpoyyvKos-, but more probably from two Arabic
words signifying the writing of the Gospel. It is
to be found in use in tbe very oldest documents.
Concurrently with this, are traces of the existence
of a smaller and more cursive character, very much
resembling it. The character called the ''double "
(a large, hollow variety), is almost identical. There
are also other varieties, slightly differing — the
Nestorian for example — but that in ordinary use
is tbe Peshito = simple (or lineal according to
some). Its origin is somewhat uncertain, but
probably may be assigned to the 7th century of
our era. It is a modification of the Estrangelo,
sloped for writing, and in some measure altered
by use. This variety of written characters in the
Aramaic family is probably attributable to the fact,
that literature was more extensively cultivated
among them than araong kindred tribes. Although
not spared to us, an extensive literature probably
existed among them anterior to the Christian era;
and subsequently foi a long period they were the
sole imparters of knowledge and learning to West
ern Asia.
The history of the Arabic language has another
peculiar feature, beyond its excessive purism, which
has been alluded to, at first sight, so singular
among the dwellers in the desert. Uutil a com -
paratively short time before tbe days of Moham
med, the art of writing appears to have been practi
cally unknown. For the Himyarites guarded with
jealous care their own peculiar character — the
" musnad," or elevated ;'=' in itself unfitted for
general use. Possibly different tribes might have
possessed approaches to written characters; but
about the beginning of the 7th century, the heavy,
cumbrous Cufic character (so called from Cufa, the
city where it was most early used) appears to have
been generally adopted. It was said to have been in
vented by Muramar Ibn-Murrat, a native of Baby
lonian Irak. But the shapes and arrangement of
the letters indicate their derivation from the Es
trangelo; and the name assigned to their intro
ducer — containing the title ordinarily borne by

o Leyrer, in Herzog, xiv. 12.
d Another etymology of this word is given by Ltp

¦8) JO-MhX, from tXxw "

India.'

2986

SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING

Syrian ecclesiastics — ia also indicative of their
real origin. But it is now only to be found in
the documents of the early ages of Islamism.
The well-known division of " the people of the
book " = Christians, who were educated, and "the
common people " who could not read = the tribes
round Mecca, and the summary way in which- an
authoritative text of the Koran was established
(in the Caliphate of Othman), alike indicate a very
rude state of society. It is generally asserted that
Mohammed was unable to write: and this would at
first sight appear to be home out by his description
of himself as an illiterate prophet. Modern writers,
however, generally are averse to a literal interpre
tation of these and kindred statements. In any
caj*H, about the 10th century (the fourth of the
Ho;iUft), a smaller and more ilowing character, the
NisLki, was introduced by Ibn Moklab, which,
with considerable alterations and improvements, is
that ordinarily in present use."
30. As in the Hebrew and Aramaic branches, so
in the Arab branch of tbe Shemitic family, various
causes rendered desirable the introduction of dia
critical signs and vowel points, which took place
toward the close of the 7th century of our era —
not however without considerable opposition at the
outset, from Shemitic dishke of innovation, and
addition to the roll of instruction already complete
in itself. But the system obtained general recogni
tion after some modifications in deference to popular
opinion, though not carried out with the fullness of
the Masoretes. ^
Ewald, with great probability, assumes the ex
istence and adoption of certain attempts at vowel
marks at a very early period, and is inclined to
divide their history into three stages.
At first a simple mark or stroke, like the dia
critical line in tbe Samaritan MSS., was adopted
to mark unusual significations, as "^m, a " pesti
lence," as distinguished from "^^T, "to speak,"
or " a word." A further and more advanced stage,
hke the diacritical points of the Aramaic, was the
employment (in order to express generally the dif
ference of sounds) of a point above the line to ex
press sounds of a high kind, like a and o — one
below for feebler and lower ones like i and e — and
a third in the centre of the letters for those of
a harsher kind, as distinguished from the other
two.'^ Originally, the number of vowel sounds among
the Shemitic races (as distinguished from vowel
points) was only three, and apparently used in com
bination with the consonants. Origen and Jerome
were aUke ignorant of vowel points, in the ordinary
acceptation. Many readings in the LXX. indicate
tbe want of some such system — a want to which
some directions in the Talmud are said to refer.
But until a later period, a regular system of punc
tuation remained unknown; and the number of
vowel sounds limited. The case is thus put by
Walton. " The modern points were not either
from Adam, or affixed by Moses, or the Prophets
that were before the Captivity, nor after the Captiv
ity, devised either by Ezra, or by any other before
the completing of the Talmud, but after five hun
dred years after Christ, invented by some learned

a A much earlier existence is claimed for this char-
icter by Porster, One Prim. Lang. i. 167.
6 Pococke, Abulfeda, ed. White ; Walton, ProU. De
lAtieua Aralded; Leyrer, Herzog, xiv. 12.

Jews for the help of those who weie ignoiant of the
Hebrew tongue." "We neither affirm that the
vowels and accents were invented by the Masoretes,
but that the Hebrew tongue did always consist of
vowels and consonants. Aleph, Vau, and Yod ,were
the vowels before the points were invented, as they
were also in the Syriac, Arabic, and other Eastern
tongues." ^
We will add one more quotation from the same
author with reference to the alleged uncertainty
introduced into the rendering of the text, by any
doubts on tbe antiquity of the system ¦ of vowel-
points, a question whicb divided the scholars of his
day. " The Samaritan Pentateuch, Chaldean Para
phrase of the Pentateuch and Prophets, and the
Syriac translation of the Bible, continued above a
thousand years before they were pointed." " That
the true reading might be preserved above a thou
sand years, is not against all reason, since we see
the same done in the Samaritan, Syriac, and Chal
dee, for a longer time; and tbe same may be said
of the Arabic, though not for so long a time after
the Alcoran was written." «
31. The reverence of the Jews for their sacred
writings would have been outraged by any at
tempts to introduce an authoritative system of in
terpretation at variance with existing ones. To
reduce the reading of the Scriptures to authorita
tive and intelligible uniformity was the object of
tbe Masoretes, by means of a system of vowels and
accents. What would have suggested itself to scholars.
not of Shemitic origin, was at utter variance with
Hebrew notions, which looked upon the estabhshed
written characters as sacred. No other plan was
possible than the addition of different external
marks. And, in fact, this plan was adopted by
the three great divisions of the Shemitic family;
probably being copied to a certain extent by the
Hebrew and Arabic branches from the Syriac,
among whom there existed schools of some repute
during tbe first centuries of our era. Of the names
of the inventors, or the exact time of their intro
duction, nothing can be stated with certainty.
Their use probably began about the sixth century,
and appears to have been completed about the
tenth. The system has been carried out with far
greater minuteness in the Hebrew, than in the two
sister dialects. The Arabic grammarians did not
proceed beyond three signs for a, i, u ; the Syriac
added e and o, which they represented by figures
borrowed from the Greek alphabet, not very much
altered. In both these cases all the vowels are,
strictly speaking, to be considered as short; while
the Hebrew has five long as well as five short, and
a half-vowel, and other auxiliary signs. Con
nected with this is the system of accents, which is
involved in the same obscurity of origin. But it
bears rather on the relation of words and the mem
bers of sentences, than on the construction of indi
vidual words.
The chief agents in this laborious and peculiar
undertaking were the compilers of the Masora, as
it is called = " tradition," aa distinguished from
the word to be read. As the Talmud has its
province of interpreting legal distinctions and regu
lations, under the sanction of the sacred text, and

c Ewald, Grammatik (1835), p. 62.
d Walton, Considerator Considered, ii. 229, 210.
e Walton, ibuL 222, 228.

SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING

2987

the Kabbala its peculiar function of dealing with known to us, presents them as very unevenly de-
theological and esoteric tradition, so the ol>ject of veloped. In their present form the Arabic is un-
the Masora (mlOD, "tradition ") and its com- ''.™l"«'^Jy '^^ ij'=f>«^*'- J''],*- '' ™"W l"*™ *'«»
'¦¦'., j rivaled by the Hebrew had a career been voucli-
pilers the Masoretes (or iT^IDD ''752, " masters safed equally long and favorable to this latter
The cramping and perverting conditions of iU
labors depressed the Rabbinic dialect (child of
the old age of the Helirew) into bewildering con
fusion in many instances, but there are many
valuable signs of life about it. Ancient He
brew, as has been truly said, possesses in the
bud almost all the mechanisms which constitute
the riches of the Arabic. In the preface to bis
great work (Lehrgebaude, p. vii.) Gesenius has
pointed out various instances, which will repay the
labor of comparison. It is true that to the Ara
maic has been extended a longer duration than to
the Hebrew ; but for various causes its inferiority
is remarkable, as regards its poverty — lexical and
grammatical — its want of harmony and flexibility,
and the consequent necessary frequency of peri
phrases and particles in aid.
A brief comparison of some leading grammatical
and syntactical peculiarities, in the three main dia
lects of the Shemitic family, will not be out of
place at the end of this sketch. To scholars it will
necessarily appear meagre; but, brief as it is, it
may not be withont interest to the general reader.
The root-forms with the consonants and vowels
have been already considered.
Conjugations or their Equivalent Verb-forms. —
The following is the tabulated form giveu by Ewabl
for the ordinary Hebrew verb ; —

of tradition") was to deal critically, grammat
ically, and lexically with a vast amount of tradition
bearing on the text of Scripture, and to reduce this
to a consistent form. Little is known with accu-
lacy of the authoi'S, or the growth of this remark
able collection. Tradition assigns the commence
ment (as usual) to Kzra and the great synagogue;
but other authorities, Jewish and Christian, to
the learned members of the school gf Tiberias,
about the beginning of the sixth century. These
learned collections, comprising some very early
fragments, were probably in progress until the
eleventh century, and are divided into a greater
and less Masora, the second a compendium of the
former. " The masters of the Masora," in the well-
known quotation of Elias Levita, " were innumer
able, and followed each other in successive genera
tions for many years; nor is the beginning of them
known to us, nor the end thereof." Walton, who
was by no means blind to its deficiencies, has left
on record a very just judgment on the real merits
of the Masora.'' It is in truth a very striking and
meritorious instance of the devotion of the Jewish
mind to the text of Scripture — of the earnest
ness of its authors to add the only proof in their
power of their zeal for its preservation and eluci
dation.'' «12. A comparison of the Shemitic languages, as

1. (Simple form) Kal.

(Forms extremely augmented)

2. (Causative form'
HiphU. w.
Passive Hophal.

3. (Reflexive form)
Niphal.

4. (Intensive form)
Piel. w.
pass. I PuaL

In the Aramaic the first, third, and fourth of
these appear, with another (= Hithpael), all with
passives, marked by a syllable prefixed. In the
Arabic the verb-forms, at the lowest computation,
are nine, but are ordinarily reckoned at thirteen,
and sometimes fifteen. Of these, -the ninth and
eleventh forms are comparatively rare, and serve
to express colors and defects. As may be seen
from the table given, the third and fourth forms in
Hebrew alone have passives.
Equivalents to Conjunctive Moods, etc. — One
of the most reraarkable features of the Arabic lan
guage is what is ordinarily described as the " futu-
rum figuratum." As in almost all Shemitic grara
mars imperfect is now substituted for future, this
may be explained by stating that in Arabic there
are four forms of the imperfect, strongly marked,
by which the absence of moods is almost' compen-
sated. The germs of this mechanism are to be
found in the common imperfect, the jussive, and
the cohortative of the Hebrew, but not in the
Aramaic. Again, a curious conditional and sub-
unctive usage (at first sight almost amounting to

" Prol. ria.n.
b Arnold, in Herzog, ix. 5. v.
siv. 16.

Leyx«r, in Herzog,

5. (Reflexive and intensive form)
Hithpael.
an inversion) applied to the perfect and imperfect
tenses by the addition of a portion, or the whole,
of the substantive verb is to be found in both
Hebrew and Arabic, although very differently de
veloped. Nouns. — The dual number, very uncommon in
the Syriac, is less so in Hebrew, chiefly limited,
however, to really dual nouns, while in the Arabic
its usage may be described as general. What is
called the " status emphaticus," i. e. the rendering
a word definite by appending the article, is found
constantly recurring in the Aramaic (at some loss
to clearness in the singular). This usage brings to
mind the addition of the definite article as a post
positive in Swedish — skib, ship; skibet, the ship.
In the Arabic it is lost in the inflections of cases,
while in the Hebrew it may be considered as un
important. As regards nouns of abstraction, also,
the Aramaic is fuller than the Hebrew ; but in thii
last particular, as in the whole family of nouns,
the Arabic is rich to excess. It is in this last only
that we find not only a regular system of cases,
and of comparison, but especially the numerous
plural formations called broken or internal, which
form so singular a part of the language. As re
gards their meaning, the broken plurals are totally
difTerent from the regular (or, as they are techni-

^988 SHEMITIC LANGUAGES
ndly called, sound) plurals — the latter denoting
several individuals of a genus, the former a number
of indiriduals viewed collectively, the idea of indi-
viduaJity being wholly suppressed. Broken plurals
accordingly are singulars with a collective meaning,
and are closely akin to abstract nouns."
33. To the scholar, as before remarked, this re
capitulation of some leading peculiarities may ap
pear unnecessary, while to those unacquainted with
the Shemitic languages, it is feared, these instances
must unavoidably appear like fi'agments or speci
mens, possibly new and peculiar, but conveying no
very definite instruction. But in any case some of
tbe chief grammatical features of the family have
been enumerated — all, moreover, illustrative of the
internal, self-contained type so peculiarly Shemitic.
In this respect, as with its formal, so with its syn
tactical peculiarities. Of one fertile parent of new
words in the Japhetian language-family, — the
power of creating compound words, — the Shemitic
is destitute. Different meanings are, it is true,
expressed by different primitives, but these stand
aecessarily divided by impassable barriers from
each other; and we look in vain for the shades and
gradations of meaning in a word in the Shemitic
languages which gives such copiousness and charm
to the sister-family. It is so with regard to the
whole range of privative and negatii'C words. The
prefixes of the other family, in conjunction with
nouns, give far more life and clearness than do the
collective verbals of the Shemitic. Even tbe preg
nant and curiously jointed verb-forms, spreading
out from the sharply defined root, with pronominal
adjuncts of obvious meaning, and tbe aid of a deli
cate vowel-system, have an artificial appearance.
The Japhetian, whose spiritual fullness would prob
ably never have reached him, but that its sub
stance was long preserved in these very forms, will
gratefully acknowledge the wisdom of that Al
mighty Being who framed for the preservation of
the knowledge of Himself — the One True God —
so fitting a cradle as the language of the Old Tes
tament. Of other families, the Japhetian was not
ripe for such a trust. Of those allied with tbe
Shemitic, the Aramaic was too coarse and indefi
nite, however widely and early spread, or useful at
a later period as a means of extension and explana
tion, and (as has been before observed) the Arabic
in its origin was essentially of the earth, earthy.
The Japhetian cannot then but recognize the wis
dom, cannot but thank the goodness of God, in
thus giring and preserving bis lessons concerning
Himself in i form so fitting and so removed from
treachery. He will do all this, but he will see at
the same time in his own languages, so flexible, so
varied, so logical, drawing man out of himself to
bind him to his neighbor, means far more likely to
spread the treasures of tbe holy language than
even its general adoption. It is Humboldt who
has said, in reference to the wonderful mechanism
discernible in the consonant and vowel systems
of the Shemitic languages — that, admitting all
this, there is more energy and weight, more
truth to nature, when the elements of language
can be recognized independently and in order, than
when fused in such a combination, however re
markable. And from this rigid, self-contained character the

a Wright's Arabic Grammar, part i. p. 189. " Cette
partie de la grammaire Arabe est celle o{l 11 r&gne le
plus d'arbitraire, et oh Ies regies g^n^rales sont su-

SHENIR
Shemitic language-family finds difficulty in depnrt-
ing. The more recent Syriac has added various
auxiliary forms, and repeated pronouns, to the
characteristic words by wbich the meaning is
chiefly conveyed. But the general effect is cum
brous and confused, and brings to mind aome fea
tures of the ordinary Welsh version of the Epis
tles. In Arabic, again, certain prefixes are found
to be added for the sake of giving definiteness to
portions of the verb, and prepositions more fre
quently employed. But tbe character of the lan
guage remains unaltered — the additions stand out
as something distinct from the original elemenU cf "
the sentence.
In what consists the most marked point of dif
ference between the Indo-European family of lan
guages and the Shemitic femily as known to us?
The first has hved two Hves, as it were: in its case
a period of synthesis and complexity has been suc
ceeded by another of analysis and decomposition.
The second family has been developed (if the word
may be used) in one way only. No other instance
of a language-family can probably be found cast in
a mould equally unalterable. Compared with the
living branches of the Indo-European family, those
of the Shemitic may be almost designated as in
organic : they have not vegetated, have not grown ;
they have simply existed.^ T. J. O.
SHEMU'EL (bs^Qty [= Samuel, which
see]: ^a\a/j.i'fi\: Samuel). 1. Son of Ammihud,
appointed from the tribe of Simeon to divide
the land of Canaan among the tribes (Num.
xxxiv. 20).
2. {-Xafiov^K.) Samuel the prophet (1 Chr-
vi. 33).
3. [Vat. Itra/AourjA.] Son of Tola, and one
of the chiefs of the tribe of Issachar (1 Chr.
vii. 2).
SHEN {y!?L^, with the def. article [the tooth] :
TTJs nahaLas'. Sen). A place mentioned only in
1 Sam. vii. 12, defining the spot at which Samuel
set up the stone Eben-ezer to commemorate the
rout of the Philistines. Tbe pursuit had extended
to "below Beth-car," and the stone was erected
" between the Mispah and between the Shen."
Nothing is known of it. The Targum bas Shinna.
The Peshito-Syriac and Arabic Versions render
both Beth-car and Shen by Beit-.Jasan, but the
writer has not succeeded in identifying the name
with any place in the lists of Dr. Kobinson (1st ed.
App. to vol. iii.). The LXX. read ]U'^, ydshdn,
old. "^¦' G.
SHENA'ZAR P'^S^tt? [fery tooth, Ges.]:
2a»'6trap; [Comp. Savaftip:] Sennese?'). Son of
Salathiel, or Shealtiel (1 Chr. iii. 18). According
to the Vulgate he is reckoned as a son of Jecho
niah. SHE'NIR ("l''3ty, i. c Senir [coat of mail]:
Sam. Vers, pa^^?^ : [Rom. SaWp ; Vat. Alex,]
5av€ip; [Sin. in Cant., 2a»/teip:] Santr), Thia
name occurs in Deut. iii. 9, Cant. iv. 8. It is an
inaccurate equivalent for the Hebrew Senir, the
Amorite name for Mount Hermon, and, like Shib-
mah (for Sibmah), haa found its way into the Au-

jettes k un plus grand nombre d'exceptions." D« SacT
i. 279 (ed. 1810).
b Kenan, 1. 423, 424.

SHEOIi
thorized Version without any apparent authoiity.
The correct form is found in 1 Chr. v. 23 and Ez.
Kivii. 5. [Senie.] G.
* SHE'OL. [Dead, The; Hell; Pit.]
* SHEOL, BANDS OF. [Snakes of
Death, Amer. ed.]
SHE'PHAM (DQt?: 2e,r<|)o^t«p;'' [Comp.
Aid. SeTr<papd:] Sephama). A place mentioned
only in the specification by Moses of the eastern
boundary of the Promised Land (Num. xxxiv. 10,
11), the first landmark from Hatser-enan, at which
the northern boundary terminated, and lying be
tween it and Riblah. The ancient interpreters
(Targ. Pseudojon.; Saadiah) render the name by
Apameia; b but it seems uncertain whether by this
they intend the Greek city of that name on the
Orontes, 50 miles below Antioch, or whether they
nse it as a synonym of Banias or Dan, aa Schwarz
affirms (Descr. Geogr. p. 27). No trace of the
name appears, however, in that direction. Mr.
Porter would fix Hatser-enan at Kuryetein, 70
miles K. N. E. of Damascus, which would remove
Shepham into a totally different region, in which
there is equally Uttle trace of it. The writer ven
tures to disagree with this and similar attempts to
enlarge the bounds of the Holy Land to an extent
for which, in his opinion, there is no wari'ant in
Scripture. G.
SHBPHATHI'AH (n^^S^ \Jehooah
judges, or is judge]: Sa(paTia: Saphatia). A
Benjamite, father of Meshullam 6 (1 Chr. ix. 8).
The name is properly Shephatiah [as in A. V.
ed. 1611].
SHEPHATI'AH (n^tSSCJ [as above] : 2a-
iparla; [Vat. Safiareia;] Alex. Sapadia, Sa<f>a-
Ttas: Saphathia, Saphalias). 1. The fifth son of
David by his wife Abital (2 Sam. iii. 4; 1 Chr.
iii. 3).
2. (Satparia; [in Ezr. ii. 4, Vat. Aaaip; viii.
8, SaxfiaTeiai] Sephalia, Saphatia.) The family
of Shephatiah, 372 in number, returned with Ze
rubbabel (Ezr. ii. 4; Neh. vii. 9). A second de
tachment of eighty, with Zebadiah at their head,
came up with Ezra (Ezr. viii. 8). The name is
written Saphat (1 Esdr. v. 9), and Saphatias
(1 Esdr. viii. 34).
3. ([In Ezr. ii. 57, Vat. Sa^areia'^ Saphatia.)
The family of another Shephatiah were among the
children of Solomon's servants, who came up with
Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 57; Neh. vii. 59).
4. A descendant of Perez, or Pharez, the son
of Judah, and ancestor of Athaiah (Neh. xi. 4).
5. (Sarpavias: Saphalias.) The son of Mat-
Um ; one of the princes of Judah who counselled
Zedekiah to put Jeremiah in the dungeon (Jer.
ixxviii. 1).
6. (!)n;^S?7: Sa<paTias; [Vat.] 'A]et.. Sa-
paria ; FA. 2tti(>aT€ia : Saphatia. ) The Haruph-
te, or Hariphite, one of the Benjamite warriors
who joined David in his retreat at Ziklag (1 Chr.
cii. 5).
7. (Satparias: Saphatias.) Son of Maachah,
and chief of the Simeonites in the reign of David
(1 Chr. xxvii. 16).

SHEPHERD

2989

n The ar at tbe end of the LXX.. version of the
jame is partly due to the ah (particle of motion) which
18 afflxed to it in the original of ver. 10, and partly
flerived from tbe commencement of Riblah, which fol-

8. {^atparias; [Vat. 'Za<paTeias,_i Alex. 2a
(partas-) Son of Jehoshaphat (2 Chr. xxi. 2).
SHEPHEED (nr'"); npiS, Am. vii. 14
^l7^, Am. i. l). in a nomadic state of society
every man, from the sheikh down to the slave, is
more or less a shepherd. As many regions in the
East are adapted solely to pastoral pursuits, tbe in
stitution of the nomad life, with its appliances of
tents and camp equipage, was regarded as one of
the most memorable inventions {Qen. iv. 20). The
progenitors of the Jews in the patriarchal age were
nomads, and their history is rich in scenes of pas
toral life. The occupation of tending the flocks
was undertaken, not only by the sons of wealthy
chiefs (Gen. xxx. 29 ff., xxxvii. 12 ff.), but even by
tbeir daughters (Gen. xxix. 6 ff.; Ex. ii. 19). The
Egyptian captivity did much to implant a love of
settled abode, and consequently we find the tribes
which still retained a taste for shepherd life select
ing their own quarters apart from their brethren
in tbe Transjordanic district (Num. xxxii. 1 ff.).
Henceforward in Palestine Proper the shepherd
held a subordinate position ; tbe increase of agri
culture involved the decrease of pasturage; and
thoutjh large flocks were still maintained in certain
parts, particularly on the borders of the wilderness
of Judah, as about Carmel (1 Sam. xxv. 2), Beth
lehem (1 Sam. xvi. 11; Luke ii. 8), Tekoah (Am.
i. 1), and more to the south, at Gedor (1 Chr. iv.
39), the nomad life was practically extinct, and the
shepherd became one out of many classes of the la
boring population. The completeness of the tran
sition from the pastoral to the agricultural state ia
strongly exhibited in those passages which allude
to the presence of the shepherd's tent as a token
of desolation (e. g. Ez. xxv. 4; Zeph. ii. 6). Tht
humble position of the shepherd at the same period
is implied in the notices of David's wondrous ele
vation (2 Sam. vii. 8; Ps. Ixxviii. 70), and again
in the self-depreciating confession of Amos (vii.
14). The frequent and beautiful allusions to the
shepherd's office in the poetical portions of the
Bible (e. g. Ps. xxiii.; Is. xl 11, xlix. 9, 10; Jer.
xxiii. 3, 4; Ez. xxxiv. 11, 12, 23) rather bespeak
a period when the shepherd had become an ideal
character, such as the Koman poets painted the pas
tors of Arcadia.
The office of the eastern shepherd, as described
in the Bible, was attended with much hardship,
and even danger. He was exposed to the extremes
of heat and cold (Gen. xxxi. 40); his food fre
quently consisted of the precarious supplies afforded
by nature, such as the fruit of the " sycomore," or
Egyptian fig (Am. vii. 14), the "husks" of the
carob-tree (Luke xv. 16), and perchance the locusts
and wild honey which supported the Baptist (Matt.
iii. 4j; he had to encounter the attacks of wihl
beasts, occasionally of the larger species, such as
lions, wolves, panthers, and bears (1 Sam. xvii. 34;
Is. xxxi. 4; Jer. v. 6; Am. iii. 12) ; nor was he
free from the risk of robbers or predatipry hordes
(Gen. xxxi. 39). To meet these various foes the
shepherd's equipment consisted of the following
articles; a mantle, made probably of sheep's-skin
with the fleece on, ivhich he turned inside out in
cold weather, as in plied in the comparison in Jer.

lows it in ver. 11, and which t ey have given without
its r, as BT)\a.
6 nW^npW : aUjoU : Sam. Vers TT^^SD^,

2990

SHEPHERD

iliii. 12 (cf. Juv. xiv. ]87); a scrip or wallet, con
taining a small amoimt of food (1 Sam. xvii. 40;
Porter's Damascus, ii. 100); a sling, which is still
the favorite weapon of the Bedouin shepherd (1
Sam. xvii. 40; Burckhardt's JVo^es, i. 57); and,
lastly, a staflf, which served the double purpose of a
weapon against foes, and a crook for the manage
ment of the flock (1 Sam. xvii. 40; Ps. xxiii. 4:
Zech. xi. 7). If the shepherd was at a distance
from his home, he was provided with a light tent
(Cant. i. 8; Jer. xxxv. 7), the removal of which
was easily effected (Is. xxxviii. 12). In certain
localities, moreover, towers were erected for the
double purpose of spying an enemy at a distance,
and protecting the flock: such towers were erected
by Uzziah and Jotham (2 Chr. xxvi. 10, xxvii. 4),
while their existence in earlier times is testified by
the name Migdal-Eder (Geu. xxxv. 21, A. V. " tower
of Edar; " Mic. iv. 8, A. V. " tower of the flock ").
The routine of the shepherd's duties appears to
have been as follows : in the morning he led forth
his flock from the fold (John x. 4), which he did
by going before them and calling to them, as is
still usual ui the East; arrived at the pasturage, he
watched the flock with the assistance of dogs (Job
xxx. 1), and, should any sheep stray, he had to
search for it until he found it (Ez. xxxiv. 12 ; Luke
XV. 4); he supplied them with water, either at a
running stream or at troughs attached to wells
(Gen. xxix. 7, xxx. .38; Ex. ii. 16; Ps. xxiii. 2);
at evening he brought them back to the fold, and
reckoned them to see that none were missing, by
passing them " under the rod " as they entered the
door of the inclosure (Lev. xxvii. 32; Ez. xx. 37),
checking each sheep as it passed, by a motion of
the hand (Jer. xxxiii. 13); and, finally, he watched
the entrance of the fold throughout the night, act^
ing as porter (John x. 3). We need not assume
that the same person was on duty both by night
and by day; Jacob, indeed, asserts this of himself
(Gen. xxxi. 40), but it would be more probable
that the shepherds took it by turns, or that they
kept watch for a portion only of the night, as may
possibly be implied in the expression iu Luke ii. 8,
rendered in the A. V. " keeping watch," rather
"keepuig the watches" (tpv\ia-a-0VTes <t>v\aKds).
The shepherd's oflice thus required great watchful
ness, particularly by night (Luke ii. 8 ; cf. Nah.
iii. 18). It also required tenderness towards the
young and feeble (Is. xl. 11), particularly in driv
ing them to and from the pasturage (Gen. xxxiii.
13). In large estabhshments there were various
grades pf shepberds, the highest being styled
"rulers" (Gen. xlvii. 6), or "chief shepherds"
(1 Pet. v. 4) : in a royal household the title of ab-
blr,a '¦ mighty," was bestowed on the person who
held tlie post (1 Sam. xxi. 7). Great respon.<!ibility
iittaclied to the office; for the chief shepherd had
to make good all losses (Gen. xxxi. 39); at the
same time he had a personal interest in the flock,
inasmuch as he was not paid in money, but re
ceived a certain aniount of the produce (Gen. xxx.
32; 1 Cor. ix. 7). The life of the shepherd was a
monotonous one; he may perhaps have wiled away
an hour in playing on some instrument (1 Sam.
xvi. 18; Jolj xxi. 12, xxx. 31), as his modern rep-
-esentative still occasionally does (Wortabet's Syiia,
I. 234). He also had his periodical entertainments
»t the shearing-time, which was celeorated by a

»HEREBIAH
general gathering of the neighboihood for festir-
ities (Gen. xxxi. 19, xxxviii. 12; 2 Sam. xiii. 23)-
but, generally speaking, the life must have been
but dull. Nor did it conduce to gentleness of man
ners; rival shepherds contended for the possession
or the use of water with great acrimony (Gen. xxi.
25, xxvi. 20 ff.; Ex. ii. 17); nor perhaps is this a
matter of surprise, as those who come late to » well
frequently have to wait a long time until their turn
comes (Burckhardt's Syria, p. 63).
The hatred of the Egyptians towards shepherds
(Gen. xlvi. 34) may have been mainly due to their
contempt for the sheep itself, which appears to have
been vsJued neither for food (Plutarch, De Is. 72),
nor generaUy for sacrifice (Herod, ii. 42), the only
district where they were oflTered being about the
Natron lakes (Strab. xvii. p. 803). It may have
been increased by the meraory of the Shepherd in
vasion (Herod, ii. 128). Abundant confiimation
of the fact of this hatred is supplied by the low
position which all herdsmen held In the castes oi
Egypt, and by the caricatures of them in Egyptian
paintings (Wilkinson, ii. 169).
The term " shepherd " is applied in a metaphor
ical sense to princes (Is. xliv. 28; Jer. ii. 8, iii. 15,
xxii. 22; Ez. xxxiv. 2, &c.), prophets (Zech. xi. 5,
8, 16), teachers (Eccl. xii. 11), and to Jehovah
himself (Gen. xlix. 24; Ps. xxiii. 1, Ixxx. 1): to
the same eflfect are the references to "feeding" in
Gen. xlviii. 15; Ps. xxviii. 9; Hos. iv. 16.
W. L. B.
* SHEPHERDS, TOWER OF (Geu.
xxxv. 21). [David, vol. i. p. 553 a.]
SHETHI ( ptr [a naked /litt, Gea.]: Saxpl,
Alex. SoKpap: Srphi). Son of Shobai, ofthe sons
of Seir (1 Chr. i. 40). Called also Shepho (Gen.
xxxvi. 23); which Bunington concludes to be the
true reading (Geneal. i. 49).
SHB'PHO ("IDP ^smoothness]: Sa<j>dp: Se-
pho). The same as'SHEPHi (Gen. xxxvi. 23).
SHEPHU'PHAN (Ip^E^ \serpent]: Se-
ipovtpdpi.; Alex. Sooipap: Sephuphan). One of the
sons of Bela the firstborn of Benjamin (1 (,'hr. viii.
5). His name is also written Shephupham (A.
V. "Shupham," Num. xxvi. 39), Shui'PIM (1 Chr.
vii. 12, 15), and Muppim (Gen. xlvi. 21). Lord
A. Hervey conjectures that Shephuphan may have
been a son of Benjamin, who.se family was reckoned
with those of Iri the son of Bela. [Muppim.]
SHE'RAH (n"nS.tf;, i. c Shehdii [kins-
iixmian]: Sapad; Alex. Saapa: Sai'a). D.iugh-
ter of Ephraim (1 Chr. vii. 24), and foundress of
the two Beth-horons, and of a town which waa
called after her Uzzen-Shekah.
* SHERD. [Potsheed; Pottekv.]
SHERBBI'AH (n^^TlP; [heat of Jehooah,
Ges.]: Sapaia, Ezr. viii. 24; 5apa;8ioj, Neh. viii.
7, ix. 4; Sapo^i'a, Neh. x. 12, xii. 8, 24; Alex.
2opaj3ia, Neh. viii. 7; Sapa$aXa, Neh. ix. 4:
Sarabias, Ezr.; Serebia, Neh. viii. 7, x. 12, xii.
24; Sarebias, Neh, ix. 4; Sarebia, Neh. xii. 8).
A Levite in the time of Ezra, of the family of Mahli
the son of Merari (I'jzr. viii. 18, 24). He was one
of the first of the ministers of the Temple to join
Ezra at the river of Ahava, and with Hashabiah
and ten of their brethren ' had the charge of the

-i-aK.

6 They are called " priestp ,
loosely, as in Josh. iii. 3.

' but The term cs utwd

SHERESH
vessels and gifts v/hich the king and his court, and
the people of Israel had contributed for the service
of the Temple. When I^ra read the Law to the
people, Sherebiah was among the Levites who as
sisted him (Neh. viii. 7). He took part in the
psalm of confession and thanksgiving which was
Bung at the solemn fast after the Feast of Tai)er-
nacles (Neh. ix. 4, 5), and signed the covenant
with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 12). He is again men
tioned as among the chief of the Levites who be
longed to the choir (Neh. xii. 8, 24). In 1 Esdr.
viii. 54 ne is called Esebrias.
SHE- RESH {WnW in pause [root]: Sodpos;
Alex. Sopos: Sares).' Son of Machir the son of
Manasseh by his wife Maachah (1 Chr. vii. 16).
SHERE'ZER Cn^^ntp [= sharezer] :
Sapaadp: Sarasar). Properly " Sharezer; " one
of the messengers sent in the fourth year of Darius
by the people who had returned from the Captivity
to inquire coucerning fasting in the fifth montli
(Zech. vii. 2). [See Kegemmelech.]
* SHERIFFS C'illSn) only in Dan. iii. 2,
3, enumerated among tlie high officers of state
at Babylon. Their exact province is unknown.
The etymology (see Fiirst, s. v.) is too obscure to
decide tlieir position or duties. According to the
English designation they may have been an order
ol judges, as " sheriff" has sometimes that mean
uig. They are more commonly supposed to have
been lawyers or jurists who acted as the king's ad
visers, or the state councillors, and as such held a
high position under the government. Gesenius
(Bdir. u. Chald. Lex. s. v.) compares them with
the Mufti, the head doctors of the law in the
Turkish empire. De Wette translates the title
Rechtsgelehrten, and H. A. Perret-Gentil les juris-
consultes. H.
SHE'SHAOH C^WW [see below] ¦: [Comp.
Svf^dx, SeadK'.] Sesach) is a term which occurs
ooly in Jeremiah (xxv. 26, li. 41), who evidently
uses it as a synonym either for Babylon or for Bab
ylonia. According to some commentators, it rep
resents " Babel " on a principle well known to the
later Jews — the substitution of letters according
to their position in the alphabet, counting back
wards frpm the last letter, for those which hold the
same numerical position, counting in the ordinary
way. Thus r\ represents K, W represents 11, ^
represents H, and so on. It is the fact that in this
way "T]tt?t!!? would represent vD!3" It may well
lie doubted, however, if this fanciful practice is as
(jid as Jeremiah. At any rate, this explanation
does not seem to be so satisfactory as to make any
other superfluous. Now Sir H. liawlinson has ob
served that the name of the moon-god, which was
identical, or nearly so, with that of the city of
Abraham, Ur (or Hur), " might have been read in
one of the ancient dialects of Babylon as S/iishaki,'^
md that consequently " a possible explanation is
hus obtained of the Sbeahach of Scripture " (Raw
Unson's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 616). Sheshach may
Jland for Ur, Ur itself, the old capital, being taken
^ Babel, the new capital, was constantly) to rep
.•esent the country. * G. R.
SHE'SHAI [2 syl.] ('"E'tB [whitish, Ges.] :
ieairi [Vat. -(rei]. Num. and Judg.; Souari [Vat.
o-ei], Josh.; Alex. SeMf, Souffai, reSfli: Sisai,

SHBTHAR

2991

Num.; Sesai). One of the three sons of Anah
who dwelt in Hebron (Num. xiii. 22) and were
driven thence and slain by Caleb at the head of the
children of Judah (Josh. xv. 14; Judg. i. 10).
SHE'SHAN (1tt?tt; [perh. city] : 2wff(£v;
[Vat. twice ^oaafj.'-] Sesan). A descendant of
Jerahmeel the son of Hezron, and representative oi
one of the chief families of Judah. In consequence
of the failure of male issue, he gave his daughter in
marriage to Jarha, his Egyptian slave, and through
this union the Ihie was perpetuated (1 Chr. ii. 31,
34, 35).
SHESHBAZ'ZAB (l^^tpW [Pers,, fre-
wm^shipper, Ges.] : Xaa-a^ao-dp ; ['Xa&auaa-dp ;
Vat. 'Xa^avaaap, Bayaaap, ^ap$ayap\] Alex.
2a(raj3a(T(rap, [kaaa^aa-a-apos •] Sassaoasar : oi
uncertain nieaning and etymology). The Chaldsean
or Persian name given to Zerubbabel, in Ezr. i. 8.
11, V. 14, 16; 1 Esdr. ii. 12, 15, after the analogj
of Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Belteshazzar,
and Esther. In like manner also Joseph received
the name of Zaphnath-Paaneah, and we learn from
Manetho, as quoted by Josephus (c. Apion. i. 2?j,
that Moses' Egyptian name was Osarsiph. The
cbange of name in tbe case of Jehoiakim and Zed
ekiah (2 lv. xxiii. 34, xxiv. 17) may also be com
pared. That Sbeshbazzar means Zerubbabel is
proved by his being called tbe prince of Judah
(W^U^Sn), and governor (nn.7)) the former term
marking him as the head of the tribe in the Jewish
sense (Num. vii. 2, 10, 11, &c.), and the latter as
the Persian governor appointed by Cyrus, both
which Zerubbabel was: and yet more distinctly, by
the assertion (Ezr. v. 16) that " Sbeshbazzar laid
the foundation of the House of God which is iu
Jerusalem," compared with the promise to Zerub
babel (Zech iv. 9), "The hands of Zerubbabel
have laid the foundation of thia house, his hands
shall also finish it." It is also apparent, from the
mere comparison of Ezr. i. 11 with ii. 1, 2, and the
whole history of the returned exiles. The Jewish
tradition that Sbeshbazzar is Daniel, is utterly
without weight. [Zerubbabel.] A. C. H.
SHETH (ntt? [see below]: 5^0: Seth).
1. Tbe patriarch Seth (1 Chr. i. 1).
2. In the A. V. of Num. xxiv. 17, r\W is ren
dered as a proper name, but there is reason to re
gard it as an appellative, and to translate, instead of
"the sons of Sheth," "the sons of tumult," the
wild wan'iors of Moab, for in the parallel passage,
Jer. xlviii. 45, I^Stp, shdon, "tumult," occupies
the place of sheth. Ht^, sheth, is thus equivalent
to nWtt?, sheth, as in Lam. iii. 47. Ewald pro
poses,, very unnecessarily, to read r\Uy, seth^
nWty, and to translate " the sons of haughtiness "'
{Hochmuthssohne). Rashi takes the word as a
proper name, and refers it to Seth the son of Adam,
and this seems to have been the view taken by
Onkelos, wbo renders, " he shall rule all the sons
of men." The Jerusalem Targum gives, " all the
sons of the East; " the Targum of Jonathan ben-
Uzziel retains the Hebrew word Sheth, and ex
plains it of the armies of Gog who were to set
themselves in battle array against Israel.
W. A. W.
SHETHAR hnty [Pers. « star]; Saptra-

2992

SHETHAR-BOZNAI

9€uo5\ Alex. :Sap€(r0eos] [FA.l ApKetrooy:] Se-
tkari "a star," Pers.). One of the seven princes
of Persia and Media, who liad access to the king's
presence, and were the first men m the kingdom,
in the third year of Xerxes (Esth. i. 14). Compare
Ezr. vii. 14 and the cttt^ twv Ylepacoy iTriatipLOi
of Ctesias (14), and the statement of Herodotus
with regard to the' seven noble Persians who slew
Smerdis, that it was granted to them as a privi
lege to have access to the king's presence at all
times, without being sent for, except when he was
with the women; and that the king might only
take a wife from one of these seven families, iii. 84,
and Gesen. ». v. [Cahshejsa ; Esther.] A. C. H.
SHE'THAR-BOZ'NAI O^flS "IH^ :
ZaQap-^ov^avai [Vat. -ava, ~av] ; Alex. -ayrjSj
[ai/s, -aj/ai'.] Siharbuznni: "star of splendor'*).
A Persian officer of rank, having a command in
the province " on this side the river " under Tatnai
the satrap (^inQ), in the reign of Darius Hystaspis
(Ezr. V. 3, 6, vi. 6, 13). He joined with Tatnai
and the Apbarsachites in trying to obstruct tbe
progress of the Temple in the time of Zerubbabel,
aud in writing a letter to Darius, of whicb a copy
is preserved in Ezr. v., in which they reported
that " the house of the great God " in Judaea was
being builded with great stones, and that the work
was going on fast, on the alleged authority of a
decree from Cjtus. They requested that search
might be made in the rolls court whether
such a decree was ever given, and asked for
fhe king's pleasure in the matter. The de
cree was found at Egbatana, and a letter was
sent to Tatnai and Shetbar-boznai from Da
rius, ordering them no more to obstruct, but,
ou the contrary, to aid the elders of the Jews
in rebuilding the Temple, by supplying them
both with money and with beasts, corn, salt,
wine, and oil, for the sacrifices. Shethar-
boznai .after the receipt of this decree offered
no further obstruction to tbe Jews. The
account of the Jewish prosperity in Ezr. vi.
14-22, would indicate that the Persian gov
ernors acted fully up to the spirit of their iii-
Btructions from the king.
As regards the name Shethar-boznai, it
seems to be certainly Persian. The first ele
ment of it appears as the name Shethar, one
of the seven Persian princes in Esth. i. 14.
It is perhaps also contained in the name
Phama-zathres (Herod, vii. 65) ; and the whole name
is not unlike Sati-barzanes, a Persian in the time
of Artaxerxes Mnemon (Ctesias, 57). Ifthe names
of tbe Persian officers mentioned in the Book of
l^'zra could be identified in any inscriptions or
otiier records of the reigns of Darius, Xerxes, and
Artaxerxes, it would be of immense value in clearing
np the difficulties of that book. A. C. H.
SHE'VA (W;;^, Keri; KW, 2 Sam. [Se
kaiah]: 2ouo-(£; [Vat. iTjo-ovs'',] Alex, laovs-
i>iva). 1. The scribe or royal secretary of David
(2 Sam. XX. 25).' He is called elsewhere Seraiah
;2 Sam. viii. 17), Shisha (1 K. iv. 3), and Shav-
BHA (1 Chr. xviii. 16).
2. (2aoi5; Alex. 2aoi;\: Sue.) Son of Caleb
ben-Hezron by his concubine Maachah, and founder
[>r chief of Machbena and Gibea (1 Chr. ii. 49).

SHEW BREAD
SHEW BREAD. (D^'^D Cnb, or "^
D''2Dn (Ex. XXV. 30, xxxv. 13, xxxix. 36, &c.)
literally "bread of the- face" or "faces."
Onk. n3"/:L7Dn "b, D'^DW nnb, "bread sel
in order." 1 Chr. ix. 32, xxiii. 29, 2 Chr. xxix. 18.
Neh. X. 34, m3"n37a. In Num. i* 7, we find
l^DDn 7> « the perpetual bread." In 1 Sam.
xxi. 4r-G, it is called ti7Tp "bj " holy bread.' ' Syr.
)Li20j Cn5o>fc^.2)» JLiCAA^, "bread of the
Table of the Lord." The LXX. give us ^pTo.
ivdfjnot, Ex. xxv. 30; &pToi ttjs irpoatpopas, 1 K.
vii. 48. N. T. : ^proi ttis irpoOitreas, Matt. xii.
4, Luke vi. 4; ^ irpodeffis tuv Aprcop, Heb. ix. 2.
The Vulg. panes pnpvsitionis. Wicliffe, " loaves of
propo.sition." Luther, Schaubrode; from wbich
our subsequent English versions have adopted the
title Shew-bread )
Within the Ark it was directed that there should
be a table of shittim- wood, i. e. acacia, two cubits
in length, a cubit in breadth, and a cubit and a
half in height, overlaid with pure gold, and hav
ing "a golden crown to the border thereof round
about," i. e. a border, or list, in order, as we may
suppose, to hinder that which vi'as placed an it
from by any accident falling offi The furthei de
scription of this table will be found in Ex. xxv.
23-30, and a representation of it as it existed in

Table of Shew Bread (from relief on aa Arch of THub)
the Herodian Temple forms an interesting feature
in the bas-reliefs within the Arch of Titus. The
accuracy of this may, as is obvious, be trusted.
It exhibits one striking correspondence with the
prescriptions in Exodus. We there find the fol
lowing words: "and thou shalt make unto it a
border of a handbreadth round about." In tlie
sculpture of the Arch the hand of one of the slaves
who is carrying the Table, and tbe border, are of
about equal bi'eadth." This Table is itself called
?"^^DPT inbtt?, "the Table of the Faces," in
Num. IV. 7, and inton ^Plbtt?) "tbe pure
table," in Lev. xxiv. 6; and 2 Chr. xiii. 11. This
latter epithet is generally referred by commenta
tors to the unalloyed gold with which so much of
it was covered. It may, however, mean somewhat

a Taking, i. e. tbe four fingers, when closed to
other, as tbg mea.«iure of a hnndbreadth, as we are

instructed to do hy a comparison of 1 K. vii. 26 and
Jer. lu. 21.

SHEW BREAD
more than this, and bear something of the force
which it has in Malachi 1. 11.
It was thought by Philo and Clement of Alex
andria that the table was a symbol of the world,
its four sides or legs typifymg the four seasons. In
the utter absence of any argument in their sup
port, we may feel warranted in neglecting such fan
ciful conjectures, without calling in the aid of
Biibr's arguments against them.
In 2 Chr. iv. 19, we have mention of " the tables
whereon the shew bread was set," and at ver. 8 we
read of Solomon making ten tables. This is prob
ably explained by the statement of Josephus {Ant.
viii. 3, § 7), that the king made a number of tables,
and one great golden one on which tbey placed the
loaves of God. [See Tk.mple.]
The table of the second temple was carried away
by Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Mace, i. 22), and a new
one made at the refurnishing of the sanctuary under
Judas Maccabseus (1 Mace iv. 49). Afterwards
Ptolemy Philadelphus presented a magnificent table
(Joseph. Ant. xii. 2, §§ 8,9).
The table stood in the sanctuary together witb
the seven-branched candlestick and the altar of in
cense. Every Sabbath twelve newly-baked loaves
were put on it in two rows, aix in each, and sprin
kled with incense (the LXX. add salt), where they
remained till the following Sabbath. Then they
were replaced by twelve new onis, tbe incense was
burned, and they were eaten by tbe priests in tbe
Holy Place, out of which they might not be re
moved. Besides these, the Shew-bread Table was
adorned with dishes, spoons, bowls, etc., which were
of pure gold (Ex. xxv. 29). These, however, were
manifestly subsidiary to the loaves, the preparation,
presentation, and subsequent treatment of which
manifestly constituted the ordinance of the shew
bread, whose probable purport and significance
must now be considered.
The number of the loaves (twelve) is considered
by Philo and Josephus to represent the twelve
months. If there was such a reference, it must
surely have been qpite subordinate to that which is
obvious at once. Tbe twelve loaves plainly answer
to the twelve tribes (compare Rev. xxii. 2). But,
taking tbis for granteil, we have still to ascertain
the meaning of the rite, and there is none which
is left in Scripture so wholly unexplained. Though
it is mentioned, as we have seen, in other parts of
the 0. T. besides the Pentateuch, it is never more
than mentioned. The narrative of David and his
companions being permitted to eat the shew bread,
does but illustrate the sanctity which was ascribed
to it; and besides our Saviour's appeal to that
narrative, the ordinance is only once referred to
in the N. T. (Heb. ix. 2), and there it is merely
named among the other appurtenances of the first
sanctuary. But, although unexplained, it is referred to as
one of the leading and most solemn appointments
of the sanctuary. For example, tbe appeal of Abi-
jani to tbe revolted tribes (2 Chr. xiii. 10, 11) runs
thus — " but as for us, the Lord is our God, and
we have not forsaken Him; and the priests, which
minister unto the Lord, are the sons of Aaron,
and the Levites wait upon their business; and
^ey burr unto the Lord every mor/nng and every
(vening burnt-sacrifices and sweet incense; the
ihew brbiid also aet they in order upon the pure
table/' etc., etc.
In this absence of exp!-«^nation of that which is
Wt regarded as so solemn, we have but to seek

SHEW BKKAD

2993

whether the naraes bestowed on and the rites con
nected with the shew bread will lead us to some
apprehension of its meaning.
The first name we find given it is obviously the
dominant one, D*^3Q DHv, "bread of the face,
or faces." This is explained by some of the Rab
bis, even by Maimonides, as referring to the four
sides of each loaf. It is difficult to believe that
the title was given on a ground which in no way
distinguished them from other loaves. Besides,
it is applied in Num. iv. 7, simply to the table,
kD**3Dn ]n71i7. not, as in the Enghsh version, the
"table of shew bread," but the "shew table," the
" table of the face, or faces."
We have used the words face or faces., for
D^'iQ, it needs scarcely be said, exists only in the
plural, and is therefore applied equally to the face
of one person and of many. In connection with
this meaning, io continually bears the secondary
one of presence. It would be superfluous to eite
any of the countless passages in which it does so.
But whose face or presence is denoted ? That of
the people? The rite of the shew bread, accordu3g
to some, was performed in acknowledgment of
God's being the giver of all our bread and suste
nance^ and the loaves lay always on tbe table as a
memorial and monitor of this. But against this,
besides other reasons, there is the powerful objec
tion that the shew brciid was unseen by the people;
it lay in the sanctuary, and was eaten there by
the priests alone. So that the first condition of
symbolic instruction was wanting to the rite, had
this been its meaning.
Tbe D^^DD, therefore, or Presence, is that not of
the people but of God. The ^proi iv^irioi and the
&pT0i TT)s ¦7rpoa<f)opas of the LXX. seera to indicate
as much. To say nothing of 1 Sam. xxi.' 6, where
the words mn^ "^DDbQ D^^nDiQn Q-^Don "b
seem decisive of tbe whole question. But in wbat
sense? Spencer and others consider it bread offered
to God as was the Minchah, a symbolical meal for
God somewhat answering to a heathen Lecttster-
nium. But it is not easy to find this meaning in
the recorded appointments. The incense is no doubt
to be burnt on the appointed altar, but the bread,
on the Sabbath following that of its presentation,
is to be eaten in the Holy Place by the priests.
There remains, then, the view which bas been
brought out with such singular force and beauty
by Biihr — a view broad and clear in itself, and
not disturbed by those fanciful theories of numbers
which tend to abate confidence in some parts of
his admirable Symbolik.
He remarks, and justly, that the phrase D**2&
is applied solely to the table and the bread, not to
the other furniture of the sanctuary, the altar
of incense, or the golden candlestick. There is
something therefore peculiar to the former which
is denoted by the title. Taking D"^3Qn as equiva
lent to the Presence {of God subaud.), he views
the application of it to the table and the bread
as analogous to its application to tbe angel,
D'^SD "7^ /tt (Is. Ixiii. 9, compared with Ex.
xxxiii. 14, 15; Deut. iv. 37). Of the Angel nf
God's Presence it is said that God's " Name is in
Him" (Ex. xxiii. 20). The Presence and the
Name insy therefore be taken as equivalent. Iioth,

2994

SHIBBOLETH

in reference to theu- context, indicate the manifes
tation of God to his creatures. " The Name of
God," he remarks, "is Himself, but that, in so
far as He reveals Himself, the face is that wherein
the being of a man proclaims itself, and makes
known its individual personality. Hence, as Name
stands for He or Himself, so Face for Person: to
see the Face, for, to see tbe Person. The Bread
of the Face is therefore that bread through which
God is seen, that is, with the participation of which
the seeing of God is bound up, or through the par
ticipation of which man attains the .sight of God.
Whence it follows that we have not to think of
bread merely as such, as the means of nourishing
the bodily Hfe, but as spiritual food, as a means of
appropriating and retaining that*life which consists
in seeing the face of God. Bread is therefore here
a symbol, and stands, as it so generally does in all
languages, both for life and life's nourishment; but
by being entitled the Bread if the Face it be
comes a symbol of a life higher than the physical;
it is, since it lies on the table placed in the sym
bolic heaven, heavenly bread; they who eat of it,
and satisfy themselves vrith it see the face of God"
(Bahr, Symbolik, book i. u. 6, § 2). It is to be
remembered that the shevv bread was " taken from
tbe children of Israel by an everlasting covenant "
(Lev. xxiv. 8), and may therefore be well expected
to bear the most solemn meaning. Bahr proceeds
to show very beautifully the connection in Scrip
ture between seeing God and being nourished by
God, and points, as the coping-stone of his argu
ment, to Christ being at once the perfect Image of
God and the Bread of Life. The references to a
table prepared for tbe righteous mau, such as Ps.
xxiii. 5, Luke xxii. 30, should also be considered. F. G.
SHIB'BOLETH (nbiatt?: Scibboleih),
Judg. xii. 6. The Hebrew word which the Gilead
ites under Jephthah made use of at the passages of
the Jordan, after a victory over tbe Ephraimites,
to test the pronunciation of the sound sh by those
who wished to cross over the river. I'he Ephraim
ites, it would appear, in their dialect substituted
for .sA tbe simple sound s ; and the Gileadites, re
garding every one who failed to pronounce sh as an
Ephraimite and therefore an enemy, put him to
d^th accordingly.
The word " Shibboleth," which has now a sec
ond life in the English language in a new significa
tion, has two meanings in Hebrew: 1st, an ear of
corn ; 2dly, a stream or flood : and it was, perhaps,
in the latter sense that this particular word sug
gested itself to the Gileadites, the Jordan being a
rapid river. Tbe word, in the latter sense, is used
twice in the 69th Psalm, in verses 2 and 15, where
the translation of the A. V. is " the ^oorfs, overflow
me," and " let not the water-Jlood overflow me."
If in English the word retained it-s original mean
ing, tbe latter passage raight be translated " Let
not a shibboleth of waters drown me." There is
no mystery in this particular word. Any word be
ginning with the sound sh would have answered
equally well as a test.

a In proper names not naturalized in En{;;lish
Ihrough the LXX., the Hebrew form is retained, as in
Mephibosheth, Ishbosheth The latter name is melted
dowu in the LXX. to 'lejSoo-e'*' ; as, with the i* ferm6
fche JTrench have softened many lAtiu words fcieginning

SHIELD
Before the introduction of vowel-points (wliicli
took place not earlier than the 6th century .s.. i>.,
there was nothing in Hebrew to distmguish the
letters Shin and Sin, so it could not be known by
the eye in reading when h was to be sounded
after s, just as now in English there is notiiing to
show that it should be sounded in the words sugar,
Asia, Persia ; or in German, according to the
most comraon pronunciation, after s in the words
Sprache, Spiel, Sturm, Stiefel, and a large class
of similar words. It is to be noted that the sound
sh is unknown to the Greek language, as the Eng
lish th is unknown to so many modern languages.
Hence in the Septuagint proper names commence
simply with s, which in Hebrew commence with
sh ; and one result has been that, through the Sep
tuagint and the Vulgate, some of these names,
such as Samuel, Samson, Simeon, and Solomon,
having become " naturalized in tbe Greek form in
the English language, have been retained in this
form in the English version of the O. T. Hence,
likewise, it is a singularity of the Septuagint ver
sion that, in the passage in Judg. xii. 6, the
translator could not introduce tbe word " Shib
boleth," and has substituted one of its translar
tions, ffTaxos, " an ear of com," which tells the
original story by analogy. It is not impossible
that this word may ha\'e been ingeniously preferred
to any Greek word signifying " stream," oi
" flood," from its first letters being rather harsh-
sounding, independently of its containing a gut
tural. E. T.
SHIB'MAH (np^b, i. e. Sibmah Icoolness
or fragrance]: Se^a/ict: Sabama). One of the
places on the east of Jordan which were taken
possession of and rebuilt by the tribe of Reuber
(Num. xxxii. 38). It is probably the same with
Shebam (^. e. Sebam) named in tbe list at the be
ginning of the chapter, and is certainly identical
with Sibmah, so celebrated at a, later date for its
vines. Indeed, the two names are precisely the
same in Hebrew, though our translators' have
chosen to introduce a difference. Sibmah, and
not Shibniah, is the accurate representative of the
Hebrew origmal. G.
SHIC'RON (tl"l?tt7 [dru7ikenness]: 2ok-
Xt»>6'^ Alex. AKKapcova: Sechrona). One of the
landmarks at the western end of the north boun
dary of Judah (Josh. XV. II, only). It lay between
Ekron (Akir) and Jabneel {Yebna), the port at
which tbe boundary ran to the sea. No trace of
the name has been discovered between these two
places, whicb are barely four miles apart. The
Alex. LXX. (with an unusual independence of the
Hebrew text) has evidently taken Shicron as a
repetition of Ekron, but the two names are too
essentially different to allow of this, which is not
supported by any other version.^ The Targum
gives it Shicaron, and with this agrees Eusebius
{Onom. Aaxojpav), though no knowledge of the
locality of the place is to be gained frora his notice. G.
SHIELD (naVi )yO', tibtt?; nnnb).

with st, such as Studium = ^tude, Strense = Etrennes
etc., etc.
& * More probably the ini ial % was omitted acci
dentally in the Alex. MS. on account of the EI2 pre
ceding. Tbe reading of Oomp. and Ale", is ets Soxva
pS)va. ^.

SHIGGAIOK
rhe three first of the Hebrew terms quoted have
tieen already noliced under the head of Akms,
fvhere it is stated that the tzinndh was a large ob~
long shield or target, covering the whole body ; that
the mdgSn was a small, round or oval shield ; and
that tbe term shelet Is of doubtful import, applying
to some ornamental piece of armor. To these we
niayaddsocAeid/i, a poetical term occurring only in
I'b. xci. i. The ordinary shield consisted of a frame
work of wood covered with leather; it thus admit
ted of being burnt (Ez. xxxix. 9). The magen was
frequently cased with metal, either brass or copper;
its appearance in this case resembled gold,« when
the sun shone on it (1 Mace. vi. 39), and to this,
rather than to the practice of smearing blood on the
shield, we may refer the redness noticed by Nahum
(ii. iJ). The surface of the shield was kept bright
Ijy the application of oil, as implied in Is. xxi. 6 ;
hence Saul's shield is described as <Miot anointed
with oil," i. e. dusty and gory (2 Sam. i. 21). Oil
would be as useful for the metal as for the leather
shield. In order to preserve it from the effects
of weather, the shield was kept covered, except in
actual conHict (Is. xxii. 6; comp. Cles. B. G. ii.
21; Cic. Nat. Dear. ii. 14). The shield was worn
on the left arm, to which it was attached by a
strap. It was used not only in the field, but also
in besieging towns, when it served for the protec
tion of the head, the combined shields of the be
siegers forming a kind of testudo (Ez. xxvi. 8).
Shields of st.ate were covered with beaten gold.
Solomon made such for use in religious processions
(1 K. A. 16, 17); when these were carried off they
were replaced by shields of brass, which, as being
less valuable, were kept in the guard-room (1 K.
xiv. 27), while the former had been suspended in
the palace for ornament. A large golden shield
was sent as a, present to the Romans, when the
treaty with them was renewed by Simon Maccabseus
(1 Mace. xiv. 24, xv. 18); it was intended as a
token of alliance (tripfioXov ttjj aoppax^as, Jo
seph. Ant. xiv. 8, § 5), but whether any symbolic
significance was attached to the shield in particular
as beuig the weapon of protection, is uncertain.
Other instances of a similar present occur (Suet.
Calig. 16), as well as of complimentary presents of
a different kind on the part of allies (Cic. Verr.
2 Act. iv. 29, § 67). Shields were suspended about
public buildings for ornamental purposes (1 K. x.
17; 1 Mace. iv. 57, vi. 2); this was particularly
the case with the shields (assuming shelet to have
this meaning) which David took from Hadadezer
(2 Sam. viii. 7 ; Cant. iv. 4), and which were after
wards turned to practical account (2 K. xi. 10; 2
Chr. xxiii. 9 ) ; the Uammadim similarly suspended
them about their towers (Ez. xxvii. 11; see Gam ma-
niMS). In the metaphorical language of the Bible
the shield generally represents the protection of God
(e. g. Ps. iii. 3, xxviii. 7); but in Ps. xlvii. 9 it is
applied to earthly rulers, and in Eph. vi. 16, to
liiith. W. L. B.
SHIGGA'ION [3 syl.] CjVatt? : VaKp6s:
Psalmus), Pa. vii. 1. A particular kind of psalm,
the specific character of wliich is now not known.
In the singular number the word occurs no
where in Hebrew, except in the inscription of the
'th Psalm, and there seems to be nothing peculiar

SHIGGAION

29&'

a En the passage quoted, the shields carried by the
i^ldiers of Antiochus are said to have been actuaUy
If gold. This, boweve *, must have been a mistake,

in that psalm to distinguish it from numerous
others, in which the author gives utterance to his
feelings against his enemies, and implores the as
sistance of Jehovah against tbem; so that the eon-
tents of the psalm justify no conclusive inference
as to the meaning of the word. In the inscription
to the Ode of the Prophet Habakkuk (iii. 1 ), the
word occurs in the plural number: but the phrase
in which it stands " 'al shigydnoth " is deemed al
raost unanimously, as it would seem, by modern
Hebrew scholars to mean " after the manner of the
Shiggaion," and to be merely a direction as to tho
kind of musical measures by whicb the ode wm to
be accompanied. This being so, the ode is no real
help in ascertaining the meaning of Shiggaion ; for
the ode itself is not so called, though it is directed
to be sung according to the measures of the shig
gaion. And, indeed, if it were called a shiggaion,
the difficulty would not be diminislietl; for, inde
pendently of the inscription, no one would have
ever thought that the ode and the psalm belonged
to the same species of sacred poem ; and even since
their possible similarity has been suggested, no one
has definitely pointed out in what that similarity
consists, so as to justify a distinct classification.
In this state of uncertainty it is natural to en
deavor to form a conjecture as to the meaning oi
shiggaion from its etymology; hut unfortunately
there are no less than three rival etymologies, each
with plausible claims to attention. Gesenius and
Fiirst, 5. v., concur in deriving it from mSK? (the
Piel of njty)^ in the sense of magnifying or ex
tolling with praises; and they justify this deriva
tion by kindred Syriac words. Shiggaion would
thus mean a hymn or psalm : but its specific mean
ing, if it has any, as applicable to the 7th Psalm,
would continue unknown. Ewald, Die Poetischen
Biicher des Alten Bundes, i. 29 ; Rodiger, ». v. in
his continuation of Gesenius' Thesaurus ; and De
litzsch, Commentar iiber den Psalter, i. 51, derive
it from nnty, in the sense of reeling, as from wine,
and consider the word to be somewhat equivalent
to adithyrambus; while De Wette, Die Psalmen,
p. 34, Lee, s. v., and Hitzig, Die Zwolf kleinen
Propheten, p. 26, interpret the word as a psalm oi
lamentation, or a psalm ui distress, as derived from
Arabic. Hupfeld, on the other hand. Die Psalmen,
i. 109, 199, conjectures that shiggaion is identical
with Iliggaion, Ps. ix. 16, in the sense of poem or
song, from n^n, to meditate or com^jose; but even
so, no information would be conveyed as to tbe
specific nature of the poem.
As to the inscription of Habakkuk's ode, " 'al
shigyondth,^^ the translation of the LXX. is fierh
(pBrjst which conveys no definite meaning. The
Vulgate translates " pro ignorantiis," as if the
word bad been shegdgoih, transgressions through
ignorance (Lev. iv. 2, 27; Num. xv. 27; Eccl. v.
6), or shegidth (Ps. xix. 13), which seems to have
nearly the sarae raeaning. Perhaps the Vulgate
was influenced by the Targum of Jonathan, where
shigydndih seeras to be translated WH") /127D.
In the A. V. of Hab. iii. 1, the rendering is '' upon
sbigionoth,*' as if shigionoth were some musical
instrument. But under any circumstances 'ol
as even silver shi'Jds were very rare (Diod. Sic. xtU
57).

2996 SHiHON
C^V) must not he translated "upon," in the sense
jf playing upon an instrument. Of this use there
is not a single undoubted example in prose, although
flaying on musical instruments is firequently re
ferred to ; and in poetry, although there is one pas
sage, Ps. xcii. 3, where the word miglit be so trans
lated, it might equally well be rendered there "to
the accompaniment of" the musical instruments
therein specified — and this translation is preferable.
It seems likewise ^ mistake that ^ai is translated
*^ upon " when preceding the supposed musical in
struments, Gittith, Machalath, Neglnath, Nechl-
16th, Shiishan, Shoshannim (Ps. viii. 1, Ixxxi. 1,
kxxiv. 1, liii. 1, Ixxxviii. 1, 1x1. 1, v. 1, Ix. 1, xiv.
1, Ixix. 1, ixxx. 1). Indeed, all these words are
regarded by Ewald (Poet. Biich. i. 177) as mean
ing musical keys, and by FUrst (s. mi) as mean
ing musical bands. Whatever may be thought of
the proposed substitutes, it is very singular, if those
six words signify musical instruments, that not one
of them should he mentioned elsewhere in the whole
Bible. E. T.
SHI'HON OlN'^tt?', i. e. Shion : Stwm;
[Alex. Seiav:] Seon). A town of Issachar, named
only in Josh. xix. 19. It occurs between Ha-
phraini and Anaharath. Eusebius and Jerome
(Onomast.) mention it as then existing "near
Mount Tabor." The only name at all resembling
it at present in that neighborhood is the Ch'irbel
Sclii'in of Dr. Schulz (Zimmermann's Map of Gal
ilee, 1861) li mile N. W. of Deburieh. This is
probably the place mentioned by Schwarz (p. 166 )
as " Sain between Duberieh and Jafa.^^ The
identification is, however, very uncertain, since
Sclii'in appears to contain the Ain, while the He
brew name does not.
The redundant A in the A. V. is an error of the
recent editions. In that of 1611 the name is
Shion. Q.
SHI'HOE OF EGYPT (D^'D?? "l'"in''t£7 :
opia Alybn-Tov : Sihor ./Egypd, 1 Chr. xiii. 5 ) is
spoken of as one limit of the kingdom of Israel in
David's time, the entering in of Hamath being the
other. It must correspond to " Shihor," " the
Shihor which [is] before Egypt " (Josh. xiii. 2, 3),
A. v. " Sihor," sometimes, at least, a name of the
Nile, occurring in other passages, one of whieh
(where it has the article) is parallel to this. The
use of the article indicates that the word is or has
been an appellative, rather the former if we judge
only from the complete phrase. It must also be
remembered that Shihor Mizraim is used inter-
ehangealiiy with Nahal Mizraim, and that tlie
name Shihoe-Libnath, in the north of Palestine,
unless derived frora the Egyptians or the Phceni
cian colonists of Egypt, as we are disposed to think
possible, from the connection of that country with
the ancient manufacture of glass, shows that the
word Shihor is not restricted to a great river. It
would appear therefore that Shihor of Egypt and
"the Shihor which [is] before Egypt" might des
ignate the stream of the Wddi-W Areesh : Shihor
alone would still be the Nile. On the other hand,
both Shihor, and even Nahal, alone, are names of
the Nile, while Nahal Mizraim is used interchange-
»bly with the river 0(13, not vn3) of Mizraim.
We therefore are disposed to hold that all the
aames designate the Nile. The fitness of the

SHIHOK-LXBNATH
name Shihor to the Nile must be remembered
[Nile; Rivek of Egypt; Sihor.] R. S. P.
* It is difficult to adjust all the Biblical refer
ences to Shihor, to the river Nile. In Isaiah xxiii.
3, the exports of Egypt, especially in grain, are
spoken of as contributing to swell the commerce oi
Tyre: "By great waters the seed of Shihor, the
harvest of Yeor, is her revenue." This must refer
to the Nile as the cause of the fertility of Egypt.
Again, in Jeremiah ii, 18, where the Lord is expos
tulating with Israel for seeking help from Egypt and
Assyria, the Nile is evidently referred to as the
water of which the Egyptians drink, and as answer
ing to the Euphrates : " What hast thou to do in
the way of Egypt, to drink the waters of Shihor,
or what hast thou to do hi the way of Assyria, to
drink the waters of the river? "
But the meaning is less clear where Shihor is
spoken of as the boundary between Egypt and Ca
naan. Just before his death Joshua described the
land on the south that remained to be possessed, as
" all the borders of the Philistines, and all Geshun,
from Sihor which is before l%ypt " (Josh. xiii. 3);
and David, when taking the ark up to Jerusalem, is
said to have " gathered all Israel together, from Shi
hor of Egypt even unto the entering of Hamath "
(1 Chr. xiii. 5). Joshua may have had in view the
lireadth of dominion promised to Abraham; but
certainly in his day the Egyptians themselves did
not limit tlieir territory eastward at the Nile ; and
there is no evidence that the kingdom of David in
its highest prosperity, ever extended literally to the
bank of the Nile. Hence, if the description in
these passages is taken with geographical accuracy,
the Shihor before Egypt must denote the WddiA-
^Areesh ; but if taken with the latitude of prophetic
or poetic description it may also denote the Nile,
and so be brought into harmony with the passages
cited above. Only in this way can the name be
relieved of its apparent ambiguity. J. P. T.
SHI'HOR-LIB'NATH (Ponb -)^^''W
[see below] : rip Siiiv [Vat. Seion/] ual Aa$avde;
Alex. Setaip k. A- : Sihor et Labanalh). Named only
in Josh. xix. 26 as one of the landmarks of the boun
dary of Asher. Nothing is known of it. By the
ancient translators and commentators (as Peshito-
Syriac, and Eusebius and Jerome in the Onomasticon^
the names are taken as belonging to two distinct
places. But modern commentators, beginning per
haps with Masius, have inclined to consider Shihor as
identical with the name of the Nile, and Shihor-Lib-
nath to be a river. I..ed by the meaning of Libnath
as " white," they interpret the Shihor-1 jbnath as the
glass river, which they then naturally identify with
the Belus" of Pliny (ff. AT. v. 19), the present
Nahr Naman, which drains part of the plain of
Akka, and enters the Mediterranean a short dis
tance below that city. It is a pity to disturb a
theory at once so ingenious and so consistent, and
supported by the great name of Michaelis (SuppL
No. 2462), but it is surely very far-fetched. There
is nothing to indicate that Shihor-Libnath is a
stream at all, except the agreement of the first por
tion of the name with a rare word used ^or the
Nile — a river whieh can have nothing in common
with an insignificant streamlet like the Naman,
And even if it he a river, the position, of the Na-

a It is singular, too, that Josephus should Rtatt
that there was a monument of Memnon staiidinircioas
to the Belus (£. /. ii. 10. S 21.

SHILHI
nan is uoB-J:table, since, as far as can be gathered
from the very obscure list in which the name oo-
Burs, Shihor-Libnath was the south pivot of the
territory of Asher, below Mount Carmel. Eeland's
conjecture of the Crocodeilon river, probalily thi
Moieh et- Temseh, close to Kaisaiiyeh, is too far
south. G.
SHIL'HI Onba? [perh. armed] : 2oAat,
Sa\l; [Vat. Sepeii, Sa\ei;] Alex. SaKaKa, 2a-
\6i: Salai, Selalii). The father of Azubah, Je-
hoshaphat's mother (1 K. xxii. 42; 2 Chr. xx. 31).
SHIL'HIM (Cnbtf? [armed men, Ges.;
fountains, Fiirst]: SaK'ii; Alex. Se\eetp.: Seliin).
One of the cities in the southern portion of the
tribe of Judah. Its place in the list is between
Lebaoth and Ain, or Ain-Rimmon (Josh. xv. 32),
and it is not elsewhere mentioned. It is not even
named by Eusebius and Jerome. No trace of it
has yet heen discovered. In the list of Simeon's
cities m Josh, xix., Sharuhen (ver. 6) occupies
the place of Shilhim, and in 1 Chr. iv. 31 this is
still further changed to Siiaak.\im. It is difficult
to say if these are mere corruptions, or denote any
actual variations of name.
The juxtaposition of Shilhim and Ain has led to
the conjecture that they are identical with the Sa
lim and jEnoii of St. John the Baptist : but their
position in the south of Judah, so reraote from the
scene of St. John's labors and the other events of
the Gospel history, seems to forbid this. G.
SHIL'LBM (Dvit£7 [requital] : So\\-l}p, Se\-
Ki\p [Vat. -A?)] ; Alex. SuWrip in Geu. : Sallem,
Sellem). Son of Naphtali, and ancestor of the
family of the Shillemites (Gen. xlvi. 24; Num.
xxvi. 49). The same as Shallum 7.
SHIL'LBMITES, THE C'Sl^t^n [patr.,
as above] : 6 SeWrjpi [Vat. -pa] : Sellemitce). The
descendants of Shillem the son of NaphtaU (Num.
xxvi. 49).
SHILO'AH, THE WATERS OF (''D
n^tJ^n [sending forth]: rh SStoprovSeiKaidp;
Alex. Sif^ioap: Saad. ^j'jXm/ i^vA*-. Jiin
Selwdn : aquae S'lloe). A certain soft-flowing
stream employed by the prophet Isaiah (viii. 6) to
pouit his comparison between the quiet confidence
in Jehovah which he was urging on the people, and
the overwhelming violence of the king of Assyria,
for whose alliance they were clamoring.
There is no reiison to doubt that the waters in
question were the same which are better known
under their later name of SiLOAM — the only per
ennial spring of Jerusalem. Objection has been
taken to the fact that the " waters of Siloam " run
with an iiTegular intermittent action, and therefore
could hardly be appealed to as flowing " softly."
But the testimony of careful investigators (Rob.'Si6i.
Res. i. 341, 342; Barclay, City, p. 516) establishes
the fact that the disturbance only takes place, at the
oftenest, two or three times a day, say three to four
hours out of the twenty-four, the flow being " per
fectly quiescent " during the rest of the time. In
summer the disturbance only occurs once in two or
Jhree days. Such interruptions to the quiet flow

SHILOH

2997

a Xhe Targum Jonathan, Peshito, and Arabic Ver-
tlooB of 1 K. i. 83, read Shiloab for the Qihon nf the
ffabrew.

of the stream would therefore not intv .-fere with the
contrast enforced iu the piopbet's metaplior.
The form of the narae employed by Isaiah i^
midway between tbe has-Shelach of Nelieraiah (A.
V. Siloaii) and the Siloam of the N. T. A sim
ilar change is noticed under SiiiLo:!ii.
The spring and pool of Siloam aie treated of
under that head. G.
SHI'LOH (n'b'^tt?: tA 'airoKeipiya abr^i
qid mittendus est). In the A. V. of the Bible, Shi
loh is once used as the name of a person, in a verj
difficult passage, in the 10th verse of tbe 49th chap
ter of Genesis. Supposing that the translation is
correct, the meaning of the word is l^eaceable, oi
Pacific, and the aUusion is either to Solomon, whose
name has a similar signification, or to the expected
Messiah, who in Is. ix. 6 is expressly called tbe
Prince of Peace. Tbis was once the translation of
Gesenius, though he afterwards saw reason to aban-.
don it (see his Lexicon, s. v.), and it is at present
the translation of Hengstenberg in his Christoloyie
des Alten Testaments, p. 69, and of the Grand
Kabbin Wogue, in bis Translation of Genesis, u
work which is approved and recommended by the
Grand Rabbins of- France {Le Pentateuque, ou les
, Cinq Livres de Moise, Paris, 1860). Both these
writers regard the passage as a Messianic prophecy,
and it is so accepted by the writer of the article
Messiah in this work (vol. iii. p. 1906j.
But, on the other hand, if the original Hebrew
text is correct as it stands, there are three objec
tions to this translation, which, taken collectively,
seem fatal to it. 1st. The word Shiloh occm's no
where else in Hebrew^ as the name or appellation o(
a person. 2dly. 1'he only other Hebrew word,
apparently, of the same form, is Giloli (Josh. xv.
51; 2 Sara. xv. 32); and this is the narae of a city.
and not of a person. 3dly. By translating the
word as it is translated everywhere else in tiie Bible,
namely, as the name of tbe city in Ephraim where
the Ark of the Covenant remained during such a
long period, a sufficiently good meaning is given to
the passage without any violence to the Hebrew
language, and, indeed, with a precise grammat
ical parallel elsewhere (compare H ptp WH^I, 1
Sam. iv. 12). The simple translation is, " The
sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's
staff from between his feet, till he shall go to Shi
loh." And, in this case, the allusion would be to
the primacy of Judah in war (Judg. i. 1, 2, xx. 18;
Num. ii. 3, x. 14), which was to continue until the
Promised Land was conquered, and the Ark of the
Covenant was solemnly deposited at Shiloh. Some
Jewish writers had previously maintained that Shi
loh, the city of Ephraim, was referred to in this
passage ; and Servetus had propounded the same
opinion in a fanciful dissertation, in which he at
tributed a double raeaning to the words {De Trin-
itnte, Hb. ii. p- 61, ed. of 1553 a. d.). But the
above translation and explanation, as proposed and
defended on critical grounds of reasonable validity,
was fii'st suggested in modern days by Teller {NuUb
Criticce et Exegeticce in Gt-n. xlix., Deut., xxxiii.,
Ex. XV., Jiidg. v., Halffi et Helmstadii, 1766), and
it has since, with modifications, found favor with
numerous learned men belonging to various schools
of theology, such as Eichhorn, Hitzig, Tuch, Bleek,
Ewald, Delitzsch, Rodiger, Kalisch, Luzzatto, and
David.son. The objections to this interpretation are set forth

2998 SHILOH
»t length by Hengstenberg (/. c. ), and the reasons
in its favor, with an account of the various inter
pretations which have been suggested by others, are
well given by Davidson (Introduction lo the Old
Testament, i. 199-210). Supposing always that
'.he existing text is correct, the reasons in favor of
Teller's interpretation seem much to preponderate.
It may be observed that the main obstacle to hiter-
preting tlie word Shiloh in its simple and obvious
meaning seems to arise from an imaginative view
of the prophecy respecting the Twelve Tribes, which
finds in it raore than is justified by a sober exami
nation of it. Thus Hengstenberg says : " The tem
poral limit which is here placed to the preeminence
of Judah would be in glaring contradiction to
verses 8 and 9, in which Judah, without any tem
poral limitation, is raised to be the Lion of God."
But the allusion to a lion is simply the following:
" .ludah is a lion's whelp : from the prey, my son,
thou art gone up : he stooped down, he couched as
a lion, and as an old lion ; who shall rouse him
up? " Now, bearing in nihid the general coloring
of oriental imagery, there is nothing in this pas
sage which makes a reference to the city Shiloh
improbable. Again, Hengstenberg says that the
visions of Jacob never go into what is special, but
always have regard to the future as a whole and on
a great scale (ivi ganzen und grossen). If this is
so, it is nevertheless compatible with the following
geographical statement respecting Zebulun,; " Zeb
ulun shall dwell at the haven of the sea, and he
shall be for an haven of ships, and his liorder shall
be unto Zidon." It is likewise compatible, with
prophecies respecting some of the other tribes,
which, to any one who examined Jacob's blessing
minutely with lofty expectations would be disap
pointing. Thus of Benjamin, within wliose terri
tory the glorious Temple of Solomon was afterwards
buUt, it is merely said, " Benjamin shall ravin as a
wolf; in the morning he shall devour the prey, and
at night he shall divide the spoil." Of Gad it is
said, " A troop shall overcome him, but he shall
overcome at the last." Of Asher, "Out of Asher
his bread shall be fat, and he shall yield royal
dainties." And of Naphtali, " Naphtali is a hind
let loose; he giveth goodly words " (Gen. xlix. 19,
20, 21, 27). Indeed the diff'erence (except in the
blessing of Joseph, in whose territory Shiloh was
situated) between the reality of the prophecies and
the demands of an imaginative mind, explains, per
haps, the strange statement of St. Isidore of Pelu
sium, quoted hy Teller, that, when Jacob was about
to announce to his sons the future mystery of the
Incarnation, he was restrained hy the finger of
God; silence was enjoined him: and he was seized
with loss of memory. See the letter of St. Isidore,
Lib. i. Epist. 365, in Bibliotheca Maxima Patrmn,
Tii. 570.
2. The next best translation of Shiloh is per
haps that of " Rest." The passage would then run
thus : " The sceptre shall not depart from .ludah
.... till rest come, and the nations obey him "
— and the reference would be to the Messiah, who
was to spring from the tribe of Judah. This
translation deserves respectful consideration, as
having been ultimately adopted by Gesenius. It

a This writer, however, was so fknciful, that no re-
iance can be placed on his judgment on any point
where it was possible for him to go wrong. Thus
his paraphrase of the prophecy respecting BeDJamin
ifl ; " Ihe shecbinah shall abide in the land of Bei^a-

SHILOH
was preferred by Vater, and is defended by Knolrel
in the Exegetisches Handbuch, Gen. xlix. 10. There
is one objection less to it than to the use of Shiloh
as a person, and it is not without some probability.
Still it remains subject to tbe objection that Shiloh
occurs nowhere else in the Bible except as the name
of a city, and that by translating the word here as
the name of a city a reasonably good raeaning may
be given to the passage.
3. A third explanation of Shiloh, on the as
sumption that it is not the name of a person, is a
tranblation by various learned Jews, apparently
countenanced by the Targum of Jonathan, that
Shiloh merely means " his son," i. e. the son ot
Judah (in the sense of the Messiah), from a sup
posed word Shil, " a son." There is, however, no
such word in known Hebrew, and as a plea for its
possible existence reference is made to an Arabic
word, shalil, with the same signification. This
meaning of " his son " owes, perhaps, its principal
interest to its having been substantially adopted by
two such theologians as Luther and Calvin. (See
the Commentaries of each on Gen. xlix. 10.) Lu
ther connected the word with Schilyah in Deut.
xxviii. 57, but this would not now be deemed per
missible. The translation, then, of Shiloh as the name of
a city is to be regarded as the soundest, if the pres
ent Hebrew text is correct. It is proper, however,
to bear in mind the possibility of there being some
error in that text. When Jerome translated the
word " qui missus est," we may be certain that he
did not read it as Shiloh, but as some form of
nv££7, " to send," as if the word 6 aireo-ToV
pevos might have been used in Greek. We may
likewise be certain that the translator in the Sep
tuagint did not read the word as it stands in our
Bibles. He read it as n'bc»= "iVK7, precisely
corresponding to 1 V "It^M, and translated it well
by the phrase ra hrroKeipeva aiirqi ; so that the
meauing would be, " The sceptre shall not depart
from Judah .... till the things reserved for him
come." It is most probable that Ezekiel read the
word in the same way when he wrote the words
taQ^'an iVnaJif sanp (Ez. xxi. 32, in
the A. V. verse 27);"and it seems likely, though
not certain, that the author <¦ of the Paraphrase of
Jacob's last words in the Targum of Onkelos fol
lowed the reading of Ezekiel and the Septuagint,
substituting the word SD^Sba for the tDDE7D
of Ezekiel. It is not meant by these remarks that
n 7ti7 is more likely to have been correct than
Shiloh, though one main argument against n'bct?,
that W occurs nowhere else in the Pentateuch as
an equivalent to ~ltI7N, is inconclusive, as it occurs
in the song of Deborah, which, on any hypothesis,
must be regarded as a poem of great antiquity.
But the fact that there were difTerent readings, in
former times, of this very difficult passage, necessa
rily tends to suggest the possibiUty that the correct
reading may have been lost.

min ; and in his possession a sanctuary shall be builL
Morning and evening the priests shall offer oblations j
and in the evening they shall divide the residue a
their portion."

SHILOH
Whatever interpretation of the present reading
may be adopted, the one which mu.st be pronounced
entitled to the least consideration is that which
supposes the prophecy relates to the birth of Christ
as occurring in the reign of Herod just liefore Ju-
diea became a Eoman province. There is no such
mterpretation in the Bible, and however ancient
this mode of regarding the passage may be, it must
submit to the ordeal of a dispassionate scrutiny.
In the first place, it is impossible reasonably to re
gard tbe dependent rule of King Herod the Idu-
miean as an instance of the sceptre being still borne
by Judah. In order to appreciate the precise posi
tion of Herod, it may be enough to quote the un
suspicious testimony of Jerome, who, in his Com
mentaries on Matthew, Uh. iii. c. 22, writes as
follows: "Csesar Augustus Plerodem filium Anti
patris alienigenam et proselytum regera Judseis con-
stituerat, qui iiibutis pr-.eessel, et Romano pareret
impeino." Secondly, it must be remembered that
about 588 years before Christ, Jerusalem had been
taken, its Temple destroyed, and its inhabitants
led away into Captivity by Nebuchadnezzar, king
of the Chaldees, and during tbe next fifty years the
Jews were subjects of the Chaldsean Empire. After
wards, during a period of somewhat above 200
years, frora the taking of I^abylon by Cyrus to the
defeat of Darius by Alexander the Great at Arbela,
Juda^ was a province of the Persian empire. Sub
sequently, during a period of 163 years, frora the
death of Alexander to the rising of tbe Maccabees,
the Jews were ruled by the successors of Alexander.
Hence for a period of more than 400 years from
the destniction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar
the Jews were deprived of their independence ; and,
as a plain, undeniable matter of fact, the sceptre
had already departed from Judah. Without pur
suing this subject farther through the rule of the
Maccabees (a family of the tribe of Levi, and not
of the tribe of Judah) down to the capture of
Jerusalem and the conquest of Palestine by Pom
pey (b. c. 63), it is sufficient to observe that a
supposed 'fulfillment of a prophecy which ignores
the dependent state of Judsea during 400 years
after the destruction of the first Temple, cannot be
regarded as based upon sound principles of inter
pretation. E. T.
SHIXOH, as the name of a place, stands in
Hebrew as H'btt? (Josh, xviii. 1-10), 'ibtt? (1
Sam. i. 24, iii. 21;" Judg. xxi. 19), n'^'^tfJ (1 K,
ii. 27), hb^'tp (Judg. xxi. 21; Jer. vii. 12), and
perhaps also 1*17*^ty, whence the gentile "^D 7**tt?
(1 K. xi. 29, xii. 15): in the LXX. generally as
SrjAii, 2n\d>^; in Judg. xxi. Vat. ^rjXcov^ in Jer.
xii. 5 %a\i\}i, Alex. "ZaXoap^'t in Joseph. Ant. viii.
7, § 7; 11, § 1, etc. 2t\cil; v. 1, § 19; 2, § 9,
StA.oCi'; 2, § 12, ^TjAdJ: and in the Vulg. as Silo^
and more rarely Selo. The name was derived prob
ably frora ^75^) \<^j "to rest," and repre
sented the idea that the nation attained at this
place to a state of rest, or that the Lord himself
would here rest araong his people. Taanath-
Shiloh may be another name of the same place,
or of a different place near it, through which it was
customary to pass on the way to Shiloh (as the
obscure etymology may indicate). [Taanath-
Shiloh.] (See also Kurtz's Gesch. des A. Bund.
U. 569.)

SHJLOH

2999

The principal conditions for identifying with
confidence the site of a place mentioned in the
Bible, are: (1) that the modern name should beai
a proper resemblance to the ancient one; (2) that
its situation accord with the geographical notices
of the Scriptures; and (3) that the statements oi
early writers and travellers point to a coincident
conclusion. Shiloh affords a striking instance of
the combination of these testimonies. The de
scription in Judg. xxi. 19 is singularly explicit.
Shiloh, it is said there, is " on the north side of
Beth-el, on the east side of the highway that goeth
up from Beth-el to Sbechem, and on the south of
Lebonah." In agreement with this the traveller
at the present day (the writer quotes here his own
note-book), going north from Jerusalem, lodges the
first night at Beiiin, the ancient Beth-el ; the next
day, at the distance of a few hours, turns aside to
tbe right, in order to visit Seiliin, the Arabic for
Shiloh ; and then passing through the narrow
Wady, which brings him to the main road, leaves
eULcbbdn, the Lebonah of Scripture, on the left
as he pursues "the highway" to Nablus, the an
cient Shechem. [Shechem.] It was by search
ing for these sites, under guidance of the clew thus
given in Scripture that Dr. liobinson rediscovered
two of them (Shiloh and Lebonah) in 1835. Its
present name is sufficiently like the more familiar
Hebrew name, while it is identical with Shilon
(see above), on which it is evidently founded.
Again, Jerome {ad Zeph. i. 14), and Eusebius
{Onoinast art. "Silo") certainly have Seilfin in
view when they speak of tbe situation of Shiloh
witb reference to Neapolis or Nablus. It discovers
a strange oversight of the data wbich control the
question, that some of tbe older travellers placed
Shiloh at Neby SamwU, about two hours north
west of Jerusalera.
Shiloh was one of the earliest and most sacred
of the Hebrew sanctuaries. The ark of the cove
nant, which had been kept at Gilgal during the
progress of the Conquest (Josh, xviii. 1 f. ), was re
moved thence on the subjugation of the country,
and kept at Shiloh from the last days of Joshua to
the time of Sarauel (Josh, xviii. 10; Judg. xviii.
31; 1 Sara. iv. 3). It was here the Hebrew con
queror divided among the tribes the portion of the
west Jordan-region, which had not been already
allotted (Josh, xviii. 10, xix. 51). In this distri
bution, or an earlier one, Shiloh fell within the
limits of Ephraim (Josh. xvi. 5). After the vic
tory of the other tribes over Benjamin, the national
camp, which appears to have been temporarily at
Bethel, was transferred again to Shiloh (Judg. xxi.
12). [House of God, Amer. ed.] The notice
in that connection that Shiloh was in Canaan
marks its situation on the west of the Jordan as
opposed to Jabesh-Gilead on the east side (Ber
theau, Keil, Cassel). The seizure here of the
"daughters of Shiloh " by the Benjamites is re
corded as an event which preserved one of the
tribes from extinction (Judg. xxi. 19-23). The
annual " feast of the Lord " was observed at Shi
loh, and on one of these occasions, the men lay in
wait in the vineyards, and when the women went
forth "to dance in dances," tbe men took tbem
captive and carried them home as wives. Here
Eli judged Israel, and at laat died of grief on hear
ing that the ark of the Lord was taken by the en
emy (1 Sam. iv. 12-18). The story of Hannah
and her vow, wliich belongs to our recollections ol
Shiloh, transmits to us a characteristic incideul iir

JOOO

SHILOH

the life of the Hebrews (1 Sam. i. 1, etc.). Sam
uel, the child of her prayers and hopes, was here
brought up in the sanctuary, and called to the pro- :
phetie office (1 Sam. ii. 26, iii. 1). The ungodly
conduct of the sons of Eii occasioned the loss of the
ark of tbe covenant, wbich had been carried into
battle against the Philistines, and Shiloh from
that time sank into insignificance. It stands forth
in the Jewish history as 'a striking example of the
Divine indignation. "Go ye now," says the
prophet, " unto my place which was in Shiloh,
where I set my name at the first, and see what I
did to it, for ttie wickedness of my people Israel "
(Jer. vii. 12). Not a single Jewish relic remains
there at the present day. A few broken Corin
thian colurans of the Roman age are the only an
tiquities now to be found on the site of Shiloh.
Some have inferred from Judg. xviii. 31 (comp.
Ps. Ixxviii. 60 f.) that ^. permanent structure or
temple had been built for the Tabemacle at Shiloh,
and that it continued there (as it were sine numine)
for a long time after the Tabernacle was removed to
other places. '^ But the language in 2 Sam. vii. 6
is too explicit to admit of that conclusion. God
says there to David through the raouth ot Nathan
the prophet, " I have not dwelt m any house since
the time that 1 brought up the children of Israel
out of Egypt, even to this diiy, but have walked in
a tent and in a tabernacle." So hi 1 K. iii. 2, it
is said expressly that no ''house" had been built
for the worship of God till the erection of Solo
mon's Temple at Jerusalem. It must be in a spir
itual sense, therefore, that the Tabernacle is called
a "house" or "temple" in those passages which
refer to Shiloh. God is said to dwell where He is
pleased to manifest his presence or is worshipped;
and the place thus honored becomes his abode or
temple, whether it be a tent or a structure of wood
or stone, or even the sanctuary of the heart alone.
Ahijah the prophet bad his abode at Shiloh in the
time of Jeroboam L, and was visited there by tbe
messengers of .leroboam's wife to ascertain the is
sue of tbe sickness of. their child (1 K. xi. 29, xii.
15, xiv. 1, etc.). The people there after the time
ofthe exile (.ler. xii. 5) appear to have been Cuth
ites (2 K. xvii. 30) who had adopted some of the
forms of Jewish worship. (See Hitzig, Zu Jerem.
p. 331.) Jerome, who surveyed the ruins in the
4th century, says: " A'lx ruinarum parva vestigia,
vix altaris fundamenta monstrantur."
The contour of the region, as the traveller views
it on the ground, indicates very clearly where the
ancient town must have stood. A Tell, or moder
ate hill, rises from an uneven plain, surrounded by
other higher hills, except a narrow valley on the
south, which hill would naturally be chosen as the
principal site of the town. The Tabemacle may
nave been pitched on tbis eminence, where it would
be a conspicuous object on every side. Tbe ruins
round there at present are very inconsiderable.
They consist chiefly of the remains of a compara
tively modern village, with which some large stones
and fragments of columns are intermixed, evidently

o * The A. V. speaks of '' the temple of the Lord "
at Shiloh, in 1 Sam. 1. 9, but erroneously, for accord
ing to the Hebrew it should be " palace of the Lord.
That term ( vS'^H) ^^^ applied to the " tabemacle
u well as the " temple." The Vulg. has in like man-
aer, tempbim dorr ini. U.
^ Thip ie on the authority of Dr. Robinson. Dr.

SHILOH
from much earlier times. Near a ruined mosqut
flourishes an immense oak, or terebinth-tree, the
branches of which the winds of centuries have
swayed. Just beyond the precincts of the hill
stands a dilapidated edifice, which combines some
of tbe architectural properties of a fortress and a
church. Three columns with Corinthian capitals
lie prostrate on the floor. An amphora between
two chaplets, perhaps a work of Eoman sculpture,
adorns a stone over the doorway. The natives call
this ruin the " Mosque of Seilun.'^ * At the dis
tance of about fifteen minutes from the maiu^ite
is a fountain, which is approached through a
narrow dale. Its water is abundant, and accord
ing to a practice very common in the East, flows
first into a pool or well, and thence into a larger
reservoir, from which flocks and herds are watered.
This fountain, which would be so natural a resort
for a festal party, may have been the place where
the "daughters of Shiloh" were dancing, when
they were surprised and borne off by their cap
tors. In this vicinity are rock-hewn sepulchres,
in which the bodies of some of the unfortunate
house of Eli may have been laid to rest. There
was a Jewish tradition (Asher's Benj. of Tud. ii.
435) that Eli and his sons were buried here.c
It is certainly true, as some travellers remark,
that the scenery of Shiloh is not specially attract
ive; it presents no feature of grandeur or beauty
adapted to impress the mind and awaken thoughts
in harmony with the memories of tbe place. At
the same time, it deserves to be mentioned that,
for the objects to whicb Shiloh was devoted, it was
not unwisely chosen. It was secluded, and there
fore favorable to acts of worship and reUgious study,
in which the youth of scholars and devotees, like
Samuel, was to be spent. Yearly festivals were cel
ebrated there, and brought together assemblages
which would need the supplies of water and pastur
age so easily obtained in such a place. Terraces
are still visible on the sides of the rocky hills, which
show that every foot and inch of the soil once
teemed with verdure and fertility. The ceremonies
of such occasions consisted largely of processions
and dances, and the place afforded ample scope for
such movements. The surrounding hills served as
an amphitheatre, whence the spectators coxUd look,
and have the entire scene under their eyes. The
position, too, in times of sudden danger, admitted
of an easy defense, as it was a hill itself, and tbe
neighboring hills could be turned into bulwarks.
To its other advantages we should add that of its
central position for the Hebrews on the west of the
Jordan. "It was equidistant," says Tristram,
" from north and south, and easily accessible to the
trans-Jordanic tribes." An air of oppressive still
ness hangs now over all the scene, and adds force
to the reflection that truly the " oracles " so long
consulted there "are dumb;" they had fulfilled
tlieir purpose, and given place to " a more sure
word of prophecy."
A visit to Shiloh requires a detour of several
miles from the ordinary track, and it has been less

Wilson understood it was called " Mosque of the Sixty "
{Sittln) {Lands ofthe Bibtp, ii. 294). [Tbis latter la
the name given also by Sepp, Jerus. und das heil.
Land, ii. 25. — H.]
c * Tbe Palestine Exploration Fund have had pho
tographic views taken of the ruins of the nioaque at
&(7fi/i, of the rock-hewn tombs near the fouiiniin,
and of various ruins, from the northwest. iJ.

SHILONI
frequently described than other more accessible
places. (The reader may consult Keland's Palxs-
tinn, p. 1016; Bachiene's Beschreibung, ii. § 582;
llaumer's Paldst. p. 221 [4te Aufl.] ; Ritter's
Krdk. XV. 631 f. ; Robinson's BibL Res. ii. 269-
276; Wilson's Lands ofthe Bible, ii. 294; Stanley,
Sin. and Pal, pp. 231-233; Porter's BanS. of
Syria, ii. 328; Herzog's Real-Encyk. xiv. 369;
Dr. Sepp, Jerus. und das heil. Land, ii. 25 f. ;
Tristram, Land of Israel, 2d ed. p. 163 f. ; and
Stanley, Lectures on the Jewish Church, i. 308 ff.)
II. B. H.
SHlIiO'KI {"'a'bt^rT, ;. ». "the SMlomte:"
[Vat.] TOU AijAwi/e; [Rom. 2r|\(i)i/i; Alex. HAaiyi;
FA. AriKoivei:] Silonil.es). This word occurs in
the A. V. only in Neh. xi. 5, where it should
bo rendered — as it is in other cases — " the Shi-
limite," that is, the descendant of Shelah the
youngest son of Judah. The passage is giving an
account (lilje 1 Chr. ix. 3-6) of the families of
Jnda'i who lived in .Jerusalem at the date to which
it refji-s, and (Ulte that) it divides them into the
great houses of Pharez and Shelah.
The change of Shelani to Shiloni is the same
which seems to have occurred in the name of
Siloam — Shelaeh in Nehemiah, and Shiloach in
Isaiah. Gt.
SHI'LONITE, THE C^V'^IS^n [see above] ;
in Chron., ">31^"'a;rT and "'aibt^H : [Vat.] o
SriXareirns; [Rom.] Alex. 2r)\Mi'iT7;s! SiUmiles,
[Silonitis]); that is, the native or resident of
Shiloh, — a title ascribed only to Ahijali, the
prophet who foretold to Jeroboam the disruption
of the northern and southeni Idngdoms (1 K. xi.
29, xii. 15, XV. 29; 2 Chr. ix. 29, x. 15). Its con
nection with Shiloh is fixed by 1 K. xiv. 2, i, which
shows that that sacred spot was still the residence
of the prophet. The word is therefore entirely dis
tinct from that examined in the following article
and under Shiloni. G.
SHI'LONITES, THE Oab"*!^?! [see be
low]: [Vat.] rarSriKarei; [Rom. Ale^. SvKairl:]
Siloni) are mentioned among the descendants of
Judah dwelling in Jerusalem at a date difficult to
fix (1 Chr. ix. 5). They are doubtless the niem-
Iiers of the house of Siiei.ah, who in the Penta
teuch are more accurately designated Shklanitks.
Tills is supported by the reading of the Targum
Joseph on the passage — "the tribe of Shelah,''
and is allowed by Gesenius. The word occurs
again in Neh. xi., a document which exhibits a
certain correspondence with 1 Chr. ix. It is iden
tical in the original except a slight contraction, but
in the A. V. it is given as Shiloni.
SHIL'SHAH (nt»^I£7 [triad, Ges.] : Sa\-
ttrd ; [Vat.] Alex. SaKeiffa : Salusa). Son of
Zopliah of the tribe of Asher (1 Chr. vii. 37).
SHIM'EA (M^CttJ [rumor]: Sapad; [Vat.
Sttpav:] Slmmaa). 1. Son of David by Bath
sheba (1 Chr. iii. 5). Called also Sham.iiiia, and
Shammuah. 2. ([Vat. Sopea;] Alex. 2aM"' [Snmaa.]) A
Merarite Levite (1 Clir. vi. 30 [15]).
3. ([2ix/iaa:] Samaa.) A Gershonite Levite,
ancestor of Asaph the minstrel (1 Chr. vi. 39 [24]).
4. (Alex. Sapaas.) The brother of David (1
Chr. XX. 7), elsewhere called Shammah, Shimma,
"Uld Shimeah. 1S9

SHIMEI 3001
SHIM'EAH C'^Dtt? [rumor, fame]; Keri,
H^»27: Sipet; [Vat.] Alex. S^peet: Samaa).
1. Brother of David, and father of Jonathan and
Jonadab (2 Sam. xxi. 21 [where A. V. ed. 1611
reads Shimea]); called also Shammah, Shimea,
and SiiiJiMA. In 2 Sam. xiii. 3, 32, his name is
written PirpttJ (Sapad ; [Vat.] Alex. Safia in
ver. 32: Siiinma).
2. (ifi^l^W: Sapad; [Vat. Sepaa;] Alex.
Sapea: Samaa.) A descendant of Jehiel the father
or founder of Gibeon (1 Chr. viii. 32).
SHIM'EAM (DSBE; [fame, name]: Sapad;
Alex. Sapa: Sampan). A descendant of Jehiel,
the founder or prince of Gibeon (1 Chr. ix. 38).
Called Shimeah in 1 Chr. viii. 32.
SHIM'EATH (n^nt?; [fem. = Shimeah]:
'U/jj>vde, Sapade; [Vat. Sapa,] Aiex. Sapa6 in
Chr. : Semaath, Semmaath). An Ammonitess,
mother of Jozachar, or Zabad, one of the murder
ers of King Joash (2 K. xii. 21 [22] ; 2 Chr. xxiv.
26). * SHIM'EATHITES (D''ril))pE7, patron.:
SapaBdp; Vat. Alex. SapaBieip: rcsmantes), one
of the three families of scribes residing at Jahez
(1 Chr. ii. 55), probably descendants of a certain
Shimea. See Tikathites. A.
SHIM'EI ('VPS? [renowned]: Sepe-i; [in
Zech., SvpLedf; Vat. also Sepeei, Sope^i:] Semei).
1. Son of Gershom the son of Levi (Num. iii. 18;
1 Chr. vi. 17, 29, xxiii. 7, 9, 10; Zech. xii. 13);
called Shimi in Ex. vi. 17. In 1 Chr. vi. 29, ac
cording to the present text, he is called the son of
Libni, and both are reckoned as sons of Merari, but
there is reason to suppose that there is something
omitted in this verse. [See Libni 2; Mahli 1.]
W. A. W.
2. ([Vat.] Alex. S^peei.) Shimei the son of
Gera, a Benjamite of the house of Saul, who lived
at Bahurim. His residence there agrees with the
other notices of the place, as if a marked spot on
the way to and from the Jordan Valley to Jem
salem, and just within the border of Benjamin
[Bahukim.] He may have received the unfor
tunate Phaltiel after his separation from Michal
(2 Sam. iii. 16).
When David and his suite were seen descending
the long defile, on his flight from Absalom (2 Sam.
xvi. 5-13), the whole feeling of the clan of Ben
jamin burst forth without restraint in the person
of Shimei. His house apparently was separated
from the road by a deep valley, yet not sn far as
that anything that he did or said could not be dis
tinctly heard. He ran along the ridge, cursing,
throwing stones at the king and his companions,
and when he came to a patch of dust on the dry
hill-side, taking it up, and throwing it over them.
Abishai was so irritated, that, but for David's re
monstrance, he would have darted across the ravine
(2 Sam. xvi. 9) and torn or cut off" his head. The
whole conversation is remarkable, as showing what
may almost be called the slang terms, of abuse
prevalent in the two rival courts. The cant name
for David in Shimti's mouth is " the man of blood,"
twice emphatically repeated : " Come out, come
out, thou man of blood " — "A man of blood art
thou " (3 Sam. xvi. 7, 8). It seems to have been
derived from the slaughter of the sons of Saul (S

8002

SHIMEI

Sam. xxi.), or generally perhaps from David's pre
datory, warlike life (comp. 1 Chr. xxii. 8). The
cant name for a Benjamite iu Abishai's mouth was
"a dead dog" (2 Sam. xvi. 9; compare Abner's
expression, " Am I a dog's head," 2 Sam. iii. 8).
" Man of Belial " also appears to have been a
fiivorite term on both sides (2 Sam. xvi. 7, xx. 1).
The royal party passed on ; Shimei following them
with his stones and curses as long as they were in
sight. The next meeting was very different. The king
was now returning from his successful campaign.
Just as he was crossing the Jordan, in the ferry
boat or on the bridge (2 Sam. xix. 18 ; LXX. Sia-
$aivovTos, Jos. Ant. vii. 2, § 4, eVl t^v ye(pipav),
the first person to welcome him on the western, or
perhaps even on the eastern side, was Shimei, who
may have seen him approaching from the heights
above. He threw himself at David's feet in abject
penitence. " He was the first," he said, " of all
the house of Joseph,^'' thus indicating the close
political alliance between Benjamin and Ephraim.
Another altercation ensued between David and
Abishai, which ended in David's guaranteeing
Shimei's life with an oath (2 Sam. xix. 18-23), in
consideration of the general jubilee and amnesty
of the return.
But the king's suspicions were not set to rest by
this submission ; and on his death-bed he recalls the
whole scene to the recollection of his son Solonlon.
Shimei's head was now white with age (1 K. ii. 9),
and he was living in the favor of the court at Jeru
salem (ibid. 8). Solomon gave him notice that
from henceforth he must consider himself confined
to the walls of Jerusalem on pain of death. The
Kidron, which divided him from the road to his
old residence at Bahurim, was not to be crossed.
He was to build a house in Jerusalem (1 K. ii. 36,
37). For three years the engagement was kept.
At the end of that time, for the purpose of captur
ing two slaves who had escaped to Gath, he went
out on his ass, and made his journey successfully
(ibid. ii. 40). On his return, the king took him
at his word, and he was slain by Benaiah (ibid. ii.
41-46). In the sacred historian, and still more in
Josephus (Ant. viii. 1, § 5), great stress is laid on
Shimei's having broken his oath to remain at home ;
so that his death is regarded as a judgment, not
only for his previous treason, but for his recent
sacrilege. A. P. S.
3. [Vat. Alex. Sepeei.] One of the adherents
of Solomon at the time of Adonijah's usurpation
(1 K. i. 8). Unless he is the same as Shimei the
son of Elah (1 K. iv. 18), Solomon's commissariat
officer, or with Shimeah, or Shammah, David's
brother, as Ewald (Gesch. iii. 266) suggests, it is
impossible to identify him. From the mention
which is made of " the mighty men " in the same
verse, one might be tempted to conclude that
Shimei is the same with Shammah the Hararite
(2 Sam. xxiii. 11); for the difl'erence in the He
brew names of Shimei and Shammah is not greater
than that between those of Shimeah and Sham
mah, which are both applied to David's brother.
4. [Vat. A; Alex. Septet.] Solomon's com
missariat oflicer m Benjamin (1 K. iv. 18); son
5f Elah.
5. [Vat. omits ; Rom. Sepet ; Alex. Se/iei.]
Son of Pedaiah, and brother of Zerubbabel (1 Chr.
Iii. 19).
6. [Vat Sepen.] A Simeonite, son of Zacchur

SHIMEATH
(1 Chr. iv. 26, 27). He had sixteen sons and sii
daughters. Perhaps the same as Shemaiah 3.
7. [Vat. Alex. Seueei.] Son of Gog, a Reubenite
(1 Chr. V. 4). Perhaps the same as Shema 1.
8. [Vat. Seiteei; Alex. Sepei.] A Gershonite
Levite, son of Jahath (1 Chr. vi. 42).
9. (Sepeia ; [Vat. Eyneei ;] Alex. Sepxi :
Semeias.) Son of Jeduthun, and chief of the tenth
division ofthe singers (1 Chr. xxv. 37). His name
is omitted from the list of the sons of Jeduthun in
ver. 3, but is evidently wanted there.
10. (Stpei; [Vat. Sepeer.] Semeias.) The
Ramathite who was over David's vineyards (1 Chr.
xxra. 27). In the Vat. MS. of the LXX. he ii
described as ^ ^k 'Pa^\.
11. (Alex. Sapeias: Semei.) A Levite of tho
sons of Heman, who took part in the purificatica
of the Temple under Hezekiah (2 Chr. xxix. 14).
12. [Alex. Sepei, Sepe'i.] The brother of Con
oniah the Levite in the reign of Hezekiah, who had
charge of the ofl'erings, the tithes, and the dedicated
things (2 Chr. xxxi. 12, 13). Perhaps the same
as the preceding.
13. (Sa/iov; FA. SafwvS.) A Levite in the
time of Ezra who had married a foreign wife (Ezr.
X. 23). Called also Semis.
14. (Sefiet; [Vat.] FA. Sepieei.) One of the
family of Hashum, who put away his foreign wife
at Ezra's command (Ezr. x. 33). Called Semei
in 1 Esdr. ix. 33.
15. A son of Bani, who had also married a
foreign wife and put her away (Ezr. i. 38). Called
Samis in 1 Esdr. ix. 34.
16. (Sep€ias; [Vat. FA.] Sefieeias-) Son of
Kish a Benjamite, and ancestor of Mordecai (Esth.
ii. 5). W. A. W.
SHIM'EON (]il7ntp [a hearing, or famous
one]: Se/ieeou: Simeon). A layman of Israel, of
the family of Harim, who had married a foreign
wife and divorced her in the time of Ezra (Ezr. x.
31). The name is the same as Simeon.
SHIMTII C'VipW : Sa^'tS; [Vat. SapaeiB;] ,
Alex. Sapal: Semei). A Benjamite, apparently
the same as Siiema the son of Elpaal (1 Chr. viii
21). The name is the same as Shimei.
SHIM'I OyW : Sep^i; [Vat. Sepeei; Alex
Se'/j-ef.] Semei =' Shimei 1, Ex. vi. 17).
SHIM'ITES, THE C^ipten [renoumed,
Ges.] : d Seuet ; [Alex. Sepiet :] Semeitica, sc.
familia). The descendants of Shimei the son of
Gershom (Num. iii. 21). They are again men
tioned in Zech. xii. 13, where the LXX. have
Supeciu. SHIMTVEA (WyipC; : Sapad ; Alex. Sapaia'-
Slmmaa). The third son of Jesse, and brother of
David (1 Chr. ii. 13). He is called also Sham
mah, Shimea, and Shimeah. Josephus calls
him Sdpjapos (Ant- vi. 8, § 1), and Sapija (Ant. vii
12, § 2).
SHI'MON {y^tyXD [desert]: SepKiu ; [Vat.
Sfpiaiv:] Alex. Sepeiwv: Simon). The four sons
of Shimon are enumerated in an obscure genealogy
of the tribe of Judah (1 Chr. iv. 20). There is no
trace of the name elsewhere in the Hebrew, but in
the Alex. MS. of the LXX. there is mention made
of " Someion the father of Joman " in 1 Chr. iv.
19, which was possibly the same as Shimon.
SHIM'RATH (nniptjj [watch, guard}

SHIMRI
iapapdS' Samara th). A Benjamite, of the sons
3f Shimhi (1 Chr. viii. 21).
SHIM'RI Ol)??? [vigilant]: Seppi; [Vat.
Sapap;] Alex. Sapjiptas: Semri). 1. A Simeon
ite, son of Shemaiah (1 Chr. iv. 37).
2. (Sapepl; [Vat. FA. So/iiepeii] Alex. Sapapi:
Samri.) The father of Jediael, one of David's
guard (1 Chr. xi. 45).
3. (ZapPpl; [Vat. ZapPpei;] Alex. Sap$pi.)
,\. Kohathite Levite In the reign of Hezekiah, of the
sons of Elizaphan (2 Chr. xxix. 13). He assisted
in the purification of the Temple.
SHIM'RITH OT'l^t? [fem. mgila.nl] :
SapapiiB; [Vat. Sopaiwe ;] Alex. SapapiS :
Semurilli). A Moabitess, mother of Jehozabad,
one of the assassins of King Joash (2 Chr. xxiv.
26). In 2 K. xii. 21, she is called Siiomek. The
Peshito-Syriae gives Neiuruth, which appears to be
a kind of attempt to translate the name.
SHIM'ROM (VT1P?7 [watch-height] : S^pi-
epdy; Alex. Sappap.: 'Simeron). Shimeon the
son of Issachar (1 Chr. vii. 1). The name is cor
rectly given " Shimron " in the A. V. of 1611.
SHIM'RON" (I'T^P?? [watch-height]: Sv-
podv; Alex. Sopepoiv, Seppwv: Semerim, Sem-
ron). A city of Zebulun (Josh. xix. 15). It is pre
viously named in the list of the places whose kings
were called by Jabin, king of Hazor, to his assist
ance against Joshua (xi. 1). Its full appellation
was perhaps Shimkon-mehon. Schwarz (p. 172)
proposes to identify it with the Simonias of Jose
phus (Vita, § 24), now Simuniyeh, a village a
few miles W. of Nazareth, which is mentioned in
the well-known Ust of the Talmud (J eras. Megil
lah, cap. 1) as the ancient Shimron. This has iu
its favor its proximity to Bethlehem (comp. xix.
15). The Vat. LXX., like the Tahnud, omits the
r in the name. G.
SHIM'RON (I'll?!? [see above] : in Gen.
[Kom. Sap^pdv, Alex.] Zap$pap ; in Num.
[Vat.] Sapapap; [Rom. Sapifipdp.;] Alex. Ap-
Bpav: Semron, [Semran]). The fourth son of
Issachar according to the lists of Genesis (xlvi. 13)
and Numbers (xxvi. 24), and the head of the fam
ily of the Shimeonites. In the catalogues of
Chronicles his name is given [in later eds. of the
A. v.] as Shimrom. G.
SHIM'RONITBS, THB Oah^BJn [patr.,
lee above]: [Vat.] o Sapapaver, [Rom. S Sap-
fapl;] Alex. 0 ApPpapu: Semranitos). The fam
ily of Shimbon, son of Issachar (Num. xxvi. 24).
SHIMRON-MEROlSr (I'lMiP l'"np?7
[teatch-height of M., Ges.] ; the Keri omits the N :
Sup6aiy . . . [MapPp^d, Vat.] MappaS; Alex.
Sappiav . . " ^acya . • Maptav: Semeron). The
king of Shimron-meron is mentioned as one of
the thirty-one kings vanquished by Joshua (Josh.
xii. 20). It is probably (though not certainly) the
complete name of the place elsewhere called Shim-
ROn. Both are mentioned in proximity to Achshaph
(xi. 1, xii. 20). It will be observed that the LXX.
treat the two words as belonging to two distinct
places, and it is certainly worth notice that Madon
a This addition, especially in the Alex. MS. — usu
ally BO close to the Hebrew — is remarkable. There
nothing in the original text to suggest it.

SHINAR 3008
— in Hebrew so easily substituted for Meron. and
in fact so read by the LXX., Peshito, and Arabic —
occurs next to Shimron in Josh. xi. 1.
There are two claimants to identity with Shim
ron-meron. The old Jewish traveller hap-Parchi
fixes it at two hours east of Kn-gannim (Jenin),
south of the mountains of Giiboa, at a village called
in his day Dar Meron (Asher's Benjamin, ii. 434).
No modern traveller appears to have explored that
district, and it is consequently a blank on the maps.
The other is the village of Simuniyeh, west of Naza
reth, which the Talmud asserts to be the same with
Shimron. G.
SHIM'SHAI [2 syl.] OtT^EJ [sunny] : Sapr
d/a; [Vat. 2o|iia(ra, Sa^ee, etc.;] Alex. Sapxrat:
Samsai). The scribe or secretary of Rehum, who
was a kind of satrap of the conquered province of
Judsea, and of the colony at Samaria, supported by
the Persian court (Ezr. iv. 8, 9, 17, 23). He was
apparently an Aram«an, for the letter which he
wrote to Artaxerxes was in Syriac (Ezr. iv. 7), and
the form of his name is in favor of this supposition.
In 1 Esdr. ii. he is called Semellius, and by Jose
phus Sep.eXios (Ant. xi. 2, § 1). The Samaritans
were jealous of the return of the Jews, and for
a long time plotted against them without efi'ect.
They appear ultimately, however, to have preju
diced the royal officers; and to have prevailed upon
them to address to the king a letter which set forth
the turbulent character of the Jews and the dan
gerous character of their undertaking, the eff'ect of
which was that the rebuilding of the Temple ceased
for a time.
SHI'NAB (3S?i» [father's tooth]: Sevvaap:
Sennaab). The king of Admah in the time of
Abraham : one of the five kings attacked by the
invading army of Cbedorlaomer (Gen. xiv 2)
Josephus (Ant. i. 9) calls him Seva^dpris.
SHI'NAR ("l??t?7 [see below]: S^vaip,
Seyvadp; [Alex. Sevvaap; see also below:] Sen-
naar) seems to have been the ancient name of the
great alluvial tract through which the Tigris and
Euphrates pass before reaching the sea — the tract
known in later times as Chaldaea or Babylonia. It
was a plain country, where brick had to be used for
stone, and slime (mud?) for mortar (Gen. xi. 3).
Among its cities were Babel (Babylon), Erech or
Orech (Orohoe), Calueh or Calno (probably Niffer),
and Accad, the site of which is unknown. These
notices are quite enough to fix the situation. It
may, however, be remarked further, that the LXX.
render the word by " Babylonia " (BoySuAaiWa) in
one place (Is. xi. 11), and by "the land of Baby
Ion" (y^ BaPukavos) in another (Zech. v'. 11).
[The word also occurs (Josh. vii. 21) in the phrase
rendered in the A. V. Babylonish Garment. —
A.] The native inscriptions contain no trace of the
term, which seems to be purely Jewish, and un
known to any other people. At least it is extremely
doubtful whether there is really any connection be
tween Shinar and Siugara or Sinjar. Singara waa
the name of a town in Central Mesopotamia, weH
known to the Romans (Dion Cass. Ixviii. 22 ; Amm.
Marc, xviii. 5, &c.), and still existing (Layard,
Nin. and Bab. p. 249). It is from this place that
the mountains which run across Mesopotamia from
Mosul to Rakkeh receive their title of " the Sinjai
range" (Siyydpas 6pos, Ptol. v. 18). As this
name first appears in central Mesopotamiai te

3004

SHIP

which the term Shinar is never applied, about the
time of the Antonines, it is very unlikely that it
can represent the old Shinar, which ceased practi
cally to be a geographic title soon after the death
of Moses."
It may be suspected that Shinar was the name
by which the Hebrews originally knew the lower
Mesopotamian country where they so long dwelt,
and which Abraham brought with hini from " Ur
of the Chaldees " (Mugheir). Possibly it means
"the country of the Two Rivers," being derived
from ^3tp, "two" and 'ar, which was used in
Babylonia, as well as nahr or nahar (~in3), for
" a river." (Compare the " Ar-malchar" of Pliny,
//. N. vi. 26, and " Ar-macales" of Abydenus, Fr.
9, with the Naar-malcha of Ammianus, xxiv. 6,
called THappdxa, by Isidore, p. 5, which is trans
lated as "the Royal River;" and compare again
the "Narragam" of Pliny, B. N. vi. 30, with
the "Aracanus" of Abydenus, I. s. c.) G. R.
SHIP. No one writer in the whole range of
Greek and Roman literature has supplied us (it
may be doubted whether all put togetiier have sup
plied us) with so much information concerning the
merchant-ships of the ancients as St. Luke in the
narrative of St. Paul's voyage to Rome (Acts
xxvii., xxviii.). In illustrathig the Biblical side of
this question, it will be best to arrange in order the
various particulars which we learn from this nar
rative, and to use them as a basis for elucidating
whatever else occurs, in reference to the subject, in
the Gospels and other parts of the N. T., in the
0. T. and the Apocrypha. As regards the earUer
Scriptures, the Septuagintal thread wiU be fol
lowed. This wiU be the easiest way to secure the
mutual illustration of the Old and New Testaments
in regard to this subject. The merchant-ships of
various dates in the Levant did not dififer in any
* essential principle ; and the Greek of Alexandria
contains the nautical phraseology which supplies
our best Unguistic information. Two preliminary
remarks may be made at the outset.
As regards St. Paul's voyage, it is important to
remember that he accomplished it in three ships :
first the Adramyttian vessel [Adramyttium]
which took him from C.usaeea to SIyka, and
which was probably a coasting vessel of no great
size (xxvii. 1-6); secondly, the large Alexandrian
corn-ship, in which he was wrecked on the coast of
Malta (xxvii. 6-xxviii. 1 ) [Mei.ita]; and thirdly,
another large Alexandrian corn-ship, in which he
sailed from Malta by Syracuse and Rhegium to
PuTEOLi (xxviii. 11-13).
Again, the word employed by St. Luke, of each
of these ships, is, with one single exception, when
he uses vads (xxvii. 41), the generic term ttKoIov
(xxvn. 2, 6, 10, 15, 22, 30, 37, 38, 39, 44, xxviu.
1 1 ). The same general usage prevails throughout.
lOlsewhere in the Acts xx. 13, 38, xxi. 2, 3, 6) we
have TrKotov. So in St. James (iii. 4), .and in the
Revelation (viu. 9, xviii. 17, 19). In the Gospels
we have ttKoIov (passim) or irKoidptov (Mark iv.
36; John xxi. 8). In the LXX. we find irXoiov
used twenty-eight times, and vavs nine times.
Both words generally correspond to the Hebrew

a In Isaiah aod Zechariah, Shinar, once used by
eftch writer, is an archaism.
b Dr. Wordsworth gives a very interesting illustra-
tloD from Hippolytus, bishop of Portus"(rfc Antichr. 9),

SHIP
^3S or n*3S. In Jon. i. 5, irhoiov is used tc
represent the Hebrew n3"'PP, sephinah, whicb.
from its etymology, appears to mean a vessel cov
ered with a deck or with hatches, in opposition
to an open boat. The senses in which trKdipas
(2 Mace. xii. 3, 6) and axdipri (Acts xxvii. 16,32)
are employed we shall notice as we proceed. The
use of rpiiipris is Umited to a single passage in the
Apocrypha (2 Mace. iv. 20).
(1.) Size of Ancieni Ships. — The narrative
whieh we take as our chief guide affords a good
standard for estimating this. The ship in which
St. Paul was wrecked had 276 persons on board
(Acts xxvii. 37), besides a cargo ((poprlov) of wheat,
(ib 10, 28) ; and aU these passengers seem to have
been taken on to PuteoU in another ship (xxviii. 11 )
which had its own crew and its own cargo ; nor is
there a trace of any difficulty in the matter, though
the emergency was unexpected. Now in English
transport-ships, prepared for carrying troops, it is
a common estimate to allow a ton and a half per
man ; thus we see that it would be a mistake to sup
pose that these Alexandrian corn-ships were very
much smaUer than modern trading vessels. What
is here stated is quite in harmony with other in
stances. The ship in which Josephus was wrecked
( Hi. c. 3), in the same part of the Levant, had
600 souls on board. The Alexandrian corn-ship
described by Lucian (jVavig. s. vota) as driven
into the Piraeus by stress of weather, and as ex
citing general attention from its great size, would
appear (from a consideration of the measurements,
which are explicitly given) to have measured 1,000
or 1,200 tons. As to the ship of Ptolemy Phila
delphus, described by Athenasus (v. 204), this must
have been much larger ; but it would be no more
fair to take that as a standard than to take the
"Great Eastern " as a type of a modern steamer.
On the whole, if we say that an ancient merchant-
ship might range from 500 to 1,000 tons, we are
clearly within the mark.
(2.) Steering Apparatus. — Some commentators
have fallen into strange perplexities from observing
that in -Acts xx\di. 40 (rets ^evKrripias rwv injda-
\iaii/ "the fastenings of the rudders"), St. Luke
uses irriSdhioy in the plural. One even suggests
that the ship had one rudder fastened at the bow
and another fastened at the stem. We may say
of him, as a modern writer says in reference to a
similar comment on a passage of Cicero, " It is
hardly possible that he can have seen a ship."
The sacred writer's use of irriSdKLa is just Ulie
Pliny's use of gubernocula (II. N. xi. 37, 88), or
Lucretius's of guberna (iv. 440). Ancient ships
were in truth not steered at aU by rudders fastened
or hinged to the stem, but by means of two pad
dle-rudders, one on each quarter, acting in a row
lock or through a port-hole, as the vessel might be
small or large.* 1 his fact is made famiUar to us ni
classical works of art, as on coins, and the sculptures
of Trajan's Column. The same thnig is true, not
only of the Mediterranean, but of the early ships
of the Northmen, as may be seen in the Bayeux
tapestry. Traces of the " two rudders " are found
in the time of Louis IX. The hinged rudder first

where, in a detailed allegorical comparison of tbfl
Church to a ship, he says " her two rudders are th«
two Testaments by which she steers her courae."

SHIP
«ppe»rs on the coins of our King Edward III.
Tiiere is nothing out of harmony with this early
system of steering in Jaim. iii. 4, where irriSdKiov
occurs in the singular; for "the governor" or
steersman (6 eiiOivai/) would only use one paddle-
rudder at a time. In a case like that described in
Acts xxvii. 40, where four anchors were let go at
the stem, it would of course be necessary to lash
or trice up both paddles, lest they should interfere
witli the ground tackle. When it became necessary
to steer the ship again, and the anchor-ropes were
cut, the lashings of the paddles would of course be
unfastened. (3. ) Build and Ornaments of tlie HuU. — It is
probable, from what has been said about the mode
of steering (and indeed it is nearly evident from
ancient works of art), that there was no very
marked difference between the bow (iipdjpa, " fore-
ship," ver. 30, "fore part," ver. 41) and tlie stern
(rrpipya, "hinder part," ver. 41; see Mark iv. 38).
The "hold " (koIki), "the sides of the ship," Jonah
i. 5) would present no special peculiarities. One
characteristic ornament (the ^v'^ckos, or aplustre),
rising in a lofty curve at the stern or the bow, is
familiar to us in works of art, but no aUusion to it
occurs in Scripture. Ot two other customary orna
ments, however, one is probably implied, and the
second is distinctly mentioned in the account of St.
Paul's voyage. That personification of ships, which
seems to be instinctive, led the ancients to paint an
eye on each side of the bow. Such is the custom
still in the Mediterranean, and indeed our own sail
ors speak of "the eyes " of a ship. This gives viv
idness to the word kvT0(p6a\pe'iv, which is used
(.\.cts xxvii. 15) where it is said that the vessel
could not "bear up into" (literally "look at")
the wind. This was the vessel in which St. Paul
was wrecked. An ornament of that which took him
on from Malta to Pozzuoli is more explicitly re
ferred to. The " sign " of that ship (irapdaripov.
Acts xxviii. 11) was Castor and Pollux; and
the symbols of these heroes (probably in the form
represented iu the coin engraved under that article)
were doubtless painted or sculptured on each side
of the bow, as was the case with the goddess Isis
on Lucian's ship (^ irptipa t^v iirdyvpoy ttjs
vfiis dehv ^x^uo-a T^v^laiv eKarepoideu, Navig.
c. 6). (4.) Undergirders. — The imperfection of tbe
build, and still more (see below, 6) the peculiarity
of the rig, in ancient ships, resulted in a greater
tendency than in our tinies to the starting of the
planks, and consequently to leaking and foundering.
We see this taking place alike in the voyages of
Jonah, St. Paul, and Josephus ; and the loss of the
fleet of iEneas in Virgil ("laxis laterum compagi-
bus omnes," -A'n. i. 122) may be adduced in illus
tration. Hence it was customary to take on board
pecuUar contrivances, suitably called " helps "
\$ori9eiais. Acts xxvii. 17), as precautions against
such dangers. These were simply cables or chains,
which in case of necessity could be passed round
the frame of the ship, at right angles to its length,
and made tight. The process is in the English
navy called frapping, and many instances could
'je given where it has heen found necessary in
niodern experience. Ptolemy's great ship, in
Athenasus (/. c.),' carried twelve of these under-
girders (uiro^^para). Various allusions to tlie
practice are to bo found in the ordinary classical
writers. See, for instance, Thucyd. i. 29; Plat.
ftep. X. 3, 616; Hor. Od. i. 14, 6. But it is

SHIP 3005
most to our purpose to refer to the inscriptions,
containing a complete inventory of the Athenian
navy, as published by Boeckh { Urkwnden iiber d(i4
Seewesen des Attlschen Staates, Berl. 18^0). The
editor, however, is quite mistaken in supposing (pp.
133-138) that these undergirders were passed round
the body of the ship from stem to stern.
(5.) Anchors. — It is probable tliat the ground
tackle of Greek and Roman sailors was quite as
good as our own. (On the taking of soundings,
see below, 12.) Ancient anchors were similar in
form (as may be seen on coins) to those which we
use now, except that they were without flukes.
Two allusions to anchoring are found in the N. T.,
one in a very impressive metaphor concernin;^
Christian hope (Heb. vi. 19 ). A saying of
Socrates, quoted here by Kypke {ovre vavv 4^
e('!)s ayKvpiov oUtg f3loy iK /j.tas iXtrlSos dp/xi-
(Tatr^ai), niay serve to carry our thoughts to the
other passage, which is part of tbe literal narrative
of St. Paul's voyage at its most critical point.
The ship in which he was sailing had four anchors
on board, and these were aU employed in the nighty
when the danger of falling on breakers was immi
nent. The sailors on this occasion anchored by the
stern {4k irpvpLvr]^ pi^avres ¦ ayKupas reo-aapaSj
Acts xxvii. 29). In tbis there is nothing remark
able, if there has been time for due prepai-ation.
Our own ships of war anchored by tbe stern at
Copenhagen and Algiers. It is clear, too, that
tbis was the right course for the sailors with whora
St. Paul was concerned, for their plan was to run
the ship aground at daybreak. The only motives
for surprise are that they should have been able so
to anchor without preparation in a gale of wind,
and that the anchors should have held on such a
night. Tbe answer to the first question thus sug
gested is that ancient ships, like their modern suc
cessors, the small craft among the Greek islands,
were in the habit of anchoring by tbe stern, and'
therefore prepared for doing so. We have a proof
of this in one of the paintings of Herculaneum,
which illustrates another point already mentioned,
namely, the necessity of tricing up the movable
rudders in case of anchoring by the stem (see ver.
40). The other question, which we have supposed
to arise, relates rather to the holding-ground than
to tbe mode of anchoring; and it is very in
teresting here to quote what an English sailing
book says of St. Paul's Bay in Malta: "While
the cables hold, there is no danger, as the anchors
will never start" (Purdy's Sailing Directions, p.
180). (6.) Masts, Sails, Ropes, and Yai'ds. — These
were collectively called o'kc'^t} or aKev^, or gear
(t^ Se o'v/jLirayra c/ceu^ /coA-elTai, Jul. Poll.). We
find this word twice used for parts of the rigging
in the narrative of the Acts (xxvii. 17, 19). The
rig of an ancient ship was more simple and clumsj
than that employed in modern tinies. Its great
feature was one large mast, with one large square
sail fastened to a yard of great length. Such waa
the rig also of the ships of tbe Northmen at a
later period. Hence the strain upon the hull, and
the danger of starting tbe planks, were greater
than under the present system, wbich distributes
the mechanical pressure mure evenly over fche whole
ship. Not that there weie never more masts than
one, or more sails than one on the same mast, in
an ancient merchantman. But these were repeti
tions, so to speak, of the same general unit ot rig.
In the account of St. Paul's shipwreck very expiJMi

3006 SHIP
mention is made ofthe aprepiiv (xxvu. 40), which
is undoubtedly the "foresail" (not "mainsail," as
in the A. v.). Such a sail woidd be almost neces
sary in putting a large ship about. On that occa
sion it was used in the process of running the vessel
aground. Nor is it out of place here to quote a
Crimean letter in the Times (Dec. 5, 1855); " The
' Lord Eaglan ' (merchant-ship) is on shore, but
taken there in a most sailorlike manner. Directly
her captain found he could not save her, he cut
away his mainmast and mizen, and setting a top
sail on her foremast, ran her ashm-e stem on."
Such a mast may be seen, raking over the bow, in
representations of ships in Eoman coins. In the
0. T. the mast (iVriis) is mentioned (Is. xxxiii.
23); and from another prophet (Ez. xxvii. 5) we

Ancient ship. Prom a painting at Pompeii.

leam that cedar-wood from Lebanon was sometimes
used for this part of ships. There is a third pas
sage (Prov. xxiii. 34, ^SPT tys"1) where the top
of a ship's mast is probably intended, though there
is some sUght doubt on the subject, and the LXX.
take the phrase difTerently. Both ropes (tr^otvia.
Acts xxvii. 32) and sails (iVr/a) are mentioned in
the above-quoted passage of Isaiah; and from
Ezekiel (xxvii. 7) we leam that the latter were
often made of Egyptian linen (if such is the mean.
ing of (rTpw/ivfi). There the word xaXdco (which
we find also in Acts xxvii. 17, 30) is used for low
erhig the saU from the yard. It is interesting here
to notice that the word inrooTsWopat, the tech
nical term for furling a sail, is twice used by St.
Paul, and that in an address delivered in a seaport
in the course of a voyage (Acts xx. 20, 27). It is
one of the very few cases in which the Apostle
employs a nautical metaphor. '
This seems the best place for noticing two other
points of detail. Though we must not suppose
that merchant-ships were habitually propeUed by
rowing, yet sweeps must sometimes have been em
ployed. In Ez. xxvii. 29, oars (iDltCD) are distinct
ly mentioned ; and it seems that oak-wood from
Bashan was used in making them (4k ttjs Baira-
yhiSos iiroiria'au ras Kdjnas irov, ibid. 6). Again,
in Is. xxxiu. 21, lO^t? ""SW literally raeans " a ship
of oar,'^ i. e. an oared vessel. Rowing, too, is
probably impUed in Jon. i. 13, where the LXX.
have simply wape^id^ovro. The other feature of
the ancient, as of the modern ship, is the flag or
tripeiov at the top of the mast (Is. I. c, and xxx.
17). Here perhaps, as in some other respects,
the early Egyptian paintings supply our best iUus-
'jation. (7.) Rate of Sailing. — St. Paul's voyages fur-

SHIP
nish excellent data for approximately estimatiug
thia; and they are quite in harmony with what w«
leam from other sources. We must notice here,
however (what commentators sometimes curiously
forget), that winds are variable. Thus the voyage
between Tkoas and Philippi, accomplished on
one occasion (Acts xvi. 11, 12) in two days, occu
pied on another occasion (Acts xx. 6) five days.
Such a variation might be illustrated by what took
place almost any week between Dublin and Holy
head before the application of steam to seafaring.
With a fair wind an ancient ship would sail fully
seven knots an hour. Two very good instances
are again supplied by St. Paul's experience: in the
voyages from Ctesarea to Sidon (Acts xxvii. 2, 3),
and from Rhegium to PuteoU (Acts xxviii. 13).
The result given by comparing in these cases the
measurements of tirae and distance corresponds
with what we gather from Greek and Latin authors
generaUy ; e. g., from PUny's story of the fresh, fig
produced by Cato in the Roman Senate before the
third Punic war; "This fruit was gathered fresh
at Carthage three days ago: that is the distance
of the enemy from your waUs " (Plin. H. N. xv.
20). (8.) Sailing before ihe wind, and near the wind.
— The rig which has been described is, Uke the rig
of Chinese junks, peculiarly favorable to a quick
run before the wind. We have in the N. T. (Acta
xvi. 11, xxvii. 16) the technical tenu evBvSpopifo
for voyages made under such advantageous condi
tions." It would, however, be a great mistake to
suppose that ancient ships could not work to wind
ward. PUny distinctly says ; " lisdem ventis in
contrarium navigatur prolatis pedibus " (II. N. ii.
48). The superior rig and build, however, of
modem ships enable them to sail nearer to the wind
than was the case in classical times. At one very
critical point of St. Paul's voyage to Rome (Acts
xxvii. 7) we are told that the ship could not hold
on her course (which was W. hy S., from Cnidus
by the north side of Crete) against a violent wind
(pTj irpoffeavTOS ripias tov hvepov) blowing from
the N. W., and that consequently she ran down to
the east end of Ckete [Salmone], and worked
up under the shelter of the south side of the island
(vv. 7, 8). [Fair Havens.] Here the technical
terms of our sailors have been employed, whose
custom is to divide the whole circle of the compass-
card into thirty-two equal parts, called points. A
modern ship, if the weather is not very boisterous,
wiU saU within six points of the wind. To an
ancient vessel, of which the huU was more clumsy,
and the yards could not be braced so tight, it
would be safe to assign seven points as the Umit.
This will enable us, so far as we know the direction
of the wind (and we can really ascertain it in each
case very exactly), to lay down the tacks of the
ships in which St. Paul sailed, beating against the
wind, on the voyages from Phiiippi to Troas (S^P's
iipepau irfWe, Acts xx. 6), from Sidon to Myra
(5ia rh Tovs avepovs elvai iravriovs, xxvii. 3-5),
from Myra to Cnidus (iv licamTs iipepais BpaSu-
ir\oovi'Tes, xxvii. 6, 7), from Salmone to Fair Ha
vens (piSkis ¦irapa\ey6pi.evot, xxvii. 7, 8), and from
Syracuse to Rhegium (¦,Tepie\e6yTes, xxviii. 12.
13). (9.) Lying-to. — This topic arises naturally out

a With this compare rm tn mOeiox Spo/iov in aa
interesting passage of Philo coniorning the Alex
andrian ships (in Flacc. p. 968, ed Fraukf. 1691).

SHIP
9f what has preceded, and it is so important in
reference to the main questions connected with the
shipwreck at Malta, that it is here made the sub
ject of a separate section. A ship that could make
progress on her proper course, in moderate weather,
when saiUng within seven points of the wind, would
Ue-to in a gale, with her length making about the
same angle with the direction of the wind. This
is done when the object is, not to make progress at
all hazards, but to ride out a gale in safety ; and
this is what was done in St. Paul's ship when she
was undergirded and the boat taken on board (Acts
xxvii. 14-17) under the lee of Clauda. It is here
that St. Luke uses the vivid term avTOcpSakpeii',
mentioned above. Had the gale been less violent,
the ship could easily have held on her course. To
anchor was out of the question ; and to have drifted
¦ before the wind would have been to run into the
fatal Syrtis ou the African coast. [Quicksands.]
Hence the vessel was laid-to ("close-hauled," as
the sailors say) " on the starboard tack," i. e. with
her right side towards the storm. The wind was
E. N. E. [Eukoclydon], the ship's bow would
point N. by W., the direction of drift (six points
being added for "lee-way") would be W. by N.,
and the rate of drift about a mile and a half
an hour. It is from these materials that we
easily come to the conclusion that the shipwreck
must have taken place on the coast of Malta.
[Adbia.] (10. ) Ship's Boat. — This is perhaps the best
p\ace for noticing separately the ffKaipT], which ap-
|iears prominently in the narrative of the voyage
(Acts xxvii. 16, 32). Every large merohant-s' '
must have had one or more boats. It is evident
that the Alexandrian corn-ship in which St. Paul
was sailing from Fair Havens, and in which the
sailors, apprehending no danger, hoped to reach
Phe.nice, had her boat towing behind. Wlien
the gale came, one of their first desires must have
been to take the boat oa board, and tills was done
under the lee of Clauda, when the ship was under-
girded, and brought round to the wind for the pur
pose of lying-to ; but it was done with difficulty,
and it would seem that the ptissengers gave assist
ance ill the task (p6\is iax^^°-P^^ rrepiKpaTeis ye-
veadai TJjs a-Kdipris, Acts xxvii. 16). The sea by
this time must have been furiously rough, and the
boat must have been filled with water. It is with
tliis very boat that one of the most lively passages
of tbe whole narrative is connected. When the
ship was at anchor in the night before she was run
aground, the saUors lowered the boat from the da
vits with the selfish desire of escaping, on which St.
Paul spoke to the soldiers, and they cut the ropes
(tcI iryolvta) and the boat fell off (Acts xxvii. 30
32). (11.) Officers and Crew. — In Acts xxvii. 11
we have both KvS^py^TTis and uavKKripos. The
latter ia the owner (in part or in whole) of the ship
or the cargo, receiving also (possibly) the fares of
the passengers. The former has the charge of the
steering. The same word occurs also in Rev. xviii
17 ; Prov. xxiu. 34 ; Ez. xxvii. 8, and is equivalent
'o vpapeis in Ez. xxvii. 29 ; Jon. i. 6. In James
.a. 4 6 eiSiuaiv, " the governor," is simply the
steersman for the moment. The word for " ship-
men " (Acta xxvu. 27, 30) and "aailors" (Rev.
xvui. 17) is simply the usual term vavrai. In the
latter passage SpiKos occurs for the crew, but the
rfit is doubtful. In Ez. xxvii. 8, 9, 26, 27, 29,
84, WB have ica>irTi\drai for " those who handle the

SHIP

3007

oar," and in the same chapter (ver. 29) iiri^dratf
which may mean either passengers or mariners,
The only other passages which need be noticed
here are 1 K. ix. 27, and 2 Chr. viii. 18, in the
account of Solomon's ships. The former haa rav
tralScifU auTOv &vSpes vavriKol 4\avveiu elSrf-
T6S 6d\ao'(raUj the latter, waTdes eldSres Sdhaa"
(12.) Storms and Shipwrecks. — The first cen
tury of the Christian era vfHA a time of immense
tmtfic in tbe Mediterranean; and there must have
been many vessels lost there every year by ship
wreck, and (perhaps) as many by foundering. Thia
last danger would be much increased by the form
of rig described above. Besides tbis, we must re
member that the ancients had no compass, and very
imperfect charts and instruments, if any at all;
and though it would be a great mistake to suppose
that they never ventured out of sight of land, yet,
dependent as they were on the heavenly bodies, the
danger was rauch greater than now in bad weather,
when the sky was overcast, and " neither sun nor
stars in raany days appeared" (Acts xxvii. 20).
Hence also the winter season was considered dan
gerous, and, if possible, avoided {6vros ijSr} iwta-
(paKovs rov irKoSst 5ii rh Kal r^y V7\ar^iav ^5ri
¦jrapeKTjKvdevai, ibid. 9). Certain coasts too were
much dreaded, especially the African Syrtis {ibid.
17). The danger indicated by breakers {ibid. 29),
and the fear of falhng on rocks {rpaxeis tSttoi),
are raatters of course. St. Paul's experience seema
to have been full of illustrations of all these perils.
We learn from 2 Cor. xi. 25 that, before the voy
age described in detail by St. Luke, he had been
" three times wrecked," and further, that he bad
once been '' a night and a day in the deep " prob
ably floating on a spar, as was the case with Jose
phus. These circumstances give peculiar force to
his using the metaphor of a shipwreck {iyavdyy}-
aav, 1 Tim. i. 19) in speakuig of tiiose who had
apostatized from the faith. In connection with
this general suhject we may notice the caution with
which, on the voyage from Troas to Patara (Acta
XX. 13-16, xxi. 1), the sailors anchored for the
night during the period of dark moon, in the in
tricate passages between the islands and the main
[Mitylene; Samos; Trogyllium], the evident
acquaintance which, on the voyage to Rorae, the
sailors of the Adramyttian shin had with the cur
rents on the coasts of Syria and Asia Minor (Acta
xxvii. 2-5) [Adramyttium], and the provision
fov taking soundings in case of danger, as clearly
indicated m the narrative of the shipwreck at
Malta, the measurements being apparently the same
as those which are custoraary with us (jSoAftray-
res supov opyvtas ^Xkoctl' fipaxif Se Siaar'fia'avTes.
Kal TToXiv ^ohiffavreSi cZpoj/ bpyvihs Se/ca7rei/T€
Acts xxvii. 28).
(13.) Boats on the Sea of GaUlee. — There is a.
melancholy interest in that passage of Dr. Robin
son's Researches (iii. 253), in which he says, that
on his approaijh to the Sea of Tiberias, he saw a
single white sail. This was the sail of the one
rickety boat which, as we learn from other travellera
(see especially Thomson, Land and Book, pp. 401-
¦iO'l), alone remains on a scene represented to us in
the Gospels and in Josephus as full of life from the
a * The " mariners " (A. V.) in Jon. i. f (D^n b^ ;
i/avTiKoi) are simply those who follow the sea, vrhethfli
officers or crew. H.

3008

SHIP

multitude of its fishing-boats.'* In the narratives
3f the call of the disciples to be " fishers of men "
(Matt. iv. 18-22; Mark i. lG-20; Luke v. 1-11),
there is no special information concerning the char
acteristics of these boats. In the account of the
storm and the miracle on the lake (Matt. viii. 23-
27; Markiv. 35-41; Luke viii. 22-25), it is for
every reason instructive to compare the three narra
tives; and we should observe that Luke is more
technical in his language than Matthew, and Mark
than Luke. Thus instead of aeiafihs fieyas 4y4v-
€To 4v rf] QaXa.(rari (Matt. viii. 24), we have ko.-
T€$7} AttiAai// avefxov 6is tt;*' KifiVTjv (Luke viii.
23), and again t^ kKv^wvi tov SSaros (ver. 24);
and instead of Syare rh irKo'iov KoKvirr^aQai we
have auyewX-npovuro. In Mark (iv. 37) we have
Tot KVfjuara 4ir4^aWev eU rh irKolov, &0'r€ outo
^Stj y€u.iC^o-9ai. This Evangelist also mentions
the irpoa-KetpdKaiov, or boatman's cushion,'' on
which our Blessed Saviour was sleeping 4v ri]
Trpviivr], and he uses tbe technical term 4K6ira(rev
for the' lulling of the storm. [Pilu^w, Amer. ed.j
See more on this subject in Smith, Dissertation on
the Gospels (l^^nd. 1853). ' We may turn now to
St. Jobn. In the account he gives of what followed
tbe miracle of walking on the sea (\i. lG-25), TrXo*-
ov and irXoidpiou seem to be used indifferently,
and we have mention of other irKoidpta, There
would of course be boats of various sizes on the
lake. The reading, however, is doubtful.'^ Finally,
in the solemn scene after the resun'ection (John xxi.
1-8), we have the terms aiyta\6s and to Se^ia
ueoT; rod irKoiov^ which should be noticed as tech
nical. Here again irKo^ov and iv\oi6.piov appear
to be synonymous. If we compare all these pas
sages witb Josephus, we easily come to the conclu
sion that, with the large population round the Lake
of Tiberias, there must have been a vast nurnber
both of fishing-boats and pleasure-boats, and that
boat-building must have been an active trade on its
shores (see Stanley, Sin. and Pal. p. 367). The
term used by Josephus is sometimes irKotoVf some
time.^ a-Kd<f>os. There are two passages in the
Jewish historian to which we should carefully refer,
one in which he describes his own taking of Tibe
rias by an expedition of boats from Tarichiea ( Vit.
32, 33, B. J. ii. 21, §§ 8-10). Here he says that
he collected all the Ijoats on tlie lake, amounting to
230 in number, with four men in each. He states
also incidentally that each boat had a "pilot" and
an ''anchor." The other passage describes the
operations of Vespasian at a later period in the
same neighborhood {B. J. iii. 10, §§1,5,6,9).
These operations amounted to a regular Roman
sea-fight: and large rafts (o-xeSi'oi) are mentioned
beeldes the boats or (r/ca^Tj.
(14.) M trchant-Ships in the Old Testament —
The earliest passages where seafaring is alluded to
in the 0. T. are the following in order, Gen. xlix.
13, in the prophecy of Jacob concerning Zebulun

a * Some recent travellers speak of two and tbree, or
more, boats on this lake. The number, at present,
varies at different times, or else they are not all seen
sr heard of by the same traveller. H.
6 The word iu Pollux is virrjpe<j-iov, but Hesychius
gives Trpoo-Ke^oAoioi' as the equivalent. See Kiihn's
ttote oo Jul. Poll. Onom. i. p. 59. (Ed. Amstel. 1706.)
c So iu Mark iv, 36, " little ships," the true read-
mg appears to be TrXoia, not TrAoiapia.
d So in Dan. xi. 30,. where the same phrase "ships
of Hhittim " occurs there is no strictly corresponding

SHIP
{KaTOiK-fjtrei trap* Sofiov ir\oiccy)^ Num. zxiv. 24,
in Balaam's prophecy (where, however, ships are
not mentioued in the LXX.^) ; Deut. xxviii. 68, in
one of the warnings of Moses {airotrrpeipei tre Ki
pios eis AiyvTrrov iv irXoiois)'^ Judg. v. 17, in
Deborah's Song {^av eis ri -TvapoiKei irKoiotsi)-
Next after these it ia natural to mention the illus
trations and descriptions connected with this sub
ject in Job (ix. 26, ^ Kai 4(Trt vavalv "ix^os dSov)^
and in the Psalms (xlvii. [xlviii.] 7, 4v irve^fuiri
$ialcp * ffuvrpi^eis irXola ©apais, ciii. [civ.] 26,
e/ceT TrKoTa Siairopevourah evi. [cvii.] 23, ot Kara-
^aivovres eis Bdhaffaav iv Tr\oiots)- Prov. xxiii.
34 has already been quoted. To this add xxx. 19
{rpi^ovs vi]OS wovroTropovffTjs)', xxxi. 14 {vavs v/jl-
TTopevofievv fioKpSBev)- Solomon's own ships,
which may have suggested some of these illustra-*
tions (1 K. ix. 26; 2 Chr. viii. 18, ix. 21), have
previously been mentioned. We must notice the
disastrous expedition of Jehoshaphat's ships fi-om
the sarae port of Ezion-geber (1 K. xxii. 48, 49; 2
Chr. XX. 36, 37). The passages which remain are
in the prophets. Some have been already adduced
from Isaiah and Ezekiel. In the former prophet
the general term " ships of Tarshish " is variously
given in the LXX-, Tr\o7ov Bahdfftrris-^ (ii- 16),
TrXowt Kapx'^l^^'^^^ (xxiii. 1, 14), ttAoio ®ap<ris
(Ix- 9). For another aUusion to seafaring, see xliii.
14. The celebrated 27th chapter of Elzekiel ought
to be carefully studied in all its detail; and in Jo
nah i. 3-16, the following technical phrases (besides
wbat bas been already adduced) should be noticed:
vavKov (3), avvrpi^nifaL (4), 4k^oK^v irrofhffavTO
rdfv ffKevwVt rod K0v<pta'd7ivai (5), Koardfrei 7} 6d~
Kaaoa (11, 12). In Dan. xi. 40 {auva.xHff^'^a-^
^aaiKevs rov Boppa iv apfjxuri Kal iv bnrevai
Koi 4v vavijX TToKKais) we touch thesubject of ships
of war. (15.) Ships of War in the Apoo-ypka. — Mil
itary operations both by land and water {4vrri Ba-
KafTffr) Kal iirl rT)s ^rjpas^ 1 Mace, viii- 23, 32;
are prominent subjects in the books of Maccabees.
Thus in the contract between Judas Maccabseus
and the Romans it is agreed {ibid. 26, 28) that no
supplies are to be afforded to the enerai^ of either,
whether o-itos, BttKu, apyvpioVy or TrXoTa- In a
later passj^e (xv. 3) we have more explicitly, in
the letter of King Antiochus, irAoia -jroKefiiKd (see
V. 14), while in 2 Mace. iv. 20 (as observed above)
the word rpiifpeis, "galleys," occurs in the account
of the proceedings of the infamous Jason. Here we
raust not forget the monument erected by Simon
MaceabEeus on his father's grave, on which, with
other oraaments and military symbols, were TrAota
i-KiyeyKvpLfieva, eis rh BetapelaBat uirh wdyrav
rwv Tr\e6vrQ>v r^v 6d\a<T(rav (1 Mace. xiii. 29).
Finally raust be mentioned the noyade at Joppa,
when the resident Jews, with wives and children,
200 in number, were induced to go into boats and
were drowned (2 Mace. xii. 3, 4), with the venge-

phrase in the LXX. The translators appear to have
read M^.^l and ''MS*' for D^^^l and a\'*? in these
passages respectively.
e The LXX. here read ^It^p, k&tOn, « smaU," toi
D^lp, k&dim, "east."
/ Tliis is perhaps a mistake of the copyist, wV o tian.
scribed from dictation, and mistook Qaptriq fo> 8aA«^
o-ijs.

SHIP
mce talten by Judas (Thv aev Kiptra viKTwp iye-
npTiffe Kal tA aKd<f)Tj KaTe(})Ke^e, ver. 6). It seems
sufficient simply to enumerate the other passages in
the Apocrypha where some allusion to sea-faring is
made. They are the following: Wisd. v. 10, xiv.
1; Ecclus. xxxiii. 2, xliii. 24; 1 Esdr. iv. 23.
(16.) Nautical Terms. — The great repertory of
tuch terms, as used by those who spoke the Greelt
language, is the Ony/nns&om of Julius Pollux; and
it may be useful to conclude this article by men
tioning a few out of many which are found tiiere,
and also in the N. '1'. or LXX. First, to quote
some which have been mentioned above. We find
the following both in Pollux and the Scriptures :
axoivia, iTKeuii, kXvSiIiv, xeipidv, (l>6pTiov, iK^ok-fi,
arvpTLS, oiiS^r vTroareKKeffBai, ovk ^v tIjv ilihtor
tdeiv, ffKd<jyrj, a-Kd(pos, vavKoy, avyrpiSiivai, b^
da\phs Uttov Kai Totjvopa t^s veiy iiTLypd^ovffL
(compared with Acts xxvii. 15, xxviii. 11), rpaxeis
ttlyia\oi (compared vvith .Acts xxvii. 29, 40). The
foUowing are some which have not been mentioned
in this article; avdyeoBai and KaTdyeoBai (e. g.
Acts xxviii. 11, 12), o-ai'fSes (Ez. xxvii. 5), Tpiirts
(Wisd. V. 10), ava^aiva (Jon. i. 3; Mark vi. 51),
yal\.i]Vii (Matt. viii. 26), ap<j>ip\Ti(rTpoy (Matt. iv.
18, Mark i. 16), ImocpoprlaaaSai (Acts xxi. 4),
iyJTfnrveo) (xxvii. 13), ruiptjov (dvepos TVtpajvtK6s,
xxvii. 14), hyKvpas Karareiveiv (ayKvpas iKTei-
vbiv, ibid. 30), o^piaT'ijs &vepos (ii^peus, 10,
i^piv, 21), irpoaoKeWw (inoKeWu, ibid. 41),
KoKvpP^v (ibid. 42). SiaAufleiVijj ttjj veiis (fi
irpipva iKuiTO, ibid. 41). This is an imperfect
list of tlie whole number ; but it may serve to show
how rich the N. T. and IjXX. are in the nautical
phraseology of the Greek Levant. To this must
be added a notice of the pecuhar variety and accu
racy of St. Luke's ordinary phrases for sailing un
der different circumstances, TrXeu, OTOirAeM, ^paSv-
irKoeot, ZiairKeoj, iKirXeio, KaratrXew, inroTrXeoi,
xapaTrXeo), eiidoSpopeui, inrOTpex^, rrapa\eyopai,
<p4popai, Sta(l>epopai, Siairepdu.
(17.) Aulhoiities. — The preceding list of St.
Luke's nautical verbs is from Mr. Smith's work
on the Voyage and Shipwreck of Si. Paul (Lon
don, 1st ed. 1848, 2d ed. 1856). No other book
need be mentioned here, since it has for sorae time
been recognized, both in England and on the Con
tinent, as the standard work on ancient ships, and
it contains a complete list of previous books on the
subject. Reference, however, may be made to the
memoranda of Admiral Penrose, incorporated in
tbe notes to the 27th chapter of Conybeare and
Howson's The Life and Epistles of St. Paul (Lon
don, 2d ed. 1856). J. S. H.
* Many of tlie identical sea-phrases pointed out
above are still in use apiong the modern Greeks.
'¦"he OvopaToXoyiov NouTi/coy (issued from the
Admiralty office at Athens, 1858) prescribes the
nautical terms to be used on board the national
vessels. The object, of course, is not to invent or
arbitrarily impose such terras, but taking them
from actual life to guard them against extrusion by
foreign words. We subjoin some examples with the
English and French definitions as given In the
Catalogue, together with references to the Scripture
places where the same words occur in the' same
lense: iKrsiroj &yKvpau, elonger, to lay out Cb ichor.
Vets xxvii. 30; aipca, enlever, to hoist. Acts xxvii.
13; iaai,laisser aller, to let go. Acts xxvii. 40;
XpKda, amener tout bas, to lower and to strike sail,
\cts xxvii. 17, 30 ; iiraloa liTTtoy, hisser une voile,
k hols sail, ibid.; ima^'aivu yrjv, decouvrir la

SHISHAK

3009

'.erre, to sight land. Acts xxi. 3, and cf. arroKpiiTrra
yriii, a classical phrase ; viroirKea, pass to leeward^
cf. Acts xxvii. 4, 7, and xxviii. 7 ; rrpoaoppi^opai,
relacher, put into port, Mark vi. 53; Trapa$d\Ka>,
accoster, lo go alongside, io coast, Acts xx. 15;
iKavrw, nager, to pull in rowing, Mark vi. 48 ;
^evKTT]plai, les suavegard&s, rudder-pendanis, Acts
xxvii. 40; ^oXi^ui, sender, to sound. Acts xxvii.
28; ri inro^oK'li, la perte, loss by sea, or, throw
ing overboard ; tnoKeWa, faire echouer, to
strand a ship. Acts xxvii. 41 ; 5ia(r(iS^w, faire le
sametnge, to rescue, i.e. from shipwreck. Acts xxviii.
1; 4p$i0d^oj, debarqiier, to ship, embark. Acts
xxviii. 1; Kov<pi^oi, alleger, to lighten, Acts xxviii.
18 ; imSiSoi, laisser porter, to bear away. Acts
xxvii. 15; x^^aw, amener un canot, to lower a
boat, Acts xxvii. 17, 30. To these we might add
others. Thus !it appears that the sea-phrases which
Luke heard on board the "Castor and Pollux" may
be heard now among the seamen who navigate the
same waters.
The processes and instruments of steam-naviga
tion render a new terminology necessary to some
extent in that sphere; but for this exigency the
Greek language, so wonderfully plastic, is able to
provide within itself by the use of compounds. H.
SHITHI (¦'VStt? [abundant] : Sa^aU [Vat.
2a<^aA;] Alex. Se(peiv: Sephei). A Simeonite,
father of Ziza, a prince of the tribe in the time of
Hezekiah (1 Chr. iv. 37).
SHIPH'MITB, THB C'aQt^n : [Vat.] o
TOV Secjiyei; [Rom.] Aiex. & r. Se<pvi: Saphoni-
tes). Probably, though not certainly, the native
of Shepham. Zabdi, the officer in David's house
hold who had charge of the wine-making (1 Clir.
xxvii. 27), is the only person so distinguished G.
SHIPH'KAH (n^5tl? [see below] : s^n-
(pdjpa: Sephwa, Ex. i. 15). The name of one of
tlie two midwives of the Hebrews who disobeyed
the command of Pharaoh, the first oppressor, to
kill the male children, and were therefore blessed
(vv. 15-21). It is not certain that they were He
brews : if they were, tlie name Shiphrah would sig
nify "brightness" or "beauty." It has also an
Egyptian sound, the last syllable resembling that
of ]^otiphar, Poti-phra, and Hophra, in all which
we recognize the word PH-RA, P-RA, " the sun,"
or " Pharaoh," in composition, when alone written
in Heb. nV^Q : in these cases, however, the 3?
is usual, as we should expect from the Egyptian
spelling. [PuAH.] R. S. P.
SHIPH'TAN CieStl? [judicial]:Sa^ajSav;
[Vat. -flu; Comp. Aid. Saiprdvi] Sephthan).
Father of Kemuel, a prince of the tribe of Ephraim
(Num. xxxiv. 24).
SHI'SHA (SttJ'^E; [see Seraiah] : Sv$d : [Vat.
SaSa;] Alex. Seio-a; Sisa). Father of Elihoreph
and Ahiah, the royal secretaries in the reign of
Solomon (1 K. iv. 3). He is apparently the same
as SnAVSHA, who held the same position under
David. SHI'SHAK (ptO'^ttJ": SovaaKtp; [Vat
a The text in 1 K. xiv. 25 has pt» W, but the
Keri proposes plt^^'ti?.

3010

SHISHAK

Alex. -Keep :] Sesac), king of Egypt, the Sheshenfc
I. of the monuments, first
sovereign of the Bubastite
XXIId dynasty. His name
'is thus written in hiero
glyphics. Chronology. — The reign
of Shishak offers the fiiit
determined synchronisms of
Egyptian and Hebrew his
tory. Its chronology must
therefore be examined. We
first give a table with the
Egyptian and Hebrew data
for the chronology of the dynasty, continued as
far as the time of Zerah, who was probably a suc
cessor of Shishak, in order to avoid repetition in
treating of the latter. [Zerah.]
Respecting the Egyptian columns of this table,

AVvW\

SHISHAK
it is only necessary to observe that, as a date uf the
23d year of Usarken II. occnrs on the monuments,
it is reasonable to suppose that the sum of the
third, fourth, and fifth reigns should be 29 years
instead of 25, K0 being easily changed to KE
(Lepsius, Konigsbuch, p. 85). We follow Lepsius'
arrangement, our Tekerut I., for instance, being
the same as his.
The synchronism of Shishak and Solomon, and
that of Shishak and Kehoboam, may be nearly
fixed, as shown in article Chronology, where a
slight correction should be made in one of the data.
We there mentioned, on the authority of Champol-
lion, that an inscription bore the date of the 22d
year of Shishak (vol. i. p. 448 b). Lepsius, however.
states that it is of the 21st year, conecting Cham-
pollion, who had been followed by Bunsen and
others (xxii Aeg. Kbnigsdyn. p. 272 and note 1).
It must, therefore, be supposed that the invasion of

TABLE OP FIRST SIX REIGNS OP DYNASTY XXH.

Egtptian Data.

Hebrew Data.

Maneiho.

Monuments.

Kitigs.

Events.

AfricanuB.

Eusebius.

Order.

High

Solomon, 40 years.

Jeroboam flees to

Yra.
I. SesAnchiB . 21

Yre.
1. Se«anch6siB 21

1. SHESHENK p.]

est Vr.
XXI.

Judah. Yrs.
1. Rehoboam . 17

Israel. Yrs.
1. Jeroboam . . 22

Shishak 20 f?) in-
.rades JudftL,
Kehoboam 5

2. Osotthdn. . 15

2. Osorthan . . IS

2. USARKEN [I.]

2. Abijah  S
Three others,
251.29?
3. TEKEBUT [I.]
4. USARKEN [H.]
•yXTTT.
3. Asa  41
2. Nadab  2
5. SHESHENK [H.]
3. Baasha .... 24
4. Elah  2
5. Zimri
6. Omri  12
ITakclathis IS
TnkeMlhis I.S
6. TEKEKUT [II.]
XIV.
Judah took place in the 20th, and not in the 21st
year of Shishak. The first year of Shishak would
thus about correspond to the 26th of Solomon, and
the 20th to the 5th of Rehoboam.
The synchronism of Zerah and Asa is more dif
ficult to determine. It seems, from the narrative
in Chronicles, that the battle between Asa and 'Ze
rah took place early in the reign of the king of Ju
dah. It is mentioned before an event of the 15th
year of his reign, and afterwards we read that
" there was no [more] war unto the five and thir
tieth year of the reign of Asa " (2 Chr. xv. 19).
This is immediately followed by the aocount of
Baasha's coming up against Judah " in the six
and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa" (xvi. 1).
The latter two dates may perhaps be reckoned from
ths division of the kingdom, unless we can read the
15th and 16th,<» for Baasha began to reign in the
3d year of Asa, and died, after a reign of 24
years, and was succeeded by Elah, in the 26th year
of Asa. It seeras, therefore, most probable that
the war with Zerah took place early in Asa's
reign, before his 10th year, and thus also early
a The 25th and 26th are out of the question, unless
*5.p ot^sBatlon of war referred to relate to that with
Be;»h, fnr it Is said that Asa and Baasha warred
in the reign of Usarken II. The probable iden-
tificatiou of Zerah is considered under that name
[Zerah]. The chronological place of these synchronisms
may be calculated on the Egyptian as well as the
Biblical side. The Egyptian data enable us to cal
culate the accession of Shishak approximatively,
reckoning downwards from the XlXth dynasty,
and upwards from the XXVIth. The first 60
years of the Sothic Cycle, commencing b. c. 1322,'
appear to have extended from the latter part of the
reign of Rameses II. to a year after the 12th of
Rameses IH. The intervening reigns are Men-
ptah 19, Sethee II. x, Seth-nekht x, which, added
to Rameses II. a; and Rameses III. 12, probably
represent little less than 50 years. The second 60
years of the same Cycle extended from the reign of
one of the sons of Rameses III., Rameses VI. , sep
arated from his father by two reigns, certainly
short, one of at least 5 years, to the reign of Ra
meses XL, the reigns intervening between Rame
ses VI. and XI. giving two dates, whioh make a
sum of 18 years. We can thus very nearly fix the
against each other " all theu? days " (1 K. xv 16.
32). tl We prefer the date E. o. 1322 to M. Blot's • o
cir. 1300, for reasons we cannot here explain
SHISHAK
¦ccession of the XXth dynasty. In the order of the
kings we follow M. de Roug4 (&ude, pp. 183 ff.).

SHISHAK

3011

XIX. 2. Rameses II.
8. Men-ptah
4. Sethee II. .
5. Seth-nekht .
XX. 1. Rameses III.
2. Rameses IV.
8. Rameses V.
4. Rameses VI.
5. Rameses 'iHlI.
6. Kamcses VIII.
7. Rameses IX.
8. Rameses X.
9. Rameses XI.

. 19

12(14) (5)

ae) (2)

1322

1263

1262 1203

The commencement of the XXth dynasty would,
on this evidence, fall about b. c. 1280. The dura
tion of the dynasty, according to Manetho, was 178
(Eus.) or 135 (Afr.) years. The highest dates
found give us a sum of 99 years, and the Sothic
data, and the circumstance that there were five if
not six kings after Rameses XL, show that the
length cannot have been less than 120 years.
Manetho's numbers would bring us to E. l;. 1102
or 1145, for the end of this dynasty. The monu
ments do not throw any clear light upon the chro
nology of the succeeding dynasty, the XXIst : the
only indications upon which we can found a con
jecture are those of Manetho's lists, according to
which it ruled for 130 years. This number, sup
posing that the dynasty overlapped neither the
XXth nor the XXIId, would bring the commence
ment of the XXIId and accession of Shishak to
o. c. 972 or 1015.
Reckoning upwards, the highest certain date is
•that of the accession of Psammitichus I., E. c. 664.
He was preceded, probably with a short interval,
by Tirhakah, whose accession was B. c. cir. 695."
The b^inning of Tirhakah's dynasty, the XXVth,
was probably 719. For the XXIVth and XXIIId
dynasties we have only the authority of Manetho's
lists, in which they are allowed a sum of 95 (Afr.
6 -)- 89) or 88 (Eus. 44 + **) years. This carries
us up to B. c. 814 or 807, supposing that the dy
nasties, as here stated, were wholly consecutive.
To the XXIId dynasty the lists allow 120 (Afr.)
or 49 (Eus.) years. The latter sum may be dis
carded at once as merely that of the three reigns
mentioned. . The monuments show tha. the for
mer needs correction, for the highest dates of the
individual kings, and the length of the reign of
one of them, Sheshenk IIL, determined liy the Apis
tablets, oblige us to raise its sum to at least 166
years. This may be thus shown ; 1. Sesonchis 21.
(1. Sheshenk I. 21.) 2. Osorthon 15. (2. Usar
ken I.) 3, 4, 6. TOree others, 25 (29 ?). (3. Te
kerut I. 4. Usarken II. 23. 5. Sheshenk II.)
6. Takelothis 13. (6. Tekerut II. 14.) 7, 8, 9.
Three others, 42. (7. Sheshenk III. date 28 reign
5L 8. Peshee 2. 9. Sheshenk IV. 37). (21 -f-
15 ..[-29 -1-13 -1-51 + 1 + 36 = 166.) It seems
impossible to trace the mistake that has occasioned
the difference. The most reasonable conjectures
seem to be either that the first letter of the sum of
the reign of Sheshenk III. fell out in some copy of
Manetho, and 51 thus was changed to 1, or that
Jiis reign fell out altogether, and that there was
1 In a previous article (Chronologt, i. 447 6) we
dated the first year of Tirhakah's reign over Egypt
B. 0. 689. This date is founded upon an interpretation
'f an Apis-tabiet, which is not certain. It conclude.^
«lth ttua words " done " or " made In year 21 ? " which

another king not mentioned on the monuments.
The sum would thus be 166 + x, or 169, which,
added to our last number, place the accession of
Sheshenk I. B. c. 980 or 983, or else seven years
later than each of these dates.
The results thus obtained from approximative
data are sufficiently near the BibHcal date to make it
certain that Sheshenk I. is the Shishak of Solomon
and Rehoboam, and to confirm the Bible chronology.
The Biblical date of Sheshenk's conquest of Ju
dah has been computed in a previous article to be
B. c. cir. 969 [Chkonology, i. 448 b], and this
having taken place in his 20th ye.ar, his accession
would have heen b. c. cir. 988. The progress ol
Assyrian discovery has, however, induced some
writers to propose to shorten the chronology by
taking 35 years as the length of Manasseh's reign,
in which case all earlier dates would have to be
lowered 20 years. It would be premature to ex
press a positive opinion on this matter, but it must
be remarked that, save only the taking of Samaria
by Sargon, although this is a most important ex
ception, the Assyrian chronology appeare rather to
favor the reduction, and that the Egyptian chronol
ogy, as it is found, does not seem readily reconcil
able with the received dates, but to require some
small reduction. The proposed reduction would
place the accession ot Sheshenk I. h. c. cir. 968,
and this date is certainly more in accordance with
those derived from the Egyptian data than the
higher date, but these data are too approximative
for us to lay any stress upon minute results from
them. Dr. Hincks has drawn attention to what
appears to be the record, already noticed by
Brugsch, in an inscription of Lepsius' Tekerut II.,
of an eclipse of the moon on the 24th Meson (4th
April) b. c. 945, in the 15th year of his father.
The latter kuig must be Usarken I., if these data
be correct, and the date of Sheshenk I.'s accession
would be b. c. 980 or 981. But it does not seem
certain that the king of the record must be Teke
rut I. Nor, indeed, are we convinced that the
eclipse was lunar. (See Journ, Sac. Lit. January,
1863; Lepsius, Denhmdler, iii. bl. 256, a.)
Bistory. — In order to render the following ob
servations clear, it will be necessary to say a few
words on the history of Egypt before the accession
of Sheshenk I. On the decline of the Theban line
or Rameses family (the XXth dynasty), two royal
houses appear to have arisen. At Thebes, tht
high-priests of Amen, after a virtual usurpation, at
last took the regal title, and in Lower Egypt a
Tanite dynasty (Manetho's XXIst) seems to have
gained royal power. But it is possible that there
was but one line between the XXth and XXIId dy
nasties, and that the high-priest kings belonged to
the XXIst. The origin of the royal line of which
Sheshenk I. was the head is extremely obscure.
Mr. Birch's discovery that several of the names of
the family are Shemitic has led to the supposition
that it was of Assyrian or Babylonian origin. Shi
shak, pty'^E?, may be compared with Shesbak,
tJHJtt', a name of Babylon (rashly thought to be
for Babel by Atbash), Usarken has been compaicd
with Sargon, and Tekerut, with Tiglath in Tiglath-

we formerly read, as had been previously done, " com
pleting 21 years," referring the number to the life of
the bull, not to the year of the king in which the tab.
let was executed or completed. (See the text in Lep-
siuB^ Konigsbuch, p. 95.)

3012 SHISHAK
PilesOT. If there were any doubt as to these iden
tifications, some of which, as the second and third
eited, are certaitdy conjectural, the name Namuret,
Nimrod, which occurs as that of princes of this
Hne, would aSbrd conclusive evidence, and it is
needless here to compare other names, though those
occurring in the genealogies of the dynasty given by
Lepsius, well merit the attention of Semitic stu
dents (axciz. Aey. Konigsdyn. and Konigsbuch).
It is worthy of notice that the name Nimrod, and
the designation of Zerah (perhaps a king of this
line, otherwise a general in its service) as "the
Cushite," seem to indicate that the family sprang
from a Cushite origin. They raay possibly have
been connected with the MASHUWASHA, a
Shemitic nation, apparently of Libyans, for Te-
kemt II. as Prince is called ?' great chief of the
MASHUWASHA." and also " great chief of the
MATU," or mercenaries; but they can scarcely
have l-een of this people. Whether eastern or
western Cushites, there does not seem to l)e any
evidence in favor of their having been Nigritians,
and as tiiere is no trace of any connection between
tbem and the XXVth dynasty of Ethiopians, they
must rather be supposed to be of the eastern
branch. Their names, when not Egyptian, are
traceable to Shemitic roots, which is not the case,
as far as we know, with the ancient kings of Ethi
opia, whose civilization is the same as that of Egypt.
We find these foreign Shemitic names in the fam
ily of the high-priest king Her-har, three of whose
sous are called respectively, MASAHARATA,
MASAKAHARATA, and MATEN-NEB, al
though the names of most of his other sons and
those of his line appear to be Egyptian. This is
not a parallel case to the preponderance of Shem
itic names in the line of the XXIId dynasty, but it
warns us against too positive a conclusion. M. de
Roug^, instead of seeing in those names of the
XXIId dynasty a Shemitic or Asiatic origin. Is dis
posed to trace the line to that of the high-priest
kings. Manetho calls the XXIId a dynasty of Bu
bastites, and an ancestor of the priest-king dy
nasty bears tbe name Meree-bast, " beloved of Bu-
bastis." Both lines used Shemitic names, and botb
held the high-priesthood of Amen (comp. iStude sur
une Stele ^gyptienne, 203, 204). This evidence
does not seera to us conclusive, for policy may have
induced the hne of the XXIId dynasty to effect hi-
termarriages with the family of the priest-kings, and
to assume their functions. The occurrence of Shem
itic names at an earlier time may indicate nothing
more than Shemitic alliances, bufc those alliances
might not improbably end in usurpation, lepsius
gives a genealogy of Sheshenk I. from the tablet of
Har-psen from the Serapeum, which, if correct, de
cides the question {xxii. Konigsdyn. pp. 267-269).
In this, Sheshenk I. is the son of a chief Namuret,
whose ancestors, excepting his mother, who is called
" royal mother, " not as Lepsius gives it, " royal
daughter " {j^tude, etc., p. 203, note 2), are all un
titled persons, and, all bufc fche princess, bear foreign,
apparently Shemitic, names. But, as M. de RougiS
observes, this genealogy cannot be conclusively made
out from the tablet, though we think it more prob
able than he does {Etude, p. 203, and note 2).
Sheshenk I. on his accession, must have found
the state weakened by internal strife, and deprived
3f much of its foreign infiuence. In the time of
fche later kings of the Rameses family, two, if not
three, sovereigns had a, real or titular authority;
but hefow the accession of Sheshenk ifc is probable

SHISHAK
that their lines had been united: certainly towardl
fche close odthe XXIst dynasty a Pharaoh was i)ow-
erful enough to lead an expedition into Palestine
and capture Gezer (1 K. ix. 16). Sheshenk took
as fche title of his standard, *' He who attains
royalty by uniting the two regions [of Egypt]."
(De Roug^, iltide, efcc., p. 204; Lepsius, Konigs
buch, xliv. 567 A, a.) He himself probably mar
ried the heiress of the Rameses family, while his
son and successor Usarken appears fco have fcaken
fco wife the daughfcer, and perhaps heiress, of the
Tanite XXIst dynasty. Probably it was not until
late in his reign that he was able to carry on the
foreign wars of the earlier king who captured Gezer.
Ifc is observable that we trace a change of dynasty
in the policy that induced Sheshenk at fche begin
ning of his reign to receive the fugitive Jeroboam
(1 K. xi. 40). Although it was probably a con
stant practice for the kings of Egypt to show hos
pitality fco fugitives of importance, Jeroboam would
scarcely have been included in their class. Proba
bly, ifc is expressly relafced fchafc he tied fco Shishak
because he was well received as an enemy of Solomon.
We do not venture to lay any sfcress upon the
LXX. additional portion of 1 K. xii., as the narra
tive there given seems irreconcilable wifch fchafc of
the previous chapter, which agrees with fche Mas.
fcexfc. In the latter chapter Hadad (LXX. Ader)
the Edomite flees from the slaughter of his people
by Joab and David to Egypt, and marries the elder
sister of Tahpenes (LXX. Thekemina), Pharaoh's
queen, returning fco Idumaea after the death of
David and Joab. In tbe additional portion of fche
former chapter, Jeroboam — already said to have
fled to Shishak (LXX. Susacim) — is married after
Solomon's death to Ano, elder sister of Thekemina
the queen. Between Hadad's return and Solomon's
death, probably more than fchirfcy years elapsed,
cerfcainly twenty. Besides, how are we fco account
for the two elder sisters V Moreover, Shishak's
queen, his only or principal wife, is called KARA-
AMA, which is more reraote from Tahpenes or
Thekemina. [Tahpenes.]
The king of Egypt does not seem to have com
menced hostilities during the powerful reign of
Solomon. It was no^ until the division of the
tribes, fchafc, probably afc the instigation of Jeroboam,
he attacked Rehoboam. The following particulars
of the war are related in the Bible: " In the fifth
year of king Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt
carae up against Jerusalem, because fchey had fcrans-
gressed against the Lord, with twelve hundred
chariots, and threescore thousand horsemen: and
tbe people [were] without number that came with
him out of Egypfc; fche Lubim, fche Sukkiim, and
the Cushim. And he took the fenced cities wbich
[perfcained] fco Judah, and came to Jerusalem "
(2 Chr. xii. 2-4). Shishak did not pillage Jerusa^
lem, bufc exacted all the treasures of his city from
Rehoboam, and apparently made him tributary
(5, 9-12, esp. 8). The narrative in Kings men-
fcions only fche invasion and the exaction (1 K. xiv.
25, 26). The strong cities of Kehoboam are thus
enumerated in an earlier pass^e: " And Rehoboam
dwelfc in Jerusalem, and built cities for defense in
Judah. He builfc even Beth-lehem, and Efcam,
and Tekoa, and Befch-zur, and Shoco, and Adul
lam, and Gafch, and Maresbah, and Ziph, and Ado-
raira, and Lachish, and Azekah, and Zorah, and
Aijalon, and Hebron, which [are] in Judah and ic
Benjamin fenced cities" (2 Chr. xi. 6-10).

SHISHAK
Shishak has left a record of this expedition,
jculptured on the wall of tlie great Temple of El-
Karnak. It is a list of the countries, cities, and
tribes, conquered or ruled by him, or tributary to
him. In this list Champollion recognized a name
which he translated, as we shall see, incorrectly,
" the kingdom of Judah," and was thus led to trace
the names of certain cities of Palestine. The docu
ment has since been more carefully studied by Dr.
Brugsch, and with less success by Dr. Blau. On
account of its great importance as a geographical
record, we give a full tr.anscription of it.
There are two modes of transcribing Hebrew or
cognate names written in hieroglyphics. They can
either be rendered by the English letters to which
the hieroglyphics correspond, or by the Hebrew
etters for which they are known from other in-

SHISHAK

3013

stances to be used. The former mode ib perhapa
more scientific; the latter is raore useful for the
present investigation. It is certain that the Egyp
tians employed one sign in preference for H, and
another for PT, bufc we cannot prove that these signs
had any difference when used for native words,
though in ofcher cases it seems clear, that there
was such a difference. We give the list transcribed
by bofch mefchods, the first as a check upon tbe
second, for which we are indebted to M. de Rough's
comparative alphabet, by far the most satisfactory
yet pubhshed, though in sorae parts it may ba
questioned {Revue Archeologique, N. S. xi. 351-
354). These fcranscripfcions occupy the firsfc two
columns of the table, the third contains Dr.
Brugsch's identification, and fche fourth, our own.""

THE GEOGRAPHIC

AL LIST OF SHESHENK I.

No.

Transcr. in English
Letters.

Tranacr. in Hebrew
Letters.

Brugsch's Identification.

Our Identification.

13

BeBATA

snwab

Rabbith.

Rabbith!

U

TAANKAU

"iNsassia

Taanach.

Taanach.

15

SHeNeMA-AA

ss:7a:E;

Shunem.

Shunem.

16

BAT-SHeNRA.i

SS-)3tt7 nN3

Beth-shan

17

ReHoBAi

ssnnb

Rehob.

Rehob.

18

HePUKMAi

Nwnbisn

Haphraim.

Haphraim.

19

ATeEMA

sabis

Adoraim.

Adoraim.

21

SHDATEB.

• 11SW

22
iMAHANMA
5?a3Nn:?a
Mahanaim.
Mahanaim.
23
KeBASNA
S3r3p
Gibeon.
Gibeon.
24
BAT-HUABeN
ibs-in ns2
Beth-horon.
Beth-horon.
25
KATMeT
r\iyii!;T>
Eedemoth.
Eedemoth.
26
ATUReN
ibrs
Aijalon.
Aijalon.
27
MAKeTAU
iNT3ra
Megiddo.
Megiddo.
28
ATEERA
Hb'^lN
Edrei?
29
YOIeH-MARK
ibra mv
Kingdom of Judali?
31
HAXNeM
Q2SSn
....
Anem?
82
ASKANA
S3N-1I?
Eglon.
33
BARMA
SDbS3
Bileam, Ibleam.
Bileam, Ibleam.
84
TATPeTeR
bnsisT
35
A. H. M.
•la-n-s
36
BAT-AARMeT
nabv ns2
Alemeth.
Alemeth, Almon.
37
ILAEAREE
•'bspNp
Ha-kikkar (Circle of Jord«o>
38
SHAUKA
SpiNE?
Shoco.
Shoco.
39
BAT-TePU
isa nsn
Beth-Tappuah.
Beth-Tappuah.
40
ABARAX
««bsaw
Abel.
45
BAT-TAB . .
• • 3HT nS3
63
NHPAB
bssi^
54
. PeTSHAT
nnttJis.
65
Pe-KeTeT ?
? nt23D
66
ATMAX
Nwais
Edom
Edom?
57
TARMEM
DabsT
Zahnonah ?
68
...RR.A
M.^^...
a The list of Shishak in the original hieroglyphics
3 published by RoselUni, Monumenti Heali, No.
•ilviii. ; Lepsius, Denkmaler, Abth. iii, bl. 252; and
vrugsch, Geogr. Inschr. ii. taf. xxi- . ; and commented
upon by Brugsch {ib. pp. 66 ff.) and Dr. Blau {Zeit-
schrift d. Deutsch. Morgenldnd. GeselU 'A. zr pp
233 ff.).
;iui

4

S]

gISHAK

No.

Transcr. in English
Lettera.

Trapscr. in Hebrew
Letters.

Brugsch's Identification.

Car Ideutiflcsttai.

69

. . ETAS

HStb • •

Tiiaah?

64

. . APeN

7CS--

65
PsAAMAK
psaj?s
66
AX-ASTeMAA
WNSTSSJ?
Azem.
Azem, 01 Ezem?
67
ANAKA
NbS3H
68
PeHAERAS
NNbpsnc
Hagaritea.
Hagaritea.
69
EeTiUSHAS
ssttjvns
Letnahim
70
ARAHeReR
bbns-iN
71
PeHeKRAX
NNbpnt5
Hagarites
Hagaritea.
72
MeRSARAJUA
3?ns-isD-ia
Of Salma?
73
SHEBPeBeT
nbnty
Shephelah 1
Shephelah!
74
NeKBeREE
•'bna:
75
SHeBPeEet
nbnto
Sh'ephelah ?
Shephelah ?
76
WARAKEET
n'«3s-is'i
77
PeHeKRAX
KNbpns
Hagarites.
Hagaritea.
78
NAABAYT
n''K2S2
Nebaioth.
79
AATeTMAA
ssmi57
Tema!
80
TePKeBLi
SppQT
81
MA. A..
• • s • 3?a
82
TA....
— sta
83
KANAA
SN3N3
Kemte«?
84
PeNAKBD
•)32n:s
Negeb.
Negeb.
85
ATeM-ieKl-HeT
vnnniiiaTS'
Azem, orlinBL
86
TASHTNAU
1N3ia-N[3
87
PpHKARA
Kb^pns
Hagarites.
Hagaritea.
88
SHNAYAA
nn''S3e;
^
89
HAKA
wpsn
90
PeNAKBU
¦I33S23
Negeb.
Negeb.
91
WAHTHRKA
NDbinnsi
92
PeNAKBU
132N33
Negeb.
Negeb.
93
ASH-HeTA
Nnntt^s
94
PeHeKREE
"¦bins
Hagaritea.
Hagaritea.
95
HANEENYAU
"1S'<3''2Sn
96
PeHeKBAU
isbsna
Hagaritea.
Hagaritea.
97
ARKAT
TNpbs
98
MERTMAM
csann
Duma?
99
HANANYEE
•'•«3S3Nn
100
MERTRA-AA
NNS-ma
Cf. Eddaia.'
101
PeHeKeR
bans
Hagarites.
Hagarites.
102
TRUAN
INibn
103
HEETBAA
SS2^>'^
Adbeel?
104
SHeRNeRVM
CNb3btt7
106
HEETBAX
wsnT'n
Adbeel?
106
TEEWATEE
\nSY'T
107
HAKeRMA or
sabpsn >
57apbsn y
HAReKMA
Rekem (Petra)?
108
AXRATAX
ssisbi?
Eldaah?
109
RABAT
nN2sb
Beth-lebaoth, Lebaoth.
Beth-lebaoth, Ubaofh? BabbaJil
UO AARATAAT 1
•»»Misb5?
Aiad.
Bldaai?
tu
NeBPTeBol 1
raioD3
SHISHAK

8016

No.

Transcr. in English
Letters.

Transcr. in Hebrew
I.fitters.

Brugsch's Identification.

Our Identification.

112

TCRAHMA

yansmi

Jerahmeelites ?

116

MeREE .M

D'-'-ia

117
MeRTRA-AS
Nssina
Cf. Eddara?
118
PeBYAX
ss'ins
119
MAHKAX
wsnnra
Maachah ?
120
. ARYUK
iv-iw •
121
PeETMA-AA
Ns^ams
122
MeRBARA
,s-iS3-ia
123
BPAR-RATA
STN-ibwn
124
BAT-A-AXT
nvv ns2
Beth-anoth.
Beth-anoth, or Beth-anath'
125
SHeRHATAU
"isnsi-nEJ
Sharuhen ?
126
ARMATeN
inrans
127
KeRNAX
NS3b3
Golan?
128
MeRMA . .
• • Naia
129
. .RHeT
nm • •
130
.. .RAA
ss-i • • •
131
MA 
••••57a
132
AR 
....bs
133
YURA . . .
¦ • • Mbv
The following identifications are so evident that
it is not necessary to discuss them, and they may
be made the basis of our whole investigation : Nos.
14, 22, 24, 26, 27, 38, 39. It might appear at
first sight that there was some geographical order,
but a closer examination of these few names shows
that this is not the case, and all that we can infer
is, that the cities of each kingdom or nation are in
general grouped together. The forms of the names
show that irregularity of the vowels that charac
terizes the Egyptian language, as < may be seen in
the different modes in which a repeated name is
written (Nos. 68, 71, 77, 87, 94, 96, 101). The
consonants are used very nearly in accordance with
the system upon which we have transcribed in the
second column, save in the case of the Egyptian
R, which seems to be indifferently used for "1
and b.
There are several similar geographical lists,
dating for the most part during the period of the
Empire, but they differ from this in presenting few,
if any, repetitions, and only one of them contains
names certainly the same as some in the present.
They are lists of countries, cities, and tribes, form
ing the Egyptian Empire, and so far records of
conquest that any cities previously taken by the
Pharaoh to whose reign they belong are mentioned.
The list which contains some of the names in
Sheshenk's is of Thothnies III., sixth sovereign of
the XVIIIth dynasty, and comprises many names of
cities of Palestine mainly in the outskirts of the
Israelite territory. It is important, in reference to
this list, to state that Thothmes III., in his 23d
year, had fought a battle with confederate nations
near Megiddo, whose territories the list enumerates.
The narrative of the expedition fully establishes
the identity of this and other towns in the Ust of
Shishak. It is given in the document known as
-he Statistical Tablet bf El-Karnak (Birch, " An-
»al« of Thothmes III.," Archmohgia, 1853; De
Eoug^, Sev. Arch. N. S. xi. 347 ff.; Brugsch,
Geogr. Inschr. ii. p. 32 ff.). The only general
result of the comparison of the two hsts is, that
in the later one the Egyptian article is in two
cases prefixed to foreign names, No. 56, NEKBU, '
of the list of Thothmes III., being the same as
Nos. 84, 90, 92, PeNAKBU of the list of Shishak;
and No. 105, AAMeKU, of the former, being the
same as No. 65, PeAAMAK, of the latter.
We may now commence a detailed examination
of the list of Shishak. No. 13 may correspond to
Rabbith in Issachar. No. 14 is certainly Taanach,
a Levitical city in the same tribe, noticed in the
inscription of Thothmes commemorating the cam
paign above mentioned, in some connection with
the route to Megiddo: it is there written TA-
ANAKA. No. 15 is probably Shunem, a town
of Issachar: the form of the hieroglyphic name
seems to indicate a dual (comp. Nos. 18, 19, 22),
and it is remarkable that Shunem has been thought
to be originally a dual, D3!l27 for WVW (Ges.
Thes. s. v.). No. 16 is supposed by Dr. Brugsch
to be Beth-shan ; but the final letter of the Egyp
tian name is wanting in the Hebrew. It was a
city of Manasseh, but in the tribe of Issach.ir.
No. 17 is evidently Rehob, a Ijcvitical city in
Asher; and No. 18 Haphraim, a town in Issachar.
No. 19 seems to be Adoraim, one of Rehoboam's
strong cities, in the tribe of Judah: Adullam is
out of the question, as it commences with ^, and
is not a dual. No. 21 we cannot explain. No. 22
is Mahanaim, a Levitical city in Gad. No. 23 is
Gibeon, a Levitical city in Benjamin. No. 24 is
Beth-horon, which, though counted to Ephraim,
was on the boundary of Benjamin. It was as
signed to the Levites. The place consisted of two
towns or villages, both of which we mav suppose
are here intended. No. 25 is evidently the Le
vitical city Kedemoth in Reuben, aur No. 26,
Aijalon, also Levitical, in Dan. No. 2' a the
3016

SHISHAK

famous Megiddo, which in the Statistical Tablet of
Thothmes III. is written MAKeTA, and in the
same king's list MAKeTEE, but in tlie intro
ductory title MAKeTA. It was a city of the
western division of Manasseh. No. 28 may per
haps be Edrei, in trans-Jordanite Manasseh, though
the sign usually employed for V is wanting. No.
29 is the famous name which Champollion read
"the kingdom of Judah." To this Dr. Brugsch
objects, (i) that, the name is out of place as fol
lowing some names of towns in the kingdom of
Judah as well as in that of Israel, and preceding
others of both kingdoms; (2) that the supposed
equivalent of kingdom (MARK, "^bS^a) does not
satisfactorily represent the Hebrew jl^Dv^) but
corresponds to '?Tb'?; *nd (3) that the supposed
construction is inadmissible. He proposes to read
¦^ban ^^^'' as the name of a town, which he
does not find in ancient Palestine. The position
does not seem tx) us of much consequence, as the
list is evidently irregular in its order, and the form
might not be Hebrew, and neither Arabic nor
Syriac requires the final letter. The kingdom of
Judah cannot be discovered in the name without
disregard of grammar; but if we ai-e to read
" Judah the king," to which Judah does the name
point ? There was no Jewish king of that name
before Judas-Aristobulus. It seems useless to look
for a city, although there was a place called Jehud
in the tribe of Dan. The only suggestion we can
propose is, that the second word is "kingdom,"
and was placed after the first in the manner of an
Egyptian determinative. No. 31 may be compared
with Anem in Issachar (D3S), occurring, however,
only in 1 Chr. vi. 73 (Heb. 58), but it is not cer
tain that the Egyptian H ever represents V. No.
32 has been identified by Dr. Brugsch with Eglon,
but evidence as to its position shows that he is in
error. In the Statistical Tablet of KI- Karnak it is
placed in a mountain-district apparently southward
of Megiddo, a half-day's march from the plain of
that city. There can be little doubt that M. de
Koug^ is correct in supposing that the Hebrew
original signified an ascent (comp. n*7?; .'^f"-
Arch. p. 350). This name also occurs in the list
of Thothmes (Id. p. 360); there differing only in
ha\ing another character for the second letter.
No. 33 has been identified by Dr. Brugsch with
Bileam or Ibleam, a Levitical city in the western
division of Manasseh. For No. 34 we can make
no suggestion, and No. 35 is too much effaced for
any conjecture to be hazarded. No. 36 Dr. Brugsch
identifies with Alemeth, a I.eritical city in Ben
jamin, also called Almon, the first being probably
either the later or a coiTect form. [Alkjietii;
Almon.] No. 37 we think may be the Circle of
Jordan, in the A. V. Plain ot Jordan. No. 38 is
Shoco, one of Rehoboam's strong cities, and 39,
Beth-Tappuah, in tlie mountainous part of Judah.
No. 40 has been supposed by Dr. Brugsch to be an
Abel, and of the towns of that name he chooses
Abel-shittim, the Abila of Josephus, in the Bible
generally called Shittim. No. 45, though greatly
efftced, is sufficiently preserved for us to conclude
that it does not correspond to any known name in.
ancient Palestine beginning with Beth : the second
Mrt of the nauif commerces with DST, as though

SHISHAK
it were "the house of the wolf or Zeeb," which
would agree with the southeastern part of Pales
tine, or indicate, which is far less Kkely, a place
named after the Midianitish prince Zeeb, or some
chief of that name. No. 53 is uncertain in its third
letter, which is indistinct, and we offer no con
jecture. No. 54 commences with an erased sign,
followed by one that is indistinct. No. 55 is
doubtful as to reading: probably it is Pe-KETET.
Pe can be the Egyptian article, as in the name of
the Hagarites, the second sign in Egyptian signi
fies "little," and the remaining part corresponds
to the Hebrew DlSlp, Kattath, "small," the name
of a town in Zebulun (Josh. xix. 15), apparently
the same as Kitron (Judg. i. 30). The word KEl'
is found in ancient Egyptian with the sense "little"
(comp. Copt-KOTXl, De Roug^, &ude, p. 66).
It seems, however, rare, and may be Shemitic.
No. 56 is held by Dr. Brugsch to be Edom, and
there is no objection to this identification but that
we have no other names positively Edomite in the
list. No. 57 Dr. Brugsch compares with Zalmo
nah, a station of the Israelites in the desert. If it
be admissible to read the first letter as a Hebrew
ID, this name does not seem remote from Telerc
and Telaim, which ar^ probably the names of one
place in the tribe of Judah. Nos. 58, 59, and 64
are not sufficiently preserved for us to venture upon
any conjecture. No. 6b has been well supposed by
Dr. Brugsch to be the Hebrew PP??, "a valley,"
with the Egyptian article prefixed, but what valley
is intended it seems hopeless to conjecture: it may
be a town named after a valley, like the Beth-emek
mentioned in the account of the border of Asher
(Josh. xix. 27). Nb. 66 has been reasonably identi
fied by Dr. Brugsch with Azem, which was in the
.southernmost part of Judah, and is supposed to
have been afterwards allotted to Simeon, in whose
list an Ezem occurs. No. 85 reads ATe^i-KET-
HeT ? the second part being the sign for " little "
(corap. No. 55 ). This suggests that the use of the
sign for " great " as the first character of the
present name is not without significance, and that
there was a great and little Azem or Ezem, per
haps distinguished in the Hebrew text by different
orthography. No. 67 we cannot explain. No. 68
is unquestionably " the Hagarites," the Egyptian
article being prefixed. The same name recurs Nos.
71, 77, 87, 94, 96, and 101. In the Bible we find
the Hagarites to the east of Palestine, and in the
classical wTiters tliey are placed along the north
of Arabia. The Ilagaranu or Hagar are men
tioned as conquered by Sennacherib (Rawlinson's
Hdt. i. 476; Oppert, Sargonides, p. 42). No. 69,
EeTYUSHAA, seems, from the termination, to be
a gentile name, and in form resembles Letushim, a
Keturahite tribe. But this resembla'nce seems to
be raore than superficial, for Letushim, " the ham
mered or sharpened," comes frora ^'^7, "he
hammered, forged," and EJ^Q (unused) signifies
" he bent or hammered." From the occurrence
of this name near that of the Hagarites, this
identification seems deserving of attention. No.
70 may perhaps be Aroer, but the correspondence
of Hebrew and Egyptian scarcely allows this sup
position. No. 72 commences with a sign that is
frequently an initial in the rest of the list. If liere
syllabic, it must read MEB; if alphabetic, and ita

SHISHAK
alphabetic use ia possible at this period, M. In
the terms used for Egyptian towns we find MER,
written with the same sign, as the designation of
the second town in a nome, therefore not a capital,
but a town of importance. That this sign is here
similarly employed seems certain from its being
once followed by a geographical determinative (No.
122). We therefore read this name SARAMA,
or, according to Lepsius, B.-VKAMA. The final
syllable seems to indicate a dual. We may com
pare the name Salma, which occurs in Ptolemy's
list of the towns of Arabia Deserta, and his list
of those of the interior." No. 73, repeated at 75,
has been compared by Dr. Brugsch with the She
phelah, 'or maritime plain of the Philistines. The
word seems nearer to Shibboleth, " a stream," but
it is unlikely that two places sliould have been so
called, and the names among which it occurs favor
tlie other explanation. No. 74 seems cognate to
No. 87, though it is too different for us to venture
upon supposing it to be another form of the same
name. No. 76 has been compared by Dr. Brugsch
with Berecah, "a pool," but it seems more probably
the name of a tribe. No. 78 reads NAABAYT,
and is unquestionably Nebaioth. There was a peo
ple or tribe of Nebaioth in Isaiah's time (Is. Ix. 7),
and this second occurrence of the name in the
form of that of Ishmael's son is to be considered
in reference to the supposed Chaldiean origin of the
Nabathseans. In Lepsius's copy the name is N.
TAYT, the second cliaracter being unknown, and
no doubt, as well as the third, incorrectly copied.
The occurrence of the name immediately after that
of the Hagarites is sufficient evidence in favor of
Dr. Brugsch's reading, which in most cases of dif
ference in this list is to be preferred to Lepsius's.'
No. 79, AATeTMAA, may perhaps be compared
with Tema tlie son of Ishmael, if we may read
.\.ATTeMAA. No. 80 we cannot explain. Nos.
81 and 82 are too rauch effaced for any conjecture.
No. 83 we compare with the Kenites : here it is a
tribe. No. 84 is also found in the list of Thothmes :
liere it has the Egyptian article, PeNAKBU, there
it is written NeKBU (Rev. Arch. pp. 364, 365).
It evidently corresponds to the Hebrew 333, " the
south," sometimes specially applied to the southern
district of Palestine. No. 85 reads ATeM-A'eT-
HeT? The second part of the name is "little"
(comp. No. 55). We have already shown that it
is probably a "little" town, corresponding to the
" great " town No. 66. But the final part of No.
85 remains unexplained. No. 86 we cannot ex
plain. No. 87 differs from the other occurrences
of the name ot the Hagarites in being followed by
the sign for MER: we therefore suppose it to be
a city of this nation. No. 88 may be compared
with Shen (1 Sam. vii. 12), which, however, may
not be the name of a town or village, or with the
two Ashnahs (Josh. xv. 33, 43). Nos. 89, 91, and
93, we cannot explain. No. 95 presents a name,
repeated with slight variation in No. 99, which is
evidently that of a tribe, but we cannot recognize
it. No. 97 equaUy hafiles us. No. 98 is a town
TeMAM, possibly the town of Dumah in the north

SHISHAK

3017

of Arabia or that in Judah. No. 100 is a town
TRA-AA, which we may compare with Eddara in
Arabia I>eserta. No. 102 may mean a resting-
place, from the root 1^7. No. 103, repeated at
105, is apparently the name of a tribe. It may be
Adljeel, the name of a son of Ishmael, but the
form is not close enough for us to offer this as
more than a conjecture. Nos. 104 and 106 we
cannot explain. No. 107 is eitlier HAKeRMA or
HAReKMA. It may be compared with Rekem
or Arekeme, the old name of Petra according to
Josephus (A. ./. iv. 7), but the form is probably
dual. No. 108 has been compared with Arad by
Dr. Brugsch: it is a country or place, and tlie
variation in No. 110 appears to be the name of the
people. No. 109 may be Beth-lebaoth in Simeon,
evidently the same as Lebaoth originally in Judah,
or else Rabbah in Judah. No. Ill we cannot
explain. No. 112 is most like the Jerahmeelites
in the south of Judah. No. 116 is partly effaced.
No. 117 is the same name as No. 100. No. 118
is probably the name of an unknown tribe. No.
119 may be Maachah, if the geographical direction
is changed. No. 120 is partly effaced. No. 121
we cannot explain. No. 122 appears to be a town
of BARA or BALA. No. 123 seems to read
BAR-RATA (STNT b3?2), but we know no
place of that name. No. 124 reads BAT-AAT,
but there can be little doubt that it is really BAT-
ANAT. In this case it might be either Beth-
anath in Naphtali or Beth-anoth in Judah. No.
125 we cannot explain. No. 126 appears to com
mence with Aram, but the rest does not correspond
to any distinctive word known to follow this name.
No. 127 has been identified by Dr. Brugsch with
Golan, a Levitical city in Bashan. The remaining
names are more or less effaced.
It will be perceived that the list contains three
classes of nanies mainly grouped together — (1) Le
vitical and Canaanite cities of Israel; (2) cities of
Judah; and (3) Arab tribes to the south of Pales
tine. The occurrence together of Levitical cities
was observed by Dr. Brugsch. It is evident that
Jeroboam was not at once firmly established, and
that the Levites especially held to Rehoboam.
Therefore it may have been the policy of Jeroboam
to employ Shishak to capture their cities. Other
cities in his territory were perhaps still garrisoned
by Rehoboam's forces, or held by the Canaanites,
who may have somewhat recovered their indepen
dence at this period. The small number of cities
identified in the actual territory of Rehoboam ia
explained by the erasure of fourteen naraes of the
part of the list where they occur. The identifica
tion of some names of Arab tribes is of great in
terest and historical value, though it is to be feared
that further progress can scarcely be made in their
part of the list.
The Pharaohs of the Empire passed through
northern Palestine to push their conquests to the
Euphrates and Mesopotamia. Shishak, probably
unable to attack the Assyrians, attempted the sub
jugation of Palestine and the tracts of Arabia which
border Egypt, knowing that the Ai'abs would m ¦

o We were disposed to think that this might be
Jerusalem, especially on account of the dual termina
tion ; but the impossibility of reading the first char
acter ATUB or AUR (IS'^), as an ideographic sign
fer "river," to say nothing of the doubt aa to the
190

secoud character, makes us reject this reading ; and
the position in the list is unsuitable. The Rev. D.
Haigh has learnedly supported this view, at which he
independently arrived, in a correspondence.
& Lepsius's copy presents many errors of oaiekas

3018

SHITRAI

terpose an efiectuai resistance to any invader of
Egypt. He seems to have succeeded in consolidat
ing his power in Arabia, and we accordingly find
Zerah in alliance with the people of Gerar, if we
may infer this &om their sharing his overthrow. R. S. P.
* Bunsen in his Bibelwerk, i. p. ccxxvi., gives
an elaborate table of synchronisms between the early
Biblical history and the history of Egypt, of As
syria, and of Babylon. He professes to have found
several points of contact between Israelitish and
li^yptian history before the reigns of Solomon and
Shishak; such as the exodus, the era of Joseph,
etc. Though his argument is marked by the arbi
trary conjecture and the dogmatic assertion so fre
quent in his writings, it is deserving of careful
study. The reign of Solomon he fixes at 39 years,
from 1007 to 969 B. i;., that of Sheshonk from 979
to 956 B. U-.
The geographical identifications of the lists of
Shishak's victories, will be considered more at
length in comparison with the lists of Thothmes
m. under Thebes. J. P. T.
SHIT'KAI [2 syl.] Olt???; Keri,''tS-\^ :
'SaTpat; [Vat. Ao-apTttis:] Setrai). A Sharonite
who was over David's herds that fed in Shai'on
(1 Chr. xxvii. 29).
SHITTAH-TBEE, SHITTIM (HQ^?,
shitiah : ^v\ov Sffrjirrov : ligna setim, ^ina) is
without doubt correctly referred to some species of
acacia, of which three or four kinds occur in the

Acacia Seyal.
Bible lands. The wood of this tree — pernaps the
A. seyal is more definitely signified — was exten
sively employed in the construction of the Taber
nacle, the boards and pillars of which were made

o Livingstone (Trav. in S. Africa, abridged ed.,
p. 77} thinks the Acacia giraffa (camel-thorn) sup
plied the wood for the Tabemacle, etc. "It is,"

SHITTAH-TKBB
of it; the ark of tbe covenant and the staves fiir
carrying it, the table of shew bread with itl
staves, the altar of burnt-offerings aud the altar
of incense with their respective staves were also
constructed out of this wood (see Ex. xxv., xxvi.,
xxxvi., xxxvii., xxxviii.). In Is. xii. 19 the acacia-
tree is mentioned with the "cedar, the myrtle,
and the oil-tree," as one which God would plant in
the wildemess. The Egyptian name of the acacia
is sont, sant, or santh : see Jablonski, Opusc. i. p.
261; Rossius, Etymol. ^gypt. p. 273; and Pros
per Alpinus (Plant. .^gypU p. 6), who thus speaks
of this tree : " The acacia, which the Egyptians
call sant, grows in localities in Egypt remote fiom
the sea; and large quantities of this tree are pro
duced on the mountains of Sinai, overhanging the
Red Sea. That this tree is, without doubt, the true
acacia of the ancients, or the Egyptian thorn, ia
clear from several indications, especially from tht
fact that no other spinous tree occurs in E^ypt
which so well answers to the requited chai-acters-
These trees grow to the size of a mulberry-tree,
and spread their branches aloft." " The wild aca
cia (Mimosa Nilotica), under the name of siint,"
says Prof Stanley (Syi^. ^ Pal. p. 20), "every
where represents the ' seneh ' or ' senna ' of the
Burning Bush." The Heb. term (ntSttJ) is, by
Jablonski, Celsius, and many other authors, derived
ftom the Egyptian word, the 3 being dropped ; and
from an Arabic MS. cited by Celsius, it appears
that the Arabic term also comes from the Egyptian,
the true Arabic name for the acacia being karadh
(Bierob. i. p. 508).
The shittdh-tree of Scripture is by some writers
thought to refer more especially to the Acaaa
Seyal, though perhaps the Acaci.a Nilotica and A.
Arabica may be included under the term. The
A. Seyal is very common in some parts of the
peninsula of Sinai (M. Bov^, Voyage du Caire au
Mont Sinai, Ann. des Scienc. Nat. 1834, i., sec.
ser. p. 166 ; Stanley, Syi: (f Pal. pp. 20, 69, 298).
These trees are more common in Arabia than in
Palestine, though there is a valley on the west side
ofthe Dead Sea, the Wady .Seyd/, which derives its
name from a few acacia-trees there. The Acacia
Seyal, like the A. Arabica, yields the well-known
substance called gum arable which is obtained by
incisions in the bark, but it is impossible to say
whether the ancient Jews were acquainted with its
use. From the tangled thickets into which the
stem of this tree expands, Stanley well remarks that
hence is to be traced the use of the plural form of
the Hebrew noun, shittim, the sing, number occur
ring but once only in the Bible." Besides the
Acacia Seyal, there is another species, the A. tor-
tilis, common on Mount Sinai. Although none of
the above named trees are sufficiently large to
yield plants 10 cubits long by IJ cubit wide, which
we are told was the size of the boards that formed
the tabernacle (Ex. xxxvi. 21), yet there is an acacia
that grows near Cairo, namely the A. Seiissa, which
would supply boards of the required size. There is,
however, no evidence to show that this tree ever
grew in the peninsula of Sinai. And though it
would be unfair to draw any conclusion from such
negative evidence, still it is probable that "the

he adds, " an imperishable wood, while that which b
uauaUy supposed to be the Shitthn (Acacia Kilotie*
wants beauty and soon decays." '

SHITTIM

SHOBACH

3019

, , ,, /_<,»:— >.—,N r J u f ii,« Balaam, as he looked down upon them from the
boards" (D^tSni^rt) were supphed by one of the ^^.^^^^^'^j ^^^ ^^^^^ „^^^^^^ ^ ^ p ^28).
other acacias. There is, however, no necessity to

imit the meaning of the Hebrew C^p (keresh)
to " a st»y(e plank." In Ez. xxvii. 6, the same
word in the singular number is applied in a col
lective sense to " the deck " of a ship (comp. our
"on board "). The keresh of the Tabernacle, there
fore, may denote " two or more boards joined to
gether," which, from being thus united, may have
been expressed by a singular noun. These aca
cias, which are for the most part tropical plants,
must not be confounded with the tree (Rob'mia
Dseudo-acacia), popularly kiiown by this name in
England, which is a North Americim plant, and
belongs to a different genus and sub-order. The
true acaeias, most of which possess hard and dura
ble wood (comp. Pliny, 3. N. xiii. 19; Josephus,
Ant. iii. 6, § 1), belong to the order Leguminosce,
sub-order Mimosece. W. H.
SHIT'TIM (D''J3t^n, with the def. article:
[Vat.] SoTTtiV; [Rom. in Josh., SottIk; Alex, in
Josh. ii. 1, SaTTii ;] in the Prophets, oi o'xoii'oi :
Settim, [Setim] ). The place of Israel's encampment
between the conquest of the Transjordanic highlands
and the passage of the Jordan (Num. xxxiii. 49, xxv.
1 ; Josh. ii. 1, iii. 1 ; Mic. vi. 5). Its full name appears
to be given in the first of these passages — Abel
has-Shittim — " the meadow, or moist place of the
acacias." It was " in the Arboth-Moab, by Jordan-
Jericho: " such is the ancient formula repeated over
and over again (Num. xxii. 1, xxvi. 3, xxxi. 12,
xxxiii. 48, 49). That is to say, it was' in the Ara
bah or Jordan Valley opposite .Jericho, at that part
of the Arabah which belonged to and bore the name
of Moab, where the streams which descend from the
eastern mountains and force their winding way
through the sandy soil of the plain, nourished a
vast growth of the seyal, sunt, and sidr trees, such
as is nourished by the streams of the 'Wady Kelt
and the Ain SuUdn on the opposite side of the
river. It was in the shade and the tropical heat of these
acacia-groves that the people were seduced to the
licentious rites of Baal-Peor by the Midianites ; but
it was from the same spot that Moses sent forth
the army, under the fierce Phinehas, which worked
so fearful a retribution for that license (xxxi. 1-12).
It was from the camp at Shittim that Joshua sent
out the spies across the river to Jericho (Josh. ii. 1).
The Nachai-Shittim, or Wady-Sunt, as it would
now be called, of Joel (iii. 18), can hardly be the
same spot as that described above, but there is
nothing to give a clew to its position." G.
* Tristram identifies the plain of Shittim with
the Ghbr es-Seisaban, extending in unbroken ver
dure from Keferein on its northern margin (which
he identifies as the site of Abel-Shittim, Num. xxxiii.
49), to the northeast end of the Dead Sea, and
which he pronounces " by far the largest and rich-
2st oasis in the whole Ghdr:" It was in the midst
of its gardens and groves that Israel encamped, and
the irrigated luxuriance around them explains sorae
of the allusions in the prophetic " parable " of

" * Joel in the above passage may refer to an ideal,
ftot an actual place. He is foretelling the triumphs
of a purer and more effective religion in the latter.
imea. The places where the acaeias grow are gener-
lUy arid and otherwise unproductive. From the truth

S. W.
SHI'ZA {br~," [splendor, Furst]: Sat(d-;
Alex. [2ex«i *'¦*¦] Efo; [Comp. St^d:] Siza).
A Reubenite, father of Adina, one of David's
mighty men (1 Chr. xi. 42).
SHO'A(V'ltr Irich, liberal]: Sove; Alex.
SouS: tyranni). A proper name which occurs
only in Ez. xxiii. 23, iu connection with Pekod
and Koa. The three apparently designate dis
tricts of Assyria with which the southern kingdom
of Judah had been intimately connected, and which
were to be arrayed against it for punishment. The
Peshito-Syriac has LOd, that is Lydia ; while the
Arabic of the London Polyglott has Sut, and Lad oc
cupies the place of Koa. Rashi remarks on the three
words, " the interpreters say that they signify officers,
princes, and rulers." This rendering must have
been traditional at the time of Aquila (iTrta^KerrTTis
Kal Tvpavvos Kal KQpv(l)a'LOs) and Jerome (nobiles
tyranni et piincipes). Gesenius (Thes. p. 1208a)
maintains that the context requires the words to
be taken as appellatives, and not as proper names;
and Fiirst, on the same ground, maintains the
contrary (Handwb. s. v. V'p), Those who take
Shoa as an appellative refer to the usage of tho
word in Job xxxiv. 19 (A. V. "rich") and ts. xxxii.
5 (A.V. "bountiful"), where it signifies rich,
liberal, and stands in the latter passage in parallel
ism with ^''12, nddib, by which Kimchi explains
it, and which is elsewhere rendered in the A. V.
"prince" (Prov. xvii. 7) and "noble" (Prov. viii,
16 ). But a consideration of the latter pai't of the
verse Ez. xxiii. 23, where the captains and rulers
of the Assyrians are distinctly mentioned, and the
fondness which Ezekiel elsewhere shows for playing
upon the sound of proper names (as in xxvii. 10,
xxx. 5), lead to the conclusion that in this case
Pekod, Shoa, and Koa are proper names also; but
nothing further can be said. The only name which
has been found at aU resembling Shoa is that of a
town in Assyria mentioned by Pliny, " Sue in ru
pibus," near Gangamela, and west of the Orontes
mountain chain. Bochart (Phaleg, iv. 9) derives
Sue ftom the Chaldee SOT27, shu'd, a rock.
W. A. W.
SHCBAB (33'"ltE7 [rebellious, erring] : Sar-
0dp ; Alex. 2ai^oBai' in Sam. ; [1 Chr. iii.. Vat
Safiav; xiv.. Vat. la-o&oap, FA. So^aap:] Sobab,
[Sobad] ). 1. Son of David by Bathsheba (2 Sam.
V. 14 ; 1 Chr. iii. 5, xiv. 4).
2. (Sov$d0; [Vat. laffov$;] Alex. Sa)$a$.)
Appai'ently the son of Caleb the son of Hezron by
his wife Azubah (1 Chr. ii. 18). But the passage
is corrupt. SHO'BACH fiT^'lti' [a free one, Furst]:
SaSdK, Alex. Sa$ax, 2 Sam. x. 16: Sobach).
The general of Hadarezer, king of the Syrians of
Zoba, who was in command of the army which was
summoned from beyond the Euphrates against the
Hebrews, after the defeat of the combined forces of

yet to break forth from Judaism a new form was to
arise which should transform and bless the nations
that hitherto have presented only a scene of the wildest
moral desolation. Compare Baoa ; Jehoshaphat, VaIt
LET OF [Amer. ed.]. H

3020

SHOBAI

Syria and the Ammonites before the gates of
Rabbah. He was met by David in person, who
crossed the Jordan and attacked him at Helam.
The battle resulted in the total defeat of the Syr
ians. Shobach was wounded, and died on the
field (2 Sam. x. 15-18). In 1 Chr. xix. 16, 18,
he is called Shophach, and by Josephus (Ant. vii.
B, § 3) SdSsKos-
SHO'BAI [2 syl.] C^^tt? [taking captive] :
SaiBai. SaBl: [Vat. A,6aoi), Sa^ei;] Alex. 3;:-
flaii [FA. SaiSel] in Neh.: Sobai). The children
of Shobai were a family of the doorkeepers of the
Temple, who returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 42;
Neh. vii. 45). Called Sami in 1 Esdr. v. 28.
SHO'BAL (bnitl? [flowing, or a shoot]:
SoijSaA.: Sobal). 1. The second son of Seir the
Horite (Gen. xxxvi. 20; 1 Chr. i. 38), and one of
the "dukes" or phylarchs of the Horites (Gen.
xxxvi. 29). E. S. P.
2. [Vat. in ver. 50, Sapap] Son of Caleb, the
son of Hur, and founder or prince of Kirjath-
jearim (1 Chr. ii. 50, 52).
3. (Sov$d\.) In 1 Chr. iv. 1, 2, Shobai ap
pears with Hur, among the sons of Judah, and as
the father of Reaiah. He is possibly the same as
the precedmg, in which case Reaiah may be iden
tical with Haroeh, the two names in Hebrew being
not very unhke.
SHO'BEK (p^'iaJ [^perh. forsaking] : Sa^'fiK;
[Vat. Eio-a-a$TiK; FA. n$TjK:] Sobec). One of
'.he heads of the people who sealed the covenant
with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 24).
SHCBI C'^ti? [one who captures]: Ovea^i;
[Vat.] Alex. OueiriSei : Sobi). Son of Nahash of
Rabbah of the children of Ammon (2 Sam. xvii.
27). He was one of the first to meet David at Ma
hanaim on his fight from Absalom, and to offer
him the hospitaUty of a powerful and wealthy chief,
for he was the son of David's old friend Nahash,
and the bond between them was strong enough to
survive on the one hand the insults of Hanun, and
on the other the conquest and destruction of Rabbah.
Josephus calls him Siphar (Ani. vii. 9, § 8), " chief
(dwdarris) ofthe Ammonite country."
SHO'CO (S3W [bi-anches] : [yat.] TVf Sok-
X»e; and so Alex.; [Rom. Sox<i8: Comp. Sok-
Xti:] Socho), 2 Chr. xi. 7. A vai'iation of the
name Socoh, unnecessarily increased in the A. V.
by the substitution of Sh for the S of the original.
SHO'CHO (ir)'"t£7 [as above]: tV Saxti:
Socho), 2 Chr. xxviii. 18. One of the four [six]
varieties of the name Socoh. In this case also the
discrepancies in the A. V. are needlessly multiplied
by Sh being substituted for S and ch for c of the
original. SHO'CHOH (nb'"!tC [branches]: SoKXiiO;
Alex. Okx" and Sokx<"; [Comp. Soxd'] Socho),
1 Sam. xvii. 1. This, like Shocho, Sochoh, [So
cho,] and Shoco, is an incorrect variation of the
name Socoh.
SHO'HAM (DnCl; [onyx]:'ia-odp;A)e%. lo-
ffoap; [Comp. Sodp:] Soam). A Merarite Le
vite, son of Jaa^iah (1 Chr. xxiv. 27).
SHOE. [Sandal.]
SHO'MBE (~ip'lt» [keeper]: [Rom. Vat.
lapiip; Alex.] Saiprii.: Somer). 1. A man of

SHOSHANNIM-EDUTH
the tribe of Asher (1 Chr. vii. 32), who is alfo
called Shamer (ver. 34).
2. [Saip.4ip; Alex, aaa-aprip.] The father of
Jehozabad, who slew king Joash (2 K. xii. 21): in
the parallel passage in 2 Chr. xxiv. 26, the name is
converted into the feminine form Shinirith, who is
further described as a Moabitess. This variation
may have originated in the dubious gender of the
preceding name Shimeath, which is also made fem
inine by the Chronicler. W. L. B.
SHO'PHACH (^S'ltt? [extension, Fiirst] :
SoifdB; [Vat. Sai(j>ap, SacpaB; FA.' in ver. 16,
Eo-a?<J)op;] Alex. Saxpax, Sa^ax: Sophach).
Shobach, the general of Hadarezer (1 Chr. xix.
16, 18).
SHOTHAN ClD'ia?; Samar. D^'CtS [perh.
naked, barren]: t^v Sotpdp: Sophan). One of
the fortified towns on the east of Jordan which
were taken possession of and rebuilt by the tribe of
Gad (Num. xxxii. 35). It is probably an affix to
the second Atroth, to distinguish it from the for
mer one, not an independent place. No name
resembling it has yet been met with in that lo
cality. G.
SHOSHAN'NIM. " To the chief musician
upon Shoshannim " is a musical direction to the
leader of the Temple choir which occurs in Pss.
xiv., Ixix., and most probably indicates the melody
"after" or "in the manner of" {yV, 'al, A. V.
"upon ") which the psalms were to be sung. As
"Shoshannim" literally signifies "lilies,'' it has
been suggested that the word denotes lily-shaped
instruments of music (Simonis, Lex. s. v.), per
haps cymbals, and this view appears to be adopted
by De Wette (Die Psalmen, p. 34). Hengsten
berg gives to it an enigmatical interpretation, as
indicating " the subject or subjects treated, as lilies
figuratively for bride in xiv. ; the delightful conso
lations and deliverances experienced in Ixix., etc."
(Davidson, Inlrod. ii. 246); which Dr. Davidson
very truly characterizes as " a most improbable
fancy." The LXX. and Vulgate have in both
psalms xnrep TtJov aWoiatOrjaofieyuv and pj'O iis
qui immutabuntur .respectively, reading apparently
D'^atep b? for 1T3WW bp. Ben Zeb (Ol-
sar Hashshor. s. v.) regards it as an insti-ument of
psalmody, and Junius and TremeUius, after Kim
chi, render it " hexachorda," an instrument with
six strings, referring it to the root shesh, " six,"
and this is approved by Eichhom in his edition of
Simonis. W. A. W.
SHOSHAN'NIM-ET)UTH. In the title
of Ps. Ixxx. is found the direction "to the chief
musician upon Shoshannim eduth " (C^t^'ti?
rfl"T3?), which appears, according to the most
probable conjecture, to denote the melody or air
"after" or "in the manner of" which the psalm
was to be sung. As the words now stand they
signify " lilies, a testimony," and the two are sep
arated by a large distinctive accent. In themselves
they have no meaning in the present text, and
must therefore be regarded as probably a fragment
of the beginning of an older psalm with which the
choir were familiar. Ewald gives what lie consid
ers the original meaning — " ' lilies,' that is, pure,
innocent, is 'the Law; ' " but the words will not
bear this interpretation, nor is it possibls in their
present position to assign to them any intelligible

SHOULDER-PIECE
lense. For the coiyectures of those who regard
the words as the names of musical instruments, see
the ai'ticles Shoshannim, Shushan-eduth. W. A. VV.
» SHOULDER-PIECE. [Ephod; High-
priest.] * SHOVEL. [Agriculture, voL i. p.
44 a.]
** SHROUD, Ezek. xxxi. 3, has its older sense
of " cover," " shelter." H.
SHU'A (pa? [nWi, noble]: Saia; [Corap.
2oi;^:] Sue). A Canaanite of Adullam, father of
Judah's wife (1 Chr. ii. 3), who was hence called
Bath-Shua. In the LXX. of Gen. xxxviii. 2, Shua
is wrongly made to be the name of the daughter.
[Bath-Shua.] SHU'AH (niB? [pU]: Swif, Sai; Alex.
Sarae: Sue). 1. Son of Abraham by Keturah
(Gen. xxv. 2: 1 Chr. i. 32).
2. (nnJiaJ: 'Aaxd: Sua.) Properly "Shu-
chah." i'he name Shuah occurs among the de
scendants of Judah as that of the brother of Che-
lub (1 Chr. iv. U). For " Chelub the brother of
Shuah," the LXX. read " Caleb the father of Ach-
sah [Ascha]." In ten of Kennicott's and De
Rossi's MSS., Shuah is made the son of Chelub.
3. (pt£7: Savd: Sue.) The father of Judah's
wife, the Canaanitess (Gen. xxxviii. 2, 12); als6
called Shua in the A. V. The LXX. make Shuah
the name of the woman in both instances.
SHU'AL (by^tr [jackal]: SovU; [Vat.
Sou\o;] Alex. SovaK: Sued). Son of Zophah,
an Asherite (1 Chr. vii. 36).
SHU'AL, THE LAND OF (bSW V^^^
[land of the jackal]: .yij S<^d\; Alex, is lost:
leiTa Sual). A district named only in 1 Sam.
xiii. 17, to denote the direction taken by one of the
three parties of marauders who issued from the
Philistine camp at Michmash. Its connection with
Ophrah (probably Taiyibeh) and the direction of
the two other routes named in the passage make it
pretty certain that the land of Shual lay north of
Michmash. If therefore it be identical with the
" land ot Shalim " (1 Sam. ix. 4) — as is not im
possible — we obtain the first and only clew yet ob
tained to Saul's journey in quest of the asses. '1'he
name Shual has not yet been identified in the neigli-
borhood of Taiyibeh or elsewhere. It may have
originated in the Hebrew signification of the word
— "jackal "; in which case it would be appropri
ate enough to the wild, desolate region east of Tai-
yibeh ; a region containing a valley or ravine at no
great distance from Taiyibeh which bore and per
haps still bears the name of " Hysenas." [Ze-
noiM, Valley of.] Others (as Thenius, in
Exeg. Bandb.) derive the name from » different
coot, and interpret it as "hollow land." G.
SHU'BAEL (bN3^ti7 [captive of God]:
Sa$a-ii\; [Vat. laiBar)K;] Alex. Sov$aTi\: Su
bael). 1. Shebuel the son of Gershom (1 Chr.
txiv. 20).
2. (2ou/3a^A.) Shebuel the son of Heman
the minstrel (1 Chr. xxv. 20).
SHU'HAM (an-ltr [perh. j»<-%yci-, Ges.]:
tape; [Vat. 2a,uei;] Alex. SapeiSr/: Suham).
Bon of Dan, .and ancestor of the Shuhamites

SHUNAMMITE, THE 3021
(Num. xxvL 42). In Gen. xlvi. 23 he is called
HusniM. SHU'HAMITES, THE OanWil [patr.,
see above]: 6 Sape't; [Vat. Soi/nei;] Alex. Sa-
peiSrii, Sap€i: Suhamitcc, Suamitee). The de
scendants of Shuham, or Hushira, the son of Dan
(Num. xxvi. 42, 43). In the census taken in the
plains of Moab they numbered 4,460.
SHU'HITE OnW: [Job ii. 11, i 5air
Xeuy (Vat. Sin. -x^^'^ Alex. Avxaittiv) rbpavvos;
elsewhere, Savxirris, exc. Vat. -xei- viii. 1, Sin.
-Xfi- "I'L 9, and Alex. Avxm)S, xviii. 1 :] Shu-
hiles). Job viii. 1. This ethnic appellative " Shu-
bite " is frequent [occurs 5 times] in tbe book of
Job, but only as the epithet of one person, Bildad.
The local indications of the book of Job point to a
region on the western side of Chaldsea, bordering
on .A.rabia; and exactly in this locality, above Hit
and on both sides of the Euphrates, are found, in
the Assyrian inscriptions, the Tsukiii, a powerful
people. It is probable that these were the Shuhites.
and that, having been conquered by the Babylonian
kings, they were counted by Ezekiel among the
tribes of the Chaldaeans. Having lost their inde
pendence, they ceased to be noticed ; but it was no
doubt from them that the country on the Euphra
tes immediately above Babylonia came to be desig
nated as Sohene, a term applied to it in the Pen-
tingerian Tables. The Shuhites appear to have
been descendants of Abraham by Keturah. [Shu
ah, 1.] G. R.
SHU'LAMITB, THE (n''ab^t»n, i. e.
the Shulammite [see below] : [Vat.] ?) Sovpavei-
Tis; [Rom. Soui/a/niTis;] Alex. [FA.] tj SouAa/i-
iTts: Sulamitis and Sunamitis). One of the per
sonages in the poem of Solomon's Song, who,
although named only in one passage (vi. 13), is,
according to some interpreters, the most prominent
of all the characters. The name — after the anal
ogy of Sbunammite — denotes a woman belonging
to a place called Shulem. The only place bearing
that name, of which we have any knowledge, is
Shunem itself, which, as far back as the 4th cen-
tuiy, was so called (Eusebius, quoted under Shu
nem). In fact, there is good ground for believing
that the two were identical. Since, then, Sh".lam-
mite and Sbunammite are equivalent, there is noth
ing surely extravagant in supposing that the Sbu
nammite who was the object of Solomon's passion
was Abishag, — the most lovely girl of her day,
and at the time of David's death one of the raost
prominent persons at tlie court of Jerusalem. Thia
would be equally appropriate, whether Solomon was
himself the author of the Song, or it were written
by another person whose object was to personate
him accurately. For the light which it throws on
the circumstances of Solomon's accession, see Sor,
OMON. [Wedding, Amer. ed.] G.
SHU'MATHITBS, THE {->rV^\Sn, i. „.
the Shumathite [patr.] : [Vat.] Ha-apaBeip. [Rom
-8lp, Alex. -6eiv] : Sematiiei). One of the four
families who sprang from Kirjath-jearim (1 Chr. ii.
53). They probably colonized a village named
Shumah somewhere in that neighborhood. But
no traee of such a name has been discovered. G.
SHU'NAMMITE, THB (fT'lSJ^t^n" •

a In 1 K. il. 21, 22, the shorter form of iT'Satiyp
is used.

3022

SHUNEM

[Vat] HI SapaveiTis [Rom. -yi-] ; Alex. [Saipav-
iT7;s,] Sovpai/iTis : Sunamitis), i e. the native of
Shunem, as is plain from 2 K. iv. 8. It is applied
to two persons : Abishag, the nurse of King David
(1 K. i. 3," 15, ii. 17, 21, 22), and the nameless host
ess of Elisha (2K. iv. 12, 25, 36).
The modern representative of ShuQem being So-
tam, some have suggested (as Gesenius, Thes. p.
1379 b), or positively affirmed (as Fiirst, Handmb. ii.
422), that Sbunammite is identical with Shulam
mite (Cant. vi. 13). Of this all that can be said is,
that, though, highly probable, it is not absolutely
certain. G.
SHU'NEM (D3W [two resting-places] : 2ou-
vav'^: Sunem, Sunam). One of the cities allotted
to the tribe of Issachar (Josh. xix. 18). It occurs
in the list between Chesulloth and Haphraim. It
is mentioned on two occasions. First, as the place
of the Philistines' first encampment before the bat
tle of Giiboa (1 Sam. xxviii. 4). Here it occurs in
connection with Mount Giiboa and En-dor, and
also probably with Jezreel (xxix. 1). [Gileoa,
Amer. ed.] Secondly, as the scene of EUsha's in
tercourse with the Sbunammite woman and her
son (2 K. iv. 8). Here it is connected with adja
cent cornfields, and, more remotely, with Mount
Carmel. It was besides the native place of Abi
shag, the attendant on King David (1 K. i. 3),
and possibly the heroine of the poem or drama of
" Solomon's Song."
By Eusebius and Jerome (Onom.) it is men
tioned twice: under Sovfifip and " Sunem," as 5
miles south of Mount Tabor, and then known as
Sulem: and under " Sonam," as a village in Acra^
battine, in the territory of Sebaste called Sanim.
The latter of these two identifications probably re
fers to Sanur, a well-known fortress some 7 miles
from Sebasiiyeh and 4 from Arrabeh — a spot
completely out of the circle of the associations
which connect themselves with Shunem. The
other has more in its favor, since — except for the
distance from Mount Tabor, which is nearer 8 Ro
man miles than 5 — it agrees with the position of
the present Solani, a village on the S. W. flank of
.lebel Bully (the so-called "Little Hermon"), 3
miles N. of Jezreel, 5 fiom Giiboa (/. Fuhua), full
in view of the saered spot on Mount Carmel, and
situated in the midst of the finest cornfields in the
world. It is named, as Salem, by the Jewish traveller,
hap-Parchi (Asher's Benjamin, ii. 431). It had
then its spring, without which the Philistines
would certainly not have chosen it for their en
campment. Now, according to the notice of Dr.
Robinson (ii. 324), the spring of the village is but
a poor one.
The change of the n in the ancient name to I in
the modern one, is the reverse of that which has
taken place in Zerin (Jezreel) and Beitin (Bethel). G.
SHU'NI 03W [ipiiet] : Sawis, Sovvl [Vat.
-vei] ; Alex. Savvts in Gen. : Sum). Son of Gad,
and founder of the family of the Shunites (Gen.
dvi. 16; Num. xxvi. 15).

« The A. V. is here incorrect in omitting the defi-
alte article.
6 Perhaps contracted fi:oro D''_3W (Gesenius, Thes.
t. 1879 b).
I It is given differently on each occurrence in each

SHUB
SHU'NITES, THE OSWH [patr. from the
above]: 6 Sow; [Vat. -vei]: SuniUe). Descend
ants of Shuni the son of Gad (Num. xxvi. 15).
SHU'PHAM. [Shuppim.]
SHU'PHAMITBS, THE 0!?MHJn
[patr.] : d Sa,<t>avi [Vat. -vei] ' Supkamittx). The
descendants of Shupham, or Shephupham, the
Benjamite (Num. xxvi. 39).
SHUP'PIM (DQt£7, D^S27 [perh. serpents,
Ges.]: Sarripiv; [Vat. Sarripeiv, Mo;u^«y;] Alex.
Saipeip, Se<p<peip: Sepham, Saphan). 1. In the
genealogy of Benjamin, " Shuppim and Huppim,
the children of Ir," are reckoned in 1 Chr. vii. 12.
Ir is the same as Iri the son of Bela the son of
Benjamin, so that Shuppim was the great-grandson
of Benjamin. In Num. xxvi. 39, he and his
brother are called Shupham, and Hupham, while in
1 Chr. viii. 6 they appear as Shephuphan and Hu-
ram, sons of Bela, and in Gen. xlvi. 21 as Mup
pim and Huppim, sons of Benjamin. To avoid
the difficulty of supposing that Benjamin had a
great-grandson at the time he went down to
Egypt, Lord A. Hervey conjectures that Shuppim
or Shephuphan was a son of Benjamin, whose
family was reckoned with that of Ir or Iri.
[Muppim.] * 2. (Rom. Vat. omit; Alex. 2e(^iei(n: Sep/ijm.)
A Levite who, with Hosah, had charge of the gate
Shallecheth (1 Chron. xxvi. 16). A.
SHUB ("IW [waU] d : Soip, re\ap}lioup ;
[Alex, in Gen. xxv. 18 Sovri\, 1 Chr. xxvii. 8, Te-
\apaoup :] Sur), a place just without the eastern
border of Egypt. Its name, if Hebrew or Arabic,
signifies " a wall," and there can be little doubt
that it is of Shemitic origin from the position of
the place. The LXX. seems to have thus inter
preted it, if we may judge from the obscure render
ing of 1 Sam. xxvii. 8, where it must be remarked
the extraordinary form Te\an^obp is found. This
word is evidently a transcription of the words
TTPXd • ¦ ¦ ¦ Db'l37!S, the former, save the in-
T T ¦
itial particle, not being translated.
Shur is first mentioned in the narrative of Ha-
gar's flight from Sarah. Abraham was then in
southernmost Palestine, and when Hagai' fled she
was found by an angel " by the foimtain in the way
to Shur " (Gen. xvi. 7). Probably she was en
deavoring to return to Egypt, the country of her
birth — she may not have been a pure Egyptian —
and had reached a well in the inland caravan route.
Abraham afterwards " dwelled between Kadesh and
Shur, and sojourned in Gerar " (xx. 1 ). From
this it would seem either that Shur lay in the ter
ritory of the Philistines of Gerar, or that this pas
toral tribe wandered in a region extending from
Kadesh to Shur. [Gerar.] In neither case can we
ascertain the position of Shur. The first clear in
dication of this occui-s in the account of Ishmael's
posterity. " And they dwelt from Havilah unto
Shur, that [is] before Egypt, as thou goest toward
Assyria " (xxv. 18). With this should be compared

of the two great Codices : Vat. (Mai), 'Sovviv, Sufiar,
Sovti-av ; Alex. Soui-afl, Viavapav^ SlUjuaft ; [Rom
%ovviiL, Suvaja, Sw^dr.]
d The ancient name, says Dietrich, still exists in the
Jebel es-Sur which stretches from ihe southwest ol
the desert et-Tih towards Egypt (Ges. Hebr. Handw.
p. 857). a

SHUSHAN
the mention of the extent of the Amalekite terri
tory, given in this passage, " And Saul smote the
Amalekites from Havilah [until] thou comest to
Shur, that [is] over against Egypt " (1 Sam. xv.
7). It is also important to notice that the Geshu-
rites, Gezrites, and Amalekites, whom David smote,
are described as " from an ancient period the in
habitants of the land, as thou comest to Shur, even
unto the land of Egypt " (xxvii. 8). The Wilder
ness of Shur was entered by the Israelites after
they had crossed the Red Sea (Ex. xv. 22, 23). It
was also called the Wilderness of Etham (Num.
xxxiii. 8). The first passage presents one difficulty,
upon which the LXX. and Vulg. throw no light,
in the mention of Assyria. If, however, we com
pare it with later places, we find nnWM n3S2
here, remarkably like TTW) Tyyi2 in 1 Sam.
xxvii. 8, and "IVf ffMIS in xv. 7, as though the
same phrase had been originally found in the first
as a gloss, but it may have been there transposed,
and have originally followed the mention of Havi
lah. In the notices of the Amalekite and Ishmael
ite region, in which the latter succeeded the former,
there can be no question that a strip of northern
Arabia is intended, stretching from tlie Isthmus of
Suez towards and probably to the Persian Gulf.
The name of the wilderness may perhaps indicate a
somewhat southern position. Shur may thus have
been a fortified town east of the ancient head of
the Red Sea, but in the hands of the Arabs, or at
one time the Philistines, not of the Egyptians.
From its behig spoken of as a limit, it was prob
ably the last .Arabian town before entering Egypt.
The hieroglyphic inscriptions have not been found
to throw any light upon this question. The
SHARA or SHALA mentioned in them is an im
portant country, perhaps Syria. R. S. P.
SHUSHAN (]Wd: Sova-a, [Sova-dv.] Su-
son) is said to have received its name from the
abundance of the lily (Shiishan or Shushanah) in
its neighborhood (Atheu. xii. 513). It was one of
the most important towns in the whole East, and
requires to be described at some length.
1. History. — Susa was originally the capital of
the country called in Scripture Elam, and by the
classical writers, sometimes Cissia (Kitrtria), some
times Susis or Susiana. [Elam.] Its foundation
is thought to date from a time anterior to Cbedor
laomer, as the remains found on the site have often
a character of very high antiquity. The first dis
tinct mention of the town that has been as yet
found is in the inscriptions of Asshur-bani-pal, the
son and successor of Esar-Kaddon, who states that
he took the place, and exhibits a ground-plan of it
upon his sculptures (Layard, Nin. and Bab. pp.
452, 453). The date of this monument is about
B. c. 660. We next find Susa in the possession of
the Babylonians, to whom Elam had probably
passed at the division of the Assyrian empire made
by Cyaxares and Nabopolassar. In the last year
of Belshazzar (b. o. 538), Daniel, while still a
Babylonian subject, is there on the king's business,
«.nd " at Shushan in the palace " sees his fenious
rision of the ram and he-goat (Dan. viii. 2). The
•onquest of Babylon by Cyrus transferred Susa to
the Persian dominion ; and it was not long before

" Not only were the passes difHcult, bufc they \rere
In tile possession of Bemi-independent tribes, wtio lev-

SHUSHAN 3028
the Achsemenian princes determined to make it the
capital of their whole empire, and the chief place
of their own residence. According to some writers
(Xen. Cyrop. viii. 6, § 22; Strab. xv. 3, § 2), the
change was made by Cyrus; according to others
(Ctes. Lxc. Pers. § 9; Herod, iii. 30, 65, 70), it
had at any rate taken place before the death of
Cambyses; but, according to the evidence of the
place itself and of the other Acheenienian monu
ments, it would seem most probable that the trans
fer was really the work of Darius Hystaspis, who is
found to have been (as Pliny said, II. N. vi. 27)
the founder of the great palace tbere — the building
so graphically described in the book of Esther (i. 5,
6). The reasons which induced tlie change are
tolerably apparent. After the conquest of Baby
lonia and Egypt, the western provinces of the em
pire were become by far the most important, and
the court could no longer be conveniently fixed
east of Zagros, either at Ecbatana (Hamadan) or
at Pasargadae (Murgaub), whioh were cut off from
the ]\Iesopotamian plain by the difficulty of the
passes for fully one half of the year." It was ne
cessary to find a capital west of the mountains, and
here Babylon and Susa presented themselves, each
with its peculiar advantages. Darius probably pre
ferred Susa, first, on account of its vicinity to Per
sia (Strab. XV. 3, § 2); secondly, because it was
cooler than Babylon, being nearer the mountain-
chain ; and thirdly, because of the excellence of the
water there (Geograph. Journ. ix. 70). Susa ac
cordingly became the metropolis of Persia, and is
recognized as such by jEscliylus (Pers. 16, 124,
See.), Herodotus (v. 25, 49, &o.) Ctesias (Pers.
Exc. passim), Strabo (xv. 3, § 2), and alraost all
the best writiers. The court must have resided
there during the greater part of the year, only
quitting it regularly for Ecbatana or Persepolis in
the height of summer, and perhaps sometimes
leaving it for Babylon in the depth of winter (see
Rawlinson's Herodotus, iii. 256). Susa retained
its preeminence to the period of the Macedonian
conquest, when Alexander found there above twelve
millions sterling, and all the regalia of the Great
King (Arriau, Exp. Alex. iii. 16). After this it
declined. The preference of Alexander for Baby
lon caused the neglect of Susa by his successors,
none of whom ever made it their capital city. We
hear of it once only in their wars, when it falls into
the power of Antigonus (b. c. 315), who obtains
treasure there to the amount of three millions and
a halt of our money (Diod. Sic. xix. 48, § 7).
Nearly a century later (E. c. 221) Susa was at
tacked by Molo in his rebellion against Antiochus
the Great ; he took the town, but failed in his at
tempt upon the citadel (Polyb. v. 48, § 14). We
hear of it again at the time of the Arabian con
quest of Persia, when it was bravely defended by
Hormuzan (Loftus, Chaldcea and Susiana, p. 344).
2. Position, etc. — A good deal of uncertainty
has existed concerning the position of Susa. While
most historians and comparative geographers have
inclined to identify it with the modern Sus or Shush,
which is in lat. 32° 10', long. 48° 26' E. from
Greenwich, between the Shapur and the river of
Dizful, there have not been wanting some to raain
tain the rival claims of Shuster, which is situated
on the left bank of the Kuran, more than half a

ied a toll on all passengers, even the Persian kiuKS
themselves (Strab. xv. 3, § 41.

8024

SHUSHAN

degree further to the eastward. A third candidate
for the honor has even been started, and it has
oeen maintained with much learning and ingenuity
that Susan, on the right bank of the same stream,
50 or 60 miles above Shuster, is, if not the Susa
of the Greeks and Romans, at any rate the Shushan
of Scripture {Geogr. Journ. ix. 85). But a care
ful examination of these several spots has finally
caused a general acquiescence in the belief -that Sus
alone is entitled to the honor of representing at
once the Scriptural Shushan and the Susa of the
classical writers (see Loftus, Chaldcea and Susiana,
p. 338; Smith, Dictionary of Geography, sub voc;
Rawlinson, Herodotus, iii. 254). The difficulties
caused by the seemingly confused accounts of the
ancient writers, of whom some place Susa on the
Choaspes (Herod, v. 49, 52; Strab. xv. 3, § 4; Q.
Curt. V. 2), some on the Eulseus (Arr. Exp. Al.
vii. 7; Ptol. vi. 3; Plin. //. N. vi. 27), have been
removed by a careful survey of the ground, from
which it appears that the Choaspes ( Kerkhah ) orig
inally bifurcated at Pal Pul, 20 miles above Susa,
the right arm keeping its present course, while the
left flowed a little to the east of Sus, and, absorb-

SHUSHAN
ing the Shapur about 12 miles below the ruins,
flowed on somewhat east of south, and joined the
Karun (Pasitigris) at Ahwaz. The left branch of
the Choaspes was sometimes called by that name,
but more properly bore the appellation of Eulasus
(Ulal of Daniel). Susa thus lay between the two
streams of the Eulseus and the Shapur, the latter
of which, being probably joined to the Eulseus by
canals, was reckoned a part of it; and hence Pliny
said that the Eul^us surrounded the citadel of
Susa {I: s. c). At the distance of a few miles
east and west of the city were two other streams —
the Coprates or river of Dizful, and the right arm
of the Choaspes (the modern Kerkhah). Thus the
country about Susa was most abundantly watered;
and hence the luxuriance and fertility remarked
alike by ancient and modern authors (Athen. xii.
513; Geograph. Jrvwrn. ix. 71). The Kerkhah
water was moreover regarded as of peculiar excel
lence ; it was the only water drunk by the Great
King, and was always carried with him on his
journeys and foreign expeditions (Herod, i. 188;
Plut. de Kxil. ii. 601, D; Athen. Deipn. ii. 171,
&c.). Even at the present day it is celebrated for

1. Ruins of Susa.
2. The hiffh mound or citadel ( ?)
8. The palace.
*. The great platform.
5. Buins of the city.

No. 1. Plan of the Ruins of Susa.

lightness and purity, and the natives prize it above
that of almost all other streams {Geogr. Journ. ix.
70, 89).
3. General Description of the Ruins. — The
ruins of Susa cover a space about 6,000 feet long
from east to west, by 4,500 feet broad from north
to south. The circumference of the whole, exclu
sive of outlying and comparatively insignificant
mounds, is about three miles. According to Mr.
Loftus, " the principal existing remains consist of
four spacious artificial platforms, distinctly separate
from each other. Of these the western mound is
the smallest in superficial extent, but considerably
the most lofty and important  Its highest

point is 119 feet above the level of the Shaour
(Shapur). In form it is an irregular, obtuse-an
gled triangle, with its corners rounded off, and its
base facing nearly due east. It is apparently con
structed of earth, gravel, and sun-dried brick, sec
tions being exposed in numerous ravines produced
by the rains of winter. The sides are so perpen
dicular as to be inaccessible to a horaeman except
at three places. The measurement round the sum
mit is about 2,850 feet. In the centre is a deep,
circular depression, probably a large court, sur
rounded by elevated piles of buildings, the fall of
which has given the present configuration to the
surface. Here and there are exposed in the ravinei

SHUSHAN
traces of brick walls, which show that the present
elevation of the mound has been attained by much
subsequent superposition " ( Chaldcea cmd Susiana,
p. 343). Mr. Loftus regards this mound as indu
bitably the remains of the famous citadel (6.Kpa or
i,icp6iro\is) of Susa, so frequently mentioned by
the ancient writers (Herod, iii. 68; Polyb. v. 48,
§ 14; Strab. xv. 3, § 2; Arr. Exp. Al. iii. 16, &a.).
" Separated from the citadel on the west by a
channel or ravine, the bottom of which is on a
level with the external desert, is the great central
platform, covering upwards of sixty acres (No. 3
on the Plan). The highest point is on the south
side, where it presents generally a perpendicular
escarpment to the plain, and rises to an elevation
of about 70 feet; on the east and north it does not
exceed 40 or 50 feet. The east face measures 3,000
feet in length. Enormous ravines penetrate to the
very heart of tbe mound " (Loftus, p. 345). The
third platform (No. 2 on the Plan) lies towards the
north, and is " a considerable square mass," about
a thousand feet each way. It abuts on the central
platform at its northwestern extremity, but
is separated from it by " a slight hollow,"
which " was perhaps an ancient roadway "
(Loftus, ibid.). These three mounds form
together a lozenge-shaped mass, 4,600 feet
long and nearly 3,000 feet broad, pointing in
its longer direction a little west of north.
East of them is the fourth platform, which is
very extensive but of much lower elevation
than the rest (No. 4 on fhe Plan). Its plan
is very irregular : in its dimensions it about
equals all the rest of tlie ruins put together.
Beyond this eastern platform a number of
low mounds are traceable, extending nearly
to the Dizful river; but there are no remains
of walls in any direction, and no marks of
any buildings west of the Shapur. All the
ruins are contained within a circumference of
about seven miles ( Geograph. Journ. ix. 71 )
G. R.
Architecture. — The explorations un- ^
dertaken by General, now Sir Fenwick Wil
liams of Kars, in the mounds at Susa. in the
year 1851, resulted in the discovery of the
bases of three columns, marked 5, 6, and 7
on the accompanying plan (wood-cut No. 2). These
were found to be 27 feet 6 inches apart from centre
to centre, and as they were very similar to the
bases of the great hall known popularly as the Chel
Minar at Persepolis, it was assumed that anot,her
row would be found at a like distance inwards.
Holes were accordingly dug, and afterwards trenches
driven, without any successful result, as it hap
pened to be on the spot where the walls originally
stood, and where no columns, consequently, could
have existed. Had any trustworthy restoration of
the Persepolitan hall been published at that time,
the mistake would have been avoided, but as none
then existed the opportunity was nearly lost for our
becoming acquainted with one of the most interest
ing ruins connected with Bible history which now
exist out of Syria. Fortunately in the following
year Mr. Loftus resumed the excavations with more
juccess, and ascertained the position of all the 72
columns of which the original building was com
posed. Only one base had been entirely removed,
\nd as that was in the midst of the central pha
lanx, its absence threw no doubt on any part of the
vrangement. On the bases of four of the columns
thus unoivered (shaded darker on the plan, and

SHUSHAN

302.5

o
o
o
oo

numbered 1, 2, 3, 4) were found trilingual inscrip
tions in the languages adopted by the Achsemenian
kings at Behistun and elsewhere, but all were so
much injured by the fall of the superincumbent
mass that not one waa complete, and unfortunately
the Persian text, which could have been read with
most certainty, was the least perfect of any. Not-
withstanduig this, Mr. Edwin Norris, with his usual
ingenuity, by a careful comparison of the whole,
made out the meaning of the first part certainly,
of the latter half with very tolerable precision.
As this inscription contains nearly all we know of
the history of this building, we quote it entire from
Journ. As. Soc, vol. xv. 162: "Says Artaxer.xes
(Mnemon), the Great King, the King of Kings, the
King of the Country, the King of the Earth, the
son of King Darius — Darius was the son of Kin"
Artaxerxes — Artaxerxes was the son of Xerxes
— Xerxes was the son of King Darius — Darius
was the son of Hystaspes the Achsemenian —
Darius my ancestor anciently built this temple,
and afterwards it was repaired by Artaxerxes

O O O O O 0
O O O O O O

Ou, MnDBIlIU ?--?^-^'— o o
oci ^D D il a ? ? o o
O^ iaiUDDOD oo
O iDDDDGD OO
O iDDQCDD OO
O viDPlUDDD OO

No. 2. Plan of the Great Palace at Susa.
my grandfather. By the aid of Ormazd I placed
the effigies of Tanaites and Mithra in this tem
ple. May Ormazd, Tanaites, and Mithra protect
me, with the other Gods, and all that I have
done . . . "
The bases uncovered by Mr. Loftus were arranged
as on the wood-cut No. 2, reduced from that given
at page 366 of his Chaldcea and Susiana, and most
fortunately it is found on examination that the
building was an exact counterpart of the celebrated
Chel Minar at Persepolis. They are in fact more
like one another than almost any other two build
ings of antiquity, and consequently what is wanting
in the one may safely be supplied from the other, if
it exists there.
Their age is nearly the same, that at Susa having
been commenced by Darius Hystaspis, that at Per
sepolis — if one raay trust the inscription on its
staircase (J. A. S. x. 326) — was built entirely by
Xerxes. Their dimensions are practically identical,
the width of that at Susa, according to Mr. l..oftus,
being 345 feet, the depth N. and S. 244. The cor
responding dimensions at Persepolis, according to
Flandin and Coste's survey, are 357.6 by 254.6, or
from 10 to 12 feet in excess; but tbe difference

3026

SHUSHAN

may arise as much fix)m imperfect surveying as
from any real discrepancy.
The number of columns and their arrangement
are identical in the two buildings, and the details
of the architecture are
practically the same so
far as they can be made
out. But as no pillar
is standing at Susa, and
no capital was found
entire or nearly so, it is
not, easy to feel quite
sure that the annexed
restoration (wood-cut
No. 3) is.in all respects
correct. It is reduced
from one made by Mr.
Churchill, who accom
panied Mr. Loftus in
his explorations. If it
is so, it appears that
the great difference be
tween the two buildings
was that double bull
capitals were used in
the interior of the cen
tral square hall at Susa,
while their use was ap
propriately confined to
the porticoes at Persep
olis. In other respects
the height of the capi
tal, which measures 28
feet, is very nearly the
same, but it is fuller,
No. 3. Restored elevation and looks somewhat too
of capital at Susa. ^eavy for the shaft that
supports it. This defect was to a great extent cor
rected at Persepolis, and may have arisen from
those at Susa being the first translation of the
Nincvite wooden original into stone architecture.
The pillars at Persepolis vary from 60 to 67 feet
in height, and we may therefore assume that those
at Susa were nearly the same. No trace of the
walls which enclosed these pillars was detected at
Susa, from which Mr. Loftus assumes, somewhat
too hastily, that none existed. As, however, be
could not make out the traces of the walls of any
other of the numerous buildings which he admite
Dnce existed in these mounds, we ought not to be
surprised at his not finding them in this instance.
Fortunately at Persepolis sufBcient remains still
exist to enable us to supply this hiatus, though
there also sun-burnt brick was too much used for
the walls, and if it were not that the jambs of the
doors and windows were generally of stone, we
should be as much at a loss there as at Susa. The
annexed wood-cut (No. 4), representing the plan of
the hall at Persepolis, is restored from data so com
plete as scarcely to admit of doubt with regard to
any part, and will suffice to explain the arrange
ment of both."
Both buildings consisted of a central hall, as
nearly as may be 200 feet square, and consequently,
10 far as we know, the largest interior of the an
cient world, with the single exception of the great
hall at Karuac, which covers 68,300 square feet,
irhile this only extends to 40,000. Both the Per-
a For details of this restoration, see The Palacfs of
Nineveh and Persepolis Restored. By Jas. Fergusson
t'ublisbed in 1851.

SHUSHAN
sian halls are supported by 36 columns, upwards of
60 feet in height, and spaced equidistant from one
another at about 27 feet 6 inches from centre to
centre. On the exterior of this, separated from it by
walls 18 feet in thickness, were three great porches,
each measuring 200 feet in width by 65 in depth,
and supported by 12 columns whose axes were co
incident with those of the interior. These were be
yond doubt the great audience halls of the palace,
and served the same purposes as the House of the
Forest of Lebanon in Solomon's palace, though its
dimensions were somewhat different, 150 feet by 75.
These porches were also identical, as far as use and
arrangement go, with the throne-rooms in the pal
aces of Delhi or Agra, or those which are used at
this day in the palace at Ispahan.
The western porch would be appropriate to morn
ing ceremonials, the eastern to those of the after
noon. There was no porch, as we might expect in
that climate, to the south, but the principal one,
both at Susa and Persepolis, was that which faced
the north with a slight inclination towards the
east. It was the throne-room, pa7' excellence, of
the palace, and an inspection of the Plan will show
how easily, by the arrangement of the stairs, a
whole army of courtiers or of tribute-bearers
could file before the king without confusion or in
convenience. The bassi relievi in the stairs at
Persepolis in fact represent permanently the pro
cession that on great festivals took place upon
their steps; and a similar arrangement of stairs
was no doubt to be found at Susa when the palace
was entire.
It is by no means so clear to what use the cen
tral hall was appropriated. The inscription quoted
above would lead us to suppose that it was a tem
ple, properly so called, but tbe sacred and the sec
ular functions of the Persian kings were so inti
mately blended together that it is impossible for us
to draw a line anywhere, or say how far " temple
cella " or " palace hall " would be a correct desig
nation for this part of the building. It probably
was used for all great semi-reHgious ceremonies,
such as the coronation or enthronization of the
king — at such ceremonies as returning thanks or
making offerings to the gods for \ictories — for any
purpose in fact requiring more than usual state or
solemnity; but there seems no reason to suppose it
ever was used for purely festal or convivial purposes,
for which it is singularly ill suited.
From what we know of the buildings at Persep
olis, we may assert, almost with certainty, that the
"King's Gate," where Mordecai sat (Esth. ii. 21),
and where so many of the transactions of the book
of Esther took place, was a square hall (wood-cut
No. 5), measuring probably a little more than 100
feet each way, and with its roof supported by four
pillars in the centre, and that tbis stood at a dis
tance of about 150 or 200 feet from the front of
the northern portico, where its remains will proba
bly now be found when looked for. We may also
be tolerably certain that the inner court, where
Esther appeared to implore the king's favor (Esth.
V. 1), was the space between the northern portico
and this square building, the outer court being the
space between tlie " King's Gate " and the north
ern terrace wall. We may also predicate with tol-
I erable certainty that the " Koyal House" (i.9)
and the '* House of the Women " (ii. 9, 11) wei'e
situated behird this great hall to the southward,
or between it and the citadel, and having a direct

SHUSHAN
jommunication with it either by means ofa bridge
over the ravine, or a covered way under ground,
most probably the former.
Tiiere seems also no reasonable doubt but that it
was in front of one of the lateral porticoes of this
ouilding that King Ahaauenis (Xerxes) " made a

SHUSHAN-EDUTH

3027

feast unto all the people that were present in Shu
shan the palace, both unto great and small, seven
days in the court of the garden of the king's pal
ace ; where were white, green, and blue hangmgs,
fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to silver
rings and pillars of marble : the beds were of gold

I 

® ©
i> ®

H ¦ H H « «
H ¦ H 11 H H
H SI m H B g
H 0 H e H B
H H n H @ S
m M M M

® %
® 1

No. 4. Restored plan of Great Hall of Xerxes at Persepolis. Scale 100 feet to an inch.

>ud silver upon a pavement of red and blue and
white and black marble" (Esth. i. 5, 6). From
this it is evident that the feast took place, not in
the interior of any
hall, but out of doors,
in tents erected in
one of the courts of
the palace, such as we
may easily fancy ex
isted in front of either
the eastern or western
porches of the great
central building.
The whole of this
great group of build
ings was raised on an
No. 5. Restored plan of the artificial mound, near-
" King's Gate " at palace of J.^ snntirp in nian

Persepohs.Scale 100 feet to an inch.

ly square in plan,
measuring about
1,000 feet each way,
and rising to a height apparently of 60 or 60 feet
above the plain. As the principal building must,
like those at PersepoUs, have had a talar or raised
platform [Temple] above its roof, its height could
not have been less than 100 or 120 feet, and its
elevation above the plain must consequently have
been 170 or 200 feet.
It would be difBcult to conceive anything much
grander in an-architectural point of view than such
a building, rising to such a height out of a group
•f subordinate palace-buildings, interspersed with

trees and shrubs, and the whole based on such a
terrace, rising from the flat but fertile plains that
are watered by the Eulseus at its base. J. F
SHU'SHAN-B'DUTH. " To the chief mu
sician upon Shushan-Eduth " (D^l?? )27!lt£5)
is plainly a musical direction, whatever else may
be obscure about it (Ps. Ix.). In Ps. Ixxx. we
have the fuller phrase " Shoshannim-eduth," of
which Roediger regards Shushan-eduth as an ab
breviation ((jiesen. TVies. p. 1385). As it now
stands it denotes " the lily of testimony," and pos
sibly contains the first words of some Psalm to the
melody of which that to which it was prefixed was
sung; and the preposition 7^, 'al (A.V. "upon")
would then signify " after, in the manner of," in
dicating to the conductor of the Temple-choir the
air which he was to follow. If, however, Roediger
is correct in his conjecture that Shushan-eduth is
merely an abbreviation for Shoshannim-eduth, the
translation of the words above given would be in
correct. The LXX. and Vulgate appear to have
read Q"'3ti7P"7P, for they render rots aXAoioi-
Brjcopevovs and pro his qui immutabuntur respeo.
tively. In the LXX., Sy^lV, 'eduth, becomes
T13?, '6d, f Tl. There does not appear to be much
support for the view taken by some (as by Joel
Bril) that Shushan-eduth is a musical instrument,
so called from its resemblance to a lily in shapa

.5028 SHUTHALHITES, THB
(Simonis), or from having lily-shaped ornaments
npon it, or from its six (shesh) strings. Fiirst, in
consistency with his theory with respect to the
titles of the Psalms, regards Shushan-eduth as the
name of one of the twenty-four divisions of singers
appointed by David, so called after a band-master,
Shushan, and having its headquarters at Eduth,
which he conjectures may be the sarae as Adithaim
in Josh. IV. 36 (Handwb. a. v.). As a conjecture
this is certainly ingenious, but it has the disadvan
tage of introducing as many difficulties as it re
moves. Simonis (Lex. s. v.) connects 'eduth with
the Arabic 1^%^, 'ud, a lute,'* or kind of guitar
played with a plectrum, and considers it to be the
melody produced by this instrument; so that in
fais view Shushan-eduth indicates that the lily-
shaped cymbals were to be accompanied with play
ing on the lute. Gesenius proposes to render
'edith a " revelation," and hence a psalm or song
revealed ; but there seems no reason why we should
depart from the usual meaning as above giveu, and
we may therefore regard the words in question as
a fragment of an old psalm or melody, the same in
character as Aijeleth Shahar and others, which con
tained a direction to the leader of the choir.
W. A. W.
SHUTHALHITES, THE ("TI^nTn
[patr., see below] : i SooBaXai; [Vat. SovraXan;
Alex. 0ou(ra\ai':] Suthalaitce). The descendants
of Shuthelab the son of Ephraim (Num. xxvi. 35).
SHUTHE'LAH (PlbriW [noise qf break
ing, Ges.] : [in Num.,] SovBaXd, [Vat. SovTa\a,]
Alex. [&ci)i7ova-a\a,] @ovaa\a; [in Chr., Su6a-
\de (Alex. SuBaKa), SaBeki:] Suthala). Head
of an Ephraimite family, called after him Shuthal-
hites (Num xxri. 35), and lineal ancestor of Joshua
the son of Nun (1 Chr. vii. 20-27). Shuthelab
appears from the former passage to be a son of
Ephraim, and the father of Eran, from whom
sprung a family of Eranites (ver. 36). He appears
also to have had two brothers, Becher, father of
the Bachrites, and Tahan, father of the Tahan-
ites. But in 1 Chr. vii. we have a further notice
of Shuthelah, where he appears first of all, as in
Num., as the son of Ephraim ; but in ver. 21 he
is placed six generations later. Instead, too, of
Becher and Tahan, as Shuthelah's brothers, we find
Bered and Tahath, and the latter twice over; and
instead of Eran, we find Eladah ; and there is this
strange anomaly, that Ephraim appears to be alive,
and to mourn for the destruction of his descendants
in the eighth generation, and to have other children
born after their death. And then again at ver. 25,
the genealogy is resumed with two personages, Re
phab and Eesheph, whose parentage is not dis
tinctly stated, and is conducted through Telah, and
another Tahan, and Laadan, to Joshua the son of
Nun, who thus appears to be placed in the twelfth
eeneration from .Joseph, or, as some reckon, in the
eighteenth. Obviously, therefore, the text in 1
Chr. vii. is corrupt. The following observations
will perhaps assist us to restore it.
1. The names that are repeated over and over
again, either in identical or in slightly varied forms,

o With the artdcle, el 'ud is the origin of the Ital.
utto, Fr. lutk, and English lute.
b The Samaritar text, followed by the LXX. and

SHUTHELAH
represent probably only ose person. Hence, Ela
dah, ver. 20; Elead, ver. 21; and Laadan, ver. 26,
are the names of one and the same person. And
a comparison of the last name with Num. xxvi. 36,
where we have " of Eran," will further show that
Eran is also the same person, whether Eran ' or
Laadan be the true form of the name. So again,
the two Tahaths in ver. 20, and Tahan in ver. 25,
are the same person as Tahan in Num. xxvi. 35*
and ShulhelaJi in vv. 20 and 21, and Telah in ver.
25, are the same as the Shuthelah of Num. xxvi.
35, 36; and the Bered of ver. 20, and Zabad ol
ver. 21, are the same as the Becher of Num. xxvi.
35. The names written in Hebrew are subjoined
to make this clearer.
]"ll?b, of Eran. nnn, lahath.
'j^Vb, Laadan. IHri, Tahan.
mSbS, Elcadah. "133, Becher.
157bN, Elead. T131, and Bered.
nbmtt7, Shuthelah. 12T, Zabad.
nbm, and Telah.
2. The words "his son" are improperly added
after Bered and Tahath in 1 Chr. vii. 20.
3. Tahan is improperly inserted in 1 Chr. vii.
25 as a son of Shuthelah, as appears from Num.
xxvi. 35, 36. The result is that Shuthelah's line
may be thus restored : (1) Joseph. (2) Ephraim.
(3) Shuthelah. (4) Eran, or Laadan. (5) Ammi
hud. (6) Ehshama, captain of the host of Ephraim
(Num. i. 10, ii. 18, vii. 48). (7) Nun. (8) Joshua;
a number which agrees well with all the genealo
gies in wbich we can identify indiriduals who were
living at the entrance into Canaan; as Phinehas,
who was sixth from Levi; Salmon, who was seventh
from Judah; Bezaleel, who was seveuth; Achan,
who was sixth ; Zelopliehad's daughter seventh, etc.
As regards the interesting stoi^ of the destruc
tion of Ephraim's sons by the men of Gath, which
Ewald (Gesch. i. 491), Bunsen (Egypt, vol. i. p.
177), Lepsius (Letters from Egypt, p. 460), and
others, have variously explained [Ephraim; Be-
eiah], it is impossible in the confused state ofthe
text to speak positively as to the part borne in it by
the house of Shuthelah. But it seems not unlikely
that the repetition of the names in 1 Chr. vii. 20,
21, if it was not merely caused by vitiated MSS.
like 2 Sam. v. 14-16 (LXX.), arose from their hav
ing been really repeated in the MS., not as addi
tional links in the genealogy, but as having borne
part, either personally or in the persons of their de
scendants, in the transaction with the men of Gath.
If so, we have mention first in ver. 20 of the four
families of Ephraim reckoned in Num. xxvi., namely,
Shuthelah, Bered or Becher, Tahath or Tahan, and
Eladah or Eran, the son of Shuthelah : and we are
then, perhaps, told how Tahath, Bered, and Shu
thelah, or the clans called after them, went to help
ClITJ?) Laadan (or Eran), Shuthelah's son, and
were killed by the men of Gath, and how their
father mourned them. This leads to an account of
another branch of the tribe of Ephraim, of which
Beriah was the head, and whose daughter or sister
(for it is not clear which was meant) was Sherah

the Syriai, and two or three Heb. MSS., read Bdan
and ODt Heb. MS. reads JEtfan for Laadan at 1 Chi
vii. 26 (Burrington, Geneal. Tabltsi

SHUTHELAH
(mSt?),° who built the upper and lower Beth-
boron (on the border of Benjamin and Ephraim),
lud Uzzen-Sherah, a tomi evidently so called from
tier (Sherah's) ear-ring. The writer then returns
to his genealogy, beginning, according to the LXX.,
with Laadan. But the fragment of Shuthelah's
name in ver. 25, clearly shows that the genealogy
of Joshua which is here given, is taken up from
that name in ver. 20.' The clause probably be
gan, " the sons of Shuthelah, Laadan (or, of Eran)
his son," etc. But the question remains whether
tlie transaction which was so fatal to the Ephraim
ites occurred really in Ephraim's lifetime, and that
of his sons and grandson, or whether it belongs to
the times after the entrance into Canaan ; or, in
other words, whether we are to understand, by
I'^phraim, Shuthelah, etc., the individuals who bore
those naraes, or the tribe and the famiUes which
sprung from them. Ewald and Bunsen, under
standing the names personally, of course refei' the
transaction to the time of the sojourn of the Israel
ites in Goshen, while Lepsius merely points out the
confusion and inconsistencies in the narrative,
though he apparently suspects that the event oc
curred in Palestine after the Exodus. In the Ge
neal. of our Lord Jesus Christ, p. 365, the writer
of this article had suggested that it was the men of
Gath wlio had come down into Goshen to steal the
cattle of the Israelites, in order to obviate the ob
jection from the word "came down." [See too
Ephratah.] But subsequent consideration has
suggested another possible way of understanding
the passage, which is also advocated by Bertheau,
iu the Kurzg. exeget. Handb. z. A. T. Accord
ing to this view, the slaughter of the Ephraimites
took place after the settlement in Canaan, and the
event related in 1 Chr. viii. 13, in which Beriah
also took part, had a close connection with it. The
names therefore of the patriarch, and fathers of
families, must be understood of the families which
sprung from them [Nehemiah, iii. 2095 n], and
Bertheau well compares Judg. xxi. 6. By Ephraim
(1 Chr. vii. 22, 23), we must in this case under
stand the then head of the tribe, who was probably
Joshua,"' and this would go far to justify the con
jecture in Genealog. p. 364, that Sherah (== H^D)
was the daughter of Joshua, arrived at by compar
ison of Josh. xix. 49, 50 ; 1 Chr. vii. 30, and by
observing that the latter passage is Joshua's gene
alogy. Beriah would seem, from 1 Chr. viii. 13, to
have obtained an inheritance in Benjamin, and also
in Asher, where we find him and " his sister Serali "
(rrntO) in 1 Chr. vii. 30. It is, however^ impos
sible to speak with certainty where we have such
scanty information. Bertheau's suggestion that
lieriah was adopted into the family of the Epbi-a-
i mites, is inconsistent with the precision of the
statement (1 Chr. vii. 23), and therefore inadmis
sible. Still, putting together the insuperable diffi
culties in understanding the passage of the literal
Ephraim, and his literal sons and daughter, with
the fact that the settlements of the Ephraimites in
ihe mountainous district, where Beth-horon, Gezei,

a It seems highly improbable, not to say impossi-
. ble, that a literal daughter or granddaughter of
Bphralm should have built these cities, which must
nave been built after the entrance into Canaan.
b It does not appear who Rephah and Resheph are.
Tahan seems to i»> repeated out of its place, as in the

SIBMAH

3029

Timnath-Serah, etc., lay, were exactly suited for a
descent upon the plains of the Philistine country
where the mep of Gath fed their cattle, and with
the further facts that the Ephraimites encountered
a successful opposition from the Canaanites in
Gezer (Josh. xvi. 10; Judg. i. 29), and that they
apparently called in later the Benjamites to help
them in driving away the men of Gath (1 Chr.
viii. 13), it seems best to understand the narrative
as of the times after the entrance into Canaan. A. C. H.
* SHUTTLE. [HANmcKAFT; Weaving.]
SrA (W^'D: 'A(rovia\ [FA. lao-oum;] Alex.
^la'ia'. Siaa). "The children of Sia" were a
family of Nethinim who returned with Zerubbabel
(Neh. vii. 47). The name is written Siaha in
Ezr. ii. 44, and Sud in 1 Esdr. v. 29.
SFAHA (Wn??''t?: Siacf ; [Vat. 2cc7}\;]
Alex. Ao-aa'. Siaa) = SlA (Ezr. ii. 44).
SIB'BEOAI [3 syl.] C^?5? : :Se^oxd [Vat,
O€j8oxa] i» Sam., ^o^oxat in Chr.; Alex. 2e-
j8o;^06i, SojSoxai" '• Sobochai). Sibbeciiai the
Hushathite (2 Sam. xxi. 18; 1 Chr. xxvii. 11).
SIB'BECHAI [3 syl.] OpSD: 2oj3oxai;
[FA. in 1 Chr. ix., So^Soxe;] Alex 2oj8/Boxai in 1
Chr. XX. 4: Sobbochai, Subochai). One of David's
Ejuard, and eighth captain for the eighth month of
24,000 men of the king's army (1 Cbr. xi. 29,
xxvii. 11). He belonged to one of the principal
families of Judah, the Zarhites, or descendants
of Zerah, and is called "the Hushathite," prob
ably from the place of his birth. Josephus {Aid.
vii. 12, § 2) calJs him "the Hittite," but this is no
doubt an error. Sibbechai's great exploit, whieh
gave him a place among the mighty men of David's
army, was his single combat with Saph, or Sippai,
the Philistine giant, in the battle at Gezer, or Gob
(2 Sam. xxi. 18; 1 Chr. xx. 4). In 2 Sam. xxiii.
27 his name is written Mebunnai by. a mistake of
the copyist. Josephus says that he slew " raany "
who boasted that they were of the descent of the
giants, apparently reading D**^*! for '^CD in 1
Chr. XX. 4. [SiBBECAi.]
SIB'BOLETH (n^SD: Sibboleth). The
Ephraimite (or, according to the text, the Eph
rathite) pronunciation of the word Shibboleth
(Judg. xii. 6). The LXX. do not represent Sib
holeth at all. [See Shibboleth.] G.
SIB'MAH (np^t? \balsam-place, Fiirst]:
SejBa^utf; in Jer. [Rom. 'AoepTjfxd, FA.l Ciaep-n^osy
Vat. FA.^] ao'epTjfj.a' Sabama). A town on the
east of the Jordan, one of those which were taken
and occupied by the tribe of Reuben (Josh. xiii.
19). In the original catalogue of those places it
appears as Shebam and Shibmah (the latter
merely an inaccurate variation of the A. V.).
Like most of the Trangordanic places, Sibmah
disappears from view during the main part of the
Jewish history. We, however, gain a parting
glimpse of it in the lament over Moab pronounced
by Isaiah and by Jeremiah (Is. xvi, 8, 9 ; Jer. xlviii.

Alex, LXX. It is after Laadan, there corrupted into
Chilaada. c There is no mention elsewhere of any posteri^ o!
Joshua. The Jewish tradition assigned him a wift
and children. [Rahab.]

8030

SIBRAIM

32). It was theu a Moabite place, famed for the
abundance and excellence of its grapes. They
must have been remarkably good .to have been
thought worthy of notice by those who, like Isaiah
and Jeremiah, lived close to and were familiar with
the renowned vineyards of Sorek (Is. v. 2, where
"choicest vine" is "vine of Sorek"). Its vine
yards were devastated, and the town doubtless de
stroyed by the "lords of the heathen," who at
some time unknown appear to have laid waste the
whole of that once smiling and fertile district.
Sibmah seems to have been known to Eusebius
(Onomasticon, "Sabama")," and Jerome (Com
ment, in Isaiam, lib. v.) states that it was hardly
600 paces distant from Heshbon. He also speaks
of it as one of the very strong cities ( Urbes Do-
Udissimm) of that region. No trace of the name
has been discovered more recently, and nothing
resembling it is found in the excellent lists of Dr.
Eli Smith (Robinson, Bibl. Res. ed. 1, App. 169,
170). G.
SIBRAIM (D1"D?P [a twofold hope]:
-Bnpa)s 'E$papri(\tdpi; [Alex. -8r)pa)s Ecppap'-
il(\fiap; Comp. SaSapip.:] Sabarim). One of
the landmarks on the northern boundary of the
Holy Land as stated by Ezekiel (xlvii. 16). It
occurs between Berothah and Hazarhatticon, and
is described in the same passage as lying between
the boundary of Damascus and that of Hamath.
It has not been identified — and in the great
obscurity of the specification of this boundary it
is impossible to say where it should be sought. G.
SI CHEM (D.ptp, i. e. Shechem [shoulder,
lidge] : Suxep: Sichem). 1. The same well-known
name — identical in the Hebrew — vrith that which
in all other places in the 0. T. is accurately ren
dered by our translators Shechem. Here (Gen.
xii. 6) its present form arises from a too close ad
herence to the ^'ulgate, or rather perhaps fi-om its
non-correspondence with the Hebrew having been
overlooked in the revision of 1611.
The unusual expression "the plaoe of Sichem"
may perhaps indicate that at that early age the
city did not exist. The "oaks of Moreh" were
there, but the town of Shechem as yet was not,
its "place" only was visited by the great pa
triarch. 2. (iv S'Kipois: in Sichimis.) Ecclus. I. 26.
The Greek original here is in the form whicb is
occasionaUy found in the 0. T. as the equivalent
of Shechem. If there could be any doubt that
the son of Sirach was alluding in this passage to
the Samaritans, who lived as they still live at
Shechem, it would be disproved by the character
istic pun which he has perpetrated on the word
Moreh, the ancient narae of Shechem : " that fool
ish people (\uhs pap 6 s) that dwell in Sichem." G.
SICKLE. [Agrichltube, vol. i. p. 43.]
SIOTON (SiKvdiv)- A city mentioned with
leveral others [see Phaselis] in 1 Mace. xv. 23.
The name is derived from a Punic root (sak, sik,
or sok), which always implies a periodical market;

a The statement of thia passage that Sibmah was
" in Gilead," coupled with its distance fi:om Heshbon
B8 given by Jerome, supports the local tradition which
places Mount Gilead south of the Jabbok, if the Wady
Itrka ba the Jabbok.

SICYON
and the original settlement was prcbably one to
which the inhabitants of the narrow strip of highly
fertile soil between the mountains and the southern
shore of the Corinthian Gulf brought their produce
for exportation. The oldest name of the town on
the coast (the Sicyon of the times before Alex
ander) was said to have been Aiyid\ri, or Alyia\ol.
This was perhaps the common native name, and
Sicyon that given to it by the Phoenician traders,
which would not unnaturally extrude the other as
the place acquired commercial importance. It is
this Sicyon, on the shore, which was the seat of
the government of the Orthagorids, to which the
Cleisthenes celebrated by Herodotus (v. 67) be
longed.'' But the Sicyon refen-ed to in the book
of Maccabees is a more recent city, built ou the
site which served as an acropolis to the old one,
and distant from the shore from twelve to twenty
stades. Demetrius Poliorcetes, in the year 303
B. c, surprised the garrison which Ptolemy had
five years before placed there, and made himself
master of the harbor and the lower town. The
acropolis was surrendered to him, and he then per
suaded the population, whom he restored to inde
pendence, to destroy the whole of the buildings
adjacent to the harbor, and remove thither; the
site being one much more easily defensible, espe
cially against any enemy who might attack from
the sea. Diodorus describes the new town as in
cluding a large space so surrounded on every side
by precipices as to be unapproachable by the ma
chines which at that time were employed in sieges,
and as possessing the great advantage of a plentiful
supply of water within its circuit. Modern trav
ellers completely confirm his account. Mr. Clark,
who, in 1857, descended upon Sicyon from " a
ridge of hills running east and west, and command
ing a splendid prospect of both the [Corinthian
and Saronic] gulf's and the isthmus between," after
two houi-s and a half of riding fi-om the highest
point, came to a mined bridge, probably ancient,
at the bottom of a ravine, and then ascended the
right bank by a steep path. Along the crest of
this hill he traced fragments of the western wall
of Sicyon. The mountain which he had descended
did not fall towards the sea in a continuous slope,
but presented a succession of abrupt descents and
level terraces, severed at intervals by deep rents
and gorges, down which the mountain-torrents
make their way to the sea, spreading alluvium over
the plain, about two miles in breadth, whioh lies
between the lowest chfTs and the shore. " Between
two such gorges, on a smooth expanse of table
land overlooking the plain," stood the city of
Demetrius. " On every side are abrupt cliffi, and
even at the southern extremity there is a lucky
transverse rent separating this from the next pla
teau. The ancient walls may be seen at intervals
along the edge of the cliff on all sides." It is
easy to conceive how these advantages of position
must at once have fixed the attention of the great
engineer of antiquity — the besieger.
Demetrius established the forms of republican
government in his new city ; but republican gov
ernment had by that time become an impossibility
in Hellas. In the next half-centuiy a number of

b The commercial connection of the Sicyon of the
Orthagorids with Phoenicia is shown by the quanti^
of Tartessian brass in the treasury of the Orthagorid
Myron at Olympia. The PhQenician (Carthaginian
treasury was next to it (Pausanias, vi. 19, § 1).

SIDDIM, THE VALE OF

3031

tyrants succeeded one another, maintaining them-
lelves by the aid of mercenaries, and by temporiz
ing with the rival sovereigns, who each endeavored
to secure the hegemony of the Grecian race. This
state of things received a temporary check by the
efforts of Aratus, himself a native of Sicyon, of
which his father Cleinias for a time became dynast.
In his twentieth year, being at the time in exile,
ne contrived to recover possession of the city and to
unite it with the Achaean league. This was in the
year 251 B. c, and it appears that at this time the
Dorian population was so preponderant as to make
the addition of the town to a confederation of
Achseans a matter of remark. For the half-century
before the foundation of the new city, Sicyon had
favored the anti-Lacedaemonian party in Pelopon-
nese, taking active part with the Messenians and
Argives in support of Megalopolis, which Epanii-
nondas had founded as a counter-check to Sparta.
The Sicyonian territory is described as one of
singular fertility, whioh was probably increased by
artificial irrigation. In the changeful times whicb
preceded the final absorption of European Hellas
by the Romans it was subject to plunder by who
ever had the command of the sea ; and in the year
208 B. c. the Roman general Sulpicius, who had a
squadron at Naupactus, landed between Sicyon and
Corinth (probably at the mouth of the little river
Neniea, which was the boundary of the two states),
and was proceeding to harass the neighborhood,
when Philip king of Macedonia, who was then at
Corinth, attacked him and drove him back to his
ships. But very soon aften- this, Eoman influence
began to prevail in the cities of the Achsean league,
which were instigated by dread of Nabis the dynast
of Lacediemon to seek Roman protection. One
congress of the league was held at Sicyon under
the presidency of the Romans in 198 b. c, and
another at the same place six years later. From
thts time Sicyon always appears to have adhered to
the Roman side, and on the destruction of Corinth
by Mummius (n. c. 146) was rewarded by the
victors not only with a large portion of the Corin
thian domain; but with the management of the
Isthmian games. This distinction was again lost
when Julius Csesar refounded Corinth and made it
a Roman colony; but in the mean while Sicyon
enjoyed for a century all the advantages of an entre
pot which had before accrued to Corinth from her
position between the two seas. Even in the days
of the Antonines the pleasure-grounds (Tepevos) of
the Sicyonian tyrant Cleon continued appropriated
to the Roman governors of Achaia ; and at the
time to which reference is made in the Maccabees,
it was probably the most important position of
all over which the Romans exercised infiuence in
Greece. (Diodorus Siculus, xv. 70, xx. 37, 102; Polyb
ius, ii. 43 ; Strabo, viii. 7, § 25 ; Livy, xxxii. 15,
19, xxxv. 25; Pausanias, ii. 8, v. 14, 9, vi. 19, §§
1-6, i. 11, § 1; Clark, Peh/ponnesus, pp. 338 S.)
J. W. B.
SID'DIM, THE VALE OF (pO? "
Qi'^t^n [see below]: ^ ^dpay^ t] b\uk:^, and
o The following are the equlTalente of the name
^yen In the ancient versions : Sam. Ters., lUJ^JS
rf^pbn; Onkelos, Sjbpn "l?'"'a ; AraWc, mcTJ
at hakfti Peshito, )_CQO_*.£0) |l(X:QQl^ :

rj KoiXas 71 aAuK^: Vallis Silvestris). A place
named only in one passage of Genesis (xiv. 3, 8,
10); a document pronounced by Ewald and other
eminent Hebrew scholars to be one of the oldest, if
not the oldest, of the fragments of historical record
of which the early portion of the book is composed.
The meaning of the name is very doubtful. Gese
nius says truly (Thes. p. 1321 a) that everyone of
the ancient interpreters has tried his hand at it.
and the results are so various as to compel the be
lief, that nothing is really known of it, certainly
not enough to allow of any trustworthy inferences
being drawn therefrom as to the nature of the spot.
Gesenius expresses his conviction (by inference from
the Arabic (^mj, an obstaele) that the real mean
ing of the words Emek has-Siddim is " a plain cut
up by stony channels which render it difficult of
transit ; " and with this agree Fiirst (Handwb. ii
411 b) and Kalisch (Genesis, p. 355).
Prof. Stanley conjectures (iS. 4' P-) that Siddim
is connected with Sadeh,b and thus that the signif
ication of the name was the " valley of the fields,'
so called from the high state of cultivation in which
it was maintained before the destruction of Sodom
and the other cities. This, however, is to identify
it with the Ciccar, the "circle (A. V. 'plain') of
Jordan," which there does not appear to be any
warrant for doing.
As to the spot itself : —
1. It was one of that class of valleys which the
Hebrews designated by the word emek. This term
appears to have been assigned to a broad flatfish
tract, sometimes of considerable width, enclosed on
each side by a definite range of hills. [Valley.]
The only emek which we can identify with any
approach to certainty is that of Jezreel, namely,
the valley or plain which lies between Giiboa and
Little Hermon.
2. It was so far a suitable spot for the combat
between the four and five kings (ver. 8); but,
3. It contained a multitude of bitumen-pits,
sufficient materially to afi'ect the issue of the battle.
4. In this valley the kings of the flve allied cities
of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela,
seem to have awaited the approach of tlie invaders.
It is therefore probable that it was in the neighbor
hood of the " plain, or circle, of Jordan " in which
those cities stood. But this we can only infer; it
is not stated, and scarcely implied.
5. So much may be gathered from the passage
as it appears originally to have stood. But the
words which more especially bear on the subject of
this article (ver. 3) do not form part of the original
document. That venerable record has — with a
care which shows how greatly it was valued at a
very early date — been annotated throughout by a
later, though still very ancient, chronicler, wbo has
added what in his day were believed to be the equiv
alents for names of places that had become obsolete.
Bela is explained to be Zoar; En-Mishpat to bo
Kadesh ; the Emek-Shaveh to be the Yalley of the
King; the Emek has-Siddim to be the Salt Sea,
that is, in modem phraseology, the Dead Sea.
And when we remember how persistently the no-

Aquila, K. tuv n-epin-eSifui ; Symm. and Theod., K.
rStv a\<rbtv (= nitt?M) ; Josephus, $peaTa dcn/iaA-
Tov : Jerome (QiUBSt. in Gen.) tTallis Salinarum.
b Perhaps more accurately with Sadad, " to harrow."
See Kalisch ( Gen. p. 355 a) ; who, however, disapprovet
of such a derivation, aud adheres to that of Gesenius.

3032

SIDDIM, THE VALE OF

tion has C;een entertained for the last eighteen cen
turies," that the Dead Sea covers a district which
before its submeraion was not only the Valley of
Siddim but also the Plain of the Jordan, and what
an elaborate accoimt of the catastrophe of its sub-
mei-sion has been constructed even very recently by
one of the most able scholars of our day, we can
hardly be surprised that a chronicler in an age iar
less able to interpret natural pienomena, and at
the same time long subsequent to the date of the
actual event, should have shared hi the belief. Re
cent investigation, however, of the geological evi
dence furnished by the aspect of the spot itself, has
not hitherto lent any support to this view. On the
contrary, it seems to contradict it. The northern
and deeper portion of the lake unquestionably be
longs to a geological era of very much older date
than the time of Abraham ; and as to even the
southern and shallower portion, if it has undergone
any material change in historic times, such change
would seem to be one rather of gradual elevation
than of submersioi;i.6
If we could venture, as some have done, to in
terpret the latter clause of verse 3, " which is near,"
or " which is at, or by, the Salt Sea," then we
might agree with Dr. Kobinson and others in iden
tifying the Valley of Siddim with the inclosed plain
which intervenes between the south end of the lake
and the range of heights which terminate the Gh&i'
and commence the Wady Arabah. This is a dis
trict in many respects suitable. In the ditches and
drains of the Sabkhah are the impassable channels
of Gesenius. In the thickly wooded Ghor es-Safeh
are ample conditions for the fertility of Prof. Stan
ley. The general aspect and formation of the plain
answers fully to the idea of an tmek.^ But the
original of the passage will not bear even this slight
accommodation, and it is evident that in the mind
of the author of the words, no less than of the
learned and eloquent divine and historian of our
owu time already alluded to, the Salt Sea covers
the actual space formerly occupied by the Vale of
Siddim. It should be remembered that if the
cities of the plain were, as there is much reason to
believe they were, at the north end of the Dead
Sea, it is hardly probable that the five kings would
have gone so far from home as to the other end of
the lake, a distance of more than forty miles, espe
cially as on their road they must have passed Haz
ezon-Tamar, the modern Ain Jidy, where the
Assyrians were then actually encamped (ver. 7).
The course of the invaders at this time was appar
ently northwards, and it seems most probable —
though after all nothing but conjecture on such a
point is possible — that the scene of the engage-
mfent was somewhere to the north of the lake, per
haps on the plain at its northwest corner. This
plain is in many of its characteristics not unlike the
Sabkhah already mentioned, and it is a proper and
natural spot for the inhabitants of the plain of
Jericho to attack a hostile force , descenduig from
the passes of Ain Jidy. G.
* The discussion of this site is so interwoven
with the question 3f the basin of the Salt Sea, and
the submersion of a portion of the valley, that they

a Josephus states it emphaiieally. His words {Ant,
\. 9) are, " They encamped in the valley called the
iVells of Asphalt ; for at that time there were wells in
(hat spot ; but now that the city of the Sodomites has
iisappeared, that valley haa become a lake which ia
Jailed AsphaltiteB."' See also Strabo, xvi. 764.

cannot be separated. We dissent from the writer's
positions as presented in the article, Salt Sea,
and repeated in this. But instead of repeating our
argument in reply, we refer the reader to the former
article (Amer. ed.), for our reasons so far as they
relate to the submersion of the plain and the site oi
the Vale of Siddim. And for an examination of
his theory respecting the site of the cities of the
plain, as north of the Sea, which Mr. Grove also
introduces here, we refer the reader to the articles
Sodom and Zoar (Amer. ed.). See also Bih.
Saa-a, xxv. 112-149.
Relative to tbe inroad of Cbedorlaomer and his
allies, we remark that the northern invaders, after
making the distant circuit of the valley on the east
and south, came up on the west and smote En-gedi
and secured that pass. The cities and their kings
were in the deep valley below, whether north or
south, or opposite, is wholly immaterial, so far as
we can discover, in relation either to the previous
route of conquest or to the subsequent course of the
victors. Between the cities, wherever situated, and
En-gedi, lay the Vale of Siddim, in which the bat
tle was fought. Neither the narrative of the inva
sion, nor that of the conflagration of the cities and
the plain, as viewed by the patriarch Abraham from
a hill near Hebron, appears to us to throw decisive
Ught on any disputed theory respecting their site.
If the eminence about three miles east of Hebron,
the highest in that part of the country, now known
as Beni NaHm, and w^here, according to Muslim
tradition, is the torab of Lot, was the spot where
Abraham stood before fche Lord, as claimed by Je
rome, it would clearly favor the received theory.
Kobinson speaks of the southern sand-banks of the
sea as visible from it " through gaps in the western
mountains, by which the eye could penetrate into
its deep bosom" {Bihl. Res. ii. 188).
With reference to the view expressed iu the ai'ti-
cle above, respecting the bed of the sea, that " if
it has undergone any material change in historic
times, such change would seem to be one rather of
gradual elevation than of submersion," we com
mend to the reader the pertinent suggestion of Mr.
Warington, that the elevation of the salt mountain
within the historic period would account both for
the present saltn^s of the waters, and the rise of
their Ie\el more than fifty feet, through the salt
which they hold in solution. The occurrence of
river shells, not marine, such as are now found in
the Jordan, along the ancient beaches of the sea,
he regards as proof that " the sea was at one tim^
fresh water, not salt; " and he says, " if the salt
were removed, the water would be found to occupy
only nine-tenths of its present bulk " {Journal oj
Sacred Literature, April 1866, p. 47). This would
leave the southern portion of the present bed dry,
¦with ample room on the side for the passage of tho
patriarch and his flocks, north and south. In a
letter to the writer of this (March 7, 1868), air.
Tristram says, " My belief is that the Jebel Us
dum has been recently elevated. This I judge
from the layers of stratified marl corresponding
with the adjacent deposits on its top. Mr. War-
ington suggests that the influx of salt has so in-

f> Xhe grounds of this conclusion are stated under
Sea, the Salt.
c Thia is the plain which Dr. Robinson and otheza
would identify with the Valley of Salt, ge melach. It
is hardly possible that it can be both au emek and a

SIDi3
creased the volume of water, by the introduction of
solid matter, that it must have raised its level at
least 15 feet [* some 56 feet']. This would admit
of the overflow over the southern lagoon, and would
admit generally of an easy passage by tbe margin
of the lake on the west side. I must say the ex
planation is satisfactory to my own mind." [Ska,
The Salt, Amer. ed.] S. W.
SI'DE (Si'Stj: Side). A city on the coast of
Pamph\ lia, in hit. 36° 46', long. 31° 27', ten or
twelve miles to the east of the river Eurymedou.
It is mentioned in 1 Mace. xv. 23, among the list
uf places to which the Roman senate sent letters
in iavov of the Jews [see Phaskhs]. It was a
colony of Cumeeans. In the time of Strabo a tem
ple cf Atben6 stood there, and the name of that
goddess associated with Apollo appears in an in
scription of undoubtedly late times found on the
spot by Admiral Beaufort. Side was closely con
nected with Aradus in Phoenicia by commerce,
even if there was not a considerable Phoenician
element in the population; for not only are the
towns placed in juxtaposition in the passage of the
Maccabees quoted above, but Antiochus's ambas
sador to the Achsean league (Livy, xxxv. 48), when
boasting of his master^s navy, told his hearers that
the left division was made up of men of Side and of
Aradus, as the right was of those of Tyre and of Si
don, quas genies nulke unqu^ nee arte nee vir
tute navali oequassent. It is possible that the name
has the same root as that of Sidon, and that it (as
well as the Sidfe on the southern coast of the Eux
ine, Strabo, xii. 3) was origuially a Phcenician set
tlement, and that the Cunisean colony was some-
tliing subsequent. In the times in which Sid6
appears in history it had become a place of consid
erable importance. It was the station of Anti
ochus's navy on the eve of the battle with the
lihodian fleet described by Livy (xxxvii. 23, 24).
The remains, too, whicb still exist are an evidence
of its former wealth. They stand on a low penin
sula running fi-om N. E, to S. W., and the mari
time character of the former inhabitants appears
from the circumstance that the walls towards the
sea were but slightly built, while the one which
faces the land is of excellent workmanship, and re
mains, in a considerable portion, perfect even to
this time. A theatre (belonging apparently to the
Koman times) is one of. the largest and best pre
served in Asia Minor, and is calculated to have
been capable of containing more than 15,000 spec
tators. Thia is so prominent an object that, to
persons approaching the shore, it appears like an
acropolis ofthe city, and in fact, during the Middle
Ages, was actually occupied as a fort. The suburbs
of Sid6 extend to some distance, but the greatest
length within the walls does not exceed 1300 yards.
Three gates led into the town from the sea, and
one, on the northeastern side, into the country.
I'^roni this last a paved street with high curbstones
conducts to an agora, 180 feet in diameter, and
formerly surrnunded with a double row of columns,
of which only the bases remain. In the centre is a
large ruined pedestal, as if for a colossal statue, and
ou the southern side the ruins of a temple, prob
ably the one spoken of by Strabo. Opposite to
this a street ran to the principal water-gate, and on
the fourth side of the agora the avenue from the
laud-gate was continued to the front of the theatre.

° In this passage the form Sifiuvia is used.
6 Here the adjective is employed — SiSwi'toi?.
191

siHON 3033
Of this last tbe lower half is, after the manner of
Roman architects whenever the site permitted, ex
cavated from the native rock, the upper half built up
of excellent masonry. The seats for the spectators,
most of which remain, are of white marble beauti
fully wrought.
The two principal harbors, which at first seem
to have been united in one, were at the extremity
of the peninsula: they were closed, and together
contained a surface of nearly 500 yards by 200.
Besides these, tlie principal water-gate on the N. W
side was connected with two small piers of 150
feet long, so that it is plain that vessels used to
lie here to discharge their cargoes. And the ac
count which Livy gives of the sea-fight with
Antiochus above referred to, shows that shelter
could also be found on the other (or S. E.) side
of the peninsula whenever a strong west wind waa
blowing. The country by which SidS is backed is a broad,
swampy plain, stretching out for some miles beyond
the belt of sand-hills which fringe the sea-shore.
Low hills succeed, and behind these, far inland, are
the mountains wbich, at Mount Climax 40 miles to
the west, and again about the same distance to the
east, come down to the coast. These mountahis
were tbe habitation of tbe Pisidians, against whom
Antiochus, in the spring of the year 192 b. c, made
an expedition ; and as Sidfe was in the interest of
Antiochus, until, at the conclusion of the war, it
passed into the hands of the Romans, it is reason
able to presume that hostility was the normal rela
tion between its inhabitants and the highlanders, to
whom they were probably objects of the same jeal
ousy that the Spanish settlements on the African
seaboard inspire in the Kabyles round about them
This would not prevent a large amount of traffic, to
the mutual interest of both parties, but would hin
der the people of Sid6 from extending their sway
into the interior, and also render the construction
of effective fortifications on the land side a neces
sity. (Strabo, xii., xiv.; Livy, xxxv., xxxvii.;
Beaufort, Karamania; Cicero, Fpp. ad Fam. iii.
6.) J. W. B.
SI'DON. The Greek form of the Phoenician
name Zidon, or (more accurately) Tsidon. As such
it occurs naturally in the N. T. and Apocrypha of
the A. V. (SiSc^c; [Sin. in 1 Mace. SetSojj/:] Si
don: 2 Esdr. i. 11; Jud. ii. 28; 1 Mace. v. 15;
Matt. xi. 21, 22, xv. 21; Mark iii. 8, vii. 24, 31;
Luke iv.« 26, vi. 17, x. 13, 14; Acts xii. 20.^
xxviii. 3). It is thus a parallel to Sion.
But we also find it in the 0. T., where it imper
fectly represents the Hebrew word elsewhere pre
sented as Zidon (Gen. x. 15, 19 ; ]"'T'^ : :S,Ldd>v
Sidon). [Zidon.] G.
SIDO'NIANS (D^?'"T^?; in Judg. '^31'^?
[inhabitants of Zidon']: SeiScili/toi ; in Deut. ^oi
viKes\ in Judg. StSccJi'ios-* Sidonii, Sidonius""
The Greek form of the word Zidonians, usually
so exhibited in the A. V. of the 0. T. It oc
curs Deut. iii. 9; Josh. xiii. 4, 6; Judg. iii. 3-
1 K. v. 6. G
* SIEVE. [Agriculture.]
* SIGNET. [Ornaments: Ring; Seal.]
SFHON (ih'^P, and fn'^'O'' [one whe

c This form is found frequently, though, not exclu
sively, in the books subsequent to the Pent^ateuch Id

8034

SIHOB

n>eq>s away, Ges.]: Samar. IIH^D : Sridv; [in
Josh. xiii. 21, Alex. Sriap, and in last part of verse,
Rom. Sidp, Vat. SeKoy;] Joseph. StX'^"'- ^^^"n,
[(Score]). King of the Amorites when Israel ar
rived on the borders of the Promised Land (Num.
xxi. 21). He was evidently a man of great courage
and audacity. Shortly before the time of Israel's
arrival he had dispossessed the Moabites of a splen
did territory, driving them south of the natural
bulwark of the Arnon with great slaughter, and the
loss of a great number of captives (xxi. 26-29).
When the Israelite host appears, he does not hesi
tate or temporize like Balak, but at once gathers
his people together and attacks them. But the
battle was his last. He and all his host were de
stroyed, and their district from Arnon to Jabbok
became at once the possession of the conqueror.
Josephus (Ant. iv. 5, § 2) has preserved some
singular details of the battle, which have not sur
vived in the text either of the Hebrew or LXX.
He represents the Amorite army as containing
every man in the nation fit to bear arms. He
states that they were unable to fight when away
from the shelter of their cities, and that being es
pecially galled by the slings and arrows of the He
brews, and at last suifering severely from thirst,
they rushed to the stream and to the shelter of the
recesses of the ravine of the Arnon. Into the.se re
cesses they were pursued by their active enemy and
slaughtered, in vast numbers.
Whether we accept these details or not, it is
plain, irom the manner in which the name of Si-
hon a fixed itself in the national mind, and the
space which his image occupies in the official rec
ords, and in the later poetry of Israel, that he was
a truly formidable chieftain. G.
SrHOR, accurately SHI'HOR, once THE
SHIHOR ("I'ln'^tt?, nintt?, -inc? [black,
turbid] : j} aolKTjTOS rj kutci irpdawnoy AiyinrTov,
rriStv: fluvius iurbidus, Nilus, (aqua) turbida): or
SHIHOR OF EGYPT (Dnva -lhn''tr :
Spta Aly^TTTov: Sihor ^gypti), when unqualified,
a name of the Nile. It is held to signify " the
black" or "turbid," from IHti?, "he or it was
or became black; " a word used in a wide sense for
difi'erent degrees of dark color, as of hair, a face
tanned by the sun, a skin blaek through disease,
and extreme blackness. [Nile, vol. iii. p. 2149.]
Several names of the Nile may be compared. Nei-
Kos itself, if it be, as is generally supposed [?], of
Iranian origin, signifies " the blue," that is, " the
dark" rather than the turbid; for we must then
compare the Sanskrit nila, " blue," probably espe
cially " dark blue," also even " black," as nila-
panka, " black mud." The Arabic azrak, " blue,"
signifies "dark" in the name Bahr el-Azrak, or
Blue River, applied to the eastern of the two great
confluents of tlie Nile. Still nearer is the Latin
.Veto, ii-om p4\as, a name of the Nile, according
to Festus and Servius (Georg. iv. 291; .^n. i.
745, iv. 246); but little stress can be laid upon
such a word resting on no better authority. With
the classical writers, it is the soil of Egypt that is
black, rather than its river. So too in hieroglyph-

the Pent, itself it occurs four times, two of which are
Id the song. Num. xxi. 27, 29.
a It is possible that a trace of the name may still
remain iu the Jtbel Shihhan, a lofty and conspicuous
mountain just to the south of the Waitij Mojeb.

iSILA5
ies, the name of the country, KEM, means " the
black; " but there is no name of the Nile of like
signification. In the ancient painted sculptures,
however, the figure of the Nile-god is colored differ
ently according as it represents the river during the
time of the inundation, and during the rest of the
year, in the former caSe red, in the latter blue.
There are but three occuiTences of Shihor in the
Bible, and but one of Shihor of Egypt, or Shihor-
Mizraim. It is spoken of as one of the limits of
territory which was still unconquered when Joshua
was old. " This [is] the land that yet remaineth :
all the regions of the Philistines, and all Geshuri,
from the Shihor (HirftCn), which [is] before
Egypt, even unto the borders of Ekron northward,
is counted to the Canaanite " (Josh. xiii. 2, 3).
The enumeration of the Philistines follows. Here,
therefore, a district lying between Egypt and the
most northern Philistine city seems to be intended.
With this passage must be compared that in which
Shibor-Mizraim occurs. David is related to have
" gathered all Israel together, from Shihor of Egypt
even unto the entering of Hamath " (1 Chr. xiii.
5). There is no other evidence that the Israelites
ever spread westward beyond Gaza; it may seem
strange that the actual territory dwelt in hy them
in David's time should thus appear to be spoken of
as extending as far ^ the eastenimost branch of
the Nile, but it must be recollected that more than
one tribe at a later time had spread beyond even
its first boundaries, and also that the limits may be
those of David's dominion rather than of the land
actually fully inhabited by the Israelites. The
stream may therefore be that of the Wddi-l-' Areesh.
That the stream intended by Shihor unqualified
was a navigable river is evident from a passage in
Isaiah, where it is said of Tyre, " And by great
waters, the sowing of Shihor, the harvest of the
river ( Yeor, 1S^), [is] her revenue " (xxiii. 3).
Here Shihor is either the same as, or compared
with, Ye&i; generally thought to be the Nile
[Nile], but in this work suggested to be the ex
tension of the Ked Sea. [Red Ska.] In Jere
miah the identity of Shihor with the Nile seems
distinctly stated where it is said of Israel, "And
now what hast thou to do in the way of Egypt, to
drink the waters of Shihor V or what hast thou to
do in the way of Assyria, to drink the waters oi
the river 'i"' i. c. Euphrates (ii. 18). In consider
ing these passages it is important to distinguish be
tween " the Shihor which [is] before Egypt," and
Shihor of Egypt, on the one hand, and Shihor
alone, on the other. In articles Nile and Kivek
OF Egypt it is maintained too strongly that Shi
hor, however qualified, is always the Nile. The
later opinion of the writer is expressed here under
Shihor of Egyit. The latter is, he thinks, nn-
questionably the Nile, the former two probably, but
not certainly, the same. E. S. P.
SI'LAS (SiAos: Silas). An eminent member
of the early Christian Church, described under that
name in the Acts, but as Silvanus b in St. Paul's
Epistles. He first appears as one of the leaders
(riyoipevoi) of the Church at Jemsalem (Acts xv.
22), holding the office of an inspii-ed teacher (Trpo^-

b The Alexandrine writers adopted somewhat bold
abbreviations of proper names, such as Zenas for Ze-
nodorUB, ApoUos for ApoUonius, Hermas for Hermo-
dorus. The method by which they arrived at tbcM
forms is not very apparent.

SILK
^TT^t, XV. 32). His name, derived from the Latin I
nlon, "wood," betokens hiiu a Hellenistic Jew, and
he appears to have been a Koman citizen (Acts xvi.
37 ). He was appointed as a delegate to accom
pany Paul and liarnabas on their return to Antioch
with the decree of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts
XV. 22, 32). Having accomplished this mission,
he returned to Jerusalem (Acts xv. 33; the follow
ing verse, eSo^e 5^ rdi %i\a iirifisTvai aurov, is
decidedly an interpolation intrr)duced to harmonize
the passage with xv. 40). He must, however,
have immediately revisited Antioch, for we find
him seleotetl by St. Paul as the companion of his
second missionary journey (Acts xv. 40-xxi. 17).
At Bercea he was left behind with Timothy while
St. Paul proceeded to Athens (Acts xvii. H), and
we hear nothing raore of his movements until he
rejoined the Apostle at Corinth (Acts xviii. 5).
Whether he had followed Paul to Athens in obedi
ence to the injunction to do so (Acts xvii. 15), and
had been sent thence with Timothy to Tbessalonica
(1 Thess. iii. 2), or whether his movements were
wholly independent of Timothy's, is uncertain
(Conyb. and Hows. St. Paul, i. 458, note 3). His
presence at Corinth is several times noticed (2 Cor.
i. 19; 1 Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess. i. 1). He probably
returned to Jerusalem with St. Paul, and from that
time the connection between them appears to have
terminated. Whether he was the Silvanus who
conveyed St. Peter's First Kpistle to Asia Minor
(1 Pet. V. 12) is doubtful; the probabilities are in
favor of the identity; the question is chiefly inter
esting as bearing upon the Pauline character of St.
Peter's epistles (Ue Wette, hiideit. § 4). A tra
dition of very sliglit authority represents Silas to
have become bishop of Corinth. We have finally
to notice, for the purpose of rejecting, the theories
which identify Silas with Tertius (Rom. xvi.
22) through a Hebrew explanation of the name
{W^ /tt7), and again with Luke, or at all events
with tbe author of the Acts (Alford's Prolegom. in
Acts, I ^ 1). W. L. B.
SILK {o7}piK6v). The only undoubted notice
of silk in the Bible occurs in Rev. xviii. 12, where
it is mentioned among the treasures of the typical
Babylon. It is, however, in the highest degree
probable that the texture was known to the He
brews from the time that their commercial relations
were extended by Solomon. For, though we have
no historical evidence of the importation of the raw
material to the shores of the Mediterranean earlier
than that of Aristotle {H. A. v. 19) in the 4th
century b. c., yet that notice, referring aa it does
to the island of Cos, would justify the assumption
that it had been known at a far earlier period in
Western Asia. The commercial routes of that
continent are ofthe highest antiquity, and an indi
rect testimony to the existence of a trade with China
in the age of Isaiah is probably afforded us in his
reference to the Sinim. [Sinim.] The well-known
classical name ofthe substance {(r7ipiK6vj sericum)

« Culmet conjectured that iT^p'^ltp (Is. xix. 9,
A.. V. " fine ") was connected with sericum.
d The A. V. confounds WW with silk in Prov.
Mxi. 22.
e 2 Chr. xxiv. 26. a passage tinged with the usual
solor of the narrativn of Chronicles, and containing

SILLA 3036
does not occur in the Hebrew language,^ but this
raay be accounted for, partly on the ground that
the Hebrews were acquainted only with the texture
and not with the raw material, and partly on the
supposition that the name seiician reached the
Greeks by another channel, namely, through Ar
menia. The Hebrew terms which have been sup
posed to refer to silk are nieshi ^ and detneshek.*^
The former occurs only iu Ez. xvi. 10, 13 (A. V.
'*silk") and is probably connected with the root
iiiashdh, " to di-aw out," as though it were made
of the finest drawn silk in the raanner described b}
Pliny (vi. 20, xi. 26): the equivalent term in the
LXX. {rpix°'-''^Tov)-, though connected in point of
etymology with hair as its material, is nevertheless
explained by Hesychius and Suidas as referring to
silk, which may well have been described as resem
bling hair. The other terra demeshek occurs in
Ara. iii. 12 (A. V. " Daraascus "), and has been
supposed to refer to silk from the resemblance of
the word to our '* damask," and of this again to
•' Damascus," as the place where the manufacture
of silken textures was carried on. It appears, how
ever, that " damask " is a corruption of diniakso,
a term applied by the Arabs to the raw material
alone, and not to the manufactured article (Pusey's
Min. Proph. p. 183). We must, therefore, con
sider the reference to silk as extremely dubious.''
We have notice of silk under its classical njime in
the jMisbna {Kil. 9, § 2), where Chinese silk is dis
tinguished frora floss-silk. The value set upon silk
by the Romans, as implied in Rev. xviii. 12, is no
ticed by Josephus {B. J. vii. 5, § 4), as well as by
classical writers (e. g. Sueton. Calig. 52; i\I:irt. xi.
9). AV. L. B.
SIL'LA (K^p [iioig, basket]: [Rom. 2eAa;
Vat.] TaaAAa; Alex. ToAaaS; [Comp. SeAAa:]
Sella). ''The house of Millo, which goeth down to
Silla," was the scene of the murder of king Joa.sh
(2 K. xii. 20). What or where Silla was is en
tirely matter of conjecture. Millo seems most prob
ably to have been the citadel of the town, and situ
ated on Mount Zion. [See iii. 1937 a.] Silla must
have been iu the valley below, overlooked by that
part of tbe citadel which was used as a residence.
The situation of the present so-called Pool of Siloam
would be appropriate, and the agreement between
the two names is tempting; but the likeness exists
in the Greek and Knglish versions only, and in the
original is too slight to adrait of any inference.
Gesenius, with less than his usual caution, affirms
Silla tu be a town in the neighborhood of Jeru
salem. Others (as Thenius, in Kurzg. Exeg.
Handb. on the passage) refer it to a place on
or coimected with the causeway or flight of stepn
(n vDp) which led from the central valley of the
city, up to the court of the Temple. To indulge in
such confident stateraents on either side is ar.
entire raistidce. Neither in the parallel passage of
Chronicles,^ in the lists of Nehemiah iii. and xii.,
the Jewish Coramentator/ the LXX., in Josephus,

some curious variations from that of tbe Kings, but
passinj; over the place of the murder sub ^dentio.
f The reading of the twr great MSS. of the LXX. —
agreeing in the V as the commencenaent of the name
— is remarkable, and prompts the suggestion that ihe
Hebrew name may originally have begun with S3,
a ravine (as Ge-hinnom). The KaroifteVowa of the
Alex, is doubtless a corruption of Ko.Ta^aivovTa.

3036 SIL9AH, THE POOL OF
nor in Jerome, do we find the smallest clew; and
.here is therefore no alternative but to remain for
the present in ignorance. G.
SILO'AH, THE POOL OF (npl?
rivtJ?!! [see below]: Ko\vpfi4]8pa tSiv Kaiiav;
FA.l 1^ .^^„ g^.rou Sif^aap; [Comp. k. rov 2i-
\a>d:] Piscina Siloe). This name is not accu
rately represented in the A. V. of Neh. iii. 15 —
the only passage in which this particular form oc
curs. It should be Shelach, or rather has-Shelach,
since it is given with the definite article. This
was possibly a corrupt form of the name which is
first presented as Shiloach, then as Siloam, and is
now Selwdn. The meaning of Shelach, taken as
Hebrew, is " dart." This cannot be a name given
to the stream on accouut of its swiftness, because it
is not now, nor was it in the days of Isaiah, any
thing but a very soft and gentle stream (Is. viii. 6).
It is probably an accommodation to the popular
mouth, of the same nature as that exemplified in the
name Dart which is now borne by more than one
river in England, and which has nothing whatever
to do with swiftness, but is merely a corruption of
the ancient word which also appears in tbe various
forms of Derwent," Darent, Trent. The last of
these was at one time supposed to mean " thirty; "
and the river Trent was believed to have 30 tribu
taries, 30 sorts of fish, 30 convents on its banks,
etc. : a notion preserved from oblivion by Milton in
his lines : —
" .\nd Trent, that like some earth-born giant spreads
His thirty arms along the indented meads."
For the fountain and pool, see Siloam. G.
SILO'AM (n'bc&n, SInloach, Is. viii. 6;
nbtffn, Shelach, Neh. iii. 15 [see above]; the
change in the Masoretic punctuation indicating
merely perhaps a change in the pronunciation or
in the spelling of the word, sometime during the
tbree centuries between Isaiah and Nehemiah.
1-tabbinical writers, and, foUowing them, Jewish
travellers, both ancient and modern, from Benja
min of Tudela to Schwarz, retain the earlier Shibj-
ach in preference to the later Shelach. The
Rabbis give it with the article, as in the Bible
(mb'^CCn, Dachs's Codex Talmudicus, p. 367).
The LXX. gives SiAcock/t [Vat. Sin. SfiKwap] in
Isaiah ; but in Nehemiah Kohvfi^-ffBpa tuv KaiSicov,
the pool of the sheepskins, or "fleece-pool; " per
haps because, in their day, it was used for washing
the fleeces of the victims.^ The Vulgate has uni
formly, both in Old and New Testaments, Siloe ;
in the Old calling it piscina, and in the New nnta-
toria. The Latin Fathers, led by the Vulgate,
have always Siloe; the old pilgrims, who knew
nothing but the Vulgate, Siloe or Syloe. The
Greek Fathers, adhering to the LXX., have Siloam.
The word does not occur in the Apocrypha. Jo
sephus gives both Sibani and Sibas, generally the
former.)

SILOAM
Siloam is one of the few undisputed localities
(though Reland aud some others misplaced it) in
the topography of Jerusalem; still retaining ita
old name (with Arabic modification, Silican), while
every other pool has lost its Bilile-desigiiatioii.
This is the more remarkable as it is a mere sub
urban tank of no great size, and for many an age
not particularly good or plentiful in its waters,
though Josephus tells us that in his day they were
both "sweet and abundant" (B. J. v. 4. § 1).
Apart from the identity of name, there is an un
broken chain of exterior testimony, during eighteen
centuries, connecthig the present Birl^et Silwdn
vrith the Shiloah of Isaiah and the Siloam of St.
John. There are difiiculties in identifying the Bir
Eyub (the well of Salah-ed-din, Ibn EyiUt, the
great digger of wells, Jalal-Addin, p. 239), but
none in fixing Siloam. Josephus mentions it fre
quently in his Jewish War, and his references in
dicate that it was a somewhat noted place, a sort
of city landmark. From him we learn that it was
without the city (e|w tov So-tebs, B. J. v. 9, § 4);
that it was at this pool that the " old wall took a
bend and shot out eastward " (hvaudplTTOV eis ai*-
aroX^v, ib.v.6, § 1) ; that there was a valley una't-r
it (t^v iwh SiXwap <j>dpayya, ibid. vi. 8, § 5). :nid
one beside it (t^ kot^ t^iu 2iA.i»a/i (pdpayyi, ib'iil.
V. 12, § 2) ; a iiiU (\6(pos) right opposite, appar
ently on the other side bf the Kedron, hard by a
cliff or rock called Peristereon (ibid.); that it was
at the termination or mouth of the Tyi-opteon
(ibid. V. 4, § 1); that close beside it, apparently
eastward, was another pool, called Solomon's pool,
to which the " old wall " came after leaving Siloam,
and past which it went on to Ophlas, where, bend
ing northward, it was united to the eastern arcade
of the Temple. In the Antonine Itinerary (a. d.
333) it is set down in the same locality, but it is
said to be "juxta murum," as Josephus implies;
whereas now it is a considerable distance — up
wards of 1200 feet — from the nearest angle of the
present wall, and nearly 1,900 feet from the south
ern wall of the Harkm. Jerome, towards the be
ginning of the Sth century, describes it as " ad
radices mentis Moriah" (in Matt, x.), and tells
(though without indorsing the fable) that the
stones sprinkled with the blood (rubra saxa) of the
prophet Zechariah were still pointed out (in Matt.
xxiii.). He speaks of it as being in the Valley of
the Son of Hinnom, as Josephus does of ita being
at the mouth of the Tyropoeon (in Jer. ii.); and
it is noticeable that he (Uke the Rabbis) never
mentions the Tyropoeon, while he, times without
number, speaks of the Valley of the Son of Hin
nom. He speaks of Hmnom, Tophet, with their
groves and gardens, as watered by Siloam (in Jer.
xix. 6, and xxxii. 35). " Tophet, quse est in raUe
fiUi Ennom, iUum locum significat qui Siloe fonti-
bus irrigatur, et est amoenus atque nemorosus, ho-
dieque hortorum prsebet deUcias " (in Jer. viii ).
He speaks of Siloam as dependent on the rains,
and .IS the only fountain used in his day: " Uno
fonte Siloe et hoc non perpetuo utitur civitas ; et

a Derwent appears to be the oldest of these forms,
and to be derived from derwyn, an ancient British
word, meaning " to wind about." On the Coutioent
the name is found in the following forms : Fr. Du
rance; Germ. Drewenz; It. Trento ; Russ. Duiia
(Ferguson's River Names, etc.).
b In Talmudical Hebrew Slietach signifies "a skin "
'Uvi'B Liiigm Sacra] \ and the Alexandrian transla

tors attached this meaning to it ; they and the earlier
Rabbis considering Neheraiah's Shelach as a different
pool from Siloam ; probably the same as Kothesda, by
the Sheep Gate (John v. 2), tho irpoPaTiitij icoA«/i3^epa
of Eusebius, the probatica piscina of Jerome. If so,
then it is Bethesda, aud not SUoam, that is mentioned
by Nehemiah.

SILOAM
Qsque in prcesentera diera sterilitas pluviarura, non
solum frugum sed et bibeudi inopiam facit '* {in
Jtr. xiv.). Now, though .lerome ought to have
known well the water-supplies of -lerusalem, seeing
. lie lived the greater part of his life within six miles
uf it, yet other authorities, and the modern water-
provision of the city, show us that it never could
have been wholly dependent on its pnols. Its in
numerable bottle-necked private cisterns kept up a
supply at all times, and hence it often happened
tliat it was the besltgers, not the besitged, that
suffered most; though Josephn.s records a memora
ble instance to the contrary, when — relating a
speech he made to the Jews, standing, beyond their
darts, on a part of the southeastern wall which
the Romans had carried — he speaks of Siloam as
overflowing since the Koiuans had got access to it,
wbereas before, wheu the Jews held it, it was dry
{B. J. V. 9, § i). And we may here notice, in
passing, that Jerusalem is, except perhaps in the
very heat of the year, a well-watered city. Dr.
Barclay says that " within a circuit swept by a
radius of seven or eight miles there are no less than
tliirty or forty natural springs " (C^V^ of the Great
King, p. 295); und a leLtt^r from Consul Finn to
the writer adds, " This 1 believe to be under the
truth ; but tbey are alniust all found to the S. and
B. W. : hi those directions there does not appear
to be a village without springs." "
In the 7th century, Antoninus Martyr mentions
Siloam as both fountain and pool. Beruhard tlie
monk speaks of it in the 9th, and the annalists of
the Crusades mention its site in the fork of two
valleys, as we find it. Benjamin of Tudela (a. i>.
1173) speaks of " the great spring of Shiloach
wliich runs into the brook Kedron" (Asher's ed.
vul. i. p. 71); and he mentions " a large building
upon it " (^27), which he says was erected in the
(lays of his fathers. Is it of this building that the
[iresent ruined pillars are the relics ? Cauraont (a.
It. 1418) speaks of the V<iUey of Siloah, " ou est
le fonteyne ou le (sic) vierge Marie lavoit les dra-
pellez de son enfant," and of the fountain of Si
loam as close at hand ( Voyage d'oidtremer en
Jherusnlem, etc., Paris edition, p. 68). Felix
Fabri (a. i>. 1484:) describes Siloam at some
leugth, and seems to have attempted to enter the
subterraneous passage; but failed, and retreated in
dismay after fillhig his flasks with its eye-healing
wMer. Arnold von HffrfF (a. d. 1496) also identi
fies the spot {Die Pilgerfakrt, p. 186, Col. ed.).
After tbis, the references to Siloam are innumera
ble; nor do they, with one or two exceptions, vary
ill their location of it. We hardly needed these
te^tiuiouies to enable us to fix the site, though
some topographers have rested on these entirely.
Scripture, if it does not actui.llj set it down in the
mouth of the Tyropoeon as Josephus does, brings
us very near it, both in Nehemiah and St. John.
The reader who compares Neli. iii 15 with Neh.
xii. 37, will find that the pool of Siloah, the Foun
tain Gate, the stairs of the city of David, tbe wall
above the house of David, the Water Gate, and the
king's gardens, were all near each other. The Evan
gelist's narrative regarding the blind man, whose
syes the Lord miraculously opened, when carefully

SILOAM

3037

« strabo's statemeut is that Jerusalem itself waa
rocky but well watered {evv8pov), but all the region
uound waa barren and wateiless (Avirpav Kat aw
\fiov)i b. xvi. ch. 2, sect. 36.

examined, leads us to the conclusion that Siloam
was somewhere in the neighborhood of bne Temple.
The Kabbinical traditions, or histories, as they
doubtless are in raany cases, frequently refer to
Siloam in connection with the Temple service. It
was to Siloam that the I^evite was sent with the
golden pitcher on tbe " last and great day of the
feast" of Tabernacles; it was from Siloam that he
brought the water which was then poured over the
sacrifice, in memory of the water from the rock of
Rephidim; and it was. to this Siloara water that
the Lord pointed when He stood in the Temple on
that day and cried, " If any man thirst, let hiro
come unto me and drink."
The Lord sent the blind man to wash, not in,
as our version has it, but at {els) the pool of Si
loam; 6 for it was the clay frora his eyes that was
to be washed ofi^'; and the KvaugeUst is careful to
throw in a remark, not tor the purpose of telling
us that Siloam meant an ''aqueduct," as some
think, but to give higher significance to the mira
cle. " Uo wash at Siloara," was the command;
the Evangelist adds, " which is by interpretation.
SKNT." On the inner meaning here — the paral
lelism between ''the Sent One" (Luke iv. 18;
John X. 36) and " the Sent water," the missioned
One and the missioned pool, we say nothing far
ther than what St. Basil said well, in his exposition
ofthe 8th of Isaiah, tis oZv i> aTrea-ra\/j.4vos Kal
a-^ocpTjrl f>€a}v 7 ^ irepl ou ^Xp'qrai-, Kvpios airia-
TaA.'ce ^€- Kal ivdKiu, ovK epioei oifdh Kpavydo'eL ,*
Tiiat " Sent" is the natural interpretation is evi
dent, not simply from the word itself, but from
other passas^es where H vtt? is used in connection
with water, as Job v. 10, "he sendeth loaters upon .
the fields;" and Ez. xxxi. 4, "she sent out her
little rivers unto all the trees of the field." The
Talmudists coincide with the Evangelist, and say
that Shiloach was so called because it sent forth its
waters to water the gardens (Levi's Lingua Sn
era). We raay add Homer's line: —
'Ei/rij/xap 5' es reixos tei poov {U. xii. 25).
A little way below the Jewish burying-ground,
but on the opposite side of the valley, where tlie
Kedron turns slightly westward, and widens itself
considerably, is the fountain of the Virgin, or
U/n ed~Berrij, near the beginning of that saddle-
shaped projection of the Teraple-hill supposed to
be the Ophel of the Bible, and the Ophlas of Jo
sephus. [En-Rogel.] At the back part of this
fountain a subterraneous passage begins, through
which the water flows, and through which a man
may make his way, as did Robinson and Barclay,
sometimes walking erect, sometimes stooping, some
times kneeling, and sometimes crawling, to Siloam.
'I'his rocky conduit, which twists considerably, bnt
keeps, iu general, a southwesterly direction, is, ac
cording to Robinson, 1,750 feet long, while the
direct distance between Silwdn and Um ed-Dtnij
is only a little above 1,200 feet. In former days
this passage was evidently deeper, as its bed is sand
of some depth, which has been accumulating for
ages. This conduit has had tributaries, which
have formerly sent tbeir waters down frora the citj
pools or Temple-wells to swell Siloara. Barclay
writes, " In exploring the subterraneous channel
t» See Woijii Carts, ete. Or ei? gets its force from
vTTaye, vC^at coming between the verb and its prepo
sition, parenthetically, " Go to the pool and wash
thine eyes there."

3038 SILOAM
oonveying the water from the Virgin's Fount to
Siloam. I discovered a similar channel entering
from the north, a few yards firom its commence
ment; and on tracing it -up near the Mugrabin
Gate, where it became so choked with rubbish that
it coidd be traversed no farther, I there found it
turn to the west, in the direction of the south end
of the cleft or saddle of Zion; and if this channel
was not constructed for the purpose of conveying
to Siloam the surplus waters of Hezekiah's aque
duct, I am unable to suggest any purpose to which
it could have been applied" {City ofthe Great
King^ p. 309). In another place he tells us some-
thhig more; " Having loitered in the pool [Virg!n*s

SILOAM
Fount] till the coming down of .he craters, I soon
found several widely separated places where it
gained admittance, besides the opening under the
steps, where alone it had forraerly been supposed
to enter. 1 then observed a large opening entering
the rock-hewn channel, just below the pool, which,
though once a copious tributary, is now dry. Being
too much clicked with tesserae and rubbish to be
penetrated far, I carefully noted its position and
bearing, and, on searching for it above, soon identi
fied it on the exterior, where it assumed an upward
direction towards the Temple, and, entering through
a breach, traversed it for nearly a thousand feet.
sometimes erect, sometime bending^, sometime

Pool of Siloam, looking north, from a sketch by Rev. S. G. Malan.

inching my way snake-fashion, till at last I reached
a point near the wall where I heard the donkeys
tripping along over my head. I was satisfied, on
Bubsequently locating our course above ground with
the theodolite, that this canal derived Its former

« * Lieut. Warren's researches have shown that
Dr. Barclay was singularly mistaken iu the statements
here quoted. The subterraneiin passage connected
with the aqueduct and pool, which the latter supposed
he had " identified on the exterior," was ascertaiued
by the latter to be about 40 feet below the surface of
the rock. The passage which Barclay mistook for this,
Uld entering from the extp-ior, " traversed it for nearly

supply of water, not frora Moriah, but from Zion ' *»
{City, p. 523).
This conduit enters Siloam at the northwest
angle; or rather enters a small rock-cut chamber
which forms the vestibule of Siloam, about five or
a thousand feet," is, according to Warren, " the main
drain of the town, which is built of masonry, and
generaUy only a few feet below the surface of the made
earth." The subterranean passage, moreover, was not
as Barclay supposed, a tributary to the fountain, but
a conduit to a shaft, of which, aa explored by War
ren, some account is given at the end of this article
(Amer. ed.J. S- W

SILOAM
six. feet broad. To this you descend by a few rude
itepa, under which the water pours itself into the
main pool {Narrative of Mission to ihe Jews, vol.
i. p. 207). This pool is oblong; eighteen paces in
length according to Laffi ( Vinggio al Santo SepoL
a-o, A. o. 1678); fifty feet according to Barclay;
and fifty-three according to Robinson. It is eigh
teen feet broad, and nineteen feet deep, according
to Robinson; but Barclay gives a more raiLiute
measurement, " fourteen and a half at the lower
(eastern) end, and seventeen at the upper; its
western end side being somewhat bent; it is eigh
teen and a half in depth, but never filled, the
water either passing directly through, or being
maintained at a depth of three or four feet; this
is effected by leaving open or closing (with a few
handfuls of weeds at the present day, but formerly
by a flood-gate) an aperture at the bottom; at a
height of three or four feet frora the bottom, its
dimensions become enlarged a few feet, and the
water, attaining this level, falls through an aper
ture at its lower end, into an educt, subterranean
at first, but soon appearing in a deep ditch under
the perpendicular cliff of Ophel, and is received
into a few small reservoirs and troughs " {City, p.
524). The small basin at the west end, which we have
described, is what some old travellers call " the
fountain of Siloe " {F. Fubri, vol. i. p. 420). " In
front of this," Fabri goes on, "there is a bath sur
rounded by walls and buttresses, like a cloister,
and the arches of these buttresses are supported
by marble pillars," which pillars he affirms to be
the remains of a monastery built above the pool.
The present pool is a ruin, with no raoss or ivy to
make it romantic; its sides fallhigin; its ^pillars
broken; its stair a fragment; its walls giving way;
the edge of every stone worn round or sharp by
time; hi some parts mere debris; once Siloam,
now, Uke the city which overhung it, a heap;
though around its edges, " wild flowers, and, among
other plants, the caper-tree, grow luxuriantly "
{Narrative of Mission, vol. 1. p. 207). The gray
crumbling limestone of the stone (as well as of the
surrounding rocks, which are almost verdureless)
gives a. poor and worn-out aspect to this venerable
relic. The present pool is not the original build
ing; the work of crusaders it may be; perhaps
even improved hy Saladin, whose affection for wells
and pools led him to care for all these things;
perhaps the work of later days. Yet the spot is
the same. Above it rises the high rock, and be
yond it the city wall; while eastward and south
ward the verdure of gardens relieves the gray
monotony of the scene, and beyond these the
Kedron vale, overshadowed by the third of the
three heights of Ohvet, *' the mount of corruption "
(1 K. xi. 7; 2 K. xxiii. 13), with the village of
Silwdn jutting out over its lower slope, and look
ing into the pool irom which it takes its name and
draws its water.
This pool, which we may call the second, seems
anciently to have poured its waters into a tJiird,
before it proceeded to water the royal gardens.
This third is perhaps that which Josephus calls
"Solomon's pool" {B. ./. v. 4, § 2), and which
Nehemiah calls "the King's pool" (ii. 14); for
Shis must have been somewhere about " the king's
prdcu " (Josephus's $a(TtKtKhs irapd^eia-os. Ant.
»ii. 14, § 4); and we know that this was by "the
*all of the pool of Siloah " (iii. 15). The Anto-
Biue Itinerary speaks of it iu connection with

SILOAM B039
Siloa, as "alia piscina grandis foras." It is now
known as the Birket el-Hamra. and may be per
haps some five times the size of Birket es-Silwan.
Barclay speaks of it merely as a "depressed fig;
yard ; " but one would like to see it cleared out.
Siloam is in Scripture always called a pool. It
is not an D^^, that is, a marsh-pool (Is. xxxv. 7);
nor a HnSj a natural hollow or pit (ts. xxx. 14);
nor a nif?^, a natural gathering of water (Gen.
i. 10; Is. xxii. 11); nor a "1^2, a well (Gen. xvi.
14); nor a *T12, a pit (Lev. xi. 36); nor an I"]!?,
a spring (Gen. xvi. 7); but a HD'HS, a regularly
built pool or tank (2 Iv. xx. 20; Neb. iii. 15; Eccl.
ii. 6). This last word is still retained in the
Arabic, as any traveller or reader of travels knows.
While Nehemiah calls it a jfool, Isaiah merely
speaks of it as " the waters of Shiloah ; " while the
New Testament gives Ko\v/j.$T}dpa, and Josephus
¦mjyf}. The Rabbis and Jewish travellers call it
a fountain ; in which they are sonaetimes followed
by tbe European travellers of all ages, though
raore generally they give us piscina, natatoria, and
stagnum. It is the least of all the Jerusalem pools ; hardly
the sixth part of the Birket el-Mamilla; hardly
the tenth of the Birket es-SuUan, or of the lowest
of the three pools of Solomon at eUBurak. Yet
it is a sacred spot, even to the Moslem; much raore
to the J ew ; for not only frora it was the water
taken at the Feast of Tabernacles, but the water
fbr the ashes of the red heifer (Dachs's Talm. Babyl.
p. 380). Jewish tradition raakes Gihon and Si
loara one (Lightfoot, Cent. Chor. in Matt. p. 51 ,-
Schwarz, p. 265), as if Gihon were "the bursting
forth" (n"^3, to break out), and Siloam the re
ceptacle of the waters "sent." If this were the
case, it raight be into Siloara, through one of the
raany subterranean aqueducts with which Jerusa
lem abounds, and one of which probably went down
the Tyropoeon, that Hezekiah turned the watere on
the other side of the city, when he " stopped the
upper watercourse of Gihon, and brought it straight
down to the west side of the city of David" (2
Chr. xxxii. 30).
The rush of water down these conduits is re
ferred to by Jerome ("per terrarum concava et
antra saxi durissimi cum magno sonitu venit," Jn
Js. viii. 6), as heard in his day, showing that the
water was more abundant then than now. The
intermittent character of Siloam is also noticed by
him; but in a locality perforated by so mauy
aqueducts, and supplied by so many large wells
and secret springs (not to speak of the discharge
of the great city-baths), this irregular flow is easily
accounted for, both by the direct and the siphonic
action of the water. How this natural intermit-
tency of Siloara could be made identical with the
miraculous troubling of Bethesda (John v. 4) one
does not see. The lack of water in the pool now
is no proof that there was not the great abundance
of which Josephus speaks {B. J. v. 4, § 1); and as
to the "sweetness" he speaks of, like the "aqua
dulces " of Virgil {Geoi'g. iv. 61), or the Old Testa
ment pO^ (Ex. XV. 25), which is used both iu
reference to the sweetness of the Marah waters
(Ex. XV. 26), and of the "stolen waters" of the
foolish woman (Prov. ix. 17), it simply me&aa

3040

SILOAM

fresh or pleasant in opposition to bitter ("^i?:
irmpSs). The expression in Isaiah, " waters of Shiloah
that go softly," seems to point to the slender
rivulet, flowing gently, though once very profusely,
out of Siloam into the lower breadth of level, where
the king's gardens, or " royal paradise," stood,
and which is still the greenest spot about the Holy
City, reclaimed from sterility into a fair oasis of
olive-groves, fig-trees, pomegranates, etc., by the
tiny rill which flows out of Siloam. A winter-
torrent, like the Kedron. or a sweUing river like
the Euphrates, carries havoc with it, by sweeping
off soil, trees, and terraces; but this SUoam-fed rill
flows softly, fertilizing and beautifying the region
through which it passes. As the Euphrates is used
by the prophet as the symbol of the wasting sweep
of the Assyrian king, so Siloam is taken as the

SILOAM
type of the calm prosperity of Israel under Mes
sianic rule, when " the desert rejoices and blossoDM
as the rose." The word softly or secretly (lOS^)
does not seem to refer to the secret transmission
of the waters through the tributary ™ducts, but,
like Ovid's " moUes aquae," " blandae aquse," and
Catullus' " moUe flumen," to the quiet gentleness
with which the rivulet steals on its mission of
beneficence, through the gardens of the king. Thus
" Siloah's brook " of Milton, and " cool Siloam's
shady rill," are not mere poetical fancies. The
" fountain " and the " pool," and the " rill " of
Siloam, are all visible to this day, each domg its
old work beneath the high rock of Moriah, and
almost beneath the shadow of the Temple wall.
East of the Kedron, right opposite the rough
gray slope extending between Deroj and Silwdn,
above the kitchen-gardens watered by Siloam which

The Village of &7«,te (Siloam), and the lower part of the Valley of the Kedron, showing the " King's Gar
dens," which are watered by the Pool. The background is the highlands of Judah. The view is from a
photograph by James Graham, Esq., taken from beneath the S. wall of the Haram

supply Jerusalem with vegetables, is the village
which takes its name from the pool,  Kefr-
Silwan. At Bernj the Kedron is narrow, and the
village is very near the fountam. Hence it is to
it rather than to the pool that the villagers gen
erally betake themselves for water. For as the
Kedron widens considerably in its progress south
ward, the Kefr is at some little distance from the
Birkeh. This village is unmentioned in ancient
times ; perhaps it did not exist. It is a wretched
place for filth and irregularity; its square hovels
all huddled together Uke the lairs of wild beasts,
or rather like the tombs and caves in which savages
or demoniacs may be supposed to dwell. It lies
near the foot of the third or southern height of
Olivet ; and in all likelihood marks the spot of the
idol-shrhies which Solomon built to Chemosh, and
Ashtoreth and Milcom. This was " the mount of

corruption" (2 K. xxiii. 13), the hill that is before
(east; before in Hebrew geography metms east)
Jerusalem (1 K. xi. 7); and these "abominations
of the Moabites, Zidonians, aud Ammonites " were
built on " the right hand of the mount," that is,
the southern part of it. This is the " opprobrious
hill" of Milton (Par. L. b. i. 403); the "mons
offensionis " of the Vulgate and of early traveBere,
the -HioaBdB of the Sept. (see Keil On Kings); and
the Berg des .^rgernisses of German maps. In
Eamboux' singular volume of lithographs (Col.
1858) of Jerusalem and its Boly Places, in imita
tion of the antique, there is a sketch of an old
monohth tomb in the village of Silwdn, whioh few
travellers have noticed, but of which De Saulcy has
given us both a cut and a description (vol. ii. p.
215); setting it down as a relic of Jebusite work
manship. One would like to know more about

SILOAM, TOWER IN
this village and about the pedigree of its inhab-
ltants.« H. B.
* The rock-cut passage between the Fountain
of the Virgin and Siloam was traversed and care
fully surveyed by Lieut. Warren. He found two
passages leading into it, from the northwest, the
largest being about 50 feet from the entrance to
the pool. It was filled with hard mud, the deposit
of centuries, which with much difficulty was dug
out and carried through the passage and pool, and
up the steps to the outside. At the end of 17 feet
he reached a shaft leading upwards for more than
40 feet, with smooth sides, cut out of the solid
rock, and averaging 6 feet in length and 4 in
width. By constructing a scaffolding with three
landings he mounted to the top. In the (nasonry
overhanging it he found au iron ring, through which
a rope might have passed, and from this he inferred
that the shaft was " the ancient draw-well of
Ophel." Connected with it, near the top, he dis
covered and explored extended passages and cham
bers cut in the rock, and found ghiss lamps of
curious construction and water-vessels of red pot
tery, showing that the place had " evidently been
used as a refuge." The other passage, 40 feet from
the entrance, extended but 9 feet. Lieut. W. also
excavated 4 feet under the lowest step of the Vir
gin's Fount, to ascertain the source of supply, and
reached a hard substance, " either masotu-y or
rock," but in that depth of water could proceed no
further. " The other point of entrance of the water
is a deep hole in the middle of the pool, at which
nothitig can be done." W'arren is inclined to the
behef, contrary to Barclay, that there is a con
nection between the Hammdm esh-Shefa and the
Virgin's Fount; but the point is not yet ascer-
tauied. S. W.
SILO'AM, TOWER IN. ('o ir^pyos 4v r^
"^iKcodfj., Lulvc xiii. 4.) Of this we know nothing
definitely beyond these words of the Lord. Of the
tower or its fall no historian gives us any account;
and whether it was a tower in cormection with tlie
pool, or whether " in Siloara " refers to the valley
near, we cannot say. There were fortifications hard
by, for of Jothara we read, "on the wall of Ophel
he built much " (2 Chr. xxvii. 3); and of iManasseh
that " he compassed about Ophel " {ibid, xxxiii.
14); and, in coimection with Ophel, there is men
tion made of "a tower thut lieth ouf'' (Neh. iii.
26); and there is no unlikeUhood in connecting
this prijecting tower with the tower in Siloara,
while one raay be almost excused for the conjecture
that its projection was the cause of its ultimate
full. H. B.

SILVER

3041

n * The later publication of the Ordnance Survey
ofJeruaalem (Load. 1865} enables us to satisfy in part
tbis curiosity. " Entering Siloam on tbe north, there
is ou the left a high cliff, which bears evident signs
of having been worked as a quarry ; on the right
baud side is the curious monolith with the heavy
Egyptian cornice ; the exterior of the cliff is quite
flat, but the interior is sloping like a tent ; in front
is a small cistern. The present village of Siloam oc-
supies the site of an old quarry ; the houses are often
made simply by the walling up of the excavation, and
Boraetimes they cling on the scarped face of the rock :
one excavation was of considerable extent, and similar
la character to that near the Damascus gate, though
act nearly so large ; several pillars were left to sustain
he roof. The stone from this quarry is ' malaki '
tt a very sr-fl kind ; higher up, hy the monolith, a
'Odissal/ and the upper bed of ^malaki' are found.

SILVA'NUS. [Silas.]
SILVER (n5?j ceseph). In very early times.
according to the Bible, silver was used for orna^
ments (Gen. xxiv 53), for cups (Gen. xliv. 21, for
the sockets of the pillars of tbe Tabernacle (Ex. xxvi.
19, &c.), their hooks and fillets, or rods (Ex. xxvii.
10), and their capitals (Ex. xxxviii. 17); for dishes,
or chargere. and bowls (Num. vii. 13), trumpets
(Num. x. 2), candlesticks (1 Cin-. xxviii. 15), tables
(1 Chr. xxviii. IU), basins (1 Chr. xxviii. 17), chains
(Is. xl. 19), the settings of ornaments (Prov. xxv.
11), studs (Cant. i. 11), and crowns (Zech. vi. 11).
Images for idolatrous worship were made of silver
or overlaid with it (Ex. xx. 23; Hos. xiii. 2; Hab.
ii. 19; Bar. vi. 39 [or Epist. of Jer. 39]), and the
manufacture of silver shrines for Diana was a trade
in Ephesus (Acts xix. 24) [Demktkius.] But
its chief use was as a medium of exchange, and
throughout the 0. T. we find ceseph, " silver," used
for money, like the Fr. argent. To this general
usage there is but one exception. (See Metals,
iii. 1910.) Vessels and ornaments of gold and
silver were coramon in I'Vjpt in the times of
Osirtasen I. and Thothmes III., the contemporaries
of Joseph and iMoses (Wilkinson, Anc. Kg. iii. 225).
In the Homeric poems we find indications of the
constant application of silver to purposes of orna
ment and luxury. It was used for basins {Od. i.
137, iv. 53), goblets {II. xxiii. 741), baskets {Od.
iv. 1'25), cofFere {JL xviii. 413), sword-hilts {ll. i.
219; Od. viii. 404), door-handles {Od. i. 442), and
clasps for the greaves (//. iii. 331). Door-posts
{Od. vii. 89) and lintels {Od. vii. 90) glittered with
silver ornaments: baths {Od. iv. 128), tables {Od.
X. 355), bows {II. i. 49, xxiv. 605), scabbards {II.
xi. 31), sword-belts {II. xviii. 598), belts for the
shield {il. xviii. 480), chariot-poles {II. v. 729) aud
the naves of wheels {II. v. 729) were adorned with
silver; women braided their hair with silver -thread
{II. xvii. 52), and cords appear to have been made
of it {Od. x. 24); while we constantiy find that
swords {II. ii. 45, xxiii. 807) and sword-belts {II.
xi. 237), thrones, or chairs of state {Od. rai. 65),
and bedsteads ( Od. xxiii. 200 ) were studded with
silver. Thetis of the silver feet was probably so
called frora the silver ornaments on her sandals'
{ll. i. 538). The practice of overlaying silver with
gold, referred to in Homer {Od. vi. 232,. xxiii. 159),
is nowhere mentioned in the Bible, though inferior
materials were covered with silver (Prov. xxvi. 23).
Silver was brought to Solomon fi:om Arabia
(2 Chr. ix. 14) and frora Tarshish (2 Chr. ix. 21),
which supplied the markets of Tyre (Ez. xxvii. 12).
From Tarshish it carae in the form of plates (Jer.

A large portion of the quarrying at Siloam has beeu
in the 'missal' beds, and throughout the village the
deep vertical cuts made by the quarrymen may be
seen exactly corresponding to those found in all the
quarries ; steps cut in the rock lead to different parts
of the village ; first made for the convenience of the
workmen, they have now heen made to serve as streets.
There are a few tombs in the village, but uot as many
as has generally been supposed. The state ot the
houses and streets was worse than anything seen about
Jerusalem, and they were swarming with vermin ; still
the village is highly interesting, and deserves more
notice from travellers than has generally been be
stowed upon it " (p. 64 f.).
¦ For some very recent discoveries which seem to
connect Siloam ^rith Zoheisiq see in the latter name
(Amer. ed.). H

3042

SILVERLINGS

K 9), Uke those on which the sacred books of the
Singhalese are written to this day (Temient's Cey
lon, ii. 102). The silver bowl given as a prize by
A-chilles was the work of Sidonian artists {II. xxiii.
743; comp. Od. iv. 618). In Homer {II. ii. 857),
Alybe is called the birthplace of silver, and was
probably celebrated for its mines. But Spain ap
pears to have been the chief source whence silver
was obtained bythe ancients. [^Mines, iii. 1939 6.]
Possibly the hjUs of Palestine may have afforded
some supply of this metal. " When Volney was
among the Druses, it was mentioned to him that
an ore affording silver and lead had been discovered
on the declivity of a hill in Lebanon " (Kitto, Phys.
Hist, of Palestine, p. 73).
For an account of the knowledge of obtaining
and refining silver possessed by the ancient He
brews, see the articles Lead and Mines. The
whole operation of mining is vividly depicted in
Job xxviii. 1-11 ; and the process of purifying
metals is frequently alluded to (Ps. xii. 6; Prov
xxv. 4), while it is described with some minuteness
in Ez. xxii. 20-22. Silver mixed with aUoy is re
ferred to in Jer. vi. 30, and a finer kind, either
purer in itself, or raore thoroughly purified, is men
tioned in Prov. viii. 19. W. A. W.
SILVERLINGS (I=1P? : aUKos'- argenteus,
siclus understood), a word used once oidy in the
A. V. (Is. vii. 23), as a translation of the He
brew word ceseph, elsewhere rendered " silver " or
"money." [Piece of Silver.] K. S. P.
SIMALCU'E ([Rom.] E^/mA/coW ; [Sin.
IfjxiKKove ; Alex.] 'ZiVfjuiKKOvq ; [Comp. 'ZipaK-
Koue:] Emalchuel, Malchus: M<i\x°^i Joseph.),
an Arabian chief who had charge of Antiochus, the
young son of Alexander Balas, before he was put
forward by Tryphon as a claimant to the Syrian
throne (1 Mace. xi. 39). [Antiochus VI., vol.
i. p. 117.] According to Diodorus {Eclog. xxxii. 1)
the name of the chief was Diodes, though in an
other place {Frag. xxi. Miiller) he calls him Jam-
blichus. The name evidently contains the element
Melek, "king," but the original form is uncertain
(comp. Grotius and Grimm on 1 Mace. I. c).
B. F. W.
SIM-^EON [f^Vp'W \a hearing, listening] :
'SiVped^v] [in 1 Chr. iv. 24, Eom. 'S.ep^djv (mis
print? Vat. Alex, here as elsewhere Sujuewy);]
Siineon). The second of Jacob's sons by Leah.
His birth is recorded in Gen. xxix. 33, and in the
explanation there given of the name, it is derived
from the root shama\ to hear " — " * Jehovah hath
heard {shdma') that I was hated.' . . . and she
called his name Shime'on." ^ This metaphor is
not carried on (as in the case of some of the other
names) in Jacob's Blessing; and in that of Moses
all mention of Simeon is omitted.
The first group of Jacob's children consists, be
sides Simeon, of the three other sons of Leah —
Reuben, Levi, Judah. With each of these Simeon
is mentioned in some connection. " As Reuben
and Simeon are mine," says Jacob, "so shall Jo-
a Piirst {Handwb. ii. 472) inclines to the interpreta-
ion " fiiraous " {ruhmreicher). Redslob {Aittest. Na-
7ien, 9ji), ou the other hand, adopting the Arabic
*°^^ Jt4JM, considers the name to mean " sons of
pondage " or "bondmen."

SIMEON
seph's sons Ephraim and Manasseh be mine '* (Gen
xlviii. 5). With Levi, Simeon was associated in
the massacre of the Shechemites (xxxiv. 25) — a
deed which drew on them the remonstrance of their
father (ver. 30), and perhaps <-' also his dying curse
(xlix. 5-7). With Judah the connection was drawn
still closer. He and Simeon not only " went up "
together, side by side, in the forefront of the nation,
to the conquest of tbe south of the Holy Land
(Judg. i. 3, 17), but their allotments lay together
in a more special manner than those of the other
tribes, something in the sarae manner as Benjamin
and Ephiuira. Besides the massacre of Shechem
— a deed not to be judged of by the standards of
a more civilized and less violent age, and, when
fairly estimated, not altogether discreditable to its
perpetratoi-s — the only personal incident related
of Simeon is the fact of his being selected by Jo
seph, without any reason given or implied, as the
hostage for the appearance of Benjamin (Gen. xiii.
19,24, 36; xliii. 23),
These slight traits are characteristically amplified
iu the Jewish traditions. In the Targura Pseudo
jonathan it is Simeon and Levi who are the ene
raies of the lad Joseph. It is they who counsel his
being killed, and Simeon binds him before he is
lowered into the well at Dothan. (See further
details in Fabricus, Cod. Pseud, i. 535.) Hence
Joseph's selection of hira as the hostage, his bind
ing and incarceration. In the Midrash the strength
of Simeon is so prodigious that the Egyptians are
unable to cope with him, and his binding is only
accomplished at length by the intervention of Ma
nasseh, who acts as the house-steward and intei-
preter of Joseph. His powers are so great that at
the mere roar of his voice 70 valiant Egyptians fall
at his feet and break their teeth (Weil, Bib. Leg.
88). In the "Testaraent of Siraeon " his fierce
ness and implacability are put prominently forward,
and he dies warning his children against the indul
gence of such passions (Fabricius, Cod. Pseudep. i.
53-3-543). The chief famQies of the tribe are mentioned in
the lists of Gen. xlvi. (10), in whieh one of them,
bearing the narae of Shaul (Saul), is specified as
" the son of the Canaanitess " — Num. xxvi. (12-
14), and 1 Chr. iv. (24-43). In the latter passage
(ver. 27) it is mentioned that the family of one of
the heads of the tribe " had not many children,
neither did they multiply Uke to the children of
Judah." This appears to have been the case not
only with one family but with the whole tribe. At
the census at Sinai Simeon numbered 59,300 fight
ing men (Num. i. 23). It was then the most nu
merous but two, Judah and Dan alone exceeding
it; but when the second census was taken, at Shit^
tira, the numbera had fallen to 22,200, and it was
the weakest of all tbe tribes. This was no doubt
partly due to the recent mortality foUowing tbe
idolatry of Peor, in which the tribe of Simeon ap
pears to have taken a prominent share, but there
must have been other causes which have escaped
raention. The connection between Simeon and Levi im-

& The name is given in this its more correct form
in the A.V. in connection with a later Israelite In
Ezr. X. 31.
c It is by no nieans certain that Jacob's words al
lude to the transaction at Shechem. They appear
rather to r^fer to some other act of the brothers whicli
haa escaped direct record.

SIMEON
plied in the Blessing of Jacob (Gen. xlix. 5-7), has
been already adverted to. The passage relating to
them is thus rendered : —
Shimeon and Levi are brethren,^
Instruments of violence are their machinations (or
their'' swords).
Into their secret council come not my soul !
Unto their assembly join not mine honor !
For iu their wrath they slew a man,
And in their self-will they houghed an c ox.
Cursed be their wrath, for it is fierce,
And their anger, for it is cruel !
I will divide them in Jacob,
And scatter them in Israel.
The terms of this denunciation seem to imply a
closer bond of union between Simeon and Levi,
and more violent and continued exploits performed
under that bond, than now remain on record. The
expressions of the closing lines also seem to necessi
tate a more advanced condition of the nation of
Israel than it could have attained at the time of
the death of the father of the individual patriarchs.
Takhig it however to be what it purports, an actual
prediction by the individual Jacob (and, in the
present state of our knowledge, however doubtful
this may be, no other conclusion can be safely ar
rived at), it has been often pointed out how differ
ently the same .sentence was accomplished in the
cases of the two tribes. Both were "divided"
and "scattered." But how differently ! The dis
persion of the Levites arose from their holding the
post of honor in the nation, and being spread, for
the purposes of education and worship, broadcast
over the face of the country. In the case of Sim
eon the dispersion seems to have arisen from sorae
corrupting element in the tribe itself, which first
reduced its numbers, and at last drove it from its
allotted seat in the country — not, as Dan, because
it could not, but because it would not stay — and
thus in the end caused it to dwindle and disappear
entirely. The non-appearance of Simeon's name in the
Blessing of Moses (Deut. xxxiii. 6 ^) may be ex
plained in two ways. On the assumption that the
Blessing was actuaUy pronounced in its present
forni by Moses, the omission may be due to his
displeasure at the misbehavior of the tribe at Shit
tim. On the assumption that the Blessing, or
this portion of it, is a composition of later date,
then it may be due to the fact of the tribe having
by that time vanished frora the Holy Land. The
latter of these is the explanation commonly adopted.
During tbe journey through the wildemess Sim
eon was a member of the carap which marched on

SIMEON

3043

a The word is D**nS, meaning " brothers " in the
fullest, strictest sense. Xn the Targ. Pseudojon. it is
rendered arlmi tetamin, " brothers of the womb."
b Identified hy some (Jerome, Talmud, etc.) with
the Greek juaxatpa. The "habitations" of the A, V.
Is derived from Kimchi, but is not countenanced by
later scholars.
c A. V. " digged down a wall ; " following Onkelos,
who reads "HJlti? ~ "^^tO, " a town, a wall."
d The Alexandrine MS. of the LXX. adds Simeon's
name in this passage — " Let Reuben live and not die,
and let Simeon be few in number." In so doing it
differs not only' from the Vatican MS. but also from
-he Hebrew text, to which this MS. usually adheres
oore closely than the Vatican dot^. The insertion is
adopted in the Complutensian and Aldine editions of
ihe LXX but does not appear in any of the other
'erslons

the scuih aide of the Sacred Tent. His associates
were Reuben and Gad — not his whole brothers,
but the sons of Zilpah, Leah's maid. The bead of
the tribe at the time of the Exodus, was Sheluraiel,
son of Zurishaddai (Num. i. 6), ancestor of its
one heroine, the intrepid Judith. [Salasadai.]
Among the spies Siraeon was represented by Sha-
phat son of Hori, i. e, Horite, a narae which per
haps, like the "Canaanitess" of the earlier list,
reveals a trace of the lax tendencies which raade
the Simeonites an easy prey to the licentious rites
of Peor, and ultimately destroyed the permanence
of the tribe. At the division of the land his rep
resentative was Shemuel,^ son of Ammihud.
The connection between Judah and Simeon al
ready mentioned seems to have begun with tbe
Conquest. Judah and the two Joseph-brethren
were first served with the lion's share of the land;
and then, the Canaanites having been suificiently
subdued to allow the Sacred Tent to be established
without risk in the heart of the country, the woi-k
of dividing the remainder amongst the seven in
ferior tribes was proceeded with (Josh, xviii. 1-6).
Benjamin had tbe first turn, then Simeon (xix. 1).
By this time Judah had discovered that the tract
allotted to him was too large (xix. 9), and also too
much exposed on the west and south for even his
great powers/ To Simeon accordingly was allotted
a district out of the territory of his kinsman, on
its southern frontier,!? wbich contained eighteen or
nineteen cities, with their viUages, spread round
the venerable well of Beer-sheba (Josh. xix. 1-8;
1 Chr. iv. 28-33). Of these places, with the help
of Judah, the Simeonites possessed themselves
(Judg i. 3, 17); and here they were found, doubt
less by Joab, residing in the reign of David (1 Chr.
iv. 31). During his wandering life David raust
have been rauch amongst the Simeonites. In fact
three of their cities are named in the list of those
to which he sent presents of the spoil of the Ama
lekites, and one (Ziklag) was his own private*
property. It is therefore remarkable that the num
bers of Simeon and Judah who attended his in-
staUation as king at Hebron should have been so
much below those of the other tribes (1 Chr. xii.
23-37). Possibly it is due to the fact that the
event was taking pkice in the heart of their own
territory, at Hebron. This, however, wiU not ac
count for the curious fact that the warriors ot
Siraeon (7,100) were more* numerous than those
of Judah (6,800). After David's removal to Jeru
salem, the head of the tribe was Shephatiah son of
Maachah (1 Chr. xxvii. 16).
What part Simeon took at the time of tbe divis-
e It is a curious coincidence, though of course
nothing more, that the scanty records of Simeon
should disclose two names so illustrious in Israehto
history as Saul and Samuel.
/ This is a different account to that supplied in
Judg. i. The two are entirely distinct documents.
That of Judges, from its fragmentary and abrupt
character, has the appearance of being the more an
cient of the two.
a " The parts of Idumsea which border on Arabia
and Egypt " (Joseph. Ant. v. 1, § 22).
h It had been first taken from Simeon by the Philis
tines (1 Sam. xxvii. 6), if indeed he ever got possession
of it.
i Possibly because the Simeonites were warriors
and nothing else, instead of husbanamen, etc , Uka
the men of Judah.

3044 SIMEON
ion of the kingdom we are not told. The tribe
wgs probably not in a sufficiently strong or com
pact condition to have shown any northern tenden
cies, even had it entertained them. The only thing
which can be interpreted into a trace of its having
taken any part with the northern kingdom are the
two casual notices of 2 Chr. xv. 9 and xxxiv. 6,
which appear to imply the presence of Simeonites
tiiere in the reigns of Asa and Josiah. But this
may have been merely a manifestation of that
vagrant spirit which was a cause or a consequence
of the prediction ascribed to Jacob. And on the
other hand the defmite statement of 1 Chr. iv. 41-
43 (the date of which by Hezekiah's reign seems
to show conclusively its southeni origin) proves
that at that time there were stiU some of thera re
maining in the original seat of the tribe, and ac
tuated by aU the warlike lawless spirit of their
progenitor. This fragment of ancient chronicle
relates two expeditions in search of raore eligible
territory. The first, under thirteen chieftains,
leading doubtless a large body of followers, was
made agahist the Hamites and the Meliunira,*' a
powerful tribe of Bedouins, " at the entrance of
Gedor at the east side of the ravine." The second
was smaller, but raore adventurous. Under the
guidance of four chiefs a band of 500 undertook an
expedition against the remnant of Amalek, who
had taken refuge frora the attacks of Saul or Da
vid, or some later pursuers, in the distant fast
nesses of j\Iount Seir. The expedition was suc
cessful. They smote the Amalekites and took
possession of their quarters; and they were stUl
living there after the return of the Jews from
Captivity, or whenever the First Book of Chroni
cles was edited in its present form.
The audacity and intrepidity which seera to
have characterized the founder of the tribe of
Simeon are seen in their fullest force in the last of
his descendants of whora there is any express men
tion in the Sacred Record. Whether the book
which bears her narae be a history or a historic
romance, Judith will always remain one of the
most prominent figures among the deUverers of her
nation. BethuUa would almost seera to have been
a Simeonite colony. Ozias, the chief man of the
city, was a Simeonite (Jud. vi. 15), and so was
JIanasses the husband of Judith (viii. 2). She
herself had the purest blood of the tribe in her
veins. Her genealogy is traced up to Zurishad
dai (in the Greek form of the present text Salasa-
dai, viii, IJ, the head ofthe Simeonites at the tirae
of their greatest po\ver. She nerves herself for her
tremendous exploit by a prayer to " the Lord God
of her father Simeon " and by recalling in the
most characteristic manner and in aU their details
the incidents of the massacre of Shechem (ix. 2).
Siraeon is named by Ezekiel (xlviii. 25) and the
author of the Book of the Revelation (vii. 7) in their
catalogues of the restoration of Israel. The former
removes the tribe from Judah and places it by the
side of Benjamin.
2. {:Sup.ed>v' Simeon.) A priest of the family
of Joarib — or in its fuU form Jehoiarib — one
of the ancestoi-s of tbe Maccabees (1 Mace. ii. 1 ).
3. Son of Juda and father of Levi in the gene
alogy of our Lord (Luke iii. 30). The Vat. MS.
gives the name "Siipedtv. [This is an error. — A.]
4. \Simon.] That is, Simon Peter (Acts xv.

••A T. '* habitations." See Mehunim.

SIMEON NIGER
14). The use of the Hebrew form of the name in
this place is very characteristic of the speaker in
whose mouth it occurs. It is found once again
(2 Pet. i. 1), though here there is not the same
unanimity in the MSS. Lachmann, with B, here'
adopts " Simon." G.
5. [Simeon.] A devout Jew inspired by the
Holy Ghost, who met the parents of our Lord in
the Temple, took Him in his arms, and gave thanks
for what he saw and knew of Jesus (Luke il. 2.>
35). In the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, Sim
eon is called a high-priest, and the narrative of our
Lord's descent into HeU is put into the mouths of
Charinus and Lenthius, who are described as two
sons of Siraeon, who rose from the grave after
Christ's resun'ection (Matt, xxvii. 53) and related
their story to Annas, Caiaphas, Nicodemus, J osepli,
and Gamaliel.
Rabban Simeon, whose grandmother was of the
faraUy of David, succeeded his fether HUlel as pres
ident of the Sanhedrim about A. d. 13 (()tho,
Lexicon Rabb. p. 697), and his son Gamaliel was
the Pharisee at whose feet St. Paul was brought up
(Acts xxii. 3). A Jewish writer specially notes
that no record of this Simeon is preserved in the
Mishna (Lightfoot, Horce Heb. Luke ii. 25). It
has been conjectured that he (Prideaux, Connection,
anno 37, Michaelis) or his grandson (Schottgen,
Horce Heb. Luke ii. 25; of the same narae, may
be the Simeon of St. Luke. In favor of the iden
tity it is alleged that the narae, residence, time of
life, and general character are the same in both
cases ; that the remarkable silence of the Mishna,
and the counsel given by Gamaliel (Acts v. 38),
countenance a suspicion of an inchnation on the
part of the family of the Rabban towards Christian
ity. On the other hand, it is argued that these
facts fall far short of historical proof; and that
Simeon was a very common name among the Jews,
that St. Luke would never have introduced so cel
ebrated a character as the President of the Sanhe
drim merely as "a man in Jerusalera," and that
his son Gamaliel, after all, was educated as a Phar
isee. The question is discussed in Witsius, Mis
cellanea 5ncrfT, i.21,§§ 14-16.' See also Wolf, Cu
res PltilologictB, Luke ii. 25, and BibL Hebr. ii.
682. W, T. B.
* It is customary to speak of Simeon {^vp^div)
as aged; he may have been so, though the proof
of this is by no means so explicit (Luke ii. 25, 29)
as in the case of Zacharias (Luke i. 18) and of
Anna the prophetess (ii. 36). Simeon's language,
" Now lettest thou thy servant depart in peafce "
{vvv CLTToKveis rhv Bov\6v (7ou), is simply declara
tive, and not a prayer as some mistake it to be.
The words which the Spirit prompted Simeon to
utter, as he blessed the child Jesus and the par
ents, are remarkable for the breadth of Messianic
view which they disclose. In his announcement
of the universality of Christ's mission as destined
to bless Gentiles as well as Jews, he seems to have
gone forward as by a single step to the fuU teach
ing of the apostolic period (ii. 31, 32). TJiere is a
noticeable difference between his degree of iUumi-
nation and that apparent in the songs of Elizabeth,
Mary, and Zacharias. It has been justly remarked
that they evince a rhetorical and psychological
diversity which stamps as authentic this preHm-
inary history of Christ in which they are found
Luke only records these discourses. H.
SIM'EON NI'GER. Acts xiii. 1. [Nigicr.]

SIMuxN
SI'MON. [Sip^f: Simon.] A narae of fre-
}uent occurrence in Jewish history in the post-
Babylonian period. It is doubtful whether it was
borrowed from the Greeks, with whom it was not
uncommon, or whether it was a contraction of the
Hebrew Shimeon. That the two names were re
garded as identical appears from 1 Mace. ii. 65.
Perhaps the Hebrew name was thus slightly altered
in order to render it identical with the Greek.
1. Son of Mattathias. [Maccabkes, § i, vol.
ii. p. 1711.]
2. Son of Onias the high-priest (lepehs S pe-
•yoy), whose eulogy closes the " praise of famous
men " in the book of Ecclesiasticus (ch. 1.). [Ec-
CLESiASTicus, Vol. i. p. 651.] Fritzsche, whose
edition of Ecclesiasticus (Exeg. Bandb.) has ap
peared (1860) since the article referred to was writ
ten, maintains the common view that the reference
is to Simon II., but without bringing forward any
new arguments to support it, though he strangely
underrates the importance of Simon I. (the .Just).
Without laying undue stress upon the traditions
which attached to this name (Herzfeld, Gesch. Isr.
i. 195), it is evident that SimOu the Just was pop
ularly regarded as closing a period in Jewish his
tory, as the last teacher of "the Great Synagogue."
Yet there is in fact a doubt to whioh Simon the
title "the Just" was given. Herzfeld (i. 377,
378) has endeavored to prove that it belongs to Si
mon II., and not to Simon I., and in this he is fol
lowed by Jost (Gesch. d. Judenth. i. 95). The later
Hebrew authorities, by whose help the question
should be settled, are extremely unsatisfactory and
confused (Jost, 110, &c. ) ; and it appears better to
adhere to the express testimony of Josephus, who
identifies Simon I. with Simon the Just (Ant. xii.
2, § 4, Ac. ), than to follow the Talmudic traditions,
which are notoriously untrustworthy in chronology.
The legends are connected mth the title, and Herz
feld and Jost both agree in supposing that the ref
erence in Ecclesiasticus is to Simon known as " the
Just," though they believe this to be Simon II.
(compare, for the Jewish anecdotes, Raphall's Hist.
of Jews, i. 115-124; Prideaux, Connection, ii. 1).
3. " A governor of the Temple " in the time of
Seleucus Philopator, whose information as to the
treasures of the Temple led to the sacrilegious
attempt of Heliodorus (2 Maco. iii. 4, &c.). After
this attempt failed, through the interference of the
high-priest Qnias, Simon accused Onias of conspir
acy (iv. 1, 2), and a bloody feud arose between their
two parties (iv. 3). Onias appealed to the king, but
nothing is'known as to the result or the later his
tory of Simon. Considerable doubt exists as to the
exact nature of the oflnce which he held (TrpoardTTi!
ToU lepov, 2 Maoc. iii. 4). Various interpretations
are given by Grimm (Exeg. Handb. ad loo. ). The
chief difficulty lies in the fact that Simon is said to
have been of " the tribe of Benjamin " (2 Mace. iii.
4), while the earlier " ruler of the house of God "
((5 Tjyoipeyos oXkov tov Beov (Kvpiov), 1 Cbr. ix.
11; 2 Chr. xxxi. 13; Jer. xx. 1) seems to have
Deen always a priest, and the "captain of the
Temple" (ffrparriyhs TovUpov, Luke xxii. 4, with
Lightfoot's note ; Acts iv. 1, v. 24, 26 ) and the
keeper of the treasures (1 Chr. xxvi. 24 ; 2 Chr.
xxxi. 12) must have been at least Levites. Herz
feld (Gesch. Isr. i. 218) conjectures that Benjamin
ifl an error for Minjamin, the head of a priestly
House (Neh. xii. 5, 17). In support of this view
it may be observed that IMenelaus, the usurping
high-priest, is said to have been a brother of Simon

SIMOX 3045
(2 Mace. iv. 23), and no intimation is anywhere
given that he was not of priestly descent. At the
same time the corruption (if it exist) dates from an
earlier period than the present Greek text, for
"tribe" (<pu\Ti) could not be used for "family"
(oIkos). The various reading 070^01/0,11105 ("reg
ulation of the market")' for Tiapavopias ("disor
der," 2 Mace. iii. 4), wbich seems to be certainly
correct, points to some office in connection with the
supply of the sacrifices; and probably Simon was
appointed to carry out the design of Seleucus, who
(as is stated in the context) had undertaken to de
fray the cost of them (2 Mace. iii. 3). In this case
there would be less ditficulty in a Benjamite acting
as the agent of a foreign king, even in a matter
which concerned the Temple-service. B. F. \V.
4. Simon the Buother of Jesus. — Tho
only undoubted notice of this Simon occurs in Matt.
xiii. 65, Mark vi. 3, where, in common with James,
Joses, and Judas, he is mentioned as one of the
"brethren" of Jesus. He has been identified liy
some writers with Simon the Canaanite, and still
more generally with Symeon who became bishop
of Jerusalem after the death of James, .\. D. 62
(Euseb. H. E. iii. 11, iv. 22), and who suffered
martyrdom in the reign of Trajan at the extreme
age of 120 years (Hegesippus, ap. Euseb. H. li.
iii. 32), in the year 107, or according to. Burton
(Lectures, ii. 17, note) in 104. The former of
these opinions rests on no evidence whatever, nor
is the latter without its difficulties. For in what
ever sense the term "brother," is accepted — a
vexed question which has been already amply dis
cussed under Hkotheu and James, — it is clear
that neither Eusebius nor the author of the so-called
Apostolical Constitutions understood Symeon to
be the brother of James, nor consequently the
" brother " of the Ijord. Eusebius invariably de
scribes James as "the brother" of Jesus (//. E. i.
12, ii. 1, al.), but Symeon as the son of Clopas,
and the cousin of Jesus (iii. 11, iv. 22), and the
same distinction is made by the other author
( Const. Apost. vii. 46 ).
5. Simon the Camaanite, one of the Twelve
Apostles (Matt. x. 4 ; Mark iii. 18 ), otherwise de
scribed as Simon Zelotes (Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13).
The latter term (fijAioriys), which is peculiar to
Luke, is the Greek equivalent for the Chaldee term "
preserved by Matthew and Mark (Kavavirris, as in
lext. recept., or Kavavaios, as in the Vulg., Cana-
nceus, and in the best modern editions). Each of
these equally points out Simon as belonging to tbe
faction of the Zealots, who were conspicuous for
their fierce advocacy of the Mosaic ritual. The
supposed references to Canaan (A. V.) or to Cana
(Luther's version) are equally erroneous. [Cax.van-
ITE.] The terra Kavavirr]s appears to have sur
vived the other as the distinctive surname of Simon
(Const. Apost. vi. 14, viii. 27). He has been fre
quently identified with Simon the brother cf Jeans:
but Eusebius (ff. E. iii. 11) clearly distinguishes
between the Apostles and the relations of Jesus.
Still less likely is it that he was identical with
Symeon, the second bishop of Jerusalera, as stated
by Sophronius (App. ad Hieron. Catal.). Simon
the Canaanite is reported, on the doubtful author
ity of the Pseudo-Dorotheus and of Nicephorus
Callistus, to have preached in Egypt, CjTene, and
Mauritania (Burton's Lectures, i. 333, note), and.

1«?i2-

3046

SIMON

an the equally doubtful authority of an annotation
preserved in an original copy of the Apostolical
Constitutions (viii. 27), to have been crucified in
Judsea in the reign of Domitian.
6. Simon of Cyrene. — A Hellenistic Jew,
born at Cyrene on the north coast of Africa, wbo
was present at Jerusalem at the time of the cruci
fixion of Jesus, either as an attendant at the feast
(Acts ii. 10), or aS one of the numerous settlers at
Jerusalem from that place (Acts vi. 9). Meeting
the procession that conducted Jesus to Golgotha, as
he waa returning from the country, he was pressed
into the service {ijyydpeva-av, a military term) to
bear the cross (Matt, xxvii. 32; Mark xv. 21;
Luke xxiii. 26), when Jesus himself was unable to
bear it any longer (comp. John xix. 17). Mark
describes him as the father of Alexander and Rufus,
perhaps because this was the Rufus known to the
Koman Christians (Rom. xvi. 13), for whom he
more especially wrote. The Basilidian Gnostics
believed that Simon suffered in lieu of Jesus (Bur
ton's Lectures, ii. 64).
7. Simon THE Lepek. — A resident at Beth
any, distinguished as "the leper,'' not from his
having leprosy at the time when he is mentioned,
but at some previous period. It is not improbable
that he had been miraculously cured by Jesus. In
his. house Mary anointed Jesus preparatory to his
death and burial (Matt. xxvi. 6, &c. ; Mark xiv. 3,
(fee.; John xii. 1, <fec.)." Lazarus was also present
as one of the guests, while Martha served (John
xii. 2): the presence of the brother and his two
sisters, together with the active part the latter took'
in the proceedings, leads to the inference that Si
mon was related to them: hut there is no evidence
of this, and we can attach no credit to the state
ment that he was their fatfier, as reported on apoc
ryphal authority by Nicephorus {H. E. i. 27), and
stUl less to the idea that he was the husband of
Mary. Simon the Leper must not be confounded
with Simon the Fharisee raentioned in Luke vii. 40.
8. Simon Magus. — A Samaritan living in the
Apostolic age, distinguished as a sorcerer or '* ma
gician," frora his practice of raagical arts {payevonv.
Acts viii. 9). His history is a remarkable one:
he was horn at Gitton,^ a village of Samaria (Jus
tin Mart. Apol i. 26), identified with the modern
Kuryet Jit, near Nabulus (Robinson's Bibl. Res.
ii. 308, note). He was probably educated at Alex
andria (as stated in Clement. Hom. ii. 22), and
there became acquainted with the eclectic tenets of
the Gnostic school. Either then or suhsequentiy
a * On the chronological difficulty relating to the
time ofthe feast in Simon's house see voi. ii. p. 1372,
note a (Amer. ed.). H.
6 Some doubt has been thrown oa Justin's state
ment from the fact that Josephus {Ant. xx. 7, § 2j
mentions a reputed magician of tbe same name and
about the same date, who was bom in Cyprus. It
has been suggested that Justin borrowed hi? informa
tion from this source, and mistook Citium, a town of
Cyprus, for Gitton. If the writers had respectively
used the gentile forms Kirteus and rtTTieiiy , the simi
larity would have favored such an idea. But neither
does Josephus mention Citium, nor yet does Justiu
use the gentile form. It is far more probable that
Josephus would be wrong than Justiu, in any point
respecting Samaria.
c The A. v. omits the word KoAovjue'i^f, and renders
ihe words " the great power of God." But this is to
ose the whole point of the designation. The Samar-
tuiB described the angels ae fiwofict;, D'^^'^H, >• e.

SIMON
he was a pupil of Dositheus, who preceded him as
a teacher of Gnosticism in Samaria, and whom he
supplanted with the aid of Cleobius ( Constii. Apos-
toL vi. 8). He is first introduced to us in the Bible
as practicing magical arts in a city of Samaria,
perhaps Sychar (Acts viii. 5; comp. John iv. 5),
and with such success, that he was pronounced to
be "the power of God which is called great "<=
(Acts viii. 10). The preaching and miracles of
Philip having excited his observation, he became
one of his disciples, and received baptism at his
hands. Subsequently he witnessed the effect pro
duced by the imposition of hands, as practiced by
the Apostles Peter and John, and, being desirous of
acquiring a similar power for himself, he offered a
sura of money for it. His object evidently was to
apply the power to the prosecution of magical arts.
The motive and the means were equally to be rep
robated ; and his proposition met with a severe de
nunciation frora Peter, followed by a petition on
the part of Simon, the tenor of which bespeaks
teiTor but not penitence (Acts viii. 9-24). The
memory of his peculiar guilt has heen perpetuated
iu the word simony, as applied to all traffic in spir
itual offices. Simon's history, subsequently to his
meeting with Peter, is involved in difficulties.
Early Church historians depict him as the perti
nacious foe of the Apostle Peter, whose movements
he followed for the purpose of seeking encounters,
in which he was signally defeated. In his jour
neys he was accompanied by a female named Hel
ena, who had previously been a prostitute at Tyre,
but who was now elevated to the position of his ^v-
vota'^ or divine intelligence (Justin Mart. ^^/. i.
26; Euseb. H. E. ii. 13). His first encounter
with Peter took place at Caesarea Stratonis (ac
cording to the Constitutiones Aposiollcce, vi. 8),
whence he followed the Apostle to Rome. Euse
bius makes no mention of this first encounter, but
represents Simon's journey to Rome as following
immediately after the interview recorded in Scrip
ture (//. F. ii. 14); but his chronological state
ments are evidently confused ; for in the very same
chapter he states that the raeeting between the two
at Rome took place in the reign of Claudius, some
ten years after the events in Samaria. Justin
Martyr, with greater consistency, represents Simon
as having visited Rome in the reign of Claudius,
and omits all notice of an encounter with Peter.
His success there was so great that he was deified,
and a statue was erected in his honor, with the in
scription " Simoni Deo Sancto " « {Apol. i. 26, 56)

uncreated influences proceeding from God (Gieseler,
Eccl. Hist. i. 48, note 6). They intended to distin
guish Simon from such an order of beings by adding
the words " which is called great," meaning thereby
the source of all power, in other words, the Supreme
Deity. Simon was recognized as the incarnation of
this power. He announced himself as in, a special
sense " some great one " (Acts viii. 9) ; or to use his
own words (as reported by Jerome, on Matt. xxiv. 5),
" Ego sum sermo Dei, ego sum speciosus, ego Paraclc-
tus, ego Omnipotens, ego omnia Dei."
d la the ivvoia, as embodied in Helena's person, we
recognize the dualistic element of Gnosticl'^m, derived
from the Manichean system. The Gnostics appear to
have recognized the fiui/ajniy and the ci/ifota, as the two
original principles from whose junction all beings em
anated. Simon and Helena were the incarnations in
which these principles resided.
c Justin's authority has been impugned in respect
to this statement, on the ground that a tablet was dis*
covered in 1574 on the Tiberina' insula^ which auewen

SIMON OHOSAM^US
rhe above statements can be reconciled only by
assuming that Simon made two expeditions to
Rome, the first in the reign of Claudius, the second,
in which he encountered Peter, in the reign of
Nero.** about the year 68 (Burton's Lectures, i.
233, 318): and even this takes for granted the dis
puted fact of St. Peter's visit to Rome. [Peteu.]
His death is associated with the raeeting in ques
tion : according to Hippolytus, the earliest author
ity on the subject, Simon was buried alive at his
own request, in the confident assurance that he
would rise again on the third day {Ado. llcer. vi.
20). According to another account, he attempted
to fiy in proof of his supernatural power; in an
swer to the prayers of Peter, he fell and sustained
a fracture of his thigh aud ankle-bones {Constituf.
ApostoL ii. 14, vi. 9); overcome with vexation,
he committed suicide (Arnob. Adc. Gent. ii. 7).
Whether this statement is confirmed, or, on the
other hand weakened, by the account of a similar
attempt to fly recorded by heathen writers (Sue-
ton. Ner. 12; Juv. Sat. iii. 79), is uncertain. Si
mon's attempt may have supplied the basis for this
report, or this report may have been erroneously
placed to his credit. Burton {Lectures, i. 295)
rather favors the former alternative. Simon is
generally pronounced by early writers to have leen
the founder of heresy. It is difficult to understand
how he was guilty of heresy in the proper sense of
the term, hiasmuch as he was not a Christian : per
haps it refers to his attempt to combine Christian
ity with Gnosticism. He is also reported to have
forged works professing to emanate irom Christ
and his disciples {Constltut. ApostoL vi. 16).
9. Simon Peter. [Peter.]
10. Simon, a Pharisee, in whose house a penitent
woman anointed the head and feet of Jesus (Luke
vii. 40).
11. Simon the Tanner. — A Christian con
vert living at Joppa, at whose house Peter lodged
(Acts ix. 43). The profession of a tanner was
regarded with considerable contempt, and even as
approaching to uncleanness, by the rigid Jews.
[Tanner.] That Peter selected such an abode,
showed the dirainished hold which Judaism had
on hira. The house was near the sea-side (Acts x.
6, 32), for the convenience of the water.
12. Simon, the father of Judas Iscariot (John
vi 71, xiii. 2, 26). W. L. B.
SI'MON CHOSAM^'US {-Zipo^y Xoaa-
fjxuos: Simon). Shhieon, and the three follow
ing names in Ezr. x. 31, 32, are thus written in
the LXX. (1 Esdr. ix. 32). The Vulgate has cor
rectly " Simon, Benjamin, et Malchus, et Marras.*'
" Chosarafeus" is apparently formed by combining
the last letter of Malluch with the first part of the
foUowing name, Sheraariah.

SIN

3041

to the locality described by Justin (ei'TaJ Ti'^ept iro-
Tafit^ fiera^v tSjv Svo yetjivpoiv), and bearing an inscrip
tion, the first words of which are " Semonl sanco deo
fldio." This inscription, which really applies to the
Sabine Hercules Saneu.f Semo, is supposed to have
been mistaken by Justin, in his ignorance of Latin,
for one in honor of Simon. If the inscription had
been confined to the words quoted by Justin, such a
mistake might have been conceivable ; but it goes on
*-o state the name of the giver and other particulars :
" Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio sacrum Sex. Pompeius, Sp.
P. CoI.Mussianus Quinquennalis deous Bidentalis do-
num dodit." That Justin, a man of literary acquire-
onen's, should be unable to translate such on inscrip-
Von ' that he shouM misquote it in an Apology duly

SIM'RI i*""}^^ '[watchfuq : ^vKdatrovris-
Semid). Properly " Shimri," son of Hosah, a
Merarite Levite in the reign of David (1 Chr. xxvi.
10). Though not the first-born, his father raade
him the head of the faraily. The LXX. read
*'n^I£7, shdmSre, " guards."
SIN (7*^0 \mire]: Sats, 'S,vr]V'r)\ [in ver. 15,
Alex. Tavi?:] Pelusium), a city of Egypt, men
tioned only by Ezekiel (xxx. 15, 16). The name
is Hebrew, or, at least, Shemitic. Gesenius sup
poses it to signify "clay," from tbe unused root
pp, probably "he or it was muddy, clayey." It
is identified in the Vulg. with Pelusium, riTjAoy-
a-kov, "the clayey or muddy" town, from tttjKSs;
and seems to be preserved in the Arabic Et-Teeneh,
KJuJOj}, which forms part of the naraes of Fum
et-Teeneh, the Mouth of Et-Teeneh, the supposed
Pelusiac mouth of the Nile, and Burg or KaVat et-
Teeneh, the Tower or Castle of Et- Teeneh, in the im
mediate neighborhood, '' teen" signifying "mud,"
etc., in Arabic. This evidence is sufficient to show
that Sin is telusium. 1'he ancient Egyptian name
is still to be sought for : it has been supposed that
Pelusium preserves traces of it, but this is very ira
probable. Champollion identifies Pelusium with
the IlepeJULGVJI, HepejULCWJl (the
second being a variation held by Quatrerafere to be
incorrect), and i>4J,pejULOVJl5 of the Copts,
El-Farma, \jOySu\i of the Arabs, which was in
the tirae of the former a boundary-city, the limits
of a governor's authority being stated to have ex
tended from Alexandria to Pilak-h, or Philae, and
Pereraoun (Acts of St. Saraparaon MS. Copt. Vat.
67, foi. 90, ap. Quatremere, Memoires Geog. et IJlst.
sur I'Egypte, i. 259). Champollion ingeniously
derives this narae from the article ^; ^P^ "to
be," and OJULJ, "mud" {JJtgypte, ii. 82-87;
comp. Brugsch, Geo^r. Inschr. i. p. 297). Brugsch
compares the ancient Egyptian HA-REM, which
he reads Pe-rema, on our system, PE-REM, "th*»
abode ofthe tear," or "of the fish rem" {Geogi .
Inschr. i. /. c, pi. lv. ro. 1679). Pelusium, he
would make the city SAMHAT (or, as he reads it
Sam-hud), remarking that " the nome of the city
Sarahud " is the only one which has the determina
tive of a city, and, comparing the evidence of the
Roman nome-coins, on which the place is apparently
treated as a nome; but this is not certain, for there
may have been a Pelusiac nome, and the etymology

prepared at Rome for the eye of a Roman emperor ;
and that the mistake should be repeated by other
early writers whose knowledge of Latin is unquestioned
(Irenasus, J.rff. Hares, i. 2() ; Tertullian, .^/jo^. 13), —
these assumptions form a series of improbabilities,
amounting almost to an impossibility. [See Norton's
Evidences of tlie Gen. of the GospHs, 2d ed., vol. ii.
pp, iii.-xxiil. (Addit. Notes).]
« This later date is to a certain extent confirmed
by the account of Simon's death preserved by Hippo
lytus {Adv. Heer. vi. 20) ; for the event is stated to
have occurred while Peter and Paul (the term ono-
oToAoi? evidently implying the presence of the l&tterj
were together at Rome.

3048

SIN

of the name SAMHAT is unknown {Id. p. 128 ;
PI. xx\iii. 17).
The site of Pelusiura is as yet undetermined. It
rtas been thought to be marked by mounds near
Bjirg et-Teeneh, now called el-Far md and not et-
Tteneh. This is disputed by Captain Spratt, who
supposes that the mound of Aboo-Kheeydr indicates
where it stood. This is further inland, and ap
parently on the west of the old Pelusiac branch, as
was Pelusium. It is situate between Farmd and
TeUDefenneh." AVhatever may have been its exact
position, Pelusium must have owed it? strength not
to any great elevation, but to its being placed in
the midst of a plain of raarsh-land and mud, never
easy to traverse. The ancient sites in such alluvial
tracts of Egypt are in general only sufficiently
raised above the level of the plain to preserve thera
frora being injured by the inundation.
The antiquity of the town of Sin may perhaps
be inferred from tbe mention of " the wildemess
of Sin " in the journeys of the Israelites (Ex. xvi.
1: Num. xxxiii. 11). It is reraarkable, however,
tliat the Israelites did not immediately enter this
tract on leaving the cultivated part of Egypt, so
that it is held to have been within the Sinaitic
peninsula, and therefore it may take its name from
some other place or country than the Egyptian Sin.
[Sin, Wilderness of.]
Pelusiura is mentioned by Ezekiel, in one of the
prophecies relating to the invasion of Egypt by
Nebuchadnezzar, as one of the cities which should
then suffer calamities, with, probably, reference to
their later history. The others spoken of are Noph
(Memphis), Zoan (Tanis), No (Thebes), Aven
(HeliopoHs), Pi-beseth (Bubastis), and Tehaphnehes
(Daphnae). All these, excepting the two ancient
capitals, Thebes and ^Memphis, lay on or near the
eastern boundary; and, in the approach to Memphis,
an invader could scarcely advance, after capturing
Pelusiura and Daphnse, without taking Tanis,
Bubastis, and Heliopolis. In the most ancient
times Tanis, as afterwards Pelusiura, seeras to have
been the key of Egypt on the east. Bubastis was
an iraportant position fi-ora its lofty mounds, and
Heliopolis as securing the approach to Memphis.
The prophet speaks of Sin as " Sin the stronghold
of Egypt " (ver. 15). This place it held from that
tirae until the period of the Rbraans. Herodotus
relates that Sennacherib advanced against Pelusium,
and that near Pelusiura Cambyses defeated Psam-
menitns. In like manner the decisive battle in
wbich Ochus defeated the last native king, Nectane-
bos, NF.KHT-NEBF, was fought liear this city.
It is perhaps worthy of note that P^zekiel twice
mentions Pelusiura in the prophecy which contains
£he reraarkable and signally-fulfilled sentence :
'¦' There shall be no more a prince of the land of
Egypt" (ver. 13). As he saw the long train of
calamities that were to fall upon the country,
Pelusium may well have stood out as the chief place
of her successive huraihations. Two Persian con
quests, and two submissions to strangers, first to
Alexander, and then to Augustus, may explain the
especial misery foretold of this city: "Sin shall
suffer great anguish " (ver. 16).
We find in the Bible a geographical name, wliich
has the form of a gent, noun derived from Sin, and
IS usually held to apply to two different nations.

o Capt. Spratt's reports have unfortunately been
printed only in abstract (" Delta of the Nile," etc. ;
Betura, House of Commons, 9th Feb. 1860), with a

SIN, WILDERNESS OP
neither connected with the city Sin. In the Ust
of the descendants of Noah, the Sinite, ''3'^P,
occurs among the sons of Canaan (Gen. x. 17;
1 Chr. i. 15j. This people, from its place between
the Arkite and the Arvadite has been supposed to
have settled in Syria north of Palestine, where
similar names occur in classical geography and
have been alleged in confirmation. This theory
would not, however, necessarily imply that the whole
tribe was there settled, and the supposed traces of
the name are by no means conclusive. On the
other hand, it must be observed' that some of the
eastern towns of Lower Egypt have Hebrew as well
as Egyptian naraes, as Heliopolis and Tanis; that
those very near the border seem to have home only
Hebrew names, as Migdol; so that we have an
indication of a Shemitic influence in this part of
Egypt, diminishing in degree according to the dis
tance from the border. It is difficult to account
for this influence by the single circumstance of the
Shepherd invasion of Egypt, especially as it ia
shown yet more strikingly by the remarkably strong
characteristics which have distinguished the in
habitants of northeastern Egypt from their fellow-
countrymen from the days of Herodot^Is and Achilles
Tatius to our own. And we must not pass by the
stateraent of the forraer of these writers, that the
Palestine Syrians dwelt westward of the Arabians
to the eastern boundary of Egypt (iii. 5, and above
p. 2736, note a). Therefore, it does not seem a
violent hypothesis that the Sinites were connected
with Pelusium, though their main body may per
haps have settled much further to the north. The
distance is not greater than that between the Hit
tites of southern Palestine and those of the valley
of the Orontes, although the separation of the less
powerful Hivites into those dwelling beneath Mount
Hermon and the inhabitants of the small confed
eracy of which Gibeon was apparently the head, ig
perhaps nearer to our supposed case. If the Wil
derness of Sin owed its name to Pelusiura, this is
an evidence of the very early importance of the
town and its connection with Arabia, wliich would
perhaps be strange in the case of a purely Egyptian
town. The conjecture we have put forth suggests
a recurrence to the old explanation of the famous
mention of " the land of Sinim," C^?"^? V!?^*
in Isaiah (xliv. 12), supposed by some to refer to
China. This would appear frora the context to he
a very reraote r^ion. It is mentioned after the
north and the west, and would seem to be in a
southern or eastern direction. Sin is certainly not
reraote, nor is the supposed place of the Sinites to
the north of Palestine; but the expression may be
proverbial. The people of Pelusiura, if of Canaanite
origin, were certainly remote compared to most of
the other Canaanites. and were separated by alien
peoples, and it is also noticeable that they were to
the northeast of Palestine. As the sea bordering
Palestine came to designate the west, as in this
passage, so the land of Sinim may hai-e passed into
a proverbial expression for a distant and separated
country. See, however, Sinite, Sinim. R. S. P.
SIN, WILDERNESS OF (1^p-"lS"i^ :
iptl^os SiV [Vat. 2eij/] : deserium Sin). The
very insufficient map. In M. Linant's map we caonol
discover ^6oo-£Aefiydr {Percement de VIsthme de :Suez
Atlas, Carte Topographique).

SIN-OFEERING
came of a tract of the wilderness which the Israel
ites reached after leaving the encampment by the
Red Sea (Num. xxxiii. 11, 12). Their next halt-
ing-place (Ex. xvi. 1, xvii. 1) was Rephidim, prob
ably the Wady Feiran [Rephidim] ; on which
supposition it would follow that Sin must lie be
tween that wady and the coast of the Gulf of Suez,
and of course west of Sinai. Since they were by
this time gone more than a month from Egypt, the
locality must be too far towards the S. E. to receive
its name from the Egyptian Sin of Ez. xxx. 15,
called ^d'Cs by the LXX., and identified with Pelu-
siuui (see previous article). In the mlderness of
Sin the Manna was first gathered, and those who
adopt the supposition that this was merely tbe
natural product of the tarfa bush, find from the
abundance of that shrub in Wady es-Sheikh, S. E.
of W. GhHrundel, a proof of local identity. [Elim.]
At all events, that wady is as probable as any
other." H. H.
SIN-OFFERING (nS^H: hpaprla, rh
rijs afiaprias, trepl apaprlas' propeccaio). The
sin-offerhig among the Jews was the sacrifice in
which the ideas of propitiation and of atonement
for sin were most distinctly marked. It is first
directly enjoined in Lev. iv., whereas in cc. i.-iii.
the burnt-offering, meat offering, and peace-offering
are taken for granted, and the object of the Law is
to regulate, not to enjoin the presentation of them
to the Lord. Nor is the word chattdth applied to
any sacrifice in ante-Mosaic times.* It is there
fore peculiarly a sacrifice of the Law, agreeing with
the clear definition of good and evil, and the stress
laid on the "sinfulness of pn," which were the
main objects of the Law in itself. The idea of
propitiation was no doubt latent in earlier sacri
fices, but it was taught clearly and distinctly in
the Levitical sin-offering.
The ceremonial of the sin-offering is described in
Lev. iv. and vi. The animal, a young bullock for
the priest or the congregation, a male kid or lamb
for a ruler, a female kid or lamb for a private per
son, in all cases without blemish, was brought by
the sacrificer to the altar of sacrifice; his hand was
laid upon its head (with, as we learn from later
Jewish authorities, a confession of sin, and a prayer
that the victim nnght be its expiation); of the
blood of the slain victim, some was then sprinkled
seven times before the veil of the sanctuary, some
put on the horns of the altar of incense, and the
rest poured at the foot of the altar of sacrifice;
the fat (as the choicest part of the flesh ) was theu
burnt on the altar as a burnt-offering; the re
mainder of the body, if the sin-offering were that
of the priest himself or of the whole congregation,
was earned out of the camp or city to a " clean
place" and there burnt; but if the offering were
that of an individual, the fiesh might be eaten by
the priests alone in the holy place, as being " most
holy."

a * R!ev. F. W. Holland (Jo«nia/ ofthe Roy. Geogr.
Sodety, vol. xxxviii. p. 255) proposes to identify the
Wilderness of Sin with the plain of es-Seyh, which
Ues beneath the Tik range. It is rather a succession
of large basins than one plain, and after rain its fer
tility is great and its water-supply abundant. For an
abstract of this important article (On the Peninsula of
(Sinai) see the addition to SmAi (Amer. ed.). H.
& Its technical use in Gen. iv. 7 is asserted, and
supported by high authority. iSut the word here
192

SIN-OFFERING

8049

The Trespass-offering (Dtt?M : ttAtj/ijuc-
Aero, rh rv\s •KKjipp^Xeias' pvo delicto) is closely
connected with the sin-offering in Leviticus, but at
the same tirae clearly distinguished from it, being
in sorae cases offered with it as a distinct part of
tlie sarae sacrifice; as, for example, m the cleansing
of the leper (I^ev. xiv.). The victim was in each
case to be a ram. At the time of offering, in all
cases of damage done to any holy thiug, or to any
man, restitution was made with the addition of a
fifth part to the principal; the blood was sprinkled
round about upon the altar, as in the burnt-offer
ing ; the fat burnt, and flesh disposed of as in the
sin-offering. The distinction of ceremonial clearly
indicates a difference in the idea of the two sacri
fices. The nature of that difference is still a subject
of great controversy. Looking first to the deriva^
tion of the two words, we find that HStSn is de
rived from ^^n, which is, properly, to " miss "
a mark, or to "err" frora a way, and secondarily
to '-sin," or to incur "penalty;" that Dt^M is
derived from the root StpM, which is properly to
"fail," having for its "primary idea negligence,
especially in gait" (Ges-). It is clear that, so far
as derivation goes, there appears to be more of
reference to general and actual sin in the former,
to special cases of negligence iu the latter.
Turning next to the description, in the book of
Leviticus, of the circumstances under which each
should be offered, we find one iraportant passage
(Lev. V. 1-13) in which the sacrifice is called first
a "trespass-offering" (ver. 6), and then a "sin-
offering" (vv. 7, 9, 11, 12). But the nature of
the victims in ver. 6 agrees with the ceremonial
of the latter, not of the former; the application of
the latter name is raore emphatic and reiterated ;
and there is at ver. 14 a formal introduction of the
law of the trespass- offering, exactly as of the law
of the sin-offering in iv. 1. It is therefore safe to
conclude that the word Dt^M is not here used in
its technical sense, and that the passage is to be
referred to the sin-offering only
We find, then, that the sin-offerings were —
A. Regular.
1. For the ivhole people, at the New Moon,
Passover, Pentecost, Feast of Trumpets, and Feast
of Tabernacles (Num. xxviii. 15~xxix. 38), besides
the solemn offering of the two goats on the Great
Day of Atonement (Lev. xvi.).
2. For the Priests and Lemies at their conse
cration (Ex. xxix. 10-14, 36); besides the yeariy
sin-offering (a bullock) for the high-priest on the
Great Day of Atonement (Lev. xvi.).<J
B. Spkcial.
1. For any sin of ^^ ignorance" against tho

probably means (as in the Vulg. aud A. T.) "sin."
The fact that it is never used in application to any
other sacrifice in Genesis or Exodus, alone makes the
translation "sin-offering" here very improbable.
c To these may be added the sacrifice of the red
heifer (conducted with the ceremonial of a sin-ofiering),
from the ashes of which waa made the " water of
separation," used in certain cases of ceremonifti pollu
tion. S^ Num. xix.

3050

SIN-OFFERING

commandment of the Lord, on the part of priest,
people, ruler, or private man (Lev. iv.).
2. For refusal to bear witness under adjuration
(Uv. V. 1).
3. For ceremonial defilement not willfully con
tracted (Lev. V. 2, 3), under which may be classed
the offerings at the purification of women (xii. 6-8),
at the cleansing of leprosy (xiv. 19, 31), or the un
cleanness of men or woraen (xv. 15, 30), on the
defilement of a Nazarite (Num. vi. 6-11) or the
expiration of his vow (ver. 16).
4. For the breach of a rash oath, the keeping
of which would involve sin (Lev. v. 4).
The trespass-offerings, on the other hand, were
always special, as —
1. For saci'ilege ^^in ignorance,^'' witli com
pensation for the harm done, and the gift of a fifth
part of the value besides to the priest (Lev. v. 15,
16). 2. For ignorant transgression against some defi
nite prohibition of the Law (v. 17-19).
3. For fraud, suppression of the truth, or per
jury against man, with compensation, and with
the addition of a fifth part of the value of the
property in question to the person wronged (vi.
1-6). 4. For rajje of a betrothed slave (Lev. xix. 20,
21). 5. At the purif cation of the leper (Lev. xiv.
12), and the polluted Nazarite (Num, vi. 12),
offered with the sin-offering.
From this enumeration it will be clear that the
two classes of sacrifices, although distinct, touch
closely upon each other, as especially in B. (1) of
the sin-offering, and (2) of the trespass-offering.
It is also evident that the sin-ofiering was the only
regular and general recognition of sin in the ab
stract, and accordingly was far more solemn and
symbolical in its cereraoniai; the trespass -offering
was confined to special cases, most of which related
to the doing of some material damage, either to
the holy things or to man, except in (5), where the
trespass-offering is united with the sin-offering.
Josephus {Ant. iii. 9, § 3) declares that the sin-
offering is presented by those " who fall into sin in
ignorance" {Kor* ayvolav)^ and the trespass-offer
ing by " one who has sinned and is conscious of
his sin, but has uo one to convict him thereof.'*
From this it may be inferred (as by Winer and
others) that the former was used in cases of known
ein against sorae definite law, the latter in the case
of secret sin, unknown, or, if known, not liable to
judicial cognizance. Other opinions have been en-
tertahied, widely different from, and even opposed
to one another. Many of them are given in
Winer's Realw. " Schuldopfer." The opinions
which suppose one ofiering due for sins of omis
sion, and the other for sins of commission, have no
foundation in the language of the Law. Others,
with raore plausibility, refer the sin-offering to sins
of pure ignorance, the trespass-offering to those of
a more sinful and deliberate character; but this
does not agree with I^ev. v. 17-19, and is con
tradicted by the solemn contrast between sins of
ignorance, which might be atoned for, and " sins
of presumption," against which death without
mercy is denounced in Num. xv. 30. A third
opinion supposes the sin-offering to refer to sins
for which no material and earthly atonement could
be made, the trespass -offering to those for whieh
material compensation was possible. This theory
hu something to support it in the fact that in

SIN-OFFERING
some cases (see Lev. v. 15, 16, vi. 1-6) comp^nsa-
tion was prescribed as accessory to the sacrifice.
Others seek more recondite distinctions, supposing
(e. g.) that the sin-offering had for its object the
cleansing of the sanctuary or the commonwealth,
and the trespass-offering the cleansing of the indi
vidual; or that the former refeiTed w the effect
of sin upon the soul itself, the latter to the effect
of sin as the breach of an external law. Without
attempting to decide so difficult and so contro
verted a question, we may draw the following con
clusions : —
First, that the sin-offering was far the more
solemn and comprehensive of the two sacrifices.
Secondly, that the sin-offering looked raore to
the guilt of the sin done, irrespective of its con
sequences, while the trespass-oftering looked to tha
evil consequences of sin, either against the service
of God, or against man, and to the duty of atone
ment, as far as atonement was possible. Hence the
two might with propriety be offered together.
Thirdly, that in the sin-offering especially we
find symbolized the acknowledgment of sinfulness
as inherent in man, and of the need of expiation
by sacrifice to renew the broken covenant between
man and God.
There is one other question of some interest, as
to the nature of the sins for which either sacrifice
could be offered. It is seen at once that in the
Law of Leviticus, most of thera, which are nol
purely ceremonial, are called sins of " ignorance "
(see Heb. ix. 7); and iu Num. xv. 30, it is ex
pressly said that while such sins can be atoned
for by offerings, " the soul that doeth aught prer-
sumptucntsly " (Heb. with a high hand) " shaU be
cut off from among his people." .... "His
iniquity shall be upon him " (comp. Heb. x. 26).
But there are sufficient indications that the sins
here called " of ignorance " are more strictly those
of " negligence " or " frailty," « repented of by the
unpunished offender, as opposed to those of de
liberate and unrepentant sin. The Hebrew word
itself and its derivations are so used in Ps. cxix.
67 {itr\nfifi4\7}ffa, LXX.) ; 1 Sam. xxvi. 21
{i)yv67}Ka); Ps. xix. 13 {Trapairrdtpara) ; Job xix.
4 {ir\dvos)- The words aryvSrjpa and &yvoia
have a corresponding extent of meaning in the
N. T.; as when, in Acts iii. 17, the -lews, in their
crucifixion of our Lord, are said to have acted
Kar ayvoiav ; and in Eph. iv. 18; 1 Pet. i. 14,
the vices of heathenism, done against the fight of
conscience, are still referred to &yvoia. The use
of the word (like that of &,yvwpov€iv in classical
Greek) is found hi all languages, and depends on
the idea that goodness is man's true wisdom, and
that sin is the faihng to recognize this truth. If
from the word we turrrto the sins actually referred
to in Lev. iv., v., we find some which certainly are
not sins of pure ignorance; they are indeed few
out of the whole range of sinfulness, but they are
real sins. The later Jews (see Outi-ara, Ve Sacr-i-
fidis) limited the application of the sin-offering to
negative sins, sins in ignorance, and sins in action,
not in thought, evidently conceiving it to apply to
actual sins, but to sins of a secondary order.
In considering this subject, it must be lemem-
bered that the sacrifices of the Law had a temporal,

a From the root yyX^^ or HSt??, signifying ta
(f err " or " wander out of the way," cognate ia seoM
to the root of the word chatt&th itself.

SINA, MOUNT
u well aa a spiritual significance and effect. They
re8tore<I an offender tn his plaoe iu the common
wealth of Israel; they were therefore an atonement
to the king of Israel for the infringement of his
law. It is clear that this must have limited the
extent of their legal application; for there are
erimes for which the interest and very existence
of a society demand that there should be no pardon.
liut so far as the sacrifices had a spiritual and
typical meaning, so far as they were sought by a
repentant spurit as a sign and means of reconcile-
jient with God, it can hardly be doubted that they
had a wider scope and a real spiritual effect so long
US their typical character remained. [See SACKI
FICE.] For the more solemn sin-offerings, see Day of
Atonement; Lepkosy, etc. A. B.
SI'NA, MOUNT (t!> ipos Sivd: [Vat. Sin.
Alex, in Jud., Seij-o:] nums Sina). The Greek
form of the well-known name which in the 0. T.
universally, and as often as not in the Apocr. and
N. T., is given in the A. V. Sinai. Sina occurs
Jud. V. 14;° Acts vii. 30, 38. G.
SI'NAI [2 syl.] C^rP [j\gffed, full of clefts,
Fiirst] : Sira; [Vat.l Seii'o:] Sina'i). Nearly in the
centre of the peninsula which stretches between the
horns of the Red Sea lies a wedge of granite, griin-
Btein, and porphyry rocks, rising to between 8,000
and 9,000 feet above the sea. Its shape resembles
a scalene triangle, with a crescent cut from its
northern or longer side, on which border Russeg-
ger's map gives a broad, skirting tract of old red
sandstone, reaching nearly from gulf to gulf, and
traversed by a few ridges, chiefly of a tertiary for
mation, running nearly N. W. and S. E. On the
S. W. side of this triangle, a wide alluvial [Jain —
narrowing, however, towards the N. — lines the
coast of the Gulf of Suez, whilst that on. the eastern
or Akabah coast is so narrow as almost to disap
pear. Between these alluvial edges and the granitic
mass a strip of the sarae sandstone is interposed,
the two strips converging at Has Mohammed, the
southern promontory of the whole. This nucleus
of plutonic rocks is said to bear no trace of volcanic
action since the original upheaval of its masses
(Stanley, pp. 21, 22). Laborde (Travels, p. 105)
thought he detected some, but does not affirm it.
Its general configuration runs into neither ranges
nor peaks, but is that of a plateau cut across with
intersecting wadies,** whence spring the cliflfe and
mountain peaks, beginning with a very gradual
and terminating in a very steep ascent. It ha.s
been arranged (Stanley, S. (} P. p. 11) in three
Bhief masses as follows ; —
1. The N. W. cluster above Wady Feiran ; its
greatest i-elief found in the five-peaked ridge of
Serbal, at a height of 0,342 feet above the sea.
(For an account of the singular natural basin into
nhich the waters of this portion of the mountain

SINAI

3051

mass are received, and its probable connection with
Scriptural topography, see Rephidim. )
2, The eastern and central one; its highest point
the Jebel Katherin, at a height of 8,063 (Rlippell)
to 8,168 (Russegger) feet, and including the Jebel
Musa, the height of which is variously set (by
Schubert, Riippell, and Russegger) at 6,796, 7,033,
and 7,097 feet.
3. The S. E. one, closely connected, however,
with 2; its highest point, t^wi jSAaumer, being that
also of the whole.
The three last-named peaks all lie very nearly
in a line of about 9 miles drawn frora the most
northerly of them, Mtisa, a little to the W. of S. ;
and a perpendicular to this line, traced on the map
westwards for about 20 miles, neariy traverses the
whole length of the range of Serbal. These lines
show the area of greatest relief for the peninsula,'^
nearly equidistant from each of its embracing gulfs,
and also from its northern base, the range of e(-
Tih, and its southern apex, the Ras Mohammed.
Before considering the claims of the individual
mountains to Scriptural notice, there occurs a ques
tion regarding the relation of the naraes Horeb
and Sinai. The latter name first occurs as that
of the limit on the further side from Egypt of the
wilderness of Sin (Ex. xvi. 1), and again (xix. 1, 2)
as the "wilderness" or "desert of Sinai," before
Mount Sinai is actually spoken of, as in ver. 11
soon after we find it. But the name " Horeb " ^
is, in the case of the rebuke of the people by God
for their sin in making the golden calf, reintro
duced into the Sinaitic narrative (xxxiii. 6), having
been previously most recently used in the story of
the murmuring at Rephidira (xvii. 6, " I will stand
before thee there upon the rock in Horeb"), and
earlier as the name of the scene of the appearance
of God in the "burning bush" (iii. 1). Now,
since Rephidim seeras to be a desert stage apart
from the place where Israel " camped before the
mount " (Sinai, xi.x. 2), it is not easy to account
for a Horeb at Rephidim, apparently as the specific
spot of a particular transaction (so that the refuge
of a " general " name Horeb, contrasted with Sinai
as a special one, is cut off), and a Horeb in the
Sinaitic region, apparently a synonym of the moun
tain which, since the scene of the narrative is fixed
at it, had been called Sinai. Lepsius removes the
difficulty by making Serbal Sinai, but against this
it will he seen that there are even stronger objec
tions. But a proper name given frora a natural
feature may recur with that feature. Such is
" Horeb," properly signifying " ground left dry by
water draining off." Now both at Rephidim and
at Kadesh Meribah, where was the "fountain of
judgment" (Gen. xiv. 7), it is expressly mentioiicil
that " there was no water; "and the inference U
that sorae ordinary supply, expected to be foui.-l
there, had failed, possibly owing to drought. " Tho
rock in Horeb" was (Ex. xvii. 6) what INIoses

A In this passage the present Oreek text of both
USS., reads ei9 b&6v, not opo?, rov Seti'a. But the
note in the margin of the A. V. of 1611 is, notwith-
Btanding, wrong, — " Greek, into the way of the wilder-
less of Sina ; " that being nearer to the Vulg. deserta
Sina mantis occupaverunt.
6 See Robiason's "Memoir on the Maps" (vol, iii
Appendix 1, pp. 32-39), a most important comment on
the dlSerent sources of authority for different portions
of ths region, and the weight due to each, and con
taining a just caution regarding the Indications of
mr&Qo aspect given by Laborde.

c Dr. Stanley (p. 77) notices another " very high
mountain S. W. of Um-ShSm''r, apparently calculated
by Ruppell to be the highest in the peninsula . . .
possibly that called by Burckhardt Thommar, or eU
Koly." But this seems only to effect an extension of
the area of the relief iu the direction indicated.
d Dr. Stanley has spoken of two of the three pas-
SEkges in Exodus in which Horeb occurs (ixi. 1, xvii. 6)
as " doubtful," and of the third (xxxiii. 6) as " am
biguous ; " but he does not say on what gronnd^
{S. §¦ P. p. 29, note).

8052 SINAI
Bmote. It probably stood on the exact spot where
the water was expected to be, but was not. Now
Lepsius {Tour, April 22, transl. by Cottrell, p. 74)
found in Wady Feiran, which he identifies with
Rephidim, singular alluvial banks of earth which
may have once formed the bottom of a lake since
dried." If this was the scene of the miracle [see
Rephidim], the propriety of the narae Horeb, as
applied to it, becomes clear. Further, in all the
places of Deut. where Horeb is found [see Horeb],
it seems to be used in reference to the people as
the place where they stood to receive, rather than
whence God appeared to give the Law, which is
apparently in the same book of Deut. indicated by
Sinai (xxxiii. 2); and in the one remaining passage
of Exod., where Horeb occurs in the narrative of
the same events, it is used also in reference to the
people (xxxiii. 6), and probably refers to what they
had previously done in the matter of the golden
calf (xxxii. 2, 3). If this be accepted, there remains
in the Pentateuch only Ex. iii. 1, where Moses led
the flocks of Jethro " to the mountain of God, to
Horeb;" but this form of speech, which seeras to
identify two local names, is sometimes not a strict
apposition, but denotes an extension, especially
where the places are so close together that the
writer tacitly recognizes thera as one.'' Thus Horeb,
strictly taken, may probably be a dry plain, valley,
or bed of a wady near the mountain; and yet
Mount Horeb, on the " vast green plain " of which
was doubtless exceUent pasture, may mean the
mountain viewed in reference thereto,^ or its side
abuttmg thereon. The mention of Horeb in later
books (e. g. 1 K. viii. 9, xix. 8) seeras to show tbat
it had then become the designation of the raoun
tain and region generally. The spot where the
people themselves took part in the greatest event
of their history would naturally become the popular
name in later designations of that event. " Thou
rftoodest before the Lord thy God in Horeb " was
a literal fact, and became the great basis of all
traditions of it. By this they recognized that they
had been brought into covenant with God. On
the contrary, in Neh. ix. 13, we read, " Thou
camest down upon Mount Sinai."
But beyond the question of the relation which
these names mutually bear, there remains that of
site. Sinai is clearly a summit distinctly marked.
Where ai'c we to look for it? There are three
principal views in answer to this question : —
I. That of Lepsius, above mentioned, favored
also by Burckhardt {Trav. p. 609), that Serbdl is
Sinai, sorae 30 miles distant westward from the
Jebel Musa. but close to the Wady Feirdn and eU
ffessue, which he identifies, as do most authorities,
with Rephidim (Lepsius, p. 74), just a mile from
the old convent of Fardn. On this view Israel

o " Alluvial mounds " are visible at the foot of the
modern Horeb cliffs in the plain er-Rahek; just as
Lepsius noticed others at the Wady Feiran. (Comp.
Stanley, S. ^ P. p. 40, Lepsius, p. 84.)
6 So in Gen. xiii. 3, Abram goes " to Bethel, unto
the place where his tent had been at the beginning,
between Bethel and Hai ; " i. e. really to Bethel, and
«omewhat further.
c It ought not to be left unnoticed that different
tribes of the desert often seem to give different names
to the same mountain, valley, etc., or the same names
to different mountains, etc., because, perhaps, they
judge of them hy the way in which leading features
l^up themselves to the eye, and which varies with
the habitual point of view (Lepsius, p. 64).

SINAI
would have reached Sinai the same day that they
fought with Amalek: "the decampment occurred
during the battle " {ibid. p. 86) — an unlikely thing,
since the contest was evidently fierce and close, and
lasted till suwset. Serbdl is the most magnificent
mountain of the peninsula, rising with a crown of
five peaks from the maritime plain on one side, and
from the Wady Feirdn on the other, and showing
its full height at once to the eye; and Ritter
{Geogr. xiv. 734-736) has suggested t^ that it might
have been, before the actual Exodus, known as
" the mount of God " to the Amalekite Ai'abs, and
even to the Egyptians. « The earliest traditions are
in its favor. " It is undoubtedly identified with
Sinai by Eusebius, Jerome, and Cosmas, that is,
by all known writers to the time of Justinian," as
confirmed by the position " of the episcopal city of
Paran at its foot" (Stanley, S. ^ P. p. 40).
But there are two main objections to this: (I.)
It is clear, from Ex. xix. 2 (corap. xvii. 1), that tbe
interval between Rephidim and Sinai was that of a
regular stage of the march. The expressions in the
Hebrew are those constantly used for decamping
and encamping in the books of Ex., Num., and
Deut. ; and thus a Sinai within a mile of Rephidim
is unsuitable. (2.) There is no plain or wady of
any sufficient size near Serbdl to offer camping
ground to so large a host, or perhaps the tenth part
of thera. Dr. Stewart {The Tent and ihe Khan,
p. 146) contends for Serbdl as the real Sinai, seek
ing to obviate objection (1), by making Rephidira
" uo higher up than Heshueh " [Rephidim], and
(2), by regarding Wady Aleiat and Wady Rimm
as capacious enough for the host to camp in {ibid.
p. 145); a very doubtful assertion.
II. The second is that of Ritter,-'^ that, allowing
Serbdl the reverence of an early sanctuary, tlie
Jebel Musa is Sinai, and that the Wady es-
Sebayeh, which its S. E. or highest summit over
hangs, is the spot where the people camped before
the mount; but the second objection to Serbdl
apphes almost in equal force to this — the want of
space below. The wady is " rough, uneven, and i
narrow " {Stanley, S. ^ P. p. 76) ; and there seems
no possibility of the people's " removing (Ex. xx.
18) and standing afar off," and yet preserving any
connection with the scene. Further, this site offers
no such feature as a " brook that descended out of
the mount " (Deut. ix. 21).
III. The third is that of Robinson, that the
modern Horeb of the monks — namely, the N. W.
and lower face of the ./e6e/ Musa, crowned with a
range of magnificent cliflfe, the highest point called
Ras Sctsdfeh, or Sufsdfeh,as spelled by Robinson —
overlooking the plain er-Rahah, is the scene of the
giving of the Law, and that peak the mountain
into which Moses ascended. In this view, also,
Strauss appears to coincide {Sinai and Golgotha.
p. 116). Lepsius objects, but without much force
(since he himself climbed it), that the peak Sasdfek

d Robinson, ou the other hand (i. 78, 79), suggeata
that Surdbit el~EJiac/im (or Chadem), lying north of
Serb&l, waa a place of pilgrimage to the ancient Egyp
tians, and a supposable object of Moses' proposed
" three days' journey into the wilderness.''' But that
pilgrimage was an element in the reli^on of ancient
Egypt seems at least doubtful.
« So Dr. Stewart {The Tent and the Khan, p. 147^
saya, " that it was a place of idolatrous worship before
tbe passage of the children of Israel ia extremely prob
able." He renders the name by « Lord Bani."
/ Geogr. xiv. 598.

SINAI
'« nrarly inaccessible. It is uiore to the purpose to
observe that the whole Jebel Musa is, compara
tively with a(^acent mountains,' insignificant; "its
prospect limited in the east, south, and west, by
higher mountains " (Riippell," quoted by Robinson,
i. 105, note; comp. Seetzen, Reisen,\o\. ii. p. 93);
that it is "remote and almost concealed." But
the high ground of Serbdl being rejected for the
above reasons, and no voice having ever been raised
in favor of the Um Shaumer,^ the highest pohit in
the peninsula, lying S. W". of the Musa, some such
secondary and overshadowed peak must be assumed.
T'he conjunction of mountain with plain is the
greatest feature of this site; iu choosing it, we lose
hi the mountain, as compared with Serbdl, but we
gain in the plain, of which Serbdl has nothing.
Yet the view from the plain appears by no means
wanting in features of majesty and awe {S. cf P.
pp. 42, 43). Dr. Stanley remarked {S. ^ P. p. 43)
some alluvial mounds at the foot of the cUff
"which exactly answered to the bounds " set to
restrain Jhe people. In this long retiring sweep of
er-Rahah, the people could "remove and stand
afar off; " for it " extends into the lateral valleys,"
and so joins the Wady es-Sheykh {ibid. p. 74). Here
too Moses, if he came down through one of the
oblique gullies which flank the Ras Sasdfeh on the
N and S., might not see the cauip, although he
might catch its noise, till he emerged frora the
Wady ed-Deir, or the Wady Lejd, on the plain
itself. In the latter, also, is found a brook in close
connection with the mountain.
Still there is the name of the Jebel Musa be
longing to the opposite or S. E. peak or precipice,
overhanging es-Sebayeh. Lepsius treats this as a
monkish legend unknown before the convent; but
there is the name Wady Shouaib (valley of Hobab
or Jethro, S. # P. p. 32), the Wady Lejd and
Jebel Fureid (perhaps frora the forms in Arabic
legend of the names of his two daughters Lljn and
Safuria==: Zipporah), forming a group of Mosaic
tradition. Is it not possible that the Jebel Musi,
or loftiest southeastern peak of that block of which
the modern Horeb is the lower and opposite end,
may have been the spot to which Moses retired,
leaving the people encamped in er-Rahah below,
from which its distance is not above three miles?
That the spot is out of sight from that plain is
hardly a difficulty, for " the mountain burning
with fire to the midst of heaven" was what the
people saw (Deut. iv. 11); and this would give a
reasonable distance for the spot, somewhere mid
way, whence the elders enjoyed a partial vision of
God (Ex. xxiv 9, 10),
Tradition, no doubt in this case purely monkish,
has fixed on a spot for Elijah's visit — " ihe cave,
to which he repaired; but one at Serbdl would
equally suit {S. if P. p. 49). That on the Jebel
MUsa is called the chapel of St. Elias. It has
been thought possible that St. Paid may have vis-

a It should be added that Riippell (Lepsius, p. 12)
'x)ok Gebel Katherin for Horeb, but that there are
fewer features in its favor, as compared with the his
tory, than alm,ost any other site (Robinson, i. UO).
6 Though Dr. Stanley {S. ^ P. p. 39, note) states
that it has oeeu " explored by Mr. Hogg, who tells me
<hat it meet^ none of the special requirements."
" See the work of Professor Beer of Leipsic on this
^urious question. Mr. Forater's attempt ( Voice of
Israel Jrom the Rocks of Sinai) to regard them as
% contemporary record of the Exodus by the Israelites
!nTolT(is this anachronism : the evcuta of the fortieth

SINAI 3058
ited Sinai (Gal. i. 17), and been &miliar with the
name Ilaj'ar («jS\.&.) as given commonly to it,
signifying "a rock." (Ewald, Sendschreiben, p.
i93.) It may he added that, supposing Wady Tayibeh
to have been the encampment "by the sea," as
stated in Num. xxxiii. 10, three routes opened
there before the Israelites : the most southerly one
(taken by Shawe and Pococke) down the plain et
Kda to Ti'ir ; the most northerly (Robinson's) by
the SarbUt ei-Khatlem (either of which would have
left Serbal out of their line of march); and the
middle one by Wo.ily Feirdn, by which they would
pass the foot of Serbdl, which therefore in this
case alone could possibly be Sinai (Stanley, S. ^
P. pp. 36, 37). Just east of the Jebel Misi, across
the narrow ra^-ine named Shouaib, lies ed-Deir, or
the convent mountain, called also, from a local
legend (Stanley, p. 46; Kobinson, i. 98), "the
jUount of the Burning Bush." Tradition haa
also fixed on a hollow rock in the plain of the
Wady es-Sheykh, on which the modern Horeb
looks, as " the (mould of the) head of the cow,"
i. e. in which the golden calf was shaped by Aaron.
In the ravine called Lejd, parallel to Shouaib on
the western side of the Jebel Mdsa, lies what is
called the rock of Moses (see Rephidim ) ; and a
hole in the ground near, in the plain, is called, hy
manifest error, the "pit of Korah," whose catas
trophe took plaoe far away (Robinson, i. 113 ; Lep
sius, p. 19).
The middle route aforesaid from W. Tayibeh
reaches the W. Feirdn through what is called the
W. Mokalieb, or " written valley," from the in
scriptions on the rocks which Hne it,= generally
considered to have been the work of Christian
hands, but whether those of a Christian people
localized there at an miknown period, as Lepsius *'
(p. 90) thinks, or of passing pilgrims, as is the
more general opinion, is likely to contmue doubtfuL
It is remarkable that the names of the chief
peaks seem all borrowed from tlieir peculiarities of
vegetation: thus Um Shbmr'^iy^ f.\) means
"mother of fennel;" Mas Sasdfeh (properly
Sifsafeh, \SUQJLao) is " willow-head," a group
of two or three of which trees grow in the recesses
of the adjacent wady; so Serbdl is perhaps from
JUy*g; and, from analogy, the name " Sinai,"
now unknown amongst the Arabs (unless Sena,
given to the point of the .lebel Fureid, opposite to
the modem Horeb (Stanley, p. 42), contain a traca
of it), may be supposed derived from the L^..w
and Laaw, the tree of the Burning Bush. The

year — e. g. the plague of fiery serpents — are repre
sented as recorded close on the same spot with what
took place before the people reaebed Sinai ; and al
though the route which they took cannot be traced iu
all its parts, yet all the evidrtace and all the probabil
ity of the question is clearly ugaiust their ever having
returned from Eadesh and the Arabah to the valleys
west of Sinai.
d Arguing from the fact that these inscriptions oc
cur not only on roads leading out of Egypt, but in the
most secluded spots, and on rock.s lying quite out of
the main roads.

8054 SINAI
fetation « of the peninsula is most copious at el-
Wady, near Tur, on the coast of tbe Gulf of Suez,
in the Wady Feirdn [see Refhidim], the two
oases of its waste, and " in the nucleus of springs
in the Gebel Mousa" (Stanley, p. 19). For a
fuller account of its flora, see Wilderness of
THE Wandering. As regards its fauna, Seetzen
(iii, 20) mentions the following aniraals as found
at er-Ramleh, near Sinai : the wild goat, the wub-
ber, hyena, fox, hare, gazelle, panther (rare), field-
mouse {el-Dschilrdy, like a jerboa), and a lizard
called el-Dsob, which is eaten. H. H.
* The names Horeb and Sinai are used inter
changeably. At the first Horeb had precedence,
being "the mountain of God " to Moses prior to
the giving of the Law (Ex. iii. 1, 12, iv. 27, xvii.
6, xviii. 5). Sinai is first mentioned after tbe
battle of Rephidim (Ex. xix. 1, 2); and this narae
is thenceforth prominent until the breaking up of
the encampment in that wilderness, as recorded in
Num. X. 12. But in the recapitulation of this
jouniey by Moses, Horeb is spoken of as the point
of departure (Deut. i. 2, 6, 19). Horeb is named
as the mountain from which " the Lord spake out
of the midst of the fire," and upon which He
wrote the ten commandments (Deut. iv. 10, 15).
Horeb also was tbe scene of the transgression in
the golden calf (Deut. ix. 8). The covenant was
made at Horeb (Deut. xxix. 1). In the books of
Kings and Chronicles (1 K. viii. 9, xix. 8 ; 2 Chr.
V. 10), Horeb is named as the scene of the Law;
while in the Psalms both naraes are used for the
same place; Sinai in Ps. Ixviii. 8, 17, and Horeb
Ps. evi. 19. Mountains thus closely identified
with the same series of events could not have been
far apart; and the best solution of the Biblical
usage in respect of these names appears to be that
which raakes Horeb the central mass or ridge, of
which Sinai was a prorainent peak. See Ritter,
xiv. 743; Hengstenberg, Pentateuch,\i.''A2b; Rob
inson, i. 591; Kurtz, iii. 79; Kalisch, Comm. on
Exodus. Bunsen, Bibelwerk, gives the narae
Horeb to the group of which Sufsafeh and Jebel
Musa are peaks, and places Sinai opposite to Suf
safeh, on the northern side of the plain.
The Kev. F. W. Holland, Fellow of the Royal
Geographical Society, in a paper read before the
Society in 1868, gave an interesting account of his
minute and careful exploration of the Sinaitic re
gion. A corapendium of his results will shed light
upon several points hitherto somewhat in doubt or
dispute. Fertility of the Desert. — " The lower portion
of Wady Ghurundel is one of the most fertile in
the whole peninsula. It is nearly 300 yards broad
in many places, and thickets of tamarisks, palms,
and beds of bulrushes and reeds abound, and wild
duck.s, with raany kinds of smaller birds, frequent
the pools, forraed here and there by a clear stream
of running water, which never fails.
" Manna and gum Arabic appear to be found in
very small quantities. The latter exudes from the
boughs of the mimosa, or shittim-tree, after the
young shoots have been lopped off" in spring to
feed the goats.
" Water -is not nearly so scarce in the granitic
district as most travellers have supposed. There
is also a far larger amount of vegetation than usu
aUy described. [This was in October and No-
« For a full account of the climate and vegetation,
Bcbubert {lUistn, ii. 351) may be consulted.

SINAI
vember.] The basins on the summits of the
mountams generally afibrd good pasturage, and
even the mountain sides, which look so barren
from the wadies below, are often covered with
nuraerous plants on which the goats delight to
feed. Many of the smaller wadies, too, are aston
ishingly fertile, and in former days, when fairly
cultivated by the monks, must have yielded abun
dance of fruit, vegetables, and even corn, for I
found traces in several spots of terraced plote evi
dently laid out for growing corn. I can readily
believe that at one time 6,000 or 7,000 monks and
hermits lived, as we are told, in these mountains,
and were enabled in great measure, perhaps alto
gether, to support themselves by the cultivation of
the soil. In W. Ildk alone, in addition to a fine
grove of olives near the ruins of an old monastery,
there is for three miles a constant succession of
gardens, each garden having in it two good weUs
which never fail, and producing olives, pears, ap
ples, vines, figs, palms, nebk, carroub, apricot,
mulberry, pomegranate, and poplar trees; while
above and below these gardens runs a stream of
water which aflTords here and there a, pool laige
and deep enough to swim in,"
All this confirms the view that the sustentation
of the Israelites in the desert was not exclusively
miraculous, but the resources of nature were sup
plemented by special intervention, firom time to
time. The Amalekites. — Mr. Holland discovered in
the neighborhood of Jebel Hadeed, " the Iron
Mountain," remarkable ruins of buildings and
tombs. These were constructed of undressed
stones, of large size, laid together without mortar.
The buildings were apparently designed for store
houses, having no windows; the tombs contained
human bones. From the extent of these struc
tures, and their massive workmanship, Mr. Hol
land concludes that they raust have been built by
a large and powerful people ; and he is disposed to
refer them to the Amalekites.
The True Sinai. — After a careful exploration
of each point, Mr. Holland rejects Serbal and
Odjmeh as the Biblical Sinai, since " in the neigh
borhood of the former there is no plain, in the
latter range there is no one distinct mountain.''^
He suggests as a possible competitor to Jebel
Musa, Jebel UmAloivee, " the Mother of Heights.'*
The road to the two is the same up to the last five
or six miles; 'both rise almost precipitously from
the plains beneath them; but J'. UmAloivee has
the advantage of rauch the larger plain — Senned^
which contains about thirty square miles of good
camping ground.
Route of the- Israelites. — Mr. Holland is of
opinion that Ain Hutherah, commonly identified
as Hazeroth, could not have been one of the sta
tions of the Israelites, since it lies in a ci;Lde-sac,
and can be approached only by a steep narrow
pass. " After crossing the Red Sea somewhere in
the neighborhood of Suez, the Israelites took the
lower road down the plain along the coast as far
as Ain Szouweira, which may possibly mark the
locality of Marah. They then turned inland to
Elim, which I would place at Ain Howara. Their
next encampment was by the sea, possibly near the
mouth of W. Ghurundel, where was abundance
of water," The wilderness of Sin is the plain of
es~Seyh. Dofhkali was in the neighborhood of
W. Keneh, near Lib-d-chcir. Alush, at W. el-
Ash, a broad wady uniting with W. Bernht not

SINIM
far fkom W, es-Sheikh. Bephidim, Mr. Holland
Exes at a point iu W. es-Sheikh about 10 miles
from Jebd Musa, at the gorge of the " Mokad
Nebi Musa," the "seat of the Prophet Moses."
This would have given the Amalekites strategic
advantages for surprising the Israelites on their
march. It was mainly at the instance of Mr. Holland,
and under the stimulus of his energetic example,
that a scientific corps was sent out in 1869, to
explore the peninsula of Arabia Petrcea. The re
port of this expedition must give light upon many
disputed points, but it cannot be obtained in time
for use in this article. J. P. T.
SINIM (n"'3''D: [nepo-ai: ten-a australis]),
n people noticed in Is. xlix. 12, as living at the
extremity of the known world, either in the south
or east. The majority of the early interpreters
adopted the former view, but the LXX. in giving
Tlepaai favors the latter, and the weight of modern
authority is thrown into the same scale, the name
being identified by Gesenius, Hitzig, Knobel, and
others, with the ckissical SItub, the inhabitants of
the southern part of China. No locaUty in the
south equally commends itself to the judgment:
Sin, the classical Pelusium, which Bochart (Phaleg,
iv. 27) suggests, is too near, and Syene (Michaelis,
Spicil. ii. 32) would have been given in its well-
known Hebrew form. There is no a piiwi im
probability in the name of the Sinse being known
.to the inhabitants of Western Asia in the age of
Isaiah; for though it is not mentioned by the
Greek geographers until the age of Ptolemy, it is
certain that an inland commercial route connected
the extreme East with the West at a very early
period, and that a traffic was maintained on the
frontier of China between the Sin« and the Scyth
ians, in the manner still followed by the Chinese
and the Russians at Kiachta. If any name for
these Chinese traders travelled westward, it would
probably be that of the Since, whose town Thinse
(another form of the Sinse) was one of the great
emporiums in the western part of China, and is
represented by the modern Thsin or Tin, in the
province of Schensi. The Sinie attained an inde
pendent position in Western China as early as the
8th century B. c, and in the 3d century B. c.
established their sway under the dynasty of Tsin
over the whole of the empire. The Rabbinical
name of China, Tsin, as well as "China" itself,
was derived from this dynasty (Gesen. Thes. A. v.).
W. L. B.
SI'NITB O^'^D: 'Kaevvaior, [in Chr., Kom.
Vat. omit;] Zinaevs). A tribe of Canaanites
(Gen. x: 17; 1 Chr. i. 15), whose position is to be
sought for in the northern part of the Lebanon
district. Various localities in that district bear a
certain aniount of resemblance to the name, par
ticularly Sinna, a mountain fortress mentioned by
Strabo (xvi. p. 755); Sinum or Sini, the ruins of
whioh existed in the time of Jerome ( Qumst. in
Gen. 1. 0.); Syn, a village mentioned in the 15th
century as near the river Area (Gesen. Thes. p.
948) ; and Dunniyeh, a district near Tripoli (Rob
inson's Researches, ii. 494). The Targums of On
kelos and Jonathan give Orthosia, a town ol the
soast to the northeast of Tripolis. W. L. B.
SI'ON, MOUNT. 1. (IN"'!?' IH [hfty
mount] : Samar. 'JlS'^tt? HH : rb ipos toB Sri^y-
MOfu Svm). One of the various names of Mount

SIPPAI

3056

Hermon which are fortunately preserved, all not
improbably more ancient than "Hermon" itself.
It occurs in Deut. iv. 48 only, and is interpreted
by the lexicographers to mean " lofty." Fiirs
conjectures that these various appellations were the
names of separate peaks or portions of the moun
tain. Some have supposed that Zion in Ps. cxxxiii,
3 is a variation of this Sion ; but there is no war
rant for this beyond the fact that so doing over
comes a ditficulty of interpretation in that pas
sage." 2. (t^ 6pos '2,id>v; in Heb. ^tir opos- n}.ons
Sion.) The Greek form of the Hebrew name
Zion (Tsion), the famous Mount of the Temple
(1 Mace. iv. 37, 60, ^. 54, vi. 48, 62, vii. 33, x. 11,
xiv. 27; Heb. xii. 22; Rev. xiv. 1). In the
books of Maccabees the expression is always Mount
Sion. In the other Apocryphal Books the narae
Sion is alone eraployed. Further, in the Macca
bees the name unmistakably denotes the mount on
which the Temple was built ; on which the mosque
of the Aksa^ with its attendant mosques of Omar
and the Mogrebbins, now stands. The first of the
passages just quoted is enough to decide this. If
it can be established that Zion in the Old Testa
raent raeans the sarae locality with Sion in the
books of Maccabees, one of the greatest puzzles of
Jerusalem topography will be solved. This wiU be
examined under Zion. G.
* There can be scarcely a question that in the
passages above ^iuoted from Maccabees, Sion is
synonymous with Jerusalem — as in Isa. ii. 3:
"for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the
word of the Lord from Jerusalem,^'' and in Ps.
cxlvii. 12 : " Praise the Lord, 0 Jerusalem, praise
thy God, 0 Zum " — where the words are parallel,
and each clause has the same meaning. Accepting
Sion in the books of Maccabees, as the sarae local
ity with Zion in the Old Testament used in thia
general sense, we have no great puzzle of Jerusalem
topography to be solved. The examination pro
posed in the last line was for some reason not insti
tuted. S. W.
SIPH'MOTH (niQDtr; {fruitful places,
Fiirst]: [Rom. 2a(/)/; "Vafc.j 2a(^€i; Alex. 2ai^a-
jxws' Sephamoth). One of the places in the south
of Judah which David frequented during his free-
booting life, and to his friends in which he sent a
portion of the spoil taken from the Amalekites. It
is named only in 1 Sam. xxx. 28. It is not named
by Eusebius or Jerome. No one appears yet to
have discovered or even suggested an identification
of it. G.
* In 1 Chr. xxvii. 27, Zabdi, one of David's pur
veyors, is called the Shiphmite, not improbably
because he belonged to Siphmoth. The commuta
tion of sh and s is easily made, and a few MSS-
actually read Shipmoth instead of Siphmoth in
1 Sam. xxx. 28. Thenius suggests on this last
passage {Biicher Samuels), that Siphmoth may be
the same as Sliepham (Num. xxxiv. 10, 11) in the
east part of Judah. This is a mere conjecture,
though it agrees with 1 Chr. xxvii. 27, for Zabdi'a
office would require him to be at no great distance
from David's court. H.
SIP-'PAI [2 syl.] f^Qt? {threshold, bowl]:
^at^oi/T ; Al»x. 2e(/»^i: Saphai). One of the sons

a * This supposition, instead of overcomiog a
difficulty, only adds another and greater. See Hkb-
MOW, vol. ii. p. 1047, note a (Amer. ed.). S. W

3056 SIRACH
»f the Rephaim, or '* the giants," slain by Sibbe-
chai the Hushathite at Gezer (1 Chr. xx. 4). In
2 Sam. xxi. 18 he is called Safh.
SI'E.ACH (Setpc^x, 2ipcix= Sirach: in Rab
binic writers, MT^D)^ the father of Jesus (Joshua),
the writer of the Hebrew original of the Book of
Ecclesiasticus. [Ecclesiasticus; Jesus, the
Son of Sikach.] B. F. W.
SI'RAH {departure, apostasy], THE WELL
OF ijy^'^Tl "ihS : rh (ppeap rod ^eeipdp, in
both MSS. : cisterna Sira). The spot from which
Vbner was recalled by Joab to his death at Hebron
(2 Sam. iii. 26 only). It was apparently on the
northern road from Hebron — that by which Abner
would naturally return through Bahurim (ver. 16)
to Mahanaim. There is a spring and reservoir on
the western side of the ancient northern road,
about one mile out of Hebron, which is called Ain
Sara, and gives its name to the little valley in
which it lies (see Dr. Rozen's paper on Hebron, in
the Zeitschrift der D. M. G. xii. 486, and the
exceUent map accompanying it). This may be a
relic of the well of Sirah. It is mentioned as far
back as the 12th century by Kabbi Petachia, but
the correspondence of the name with that of Sirah
seems to have escaped notice. G.
SIR'ION (r"ltp," i. e. Su-yon, in Deut., but
in Ps. xxix. ^***'"lty, Shiryon [see below] : Samar.
T^Xt3\ Sam. Vers. p"l : Sav* tip ; [Comp. 2o-
pi^v:] Sarion). One of the various nanies of
Mount Hermon, that by which it was known to
the Zidonians (Deut. iii. 9). The word is almost
identical with that (]'^'"'0) which in Hebrew de
notes a " breastplate ", or " cuirass," and Gesenius
therefore expresses his belief that it was applied in
this sense to the raountain, just as the name Thorax

a No variation from t^ to t^, or the reverse, is
noticed in Doderleiu and Meisner, on either occurrence
of the name. [It exists, however ; see Michaelis's
Bibl. Hebr. on Deut. iii. 9. — A.]
h * Capt. Warren reports some later observations
respecting Sirion or BteRMON, and corrects several minor
inaccuracies of previous travellers. He makes the
height of llermon 9,000 feet above the level of the
Mediterranean, and not 10,000 aa in Murray's Hand
book, ii. 455. The curious line of stones around the
southern peak of the three summits is oval aud not
circular, and may have been for the same purpose as
the Kaaba at Mecca. The existing temples on Hermon
probably were not devoted to the older sun-worship
(standing in fact where the sun is not visible until
hour? after it has risen), and tbe entrances are not on
the west 80 as to bring the worshipper's fiwo toward
the sun-rising as to a kibleh, but all of them open
toward the east. The inscriptions on the temples
about llermon are mostly Grecian, nearly all of them
so defaced that only a few letters in each line can be
deciphered. {Atliencp.um, Feb. 12, 1870, and Quartnty
Report ofthe Pal. Expt. Fund, No. iv., 1869.) H.
c Geseuius (Lfr. s. v.), by comparison .with the
Syriac, interprets the name aa " battle-array." Purst.
on the other hand {Handwb. ii. 279), gives as its
equivalent Vermittelung, the nearest approach to which
Lb perhaps " lieutenant." As a Canaanite word its real
Biguiflcalion is probably equally wide of either.
d The site of Harosheth has uot yet been identified
with certainty. But since the publication of vol. i.
the writer observes that Dr. Thomson {Land and Book,
;h. xxix.) has suggested a site which seems possible,

SISERA
(which has the same meaning) was given to «
mountain in Magnesia. This is not supported by
the Samaritan Version, the rendering in which —
Rcd}bam. — seems to be equivalent to Jebel esk-
Sheykh, the ordinary, though not the only modem
name of the mountain. [Hekmon, vol. ii. p
1048.] The use of the name in Ps. xxix. 6 (slightly
altered in the original — Shirion instead of Sirion)
is remarkable, though, bearing in mind the occur
rence of Shenir in Solomon's Song, it can hardiy
be used as an argument for the antiquity of the
psalm.'' G-
SIS'AMAI [3 syl] C^OPp [distingviahed,
Fiirst] : ^oaopai '• Sisamcn). A descendant of
Sheshan in the line of Jerahmeel (1 Chr. ii. 40).
SIS'ERA (M"lp'^p c [perh. battle-array,
Ges.] : ^etadpa, ^la-dpa ; Joseph, d :Zia-dp7js '•
Sisara). Captain (^tll?) of the army of Jabin
king of Canaan who reigned in Hazor. He him
self resided in Harosheth ^ of the Gentiles. The
particulars of the rout of Megiddo and of Sisera's
flight and death are drawn out under the heads of
Baeak, Deborah, Jael, EIenites, Kishon,
Mantle, Tent. They have been recently elabo
rated, and combined into a living whole, with great
attention to detail, yet without any sacrifice of
force, by Professor Stanley, in his Lectures on the
Hist, of the Jeicish Church, Leet. xiv. To that
accurate and raasterly picture we refer our readers.
The army was mustered at the Kishon ou the
plain at the foot of the slopes of Lejjun. Partly
owing to the furious attack of Barak, partly to the
impassable condition of the plain, and partly to the
unwieldy nature of the host itself, which, amongst
other impediments, contained 900 « iron chariots —
a horrible confusion and rout took place. Sisera
deserted his troops and fled off on foot. He took

and invites further examination. This is a TeU or
mound on the north side of the Ejshon, in the 3. E.
corner of the plain of Akka, just behind the hills which
separate it from tbe larger plain of Jezreel. The Tell
advances close to the fooc of Carmel, aud allows only
room for the passage of the river between tbem. Ite
name is variously giveu as Harothteh (Thomson),
Harthijjeh (Schulz). Hurshiyeh (Robinson), Harti (Van
de Velde), and el-Hartiyeh. The latter is the form
given in the ofRcial list made for the writer in 1861 by
Consul Rogers, and is probably accurate. Dr. Thom
son — apparently the only traveller who has examined
the spot — speaks of the Tell as "covered with the
remains of old walls and buildings," in which he sees
the relics of the ancient castle of Sisera. [Harosheth,
Amer. ed.]
fi The number of Jabiu's standing army is given by
Josephus {Ant. v. 6, § 1) as 300,000 footmen, 10,000
horsemen, and 3,000 chariote. These numbers ai-e
large, but they are nothing to those of tbe Jewish
legends. Sisera " had 40.000 generals, every one of
whom had 100,000 men under him. He was thirty
years old, and had conquered the whole world : and
there waa not a place the walls of which did uot fell
down at his voice. When he shouted the very beasts
of the field were riveted to their plac€.<i. 900 horses
went in his chariot*' ( Jalkut ad loc). " Thirty-one
kings (comp. Josh. xii. 24) went with Sisera and werA
killed with him. They thirsted after the waters of
the land of Israel, and they asked and prayed Sisera
to take them with him without further reward '
(comp. Judg. V. 19). {Ber. Rab. ch. 28.) The writei
Is indebted to the kindness of Mr. Deutsch for theM
extracts.

SISIJTNES
I northeast direction, posaibly tlirougn Kazaretli
nnd Safed, or, if tliat direct road was closed to him,
Btole along by more circuitous routes till he found
himself before the tents of Heber the Kenite, near
Kedesh, on the high ground overlooking the upper
basin of the Jordan Valley. Here he met his death
firom the hands of Jael, Hebers wife, who, although
" at peace " with him, was under a much more
stringent relation with the house of Israel (Judg.
lv 2-22, V. 20, 28, 28, 30). [Kenites, vol. ii. p.
1630.] His name long survived as a word of fear
and of exultation in the mouths of prophets and
psalmists (1 Sam. xii. 9; Ps. Ixxxiii. 9).
It is remarkable that from this enemy of the
Jews should have sprung one of then- most eminent
characters. The great Kabbi Akiba, whose father
was a Syrian pro-selyte of justice, was descended
from Sisera of Harosheth (Bartolocci, iv. 272).
The part which he took in the Jewish war of in
dependence, when he was standard-bearer to Bar-
oocba (Otho, Hist. doct. Misn. 13i note), shows
that the warlike force still remained in the blood
ot Sisera.
2. (Siadpa,Si.aapd9; Alex. Sicapcm, SeurapoS;
[in Ezr., Vat. omits; in Neh., Vat. FA. Sea-eipaB].)
After a long interval the name reappears in the
lists of the Nethinim who returned from the Cap
tivity with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 53; Neh. vii. 55).
The number of foreign, non-Israelite names " which
occur in these invaluable lists has been already
noticed under Meiiunims (iii. 1875). Sisera is
another example, and doubtless tells of Canaanite
captives devoted to the lowest offices of the Temple,
even though the Sisera from whom the family de
rived its name were not actually tlie same person
as the defeated general of Jabin. It is curious
that it should occur in close companionship with
the name Harsha (ver. 52) which irresistibly recalls
Harosheth. In the parallel list of 1 Esdr. v. 32 Sisera is
given as Aseher. G.
SISIN'NES (SKriWTjs: Sisennes). A governor
of Syria and Phoenicia under Darius, and a con
temporary of Zerubbabel (1 Esdr. vi. 3). He at
tempted to stop the rebuilding of the Temple, but
was ordared by Darius, after consulting the archives
of Cyrus's reign, to adopt the opposite course, and
to forward the plans of Zerubbabel (ibid. vi. 7,
vii. 1). In Ezra he is called Tatmai.
* SISTER'S SON. •Ave^iws, so translated
Col. iv. 10 (A. v.), should be rendered "cousin"
in accordance with its use both in the LXX. and
in classic Greek. See Num. xxxvi. 11, and LXX.
(Heb. lani ^a?).
It has been suggested (Ellicott, CoL iv. 10,
Transl.) that the term "sister's son" in the
A. V. may be an archaism, as having been formerly
used like the German Oeschwister/cind, in the sense
of "cousin." Similarly the word nephew where-
ever it occurs in the A. V. (Judg. xii. 14; Job
a MEmiNiM, Nephusim, Harsha, Rezin.
I> In the A. V. of vv. 20, 21, two entirely distinct
lebrew words are eaoh rendered "strive."
c * The word " slave " occurs io the English Bible
inly in Jer. ii. 14, aod Rev. xviii. 13, and four times
In the Apocrypha. As the word was not uncommon
In writers of the epoch to which our version belongs,
Ihere seems to have been a special reason for this ex-
slusion. Trench suggests (^Authorized Version, p. 104)
^at the traasKtors may have felt that the moderu

SLAVE ^057
xviii. 19; Is. xiv. 22; 1 Tim. v. 4), is used in the
now obsolete sense of grandchild, descendani. D. S. T.
SIT'NAH (HD^Cf? {accusation, strife]: i^
dpla] Joseph. 2iT6yj/k: InimiciUce). The second of
the two wells dug by Isaac in the valley of Gerar,
and the possession of which the herdmen of the
valley disputed with him (Gen. xxvi. 21). Like
the first one, Esek, it received its name from the
disputes which took place over it, Sitnah meaning,
as is stated in the margin, "hatred," or more
accurately "accusation," but the play of expression
has not been in this instance preserved in the tie-
brew.^ The LXX., however, have attempted it:
iKplvovro .... 4x^9^°" '-^^^^ ^'^^^ ^^ ^^^ name
is the same as that of Satan, and this has been
taken advantage of by Aquila and Symmachus,
who render it respectively avriKeipevr] and 4vav-
rlwa-is. Of the situation of Esek and Sitnah
nothing whatever is known. [Gerar.] G.
¦SIVAN. [Month.]
* SKIN. [Badger SitiNs; Bottle; Leath
er.] * SKIRTS, Ps. cxxxiii. 2. See Ointment,
vol. iii. p. 2214 b.
SLAVE.^ The institution of slavery was rec
ognized, though not established, by the Mosaic Law
with a view to mitigate its hardships and to secure
to every man his ordhiary rights. Repugnant as
the notion of slavery is to our rainds, it is difficult
to see how it can be dispensed with in certain
phases of society without, at all events, entailing
severer evils than those which it produces. Ex
cluslveness of race is an instinct that gains strength
in proportion as social order is weak, and the rights
of citizenship are regarded with peculiar jealousy
in communities which are exposed to contact with
aliens. In the case of war, carried on for conquest
or revenge, there were but two modes of dealing
with the captives, namely, putting them to death
or reducing them to slavery. The same may be
said in regard lo such acts and outrages as dis
qualified a person for the society of his fellow-
citizens. Again, as citizenship involved the con
dition of freedom and independence, it was almost
necessary to offer the alternative of disfranchisement
to all who through poverty or any other contin
gency were unable to support themselves in inde
pendence. In all these cases slavery was the raildest
of the alternatives that offered, aud raay hence be
regarded as a blessing rather than a curse. It
should further be noticed that a laboring class, in
our sense of the term, was almost unknown to the
nations of antiquity: hired service was regarded as
incompatible with freedom ; and hence the slave in
many cases occupied the same social position as
"the servant or laborer of modern tim6s, though
differing from him in regard to political status.
The Hebrew designation of the slave shows that
service was the salient feature of his condition ; for
the term ebed,^ usually apphed to him, is derived

term conveys au idea of degradation and contempt
which the Hebrew and Greek equivalents do not con
vey as applied to the ancient system of servitude.
Slave (softened from sklave) was originally a national
appellation, S/clavonic or Sclavonic. On the etjwiology
of the word see Schmitthenuer'a Wdrterb. fiir ElymoU
og^ie, etc., p. 447, and Gibbon's Decline and Fall oftfu
Roman Empire, ch. It. It-

3058

SLAVE

ftom a verb signifying " to work," and the very
same term is used in reference to offices of high
trust held by free men. In short, service and
slavery would have been to the ear of the Hebrew
equivalent terms, though he fully recognized grades
of servitude, according as the servant was a He
brew or a non-Hebrew, and, if the latter, according
aa he was bought with money (Gen. xviL 12 ; Ex.
xii. 44) or born in the house (Gen. xiv. 14, xv. 3,
xvii. 23). We shall proceed to describe the con
dition of these classes, as regards their original
reduction to slavery, the methods by which it might
be terminated, and their treatment while in that
state. I. Hebi'ew Slaves.
1. The circumstances under which a Hebrew
might be reduced to servitude were — (1) poverty;
(2) the commission of theft; and (3) the exercise
of paternal authority. In the first case, a man who
had mortgaged his property, and was unable to
support his family, might sell himself to another
Heljrew, with a view both to obtain maintenance,
and perchance a surplus sufficient to redeem his
property (Lev. xxv. 25, 39). It has been debated
whether under this law a creditor could seize his
debtor and sell him as a slave : " the words do not
warrant such an inference, for the poor man is said
in I.ev. xxv. 39 to sell himself (not as in the A. V.,
"be sold;" see Gesen. Thes. p. 787), in other
words, to enter into voluntary ser\-itude, and this
under the pressure not of debt, but of poverty.
The instances of seizing the children of debtors in
2 K. iv. 1 and Neh. v. 5 were not warranted by
law, and must be regarded as the outrages of law
less times, while the case depicted in the parable of
the unmerciful servant is probably borrowed from
Roman usages (Matt, xviii. 25). The words in Is.
1. 1, " Which of my creditors is it to whom I have
sold you?" have a prima facie bearing upon the
question, but in reahty apply to one already in the
condition of slavery. (2.) The commission of theft
rendered a person liable to servitude, whenever res
titution could not be made on the scale prescribed
by the Law (Ex. xxii. 1, 3). The thief was bound
to work out the value of his restitution money in
the service of him on whom the theft had been
committed (for, according to Josephus, Ant. xvi. 1,
§ 1, there was no power of selling tbe person of a
thief to a foreigner) ; when this had been effected
he would be /ree, as implied in the expression " sold
for his theft," i. e. for the amount of his theft.
This law contrasts favorably with that of tbe Ro
mans, under which a thief became the actual prop
erty of his master. (3.) The exercise of paternal
authority was limited to the'sale of a daughter of
tender age to be a maid-servant, with the ulterior
view of her becoming a concubine of the purchaser
(Ex. xxi. X). Such a case can perhaps hardly be
regarded as implying servitude in the ordinary
sense of the term.
2. The servitude of a Hebrew might be termi
nated in three ways: (1) by the satisfaction or the
remission of all claims against hini ; f) (2) bythe
recuiTence of the year of Jubilee (Lev. xxv. 40),

a Michaelis (Comment, ill. 9, § 123) decides in the
aiflrmative. 6 This is implied in the statement of the cases which
gave rise to the servitude : indeed without such an
issumption the words " for his theft " (Ex. xxii. 8)
would be unmeaning. The Rabbinists gave their sanc-
ijoa to such a view (Maimon. Abad. 2, §§ 8, 11).

SLAVE
which might arrive at any period of hia servitude.
and (3), failing either of these, the expiration oi
six years from the time that his servitude com
menced (Ex. xxi. 2 ; Deut. xv. 12). There can bt
no doubt that this last regulation applied equally
to the cases of poverty and theft, though Rabbinical
writers have endeavored to restrict it to the fornier.
The period of seven years has reference to the Sab
batical principle in general, but not to the Sabbat
ical year, for no regulation is laid down in reference
to the manumission of servants in that year (Lev.
xxv. 1 ff. ; Deut. xv. 1 ff.). We have a single in
stance, indeed, of the Sabbatical year being cele
brated by a general manumission of Hebrew slaves,
but this was in consequence of the neglect of the
law relating to such cases (Jer. xxxiv. 14"). (4.)
To the above modes of obtaining liberty the Rab
binists added as a fourth, the death of the master
without leaving a son, there being no power of
claiming the slave on the part of any heir except »
son (Maimon. Abad. 2, § 12).
If a seiTant did not desire to avail himself of th:
opportunity of leaving his service, he was to signify
his intention in a formal manner before the judges
(or more exactly at the place of' Judgment <i), and
then the master was to take hini to the door-post,
and to bore his ear through with an awl (Ex. xxi.
6), driving the awl into or "unto the door," as
stated Ul Deut. xv. 17, and thus fixing the servant
to it. Whether the door was that of the master's
house or the door of the sanctuary, as Ewald (AU
terth. p. 245 ) infers from the expression el hdeloUm,
to which attention is drawn above, is not stated;
but the significance of the action is enhanced by
the fornier view; for thus » connection is estab
lished between the servant and the house in which
he was to serve. The boring of the ear was prob
ably a token of subjection, the ear being the organ
through which commands were received (Ps. xl. 6).
A similar custom prevailed among the Mesopota-
niians (Juv. i. 104), the Lydiaiis (Xen. Anab. iii.
1, § 31), and other ancient nations. A servant
who had submitted to this operation remained, ac
cording to the words of the Law, a servant "for
ever" (Ex. xxi. 6). These words are, however,
interpreted by Josephus (Ant. iv. 8, § 28) and by
the Rabbinists as nieaning until the year of Jubi
lee, partly from the universality of the freedom that
was then proclaimed, and partly perhaps because it
was necessary for the servant then to resume the
cultivation of his recovered inheritance. The lat
ter point no doubt presents a difficulty, but the in
terpretation of the words "for ever" in any other
than their obvious sense presents still greater diffi
culties. 3. The condition of a Hebrew servant was by no
means intolerable. His master was admonished to
treat him, not " as a bond-servant, but as an hu^J
servant and as a sojourner," and, again, " not to
rule over him with rigor " (Lev. xxv. 39, 40, 43).
The Rabbinists specified a variety of duties as com
ing under these general precepts ; for instance, com
pensation for personal injury, exemption from me
nial duties, such as unbinding the master's sandals

' The rendering of the A. V. " at the end of seven
years " in this passage is not wholly correct. Ths
meaning rather is " at the end of a Sabbatical period
of years," the whole of the seventh year t«ing regarde*
aa the end of the period.
<* DTlbsn-bS; TTpbs rh Kp^riif, V, LXX.

SLAVE
iT carrj'ing him in a litter, the use of gentle lan
guage on the part of the master, and the mainte-
oance of the servant's wife and children, though
the master was not allowed to exact work from
them (Mielziner, Sklaven bei den H^yr. p. 31). At
the termination of his servitude the master was en
joined not to " let him go away empty," but to re-
numerate him liberally out of his flock, his floor,
and his wine-press (Deut. xv. 13, 14). Such a cus
tom would stimulate the servant to faithful service,
inasmuch as the amount of the gift was left to the
master's discretion; and it would also provide him
with means wherewith to start in the world afresh.
In tbe event of a Hebrew becoming the servant
ofa "stranger," meaning a non-Hebrew, the ser
vitude could be terminated only in two ways,
namely, by the arrival of the year of Jubilee, or by
the repayment to the master of the purchase-money
paid for the servant, after deducthag a sura for the
value of his services proportioned to the length of
his servitude (Lev. xxv. 47-55). The servant raight
be redeemed either by himself or by one of his re
lations, and the object of this regulation appears to
have been to impose upon relations the obligation "
of effecting the redemption, and thus putting an
end to a state which raust have been peculiarly
gallmg to the Hebrew.
A Hebrew woman might enter into voluntary
servitude on the score of poverty, and in this case
she was entitled to her freedom after six years' ser
vice, together with the usual gratuity at leaving,
just as in the case of a man (Deut. xv. 12, 13).
According to Eabbinical tradition a, woman could
not be condemned to servitude for theft; neither
could she bind herself to perpetual servitude by
baving her ear bored (Mielziner, p. 43).
Thus far we have seen little that is olyectionable
hi the condition of Hebrew servants. In respect
to marriage there were some peculiarities which,
to our ideas, would be regarded as hardships. A
master might, for instance, give a wife to a He
brew servant for the tirae of his servitude, the wife
being in this case, it must be remarked, not only a
slave but a non-Hebrew. Should he leave when
his term has expired, his wife and children would
remahi the absolute property of the master (Ex.
xxi. 4, 5). The reason for this regulation is, evi
dently, that the children of a female heathen slave
were slaves; they hiherited the mother's disqualifi
cation. Such a condition of marr) ing a slave would
be regarded as an axiom by a Hebrew, and the
case is only incidentally noticed. Again, a father
might sell his young daughter '' to a Hebrew, with
a view either of [bis] marrying her himself, or of
[his] giving her to his son (Ex. xxi. 7-9). It di
minishes the apparent harshness of this proceeding
if we look on the purchase-money as in the light of
a dowry given, as was not unusual, to the parents
ofthe bride; still raore, if we accept the Rabbin
ical view (which, however, we consider very doubts
ful) that the consent of the maid was required be
fore the marriage could take place. But even if
this consent were not obtained, the paternal author
ity would not appear to be violently strained ; for

o In the A. V. the sense of obligation is not con-
reyed ; instead of "may " in vv- 48, 49. shall ought
^x> be substituted.
^ Tbe female slave was in this case termed HDS ,
T T
10 distinot from nnSt^, applied to the or(Unary

SLAVE 8059
among ancient nations that authority was generally
held to extend even to the Ufe of a child, much
more to the giving of a daughter in raarriage.
The position of a maiden thus sold by her father
was subject to the following regulations: (1.) She
could not "go out as the men-servants do," i. e.
she could not leave at the termination of six years,
or in the year of Jubilee, if (as the regulation as
sumes) her master was willing to fulfill the object
for which he had purchased her. (2.) Should he
not wish to marry her, he should call upon her
friends to procure her release by the repayment of
the purchase-money (perhaps, as in other cases,
with a deduction for the value of her services).
(3.) If he betrothed her to his son, he was bound
to make such provision for her as he would for one
of his own daughters. (4.) If either he or his son,
having mamed her, took a second wife, it should
not be to the prejudice of the firet. (5.) If neither
of the three first specified alternatives took place,
the maid was entitled to immediate and gratuitous
liberty (Ex. xxi. 7-11).
The custom of reducing Hebrews to servitude
appears to have fallen iuto disuse subsequently to
the Babylonish Captivity. The attempt to enforce
it in Neheraiah's time met with decided resistance
(Neh. V. 5), and Herod's enactment that thieves
should be sold to foreigners, roused the greatest
animosity (Joseph. Ant. xvi. 1, § 1). Vast num
bers of Hebrews were reduced to slavery as war-
captives at different periods by the Phcenicians
(Joel iii. 6), the Philistines (Joel iii. 6; Am. i. 6),
the Syrians (1 Mace. iii. 41; 2 Mace. viii. 11), the
Egyptians (Joseph. Ant xii. 2, § 3), and, above
all, by the Romans (Joseph. B, J. vi. 9, § 3). We
may form sorae idea of the numbers reduced to
slavery by war fronx the single fact that Nicanor
calculated on reahzing 2,000 talents in one cam
paign, by the sale of captives at the rate of 90 for a
talent (2 Mace viii. 10, 11), the number requu:ed
to fetch the sum being 180,000. The Phoenieiana
were the most active slave-dealers of ancient times,
purchasing of the Philistines (Am. i. 9), of the
Syrians (2 Mace. viii. 11), and even of the tribes
on the shores of the Euxine Sea (Ez. xxvii. 13),
and selling them wherever they could find a mar
ket about the shores of the Mediterranean, and
particularly in Joel's time to the people of Javan
(Joel iii. 6), it being uncertain whether that name
represents a place in South Arabia or the Greeks
of Asia Minor and the peninsula. It was probably
through the Tyrians that Jews were transported
in Obadiah's time to Sepharad or Sardis (Ob. 20).
At Rome vast numbers of Jews emerged from the
state of slavery and became freedmen. The price
at which the slaves were offered by Nicanor was
considerably below the ordinary value either in
Palestine or Greece. In the forraer country it
stood at 30 shekels (= about £3 8s.), as stated
below, in the latter at about 1^ niinas (= about
£.b Is. 6rf.), tbis being the mean between the ex
tremes stated by Xenophon {Mem. ii. 5, § 2) aa
the ordinary price at Athens. The price at which
Nicanor offered them was only ^2 15s. 2t/. a head.

household slave. The distinction Is marked In regard
to Hagar, who is described by the latter term before
the birth of Ishmael, aud by the former after that
event (comp. Gen. xvi. 1, xxi. 10). The relative value
of the terms is expressed in Abigail's address, " Tjet
thine handmaid {arnhh) be a servant {shiphchaJi to
wash," etc. (1 Sam. xxv. 41).

3060

SLAVE

Occasionally slaves were sold as high as a talent
(£243 15s.) each (Xen. I. c; Joseph. Ani. xii.
t. § 0).
IE. Non-Hebrew Slaves.
1. The majority of non-Hebrew slaves were war-
captives, either the Canaanites who had survived
the general extermination of their race under Joshua,
or such as were conquered from the other surround
ing nations (Num. xxxi. 26 ff.). Besides these,
many were obtained by purchase from foreign slave-
dealers (Lev. xxv. 44, 45); and others may have
been resident foreigners who were reduced to this
state either by poverty or crime. The Rabbinists
further deemed that any person who performed the
Ber\'ices of a slave became ipso facto a slave (Mishn.
Ktdush. 1, § 3). The children of slaves remained
slaves, being the class de.scribed as " born iu the
house" (Gen. xiv. 14, xvii. 12; Eccl. ii. 7), and
hence the number was likely to increase as time
went on. The only statement as to their number
applies to the post-Babylonian period, when they
amounted to 7,337, or about 1 to b of the free pop
ulation (Ezr. ii. 65). AVe have reason to believe
that the number diminished subsequently to this
period, the Pharisees in particular being opposed to
the system. The average value of a slave appears
to have been thirty shekels (Ex. xxi. 32), varying
of course according to age, sex, and capabilities.
The estimation of persons given in Lev. xxvii. 2-8
probably applies to war-captives who had been ded
icated to the Lord, and the price of their redemp
tion would in this case represent the ordinary value
of such slaves.
2. That the slave might be manumitted, appears
from Ex. xxi. 26, 27 ; Lev. xix. 20. As to the
methods by which this might be effected, we are
told nothing in the Bible; but the Rabbinists spe
cify the following four methods: (1) redemption
by a money payment, (2) a bill or ticket of free
dom, (3) testamentary disposition, or, (4) any act
that implied manumission, such as making a slave
one's heir (Mielziner, pp. 65, 66).
3. The slave is described as the " possession" of
his master, apparently with a special reference to
the power which the latter had of disposing of him
to his heirs as he would any other article of per
sonal property (Lev. xxv. 45, 46); tbe slave is also
described as his master's "money " (Ex. xxi, 21),
i. e. as representing a certain money value. Such
expressions show that he was regarded ^-ery rauch
in the light of a mancipium or chattel. But on
the other band, provision was made for the protec
tion of his person : willful murder of a slave entailed
tbe same punishraent as in the case of a free man
(Lev. xxiv. 17, 22). So again, if a master hiflicted
so severe a punishraent as to cause the death of his
servant, he was liable to a penalty, the amount of
which probably depended on the circumstances of
the case, for the Rabbinical view that the words
"hs shall be surely punished," or, more correctly,
" it is to be avenged," imply a sentence of death,
is wholly untenable (Ex. xxi. 20). No punishment
ai all was imposed if the slave survived tbe punish
ment by a day or two (Ex. xxi. 21), the loss of the
slave" being regarded as a sufiBcient punishment in
this case. A minor personal injury, such as the
loss of an eye or a tooth was to be recompensed by
giving the servant his liberty (Ex. xxi. 26, 27).

SLIME
The general treatment of slaves appears to have
been gentle — occasionally too gentle, as we inftf
from Solomon's advice (Prov. xxix. 19, 21), nor do
we hear more than tmce of a slave running away
from his master (1 Sam. xxv. 10; 1 K. ii. 39).
The slave was considered hy a conscientious master
as entitled to justice (Job xxxi. 13-15) and honor
able treatment (Prov. xxx. 10). A slave, according
to the Rabbinists, bad no power of acquiring prop
erty for himself; whatever he might become entitled
to, even by way of compensation for personal injury,
reverted to his master (Mielziner, p. 55). On the
other hand, the master might constitute him his
heir either wholly (Gen. xv. 3), or jointly with his
children (Prov. xvii. 2); or again, he might give
him his daughter in marriage (1 Chr. ii. 35).
The position of the slave in r^ard to religious
privileges was favorable. He was to be circum
cised (Gen. xvii. 12), and hence was entitled to
partake of the Paschal sacrifice (Ex. xii. 44), as
well as of the other religious festivals (Deut. xii.
12, 18, xvi. 11, 14). It is implied that every slave
must have been previously brought to the knowl
edge of the true God, and to a willing acceptance
of the tenets of Judaism. This would naturally
be the case with regard to aJI who were " bom in
the house," and who were to be circumcised at the
usual age of eight days ; but it is difficult to under
stand how those who were " bought with raoney,"
as adults, could be always induced to change theit
creed, or how they wuld be circumcised without
having changed it. The Mosaic Law certainly pre
supposes an universal acknowledgraent of Jehovah
within the limits of the Promised Land, and would
therefore enforce the dismissal or extermination of
slaves who persisted in heathenism.
The occupations of slaves were of a menial char
acter, as implied in Lev. xxv. 39, consisting partly
in the work of the house, and partly in personal
attendance on the master. Female slaves, for in
stance, ground the com in the handrail! (Ex. xi- 5;
Job xxxi. 10; Is. xlvii. 2), or gleaned in the har
vest field (Ruth ii. 8). They also baked, washed,
cooked, and nursed the children (Mishn. Ceiliub.
5, § 5). The occupations of the men are not
specified; the most trustworthy held confidential
posts, such as that of steward or major-domo (Gen.
XV. 2, xxiv. 2), of tutors to sons (Prov. xvii. 2),
and of tenants to persons of large estate, for such
appears to have been tbe position of Ziba (2 Sam.
ix. 2, 10). W. L. B.
* For a translation of the work of Mielziner
(Copenhagen, 1859) referred to in this article, see
Amer. Theol. Review for April and July, 1861
(vol. iii.): compare Saalschiitz's Das Mosaische
Recht (Berl. 1853), ch. 101, translated by Dr. E.
P. Barrows in the BibL Sa^-a for .Ian. 1862, and
an art. by Dr. Barrows, The liible and Slavery.,
ibid. July, 1862. See also Albert Barnes, Inquiry
into ihe Scripiui'ol Views of Slav&ry, Phila. 1846;
G. B. Cheever, Historical and Legal Judgment of
the 0. T. against SUtvery, in the BibL Sacra for
Oct. 1855, and Jan., April, and July, 1856 (one
sided); and J. B. Bittirger, Hebrew Servitude, ii
the New Englander for May, 1860. A.
SLIME. The rendering in the A. V. of th
Heb. *1_-n, cAema7\ the v*s* (Horhmar) of tAie

a There is au apparent disproportion between this
ind the following regulation, arising probably out of
Jib di£Eereut circumstances under which tbe irgury

'¦r^

was effected. In this case the law is speaking of 1»
gitimate punishment " wiiji a rod ; " in the oixt of
violent assault.

SLIME
Arabs, translated ito'^aATos by the LXX., and
bitumen in the Vulgate. That our translator
understood by this word the substance now known
is bitumen, is evident from the following passages
iu Holland's Pluiy (ed. 1634); '-The very clammy
slime Bitumen, which at certaine tiraes of the yere
flotetb and swirameth upon the lake of Sodom,
called Asphaltites in Jury " (vii. 15, vol. i. p.
163). "1'he Bitumen whereof I speake, is in
some places in manner of a muddy slime; in
others, very earth or minerall " (xxxv. 15, vol. ii.
p. 557).
The three instances in wbich it is mentioned in
the 0. T. are abundantly illustrated by travellers
and historians, ancient and modern. It is first
spoken of as used for ceraent by the buildei-s in the
plain of Shinar, or Babylonia (Gen. xi. 3). The
bitumen pits in the vale of Siddira are mentioned
in the ancient fragment of Canaanitish history
(Gen. xiv. 10); and the ark of papyrus in which
]VIoses was placed was made impervious to water by
a coating of bitumen and pitch (Ex. ii. 3).
Herodotus (i. 179) tells us of the bitumen found
at Is, a town of Babylonia, eight days' journey from
Babylon. The captive Eretrians (Her. vi. 119)
were seut by Darius to collect asphaltum, salt, and
oil at Ardericca, a place two hundred and ten
stadia from Susa, in the district of Cissia. The
town of Is was situated on a river, or small stream,
of the same name, which flowed into tbe Euphrates,
and carried down with it the lumps of bitumen,
which was used in the building of Babylon. It is
probably the bitumen springs of Is whicb are de
scribed in Strabo (xvi. 743). Eratosthenes, whom
he quotes, says that the liquid bitumen, which is
called naphtha, is found in Susiana, and the dry in
Babylonia. Of the latter there is a spring near
the Euphrates, and when the river is flooded by
the melting of the snow, the spring also is filled
and overflows into the river. The masses of bitu
men thus produced are fit for buildings which are
made of baked brick. Diodorus Siculus (ii. 12)
speaks of the abundance of bitumen in Babylonia.
It proceeds from a spring, and is gathered by the
people of the country, not only for building, but
when dry for fuel, instead of wood. Aramianus
Marcellinus (xxiii. 6, § 23) tells us that Babylon
was built with bituraen by Semiramis (comp. Plin.
xxxv. 51; Berosus, quoted by Jos. Ant. x. 11, § 1,
c. Apion. i. 19; Arrian, Exp. AL vii. 17, § 1, &c.).
The town of Is, mentioned by Herodotus, is with
out doubt the modern Hit or Heet, on the west or
right bank of the Euphrates, and four days' jour
ney, N. W., or rather W- N. W., of Bagdad (Sir
R. Ker Porter's Trav. ii. 361, ed. 1822). Tlie
principal bituraen pit at Heet, says Mr. Rich ( .J/f-
moir on the Ruins of Babylon, p. 63, ed. 1815),
has two sources, and is divided by a wall in the
centre, on one side of which the bitumen bubbles
up, and on the other the oil of naphtha. Sir R.
K. Porter (ii. 315) observe'd "that bitumen was
chiefly confined by the Chaldsean builders, to the
foundations and lower parts of their edifices; for
the purpose of preventing the ill effects of water."
" With regard to the use of bitumen," he adds,
" I saw no vestige of it whatever on any remnant
of building ou the higher ascents, and therefore
drier regions." This view is indirectly confirmed
by Mr. Rich, who says that the tenacity of bituraen
lears no proportion to that of mortar. The use
»f bitumen appears to have been confined to the
Babylonians, for at Nineveh, Mr. Layard observes

SLIME

3061

{Nin. ii. 278), "bitumen and reeds were not em
ployed to cement the layers of bricks, as at Baby
lon; although both materials are to be found in
abundance in the immediate vicinity of the city.''
At Nimroud bitumen was found under a pavement
{Nin. i. 29), and "the sculpture rested simply
upon the platform of sun-dried bricks without any
other substructure, a raere layer of bitumen, about
an inch thick, having been placed under the plinth "
{Nin. <f Bab. p. 208). In his description of the
firing of the bitumen pits at Nimroud by his Arabs,
Mr. Layard falls into the language of our trans
lators. " Tongues of flame and jets of gas, driven
frora the burning pit, -shot through the murky
canopy. As the fire brightened, a thousand fan
tastic forms of light played amid the smoke. To
break the cindered crust, and to bring fresh sUme
to the surface, the Arabs threw large stones into
the spring  In an hour the bituraen
was exhausted for the time, the dense smoke grad
ually died away, and the pale light of the moon
again shone over the black slime pits " {Nin. tf
Bab. p. 202).
The bitumen of the Dead Sea is described by
Strabo, Josephus, and Pliny. Strabo (xvi. 763)
gives an account of the volcanic action by which
the bottoni of the sea was disturbed, and the
bitumen thrown to the surface. It was at first
liquefied by the heat, and then changed into a
thick viscous substance by the cold water of the
sea, .on the surface of which it floated in lumps
(jSwAoi)- These lumps are described by Josephus
{B. J. iv. 8, § 4) as of the size and shape of a
headless ox (corap. Plin. vii. 13). The semi-liquid
khid of bituraen is that which Pliny says is found
in the Dead Sea, the eiirthy in Syria about Sidon.
Liquid bitumen, such as the Zacynthian, the Baby
lonian, and the Apollonlatic, he adds, is known by
the Greeks by the name of pis-asphaltnm (corap.
Ex. ii. 3, LXX.). He tells us moreover that it was
used for cement, and that bronze vessels and statues
and the heads of nails were covered with it (Plin.
xxxv. 51). The bitumen pits by the Dead Sea are
described by the monk Brocardus {Descr. Terr.
Sanct. c. 7, in Ugolini, vi. 1044). The Arabs of
the neighborhood have perpetuated the story of its
formation as given by Strabo. " They say that it
forms on the rocks in the depths of the sea, and
by earthquakes or other submarine concussions is
broken off in large masses, and rises to the sur
face" (Thomson, Land avd Book, p. 223). They
told Burckhardt a similar tale. " The asphaltum
(^¦?"-»)t Hommar, which is collected bythe Arabs
of the western shore, is said to come from a moun
tain which blocks up the passage along the eastern
Ghor, and which is situated at about two hofirs
south of Wady Mofeb. The Arabs pretend that
it oozes up from fissures in the cliff, and collects iu
large pieces on the rock below, where the mass
gradually increases and hardens, until it is rent
asunder by the heat of the sun, with a loud explo
sion, and, falling into the sea, is carried by the
waves in considerable quantities to the opposLe
shores" {Trav. in Syria, p. 394). Dr. Thomson
tells us that the Arabs still call these pits by the
name bidret hUnimar, which strikingly resembles
the Heb. beirdth chemdr of Gen. xiv. 10 {Land
and Book, p. 224).
Strabo says that in Babylonia boats were made
of wicker-work, and then covered with bitumen to

3062

SLING

keep out the water (xvi. p. 743). In the sarae
way the ark of rushes or papyrus in which Moses
was placed was plastered over with a mixture of
bitumen and pitch or tar. Dr. Thomson remarks
(p. 224): "This is doubly interesting, as it reveals
the process by which they prepared the bitumen.
Tbe mineral, as found in this country, melts readily
enough by itself; but then, when cold, it is as
brittle as glass. It must be mixed with tiir while
melting, and in that way forms a hard, glossy wax,
perfectly impervious to water." We know from
Strabo (xvi. p. 764) that the Egyptians used the
bitumen of the Dead Sea in the process of em
balming, and Pliny (vi. 35) mentions a spring of
the same mmeral at Corambis in Ethiopia.
W. A. W.
SLING (5?b;7 : a^^vUvT) : funda ). The sling
has been in all ages the favorite weapon of the
shepherds of Syria (1 Sam. xvii. 40; Burckhardt's
Notes, i. 67), and hence was adopted by tbe Israel
itish army, as the most effective weapon for light-
armed troops. The Benjamites were particularly
expert in their use of it : even the left-handed could
"sling stones at an hair and not miss " (Judg. xx.
16; comp. 1 Chr. xii. 2). According to the Tar
gum of Jonathan and tbe Syriac, it was the weapon
of the Cherethites and Pelethites. It was advan
tageously used in .attacking and defenduig towns
(2 K. iii. 25; Joseph. B. J. iv. 1, § 3), and in
skirmishing (B. J. ii. 17, § 5). Other eastern
nations availed themselves of it, as the Syrians (1
Mace. ix. 11), who also invented a kind of artificial
sling (1 Mace. vi. 51); the Assyrians (Jud. ix. 7;
Layard's Nin. ii. 344); the Egyptians (Wilkinson,
i. 357); and tbe Persians (Xen. Auab. iii. 3, § 18).
The construction of the weapon hardly needs de
scription: it consisted of a couple of strings of

Egyptian Slingers. (Wilkinson.)
I 3CW or some fibrous substance, attached to a
li^athern receptacle for the stone in the centre,
which was termed the C(iph,a i. e. pan (1 Sam. xxv.
29 ) : the sling was swung once or twice round the
head, and the stone was then discharged by letting
go one of the strings. Sling-stones ** were selected
for their smoothness (1 Sam. xvii. 40), and were

a T\3. b 3?bp;''33«. = naj-ia.
^ other words besides those mentioned in vol. ii. p.
iW2f., are: —
1. "I3PP : 6 (nrfukeluv : Uusor (2 K. xxiv. 14),
Irbere c/tarash is also used, thus denoting a workman
if an inferior kind.

SMYRNA
recognized as one of the ordinary mmiitions of wai
(2 Chr. xxvi. 14). In action the stones were eithet
carried In a bag round the neck (1 Sam. xvii. 40),
or were heaped up at the feet of the combatant
(Layard's Nin. ii. 344) The violence with which
the stone was projected supplied a vivid image of
sudden and forcible removal (Jer. x. 18). The
rapidity of the whirling motion of the sling round
the head, was emblematic of inquietude (1 Sam.
xxv. 29, " the souls of thine enemies shall he whirl
round m the midst of the pan of a sling "); while
the sUng-stones represented tbe enemies of God
(Zech. ix. 15, "they shall tread under foot the
sling-stones"). The term margemdhe in Prov.
xxvi. 8 is of doubtfiil meaning; Gesenius (T/ies.
p. 1263) explains of "a heap of stones," as hi
the margin of tbe A. V., the LXX.; Ewald, and
Hitzig, of " a sling," as in the text. W. L. B.
• SLUICES. The word so translated (I?!?)
in Is. xix. 10 seems to have been entirely misap
prehended by our English translators, after the
example of some of the ancient versions. It means
hire, wages, and the last clause of the verse should
be rendered, " and all those who work for wages
shall be of a sad heart." On the origin of the
error and the true meaning, see Gesenius ( Comm.
ii. den Jesaia, in loc). E. D. C. R.
SMITH.'* The work of the smith, togethei
with an account of his tools, is explained in
Hakdiceaft, vol. ii. p. 992 f. A description of
a smith's workshop is given in Ecclus. xxxviii. 28
H. W. P.
SMYR'NA [Spvpva, myrrh: Smyi-na']. Tbe
city to which allusion is made in Eevelation ii.
8-11, was founded, or at least the design of found
ing it was entertained, by Alexander the Great soon
after the battle of the Granicus, in consequence of
a dream when he had lain down to sleep after the
fatigue of hunting. A temple in which two god.
desses were worshipped under the name of Nemeses
stood on the hUl, on the sides of which the new
town was built under the auspices of Antigonus
and Lysimachus, who carried out the design of the
conqueror after his death. It was situated twenty
stades from tbe city of the same name, which
after a long series of wars with the Lydiaiis had
been &ially taken and sacked by Halyattes. The
rich lands in the neighborhood were cultivated by
the inhabitants, scattered in villages about the
country (like the Jewish population between the
times of Zedekiah and Ezra), for a period which
Strabo, speaking roundly, calls 400 years. The
descendants of this population were reunited in the
new Smyrna, which soon became » wealthy and
important city. Not only was the soil in the
neighborhood eminently productive — so that the
vines were even said to have two crops of grapes -
but its position was such as to render it the natura)
outlet for the produce of the whole valley of the
Hermus. The Pramnean wine (which Nestor in
the Iliad, and Circe in the Odj'ssey, are represented
as mixing with honey, cheese, and meal, to make a

2. t^tD^ ^ ; (F^vpofcdiro? : maUeator : a hammerer:
a term applied to lubal-Caiu, Gen. lv. 22 (Ges. pp
630, 755; Saalschutz, Arch. Heb. i. 143). [Tubal
Caih.] 8. D71n: 6 TUTTTmi': he that smites (the amL
Dp 5, B^vpa, incus), Is. zli. 7.

SMYRNA
kind of salad dressing) grew even down to the time
of Pliny in the immediat* neighborhood of the
temple of the Mother of the gods at Smyrna, and
doubtless played its part iu the orgiastic rites both
of that deity and of Dionysus, each of whom in
the times of Imperial Rome possessed a guild of
worshippers frequently mentioned in the inscrip
tions as the lepd avvoSos pvariav prjTphs Sirrv-
\rjvris and the lepd a'vvoSos pvuTcov Kai rexviTuv
iitoviffov. One of the most remarkable of the
chefs d'ceum'e of Myron which stood at Smyrna,
representing an old woman intoxicated, illustrates
the prevalent habits of the population.
The inhabitants of New Smyrna appear to have
possessed the talent of successfully divining the
course of events in the troublous tinies through
which it was their destiny to pass, and of habitu
ally securing for themselves the favor of the victor
for the tirae being. Their adulation of Seleucus
and his son Antiochus was excessive. The title b
Bebs Kal ataT'l]p is given to the latter in an extant
inscription; and a temple dedicated to his mother
Stratonice, under the title of 'Ac^poSlrri Sroaro-

SMYRNA

3063

vikIs, was not only constituted a sauctuavy itself,
but the same right was extended in virtue of it to
the whole city. Yet when the tide turned, a tem
ple was erected to the city Rome as a divinity iu
time to save the credit of the Smyrnseans as zeal
ous friends of the Koman people. Indeed, though
history is silent as to the particulars, the existence
of a coin of Smyrna with the head of Mithridates
upon it, indicates that this energetic prince also, for
a time at least, must have included Smyrna within
the circle of his dependencies. However, during
the reign of Tiberius, the reputation of the Smyr
nseans for an ardent loyalty was so unsullied, that
on this account alone they obtained permission to
erect a temple, in behalf of all the Asiatic cities, to
the emperor and senate, the question having been
for some tirae doubtful as to whether their city or
Sardis [Sardis] — the two selected out of a crowd
of competitors — should receive this distinction.
The honor which had been obtained with such dif
ficulty, was requited with a proportionate adulation.
Nero appears in the inscriptions as aur^p roC
(Tvuiravros avOpcaireiov yevovs.

The Castie aud Port of Smyrna. (Laborde.)

It seems not impossible, that just as St. Paul's
illustrations in the Kpistle to the Corinthians are
derived from the Isthmian games, so the message
to the Church in Smyrna contains allusions to the
ritual of the pagan mysteries which prevailed in
that city. The story of the violent death and re-
viviscence of Dionysus entered into these to such
an extent, that Origen, in his argument against
Celsus, docs not scruple to quote it as generally ac
cepted by the Greeks, although by them interpreted
metaphysically (iv. 171, ed. Spencer). In this view,
the words 5 irpwros Kcd i> ^(rxoTOi-, &s iyevero
veKphs Hal ^^Tjaev (Rev. ii. 8) would come with
peculiar force to ears perhaps accustomed to hear
them in a very dii^erent application.** The same
may be said of Sc&a-o) (Toi rhv ffre<pavov tiJs C'"^!,
it having been a usual practice at Smyrna to pre
sent a crown to the priest who superintended the
religious ceremonial at the end of his year of office.
Several persons of both sexes have the title of ffrc'

(l>av7j<f>6poi in the inscriptions; and the context
shows tnat they possessed great social consider
ation. In the time of Strabo the ruins of the Old
Smyrna still existed, and were partially inhabited,
but the new city was one of the most beautiful in
all Asia. The streets were laid out as near aa
might be at right angles; but an unfortunate over
sight of the architect, who forgot to make under
ground drains to carry off the storm rains, occa
sioned the flooding of the town with the filth and
refuse of the streets. There was a large public li
brary there, and also a handsome building sur
rounded with porticoes which served as a museum.
It was consecrated as a heroiira to Homer, whom
the Smyrnseans claimed as a countryman. There
was also an Odeum, and a temple of the Olympian
Zeus, with whose cult that of the Eoraan emperors
was associated. Olyrapian games were celebrated
here, and excited great interest. On one of these

a This is the more likely &om the superstitious re- Sovtav Upov just above the city outside the walls, Id
rfard in which the SmyrnEeans held chance phrases which this' mode of divination was the ordmary one
{KXtfiiv*^) as a material for augury. They had a kAij- (Pausanias, ix. 11, § 7j.

3064 SMYRNA
occasions (in the year A. D. 68) a Rhodian youth
of the name of Artemidorus obtained greater dis
tinctions than any on record, under peculiar cir
cumstances, which Pausanias relates. He was a
pancratiast, and not long before had been beatfin
at Elis from deficiency in growth. But when the
Smyrnaean Olympia next came roimd, his bodily
strength had so developed that he was victor in
tbree trials on the same day, the first against his
former competitors at the Peloponnesiau Olympia,
the second with the youths, and the third with the
men ; the last contest having been provoked by a
taunt (Pausanias, v. 14, § 4). The extreme inter
est excited by the games at Smyrna may perhaps
account for the remarkable ferocity exhibited by
tbe population against the aged bishop Polycarp.
It was exactly on such occasions that wbat the pa
gans regarded as tbe unpatriotic and anti-social
spirit of the early Christians became most apparent;
and it was to the violent demands of the people as
sembled in the stadium that the Roman proconsul
yielded up the martyr. The letter of the Smyr-
uffians, in which the account of his martyrdom is
contained, represents the Jews as taking part with
the Gentiles in accusing bim as an enemy to the
state reUgion, — conduct which would be inconceiv
able in a sincere Jew, but which was quite natural
in those whom the sacred writer characterizes as
" a synagogue of Satan " (Rev. ii. 9).
Smyrna under tbe Romans was the seat of a con-
venlus juiidicus, whither law cases were brought
from the citizens of Magnesia on the Sipylus, and
also frora a Macedonian colony settled in the same
country under the name of Hyrcani. The last ai'e
probably the descendants of a military body in the
service of Seleucus, to whom lands were giveii soon
aftei" the building of New Smyrna, and who, to
gether with the Magnesians, seem to have had the
SmyriiEean citizenship then bestowed upon them.
The decree containing the particulars of this ar
rangement is among the marbles in the University
of Oxford. The Romans continued the system
which they found existing when the country passed
over into their hands.
(Stmbo, xiv. 183 ST.; Herodotus, i. 16; Tacitus,
Annal. iii. G3, iv. 56 ; Pliny, II. .V. v. 29 ; Boeckh,
Inscript. Crate. '* Smymjean Inscriptions," espe
cially Nos. 3163-3176; Pausanias, bca cit., and
iv. 21, § 5 ; Macrobius, Saturnalia, i. 18 ; [Prof
G. M. Lane, art. Smyrn.a, in Bibl. Sacj'a for Jan.
1858.]) J. W. B.
* Smyrna is about 40 miles from Ephesus, and
now connected with it by a raihoad. [Ephesus,
Amer. ed.] The Apostle John must often have
passed between the two places during his long life
at Ephesus. Paul's ministry at Ephesus (Acts xx.
31) belongs no doubt to an earlier period, before the
gospel had taken root in the other city. The spot
where Polycarp is supposed to have been burnt at
the stake is near the ruins of a stadium on the hill
oehind the present town. It may be the exact spot
or certainly near there, for it is the place where the
people were accustomed to meet for public specta
cles. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, touched at
Smyrna on his voyage to Rome, where he was
thrown to wild beasts in the amphitheatre, about
A. D. 108. Two of his extant letters were addressed
to Polycarp and to the Smyrnseans. Smyrna is the
only one of the cities of the seven churches which
retains any importance at tbe present day. Its
population is stated to be 150,000, nearly one half
of whom are Mohammedans. On the import of

SNOW
the Revelator's message to the Church at Smynu
may be mentioned Stier's Supplement to his He-
den Jesu, pp. 129-137, and Archbishop Trench's
Commentary on the Epistles to tlie Seven
Churches, pp. 132-152 (Amer. ed.). H.
SNAIL. The representative in the A. V. ol
the Hebrew words shablHl and chomet.
1. Shablul (v^vStS: KTipdii evrepov, Aq.;
xdpiov, Sym.: cera) occurs only in Ps. Iviii. 9
(8, A. v.): "As a shabl&l which melteth let (the
wicked) pass away." There are various opinions
as to the meaning of this word, tlie most curious,
perhaps, being that of Symmachus. The LXX.
read " melted wax," similarly the Vulg. The ren
dering of the A. V. (" snail ") is supported by the
authority of many of the Jewish Doctore, and is
probably correct. The Chaldee Paraphr. explains
shablul hyihiblala (M/^S'^jH), i. c. " a snail or a
slug," which was supposed by the Jews to con
sume away and die by reason of its constantly
emitting slime as it crawls along. See Schol. ad
Gem. Aloed Katon, 1, foi. 6 B, as quoted by Bo
chart (Hieroz. iii. 560) and Gesenius (Thes. p.
212). It is needless to observe tbat this is not a
zoological fact, though perhaps generally beheved
by the Orientals. The term shablOl would denote
either a Umax or a helix, which are particularly
noticeable for the slimy track tbey leave behind
tbem. 2. Chomet (Kpn : aavpa: facerta) occurs only
as the name of some unclean animal in I.ev. xi. 30.
The LXX. and Vulg. understand some kind of
lizard by the terra; the Arabic versions of Er-
penlus and Saadias give the chameleon as the ani
mal intended. Tbe Veneto-Greek and the Rab
bins, with whom agrees the A. V., render the
Heb. term by " snail." Bochart (H'leroz. ii.
500) has endeavored to show tbat a species of
small sand lizard, called cliulaca by the Arabs, is
denoted; but his argument rests entirely upon
some supposed etymological foundation, and proves
nothing at all. The truth of the matter is that
there is no evidence to lead us to any conclusion;
perhaps some kind of lizard may be intended, as
the two raost important old versions conjecture.
W. H.
* SNARES OF DEATH. The rendering
of the A. V. in 2 Sam. xxii. 6; Ps. xviii. 5, " The
sorrows of hell compassed me about, the snares of
death prevented me," needs correction and expla
nation. The passage may be thus translated : —
" The cords of the underworld (,Sheol) were cast
around me ;
The snares of death had caught me."
The psahnist describes himself, in metaphors bor.
rowed frora hunting, as caught m the toils of his
eneraies, and in imminent danger of his life. A.
SNOW [y^^. xt<!>v; Sp<(o-os in Prov. xxri. :
nix). The historical books of the Bible contam
only two notices of snow actually falling (2 Sam.
xxiii. 20; 1 Mace. xiii. 22), but the allusions in
the poetical books are so numerous that there can
be no doubt as to its being an ordinary occurrence
in the winter months. Thus, for instance, the
snow-storm is mentioned among the ordinary oper
ations of nature which are illustrative of the Cre
ator's power (Ps. cxlvii. 16, cxlviii. 8). We have
again, notice of the beneficial effect of snow on th«
soil (Is. lv. 10). Its color is adduced as ai' -mage

SNOW
of brilliancy (Dan. vii. 9; Matt, xxviii. 3; JRev. i.
14), of purity (Is. i. 18; Lam. iv. 7, in reference
to the white robes of the princes), and of the
blanching effects of leprosy (Ex. iv. 6; Num. xii.
10; 2 K. V. 27). In the book of Job we have ref
erences to the supposed cleansing effects of snow-
watei; (ix. 30), to the rapid melting of snow under
the sun's rays (xxiv. 19), and the consequent flood
ing of the brooks (vi. 16). The thick falling of the
flakes forms the point of coraparison in the obscure
passage in Ps. Ixviii. 14. The snow lies deep in the
ravines of the highest ridge of Lebanon, until the
summer is far advanced, and indeed never wholly
disappears (Robinson, Ui. 531) ; the suunnit of Her
mon also perpetually glistens with frozen snow
(Robinson, ii. 437). From these sources probably
the Jews obtained their supplies of ice for the pur
pose of coolhig their beverages in summer (Prov.
xxv. 13). The •' snow of Lebanon " is also used as
an expression for the refreshing coolness of spring
water, probably in reference to the stream of Si
loam (Jer. xviii. 14). Lastly, in Prov. xxxi. 21,
suow appears to be used as a synonym for winter or
cold weather. The liability to snow raust of course
vary considerably in a country of such varying alti
tude as Palestine. Josephus notes it as a peculiar
ity of the low plain of Jericho that it was warra
there even when snow was prevalent in the rest of
the country {B. J. iv. 8, § 3). At Jerusalem snow
often falls to the depth of a foot or more in Janu
ary and February, but it seldom lies (Robinson, i.
429). At Nazareth it falls more frequently and
deeply, and it has been observed to fall even in the
maritime plain at Joppa and about Carmel (Kitto,
Phys. HisL p. 210). A coraparison of the notices
of suow contained in Scripture and in the works of
niodern travellers would, however, lead to the con
clusion that raore fell in ancient times than at the
present day. At Damascus, snow falls to the depth
of nearly a foot, and lies at all events for a few
days (Wortabet's Syria, i. 215,. 236). At Aleppo
it falls, but never lies for raore than a day (Russell,
i. 69). W. L. B.
* The "time of harvest" (Prov. xxv. 13) an
swers to our sumraer rather than the auturan. At
Damascus snow procured from Anti-Lebanon is

SO

3065

kept for sale in the bazaars during the hot months,
and being mixed with the juice of pomegranates,
with sherbet and other drinks, forras a favorite bev
erage. " In the heat of the day," says Dr. Wil
son, " the Jews at Ilasbeed, in northern Galilee,
offered us water cooled with snow frora Jebel esh-
Sheikh, tbe modern Hermon "' {Lands ofthe Bibte,
ii. 186). "Countless loads of snow," says Dr.
Schulz {Jerusalem, eine Vorlesung, p. 10), "are
brought down to Beirui from the sides of Sannin,
one of the highest peaks of Lebanon, to freshen the
water, otherwise hardly fit to drink." (See also
Volney, Voyage en ^gypte et en Syrie, p. 262.)
The practice of using snow in this raanner existed
also among the Greeks and the Romans. The
coraparison in the proverb therefore is very signif
icant. The prompt return of the messenger with
good tiduigs refreshes the heart of the anxiously
expectant like a cooling draught in the heat ot
summer. H.
* SNUFF-DISH. [Censek; Fire-pan.]
SO (HID [Egypt. Sevech or Serec, an Egyptian
deity, Furst] : ^T]yd>p; [Alex. 2wa; Comp. Souii:]
Sua). , " So king of Kgypt" is once mentioned in
the Bible. Hoshea, the last king of Israel, evi
dently intending to become the vassal of Egypt,
sent messengers to bim, arid made no present, as
had been the yearly custom, to the king of As
syria (2 K. xvii. 4). The consequence of this
step, which seems to have been forbidden by the
prophets, who about this periud are constantly
warning the people against trusting in Egypt and
Ethiopia, was the iraprisonnient of Hoshea, the
taking of Saraaria, and the carrying captive of the
ten tribes.
So has been identified by different writers with
the fii-st and second kings of the Ethiopian XXYth
dynasty, called by JIanetho, Sabakon aud Sebi-
chos. It win be necessary to exaraine the chronol
ogy of the period in order to ascertain which ot
these identifications is the more probable. We
therefore give a table of the dynasty (see below),
including the third and last reign, that of Tirha
kah, for the illustration of a later article. [Tib-
HAKAII.]

TABLE OF DYNASTY XXV.

Eqtptian Data.

Hebkew Data.

B. 0.

Manetho.

Monuments.

Correctreigns?

B. U.

Events.

719707
695

Africanus. Yrs.
1 Sabakon 8
2. SebichSs 14
3. Tarkos 18

Eusebius. 1 Yrs.
1. Sabakon 12
2. Sebichos 12
3. Tarakos 20

Order.
1. SHEBEK .
2. SHEBETEK
3. TBHARKA

Highest Yr.
xn.
XXVI.

12
12
26

cir. 723 or TOS.
cir. 703 or 683?

Hoshea's treaty witn
So
War with Sennacherib,

The accession of Teharka, the Tirhakah of Scrip
ture, may be nearly fixed on the evidence of an
Apis-tablet, which states that one of the bulls Apis
was born in his 26th year, and died at the end of
the 20th of Psammetichus I. This bull lived more
than 20 years, and the longest age of any Apis
stated is 26. Supposing the latter duration, which
irould allow a short interval between Teharka and
193

Psammetichus II., as seems necessary, the acces
sion of Teharka would be B. u. 695. If we assign
21 years to the two predecessors, the commence
ment of tbe dynasty would be B. c. 719. But it
is not certain that their reigns were continuous.
The account which Herodotus gives of the war of
Sennacherib and Sethos suggests tbat Tirhakah
was not ruling in Egypt at the time of the destruo-

3066

SOAP

tion of the Assyrian army, so that we may either
coiyecture, as Dr. Hincks has done, that the reign
af Sethos followed that of Shebetek and preceded
that of Tirhakah over Egypt {Journ. Sac. Lit.,
January, 1853), or else that Tirhakah was king of
IJthiopia while Shebetek, not the same as Sethos,
ruled in Egypt, the former hypothesis being far the
more probable. It seems impossible to arrive at
any positive conclusion as to the dates to which
the mentions in the Bible of So and Tirhakah
refer, but it must be remarked that it is difficult
to overthrow the date of b. c. 721, for the taking
of Samaria.
If we adopt the earher dates So must correspond
to Shebek, if the later, perhaps to Shebetek ; but
if it should be found that tbe reign of Tirhakah is
dated too high, the former identification might still
be held. The narae Shebek is nearer to the He
brew name than Shebetek, and if the Masoretic
points do not faithfully represent the original pro
nunciation, as we might almost infer from the con
sonants, and the name was Sewa or Seva, it is not
very reraote from Shebek. We cannot account for
the transcription of the LXX.
From Egyptian sources we know nothing more
of Shebek than that he conquered and put to death
Bocchoris, , the sole king of the XXIVth dynasty,
as we learn frora Manetho's list, and that he con
tinued the monumental works of the Egyptian
kings. There is a long inscription at El-Karnak
in which Shebek speaks of tributes from " the king
of the land of Khala (Shara)," supposed to
be Syria. (Brugsch, Bistoire d'^gypte, i. 244.)
This gives sorae slight confirmation to the identi
fication of this king with So, and it is likely that
the founder of a new dynasty would have en
deavored, like Shishak and Psammetichus I., the
latter virtually tbe founder of the XXVIth, to re
store tbe Egyptian supremacy in the neighboring
Asiatic countries.
The standard inscription of Sargon in his palace
at Khursabad states, according to M. Oppert, that
after the capture of Samaria, Hanon king of Gaza,
aud Sebech sultan of Egypt, met the king of As
syria in battle at Kapih, Raphia, and were defeated.
Sebech disappeared, but Hanon was captured.
Pharaoh king of Egypt was then put to tribute.
{Les InscriptioTis Assyriennes des Sargonides, etc.
p. 22.) This statement would appear to indicate
that either Shebek or Shebetek, for we cannot lay
great stress upon the seeming identity of name
with the former, advanced to the support of Hoshea
and his party, and being defeated fied into Ethiopia,
leaving the kingdom of Egypt to a native prince.
This evidence favors the idea that the Ethiopian
kings were not successive. R. S. P.
SOAP (rr^lia, "12 : TrSa- herba, h. borith).
The Hebrew term borith does not in itself bear the
specific sense of soap, but is a general terra for any
substance of cleansing qualities. As, however, it
appears in Jer. ii. 22, in contradistinction to nether,
which undoubtedly means " nitre," or mineral
alkali, it is fair to infer that borith refers to vege
table alkali, or sorae kind of potash, which forras
one ofthe usual ingredients in our soap. Numer
ous plants, capable of yielding alkalies, exist in
Palestine and the surrounding countries; we may
notice one named Hubeibeh (the salsola kali of
botanists), found near the Dead Sea, with glass
like leaves, the ashes of which are called el-Kuli
fruin their strong alkaline properties (Robinson,

SOCH
Bibl. Researches, i. 505); the Ajram, found neat
Sinai, which when pounded serves as a substitute
for soap (Robinson, i. 84); the gilloo, or "soap
plant" of Egypt (Wilkinson, ii. 106); and the
heaths in the neighborhood of Joppa (Kitto's Phys.
Hist. p. 267). Modern travellers have also noticed
tbe Saponaria officinalis and the Mesembryan
themum nodifoj-um, both possessing alkaline prop
erties, as growing in Palestine. From these sources
large quantities of alkaU have been extracted in
past ages, as the heaps of ashes outside Jerusalem
and Nablus -testify (Robinson, iii. 201, 299), and
an active trade in the article is still prosecuted 'ffith
Aleppo in one direction (Russell, i. 79), and Arabia
in another (Burckhardt, i. 66). We need not as
sume that the ashes were worked up in the form
familiar to us ; for no such article was known to the
Egyptians (Wilkinson, i. 180). The uses of soap
among the Hebrews were twofold : (1 ) for cleansing
either the person (Jer. ii. 22; Job ix. 30, where
for " never so clean," read " with alkali ") or t)ie
clothes; (2) for purifying metals (Is. i. 25, where
for " purely," read " as through alkali " ). Hitzig
suggests that borith should be substituted for beri^,
"covenant," in Ez. xx. 37, and Mai. iii. 1.
W. L. B.
SO'CHO C^^^W {branches]: S.^x^v- Socho),
1 Chr. iv. 18. Probably the town of Socoh in
Judah, though which of tbe two cannot be ascer
tained. It appears from its mention in this list,
that it was colonized by a man or a place named
Heber. Tbe Targum, playing on the passage after
the custom of Hebrew writers, interprets it as re
ferring to Moses, and takes the names Jered, Soco,
Jekuthiel, as titles of hira. He was "the Rabba
of Soco, because he sheltered (^30) the house of
Israel with his virtue." G.
SO'CHOH {row {branches] : [Rom. S.w
X^\\ ''Alex. 2ox Aoj: Soccho). Another form of
the name which is raore correctly given in the A. V.
as Socoh, but which appears therein under no less
than six forms. The present one occurs in the list
of King Solomon's commissariat districts (1 K. iv.
10), and is therefore probably, though not certainly,
the town in the Shefelah, that being the great corn-
growing district of the country. [Socoh, 1.]
SO'COH i'nO'^XD [see above]). The name
of two towns in the tribe of Judah.
1. (2a&)x<^' Alex. 2wxw: Socho.) In the dis
trict of the Shefelah (Josh. xv. 35). It -is a
raember of the sarae group with Jarmuth, Azekah,
Shaaraim, etc. The same relative situation is im
plied in the other passages in which the place
(under slight variations of form) is mentioned. At
Ephes-dammim, between Socoh and Azekah (1 Sam.
xvii. 1), the Philistines took up their position for
the memorable engagement in which their champion
was slain, and the wounded fell down in the road
to Shaaraim (ver. 52). Socho, Adullam, Azekah,
were among the cities in Judah which Rehoboam
fortified after the revolt of the northern tribes
(2 Chr. xi. 7), and it is raentioned with others of
the original list as being taken by the Philistines
in the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr. xxviii. 18).
In the time of Eusebius and Jerome ( Onomast.
"Soccho") it bore the name of Socchoth, and lay

a The text of the Vat. MS. is so corrupt as to pr*
vent any name being rocoguized.

SOD
oetween 8 and 9 Roman miles from Eleutheropolis,
on the road to Jerusalem. Paula passed through it
on her road irom Bethlehem (?) to Egypt (Jerome,
Ep. Paulce, § 14). As is uot unfrequentiy the case
in this locality, there were then two villages, an
upper and a lower (Onomast.). Dr. Robinson's
identification of Socoh with esh-Shuweikeh a in the
western part of the mountains of Judah is very
probable (Bibl. Res, ii. 21). It lies about 1 mile to
the north ot the track from Beit JUrrin to Jerusa
lem, between 7 and 8 English miles from the fornier.
To the north ot it within a couple of miles is Ynr-
muk, the ancient Jarmuth. Damun, perhaps Ephes-
dammim, is about the same distance to the east,
and although Azekah and Shaaraim have not been
identified, there is no doubt that they were in this
neighborhood. To complete the catalogue, the
ruhis — which must be those of tbe upper one of
Eusebius's two villages — stand on the southern
slope of the Wady es-Sumt, which with great prob
ability is the Valley of Elah, the scene of Goliath's
death. (See Tobler, .Ifte Wanderung, p. 122.)
No traveller appears to have actuaUy visited the
spot, but one of the few who have approached it
describes it as " nearly half a mile above the bed
of the Wady, a kind of natural terrace covered
with green fields (in spring), and dotted with gray
ruins " (Porter, Handbk. p. 249 a).
From this village probably came " Antigonus of
Soco," who lived about the commencement of the
3d century B. c. He was remarkable for being the
earliest Jew who is known to have had a Greek
name; for being the disciple of the great Simon,
surnamed the Just, whom he succeeded as president
of the Sanhedrim ; for being the master of Sadok
the reputed founder of tbe Sadducees; but most
truly remarkable as the author of the following
saying which is given in the Mishna (Pirke Aboth,
i. 3) as the substance of his teaching, " Be not ye
like servants who serve their lord that they raay
receive a reward. But be ye like servants who
serve their lord without hope of receiving a reward,
but in the fear of Heaven."
Socoh appears to be mentioned, under the name
of Sochus, in the Acts of the Council of Nice,
though its distance from Jerusalem as there given
is not sufficient for the identification proposed above
(Reland, Pal. p. 1019).
2. (S<t!X<^ ' Alex. So!X<" '¦ Socolh. ) Also a town
of Judah, but in the mountain district (Josh. xv.
48).'' It is one of the first group, and is named
in company with Anab, Jattir, Eshtemoh, aud
others. It has been discovered by Dr. Robinson
(Bibl. Res. i.494) in the Wady ei-A'AafiZ, about 10
miles S. W. of Hebron; bearing, Hke the other
Socoh, the name of esh-Shuweikeh, and with Anab,
Semoa, ^Attir, within easy distance of it. G.
* SOD, the preterite of seethe ; " And Jacob
Bod pottage," Gen. xxv. 29 ; and see also 2 Chr.
xxxv. 13. H.
* SODDEN, past participle of " seethe " (Ex.
xii. 19). [SoD.j H.
SOTil (yiyD [a confidant, favorite]: SovSl;

SODOM

3067

a Shuweikeh is a diminutive of Shaukeh. as Mureikhy
of Murkhah, etc.
6 The Keri to this passage reads *lD1tZ?, i. «. Soco.
c It is perhaps doubtful whether the name had not
ftlso the form HtS'ip, Sed6mah, which appeara in
Gen. ^ 19. The sutflx' may in tbis case be only the

[Vat. 2ou56i :] Sodi). The father of Gaddiel. the
spy selected from the tribe of Zebulun (Nura. xiii.
10). SOD'OM (D^:p,*' i. e. Sedora [see note be
low]: [tA] StiSo^a; Joseph, j} -rrSXts XoBop.ir&v:
Sodoma. Jerome vacillates between singular and
plural, noun and adjective. He employs all the
following forms, Sodomam, in Sodomis, Sodomor-um,
Sodomce, Sodomitce). One of the most ancient
cities of Syria, whose name is now a synonym for
the raost disgusting and opprobrious of vices. It
is comraonly mentioned in connection with Gomor
rah, but also with Admah and Zeboira, and on one
occasion (Gen. xiv.) with Bela or Zoar. Sodom
was evidently the chief town in the settlement. Its
king takes tiie lead and the city is always named
first in the list, and appears to be the most im
portant. The four are first named in the ethno
logical records of Gen. x. 19, as belonging to the
Canaanites: "The border of the Canaanite was
from Zidon towards Gerar unto Azzah: towards
Sedora and Amorah and Admah and Tseboim unto
Lasha." The meaning of which appears to be that
the district in the hands of the Canaanites formed
a kind of triangle — the apex at Zidon, the south
west extremity at Gaza, the southeastern at Lasha.
Lasha, it may be remarked in passing, seems most
probably located on the Wady Zurka Main, which
enters the east side of the Dead Sea, about nine
miles from its northern end.
The next mention of the name of Sodom (Gen
xiii. 10-13) gives more certain indication of the
position of the city. Abram and Lot are standing
together between Bethel and Ai (ver. 3 ), taking, as
any spectator from that spot may still do, a survey
of tbe land around and below them. Eastward of
thera, aud absolutely at their feet, lay the " circle
of Jordan." It was in all its verdant glory, that
glory of which the traces are still to be seen, and
which is so strangely and irresistibly attractive to a
spectator from any of the heights in the neighbor
hood of Bethel — watered hy the copious supplies
of the Wady KeU, the Ain Sultan, the Ain Duk,
3Jid the other springs which gush out from the
foot of the mountains. These abundant waters
even now support a mass of verdure before they are
lost in the light, loamy soil of the region. But at
the tirae when Abram and Lot beheld thera, they
were husbanded and directed by irrigation, after
the manner of Egypt, till the whole- circle was one
great oasis — " a garden of Jehovah " (ver. 10). In
the midst of the garden tbe four cities of Sodom,
Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboira appear to have
been situated. To these cities Lot descended, and
retainrag his nomad habits amongst the more civ
ilized manners of the Canaanite settlement "pitched
his tent" by^* the chief of the four. At a later
period he seems to have been living within the
walls of Sodom. It is necessary to notice how
absolutely the cities are identified with the district.
In the subsequent account of their destruction
(Gen. xix.), the topographical terms are employed
with all the precision which is characteristic of
such early times. " The CUccdr," the " land of the

ri'of motion, but the forms adopted by LXX. and
Vulg. favor the belief that it may be part cf the
name. ^ Tbe word is l^, « at," not " towards," as iu tu«
A. y. Luzzatto, vicino a; LXX. kaK-qvatnv ev %oS6
fXOl<S,

3068 SODOM
Ciccar," " Ciccar of Jordan," recurs again and
again both in chaps, xiii. and xix., and " the cities
ofthe Ciccar^' is the almost technical designation
ofthe towns which were destroyed in the catastrophe
related in the latter chapter. The mention of the
Jordan is conclusive as to the situation of the dis
trict, for the .Jordan ceases where it enters tbe
Dead Sea, and can have no existence south of that
point. But, in addition, there is the mention of
the eastward direction from Bethel, and the fact
of the perfect manner in which the district north of
the Lake can be seen from tbe central highlands
of the country on which Abram and Lot were
standing. And there is stiU further corroboration
in Deut. xxxiv. 3, where "the Ciccdr" is directly
connected with Jericho and Zoar, coupled with
the statement of Gen. x. already quoted, which ap
pears to place Zoar to the north of Lasha. It
may be well to remark here, with reference to what
will be 'blamed further on, that the southern half
of the Dead Sea is invisible from this point; not
merely too distant, but shut out by intervening
heights. We have seen what evidence the earliest . records
afford of the situation of tbe five cities. Let us
now see what they say of the nature of that catas
trophe by wbich they are related to have been de
stroyed. It is described in Gen. xix. as a shower
of brimstone and fire frora Jehovah, fi-om the skies
— " The Lord rained upon Sodom, and upon Go
morrah, brimstone and fire frora the Lord out of
heaven ; and he overthrew those cities, and all the
plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that
which grew upon the ground" . . . "and lo!
the smoke of the land went up like the smoke of a
furnace." "It rained fire and brimstone from
heaven " (Luke xvii. 29). However we may inter
pret tbe words of the earliest narrative one thing is
certain, that the lake was not one of the agents in
the catastrophe. Furtlier, two words are used in
Gen. xix. to describe what happened: n^TlttJn,
to throw down, to destroy (vv. 13, 14), and "TTpn,
to overturn (21, 25, 29). In neither of these is the
presence of water — the submergence of the cities
or of the district in which they stood — either
mentioned, or implied. Nor is it implied in any
of the later passages in which the destruction of
the cities is referred to throughout the Scriptures.
Quite the contrary. Those passages always speak
of the district on which the cities once stood, not
as submerged, but as still visible, though desolate
and uninhabitable. " Brimstone, and salt, and
burning . . . not sown, nor beareth, nor any
grass groweth therein " (Deut. xxix. 23). " Never
to be inhabited, nor dwelt in from generation to
generation ; where neither Arab should pitch tent
nor shepherd make fold " (Is. xiii. 20). " No man
abiding there, nor son of raan dwelling in it" (Jer.
xlix. 18; 1. 40). "A fi'uitful land turned into
saltness" (Ps. cvii. 34). " Overthrown and burnt"
(Amos iv. 11). " The breeding of nettles, and
saltpits, and a perpetual desolation " (Zeph. ii. 9).

u Josephus regarded this passage as his main state
ment of the event. See Ant. i. 11, § 4.
6 These passages are g^vcn at length by De Saulcy
(Narr. i. 448).
c « The only expression which seems to imply that
the rise of the Dead Sea was within historical times, is
that contained in Gen. xiv. 3 — ' the Vale of Siddim,
Irhich is the Salt Sea.' But- this phrase may merely

SODOM
"A waste land that smoketh, and plants bearing
fruit which never cometh to ripeness" (Wisd. i.
7). "Land lying in clods of pitch and heaps oi
ashes"' (2 Esdr. ii. 9). " The cities turned into
ashes " (2 Pet. ii. 6, where their destruction by fire
is contrasted with the Deluge).
In agreement with this is £he statement of Jo-
sepbus {B. J.a iv. 8, § 4). After describing the
lake, he proceeds : '* Adjoining it is Sodomitis, once
a blessed region abounding in produce and in cities,
but now entirely burat up. They say that it was
destroyed by lightning for the impiety of its inhab
itants. And even to this day the relics of the Di
vine fire, and the traces of five cities are to be seen
there, and moreover the ashes reappear even in the
fruit." In another passage {B. J. v. 13, § 6) he
alludes incidentally to the destruction of Sodom,
contrasting it, like St. Peter, with a destruction by
water. By comparing these passages with Ant. i.
9, it appears that Josephus believed the vale of
Siddim to have been submerged, and to have been
a distinct district frora that of Sodora in which the
cities stood, which latter was still to be seen.
With this agree the accounts of heathen writers,
as Strabo and Tacitus; who, however vague their
stateraents, are evidently under the belief that the
district was not under water, and that the remains
of the towns were still to be seen.*
From all these passages, though much is obscure,
two things seem clear.
1. That Sodom and the rest of the cities of the
plain of Jordan stood on the north of the Dead
Sea. 2. That neitlier the cities nor the district were
submerged by the lake, but that the cities were
overthrown and the land spoiled, and that it may
still be seen in its desolate condition.
When, however, we turn to raore modem views,
we discover a remarkable variance from these con
clusions. 1. The opinion long cuiTent, that the five cities
were submerged in the lake, and that their remains
— walls, columns, and capitals — might be still dis
cerned below the water, hardly needs refutation
after the distinct statement and the constant impli
cation of Scripture, Reland {PaL p. 257) showed
more than two centuries ago how baseless was such
a hypothesis, and how completely it is contradicted
by the terms of the original narrative. It bas since
been assaulted with great energy by De Saulcy.
Professor Stanley {S. tf P. p. 289) has lent his
powerful aid in the same durection,^ and the theory,
which probably arose frora a confusion between the
Vale of Siddim and the plain of the Jordan, will
doubtless never again be listened to. But
2. A more serious departure from the terms of
the ancient history is exhibited in the prevalent
opinion that tbe cities stood at the south end of
the Lake. This appears to have been the belief
of Josephus and Jerome (to judge by their state
raents on the subject of Zoar). It seems to have
been universally held by the mediaeval historians
and pilgrims, and it is adopted by modern topog-

mean that the region in question bore both names ; as
in the similar expressions (vv. 7 and 17)  * En Mish-
pat, which is Kadesh ; ' < Shaveh, which is tho King's
Dale.' It should, however, be observed that the word
' Emek,' translated c vale,' is usually employed for a
loug broad valley, such as in this connection would
naturaUy mean the whole length of the Dead Sea "
(Stanley, S. §¦ P. p. 289 note).

SODOM
¦aphers, probab.y without exception. In the words
Df one of the most able and careful of modern trav-
sllers. Dr. Robinson, " The cities which were de-
Btroyed must have been situated on the south end
ofthe lake as it then existed " (Bibl. lies. ii. 188).
This is also the belief of M. De Saulcy, except with
regard to Gomorrah; and, in fact, is generally ac
cepted. Thei'e are several grounds for this belief;
but the main point on which Dr. Robinson rests
his argument is the situation of Zoar.
(a.) " Lot," says he, in continuing the passage
just quoted, " fled to Zoar, which was 7iear to
Sodom ; and Zoar lay almost at the southern end
of the present sea, probably in the mouth of the
Wady Kerak, where it opens upon the isthmus of
the peninsula. The fertile plain, therefore, which
Lot chose for himself, where Sodom was situated
... lay also south of the lake ' as thou comest
unto Zoar ' " (Bibl. Res. ibid.).
Zoar is said by Jerome to have been "the key
of Moab." It is certainly the key of the position
which we are now examining. Its situation is raore
properly investigated uiidei- its own head. [Zoak.]
It will there be shown that grounds exist for be
lieving that the Zoar of Josephus, Jerome, and the
Crusaders, which probably lay where Dr. Kobinson
places it, was not the Zoar of Lot. On such a
point, however, where the evidence is so fnigment-
ary and so obscure, it is impossible to speak other
wise than with extreme diffidence.
In the mean time, however, it may be observed
that the statement of Geu. xix. hardly supports the
inference relative to the position of these two places,
which is attempted to be extorted from it. For,
assuming that Sodom was where all topographers
seem to concur in placing it, at the salt ridge of
Usdum, it will be found that the distance between
that spot and the mouth of the Wady Kerak,
where Dr. Robinson proposes to place Zoar, a dis
tance which, according to the narrative, was trav
ersed by Lot and his party in the short twilight of
an eastern morning (Gen. xix. 15, 23), is no less
than 16 miles."
Without questioning that the nai'rative of Gen
xix. is strictly historical throughout, we are not at
present in possession of sufBcient knowledge of the
topography and of the names attached to the sites
of this remarkable region, to enable any profitable
conclusions to be arrived at on this and the other
kindred questions connected with the destruction of
the five cities.
(b.) Another consideration in favor of placing the
cities at tbe southern end of the lake is the exist
ence of similar names in that direction. Thus, the
name Usdum, attached to the remarkable ridge of
salt which lies at the southwestern corner of tbe
lake, is usually accepted as the representative of
Sodom (Robinson, Van de Velde, De Saulcy, etc.,
etc.). But there is a, considerable difference be-
tween the two words DID and f. {\m \ , and at

SODOM

306S

« 51 De Sauliy bas not overlooked this' consider
ation {Narrativfi, i.^2). His own proposal to place
Zoar at Zuweirah is however inadmissible, for reasons
Btated under the head of Zoar. If Usdum be Sodom,
'hen the site which has most claim to be identified
nith the site of Zoar is the Tell um-Zoghal, which
itauds between the north end of Khashm Usdum. and
Ihe Lake. But Zoar, the cradle of Moab and Ammou,
uuat surely have been ou the east side cf the Lake.
* It " surely " was for other reasons than thai it

.\ny rate the point deserves further investigation
The narae 'Amrah (!(w*x), which is attached tc
a valley among the mountains south of Masada
(Van de Velde, ii. 99, and Map), is an alraost ex
act equivalent to the Hebrew of Gomorrha b ('Am
orah). The name Dra'a {\£.^0), and much
more strongly that of Zoghal (J^»'0, recall
Zoar. (c.) A third argument, and perhaps the weight
iest of the three, is the existence of the salt moun
tain at the south of the lake, and its tendency tc
split off in columnar masses, presenting a rude re
semblance to the human form. But with reference
to this it may be reraarked that it is by no means
certain that salt does not exist at other spots round
the lake. In fact, as we shall see under the head
of Zoar, Thietmar (A. d. 1217) states that he say
the pillar of Lot's wife on the east of Jordan at
about a mile from the ordinary ford; and wherever
such salt exists, since it doubtless belongs to the
same formation as the Khashm Usdum, it will pos
sess the habit of splitting into the sarae shapes as
that does.
It thus appears that on the situation of Sodom
no satisfactory conclusion can at present be come
to. On the one hand the narrative of Genesis
seems to state positively that it lay at the northern
end of the Dead Sea. On the other hand the long-
continued tradition and the names of existing spots
seem to pronounce with alraost equal positiveness
that it was at its southern end. How the geolog
ical argument may affect either side- of the propo
sltion cannot be decided in the present condition cf
our knowledge.
Of the catastrophe which destroyed the city and
the district of Sodom we can hardly hope ever to
forra a satisfactory conception. Sorae catastrophe
there undoubtedly was. Not only does the narra
tive of Gen. xix. expressly state that the cities were
miraculously destroyed, but all the references to the
event in subsequent writers in the Old and New
Testaraents bear witness to the sarae fact. But
what secondary agencies, besides fire, were eraployed
in the accoraplishmeut of the punishraent, cannot
be safely determined in the alraost total absence of
exact scientific description of the natural features
of the ground round the lake. It is possible that
when the ground has been thoroughly examined by
competent observers, something may be discovered
which raay throw light on the narrative. Until
then, it is useless, however tempting, to speculate.
But even this is almost too much to hope for; be
cause, as we sball presently see, there is no warrant
for imagining that the catastrophe was a geologiciil
one, and in any other case all traces of action must
at this distance of time huve vanished.
It was formerly supposed that the overthrow of
Sodora was caused by the convulsion which forraed

was " the cradle " of these tribes. [Zoar, Amer.
ed.] S. W.
b The G here is employed by the Greeks for the
difficult guttural ain of the Hebrews, which they were
unable to pronounce (comp. Gothaliah for Athaliah,
etc.). This, however, would not be the casein Arabic,
where she ain is very common, and therefore De Saul«
cy's iJentification of Goumran with Gomorrah falls to
the ground, as far at least, as etymology is con
cerned.

3070

SODOM

Ihe Dead Sea. This theory is stated by Dean
Milman in his Uist&ry ofthe Jeios (i. 15, 16) with
great spirit and clearness.** " The valley of the
Jordan, in which the cities of Sodom, Gomorrah,
Adma, and Tseboim were situated, was rich and
highly cultivated. It is most probable that the
river then flowed in a deep and uninterrupted chan
nel down a regular descent, and discharged itself
into the eastern gulf of the Eed Sea. The cities
stood ou a soil broken and undermined with veins
of bitumen and sulphur. These inflammable sub
stances, set on fii'e by lightning, caused a tremen
dous convulsion ; the water-coui'ses, both the river
and the canals by which the land was extensively
irrigated, burst their banks; the cities, the walls
of which were perhaps built frora the combustible
materials of the soil, were entirely swallowed up by
the fiery inundation ; and the whole valley, which
had been compared to Paradise, and to the well-
watered cornfields of the Nile, became a dead and
fetid lake." But nothing was then known of the
lake, and the recent discovery of the extraordinary
depression of its surface below the ocean level, and
its no less extraordinary depth, has rendered it
impossible any longer to hold such a theory. The
changes which occurred when the limestone strata
of Syria were split by that vast fissure which forms
the Jordan Valley and the basin of the Salt Lake,
must not only have taken place at a time long
anterior to the period of Abraham, but must have
been of such a nature and on such a scale as to
destroy all animal life far and near (Dr. Buist, in
Trans, of Bombay Geogr. Soc. xii. p. xvi.).
Since the knowledge of these facts has rendered
the old theory untenable, a new one has been
broached by Dr. Kobinson. He admits that " a
lake must have existed where tbe Dead Sea now
lies, into which the Jordan poured its waters long
before the catastrophe of Sodom. The great de
pression of the whole broad Jordan '\'^alley and of
the northern part of tbe Arabah, the direction of
its lateral valleys, as well as the slope of the high
western district towards the north, all go to show
that the configuration of this r^ion in its main
features is coeval witb the present condition of the
surface of the earth in general, and not the effect
of any local catastrophe at a subsequent period.
.... In view of the fact of the necessary ex
istence of a lake before the catastrophe of Sodom ;
the well-watered plain toward the south, in which
were the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and not
far off the sources of bitumen ; as also the peculiar
character of tbis part of the lake, where alone
asphaltum at the present day makes its appearance
— I say, in view of all these facts, tbere is but a
step to the obvious hypothesis, that the fertile plain
is now in part occupied by the southern bay lying
south of the peninsula; and that, by some convul
sion or catastrophe of nature connected with the
miraculous destruction of the cities, either the sur
face of this plain was scooped out, or the bottom of
the lake heaved up so as to cause the waters to
overflow and cover permanently a larger tract than
formerly" {BibL Res. ii. 188, 189).

a This cannot be said of the account given by
FuUer in his Pisgah-sigfit of Palestine (bk. 2, ch. 13),
which seems to combine every possible mistake with
an amount of bad taste and unseemly drollery quite
ftstonishing even in Fuller.
h This is the iccount of the Koran (xi. 84); " We

SODOM
To this very ingenious theoiy two objections
may be taken. (1.) The "plain of the Jordan,"
in which the cities stood (as has been stated ) can
hardly have been at the south end of the lake,
and (2.) The geological portion of the theory does
not appear to agree with the facts. The whole of
the lower end of the lake, including the plain which
borders it on the south, has every uppearance not
of having been low^ered since the formation of the
valley, but of undergoing a gradual process of fiU
ing up. This r^ion is in fact the delta of the
very large, though irregular, streams which drain
the highlands on its east, west, and south, and
have drained them ever since the valley was a val
ley. No report by any observer at all competent
to read the geological features of the district will
be found to give countenance to the notion that
any disturbance has taken place within the his
torical period, or that an^-thing occurred there since
the country assumed its present general conforma
tion beyond tbe quiet, gradual change due to the
regular operation of the ordinary ^euts of nature,
which is slowly filling up the chasm of the valley
and the lake with the washings brought down by
the torrents from the highlands on all sides. The
volcanic appearances and marks of fire, so often
mentioned, are, so far as we have any trustworthy
means of judging, entirely illusory, and due to
ordinary, natural causes.
But in fact the narrative of Gen. xix. neither
states nor implies that any convulsion of the earth
occurred. The word haphac, rendered in the A. V
"overthrow," is the only expression which sug
gests such a thing. Considering the character of
the whole passage, it may be inferred with almost
absolute certainty that, had an earthquake or con
vulsion of a geological nature beeu a main agent
in the destruction of the cities, it would have been
far more clearly reflected in the narrative than it
is. Compare it, for example, with the forcible
language and the crowded images of Amos and
the Psalmist in reference to such a visitation. If
it were possible to speculate on materials at once
so slender aud so obscure as are furnished by that
narrative, it would be more consistent to suppose
that the actual agent in the ignition and destruc
tion of the cities had been of the nature of a tre-
raendous thunderstorra accompanied by a discharge
of meteoric stones.''
The name Sedom has been interpreted to mean
buniing " (Gesenius, Thes.^^ p. 939 a). This is
possible, though it is not at all certaui, since Ge
senius himself hesitates between tbat interpretation
and one which identifies it with a similar Hebrew
word meaning " vineyard," and Fiirst {Handwb. ii.
72), with equal if not greater plausibility, con
nects it with A root meaning to inclose or for
tify. Simonis again {Onomast. p. 363) renders it
'abundance of dew, or water," Hiller {Onomast.
p. 176) "fruitful land," and Chytraeus "mystery."
In fact, like most archaic nanies, it raay, by a little
ingenuity, be made to mean almost anything. Pro
fessor Stanley {S. f P. p. 289) notices the firat of
these interpretations, and comparing it with the

turned those cities upside down and we rained upon
them stones of baked clay."

c Taking

Dip = nanU\ and t^at

250DOM
" Phlegreean fields" in the Campagnii at Kome,
says tbat " the name, if not derived frora the sub
sequent catastrophe, shows that the marks of fire
had already passed over the doomed valley." Ap
parent " marks of fire " there are all over the neigh
borhood of the Dead Sea. They have misled many
travellers into believing them to be the tokens of
conflagration and volcanic action; and in the same
manner it is quite possible that they originated the
name Sedom, for they undoubtedly abounded on
the shores of the lake long before even Sodom was
founded. But there is no warrant for treating
those appearances as the tokens of actual conflagra
tion or volcanic action. They are produced by the
gradual and ordinary action of the atmosphere on
the rocks. They are familiar to geologists In raany
other places, and they are found in other pai'ts of
Palestine where no fire has ever been suspected.
The miserable fate of Sodom and Gomorrah is
held up as a warning in numerous passages of the
Uld and New Testaments. By St, Peter and St.
Jude it is made " an ensaraple to those that after
should Uve ungodly." and to those "denying the
only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ" (2
Pet. ii. 6; Jude, 4-7). And our Ix)rd himself,
when describing the fearful punishraent that will
befaU those that reject his disciples, says that "it
shaU be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah
iu the day of judgment than for that city " (Mark
vi. 11: comp. Matt. x. 15).
The name of the Bishop of Sodora — " Severus
Sodomorura " — appears amongst the Arabian prel
ates who signed the acts of the fii'st Council of
Niceea. Reland remonstrates against the idea of
the Sodom of tbe Bible being intended, and sug
gests that it is a mistake for Zuzumaon or Zo-
raima, a see under the metropolitan of Bostra
{PaL p. 1020). This M. De Saulcy {Narr. I 454)
refuses to adrait. He explains it by the fact that
many sees stiU bear the names of places which have
vanished, and exist only in name and memory,
such as Troy The Coptic version to which he
refers, in the edition of M. Lenormant, does not
throw any light on the point. G.
* The theory which is propounded in this arti
cle respecting the catastrophe of tbe cities and the
submergence of the district, is examined in the
articles, Sea, The Salt (p. 2897 f.) and Siddim,
The Vale of (p. 3032 f., Amer. ed.). The argu
ment which would locate the cities north of the sea,
is refuted, so far as it relates to Zoar, in the article
Zoar (Amer. e4-). For the reason above named,
that Zoar is "the key of the position," its site
determines that of Sodom, which was so near it
that ib could be reached by flight between the early
dawn and the broad dayUght after the sun had
risen over the mountains, and it was exposed to
the same catastrophe, being saved by fepeclal inter
position. If Zoar was in the district in which
we have placed it, Sodom was south, and not
north, of the sea. But on this point we offer
further and cumulative evidence relating especially
to Sodom.
The etymological import of the word ^33 is
not settled. In an able article on " The Site of
^odom and Gomorrah," published in the Journal
^ Sacred Literature, April, 1866 (pp. 36-57),
•jeorge Warington, Esq., offers foroible reasons
for translating the term, "hollow," and for apply
ing it to the entire crevasse, of which the valley
tkf the Jordan and the Dead Sea are but a part.

SODOM

^07]

In this view he is supported by the analogous facu
that ihe entire valley was designated by Jerome
and Eusebius as the Auhn = the ravine, and thai
it is now called by the Arabs the Ghor = the de
pression. The argument from the Scripture nan-ative (Gen
xiii. ) given in this article is, in substance, this :
that Abraham and Lot, standing ou some eminence
between Bethel and Ai, surveyed the fruitful plain
of the Jordan on the east — the region north of
the sea being visible from that point, while what
is now the southern end of the sea would be iu-
visible; and that Lot selected the plain thus visible
below him as his residence, and descending to it
pitched his tent near Sodom, one of the cities
planted amid its verdure.
The scene of the conference between Abraham
and Lot is not stated by the sacred writer, but
would seem to have been near the spot above
named. The inference stated is also natural, and
if there were no special reason to question it, it
would pass unchallenged. But the location of the
cities is not so definitely given as to compel us to
accept the inference. Nor is it fairly implied in
the narrative that Lot's view took in the whole
valley; he surveyed a section of it, which in its
fruitiulness represented the whole. The argument
assumes that tiiere has been no essential change in
the plain and the sea since that day, except what
would result in the former from disuse of the arti
ficial irrigation which then made it so fruitful.
But the phrase " before the Lord destroyed," etc.,
plainly indicates a marked change hi consequence
of the event; and there certainly is nothing in the
Scripture narrative inconsistent with the general
belief that the catastrophe of the cities, which
destroyed also "the country," wrought a great
and general change in "the land of Sodom and
Gomorrah," thus turned "into ashes." If the
cultivated plain or valley, with or without a. lake
of fresh water in a part of the -present bed of the
sea, then extended as far as the present southern
Umit of the sea and adjacent plain, and the cities
were in that section of it, the fact would not con
flict with the sacred record. If the passage cited
(Genr. xiii.) does not countenance this view, neither
does it contradict it. The host of writers, ancient
and modern, who have firmly held it, have never
felt that this passage offered any objection to it.
Of the reasons which we now offer additional to
the site of Zoar, which in itself is conclusive, the
first two are conceded above.
1. The naraes suggestive of identity with the
original sites which adhere to the localities around
the southern end of the sea, and of which we have
no certain traces around the northern end.
2. The existence and peculiar features of the
salt mountain south of the sea, with no correspond
ing object north of it, which is certainly remark
able in connection with the sacred narrative, and
irresistibly associates the flight of Lot and the fate
of his wife, with this locality.
3. The living fountains and streams of fresh
water which flow into the plain south of the sea,
correspondent with its original features, if it was
the southern extremity of the plain of Jordan which
Lot surveyed, " well-watered everywhere, before the
Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the
garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, as thou
comest unto Zoar" (Gen. xiii. 10). This is a
feature which Dr. Robinson specially noted : "Even
to the present day more Uving streams flow into

3072 30D0M
the Ghdr, at the south end of the sea, from wadies
of the eastern mountains, than are found so near
together in aU Palestine besides" {Phys. Geog.
p. 234). Mr. Tristram's observations of the soil
below the surface, both at the foot of Jebel Usdum
and in the salt marsh, confirm the theory that the
whole region was once fruitful. He says: "We
coUected specimens of the soil at the depth of two
feet from the surface, where it is a rich greasy
loam, but strongly impregnated with salt." "At
the depth of eighteen inches in the plaui, the soil
was a fat, greasy loam " {Land of Israel, pp. Z2-2^
335). Before this rich aUuvial soil was covered
with the saline incrustation of the marsh and water
of tbe lagoon, we have an image of the fertility
and beauty of tbe whole expanse, in Mr. Tristrara's
description of the present luxuriance of the oasis on
the eastern border: " AU teemed with a prodigality
of life. It was, in fact, a reproduction of the oasis
of Jericho, in a far more tropical climate, and with
yet more lavish supply of water. . . . For
three miles we rode through these rich groves,
revelUng in the tropical verdure and swarming
ornithology of its labyrinths " {Ibid. p. 336).
4. The tesliraony of unbroken tradition, ancient
and raodern. Strabo, Josephus, Tacitus, Galen,
Jerome, Eusebius, " mediseval historians and pil
grims, and modern topographere, without excep
tion," — is the formidable array which Mr. Grove
proposes to turn aside by an interpretation, plausi
ble in itself, of a siijgle passage of Scripture,
which ofiers no bar to their unanimous verdict,
and which seems to us even to require it. (The
reader wiU find these cited in the Bibl. Sacra,
xxv. 147.) The whole series, of course, does not
araouut to positive proof, but it is so universal and
unvarying that it has not a Uttle value as cor
roborative evidence.
5. There remains a combined topographical and
historical argument which to us appears conclusive.
No event has perhaps occurred on the globe more
fitted to leave a permanent scar on its surface than
tbe conflagration of the cities of the plain and the
plain together. Of no recorded occurrence except
perhaps the Deluge, might we reasonably look for
clearer traces. It was a catastrophe so dire that
it became a standing comparison for signal and
overwhelming destruction, and would naturally
leave a perpetual mark on the valley which bore
it. This impression, which every reader would
receive from the original narrative, is confirmed by
every succeeding notice of it aud of the locality.
The event occurred aliout nineteen centuries before
Christ, and the fertUe and populous plain was at
once made desolate and tenantless. This is the
record : " Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and
upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord
nnt of heaven; and he overthew those cities, and
all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities,
and that which grew upon the ground " (Gen. xix.
24, 25). About four and a half centuries later,
Moses, warning the Israelites against apostasy, ad
monishes thera that the judgments of God for
idolatry would make their country so desolate that
a visitor would find its condition portrayed in these
words: " ^nd the whole land thereof is brimstone
and salt and burning, that it is not sown, nor
beareth, nor any grass groweth therein; like the
overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and
Zeboira, which the Lord overthrew in his anger and
in his w^ath " (Deut. xxix. 23). The above is a
picture of the site o' Sodom as it appeared at

SODOM
that period. The testimony which exhibits it stiD
deserted and desolate in the subsequent centuries,
as furnished by the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah,
and Zephaniah, by the apocryphal books of Esdras
and the \A'isdoni of Solomon, and by the ancient
authors, Strabo, Josephus, and Tacitus, together
with the New Testament allusions, are partiaUy
quoted above, and more fiiUy in BibL Sacra, xxv.
146-148. Ko historic proof can be more cleiup
and complete, than that the site of Sodom, from
the time of its destruction to the Christian era
and subsequently, was a blasted region, an utter
desolation. With these historical and physical deUneations
before us, it is only necessary to call attention to
the aspect of the two sites to settle the question
of identity. The south eud of the sea and its
surroundings present at this day such an appeai--
ance as the Scriptural statements would lead us to
expect. The entire southwest coast aud adjacent
territory from above Sebbeh round to the fertile
border of the Ghor es-Sdfieh on the extreme south
east, relieved at a single point by the verdure of
the smaU oasis of Zuweirah, is, and has been, from
the tirae of Sodom's destruction, the image of
enthroned desolation. The sombre wildness and
desolateness of the whole scene: the tokens of vol
canic action, or of some similar natural convul
sion ; the Sodora mountain, a mass of crystallized
salt, furrowed into fantiistic ridges and pUlars; the
cni^gy sunburnt precipices and ravines on the
west; the vaUey below Usdum, with the mingled
sand, sulphur, and bituraen, which have been
washed down the gorges; the marehy plain of
the adjacent Sabkah, with its briny drainings,
"destitute of every species of vegetation;" the
stagnant sea, with its border of dead driftwood;
the sulphurous odors; "the sterility and death
like soUtude" (Robinson); "desolation, elsewhere
partial, here supreme;" "nothing in the Sahara
raore desolate" (Tristram); "the unmitigated
desolation" (Lynch); "scorched and desolate
tract" (W.); "desolation whicb, perhaps, cannot
be exceeded anywhere upon the face of the earth "
(Grove); " utter and stern desolation, such as the
mind can scarcely conceive" (Porter); these and
the like features impress aU visitors as a fit me
morial of such a catastrophe as the sacred writers
have recorded. \^'hether we accept or not certain
locaUties as particular sites, the Unit ensemble is a
most striking confirmation of the narrative.
The more detailed explorations of the region
confirm the impression which its general appear
ance conveys. iMr. Tristram, who bestowed upon
the whole locality a careful scientific examination,
thinks that he discovered in tbe deposits of the
Wady Mdhawat, a broad deep ravine at the north
end of Jebel Usdum, tiuces of the agency whicB
destroyed the cities. He says: —
" There are exposed on the sides of the wady,
and chiefly on the south, large masses of bitumen^
mingled with gravel. These overlie a thin stratum
of sulphur, which again overlies a thick stratum
of sand, so strongly impregnated with sulphur
that it yields powerful fumes on being sprinkled
over a hot coal. Many great blocks of the bitu
men have been waslied down the gorge, and Ue
scattered on the plain below, along with huge
boulders and other traces of tremendous floods.
The phenomenon coramences about half a mUe
frora where the wady opens up on the plain, aud
may be traced at irregular intervals for nea; ly «

SODOM
mile further up. The bitumen has many small
water-worn stones and pebbles embedded in it."
"Again, the bitumen, unUke that which we pick
up ou the shore, is strongly impregnated with sul
phur, and yields an overpowering sulphurous odor;
above aU, it is calcined, and beta's the marks of
having been subjected to extreme heat."
" I have a great dread of seeking forced cor
roborations of Scriptural statements from ques
tionable physical evidence, for the skeptic is apt to
imagine that when he bas refuted the wrong argu
ment adduced in support of a Scriptural stateraent,
he has refuted the Scriptural stateraent itself; but,
so far as I can understand this deposit, if there be
any physical evidence left of the catastrophe which
destroyed Sodora and Goniorrab, or of similar
occurrences, we have it here. Tbe whole appear
ance points to a shower of hot sulphur and an
irruption of bitumen upon it, which would nat
urally be calcined and impregnated by its fumes;
and this at a geologic period quite suttsequent to
all the diluvial and aUuvial action of which we
have such abundant evidence. The vestiges remain
exactly as the last relics of a snow-drift remain in
spring — an atmospheric deposit. The catastrophe
must have been since the formation of the wady,
since the deposition of the marl, and while the
water was at its present level; therefore probably
during tbe historic period" {Land of Israel, pp.
354-357). Our only surprise is, that the inteUigent ob
server who finds these probable tokens "of the
catastrophe which destroyed Sodora and Gomor
rah" in the very locaUty near which on other
grounds we think these cities raust have stood,
should himself place them full fifty miles distant.
He has proved to his own satisfaction that the
sraoke whicli Abrahara saw ascended from the
northern end of the sea; but if his interesting
discovery is reliable, there must have been some
" smoke," as well sis " extreme heat," at the south
ern end. If in these and similar features we have
not physical evidence of the visitation which de
stroyed Sodom, we have just such material phe
nomena as we should naturaUy look for in a terri
tory which had been the theatre of such a catas
trophe, and whose subsequent condition had been
described in the passages wliich have been cited. «
VVe turn now to the other proposed site, the
country north of the sea, and we find neither
naraes of the places nor traces of the events em
braced in the Scriptural record. Instead of a
territory scathed as by hot thunderbolts, we find a
district teeming with all tbe elements of fruitful
ness. In the very year that Moses describes the
site of the destroyed cities as brimstone and salt
and burning, Joshua brings the hosts of Israel to
the territory which Mr. Grove proposes as the site
of these cities, and finds there forests of palm and
fields of barley, "old corn and parched corn," sup
plies of grain and fruit for the multitude, which
enable them to dispense with the manna. Through
the succeeding centuries important cities stood on
this territory. It was here that the assembled
lation, with sficrificial offerings and rejoicings, in
vested Saul with the kingdom (1 Sam. xi. 15);
ind here were gathered schools 'of the prophets (2
K. ii. 5, iv. 38). Josephus gives glowing deserip-

SODOMITES

307a

a * We have private advices thafc Mr. Tristram haa
¦vUuquishel the theory respecting the site of the

tions of the exuberant productiveness of this very
district, speaks of the variety of its trees and herbs,
and refers to the revenue which it yielded {Ant. xv,
4, § 2), describes it as the garden of Palestine,
and even calls it a "divine region" {B. J. iv. 8,
§3). This plain or valley is now marked by a
belt of luxuriant vegetation along the sweet waters
of the river, whUe the interval between it and the
highlands on each side, though aiid in the dry
season from the great heat, and presenting frora
this cause broad, desolate strips, is yet susceptible
of irrigation and high cultivation. Not a token
do we find here either of the awful catastrophe in
which the guilty cities, with the plain on which
they stood, were consumed, or of the perpetual
desolation which subsequently brooded over the
scene. We find the opposite; and in contrast with
the descriptions which we have given of traveUers
who have visited the district south of the sea we
quote the expression of the latest visitor to the
district north of it who refers to " the verdant
meadows on each side" (Porter, Bashan, p. 112).
Can there be a question which of these two sites
is, and which is not, that of the historic Sodom?
This combined topographical and historical argu
ment against the pretensions of tbe new site, and
in favor of the identity of the old, appears to us as
conclusive as it weU could be with reference to an
event which occurred nearly four thousand years
ago, decisive in itself, and jointly with other proofs
potent enough to silence discussion. S. W.
SOD'OMA (2{JSo/.ta: Sodoma). Rom. ix. 29.
In this place alone the Authorized Version has fol
lowed the Greek and Vulgate form of the weU-
known name Sodum, which forms the subject of
the preceding article. The passage is a quotation
from Is. i. 9. The form eraployed in the Penta
teuch, and occasionaUy in the other books of the
A. V. of 1611 is Sodonie, but the narae is now
universally reduced to Sodom, except in the one
passage quoted above. G.
SOD^OMITES (tt?lLj; t^Wl^ [seebelow]:
scortaior eff'eminatas). This word does not denote
the inhabitants of Sodora (except only in 2 Esdr.
vii. 36) nor their descendants; but is employed in
the A. V. of the Old Testaraent for those who
practiced as a reUgious rite the aborainable and un
natural vice frora which the inhabitants of Sodom
and Gomorrah have derived their lasting infamy.
It occurs in Deut. xxni. 17 ; IK. xiv. 24, xv. 12,
xxii. 46; 2 K. xxui. 7; and Job xxxvi. 14 (mar
gin). The Hebrew word Kadesh is said to be
derived from a root kadash, which (strange as it
may appear) nieans "pure," and thence "holy."
The words sacer in Latin, and "devoted" in our
language, have also a double meaning, though the
subordinate signification is not so absolutely con
trary to the principal one as it is in the case of
kadesh. "This dreadful 'consecration,' or rath ei
desecration, was spread in different forms over Phoe
nicia, Syria, Phrygia, Assyria, Babylonia. Ash
taroth, the Greek Astarte, was its chief object."
It appears also to have been established at Rome,
where its victims were called GalU (not from Gallia,
but frora the river GaUus in Bithynia). There is
an instructive note on the subject in Jerome's
Comm. on Hos. iv. 14.

cities to which he had published bis assent, and non
accepts the other view. S. W.

3074

SODOMITISH SEA

The translators of the Septuagint, with that
iuxiety to soften and conceal obnoxious expressions,
which has been often noticed as a characteristic of
iheir version, have, In all cases but one, avoided
rendering Kadesh by its ostensible meaning. In
the first of the passages cited above they give a
double translation, wopveixov and r€\ia'K6fj.€vos
(initiated). In the second ffvv^GO-fjLOs (a con
spiracy, perhaps reading "ntt^fl). In the third
rets reXerds (sacrifices). In the fourth the Vat.
MS. omits it, and the Alex, has rov evSiT/AAay-
uevov. In the fifth rav Kadrjcip- ^nd in the
sixth uTrh ayyeXtov.
There is a feminine equivalent to Kadesh, name
ly, Kadeshah. This is found in Gen. xxxviu. 21,
22; Deut. xxui. 17, and Hos. iv. 14. In each of
these cases it throws a new light on the passage
to remember that these women were (if the expres
sion may be allowed) tbe priestesses of a religion,
not plying for hire, or merely instruments for grat
ifying passing lust. Such ordinary prostitutes
are caUed by the name zonah.°^ The "strange
women" of Prov. u. 16, &c., were foreigners, za-
roth. G.
SOD'OMITISH SEA, THE {Mare Sodo
miticum), 2 Esdr. V. 7; meaning the Dead Sea.
It is the only instance in the books of the Old
Testament, New Testament, or Apocrypha, of an
approach to the inaccurate modern opinion which
connects the salt lake with the destruction of Sod
om. The narae may, however, arise here siraply
from Sodom having been situated near the lake. G.
* SOLDIER. [Arms; Army.]
SOL'OMON (nb'brr, Shelomdh {peaceful,
pacific] : :^aKa)fid)v, LXX'. ; 2oAo/ic6y, N- T. and
Joseph.: Salomo).
1. Name. — • The changes of pronunciation are
worth noticing. We lose something of the dignity
of the name when it passes from the measured
Btateliness of the Hebrew to the auapest of the
N. T., oi; the tribnich of our common speech.
Such changes are perhaps inevitable wherever a
name beeoraes a household word in successive gen-
CTations, just as that of Friedereich (identical in
raeaning with Solomon) passes into Frederick.
The feminine form of the word (2aAc6/xn) retains
the long vowel in the N. T. It appears, though
with an altered sound, in tbe Arabic Sidehnaun.
II. Materials. — (1.) The coraparative scanti
ness of historical d'lVi for a life of Solomon is itself
significant. While that of David occupies 1 Sam.
xri.-xxxi. ; 2 Sam. i.-xxlv. ; 1 K. i., ii. ; 1 Chr.
x.-xxix. ; that of Solomon fiUs only the eleven
chapters 1 K. i.-xi., and the nine 2 Cbr. i.-ix.
The compUers of those books felt, as by a true
inspiration, that the wanderings, wars, and suffer
ings of David were better fitted for the instruction
of after ages than the magnificence of his son.''
They manifestly give extracts only from larger
works which were before thera, " The book of the
Acts of Solomon" (1 £. xi. 41); "The book of

SOLOMON
Nathan the prophet, the book of Ahijah the Shi-
lonite. the visions of Iddo the seer" (2 Chr. ix
29). Those which they do give, bear, with what
for the historian is a disproportionate fullness, on
the early glories of his reign, and speak but Uttle
(those in 2 Chr. not at all) of its later sins and
misfortunes, and we are consequently unable to
follow the annals of Solomon step by step.
(2.) Ewald, with his usual fondness for assigning
different portions of each book of the 0. T. to a
series of successive editors, goes through the pro
cess here with much ingenuity, but without any
very satisfactory result {Geschichte, iii. 259-263).
A more interesting inquiry would be, to whieh of
the books above named we may refer the sections
which the compilers have put together. We shaU
probably not be far wrong in thinking of Nathan,
far advanced in life at the coramencement of the
reign, David's chief adviser during the years in
which he was absorbed in the details of the Tem
ple and its ritual, himself a priest (1 K. iv. 5 ui
//ei., comp. Ewald, iii. 116), as having written the
account of the accession of Solomon and the dedi
cation of the Temple (1 K. i.-viii. 66; 2 Chr. i.-
viii. 15). The prayer of Solomon, so fully repro
duced, and so obviously precomposed, may have
been written under bis guidance. To Ahijah the
Shilonite, active at the close of the reign, alive
some time after Jeroboam's accession, we may as
cribe the short record of the sin of Solomon, and
of the revolution to which he hin-/elf had so largely
contributed (1 K. xi.). From the hook of the Acts
of Solomon carae probably the misceUaneous facts
as to the commerce and splendor of his reign (1 K.
ix. 10-x. 29).
(3.) Besides the direct history of the 0. T. we
may find some raaterials for the life of Solomon in
the books that bear his name, and in the psalms
which are referred, on good grounds, to his time,
Ps. ii., xiv., kxii., cxxvii. Whatever doubts may
hang over the date and authorship of Ecclesiastes
and tbe Song of Songs, we may at least "see in
thera the reflection of tlie thoughts and feelings of
his reign. If we accept the latest date which re<
cent criticism has assigned to them, they elabo
rately work up materials which were accessible to
the writers, and are not accessible to us. If we
refer them iu their substance, foUowing the judg
ment of the most advanced Shemitic scholars, to
the Solomonic period itself, they then come before
us with all the freshness and vividness of contem
porary evidence (Renan, Hist, des Langues Semit.
p. 131 ).c
(4.) Other materials are but very scanty. The
history of Josephus is, for the most part, only a
loose and inaccurate paraphrase of the O, T. narra
tive. In hira, and in the raore erudite among early
Christian writers, we find some fi-agments of older
history not without their value, extracts from ar
chives alleged to exist at Tyre in tbe first century
of tbe Christian era, and from the Phcenician his
tories of Menander and Dius (Jos. AnL viii. 2, § 0;
5, § 3), frora Eupolemos (Euseb. Prcep. Evang. ix.

a In 1 K. xxii. 88 the word zonotk is rendered
"armor." It should be "harlots" — "and the har
lots washed themselves there " (early in the morning,
as was their custom, adds Procopius of Oaza). The
VXX. have rendered this correctly.
6 The contrast presented by the Apocryphal litera
ture of Jews, Christians, Mohammedans, abounding iu
t«eudonymou5 works and legends gathering); round

tbe name of Solomon {injra), but having hardly any
connection with David, is at once striking and io*
struclivG. c The weight of Reuan's judgment is however di*
minished by the fact that ho had previously assigned
li^cclesiastes to the time of Alexander the Orcut {Cant
des Cant, p. 102)

SOLOMON
10), from Alexander Polyhistor, Menander, and
Ldutus (Clem. Al. Strom, i. 21). Writers such as
these were of course only compilers at second
hand, but they probably had access to some earUer
documents which have now perished.
(5.) The legends of later oriental literature wiU
claim a distinct notice. All that they contribute
to history is the help tbey give us in realizing the
impression made by the colossal greatness of Solo
mon, as iu earher and later times by that of Nim
rod and Alexander, on the minds of men of many
countries and through many ages.
HI. Education. — (1.) The student of the life
of Solomon must take as his starting-point the
circumstances of his birth. He was the child of
David's old age, tbe last>-born of aU his sons (1 Chr.
ui. 5).'^ Hia mother had gained over David a two
fold power: first, as the object of a passionate,
though guilty love ; and next, as the one person to
whom, in his repentimGe,he could make something
Uke restitution. The months that preceded his
birth were for the conscience-stricken king a time
of self-abasement. The birth itself of the child
who was to replace the one that had been smitten
must have been looked for as a pledge of pardon
and a sign of hope. The feelings of the king and
of his prophet-guide expressed themselves in the
naraes with which they welcomed it. The yearn
ings of the "man of war," who "had shed much
blood," for a time of peace — yearnings which
had shown themselves before, when he gave to his
third son the name of Ab-aalom (= father of
peace), now led him to give to the new-born infant
the name of Solomon (Sbfilomoh = the peaceful
one). Nathan, with a marked reference to the
meaning of the king*s own name (= the darling,
the beloved one), takes another form of the same
word, and joins it, after the growing custom of the
time, with the narae of Jehovah. David had been
the darling of his people. Jedid-jah (the name
was coined for the purpose) should be the darUng
of the Lord. (2 Sam. xii. 24, 25.* See Jedi-
diah; and Ewald, iii. 215.)
(2.) Tbe influences to which the childhood of
Solomon was thus exposed must have contributed
largely to determine the character of bis after
yeara. The inquiry, what was the education which
.ended in such wonderful contrasts, — a wisdom
then, and perhaps since, unparalleled, — a sensual
ity Uke that of Louis ^ XV., cannot but be instruc
tive. The three influences which must have en-
-tered most largely into that education were those
of his father, his mother, and the teacher under
whose charge he was placed from his earliest in
fancy (2 Sam. xU. 25).
(3.) The fact just stated, that a prophet-priest
was made the special insti-uctor, indicates tbe
king's earnest wish that this child at least should
be protected against the evils which, then and af
terwards, showed themselves in his elder sons, and
be worthy of the name he bore. At first, appar
ently, there was no distinct purpose to make him
his heir. Absalom is stUI the king's favorite son

SOLOMON 3075
(2 Sam. lin. 37, xviii. 33) — is looked on by th<
people as the destined successor (2 Sara. xiv. 13,
XV. 1-6). The death of Absalom, when Solomor;
was about ten years old, left the place vacant, and
David, passing over the claims of all his elder sons,
those by Bathsheba included, guided by the influ
ence of Nathan, or by his own discernment of tbe
gifts and graces which were tokens of the love of
Jehovah, pledged his word in secret to Bathsheba
that be, and no other, should be the heir (1 K. i.
13). The words which were spoken somewhat
later, express, doubtless, the purpose which guided
him throughout (1 Chr. xxviii. 9, 20). His son's
Ufe should not be as his own had been, one of hard
ships aud wars, dark crimes and passionate repent
ance, but, from first to last, be pure, blameless,
peaceful, fulfilling the ideal of glory and of right
eousness, after which he hiraself had vainly striven.
The glorious visions of Ps. ixxii. may be looked on
as the prophetic expansion of those hopes of his
old age. So far, all was well. But we may not
ignore the fact, that the later years of David's Ufe
presented a change for the worse, as well as for tbe
better. His sin, though forgiven, left behind it
the Nemesis of an enfeebled wiU and a less gener
ous activity. The liturgical element of religion
becomes, after the first passionate outpouring of
Ps. U., unduly predominant. He Kves to amass
treasures and materials for the Temple which he
raay not build (1 Chr. xxii. 5, 14). He plans with
his own bands all the details of its architecture (1
Chr. xxviii. 19). He organizes ou a scale of elab
orate magnificence aU the attendance of the priest
hood and the choral services of the Levites (1 Chr.
xxiv., XXV.). But, meanwhUe, his duties as a king
are neglected. He no longer sits in the gate to do
judgment (2 Sam. xv. 2, 4). He leaves the sin of
Amnon unpunished, " because he loved him, for he
was his first-bom " (LXX. of 2 Sam. xiu. 21).
The hearts of the people faU away from hira. First
Absalom, and then Sheba, become formidable rivals
(2 Sara. XV. 6, xx. 2). The history of the number
ing of the people (2 Sam. xxiv., 1 Chr. xxi.) im
plies the purpose of some act of despotism, a poU-
tax, or a conscription (2 Sam. xxiv. 9 makes the
latter the more probable), such as startled all his
older and more experienced counsellors. If, in
" the last words of David " belonging to this period,
there is the old devotion, the old hungering after
righteousness (2 Sam. xxiu. 2-5), there is also —
first generally {ibid. 6, 7), and afterwards resting
on individual offenders (1 K. ii. 5-8) — a more
passionate desire to punish those who had ^Tonged
hira, a painful recurrence of vindictive thoughts for
offenses which he had once freely forgiven, and
which were not greater than his own. We cannot
rest in the belief that his influence over bis son's
character was one exclusively for good.
(4.) In eastern countri^, and under a system
of polygamy, the son is more dependent, even than
elsewhere, on the character of the mother. Tha
history of the Jewish monarchy furnislies many
instances of that dependence. It recognizes it ia

a The narrative of 2 Sam. xii. leaves, it is true, a
difi'erent impression. On the other hand, the order of
tbe names in 1 Chr. iii. 5, is otherwise unaccountable.
Josephu.s distinctly states ifc {Ant. vii. 14, § 2).
h According to tbe received interpretation of Prov.
cxzi. 1, his mother also contributed an ideal name,
t«muel ( = to God, Beodatus), the dedicated oue (comp.
Ewald Poet Biick. ir 173). On this hypothesis the

reproof was drawn forth by the king's intemperance
and sensuality. In contrast to what his wives were,
she draws the picture of what a pattern wife ought to
be (Pineda, i. 4).
e Here also the epithet " le bien-aim^ " reminds us,
no less than Jedidiah, of the terrible irony of Histor>
for those who abuse gifts and forfeit a vocatioo.

,076

SOLOMON

che care with which it records the name of each
monarch's mother. Nothing that we know of
Bathsheba leads us to think of her as likely to
mould her son's mind and heart to the higher
forms of goodness. She offers no resistance to the
king's passion (Ewald, in. 211). She makes it a
stepping-stone to power. She is a ready accom
plice in the scheme by which her sharae was to
have been concealed. Doubtless she too was sor
rowful and penitent when the rebuke of Nathan
was foUowed by her child's death (2 Sam. xii. 24),
but the after-history shows that the grand-daugh
ter of Ahithophel [Bathsheba] had inherited not
a little of his character. A wiUing adulteress, who
had become devout, but had not ceased to be am
bitious, could hardly be more, at the best, than
the Madame de Maintenon of a king, whose con
trition and piety were rendering him unlike his
former self, unduly passive in the hands of others.
(5.) What was Ukely to be the influence of the
prophet to whose oare the education of Solomon
was confided? {Hd). of 2 Sam. xii. 25.) We
know, beyond aU doubt, that he could speak bold
and faithful words when they were needed (2 Sara.
vii. 1-17, xii. 1-14). But this power, belonging
to raoments or messages of special inspiration, does
not involve the permanent possession of a clear
sighted wisdom, or of aims uniformly high; and
we in vain search the later years of David's reign
for any proof of Nathan's activity for good. He
gives himself to the work of writing the annals of
David's reigu (1 Chr. xxix. 29). He places his
own sons in the way of being the companions and
counseUors of the future king (1 K. iv. 5). The
absence of his name from the history of the " num
bering," and the fact that the census was followed
early in the reign of Solomon by heavy burdens
and a forced service, alraost lead us to the conclu
sion that the prophet had acquiesced "^ in a measure
which had ih view the magnificence of the Temple,
and that it was left to David's own heart, returning
to its better impulses (2 Sara. xxiv. 10), and to an
older and less courtly prophet, to protest against
an act which began in pride and tended to oppres
sion.* (6.) Under these influences the boy grew up.
At the age of ten or eleven he must ha^-e passed
through the revolt of Absalom, and shared his
father's exile (2 Sam. xv. 16). He would be
taught aU that priests, or Levites, or prophets had
to teach : music and song ; the Book of the Law
of the Ijot^, in such portions and"in such forras as
were then current; the " proverbs ofthe ancients,"
which his father had been wont to quote (1 Sam.
xxiv. 13); probably also a Uterature which has
survived only in fragments; the Book of Jasher,
the upright ones, the heroes of the people; the
Book of the Wars of the Lord ; the wisdom, oral
or written, of the sages of his own tribe, Heman,
and Ethan, and Calcol, and Darda (1 Chr. ii. 6),
who contributed so largely to the noble hymns of
this period (Ps. Ixxxvin., Ixxxix.), and were incor
porated, probably, into the choir of the Tabernacle
(Ewald, Ui. 355). The growing intercourse of
' Israel with the Phoenicians would lead naturally to
a wider knowledge of the outlying world and its

a Josephus, with his usual inaccuracy, substitutes
Nathan for Gad in his narrative {Ant. vii. 13, § 2).
6 We regrefc fco find ourselves unable to follow Ewald
hi his high estimate of the old age of David, and,
soosequently, of Solomon's education.

SOLOMON
wonders than had faUen to his father's lot. Ad
mirable, however, as all this was, a shepherd-life,
like his father's, furnished, we may believe, a better
education for the kingly calling (Ps. Ixxviii. 70, 71 j.
Born to the purple, tiiere was the inevitable risk of
a selfish luxury. Cradled in liturgies, trained to
think chiefly of the magnificent "palace " of Je
hovah (1 Chr. xxix. 19) of which he was to be the
buUder, there was the danger, first, of an aisthetic
formalism, and then of ultimate indifference.
IV. Accession. — (1.) The feeblene^ of David's
old age led to an attempt which might have de
prived Solomon of the throne his father destined
for him. Adonijah, next in order of birth to Ab
salom, Uke Absalom " was i* goodly man " (1 K.
i. 6), in fuU maturity of years, backed by the oldest
of the king's friends and counseUors, Joab and
Abiathar, and by aU the sons of David, who looked
with jealousy, the latter on the obrious though not
as yet declared preference of the latest-bom, and
the forraer on the gi'owing influence of the rival
counsellors who were most in the king's favor,
Nathan, Zadok, and Benaiah. FoUowing in the
steps of Absalom, he assumed the kingly state of a
chariot and a body-guard ; and David, more passive
than ever, looked on in silence. At last a time was
chosen for openly proclaiming him as king. A
solemn feast at En-Rogel was to inaugurate the
new reign. All were invited to it but those whom
it was intended to displace. It was necessary for
those whose interests were endangered, backed ap
parently by two of David's surviving elder brothers
(Ewald, iii. 266; 1 Chr. ii. 13, 14), to take prompt
raeasures. Bathsheba and Nathan took counsel
together. The king was reminded of his oath. A
virtual abdication was pressed upon him as the only
means by which the succession of his favorite son
could.be secured. The whole thing was corapleted
with wonderful rapidity. Riding on the mule,
weU-known as belonging to the king, attended by
Nathan the prophet, and Zadok the priest, and
more iraportant still, by the king's special company
of the thirty Gibborira, or raighty raen (1 K. i. 10,
33), and the body-guard of the Cherethites and
Pelethites (mercenaries, and therefore not liable to
the contagion of popular feeling) under the com
mand of Benaiah (himself, like Nathan and Zadok,
of the sons of Aaron), he went down to Gihon, and
was proclaimed and anointed king.c The shouts
of his foUowers fell on the startled ears of the guests
at. Adonijah's banquet. Happily they were as yet
committed to no overt act, and' they did not ven
ture on one now. One by one they rose and de
parted. The plot had failed. The counter ccmp
d'etat of Nathan and Bathsheba had been success
ful. Such incidents are common enough in the
history of eastern monarchies. They are usuaUy
followed by a massacre of the defeated party.
Adonijah expected such an issue, and took refuge
at the horns of the altar. In this, instance, how
ever, the young conqueror used his triumph gener
ously. The Uves both of Adonijah and his partisans
were spared, at least for a time. What had been
done hurriedly was done afterwards in more solemn
form. Solomon was presented to a great gathering
of all the notables of Israel, with a set speech, in

c According to later Jewish teaching a king was
not anointed when he succeeded his father, except in
the case of a previous usurpation or a disputed suo
cession (Otho, Lexic. Rabbin s. r. "Rex"j.

SOLOMON
irhich the old king announced what was, to his
mind, the programme of the new reign, a time of
peace and plenty, of a stately worship, of devotion
to Jehovah. A few months more, and Solomon
found himself, by his father's death, the sole 4c-
cupant of the throne.
(2.) The position to which he succeeded was
unique. Never before, and never after, did the
Icingdom of Israel talie its place among the great
monarchies of the East, able to ally itself, or to
contend on equal terms with Egypt or Assyria,
stretching from theEiver (Euphrates) to the border
of Egypt, from the Mediterranean to the Gulf of
Akaba, receiving annual tributes from many sub
ject princes. Large treasures accumulated through
raany years were at his disposal." The people, with
tlie exception of the tolerated worship in high
places, were true servants of Jehovah. Knowl
edge, art, music, poetry, had received a new im
pulse, and were moving on with rapid steps, to such
perfection as the age and the race were capable of
attaining. We may rightly ask — wh.^t manner
of man he was, outwardly and inwardly, who at
the age of nineteen or twenty, was called to this
glorious sovereignty? 'We have, it is true, no
direct description in this case as we have of the
earlier kings.' There are, however, materials for
filling up the gap. The wonderful impression wbich
Solomon made upon all who came near him may
well lead us to believe that with him, as with Saul
and David, Absalom and Adonijah, as with most
other favorite princes of eastern peoples, there must
have been the fascination and the grace of a noble
presence. Whatever higher mystic meaning may
be latent in Ps. xiv., or the Song of Songs, we are
all bnt compelled to think of them as having had,
at least, a historical starting-point. They tell us
of one who was, in the eyes of the men of his own
time, "fairer than the children of men," the face
" bright and ruddy" as his father's (Cant. v. 10;
1 Sam. xvii. 42), bushy locks, dark as the raven's
wing, yet not without a golden glow,* the eyes
soft as "the eyes of doves," the "countenance as
Lebanon, excellent as tbe cedars," " the chiefest
among ten thousand, the altogether lovely " (Cant.
9-16). Add to this all gifts of a noble, far-reach
ing intellect, large and ready sympathies, a playful
and genial humor, the lips "full of grace," the
soul " anointed '* as " with the oil of gladness "
jf jf (Ps. xiv.), and we may form some notion of what
the king was like in that dawn of his golden
prime.^

SOLOMON

3077

a The sums mentioned are (1) the public funds for
building the Temple, 100,000 talents (kifcarim) of gold
and 1,000,000 of silver ; (2) David's private offerings,
8,000 talents of gold and 7,000 of silver. Besides these,
lai'ge sums of unknown amount were believed to have
been stored up in the sepulchre of David. 3,000 talents
were taken from it by Hyrcanus (Jos. Ant. vii. 15, §
8, xiii. 8, § 4, xvi. 7, § H
6 Possibly sprinkled with gold dust, as was the hair
of the youths who waited on hira (Jos. Atit. viii. 7, § 3),
or dyed with henna (Michaehs, Not. in Lowth, Preel.
xxxi.). c It will be seen that we adopt the schbme of the
»lder literalist school, Bossuet, Lowth, Blichaelis, rather
than that of the more recent critics, Ewald, Renan,
Wnsburg. Ingeniously as the idea is worked out we
vtnaot bring ourselves to helieve that a drama, be
longing to the literature of the northern kingdom, not
•o that of Judah, holding up Solomon to ridicule as
fet once liceutious and unsuccessful, would have l>eeQ

(3.) Tbe historical starting-point of the Song of
Songs just spoken of connects itself, in aU prob
abiUty, with the earliest facts in the history of the
new reign. The narrative, as teld in 1 K. ii. is
not a little perplexing. Bathsheba, who had before
stirred up David against Adonijah, now appears as
interceding for hini, begging that Abishag the
Shunamite, the virgin concubine of David, might
be given him as a wife. Soloipon, who till then
had professed the profoundest reverence for hia
mother, his wilUngness to grant her anything, sud
denly flashes into fiercest wrath at this. The peti
tion is treated as part of a conspiracy in which Joab
and Abiathar are sharers. Benaiah is once raore
called in. Adonyah is put to death at once. Joat
is slain even within tbe precincts of the Tabernacle,
to which he had fled as an asylura. Abiathar is
deposed, and exiled, sent to a Ufe of poverty and
sharae (1 K. ii. 31-36), and the high priesthood
transferred to another family raore ready than he
had been to pass from the old order to the new,
and to accept the voices of the prophets as greater
than the oracles which had belonged exclusively to
the priesthood [comp. Umit and Thummim].
The facts have, however, an explanation. Mr.
Grove's ingenious theory ^^ identifying Abishag with
the heroine of the Song of Songs [Shulamite],
resting, as it must do, on its own evidence, has this
further merit, that it explains the phenomena here.
The passionate love of Solomon for "the fairest
among women," might well lead the queen-mother
hitherto suprerae^ to fear a rival influence, and tc
join in any scheme for its removal. The king's
vehement abruptness is, iu Uke manner, accounted
for. He sees in the request at once an attempt to
deprive hira of the woman he loves, ahd a plot to
keep him still in the tutelage of childhood, to entrap
him into admitting his elder brother's right to the
choicest treasure of his father's harem, and tlierefore
virtuaUy to the throne, or at least to a regency in
which he would have his own partisans as counsel
lors. With a keen-sighted promptness he crushes
the whole scheme. He gets rid of a rival, fulfiUs
David's dying counsels as to Joab, and asserts his
own independence. Soon afterwards an opportunity
is thrown in his way of getting rid of one [Sttuiki],
who had been troublesorae before, and might be
troublesome agaui. He presses the letter of a com
pact against a man who by his infatuated disregard
of it seemed given over to destruction « (1 K- ii.
36-46). There is, however, no needless slaughter,
Theother "sons of David" are still spaied, and

treasured up by ; the Jews of the Captivity, and re
ceived by the Scribes of the Great Synagogue as by,
or at least, in honor of Solomon (comp. Renan, La
Cantique des Cantiques, pp. 91, 95). We foUow tho
Jesuit Pineda (De rebus Salom. iv. 3) in applying the
language of the Shulamite to Solomon's personal ap
pearance, but not in his extreme miouteness
d The hypothesis is, however, not altogether new
It was held by some of the literalist historical school
of Theodore of Mopsuestia (not by Theodore himself;
comp. his fragments in Migne, Ixvi. 699), and as such
is anathematized by Theodoret of Cyrus {Preef. in
Cant. Cantic). The latter, believing the Song of
Solomon to have been supernaturally dictated to Ezra,
could adrait no interpretation but the mystical (comp.
Ginsburg, SoTig of SoL p. 66).
e Au elaborate vindication of Solomon's conduct in
this matter may be found in Menthen's T/iesaurus, I. *;
Slisser, Diss, de Salom. process u contra SIdmei.

S078

SOLOMON

one of them, Nathan, becomes the head of a dis
tinct femily (Zech. xii. 12), which ultimately fiUs
up the faUure of the du^ct succession (Luke iii. 31).
As he punishes his father's enemies, he also shows
kindness to the friends who had been faithful to
him. Chimham, the son of Barzillai, apparently
receives an inheritance near the city of David, and
probably in the reign of Solomon, displays his in
herited hospitality by buUding a caravanserai for
the strangers whom the fame and wealth of Sol
omon drew to Jerusalem (2 Sam. xix. 31-40; 1 K.
ii. 7; Jer. xii. 17; Ewald, Gesch. iii. 274; Proph.
ii. 191).
V. Foreign Policy. — (1. ) The want of sufficient
data for a continuous history has been already no
ticed. AU that we have are — (a.) The duration
of the reign. 40 years" (1 K. xi. 42). (6.) The
commencement of the Temple in the 4th, its cora
pletion in the llth year of his reign (1 K. vi. 1, 37,
38). (c.) The commencement of his own palace in
the 7th, its completion in the 20th year (1 K. vii.
1; 2 Chr. viii. 1). {d.) The conquest of Haraath-
Zobah, and the consequent foundation of cities in
the region north of Palestine after the 20th year
(2 Chr. viii. 1-6). With raaterials so scanty as
these, it will be better to group the chief facts in
an order which wUl best enable us to appreciate
their significance.
(2.) Egypt — The fii'st act of the foreign policy of
the new reign must have been to most Israelites a
very starthng one. He made affinity with Pharaoh,
king of Egypt. He married Pharaoh's daughter
(1 K. iii. 1).*^ Since the time ofthe Exodus there
had been no intercourse between the two countries.
David and his counseUors had taken no steps to
promote it. Egypt had probably taken part in
assisting Edom in its resistance to David (1 Chr.
xi. 23; Ewald, iii. 182), and had received Hadad,
the prince of Edom, with royal honors. The king
had given him his wife's sister in marriage, and
adopted his son into his own faraily (1 K. xi. 14-
20). These steps indicated a purpose to support
him at some future tirae more actively, and Sol-
oraon's proposal of marriage was probably intended
to counteract it. It was at the time so far suc
cessful, that when Hadad, on hearing of the death
of the dreaded leaders of the armies of Israel, David
and Joab, wished to seize the opportunity of at
tacking the new king, the court of Egypt rendered
him no assistance (I K. xi. 21, 22). The disturb
ances thus caused, and not less those in the North,
coming from the foundation of a new Syrian king
dom at Damascus by Eezon and other fugitives

a Josephus, again inaccurate, lengthens the reign
to 80 years, and makes the age at accession 14 {Ant.
Piii. 7, § 8).
& This Pharaoh is identified by Ewald (iii. 279) with
Psusennes, the last king of the XXIXth, dynasty of
Manetho, which had its seat in Lower Egypt at Tanis
(but see Pharaoh, iii. 2466 f). Josephus {Ant. viii.
6, § 2) only notes the fact that he was the last king
of Egypt who was known simply by the title Pharaoh.
c Josephus {Ant. viii. 7, § 6), misled by the position
of these statements, refers the disturbances to the close
of Solomon's reign, and is followed by most later
writers. The dates given, however, in one case after
the death of Joab, in the other after David's conquest
of Zobah, show that we must think of them ns con
tinuing " all the days of Solomon," surmounted at the
tommencement of his reign, becoming more formidable
Lt its conclusion
d Ewald sees in Ps. u a great hymn of thauks-

SOLOMON
from Zobah (1 K. xi. 23-25), might weU lead Sol
oraon to look out for a powerful support,^ to obtain
for a new dynasty and a new kingdom a recognition-
by one of older fame and greater power. The im
mediate results were probably favorable enough.**'
The new queen brought with her as a dowry the
frontier-city of Gezer, against which, as threatening
the tranquiUity of Israel, and as stiU possessed by a
remnant of the old Oanaanites,^ Pharaoh had led
his armies./ She was received with aU honor, the
queen-mother herself attending to place the diadem
on her son's brow on the day of his espousals
(Cant. iii. 11). Gifls from the nobles of Israel and
from Tyre (the latter ofiered perhaps by a TjTian
princess) were lavished at her feet (Ps. xiv. 12).
A separate and stately palace was built for her
before long, outside the city of David (2 Chr. viu
ll).ff She dwelt there apparently with attendante
of her own race, " the virgins that be her feUows,"
probably conforming in some degree to the religion
of her adopted country. According to a tradition
which may have some foundation in spite of its
exaggerated numbers, Pharaoh (Psusennes, or a^
in the story Vaphres) sent with her workmen to
help in building tbe Temple, to the nuraber of
80,000 (Eupolemos, in Euseb. Prcep. Evang. ii.
30-35). The " chariots of Pharaoh,*' at any rate,
appeared in royal procession with a splendor hitherto
unknown (Cant. i. 9).
(3.) The ultimate issue of the alUance showed
that it was hoUow and impolitic. There may have
been a revolution in Egypt, changing the dynasty
and transferring the seat of power to Bubastis
(Ewald, iii. 389).^ There was at any rate a change
of policy. The court of Egypt welcomes the fugi
tive Jeroboam when he is known to have aspira
tions after kingly power. There, we raay believe,
by some kind of corapact, expressed or understood,
was planned the scheme which led first to the re-
beUion of the Ten Tribes, and then to the attack
of Shishak on the weakened and dismantled king
dom of the son of Solomon. Evils such as these
were hardly counterbalanced by the trade opened
by Solomon in the fine linen of Egypt, or the sup
ply of chariots and horses, which, as belonging
to aggressive rather than defensive warfare, a
wiser poUey would have led him to avoid (1 K. x.
28, 29).
(4.) Tyre. — The alliance with the Phoenician
king rested on a somewhat different footing. It
had been part of David's poUcy from the beginnmg
of his reign. Hiram had been "ever a lover of
David." He, or his grandfather,* had helped him

giving for deliverance from these dangers. The evi
dence in favor of David's authorship seems, however,
to preponderate.
e Philistines, according to Josephus {Ant. viii. 6,
§!)• / If, with Ewald (iii. 277), we identify Gezer with
Geshur, we may see in thia attack a desire to weaken
a royal house which was connected by marriage with
Absalom (2 Sam. xiii. 37), and therefore likely to be
hostile to Solomon. But comp. Gezer.
9 We may see iu thia fact a sign of popular dis
satisfaction at least on the part of the Priests and
Levites represented by the compiler of 2 Chr.
h The singular addition of the LXX. to the history
of Jeroboam in 1 K. xi. makes this improbable. Jero
boam, as well as Hadad, is received into the king's
family by marriage with his wife's sister, and, in each
case, the wife's name is given as Thekemina.
i Comp. the data given in 2 Sam. v. 11; Jomph

SOLOMON
by supplying materials and workmen for his palace.
As soon as be heard of Solomon's accession he sent
embassadors to salute him. A correspondence
passed between the two kings, which ended in a
treaty of commerce." Israel was to be supplied
from Tyre with the materials which were wanted
for the Temple that was to be the glory of the new
reign. Gold from Ophir, cedar-wood from Leba
non, probably also copper from Cyprus and tin
from Spain or Cornwall (Niebuhr, Led. on Anc.
Hist. i. 79) for the brass which was so highly val
ued, purple frora Tyre itself, workmen from among
the Zidonians, aU these were wanted and were given.
The opening of Joppa as a port created a new coast
ing-trade, and the materials from Tyre were con
veyed to it on floats, and thence to Jerusalera (2
Chr. ii. 16). The chief architect of the Temple,
though an Israelite on his mother's side, belonging
to the tribe of Dan or Naphtali [Hikaw], was yet
by bfrth a Tyrian, a namesake of the king. In re
turn for these exports the Phoenicians were only too
glad to receive the corn and oil of Solomon's terri
tory. Their narrow strip of coast did not produce
enough for the population oftheir cities, and then,
as at a later period, " their country was nourished "
by the broad valleys and plains of Saraaria and
GaUlee (Acts xii. 20).
(5.) The results of the aUiance did not end here.
Now, for the first time in the history of Israel,
they entered on a career as a commercial people.
They joined the Phcenicians in their Mediterranean
voyages to the coasts of Spain [Tarshish].'' Sol
omon's possession of the Kdomite coast enabled him
to open to his ally a new world of commerce. The
ports of Elath and Ezion-geber were filled with
ships of Tarshish, merchant-ships, i. e..for the long
voyages, manned chiefly by Phoenicians, but built
at Solomon's expense, which sailed down the jElan-
itic Gulf of the Red Sea, on to the Indian Ocean,
to lands which bad before been hardly known even
by name, to Okhir and Sheba, to Arabia FeUx,
or India, or Ceylon, and brought back, after an ab
sence of nearly three years, treasures almost or al
together new, gold and sUver and precious stones,
nard, aloes, sandal-wood, alraug-trees, and ivory;
and, last but not least in the eyes of the historian,
new forms of animal life, on which the inhabitants
of Palestine gazed with wondering eyes, " apes and
peacocks." The interest of Solomon in these en
terprises was shown by his leaving his palaces at
Jerusalem and elsewhere, and traveUing to Elath
and Ezion-geber to superintend the construction of
the fleet (2 Chr. viu. 17), perhaps also to Sidon for
a hke purpose.*: To the knowledge thus gained,
we raay ascribe the wider thoughts which appear
iu the Psaluis of this and the following periods, as
of those who " see the wonders of the deep and
occupy their business in great waters " fPs. cvii.

SOLOMON

3079

Ant. vu. 3, § 2, viii. 5, § 3, c. Ap. i. 18, and
iii. 287.
o The letters are given at length by Josephus {Ant.
vhi. 2, § 8) and Eupolemos (Euseb. Prmp. Eu. 1. c).
^ Ewald disputes this (iii. 345), but the statement
hi 2 Chr. ix. 21, is explicit enough, and there are no
irouods for arbitrarily setting it aside as a blunder.
*: The statemeut of Justin Mart. {Diat. c. Trypk. c.
^4), €1* SiSwi't €tSa)\oA.iiTpet, receives by the accompa
nying 6iA yui/aiKa the character of an extract from
flomo history ther »xtanfc. The marriage of Solomon
with a daughter of the king of Tyre is mentioued by
SuflebiHB {Prap. Evang. x. 11).

23-30), perhaps also an experience of the mora
humiliating accidents of sea-travel (Prov. xxiu. 34,
35). (6.) According to the stateraent of the Phoeni
cian writers quoted by Josephus {Ant. vui. 5, § 3),
the intercourse of the two kings had in it also
something of the sportiveness and freedom of
friends. They delighted to perplex each other
with hard questions, and laid wagers as to their
power of answering them. Hirara was at first tbe
loser and paid his forfeits ; but afterwards, through
the help of a sliarp-witted Tyrian boy, Abderaon,
solved the hard problems, and was in the end tbe
winner.'' The singular fragment of history in
serted in 1 K. ix. 11-14, recording the cession bv
Solomon of sixteen [twenty] cities, and Hiram's
dissatisfaction with thera, is perhaps connected with
these huperial wagers. The king of Tyre revenges
hiraself by a Phoenician bon-raot [Cabul]. He
fulfiUs his part of the contract, and pays the stipu
lated price.
(7.) These were the two most important alli
ances. The absence of any reference to Babylon
and Assyria, and the fact that the Euphrates was
recognized as the boundary of Solomon's kingdom
(2 Chr. ix. 26), suggest the inference that the
Mesopotamian monarchies were, at this time, com
paratively feeble. Other neighboring nations were
content to pay annual tribute in the form of gifts
(2 Chr. ix. 24). The kings of the Hittites and of
Syria welcomed the opening of a new line of com
merce which enabled them to find in Jerusalem an
emporium where they might get the chariots and
horses of Kgypt (1 K. ix. 28). This, however, was
obviously but a sraall part of the traffic organized
by Solomon. The foundation of cities like Tadmor
in the wilderness, and Tiphsah (Thapsacus) on the
Euphrates; of others on the route, each with its
own special raarket for chariots, or horses, or stores
(2 Chr. viii. 3-t)); the erection of lofty towers on
Ijcbanon (2 Chr. l. c; Caut. vii. 4) pointed to a
raore distant commerce, opening out the resources
of central Asia, reaching, — as that of Tyre did
afterwards, availing itself of this very route, —
to the nomad tribes of the Caspian and the Black
Seas, to Togarmah and Jleshech and Tubal (Ez.
xxvii. 13, 14; comp. Milman, FHsL of the Jews, i.
270). (8.) The survey of the influence exercised by
Solomon on surrounding nations would be incom
plete if we were to pass over that which was mor \
directly personal — ¦ the fame of his glory and his
wisdom. The legends which pervade the East are
probably not merely the expansion of the scanty
notices ofthe 0. T. ; but (as suggested above), Uke
those which gather round the names of Nimrod and
Alexander, the result of the impression made bythe
pei-sonal presence of one of the mighty ones of the

d The narrative of Josephus implies the existence of
some story, more or less humorous, in Tyrian litera
ture, in which the wisest of the kings of earth was
baffled by a boy's cleverness. A .singular pendant to
this is found in the popular mediaeval story of Solo
mon and Morolf. in which the latter (an ugly, deformed
dwarf) outwits the former. A modernized version of
this work may be found in the Walhalla (Leipag,
1844). Older copies, in Latin and German, of tho 15tii
century, are in the Brit. Mus. Library. The Anglo-
Saxon Dialogue of Solomon and Saturn is a mere cate
chism of Scriptural knowledge.

3080

SOLOMON

earth." Wherever the ships of Tarshish went, they
carried witb them the report, losing nothing in its
passage, of what their crews had seen and heard.
The impression made on the Incas of Peru by the
power and knowledge of the Spaniards, offers per
haps the nearest approach to what falls so little
within the Umits of our experience, though there
was there no personal centre round which the ad
miration could gather itself. The journey of the
queen of Sheba, though frora its circumstances the
raost conspicuous, did not stand alone. The in
habitants of Jerusalera, of the whole Une of country
between it and the Gulf of Akaba, saw with araaze-
nient the "great train" — the men with their
swarthy faces, the camels bearing spices and gold
and gems — of a queen who had corae frora the fai-
South,^ because she had heard of the wisdora of
Solomon, and connected with it " the narae of Je
hovah" (1 K. X. 1). She came with hard ques
tions to test that wisdom, and the words just
quoted may throw light upon their nature. Not
riddles and enigmas only, such as the sportive
fancy of the East deUghts in, but the ever-old, ever-
new problems of life, such as, even in that age and
country, were vexing the hearts of the speakers in
the book of Job,<^ were stirring in her mind when
she communed with Solomon of " all that was in
her heart" (2 Chr. ix. 1). She meets us as the
representative .,of a body whom the dedication-
prayer shows to have been nuraerous, the stran-
2;ers *' coming from a far country " because of the
''great narae " of Jehovah (1 K. viii. 41), many of
Uiem princes themselves, or the messengers of kings
(2 Chr. ix. 23). The historians of Israel delighted
to dwell on her confession that the reaUty surpassed
the fame, " the one half of the greatness of thy wis
dom was not told me" (2 Chr. ix. 6; Kwald, iii.
353). VI. Internal History. — (1.) We can now enter
upon the reign of Solomon, in its bearing upon the
history of Israel, without the necessity of a digres
sion. The first prominent scene is one which pre
sents his character in its noblest aspect. There were
two holy places which divided the reverence of tbe
people, the ark and its pro\ isioiial tiiberuacle at Je
rusalem, and the original Tabernacle of the congre
gation, which, after raany wanderhigs, was now
pitched at Gibeon. It was thought right that the
new king should offer solemn sacrifices at both.
After those at Gibeon d there came that vision of
the night whicb has in all ages borne its noble wit
ness to the hearts of rulers. Not for riches, or long
Ufe, or victory over enemies, would the son of David,
then at least true to his high caUing, feeling himself

a Cities like Tadmor and Tiphsah were not likely to
have been founded by a king who had never seen aad
?hosen the sites. 2 Chr. viii. 3, 4, implies the journey
which Josephus speaks of {Ant. viii. 6, § 1), and at
Tadmor Solomon was within one day's journey of the
Euphrates, aud six of Babylon. (So Josephus, / c,
but the day's journey must have been a long one.)
b Josephus, again careless about authorities, makes
ber a queen of Egypt (!) and Ethiopia {Ant. viii. 6,
$5). c la it possible that the book itself came into the
literature of Israel by the intercourse thus opened?
Its Arabic character, both iu language and thought,
iud the obvious traces of ita influence in the book of
Proverbs, have been noticed by all critics worthy of
the name [comp. Job].
d Hebron, in Josephus, once more blundering (.i«7.
riU. 2, § 1)

SOLOMON
as "a Uttle chUd" in comparison with the vastness
of his work, offer his suppUcatioos, but for a •' wise
and understanding heart," that he might judge the
people. The*' speech pleased the Lord." There
came in answer the promise of a wisdom " like whieh
there had been none before, like which there should
be none after " (1 K. iii. 5-15 ). So far all was weU.
The prayer was a right and noble one. Yet there is
also a contrast between it and the prayers of David
which accounts for many other contrasts. The de
sire of David's heart is not chiefly for wisdora, but
for hoUness. He is conscious of an oppressing evil,
aud seeks to be delivered from it. He repents, and
falls, aud repents again. Solomon asks only for
wisdom. He has a lofty ideal before him, and seeks
to accomplish it, but he is as yet haunted by no
deeper yearnings, and speaks as one who has " no
need of repentance."
(2.) The wisdom asked for was given in large
measure, and took a varied range. The wide world
of nature, animate and inanimate, which the enter
prises of his subjects" were throwing open to him,
the lives and characters of men, in aU their surface-
weaknesses, in aU their inner depths, lay before hira,
and he took cognizance of aU.^ But the highest
wisdom was that wanted for the highest work, for
governing and guiding, and the historian hastens
to give an iUustration of it. The pattern-instance
is, in aU its circumstances, thoroughly oriental.
The king sits in the gate of the city, at the early
dawn, to settle any disputes, however strange, be
tween any litigants, however hurable. In the
rough and ready test which turns the scales of evi
dence, before so evenly balanced, there is a kind :A
rough humor as well as sagacity, specially attractive
to the eastern mind, then and at aU times (1 K.
iii. 16-28).
(3.) But the power to rule showed itself not in
judging only, but in organizing. The system of
government which he inherited from David received
a fuller expansion. Prominent among the " princes "
of his kingdom, i. e. officers of his own appomtment,
were members of tbe priestly order : / Azariah the
son of Ztulok, Zadok himself the high-priest, Be
naiah the son of Jehoiada as captain of the host, an
other Azariah and Zabud, the sons of Nathan, one
over the officers {Nlttsdbim) who acted as purveyors
to the king's household (1 K. iv. 2-5), the other in
the raore confidential character of "king's friend."
In addition to these there were the two scribes
{Sopherim), the king's secretaries, drawing up his
edicts and the like [Sckibes], Elihoreph and Ahiah,
the recorder or annalist of the king's reign {Mazcir),
the superintendent of the king's house, and house-

e Ewald sees in the words of 1 K. iv. 33, the record
of books more or less descriptive of natural history, the
catalogue raisonnde of the king's collections, botanic
and zoological (iii, 358) ; to llenan, however (following
Josephus), it seems more in harmony with the unsci
entific character of all Shemitic minds, to think of
them as looking on the moral side of na( ure. drawing
parables or allegories from the things he saw {Hist.
des Langues Sdmitigues, p. 127). The multipUed aUu
sions of this kind in Prov. xxx. make that, perhaps, a
fair representative of this form of Solomon's wisdom,
though not by Solomon himself.
/ We cannot bring ourselves, with Keil {Comm. in
loc.) and others, to play fast and loose with the word
Cohen, and to give it different meanings in alternate
verses. [Comp. Peeests.]

SOLOMON
hold expenses (Is. xxii. 15), including probably the
harem. The last in order, at once the most indis
pensable and the raost hated, was Adoniram, who
presided "over the tribute," that word including
probably the personal service of forced labor (comp.
ICeU, Comm. in loc, and Ewald, Gesch. iii. 334).
(4.) The last name leads us to the king's finances.
The first impression of the facts given us is that of
abounding plenty. That aU the drinking vessels
^i the two palaces should he of pure gold was a
sraall thing, " nothing accounted of hi the days of
Solomon" (1 K. x. 21). " " Silver was in Jeru
salem as stones, aud cedars as the sycamore-trees in
the vale" (1 K. x. 27). The people were '* eating
and drinking and making merry" (1 K. iv. 20).
The treasures left by Uavid for building the Temple
might well seem almost inexhaustible '^ (1 Chr. xxix.
1-7). The large quantities of the precious metals
imported from Ophir and Tarshish would speak, to
a people who had not learnt the lessons of a lung
experience, of a boundless source of wealth (1 K. ix.
28). AU the kings and princes of tbe subject-prov
inces paid tribute in the Ibrm of gifts, in money
and iu kind^ "at a fixed rate year by year " (I K.
X. 25). Monopolies of trade, then, as at all times
in the East, contributed to the king's treasury, and
the trade in the fine linen, and chariots, and horses
of Egypt, must have brought in large profits (1 K'.
X. 28, 29). The king's domain-lands were appar
ently let out, as vineyards or for other purposes, at
a fixed annual rental (Cant. viii. 11) Upon the
Israelites (probably not till the later period of his
reign) there was levied a tas of ten per cent, on
their produce (1 Sam. viu. 15). All the provinces
of his owu kingdom, grouped apparently in a special
order for this purpose, were bound each in turn to
supply the king's enormous housebold with pro
visions (1 K. iv. 21-23). [Comp. Taxes.] The
total amount thus brought into the treasury iu
gold, exclusive of aU payments in kind, amounted
to 666 talents (1 K. x. 14).«
(5.) It was hardly possible, however, that any
financial system could bear the strain of the king's
passion for magnificence. The cost of the Temple
was, it is true, provided for by David's savings and
the offerings of the people; but even while that was
building, yet more when it was finished, one struc-
« A reminiscence of this form of splendor is seen
in the fact that the mediseval goldsmiths described
their earliest plate aa " oeuvre de Salomon." It was
wrought in high relief, wa." eastern in its origin, and
was known also as Saracenic {Liber Custumarius, i. 61,
, 759). 6 We labor, however, under a twofold uncertainty,
(I) aa to the accuracy of the numbers, (2) as to the
value of the terms. Prideaux, followed by Fjewis, es
timates the amount ac ^833,000,000. yet the savings
ot' the later years of David's lite, for one special pur-
l>[)se, could hardly have surpas.^ed the national debt of
liugland (comp. Milman's Hist, of Jews, i. 267).
>-' 666. There is something startling in thus find
ing in a simple historical statement a number which
Uajj since become invested with such a mysterious
and terrihle significance (Rev. xiii. 18). The coinci
dence can hardly, it is believed, be looked on as casual.
" The Seer of the Apocalypse," it has been well said,
''lives entirely in Holy Scripture. On this territory,
therefore, ia the solution of the sacred riddle to be
sought" (Hengstenberg, Comm. in Rev. in loc). If,
therefore, we find the number occurring in the 0. T.,
with any special significance, we may well think that
ttiat furnishes the starting-point of the enigma. And
there ia such a significance here. (1.) As the glory
194

SOLOMON 3081
ture followed on another with ruinous rapidity.
A palace for himself, grander than that which
Hirara had built for his father, another for Pha
raoh's daughter, the house of the forest of Lebanon.
in which he sat in bis court of judgraent, the pil
lars all of cedar, seated on a throne of ivory and
gold, in which six lions on either side, the symbols
of the tribe of Judah, appeared (as in the thrones
of Assyria, l^ayard's Nineveh, ii. 30) standing on
the steps and supporting the arms of the chair (1
Iv. vii. 1-12, X. 18-20), ivory palaces and ivory
towers, used apparently for the king's armory (Ps.
xiv. 8 ; Cant. iv. 4, vu. 4) ; the ascent from his own
palace to the house or palace of Jehovah (1 K. x.
5), a summer palace in Lebanon (1 K. ix. 19;
Cant. vii. 4), stately gardens at Etham, paradises
like those of the great eastera kings (Eccl. ii. 5,
6; Joseph. Ant. viii. 7, § 3; corap. Pakadise),
the foundation of something like a stately school or
coUege,'^ costly aqueducts bringing water, it may
be, from the weU of Bethlehem, dear to David's
heart, to supply the king's palace in Jerusalem
(Ewald, iii. 323), the fortifications of Jerusalem
completed, those of other cities begun (1 K.. ix.
15-19), and, above all, the harem, witb all the ex
penditure which it involved on slaves aud slave-
dealers, on concubines and eunuchs (1 Sam. vin.
15; 1 Chr. xxviii. 1), on men-singers and women-
singers (Eccl. ii. 8) — these rose before the wonder
ing eyes of his people and dazzled them with their
magnificence. All the equipment of his court, the
" apparel" of his servants, was on tbe sarae scale.
If he went from his hall of judgment to the Temple
he marched between two lines of soldiers, each with
a burnished shield of gold (1 K. x. 16, 17; Ewald,
iii. 320). If he went on a royal progress to his
paradise at Etbara, he went in snow-white raiment,
riding in a stately chariot of cedar, decked with
silver and gold and purple, carpeted with the cost
liest tapestry, worked by the daughters of Jeru
salem (Cant. iii. 9, 10). A body-guard attended
him, " threescore valiant raen," tallest and hand
somest of the sons of Israel, in the freshness of their
youth, arrayed in Tyrian purple, their long black
hair sprinkled freshly every day with gold-dust {ib.
Ui. 7, 8; Joseph. AnL viii. 7, § 3). Forty thou
sand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve
and the wisdom of Solomon were the representative*
of all earthly wisdom and glory, so the wealth of
Soiomon would be the representative of all earthly
wealth. (2.) The purpose of the visions of St. John
is to oppose the heaveuly to the earthly Jerusalem ;
the true " ofispring of David," " the lion of the tribe
of Judah," to all counterfeits ; the true riches to the
false. (3.) The worship ofthe beast is the worship of
the world's mammon. It may seem to reproduce the
glory and the wealth of the old Jerusalem io its
golden days, but it ia of evil, not of God ; a Eabylon.
not a Jerusalem. (4) This reference does not of
courae exclude either the mystical meaning of the
number six, so well brought out by Hengstenberg {I.
c.) and Mr. Maurice (ou the Apocalypse, p. 251). or
even names like Lateinos and Nero Csesar. Tbe
greater the variety of thoughts that could be con
nected with a single number, the more would it com-
inend itself to one at all familiar with the method of
the Gematria of the Jewish cabbalists.
d Pineda's conjecture (iii. 28) that " the house with
seven pillars," " the highest places of the city," of
Prov- ix. 1-3, had originaUy a local reference is, at
least, plausible enough to be worth mentioning. It ia
curious to think that there may have been a historical
" Solomon's house," like that of the New Atlantis

ao82

SOLOMON

thousand horsemen made up the measure of his
magnificence (1 K. iv. 26). If some of the pubUc
works had the plea of utiUty, the fortification of
some cities for purposes of defense — jVIillo (the
suburb of Jerusalem), Hazor, Megiddo, the two
Beth-horons, the foundation of others, Tadmor and
Tiphsah, for purposes of commerce — these were
simply the pomps of a selfish luxury, and the peo
ple, after the first dazzle was over, felt that they
were so. As the treasury became empty, taxes
multiplied and monopolies becarae more irksome.
K\en Israelites, besides the conscription which
brought thera into the king's armies (1 K. ix. 22),
were subject, though for a part only of each year,
ro the corvee of compulsory labor (1 K. v. 13).
The revolution that fbUowed had, like most other
revolutions, financial disorder as the chief among
its causes. The people complained, not of the king's
idolatry, but of tlieir burdens, of his " grievous
yoke " (1 K. xii. 4). Their hatred feU heaviest on
Adoniram, who was over the tribute. If, on the
one side, the division of the kingdom came as a
penalty for Solomon's idolatrous apostasy from
Jehovah, it was, on another, the Nemesis of a self
ish passion for glory, itself the raost terrible of all
idolatries. (6.) It remains for us to trace that other down
fall, belonging more visibly, though not raore really,
to his religious life, frora tbe loftiest height even to
the lowest depth. The building and dedication of
the Temple are obviously the representatives of the
first. That was the special task which he inherited
from his father, and to that he gave himself with
aU his heart and strength. He came to it with aU
the noble thoughts as to the meaning and grounds
of worship which his father and Nathan could instill
into him. We have already seen, in speaking of
his intercourse with Tyre, what measures he took
for its completion. All that can be said as to its
architecture, proportions, materials [Temple], and
the organization of the ministering Pkiests and
Levites, will be found elsewhere. Here it wiU be
enough to picture to ourselves the feeUngs of the
men of Judah as they watched, during seven long
years, the Cyclopean foundations of vast stones (still
remaining when all else has perished, Ewald, iii.
297) gradually rising up and covering the area of
the threshing-floor of Araunah, materials arriving
continually ftom Joppa, cedar, and gold and silver,
brass "without weight" frora the foundries of
Succoth and Zarethan, stones ready hewn and
squared frora the quarries. P^ar from colossal in
its size, it was conspicuous chiefly by the lavish
use, within and without, of the gold of Ophir and
Parvaim. Ifc glittered in tbe raorning sun (it has
been well said) Uke the sanctuary of an KI Dorado
(Jlilman, Hist, of Jews, i. 259). Throughout the
whole work the tranquillity of the kingly city was
unbroken by the sound of the workman's hammer:
" Like some tall palm, the noiseless fabric grew."
(7.) We cannot ignore the fact that even now
there were some darker shades in the picture. Not
reverence only for the Holy City, but the wish to
shut out from sight the misery he had caused, to
close his ears against cries which were rising daily
to the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, led him probably
a Ewald's apology for theae acts of despotism (iiii
292) presents a singular contrast to the free spirit
which, for the most part, pervades his work. Through
out his history of David and Solomon, his sympathy

SOLOMON
to place the works connected with the Temple it
as great a distance aa possible from the Templs
itself. Forgetful of the lessons taught by the hi»-
tory of his own people, and of the precepts of the
Law (Ex. xxii. 21, xxiii. 9, et al.), foUowing the ex
ample of David's poUcy in its least noble aspect (1
Chr. xxii. 2), he reduced the " strangers " in the
land, the remnant of the Canaanite races who had
chosen the alternative of conformity to the reUgion
of their conquerors, to the state of helots, and
made their life *' bitter with all hard bondage.'' «
[Pkoselytes.] Copying the Pharaohs in their
magnificence, he copied them also in their disregard
of human suffering. Acting, probably, under the
sarae counsels as had prompted that measure, on
the result of David's census, he seized on these
"strangers" for the weary, servile toil against
which the fi-ee spirit of Israel would have rebelled.
One hundred and fifty-three thousand, with wives
and children in proportion, were torn from their
homes and sent off to the quarries and the forests
of Lebanon (1 K. v. 15 ; 2 Chr. ii. 17, 18). Even
the Israelites, though not reduced permanently to
the helot state (2 (jhr. viii. 9), were yet summoned
to take their share, by rotation, in the sarae labor
(1 K. \. 13, 14). One trace of the special servitude
of " these hewers of stone " existed long afterwards
in the existence of a body of men attached to the
Temple, and known as Solomon's Servants.
(8 ) After seven years and a half the work was
completed, and the day carae to which all Israelitea
looked back as the culrainating glory oftheir nation.
Their worship was now estabUshed on a scale as
stately as that of other nations, while it yet retained
its freedom from aU worship that could possibly
become idolatrous. Instead of two rival sanctuaries,
as before, there was to be one only. The ark from
Zion, the Tabernacle from Gibeon, were both re
raoved (2 Chr. V. 5) and brought to the new
Temple. The choirs of the priests and Levites met
in then* fullest force, arrayed in white linen. Then,
it may be for the first tirae, was heard the noble
hymn, "Lift up your heads, 0 ye gates, and be ye
lift up, ye everlasting doors, and the King of Glory
shaU come in " (Milman, Hist, of Jews, i. 263),
The trumpeters and singers were'" as one " in their
mighty Hallelujah — " O praise the I^ord, for He is
good, for His mercy cnduretb for ever" (2 Chr. v.
13). The ark was solemnly placed in its golden
sanctuary, and then "the cloud," the "glory of
the Lord," filled the house of the Lord. Tbe two
tables of stone, associated with the first rude begin
nings of the life of the wilderness, were stiU, they
and they only, in the ark which had now so mag
nificent a shrine (2 Chr. v. 10). They bore theii
witness to the great laws of duty toward God and
man, remaining unchangeable through aU tha
changes and chances of national or individual life,
from the beginning to the end of the growth of a
national religion. And throiighout the whole scene,
the person of the king is the one central object,
compared with whom even priests and prophets are
for the time subordinate. Abstaining, doubtless,
from distinctively priestly acts, such as slaying fche
victims and offering incense, he yet appears, even
more than David did in fche bringing up the ark, in
a liturgical character. He, and not Zadok, blesses

for the father's heroism, his admiration for the son's
magnificence, seem to keep his judgment under a fasci
nation wbich it is difBcult for his readers to esoap*
from.

SOLOMON
the congregation, offers up the soleran prayer, dedi
cates tbe Temple. He, and not any member of the
prophetic order, is then, and probably at other
times, the spokesman and " preacher " of the peo
ple (I'wald, iii. 320). He takes at least some steps
towards that far-off (Ps. ex. 1) ideal of "a priest
after the order of Melchizedek," which one of his
descendants rashly sought to fulfiU [Uzziah], but
which was to be fulfilled only in a Son of David,
not the crowned leader of a raighty nation, but
despised, rejected, crucified. Frora hira carae the
lofty prayer, the noblest utterance of the creed of
Israel, setting forth the distance and the nearness of
the Eternal God, One, Incoraprehensible, dweUing
not in temples made with hands, yet ruUng raen,
hearing their prayers, giving them all good things,
wisdom, peace, righteousness. «
(9.) The solemn day was foUowed by a week of
festival, synchronizing with the Feast of Taber
nacles, the tirae of the completed vintage. Repre-
sentafcives of all the tribes, elders, fathers, captains,
proselytes, it may be, from the newly-acquired ter
ritories in Northern Syria (2 Chr. vi. 32, vn. 8),
— all were assembled, rejoicing hi the actual glory
and tbe bright hopes of Israel. For the king him
self then, or at a later period (the narrative of 1 K.
ix. and 2 Chr. vii. leaves it doubtful), there was a
strange contrast to the glory of that day. A crit
icism, misled by its own acuteness, may see in that
warning prophecy of sin, punishment, desolation,
only a vaiicinium ex eventu, added sorae centuries
afterwards (Ewald, iii. 404). It is open to us to
raaintain that, with a character such as Solomon's,
with a reUgious ideal so far beyond his actual Ufe,
such thoughts were psychologically probable, that
strange misgivings, suggested by the very words of
the jubilant hymns of the day's solemnity, might
well mingle with the shouts of the people and the
haUelujahs of the Levites.* Ifc is in harmony with
aU we know of the work of the Divine Teacher,
that those misgivings should receive an interpreta
tion, that the king should be taught that what he
had done was indeed right and good, but that it
was not all, and might not be permanent. Obe
dience was better than sacrifice. There was a dan
ger near at hand.
(10.) The danger came, and in spite of the warn
ing the king fell. Before long the priests and
prophets had to grieve over rival temples to Moloch,
Chemosh, Ashtaroth, forras of ritual not idolatrous
only, but cruel, dark, impure. This evil carae, as
the compUer of 1 K. xi. 1-8 records, as the penalty
of another. Partly from policy, seeking fresh alli
ances, partly from the terrible satiety of lust seek
ing the stimulus of change, he gave himself to
"strange women." He found himself involved in
a fascination which led to fche worship of strange
gods. The starting-point and the goal are given
us. We are left, from what we know otherwise, to
trace tbe process. Something there was perhaps
in his very "largeness of heart," so far in advance
of the'traditional knowledge of his age, rising to
higher and wider thoughts of God, which predis-

SOLOMON

3083

" Ewald, yielding to his one special weakness, sees
[n this prayer the rhetorical addition of the Deuter-
onomist editor (iii. 315).
b Ps cxxxii. belongs manifestly (comp. vv. 7, 8, 10,
16, with 2 Chr. vi. 41) to the day of dedication ; and
T. 12 contains the condition, of which the vision of the
Qight presents the dark as the day had presented the
fright side

posed him to it. His converse with men of othei
creeds and climes might lead him to anticipate, in
this respect,. one phase of raodern thought, as tho
confessions of the Preacher in Koheleth anticipate
another. In recognizing what was true in other
forms of faith, he might lose his horror at what was
false, his sense of the preeminence of the truth re
vealed to him, of the historical continuity of the
nation's religious life. His worship might go back
ward from Jehovah to Elohim,'^ from Elohim to the
"Gods many and Ixirds raany" of the nations
round. Jehovah, Baal, Ashtaroth, Chemosh, each
form of nature- worship, might come to seem equally
true, equally acceptable. The women whom he
brought frora other countries raight well be allowed
the luxury of their own superstitions. And, if
permitted at all, the worship raust be worthy of his
fame and be part of his magnificence. With this
there raay, as Ewald suggests (iii. 330),'=' have
mingled political motives. He may have hoped,
by a policy of toleration, to conciliate neighboring
princes, to afcfcract a larger traffic. But probably
also there was another influence less commonly
taken into account. The wide-spread beUef of the
East in the magic arts of Solomon is not, it is be
lieved, without its foundation of truth. On the
one hand, an ardent study of nature, in the period
that precedes science, runs on inevitably into the
pursuit of occult, mysterious properties. On the
other, throughout the whole history of Judah, the
element of idolatry which has the strongest hold on
men's rainds was the thaumaturgic, soothsaying,
incantations, divinations (2 K. i. 2; Is. ii. 6; 2
Chr. xxxni. Q,^ et al.). The religion of Israel op
posed a stern prohibition to all such perUous yet
tempting arts (Deut. xviii. 10, et at.). The reUg
ious of the nations round fostered thera. Was it
strange that one who found his progress irapeded
in one path should turn into the other? So, at
any rate ifc was. Tbe reign which began so glori
ously was a step backwards into fche gross darkness
of fetish worship. As he left behind him the leg
acy of luxury, selfishness, oppression, more than
counterbalancing all the good of higher art and
wider knowledge, so he left this too as an ineradi
cable evil. Not less truly than the son of Nebat
might his name have been written in history as
Solomon the son of David who " raade Israel to
sin." (11.) Disasters followed before long as the nat
ural consequence of what was politically a blunder
as well as reUgiously a sin. The strength of the
nation rested on its unity, and its unity depended
on its faith. Whatever attractions the sensuous
ritual wbich he introduced may have had for the
great body of the people, the priests and Levites
must have looked on the rival worship- with entire
disfavor. The zeal of the prophetic order, dormant
in the earUer part of the reign, and as it were, hin
dered from its usual utterances bythe more daz
zling wisdom ofthe king, was now kindled into
active opposition. Ahijah of Shiloh, as if taught-
by the history of his native place, was sent to utter

c It is noticeable that Elohim, and not Jehovah, ia
the Divine name used throughout Ecclesiastes.
d To see, however, as Ewald does, in Solomon's pol
icy nothing but a wise toleration like that of a modem
statesman in regard to Christian sects, or of the Eng
lish Qovernment in India, is surely to read history
through a refracting and distorting medium.

3084

SOLOMON

one of those predictions which help to work out
their own fulfillment, fastening on thoughts before
vague, pointing Jeroboam out to himself and to the
people as the destined heir to tlie larger half of the
kingdom, as truly called as David had been called,
to be the anointed of the Lord (1 K. xi. 28-39).
The king in vain tried to check the current that
was setting strong against him. If Jeroboam was
driven for a tirae into exile it was only, as we have
seen, to be united in raarriage to the then reigning
dynasty, and to come back with a daughter of the
Pharaohs as his queen (LXX. ut supra). The old
tribal jealousies gave signs of renewed vitaUty.
Ephraira was prepared once more to dispute the su
premacy of Judah, needing special control (1 K. xi.
28). And with this weakness within there came
attacks from without. Hadad and Rezon, the one
in Edom, the other in Syria, who had been foiled
in the beginning of his reign, now^ found no effectual
resistance. The king, prematurely old," must have
foreseen the rapid breaking up of the great mon
archy to which he had succeeded. Rehoboam, in
heriting his faults without his wisdom, haughty and
indiscreet, was not likely to avert it.
(12.) Of the inner changes of mind and heart
which ran parallel with this history. Scripture is
comparatively silent. Something may be learned
from the books that bear his narae, which, whether
written by hira or not, stand in the Canon of the
0. T. as representing, with profound, inspired in
sight, the successive phases of his Ufe; something
also from the fact that so Uttle remains out of so
much, out of the songs, proverbs, treatises of which
the historian speaks (1 K. iv. 32, 33). Legendary
aa may be the traditions wbich speak of Hezekiah as
at one and the sanie time, preserving sorae portions
of Solomon's writings (Prov. xxv. 1), and destroy
ing others,'' a Uke process of selection must have
been gone through by the unknown Rabbis of the
Great Synagogue after the return from the
exile. Slowly and hesitatingly they received into
the Canon, as they went on with their unparalleled

a Solomon's age at his death could not have been
much more than fifty-nine or sixty, yet it was not till
he was "old " that his wives perverted him (1 K. xi.
4)- 6 Hezekiah found, it was said, fbrmulse for the cure
of diseases engraved on the door-posts of the Temple,
and destroyed them because they drew men a\7ay from
the worship of Jehovah (Suidas, 5. v. 'Efeicias). Strange
as the history is, it haa a counterpart in the complaint
of the writer of 2 Chr. xvi. 12, that Asa " sought not
to the Lord but to the physicians." Was there a ri
valry in the treatment of disease between the priests
and prophets on the one side (comp. Is, xxxviii. 21),
and idolatrous thaumaturgists on the other (comp.
also 2 K. i. 2) ?
c The Song of Songs, however, was never read pub
licly, either in the Jewish or the Christian Church,
nor in the former were young men allowed to read it
at all (Theod. Oyr- Prmf. in Cant. Ckint.; Theod.
.Mops, p 699 in Migne).
d We rest on this as the necessary condition of all
deeper interpretation. To argue, as many have done,
thafc the mystical sense must be the only one because
the literal would be insupportable, is simply to " bring
a clean thing out of an unclean," to assert that the
Divine Spirit would choose e. love that waa lustful and
impure as the fitting parable of the holiest. Much
rather may we say with Herder {Geist der Ebr. Poes.,
Dial. ,vi.), that the poem, in its literal sense, is one
which " might have been written in Paradise." The
man and the woman are, as iu their primeval inno-

SOLOMON
work of the expurgation by a people of ita own Ht'
erature, the two books which have been the stum
bling-blocks of coraraeutators, Ecclesiastes and the
Song of Songs'^ (Ginsburg, Koheleth, pp. 13-15).
They give excerpta only from the 3,000 Proverbs.
Of the thousand and five Songs (the precise num
ber indicates a known collection) we know abso
lutely nothing. They were wilUng, i. e., to admit
Koheleth for the sake of its ethical conclusion; fche
Song of Songs, because afc a very early period, pos
sibly even then, ifc had received a mystical interpre
tation (Keil, Einleit. in das Alt. Test. § 127), be
cause it was, at any rate, the history of a love which
if passionate, was also tender, and pure, and true-^
But it is easy to see that there are elements in that
poem, the strong delight in visible outward beauty,
the surrender of heart and will to one overpower
ing impulse, which raight come to be divorced from
truth and purity, and would then be perilous in
proportion to their grace and charm. Such a di
vorce took place we know in the actual life of Sol
omon. Ifc could not fail to leave its stamp upon
fche idyls in which feeUng and fancy uttered them
selves. The poems of the Son of David may have
been like those of Hafiz. The Scribes who com
piled the Canon of the 0. T. may have acted wisely,
rightly, charitably to his fame, in excluding them.
(13.) The books that remain meet us, as has
been said, as, at any rate, representing the three
stages of his life. The Song of Songs brings befoie
Ais the brightness of his youth, the heart as yet un
tainted, human love passionate yet undefiled,^ and
therefore becoming, under a higher inspiration,
half-con sciously it raay be to itself, but, if not, then
unconsciously for others, the parable of the soul's
affections./ [Canticles.] Then comes in the
book of Proverbs, the stage of practical, prudential
thought, searchhig into the recesses of man's heart,
seeing duty in little things as weU as great, resting
aU duty on the fear of God, gathering from the
wide lessons of a king's experience, lessons which
mankind could iU afford to lose.ff The poet has

cence, loving and beloved, thinking no evil, ^^ naked
and not ashamed."
e We adopt the older view of Lowth {Prmt. xxx.,
xxxi.) and others, rather than that of Renan and
Ewald, which almost brings down a noble poem to
the level of an operatic ballet at a Parisian theatre.
Theodore of Mopsuestia (t c.) had, at least, placed it
on a level with the Symposium of Plato. The theory
of Michaelis {Not. in Lowth, xxxi.) thafc it represents
a young husband and his favorite bride hindered, by
harem jealousies or regulations, from free intercourse
with each other, seems to us preferable, and connects
itself with the identification of the Shulamite with Abi
shag, already noticed.
/ "The final cause of Canticles," it has been well
said, " was that it might be a field in which mysticism
could disport itself" (Bishop Jebb, Correspond, with
Knox, i. 305). The traces of the " great mystery "
which thus connects divine and human love, are in
deed to be found everywhere, in the Targums of Rab
bis, in the writings of Fathers, Schoolmen, Puritans,
in the poems of Mystics like Novalis, Jelaleddin Rumi,
Saadi (comp. Tholuck, Morgenldnd. Mystik, pp. 55,
227). It appears in its highest form in the Vita Nn-
ova of Dante, purified by Christian feeling from tha
sensuous element which in eastera writers too readily
mingles with it. Of all strange assertions, that of Re*
nan, that mysticism of this kind is foreign to the She*
mitic character, is perhapf about the strangest {Cant.
des Cant. p. 119).
g Both iu Ecclesiastea (ii. 3-12) aud yet mere io

SOLOMON
»come the phUosopher, the mysfcic has passed into
ihe moraUst. But the man passed through both
stages without being permanently the better for
either. They were to hira but phases of his Ufe
which he had known and exhausted (Eccl. i., ii.)
And therefore there came, as in fche Confessions of
the Preacher, the great refcribufcion. The "sense
that wore with time " avenged " the crime of sense."
There feU on him, as on other crowned voluptua
ries," fche weariness which sees wrifcten on all things.
Vanity of Vanities. Slowly only could he recover
from that "vexation of spirit," and the recovery
was incomplete. It was not as the strong burst of
penitence that brought to his father David fche as
surance of forgiveness. He could not rise to fche
height frora which he had fallen, or restore tbe
freshness of his first love. The weary soul could
only lay again, with slow and painful relapses, the
foundations of a true morality [comp. Ecclesi
astes]. (14.) Here our survey must end. We may not
»^nter into the things within the vail, or answer
either way the doubting question, Is there any
hope? Others have not shrunk from debating that
question, deciding, according to their formulae, that
he did or did not fulfiU the conditions of salvation
so as to satisfy them, were they to be placed upon
the judgment-seat. It would not be profitable to
give references to the patristic and ofcher writers
who have dealt wifch this subject.- . They have been
elaborately collected by Calmet {Dictlvnn. s. v.
Salomon, NouvelL Dissert. De la salut du Sal.).
It is noticeable and characteristic that Chrysostom
and the theologians of the Greek Church are, for
the most part, favorable, Augustine and those of
the Latin, for the most part, adverse to his chances
of salvation.''
VIL Legends. — (1.) The impression made by
Solomon on fche minds of later generations, is shown
in its best form by the desire to claim the sanction
of his name for even the noblest thoughts of other
writers. Possibly in .Ecclesiastes, certainly in
the Book of Wisdom, we have instances of this,
free from the vicious element of an apocryphal Uter
ature. Before long, however, ifc took other forras.
Round the facts of the history, as a nucleus, there
gathers a whole world of fantastic fables, Jewish,
Christian, Mohammedan, refractions, colored and
distorted, according to the media through which
they pass, of a colossal form. Even in the Targum of
Ecclesiastes we find strange stories of his character.
He and fche Rabbis of the Sanhedrim safc and drank
wine togefcher in Jabne. His paradise was fiUed
wifch cosfcly trees which the evil spirits brought him
from India. The casuistry of the Rabbis rested on
his dicta. Ashniedai, the king of the demons, de
prived hira of his magic ring, and he wandered
through tbe cities of Israel, weeping and saying,
I, the preacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem

SOLOMON

3085

Proverbs (i. 11-17, vii. 6-23) we may And trax;e.5 of ex-
{leriencea gained in other ways. Tbe graphic picture
of the life of the robbers and the prostitutes of an
sastern city could hardly hitve been drawn but by
one who, like Haroun Alrashid and other oriental
kings, at times laid aside the trappings of royalty, and
plunged into the other extreme of social life, that so
lie might gain the excitement of a fresh sensation.
« " A taste for pleasure is extinguished in the
King's heart (Louis XIV.). Age and devotion have
aught him to make serious reflections on the vanity
)f everything he was formerly fond of" (Mme. de
UalDtenoa's Letters, p. 2061.

(Ginsburg, Koheleth, App. i. H. ; Koran, Sur. 38).
He left behind hira spells and charms to cure dis
eases and cast out evil spirits; and for centuries,
incantations bearing his name were the special
boast of all the "vagabond Jew exorcists" who
swarmed in the cities of the empire (Jos. Ant. viii.
2, § 5; Just. Mart. Respons. ud Orthod. p. 55:
Origen, Comm. in Matt. xxvi. 3). His wisdom
enabled him to interpret the speech of beasts and
birds, a gift shared afterwards, it was said, by bis
descendant Hillel (Ewald, iii. 4U7; Koran, Sur.
37). He knew the secret virtues of gems and
herbs = (Fabricius, Codex Pseudep. V. T. 10i2).
He was the inventor of Syriac and Arabian alpha
bets (ibid. 1014).
(2.) Arabic imagination took a yet wilder flight.
After a long struggle with the rebellious Afreets
and Jinns, Solomon conquered them and cast
them into the sea (Lane, Arabian Nights, i. 36).
The remote pre-Adamite past was peopled with a
succession of forty Solomons, rCiling over diflferent
races, each with a shield and sword that gave them
sovereignty over the Jinns. To Solomon himself
belonged the magic ring which revealed to him the
past, the present, and the future. Because he
stayed his march at the hour of prayer instead of
riding on with his horsemen God gave him the
wuids as a chariot, and the birds flew over him,
making a perpetual canopy. The demons in their
spite wrote books of magic in his name, but he,
being ware of it, seized them and placed them
under his throne, where they remained till his
death, and then the demons again got hold of
them and scattered thera abroad (D'Herbelot, s. v.
" Soliman ben Daoud; '.' -Koran, Su7: 21). The
visit of the Queen of Sheba furnished some three or
four romances. Tha Koran (Sur. 27) narrates her
visit, her wonder, her conversion to the Islam,
whioh Solomon professed. She appears under three
diff'erent names, Nicaule (Calmet, Did. s. v.), Bal-
kis (D'Herbelot, ». v.), Makgda (Pineda, v. 14).
The Arabs claim her as belonging to Yemen, the
Ethiopians as coming frora Meroe. In each form
of the story a son is born to her, which calls Solo
mon its father, in the Arab version Meilekh, in the
Ethiopian David, after his grandfather, the ancestor
of a long line of Ethiopian kings (Ludolf, Ilist.
yEthiop. ii. 3, 4, 5). Twelve thousand Hebrews
accompanied her on her return home, and from
thera were descended the Jews of Ethiopia, and the
great Prester John (Presbyter Joannes) of mediae
val travellers (D'Herbelot, I. c. ; Pineda, I. c;
Corylus, Diss, de regina Aiislr. in Menthen's
Thesaurus, i.). She brought to Solomon the
self-same gifts which the Magi afterwards brought
to Christ. [JIagi.] One at least of the hard
questions with which she came was rescued from
oblivion. Fair boys and sturdy girls were dressed
up by her exactly alike so that no eye could distin-

& How deeply this question entered iuto the hearts
of medi£eval thinkers, and in what way tbe noblest
of them all deoided it, we read in the Dteina Comrnf.-
dia : — "La quinta luce ch^ tranoi piu bella
Spira di tal amor, che tutto il mondo
Laggiu ne gola dl Baper novella." Paradiso, x. 109.
The " spira di tal amor " refers, of course, to the Song
of Solomon.
c Tbe name of a well-known plant, Solomon's sea)
( Convaitaria Majalis), perpel oates the old belief

3086

SOLOMON

guish them. The king placed water before them
and bade them wash, and then when fche boys
scrubbed their faces and fche girls sfcroked them
softly, he made out which were which (Glycas,
AnnaL in Fabricius, I. c). Versions of these and
other legends are to be found also in Weil, £ibL
Legends, p. 171 ; Fiirst, PerleTischniire, c. 36.
(3.) The fame of Solomon spread northward
and eastward to Persia. At Shiraz they showed
the Meder- Suleiman, or torab of Bath-sheba, said
fchafc Persepolis had been builfc by the Jinns at his
command, and pointed fco fche Takht-i-Suleiman
(Solomon's throne) in proof. Through their spells
too he made his wonderful journey, breakfasting at
Pei'sepoHs, dining at Baal-bec, supping at Jerusa
lem (Chardin, iii. 135, 143; Ouseley, ii. 41, 437).
Persian literature, while it had no single life of
David, boasted of countless histories of Solomon,
one, the Suleiman-Nameh, in eighty books, ascribed
to the poet Firdousi (D'Herbelot, L c; Chardin,
iii. 198). In popular belief he was confounded
with the great Persian hero, Djemschid (Ouseley,
ii. 64).
(4.) As might be expecfced, fche legends appeared
in their coarsest and basest form in Europe, losing
all their poetry, the raere appendages of the raost
detestable of Apocrypha, Books of Magic, a Hygro-
manteia, a Contradictio Salomonis (whatever that
raay be) conderaned by Gelasius, Incantationes,
Clavicula, and the hke." One pseudonymous work
has a somewhat higher character, the Psalterium
Salomonis, altogether without merit, a mere cento
from the Psalms of David, bufc not otherwise
offensive (Fabricius, i. 917; Tregelles, Introd. to
iV. T. p. 154), and therefore attached sometimes,
as in fche greafc Alexandrian Codex, to the sacred
volume. One strange story meets us from the
omnivorous Note-book of Bede. Solomon did re
pent, and in his contrition he offered himself to
the Sanhedrim, doing penance, and they scourged
him five tiraes with rods, and then he travelled in
sackcloth through the cities of Israel, saying as he
went. Give alms to Solomon (Bede, de Salom. ap.
Pineda). VIII. Neio Testament. — We pass from this
wild farrago of Jewish and other fables, to that
which presents the raost entire contrast fco them.
The teaching of the N. T. adds nothing to the
materials for a life of Solomon. It enables us to
take the truest measure of it. The teaching of
the Son of Man passes sentence on all that kingly
pomp. It declares that in the humblest work of
God, in the lilies of the field, there is a grace and
beauty hiexhaustible, so that even " Solomon in all
his glory was not arrayed like one of these " (Matt.
vi. 29).* It presents to us the perfect pattern of a
growth in wisdom, like, and yet unlike his, taking,
in the eyes of men, a less varied range; but deeper,
truer, purer, because united with purity, victory
over temptation, self-sacrifice, the true large-heart-
edness of sympathy with all men. On the lowest

« Two of ttiese strange books have been reprinted
In fac-simile by Scheible {Kioster^-?.). The Ctavicula
Salomonis Necromantica consists of incantations made
up of Hebrew words ; and the mightiest spell of the
enchanter is the Sigilliim Salomonis, engmvecl with
Hebrew characters, such as might have been handed
lowQ through a long succession of Jewish exorcists.
t is singular (unless tbis too was part of the im
posture) that both the books profess to be published
*rith the special Hcense of Popes Julius II. and Alex-

SOLOMON'S SERVANTS
view which serious thinkers have ever taken of the
life of Jesus of Nazareth, they have owned that
there was in Him one " greater than Solomon "
(Matt. xii. 42). The historical Son of David,
ideally a type of the Christ that was to come, waa
in his actual life, the most strangely contrasfced.
It was reserved for the true, the later Son of David,
to fulfiU the prophetic yearnings which had gath
ered round the birth of the earlier. He was the
true Sh&lonioh, the prince of peace, the true Jedid-
jah, the well-beloved of the Father. E. H. P.
* SOLOMON'S GARDENS. [Garden,
vol. i. p. 868.]
SOLOMON'S PORCH. [Palace.]
SOLOMON'S SERVANTS (Childken
OF). {-h^P n^? \35 : viol 'A&Sw^^pd,
Ezr. ii. 58; viol 5oiiAwv 'Xa\(i>fMd>v, Ezr. ii. 55;
Neh. vii. 57, 60: fUi servorum Sahmonis.) The
persons thus named appear in the lists of the ex
iles who returned from the Captivity. They occupy
all but the lowest places in those Hsts, and their
position indicates some connection with the services
of the Temple. Firsfc corae the priests, then Le
vites, then Nethinim, then " the children of Solo
mon's servants." In the Greek of I Esdr. v. 33,
35, the order is the same, but instead of Nethinim
we meet wifch Up6hov\oi, " servanfcs " or •' minis
ters," of the Temple. In the absence of any
definite statement as to their oflBce we are left to
conjecture and inference. (1.) The name as weU
as the order, implies inferiority even to the Ne
thinim. They are the descendants of fche slaves
of Solomon. The servitude of the Nethinim,
" given to the Ixird," was softened by the idea of
dedication. [Nkthinim.] (2.) The starting-
point of their history is to be found probably in
1 K. V. 13, 14, ix. 20, 21; 2 Chr. viii. 7, 8. Ca
naanites, who had been living till then with a cer
tain measure of freedom, were reduced by Solomon
to the helot state, and compelled to labor in the
king's stone-quarries, and in building his palaces
and cities. To some extent, indeed, the change
had been effected under David, but it appears to
have heen then connected specially with the Tem
ple, and the servitude under his successor was at
once harder and more extended (1 Chr. xxii. 2).
(3.) The last passage throws some light on their
special office. The Nethinim, as in the case of
the Gibeonites, were appointed to be hewers of
wood (Josh. ix. 23), and this was enough for the
services of the Tabernacle. For the construction
and repairs of the Temple another kind of labor
was required, and the new slaves were set to the
work of hewing and squaring stones (1 K. v. 17,
18). Their descendants appear to have formed a
distinct order, inheriting probably the same func
tions and the sarae skill. The prominence which
the erection of a new Temple on their return from
Babylon would give to their work, accounts for the
special mention of them in the lists of Ezra and

ander VI. Was this the form of Hebrew literature
which they were willing to encourage?
& A pleasant Persian apologue teaching a like les
son deserves to be rescued from the mass of fables.
The king of Israel met one day the king of the ante,
took the insect on his hand, and held converse with
it, asking, Croesus-like, '^Am not I the mightiest and
most glorious of men?" "Not so," replied tho ant-
kiog, " Thou eittest on a throne of gold, but I inak«
thy hand my throne, aud thus am greater tban thou *
(Chardin, iii. 198).

SOLOMON'S SONG
Kehemiah. Like the Nethinim, they were in the
position of proselytes, outwardly conforming to the
Jewish ritual, though belonging to the bated race,
and, even in their names, bearing traces of their
origin (Ezr. ii. 55-68). Like them, too, the great
mass must either have perished, or given up their
position, or remained at Babylon. The 392 of Ezr.
ii. 55 (Nethinim included) must have been but a
small fragment of the descendants of the 160,000
employed by Solomon (1 K. y. 15). E. H. P.
SOLOMON'S SONG. [Canticles.]
SOLOMON, WISDOM OP. [Wisdom,
Book of.]
SON." The term " son " is used in Scripture
language to imply almost any kind of descent or
succession, as ben shdndh, "son of a year," i. e. a
year old, ben kesheth, " son of a bow," i. e. an
arrow. The word bar is often found in N. T. in
composition, as Bar-timseus. [Children.]
H. W. P.
SON OF GOU (vihs eeod),'' the Second
Person of the ever-blessed Trinity, who is coequal,
coeternal, and consubstantial with the Father; and
who took the nature of man in the womb of the
blessed Virgin Mary, and as Man bears the name
of. Jesus, or Saviour, and who proved Himself to
be the Messiah or Chkist, the Prophet, Priest,
and King of all true Israelites, the seed of faithful
Abraham, the universal Church of God.
The title Son of God was gradually revealed to
the world in this its full and highest significance.
In the book of Genesis the term occurs in the
plural nuraber, " Sons of God," DTT 7Sn"^p2
" (Gen. vi. 2, 4), and there the appellation is applied
to the potentates of the earth, and to those who
were set ni authority over others (according to the
exposition in Cyril Alex. Adv. Julian, p. 296, and
Adv. Anthroponioiph. c. 17), or (as some have
held) the sons of the family of Seth — those who
had been most distinguished by piety and virtue.
In Job i. 6, and ii. 1, this title, " Sons of God,"
is used as a designation of the Angels. In Psalm
Ixxxii. 6, " I have said, ye are gods; and ye are all
sons of the Highest" (V"'''^? \2?)) the title is
explained by Theodoret and others to signify those
persons whom God invests with a portion of his
own dignity and authority as rulers of his people,
and who have clearer revelations of his wil), as our
Lord intimates (John x. 38); and therefore tb,e
children of Israel, the favored people of God, are
specially called collectively, by God, his Son (Ex.
iv. 22,2.3; Hos. xi. 1).
But, in a still higher sense, that title is applied
by God to his only Son, begotten by eternal gen
eration (see Ps. ii. 7), as interpreted in tbe Epistle
to the Hebrews (i. 5, v. 5) ; the word QT'n,
" to-day," in that passage, being expressive of the
aet of God, with whom is no yesterday, nor to
morrow. " In aetemo neo preeteritum est, nee
•uturuui, sed perpetuum hodie " (Luther). That
"1. ]3 : v'.6t : fithis : from r22, "build "(see
¦ Jer. xxxiii. 7). [On the Biblical use of the word " son,"
tee J. W. Gibbs in the Qaar. Christ. Spectator, vi.
166 ff. — A.]
2. "12, ftom ~1~I2, " pure " : riicvov : diledus
.ProT. xxxi. 2).
3. lb"! : iraiSi'ov : puer.

SON OF GOD

3087

text evidently refers to fche Messiah, who is crowned
and anointed as King by God (Ps. ii. 2, 6 ), althougK
resisted by men, Ps. ii, 1, 3, compared with Acts
iv. 25-27, where thafc text is apphed by St. Peter
to fche crucifixion of Christ and his subsequent ex
altation ; and the same psalm is also referred to
Christ by Sfc. Paul, when preaching in the Jewish
synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia (Acts xiii. 33);
whence it may be inferred that the Jews might
have learnt from their own Scriptures that the
Messiah is in a special sense the Son of God ; and
this is allowed by Maimonides in Porta Mosis, ed.
Pococke, pp. 160, 239. This truth might have been
deduced by logical inference from the Old Testa
ment, but in no passage of the Hebrew Scriptures
is the Messiah clearly and explicitly designated by
the title " Son of God." The words, " The form
of the fourth is Hke the Son of God," are in the
Chaldee portion of the book of Daniel (Dan. iii.
25), and were uttered by a heathen and idolatrous
king, Nebuchadnezzar, and cannot therefore be un
derstood as expressing a clear appreciation, on the
part of the speaker, of the divinity of the Messiah,
although ^we may readily agree that, like Caiaphaa
and Pilate, the king of Babylon, especially as he was
perhaps in habits of intercourse with Daniel, may
have delivered a true prophecy concerning Christ.
We are now brought to the question, whe^ier
the Jews, in our Jjord's age, generally believed that
the Messiah, or Christ, was also the Son of God
in the highest sense of the term, namely, as a
Divine Person, coequal, coeternal, and consubstan
tial with the Father?
That the Jews entertained fche opinion that the
Messiah would be the Son of God, in the subordinate
senses of the term already specified (namely, as a
holy person, and as invested with great power by
God), cannot be doubted; bufc fche poinfc at issue
is, whether they supposed that the Messiah would
be what the Universal Church believes Jesus Christ
to be? Did they believe (as some learned persons
suppose they did) that the terms Messiah and Son
of (^od are " equivalent and inseparable"?
It cannot be denied that the Jews ought to have
deduced the doctrine of the Messiah's divinity from
their own Scriptures, especially from such texts as
Psalm xiv. 6, 7, " Thy throne, 0 God, is for ever
and ever ; the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right
sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness and hafcest
wickedness; therefore God, thy God, anointed Thee
with the oil of gladness above thy fellows; " a text
to which the authpr of tbe Epistle to the Hebrews
appeals (Heb. i. 8); and the doctrine of the Mes
siah's Godhead might also have been inferred from
such texts as Isaiah ix. 6, " Unto us a Child is
born, unto us a Son is given . . . and his name
shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty
God ; " and vii. 14, " Behold a Virgin shall con
ceive and bear a Son, and shall call his name Im-
manuel" (wifch us, GJod); and from Jer. xxiii. 5,
" Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will
raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King
shall reign and prosper . . . ; and this is Jhe name

4. T'b^ : yevvrjfia : stirps ; genus.
5. Y'^l: a^epfjia: posteri.
6. l'l3T2, like a sou, /. e. a successor.
& The present article, in coiyunction with that ol
Saviour, forms the supplement to the life of our lord
[See Jesus Christ, vol. ii. p. 1347.]

3088

SON OF GOD

whereby He shall be called, the Lord (Jehovah)
OUT Righteousness; " and from Micah v. 2, " Out
of thee (Bethlehem Ephratah) shall He come forth
unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings
forth have been from of old, from everlasting; " and
from Zech. xi. 13, "And the Lord said unto me.
Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was
prised at of them." «
But the question is not, whether the Jews might
not and ought not to have inferred the Divine Son-
ship of the Messiah from their own Scriptures, but
whether, for the most part, they really did deduce
that doctrine from those Scriptures? They ought
doubtless to have been prepared by those Scriptures
for a suffering Messiah ; bufc this we know was not
the case, and the Cross of Christ was to them a
stumbling-block (1 Cor. i. 23); and one of the
strongest objections which they raised against the
Christians was, that they worshipped a man who
died a death which is declared to be an accursed
one in the Law of Moses, which was dehvered by
God himself (Deut. xxi. 23).
May it not also be true, that the Jews of our
Lord's age failed Hkewise of attaining to the true
sense of tbeir own Scriptures, in the opposite direc
tion ? May it not also be true, that they did not
acknowledge the Divine Sonship of the Messiah,
and that they were not prepared to admit the
claims of one who asserted Himself to be the Christ,
and also affirmed Himself fco be the Son of God,
coequal with the Father?
In looking at this question a priori, it must be
remembered that the Hebrew Scriptures declare in
the strongest and most expficit terms the Divine
Unity. " Hear, 0 Israel, the Lord our God is one
Lord " (Deut. vi. 4), this is the solemn declaration
which the Jews recite daily, morning and evening
(see Mishnah, Berachoth, chap. i.). They regarded
themselves as set pnarfc from all the nations of
earth to be a witness of God's unity, and to protest
against the polytheism of the rest of mankind.
And having suffered severe chastisements in the
Babylonish Captivity for their own idolatries, they
shrunk — and still shrink — with fear and abhor
rence, from everything that might seem in any de
gree to trench upon the doctrine of the unity of
the Godhead.
To this consideration we must add, a posteriori,
the external evidence derived from tbe testimony of
ancient viTitei's who lived near to our Lord's age.
Trypho, the learned Jew, who debated with
Justin Martyr at Kphesus about A. J). 150, on the
points of controversy between the Jews and Chris
tians, expressly states, " that it seems to him not
only paradoxical but silly {fiojpSv), to say thafc the
Messiah, or Christ, preexisted from eternity as
God, and that He condescended to be born as man,
and " — Trypho explodes the notion — that Christ
is '¦ not man begotten of man " (Justin M. Dialog,
c. Tryphon. § 48, vol. ii. p. 154, ed. Otto, Jen.
1842). Here is a distinct assertion on the part of
the Jew that the Messiah is merely ma.n; and here
also is a denial of the Christian doctrine, that He
is God, preexisting from eternity, and took the
nature of man. In the same Dialogue the Jewish
interlocutor, Trypho, approves the tenets of the
Ebionite heretics, who assertjd that the Christ was
a mere man {^iKhs MpQ>iros)i and adds this re-
o * On these passages and on the general subject,
Me, ou the ono hand, Hengstenberg's Christology of
he Old Test. ; on the other, three articles by Dr. Q.

SON OF GOD
markable declaration: "all we (Jews) expect that
the Messiah will come as a man from man (i. «.
from human parents), and that Elias will anoint
Him when He is come" {irdvres ijpe'ts rhv
Xpto'rhv iivO pojirpv i^ a v 6 p diir a v irpotr-
SoKwficv yevf}a-eadai, Kal rhv 'HXiav XP^^^^
avrhv e\66vTa, Trypho Judseus, ap. Justin M.
Dialog. § 49, p. 156). And in § 54, St. Justin
Martyr, speaking in the name of the Christian be
lievers, combats that assertion, and affirms that the
Hebrew prophecies themselves, to which he appeals,
testify that the Messiah is not a man bom of man,
according to the ordinary manner of human gen
eration, ^vdptoiros ^^ avOpdJTTCov Kara rh KOivhv
rcav avBptiTTWV yevvTjdeis. And there is a remark
able passage in a subsequent portion of the same
dialogue, where Justin says, '¦ If, 0 Trypho, ye
understood who He is fchafc is sometimes called the
Messenger of mighty counsel, and a Man by Ezekiel,
and designated as the Son of Man by Daniel, and
as a Child by Isaiah, and the Messiah and God by
Daniel, and a Stone by many, and Wisdom by
Solomon, and a Star by Moses, and the Day-spring
by Zechariah, and who is represented as suffering,
by Isaiah, and is called by him a Rod, and a Flower
and Corner Stone, and the Son of God, you would
not have spoken blasphemy against Him, who is
already come, and who has been born, and has
suffered, and has ascended into Heaven, and will
come again " (Justin M. c. Tryphon. § 126, p.
409); and Justin affirms that he has proved, against
the Jews, that " Christ, who is the Lord and God,
and Son of (iod," appeared to their Fathers, the
Patriarchs, in various forms, under the old dispen
sation (§ 128, p. 425). Compare the authorities
in Dorner, On the Person of Christ, i. pp. 265-
271, Engl, transl.
In the middle of the third century, Origen wrote
his apologetic work in defense of Christianity
against Celsus, fche Epicurean, and in various places
of that treatise he recites the allegations of the
Jews against the Gospel. In one passage, when
Celsus, speaking in the person of a Jew, had said
that one of the Hebrew prophets had predicted fchafc
the Son of God would come to judge the righteous
and to punish the wicked, Origen rejoins, that such
a notion is most improperly ascribed to a Jew ;
inasmuch as the Jews did indeed look for a Messiah,.
but not as the Son of God. "No Jew," he says,
would allow that any prophet ever said that a Son
of God would come; but what the Jews do say, is,
that the Christ of God will come ; and they often
dispute with us Christians as to this very question,
for instance, concerning the Son of God, ou the
plea that no such Person exists or was ever fore
told " (Origen, Adv. Cels. i. § 49, vol. i. p. 365,
B ; see p. 38 and p. 79, ed. Spencer, and other
places, e. g. pp. 22, 30, 51, 62, 71, 82, 110, 136).
In the 4tli century Eusebius testified that the
Jews of that age would not accept fche title Son of
God as applicable to the Messiah (Euseb. Dem.
Evang. iv. 1), and in later days they charge Chris
tians with impiety and blasphemy for designating
Christ by that title (Leontius, Cone, Nicen. ii.
Act. iv.).
Lastly, a learned Jew, Orohio, in the 17th cen
tury, in his conference with Limborch, affirms that
if a prophet, or even, if ifc were possible, the Messiah

R. Noyes in the C/iristian Examiner frr Jan., May
and July, 1836. A.

SON OF GOD
himself, were :o work miracles, and yet lay claira
to divinity, he ought fco be put to death by stoning,
as one guilty of blasphemy ( Orobio ap. Limborch,
Arnica Collatio, p. 295, ed. Goud. 1688).
Hence, therefore, on the whole, there seems to
be sufficient reason for concluding (wifch Basnage,
Histoire des Julfs, iv. c 24), that although the
Jews of our Lord's age might have inferred, and
ought to have inferred, from their own Scriptures,
that the Messiah, or Christ, would be a Divine
Person, and the Son of God in the highest sense
of the term; and although some among them,
who were more enhghtened than the rest, enter
tained that opinion; yet it was not the popular
and generally received doctrine among the Jews
that the Messiah would be other than a man, bom
of human parents, and not a Divine Being, and Son
3f God.
This conclusion reflects much light upon certain
important questions of fche Gospel History, and
clears up several difficulties wifch regard fco the evi
dences of Christianifcy.
1. It supphes an answer to the question, " Why
was Jesus Christ put to death? " He was accused
hy the Jews before Pilate as guilty of sedition and
rebellion against fche power of Rome (Luke xxiii.
1-5; cf. Jobn xix. 12); bufc it is hardly neeessary
to observe that this was a mere pretext, to which
the Jews resorted for fche sake uf exasperating the
Roman governor against Him, and even of com
pelling Pilate, against his will, to condemn Him, in
arder that he might not lay himself open to the
charge of "not being Csesar's friend" (Jolin xix.
12); whereas, if our Lord had really announced an
intention of emancipating the -lews from the Ro
man yoke. He would have procured for Himself
tbe favor and support of the Jewish rulers and
people. Nor does it appear that Jesus Christ was put to
death because He claimed to be the Christ. The
I'ews were at thafc time anxiously looking for the
Messiah; the Pharisees asked the Baptist whether
he was the Christ (Jobn i. 20-25); "and all men
mused in their hearts of John whether he were the
Christ or not " (Luke iii. 15).
On tills ifc may be observed, in passing, that the
people well knew that John the Baptist was the son
3f Zacharias and Elizabeth; they knew him to be
a mere man, born after the ordinary manner of hu
man generation ; and yet they all thought it prob
able that he might be the Christ.
This circumstance proves, that, according to
their notions, the Christ was not to be a Divine
Pereon; certaiidy not the Son of God, in the Chris
tian sense of the term. The same conclusion may
be deduced from the circumstance that the Jews of
that age eagerly welcomed the appearance of those
false Christs (Matt. xxiv. 24), who promised fco de
liver them from the Roman yoke, and whom they
knew to be mere men, and who did not claim Di
vine origin, which they certainly would have done,
if the Christ was generally expeded to be the Son
of God.
We see also that affcer the miraculous feeding,
tbe people were desirous of "making Jesus a king"
(John vi. 15); and after the raising of Lazarus at
Bethany they met Him with enthusiastic acclama
tions, "Hosanna to the Son of l>vid; blessed is
Vie tnat cometh in the name of the Lord " (Matt.
ixi. 9; Mark xi. 9; John xii. 13). And the eager
Uld restless facility with which the Jews admitted
ihe pre) elisions of almost every fanatical adventurer

SON OF GOD 3089
who professed to be the Messiah at that period,
seems to show that they would have willingly al
lowed the claims of one who " wrought mar.y mir
acles," as, even by the confession of the chief priests
and Pharisees, Jesus of Nazareth did (John xi. 47),
if He had been content with such a title as the
Jews assigned to their expected Messiah, namely,
thafc of a great Prophet, distinguished by mighty
works. We find that when our Lord put to the Phari
sees this question, " What think ye of Christ, whose
Son is He ? " their answer was not, " He is the Son
of God," but " He is the Son of David; " and fchey
could not answer the second question which He next
propounded to tbem, " How then dofch David, speak
ing in fche Spirifc, call Him Lord? " The reason
was, because fche Pharisees did not expect the Mes
siah to be the Son of God ; and when He, who is
the Messiah, claimed to be God, they rejected his
claim to be the Christ.
The reason, therefore, of his condemnation by
the Jewish Sanhedrim, and of his delivery to Pi
late for crucifixion, was not that He claimed to be
the Messiah or Christ, but because He asserted
Himself to be much more than that: in a word,
because He claimed to be the Son of God, and to
be God.
This is further evident from fche words of the
Jews to Pilate, " We have a law, and by our law
He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son
of God " (John xix. 7) ; and from the previous res
olution of the Jewish Sanhedrim, " Then said they
all. Art thou then the Son of God? And He said
unto them, Ye say that I am. And they said.
What need we any further witness? for we our
selves have heard of his own mouth. And the
whole multitude of them arose and led Him unto
Pilate " (Luke xxii. 70, 71, xxiii. 1).
In St. Matthew's Gospel the question of the
high-priest is as follows: "I adjure thee by the
living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the
Christ, the Son of God " (Matt. xxvi. 63). This
question does not intimate that in the opinion of
the high-priest the Christ was the Son of God,
but it shows that Jesus claimed both titles, and in
claiming them for Himself asserted that the Christ
was the Son of God; but that this was not the
popular opinion, is evident from fche considerations
above sfcafced, and also from his words to St. Peter
when fche Apostle confessed Him to be the "Christ,
the Son of the living God " (Matt. xvi. 16); He
declared that Peter had received this truth, not
from human testimony, bufc by extraordinary reve
lation: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for
flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but
my Father which is in heaven " (Matt. xvi. 17).
It was the claim which He put forth to be the
Christ and Son of God, that led to our Lord's con
demnation by the unanimous verdict of the Sanhe
drim: " They all condemned Him to be guilty of
death" (Mark xiv. 64; Matt. xxvi. 63-66); and
the sense in which He claimed to be Son of God is
clear from the narrative of John v. 15. The Jews
sought the more to kill Him because He not only
had broken the Sabbath, bufc said also that God waa
his own Father {irarepa ^Siov e\eye rhv Qe6v)t
making Himself " equal unto God ; " and when He
claimed Divine preexistence, saying, " Before Abra
ham was (e-yeVero), I am, then took they up stones
to cast afc Him" (John viii. 58, 59); and when He
asserted his own unity with God, " I and the Fa
ther are one " — oue sidfstance (cV), not one person

3090

SON OF GOD

(els) — " then the Jews took up stones again to
stone Him" (John x. .30, 31); and this is evident
again from their own words, " For a good work we
stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because
that thou, being a man, makest thyself God "
(John X. 33).
Accordingly we find that, after tbe Ascension,
the Apostles labored to bring the Jews to acknowl
edge that Jesus was not only the Christ, but was
also a Divine Person, even tbe Lord Jehovah.
Thus, for example, St. Peter, after the outpouring
of the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost by
Christ, says, " Therefore let all the house of Israel
know assuredly, that God hath made that same
Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord (Kvptou,
Jehovah) arul Christ " (Acts ii. 36)."
2. This conclusion supplies a convincing proof
of Christ's Godhead. If He is not the Son of
God, equal witb God, then there is no other alter
native but that He was guilty of blasphemy; for
He claimed " God as his own Father, making
Himself equal with God," and by doing so He pro
posed Himself as an object of Divine worship. And
in that case He would have rightly been put to
death; and the Jews in rejecting and kilhng Him
would have been acting in obedience to the Law
of God, which commanded them to put to death
any prophet, however distinguished he might be
by the working of miracles, if he were guilty of
blasphemy (Deut. xiii. 1-11); and the crucifixion
of Jesus would have been an act of pious zeal on
their part for the honor of God, and would have
commended them to bis favor and protection,
whereas we know that it was that act which filled
the cup of their national guilt, and has made theni
outcasts from God to this day (Matt, xxiii. 32-38;
Luke xiii. 33-35; 1 Thess. ii. 15, 16; James
V. 6).
When they repent of this sin, and say, "Blessed
(eu\oy7]p.4vo?) is He that cometh in the name of
the Lord," and acknowledge Jesus to be Christ
and the Son of God, coequal with God, then Israel
shall be saved (Kom. xi, 26).
3. This conclusion also explains the fact — which
might otherwise ha\ e perplexed and staggered us
— that the miracles whieh Jesus wrought, and
which the Jews and tbeir rulers acknowledged to
have been wrought by Him, did not have their
due influence upon them ; those mighty and mer
ciful works did not produce the effect upon them
which they ought to have produced, and which
those works would have produced, if tlie Jews and
their rulers bad been prepared, as they ought to
have been, by an intelligent study of their own
Scriptures, to regard their expected IMessiah as the
Son of God, coequal with God.
Not being so prepared, they apphed to those
miraoles the test supplied by their own Law, which
enjoined that, if a prophet arose among them, and
worked miracles, and endeavored to draw them
away from the worship of the true (Jod, those mir
acles were to be regarded as trials of their own stead
fastness, and were not to be accepted as proofs of a
Divine mission, " but the prophet himself was to be

o *¦ In ascribing to St. Peter the remarkable prop
osition that " God hath made Jesus Jehovah," the
writer of this article appears to have overlooked the
"aet that Kvpiov (" Lord ") in Acts ii. .36 refers to rt^
-wptV ^ov (" my Lord ") in ver. 34, quoted from Ps.
px. 1, where the Hebrew correspondent is uot Jeho
vah, but ]^^N, MOn, tbe common word for " lord "

SON OF GOD
put to death " (Deut. xiii. 1-11). The Jews tried
our Lord and his miracles by this law. Some of
the Jews ventured to say that " Jesus of Nazareth
was specially in the mind of the Divine Lawgiver
when He framed that law " (see Fagius on the
Chaldee Pai-aphrase of Deut. xiii., and his note on
Deut. xviii. 15), and that it was provided expressly
to meet his case. Indeed they do not hesitate to
say that, in the words of the Law, " if thy brother,
the son of thy nwiher, entice thee secretly"
(Deut. xiii. 6), there was a prophetic reference
to the case of Jesus, who "said that He had a
human mother, but not a human father, but
was the Son of God and was God " (see Fagius,
I. 0.).
Jesus claimed to be the Messiah ; but, according
to the popular view and preconceived notions of
the Jews, the Messiah was to be merely a human
personage, and would not claim to be God and to
be entitled to Divine power. Therefore, though
they admitted his miracles to be really wrought,
yet they did not acknowledge the claim grounded
on those miraoles to be true, but rather regarded
those miracles as trials of their loyalty to the
One True God, whose prerogatives, they thought,
were infringed and invaded by Him who vprought
those miracles ; and they even ascribed those mira
cles to the agency of the Prince of the Devils
(Matt. xii. 21, 27; Mark iii. 22; Luke xi. 15),
and said that He, who wrought those miracles,
had a devil (John vii. 20, viii. 48), and they
called Hira Beelzebub (Matt. x. 25 ), because they
thought that He was setting Himself in opposition
to God.
4. "They all condemned Him to be guilty of
death" (Mark xiv. 64). The Sanhedrim was
unanimous in the sentence of condemnation. This
is remarkable. We cannot suppose that there were
not some conscientious persons hi so numerous a
body. Indeed, it may readily be allowed that many
of the members of the Sanhedrim were actuated by
an earnest zeal for the honor of God when they
condemned Jesus to death, and that they did what
they did with a view to God's glory, which they
supposed to he disparaged by our Lord's preten
sions i and that they were guided by a desire to
comply with God's law, which required them to put
to death every one who was guilty of blasphemy in
arrogating to himself the power which belonged to
God. Hence we may explain our Lord's words on the
cross, " Father, forgive them, for they hnow vot
what they do " (Luke xxiii. 34), " Father, they are
not aware that He whom they are crucifying is
thy Son; " and St. Peter said at Jerusalem to the
Jews after the crucifixion, " Now, brethren, I wot
that through ignorance ye did it (t. e. rejected and
crucified Christ), as did also your rulers." (Acts iii.
17); and St. Paul declared in the Jewish syna
gogue at Antioch in Pisidia, " they that dwell at
Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew Him
not, nor yet the voices of the prophets, which are
read every Sabbath-day, have fulfilled them in con
demning Him " (Acts xiii. 27).

or " master." St. Peter's meaning here may be illus
trated by his language elsewhere; see Acts t. 81;
1 Pet. i. 21, iii. 22 ; and oomp. Eph. i. 20-22, Phil. ii.
9-11. On the N. T. use of «vpio5 see Winer, De senstt
vocum Kvptos et 6 Kvpio; in Ac^is et Epp. Apost., Er
lang. 1828; Prof. Ftuart in the Bihl. Repos. for Octo
ber, 1831, pp. 783-776 , and Oremer's Bibl ^hea
WUrterb. d. neuttsl. Gracitat (1866), p. 340 f. A.

SON OF GOD
Hence it is evident tV.t the predictions of Holy
Scripture may be accomplished before the eyes of
men, while they are unconscious of that fulfillment;
and that the prophecies may be even accomplished
by persons who have the prophecies in their hands,
and do not know that they are fulfilling them.
Hence also it is clear that men may be guilty of
enormous sins when they are acting according to
their consciences and with a view to God's glory,
and while they hold the Bible in their hands and
hear its voice sounding in their ears (Acts xiii. 27) ;
and that it is therefore of unspeakable importance
not only to hear the words of the Scriptures, but
lo mark, iearn, and inwardly digest them, with
humility, docility, earnestness, and prayer, in order
to understand their true meaning.
Therefore the Christian student has great reason
to thank God that He has given in the Neio Tes
tament a divinely-inspired interpretation of the Old
Testament, and also has sent the Holy Spirit to
teach the Apostles all things (John xiv. 26), to
abide forever with his Church (John xiv. 16),
the body of Christ (Col. i. 24), which He has
made to be the pillar and ground ot truth (1 Tim.
iii. 15), and on whose interpretations, embodied in
the creeds generally received among Christians, we
may safely rely, as declaring the true sense of the
Bible. If the Jews and their rulers had not been swayed
by prejudice, but in a careful, candid, and bumble
spirit had considered the evidence before thera, they
would have known that their promised Messiah was
to be the Son of God, coequal with God, and that
He was revealed as such in their own Scriptures,
and thus his miracles would have had their due
effect upon their minds.
5. Those persons who now deny Christ to be tbe
Son of God, coequal and coeternal with the Father,
are followers of the Jews, wbo, on the plea of zeal
for the divine Unity, rejected and crucified Jesus,
who claimed to be God. Accordingly we find that
the Ebionites, Cerinthians, Nazareiies, Photinians,
and others who denied Christ's divinity, arose from
the ranks of Judaism (cf. Waterland, Works, v.
240, ed. Oxf. 1823: on these heresies the writer
of this article may perhaps be permitted to refer to
his Introduction to the First Epistle of St. John,
in his edition of the Greek Testament). It has
been well remarked by the late Professor Blunt that
the arguments by which the ancient Christian
Apologists, such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and
others, confuted the Jews, aflford the strongest
armor against the modern Socinians (see also the
remark of St. Athanasius, 0)'at. ii. adv. Arianos,
pp. 377-383, where he compares the Arians to the
Jews). The Jews sinned against the comparatively dim
light of the Old Testament: they who have fallen
into their error reject the evidence of both Testa
ments. 6. Lastly, the conclusion stated in this article
supplies a strong argument for the Divine origin
and truth of Christianity. The doctrine of Christ,
the Son of God as well as Son of Man, reaches from
the highest pole of Dirine glory lo the lowest pole
of human suffering. No human mind could ever
have devised such a scheme as that: and when it
fas presented to the mind of the Jews, the favored
people of God, they could not reach to eiiher of
these two poles; they could not mount to the
Height of the Divine exaltation in Christ the Son
'jf God, nor descend to the depth of human suf-

SON OF MAN

8091

fering in Christ the Son oj Man. They invented
the theory of two Messiahs, in order to escape from
the imaginary contradiction between a suffering
and triumphant Christ; and they rejected the doc
trine of Christ's Godhead in order to cling to a
defective and unscriptural Monotheism. They
failed of grasping the true sense of their own
Scriptures in both respects. But in the Gospel,
.Jesus Christ, Son of God and Son of Man, reaches
from one pole to the other, and filleth all in all
(Eph. i. 23). The Gospel of Christ ran counter
to the Jewish zeal for Monotheism, and incurred
the charge of Polytheism, by preaching Christ ths
Son of God, coequal with the Father; and also
contravened and challenged all the complex ano
dominant systems of Gentile Polytheism, by pro
claiming the Divine Unity. It boldly confronted
the World, and it has conquered the World : be
cause " the excellency of the power of the Gospel
is not of raan, but of God " (2 Cor. iv. 7).
The author of the above article may refer for
further confirmation of his statements, to an ex
cellent work by the Rev. W. Wilson, B. D., and
Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, entitled
An Illustration of the Method of explaining ihe
New Testament by the early Opinions of Jems and
Christians concerning Clir isl, Cambridge, 1797
[new ed. 1838] ; and to Dr. J. A. Dorner's Bis
tory of Ihe Development of the Doctrine of the
Person of Christ, of wbich an English translation
has been printed at Edinburgh, 1861, 2 vols. ; and
to Hagenbach, Dogmengeschichle, §§ 42, 65, 66,
4te Auflage, Leipz. 1857. C. W.
* On the use and meaning of the name " Son
of God," see C. D. ligen, De notione tituli Filii
Dei, Messice in Libris sac. tribuli, in Paulus's
Memorab. 1795, St. vii. pp. 119-198; two arts, in
the General Helios, and Jieview (Cambridge) for
Oct. 1812 and April 1813 (by Edward Everett) ;
Hom, Ueb. d. verschied. Sinn, in welch. Christus
im N. T. Goties Sokn genanni wird, in Rbhr's
Mag. f. christi. Prediger, 1830, Bd. iii. Heft 2,
Prof. Stuart's Excursus on Kom. i. 4, in hia
Comm. on the Ep. to the Romans (2d ed. 1835);
Dr. Lewis Mayer, in the Amer. Bibl. Repos. for
Jan. 1840; W. Gass, De utroque Jesu Christi
Nomine in N. T. obvio, Dei Filii et Hominis,
Tratisl. 1840 ; Neander, Life of Jesus, p. 94 ff.
(Amer. trans.); Schumann, Christus (1852),i. 254
ff., 324 ff., and elsewhere ; Ewald, Geschichte Chris
tus', 3" Ausg., p. 150 ff. (2e A. p. 94 ff.) ; W. S. Ty
ler, in the Bibl. Sacra for Oct. 1865 ; and CremeV,
Bibl.-theol. Wdrterb. d. neutest. Gracitat (1866),
art. vi6s. Tbe subject is of course discussed in
the various works on Biblical and dogmatic the
ology. A.
SON OF MAN (tSlN-ll, and m Chaldee
tt'JK^ '3 '. b oibs TOV avOpdrTTov, or vihs avBpila^
irov), the name of the Second Person of the ever-
blessed Trinity, the Eternal Word, the Everlasting
Son, becoming Incarnate, and so made the Son of
Man, the second Adam, the source of all grace to
all men, united in his mystical body, the Christian
Church. 1. In a general sense every descendant of Adam
bears tbe name " Son of Mau " in Holy Scripture,
as in Job xxv. 6 ; Ps. cxliv. 3, cxlvi. 3 ; Is. h. 12,
Ivi. 2. But in a more restricted signification it is
applied by way of distinction to particular persons.
Thus the prophet Ezekiel is addressed by .4 Imighti
God as Ben-Adam, or " S u of Man," about eightf

3092

SON OF MAN

times in his prophecies. This title appeara to be
assigned to Ezekiel aa a memento from God —
{p.efj.vrjo'o &vdpQ}iros ^v) — in order thafc fche proph
et, who had been permifcted fco behold fche glo
rious manifestation of the Godhead, and to hold
converse with the Almighty, and fco see visions of
fufcurifcy, should nofc be "exalted above measure by
the abundance of his revelations," but should re
member his own weakness and mortality, and not
impute his prophetic knowledge to himself, bufc as
cribe all fche glory of it to God, and be ready to
execute wifch meekness and alacrity the duties of
hia prophetic office and mission from God to his
fellow-men. 2. In a still more emphatic and distinctive sense
tlie title " Son of Man " is applied in fche Old
'I ostamenfc to the Messiah. And, inasmuch as the
Messiah ia revealed in fche Old Tesfcaraenfc as a
Divine Person and the Son of God (Ps. ii. 7, Ixxxix.
27; Is. vii. 14, ix. 6), ifc is a prophetic pre-an-
nouncement of his incarnation (compare Ps. viii.
4 with Heb. ii. 6, 7, 8, and 1 Cor. xv. 27).
In the Old Testament fche Messiah is designated
by this title, " Son of Man," in his royal and
judicial character, particularly in the prophecy of
Dan. vii. 13 : " Behold One like the Son of Man
came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the
Ancient of Days . . . and there was given Him
dominion and glory .... His dominion is an
everlasting dominion." Here the title is nofc Ben-
ish, or Ben-Adam, but Bar-enosh, which represents
humanity in its greatest frailty and humility, and
is a significant declaration that the exaltation of
Christ in his kingly and judicial oflBce is due to his
previous condescension, obedience, self-humiliation,
and suffering in his human nature (comp. Phil. ii.
5-11). The title " Son of Man," derived from that pas
sage of Daniel, is applied by Sfc. Stephen to Christ
in his heavenly exaltation and royal majesty:
" Behold I see fche heavens opened, and the Son of
Man standing on fche right hand of God " (Acts
vii. 56). This title is also applied to Christ by St.
John in the AiK)caIypse, describing our Lord*s
priestly office, which He executes in heaven (Rev.
i. 13): " In the midst of the seven golden candle
sticks " (or golden lamps, which are the emblems
of the churches, i. 20;, "one like the Son of Man
clothed with a garment down to the foot " (his
priestly attire); "his head and his hairs were
white like wool, as white as snow " (attributes of
divinity; comp. Dan. vii. 9). St. John also in
the Apocalypse (xiv. 14) ascribes the title " Son of
Man " to Christ when he displays his kingly and
judicial office: " I looked and beheld a white cloud,
and upon fche cloud One safc like unto the Son of
Man, havhig on his head a golden crown, and in
his hand a sharp sickle " — to reap the harvest of
J.he earth.
3. It is observable that Ezekiel never calls him
self t' Son of Man; " and in the Gospels Christ
is never called " Son of Man " by the EvangeUsts;
but wherever that title is applied to Him there, it
is applied by Himself
The only passages in the New Testament where
Christ is called " Son of Man " by any one except
Himself, are those just cited, and they relate fco
Him, not in his humiliation upon earth, but in
¦ hia heavenly exaltation consequent upon thafc hu-
tniliafcion. The passage ia John xii. 34, " Who is
^Ib Son of Man?" is an inquiry of fche people
feojicermng Him who applied this title fco Himself.

SON OF MAN
The reason of what has heen above remarked
seems fco be, that, as on the one hand it was expe
dient for Ezekiel to be reminded of his own hu
manity, in order fchafc he should nofc be elated by
his revelafcions ; and in order fchat the readers of
his prophecies might bear in mind thafc the revela
tions in them are nofc due fco Ezekiel, but to God
fche Holy Ghosfc, who spake by him (see 2 Pet. i.
21); so, on the other hand, it was necessary that
they who saw Christ's miracles, the evidences of
his divinity, and they who read the evangehc his
tories of them, might indeed adore Him as God,
bufc mighfc never forget that He is Man.
4. The two titles " Son of God " and " Son of
Man," declaring that in the one Person of Christ
there are two natures, the nature of God and the
nature of man, joined together, but not confused,
are presented to us in two memorable passages of
the Gospel, which declare the will of Christ that
all men should confess Him fco be God and man,
and which proclaim the blessedness of this con
fession. (1.) " Whom do men say that I, the Son of
Man, am ? " was our Lord's question to his Apos
tles ; aud " Whom say ye fchat I am ? Simon Peter
answered and said. Thou art the Christ, the Son
of the living God." Our Lord acknowledged thig
confession to be true, and to have been revealed
from heaven, and He blessed him who uttered it:
" Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, . . . . " —
" Thou art son of Jonas, Bar-jona (comp. John
xxi. 15); and as truly as thou art Bar-jona, so
truly am I Bar-enosh, Son of Man, and Ben-
Elohim, Son of God; and My Father, who is
in heaven, hath revealed this truth unto thee.
Blessed is every one who holds this faith; for I
myself, Son of God and Son of Man, am the liv
ing Rock on which the Church is builfc; and he
who holds fchis faifch ia a genuine Petros, a hvely
stone, hewn out of me the Divine Petra, fche Ever^
lasting Rock, and built upon me" (see the author
ities cited in the note on Matt. xvi. 18, in the '
present wrifcer's edition).
(2.) The other passage where the two titles
(Son of God and Son of Man) are found in the
Gospels is no less significant. Our Lord, standing
before Caiaphas and the chief priests, was interro
gated by the high-priest, " Art thou the Christ,
the Son of God?" (Matt. xxvi. 63; comp. Mark
xiv. 61). "Art thou what thou claimest to be,
the Messiah ? and art thou, as thou professest to
be, a Divine Person, the Son of God, the Son of
the Blessed?" "Jesus saith unfco him, Thou
sayesfc ifc; I am " (Matt. xxvi. 64; Mark xiv. 62).
But, in order fchat the high-priest and the coun
cil might noi suppose Him to be a Divine Person
only, and not to be also really and truly Man, our
Lord added oi his own accord, "Nevertheless"
(7r\^i/, besides, or, as St. Mark has it, Kai, also^
in addition to the avowal of my divinity) " I say
unto you. Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man
sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in
the clouds of heaven " (Matt. xxvi. 64; Mark xiv.
62). Thafc ia, " I am indeed the Son of God, but
do not forget that I am also the Son of Man.
BeUeve and confess the true faith, that I, who
claim to be the Christ, am Very God and Very
Man." 5. The Jews, in our Lord's age, were nofc dis
posed to receive either of the truths expressed in
those words. They were so tenacious of the doc
trine of the Divine Unity (as they undeistood it)

SON OF MAN
that they were not willing to accept the assertion
that Christ is the "Son of God," Very God of
Very God (see above, article Son of God), and
they were not disposed to admit thafc God could
become Incarnate, and that the Son of God could
be also the Son of Man (see the remarks on this
subject by Dorner, On the Person of Christ, In
troduction, throughout).
Hence we find that no sooner had our Lord as
serted these truths, than " the high-priest rent his
clothes, saying. He hath spoken blasphemy. What
think ye ? and they all condemned Hlni to be guilty
of death " (Matt, xxvi 65, GQ; Mark xiv. 63, 64).
And when St. Stephen had said, " Behold, I see
the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing
on the right hand of God," then fchey " cried out
with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran
upon him with one accord, and cast him out of
the city, and stoned him" (Acts vii. 57, 58).
They could no longer restrain their rage agahist
him as guilty of blasphemy, because he asserted
that Jesus, who had clairaed to be the Son of
God, and who had been put to death because He
made this assertion, is also the Son of Mnu, and
was then glorified; and that therefore they were
mistaken in looking for another Christ, and that
they had been guilty of putting to death the Mes
siah. 6. Here"', then, we have a clear view of the diffi
culties which the Gospel had to overcome, in pro
claiming Jesus to be the Christ, and to be the Son
of God, and to be the Son of Man; and in the
building up of the Christian Church on this foun
dation. It had to encounter the prejudices of the
whole world, both Jewish and Heathen, in this
work. It did encounter them, and has triumphed
over them. Here is a proof of its Divine origin.
7. If we proceed to analyze the various passages
in the Gospel where Christ speaks of Himself as
the Son of Man, we shall find that they not only
teach the doctrine of fche Incarnation of the Son
of God (and thus afford a prophetic protest against
the heresies which afterwards impugned that doc
trine, such as the heresy of fche Docefcse, Valeniinus,
and Marcion, who denied fchafc Jesus Christ was
come in the jiesh, see on 1 John iv. 2, and 2 John
7), bufc fchey also declare fche consequences of the
Incarnation, both in regard to Christ, and in re
gard also to all mankind.
The consequences of Christ's Incarnation are
described in the Gospels, as a capacity of being a
perfect pattern and example of godly life to men
(Phil. ii. 5; 1 Pet. ii. 21); and of suffering, of
dying, of " givhig his life as a ransom for all," of
being " the propitiafcion for the sina of the whole
worid" (1 John ii. 2, iv. 10), of being fche source
of life and grace, of Divine Sonship (John i. 12),
of Resurrection and Immorfcahty to all the family
of Mankind, as man^ as receive Him (John iii. 16,
36, xi. 25), and are engrafted into his body, and
cleave to Him by faith and love, and participate in
fche Christian sacraments, which derive their virtue
and efficacy from his Incarnation and Death, and
which are the appointed instruments for conveying
and imparting the benefits of his Incarnation and
Death to us (comp. John iii. 5, vi. 53), who are
" made partakers of the Divine nature " (2 Pet. i.
4)j by virtue of our union with Him who ia God
ind Man.
The infinite value and universal applicability of
'•he benefits derivable from the Incarnation and
Mcrifice of fche Son of God are described by our

SON OF MAN

3093

Lord, declaring the perfection of the union of the
two natures, the human nature and the Divine, in
his own person. " No man hath ascended up to
heaven but He that came down from heaven, even
the Son of Man which is in heaven ; and as Moses
lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even ao
must the Son of Man be hfted up : that whosoever
believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal
life; for God so loved the world, that He gave his
only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Hhn
should not perish, but have everlasting hfe; for
God sent not his Son into the world to condemn
the world ; but that the world through Him might
be saved" (John iii. 13-17); and again, " What
and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where
He was before? " (John vi. 62, compared with
John i. 1-3.)
8. By his perfect obedience in our nature, ano
by his voluntary submission to death in that natiu-e,
Christ acquired new dignity and glory, due to his
obedience and sufferings. This ia the dignity and
glory of his mediatorial kingdom; thai kingdom
which He has as God-man, " the only Mediator
between God and man " — (as partaking perfectly
of the nature of both, and as making an Ab-one-
ment between them), "the Man Christ Jesus"
(1 Tim. ii. 5; Heb. ix. 15, xii. 24).
It was as Son of Man that He humbled Himself,
it is as Son of Man that He ia exalted; it was as
Son of Man, born of a woman, that He was made
under the Law (Gal. lv. 4), and as Son of Man
He was I^rd of the Sabbath-day (Matt. xii. 81;
as Son of Man He suffered for sins (Matt. xvii. 12 ;
Mark viii. 31), and as Son of Man He has au
thority on earth to forgive sina (Matt. ix. 6). It
was as Son of Man that He had not where to lay
his head (Matt. viii. 20; Luke ix. 58), it is as Son
of Man that He wears on his head a golden crown
(Rev. xiv. 14) ; it was as Son of Man that He was
betrayed into the hands of sinful men, and suffered
many things, and was rejected, and condemned, and
crucified (see Matt. xvii. 22, xx. 18, xxvi. 2, 24 ;
Mark viii. 31, ix. 31, x. 33 ; Luke ix. 22, 44, xviii.
31, xxiv. 7), it is as Son of Man that He now sits
at the right hand of God, and as Son of Man He
will come in the clouds of heaven, with power and
great glory, in his own glory, and in the glory of
his Father, and all his holy angels with Him, and
it is as Son of Man that He will " sit on the throne
of his glory," and "before Him will be gathered
all nations" (Matt. xvi. 27, xxiv. 30, xxv. 31, 32;
Mark xiv. 62; Luke xxi. 27); and He will send
forth his angels to gather his elect from the foul
winds (Matt. xxiv. 31 \ and to root up the tares
from out of his field, which is the world (Matt
xiii. 38, 41); and to bind them in bundles to burn
them, and to gather his wheat into hia barn (Matt.
xiii. 30). It is as Son of Man that He will call all
from their graves, and summon them to his judg
ment-seat, and pronounce their sentence for ever
lasting bhss or woe; "for, ihe Father jadgelh no
man, but hath committed all judgment unto Ihe
Son; .... and hath giveii Him authority to
execute judgment also, because He is the Son of
Man" (John v. 22, 27). Only " the pure in heart
will see God" (Matt. v. 8; Heh. xii 14); but the
evil as well as the good will see their Judrce: " every
eye shall see Him " (Rev. i. 7). This is fit and
equitable: and it is also fit and equitable that He
who as Son of Man was judged by the world,
should also judge the world ; and that He who waa
rejected openly, and suffered death for all, should

3094

SON OF MAN

be openly glorified by all, and be exalted in the
eyes of aL, as King of kings, and Lord of lords.
9. Christ is represented in Scripture as the
second Adam (1 Cor. xv. 45. 47; comp. Rom. v.
14), inasmuch as He is the Father of fche new race
of mankind; and, as we are all by nature in Adam,
so are we by grace in Christ; and "as in Adam
all die, even so in Christ all are made alive " (1 Cor.
XV. 22); and "if any man be in Christ, he is a
new creature " (2 Cor. v. 17; Eph. iv. 24); and
He, who is fche Son, is also in this respect a Father ;
and therefore Isaiah joins bofch titles in one, " To
us a Son is given . . . and his name ahall be called
the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father'" (Is. ix.
6). Christ is the second Adam, as fche Father of
fche new race ; bufc in another respect He is unlike
Adam, because Adam was formed in mature man
hood fr07n ihe earth ; but Christ, the second Adam,
is Ben- Adam, the Son of Adam; and therefore St.
Lulte, writing specially for the Gentiles, and desir
ous to show the universality of the redemption
wrought by Christ, traces his genealogy to Adam
(Luke iii. 23-38). He is Son of Man, inasmuch
as he was the Promised Seed, and was conceived
in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and took our
nature, the nature of us all, and became " Em
manuel, God with us " (Matt. i. 23), " God man
ifest in the flesh" (1 Tim. iii. 16). Thus the new
Creation sprung out of the old; and He made
"all thhigs new " (Rev. xxi. 5). The Sim of God
in Eternity became the So7i of Man in Time. He
turned back, as it were, the streams of pollution
and of death, flowing in the innumerable channels
of the human family, and introduced into them
a new element, the element of life and health, of
Divine incorruption and immortality; which would
not have been the case, if He had been merely like
Adam, having an independent origin, springing by
a separate efflux out of the earth, and had not been
Ben-Adavi as well as Ben-Ehhim, tbe Son of
Adam, as well as the Son of God. And this ia
what St. Paul observes in his comparison — and
contrast — between Adam and Christ (Kom. v. 15-
18), " JVo/, as was the transgression (hi Adam) so
likewise was fche free giffc (in Chrisfc). For if (as is
the fact) the raany {i. e. all) died by the transgres
sion of the one (Adam), much more the gi'ace of
God, and the gift by the grace that is of the one.
Man Jesus Christ, overflowed to the many; and
noi, as by one who sinned, so is the gift; for the
judgment came irom one man to condemnation,
but the free gift came forth from many transgres
sions to their state of justification. For if by the
transgression ofthe one (Adam), Death reigned by
means of the one, much more they who receive the
abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness
will reign in hfe through the one, Jesus Chrisfc .
Thus, where Sin abounded, Grace did much more
abound (Rom. v. 20); for, aa, by the disobedience
of the one raan (Adam), the many were made sin
ners, so by the obedience of the one (Christ), the
many were made righteous. ..."
10. The benefits accruing to mankind from the
Incarnation of the Son of God are obvious from
these considerations : —
We are not so to conceive of Christ as of a De
liverer external to humanity, but as incorporating
humanity in Himself, and uniting it to God; as
rescmng our nature from Sin, Satan, and Death;
' ind as carryuig ua through the grave and gate of
death to a glorious immortality ; and bearing man-
tindf his lost sheep, ou his shoulders; as bearing

SON OF MAN
us and our sins in his own body on the tree (1 P«t.
ii. 24); as bringing us through suffering to gJS>vy;
as raishig our nature to a dignity higher than that
of angels; as exalthig us by his Ascension into
heaven ; and aa raaking us to " sit together with
Hiraself in heavenly places" (Eph. ii. 6), even at
the right hand of God. " To him that overcometh,"
He says, "will I grant to sit with me on my
throne, even as I also overcame and am set down
with my Father on his throne" (Rev. iii. 21).
These are the hopes and privileges which we derive
from the Incarnation of Christ, who ia the Life
(John L 4, xi. 25rxiv. 6; 1 John i. 2); from our
fiUal adoption by God in Him (John i. 12; 1 John
iii. 1, 2); and from our consequent capacity of re
ceiving the Spirit of adoption in our hearts (Gal.
iv. 6); and from our membership and indwelling
in Him, who is the Son of God from all eternity,
and who became, for our sakes and for our salva
tion, the Son of Man, and submitted to the weak
ness of our humanity, in order that we might par
take in the glory of his immortality.
11. These conclusions from Holy Scripture have
been stated clearly by many of the ancient Fafchers,
among whom ifc may suffice fco raention St. Irenseus
{Adv. IIcBreses, iii. 20, p. 247, Grabe): ^vwo'fj'
{Xpio'rhs) &v6punrou rS ©ew- et yap p.^ ^vOpanros
4vlK7}a'€V rhv avri-rraKov rov av6pd>TroUi ovk hv
BiKalas 4vtK'f}$7] 6 4x^P^^' """"Aii/ re et p^ 6 ®ehs
iStapija'aTO r^v ffWTTjpiav, ovk hv ^e^aicos etrxo-
fiev avT-f]v Kal ei /j.^ (TvvqvdBr) 6 &vd pa-
no s r ^ & e ep, ovk &v i)Bvvf)67} fieraa-x^iv rrjs
a<f)6ap a" i as ' eSet yap rhv fieairTiv 0eov re
Kal cLvOpt^TTOv, dta ttJ? idias nphs eKarepovs oi-
K€i6r7]ros eis <pi\iav Kal dfiSvoiav eKarepovs
o'vvayayeTv. And iii. 21, p. 250 : " Hie igitur
Filius Dei, existens Verbum Patris . . . quoniam
ex Maria factus est Filiua hominis . . . primifcias
resurrectionis hominis in Seipso faciens, ut quemad-
moduni Caput resurrexit a niortuis, sic et reUquum
corpus omnia hominis, qui invenitur in vita . . .
resurgat per compaginea et conjunctionea coalescens,
et confirmatum augmeuto Dei" (Eph. iv. 16).
And St Cyprian {De Idolomm Vanitaie. p. 538,
ed. Venet. 1758): " Hujus gratise diaciplinseque
arbiter et raagister Serrao {A6yos) et Filius Dei
mittitur, qui per prophetas omnes retro Illuminator
et Doctor humani generis prsedicabatur. Hie est
virfcus Dei . . . camera Spiritu Sancto cooperante
induitur . . . Hie Deus noster. Hie Christus cat,
qui Mediator duorura horaineni induit, quera per-
ducat ad Pafcrem. Quod homo est, esse Christus
voluit, ut et homo possifc esse, quod Christus est."
And St. Augustine {Serm. 121): " Filiua Dei factus
est Filius hominis, ut vos, qui eratis filii hominis.
efficereraini filii Dei." C. W.
* On tbe fcifcle " Son of Man " as appHed to
Christ, see the works of Gaaa, Neander, and Cremer,
as referred to at the end of fche arfc. Sou of God;
also Scholten, De AppelL tov viov rod avdpc&irov,
qua Jesus se Messiam professus est, Traj. ad Rhen.
1809; C. F. Bohrae, Versuch d. Gehtimniss d.
Afenschensohnes zu enthullen, Neusfc. a. d. 0., 1839;
F. C Baur in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. f unss. TheoL
for 1860, iii. 274-292, corap. his NeutesL TheoL
(1864), pp. 75-83; Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschrift
etc. 1863, p. 327 ff.; Strauss'a Leben Jesu f. d
deutsche Volk (1864), § 37; Weizaacker, Unters.
ijh. d. evang. Geschichte (18G4), p. 426 ff.; Ewald,
Geschichte Christus\ 3® Ausg., p. 304 ff.; and es-
pecially Holtzmann, in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. f.
wiss. TheoL 1865, viii. 212-237, who reviews tin

SONG
more recent literature. See further W. S. Tyler,
io BUI. Sacra for Jan. 1865, Beyschlag, Chris-
tologie des N. T. (1866), pp. 9-34, and the writers
on Biblical Theology in general, as Von Coelln,
Reuss, Lutz, Schmid, and Weiss; also the com
mentators on Matt. viii. 20 and John i. 52. For
the older literature, see Hase'a Leben Jesu, 4e Aufl.
§ 64, note/. " Son of Man " ia a frequent desig
nation of the Messiah in the apocryphal Book of
Enoch, but the date of this book ia uncertain.
[Enoch, Book of.] A.
* SONG. [Hymn; Poetkt, Hkbeew.]
* SONGS OF DEGREES. [Degeees,
Songs of.]
*SONG OF THB THREE HOLY
CHILDREN. [Daniel, Apocryphal Ad
ditions TO.]
* SONS OF THUNDER. [Boanerges.]
SOOTHSAYER. [Divination.]
* SOP. [Lord's Supper, vol. ii. p. 1681 a.]
SOP'ATER (tdirarpos: Sopater). Sopater
the son of Pyrrhus of Serosa waa one of the com
panions of St. Paul on his return from Greece into
Asia, aa he came back from his third missionary
journey. (Acts xx. 4). Whether he is the same
with Sosipater, mentioned in Rom. xvi. 21, cannot
be positively determined. The name of his father,
Pyrrhus, is omitted in the received text, though it
has the authority of the oldest MSS., A, B, D, E,
and the recently discovered Codex Sinalticus, as
well as of the Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidio, Philoxenian-
Syriac, Armenian, and Slavonic versiona. Mill con
demns it, apparently without reason, aa a tradi
tional gloss. [Pyrrhus, Amer. ed.]
W. A. W.
SOPHE'RETH (n^OD [vmter, scribe]:
Se<pr)pi, Sa4apdT; [Vat. hireipnpaB, 'S.atpapaB:
FA. inN. 2a<()apiiei;] Alex. KaeipopaB, tajpapad:
Sopherei, Sopheretii). "The children of Sophe-
reth " were a family who returned from Babylon
with Zerubbabel among the descendants of Sol
omon's servants (Rzr. ii. 55; Neh. vii. 57). Called
AzAPiiioN in 1 Esdr. v. 33.
SOPHONI'AS (Sophonias). The Prophet
Zephaniah (2 Esdr. i. 40).
SORCERER. [Divination.]
SO'REK, THB VALLEY OP (bn?
p'^'W [see below]: « ' AXtrwpTjx ; Alex, x"/""?-
povs ^upTix' ^"^^is Sorec). A wady (to use the
modern Arabic tenn which precisely answers to the
Hebrew nachal), in which lay the residence of
Delilah (Judg. xvi. 4). It appears to have been a
I'hilistine plaoe, and possibly was nearer Gaza than
any other of the chief Philistine cities, since thither
Samson waa taken after his capture at Delilah's
house. Beyond this there are no indications of its
position, nor is it mentioned again in the Bible.
Eusebius and Jerome (Onomast. Xaipiix) state that
a village named Capharsorech was shown in their
day " on the north of Eleutheropolis, near the town
of Saar (or Saraa), i. e. Zorah, the native place of
Samson." Zorah is now supposed to have been
fclly 10 miles N. of Beit-Jibrin, the modern repre-

SOSTHENES 3095
sentative of Eleutheropohs, though it is not impos
sible that there may have been a second furthei
south. No trace of the name of Sorek has been
yet discovered either in the one position or the
other.'' But the district is comparatively unex
plored, and doubtless it will ere long be discovered.
The word Sorek in Hebrew signifies a peculiarly
choice kind of vine, which is said to have derived
its name from the dusky color of ita grapes, that
perhaps being the meaning of the root ((jeaeniua,
Tlies. p. 1342). It occurs in three passages of the
Old Test. (Is. v. 2; Jer. ii. 21; and, with a mod-
ilication, in Gen. xlix. <^ 11). It appears to be used
in modern Arabic for a certain purple grape, grown
in Syria, and highly esteemed ; which is noted for
its small raisins, and minute, soft pips, and pro-
dunes a red wine. This being the case, the valley
of Sorek may have derived its name from the growth
of such vines, though it is hardly safe to affirm tlie
fact in the unquestioning manner in which Gesenius
( Thes. ibid. ) does. Ascalon was celebrated among
the ancients for ita wine ; and though not in the
neighborhood of Zorah, was the n.atural port liy
which any of the productions of that district would
be exported to the west. G.
SOSIP'ATER (laa-irrarpos: Sosipater). 1.
A general of Judas Maccabteus, who in conjunction
with Dositheus defeated Timotheus and look him
prisoner, u. u. c. 164 (2 Mace. xii. 19-24).
2. Kinsman or fellow tribesman of St. Paul,
mentioned in the salutations at the end of the
Epistle to the Romans (xvi. 21). He ia probably
the same pereon as Sopater of Bercea. B. F. W.
SOS'THENBS (Sao-ee^ns [preserver of
strength] : Soslhenes) was a Jew at Corinth, who
waa seized and beaten in the presence of Gallic, on
the refusal of the latter to entertain the charge of
heresy whieh the Jews alleged against the Apostle
Paul (see Acts xviii. 12-17). His precise connec
tion with that affair is left in some doubt. Some
have thought that he was a Christian, and was
maltreated thus by his own countrymen, because
he was known as a special friend of Paul. But it
is improbable if Sosthenes was a believer, that Luke
would mention him merely as " tbe ruler of the
synagogue ' ' (apx'avudywyos), without any allu
sion to his change of faith. A better view is, tbat
Sosthenes was one of the bigoted Jews ; and that
"the crowd" (TrarTes simply, and not n-dyres ol
"EAA.Tji'es, is the true reading) were Greeks who,
taking advantage of the indifference of Gallic, and
ever ready to show their contempt of the Jews.
turned their indignation against Sosthenes. In this
case he must have been the successor of Crispus,
(Acts xviii. 8) aa chief of the synagogue (possibly
a colleague with him, in the looser sense of apxi-
ffut/dycayot, aa in Mark v. 22), or, as Biscoe con
jectures, may have belonged to some other syna
gogue at Corinth. Chrysostom's notion that Crispus
and Sosthenes were nanies of the same person, is
arbitrary and unsupported.
Paul wrote the First Epistle to the Corinthians
jointly in his own name and that of a certain Sos
thenes whom he terms "tbe brother" (1 Cor. i. 1/.
The mode of designation implies that he waa well
known to the Corinthians; and some have held
that he waa identical with the Soathenes mentioned

a The AA is no doubt the last relic of NaxaX : comp.
En-ABARiM ; and Kanah, River.
t> M. Van de Velde (Mem. 350) proposes the Wady

Simsim, which runs from near Beit Jibrin to Askul&n ;
but this he admits to be mere conjecture.
C' The Arabic versions of thia paasige retain tfajs
term Sorek as a proper name.

3096

SOSTRATUS

in the Acts. If this be so, he must have been con
verted at a later period (Wetstein, iV. Test. vol. ii.
p. 576), and have been at Kphesus and not at Cor
inth, when Paul wrote to the Corinthians. The
name was a common one, and but little stress can
be laid on that coincidence. Eusebius says {ff. E.
i. 12, § 1) that this Sosthenes (1 Cor. i. 1) was
one of the seventy disciples, and a later tradition
adds that he became bishop of the church at Colo
phon in Ionia. H. B. H.
SOS'TEATUS {^dxrrparos [saviour of the
xrmyl : Sostraizts), a commander of the Syrian
garrison in the Acra at Jerusalem {6 r^s aKpoir6-
Keas eirapxos) in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes
(c. B. c. 172: 2 Mace. iv. 27, 29). B. F. W.
SOTAI [2 syl.] C^Is'lD [one who turns aside]:
Swrai, Soyrei; Alex. Soi/rief in Neh.: Sota'i, So-
thai). The children of Sotai were a family of the
descendants of Solomon's servants who returned
with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 55; Neh. vii. 57).
* SOUTH, QUEEN OF THE. [Sheba.]
SOUTH RA'MOTH (rijp niDT: iy
*VapS. v6rov\ Alex, ev paf^aO v.' Ramoih ad me-
^Hdiem). One of the places frequented by David
and his band of outlaws during the latter part of
Saul's life, and to his friends in which he showed
his gratitude when opportunity offered (1 Sam.
xxx. 27). The towns mentioned with it show that
Kamoth must have been on the southern confines
of the country — the very border of the desert.
Bethel, in ver. 27, is almost certainly not the weU-
known sanctuary, but a second of the same name,
and Hebron was probably the most northern of all
the places in the list. It is no doubt identical
with Ramath of tuk South, u. name the same
in every respect except that by a, dialectical or
other change it is made plural, Ramoth instead of
Ramath. G.
SOW. [Swine.]
SOWER, SOWING. The operation of sow
ing with the hand is one of so simple a character,
as to need little description. The K^yptian paint
ings furnish many illustrations of the mode in
which it was conducted. The sower held the ves
sel or basket containing the seed, in his left hand,
while with his right he scattered the seed broad
cast (Wilkinson's Anc. Eg. ii. 12, 18, 39; see
Agriculture for one of these paintings). The
" drawing out" of the seed is noticed, as the most
characteristic action of the sower, in Ps. cxxvi. 6
(A. V. "precious ") and Am. ix. 13: it is uncer
tain whether this expression refers to drawing out
the handful of seed from the basket, or to the
dispei-sion of the seed in rei^ular rows over the
ground (Gesen. Thes. p. 827). In some of the
lilgyptian paintings the sower is represented as pre
ceding the plough : this may be simply the result
of bad perspective, but we are told that such a
practice actually prevails in the East in the case of
sandy soils, the plough serving the purpose of the
harrow for covering the seed (Russell's Aleppo, i.
74). In wet soils the seed was trodden in by the

a *¦ Ploughs in the East, at present, often have a
guiver or tunnel attachfid to the front of them, espe-
3ially when the soil is mellow and easily broken,
through which the grain is dropped, and then covered
r up by the earth as turned aside in the furrow. It
may be stated herp tha* plonjrhs in Pjilrsrine huve
juite iD'arinbh' but on*- handle, «iiith tbe driver

SPAIN
feet of animals (Is. xxxii. 20), as represented in
Wilkinson's Anc. Eg. ii. 12." The sowing season
commenced in October and continued to the end ot
February, wheat being put in before, and harley
after the beginning of January (Russell, i. 74).
The Mosaic law prohibited the sowing of mixed
seed (Lev. xix. 19; Deut. xxii. 9): Josephus {Ant.
iv. 8, § 20) supposes this prohibition to he based
on the repugnancy of nature to intermixture, but
there would appear to be a further object of a moral
character, namely, to inipress on men's minds the
general lesson of purity. The regulation offered a
favorable opportunity for Rabbinical refinement, the
results of which are embodied in the treatise of the
Mishna. entitled Kilnim, §§ 1-3. That the an
cient Hebrews did not consider themselves prohib
ited from planting several kinds of seeds in the
same field, appears from Is. xxviii. 25. A distinc
tion is made in Lev. xi. 37, 38, between dry and
wet seed, in respect to contact with a corpse; the
latter, as being more susceptible of contamination,
would be rendered unclean thereby, the former
would not. The analogy between the germination
of seed and the effects of a principle or a course ol
action on the human character for good or for evil
is frequently noticed in Scripture (Prov. xi. 18;
Matt. xiii. 19, 24; 2 Cor. ix. 6; Gal. vi. 7).
W. L. B.
SPAIN {:S,'jravla ' Hispania). The Hebrews
were acquainted with the position and the mineral
wealth of Spain from the time of Solomon, whose
aUiance with the Phoenicians enlarged the circle of
their geographical knowledge to avei'ygreat extent.
[Tarshish.] The local designation, Tarshish, rep
resenting the Tartessus of the Greeks, probably
prevailed until the fame of the Roman wars in that
country reached the East, when it waa superseded
by its classical name, which is traced back by Bo
chart to the Shemitic tsdphdn, "rabbit," and by
Humboldt to the Basque Fzpana, descriptive of its
position on the edge of the continent of Europe
{Diet of Geog. i. 1074). The Latm form of thia
name is represented by the 'lairavia of 1 Mace.
viii. 3 (where, however, some copies exhibit the
Greek form ), and the Greek by the ^wavia of Rom.
XV. 24, 28. The passages cited contain aU the
Biblical notices of Spain : in the former the con
quests of the Romans are described in somewhat
exaggerated terms ; for though the Carthaginians
were expelled as early as b. c. 206, the native tribes'
were not finaUy subdued until b. c. 25, and not
until then could it be said with truth that *' thej
had conquered all the place" (1 Mace. viii. 4). In
the latter, St. Paul announces his intention of vis
iting Spain. Whether he carried out this inten
tion is a disputed point connected with his personal
history. [Paul.] The mere intention, however,
implies two interesting facts, namely, the establish
ment of a Christian community in that country,
and this by means of Hellenistic Jews resident there.
We have no direct testimony to either of these
facts ; but as the Jews had spread along the shores
of the Mediterranean as far as Cyrene in Africa and
Rome in Europe (Acts ii. 10), there would be no

holds hy one hand, while he carries his long goad in
the other. This peculiarity makes the Saviour's ex
pression precisely accurate : " He that putteth hia
hand to the plough," etc. (Luke ix. 62) ; whereas, witb
the plough constructed as among us, the phiral woul J
be niori' natural than the singular. U.

SPAN
difficulty in assuming that they were also found in
the commercial cities of the eastern coast of Spain.
The early introduction of Christianity into that
country is attested by Irensus (i. 3) and Tertullian
(adv. Jud. 7). An inscription, purporting to record
a persecution of the Spanish Christians in the reign
of Nero, is probably a forgery (Gieseler's Eccl.
Hist. i. 82, note 5). W. L. B.
* SPAN. [Weights and Measckes, II.
1. (1.)]
SPARROW (115?, tzippir: ipveov, bpvlS-
tov, rb irereti'iiv, ffrpov&iov: ;^f/iapos in Neh. v,
i8, where LXX. probably read "T'S^ : avis, volu-
cHs, passer). The above Heb. word occurs up
wards of forty times in the 0. T. In all passages
excepting two it is rendered by A. V. indifferently
" bird " or " fowl." In Ps. kxxiv. 3, and Ps. cii.
7, A. V. renders it " sparrow." The Greek arpov-
eiov ("sparrow," A. V.) occurs twice in N. T.,
Matt. X. 29, Luke xii. 6, 7, where the Vulg. has
passeres. Tzlppdr (TIB?), from a root signify
ing to "chirp " or "twitter," appeai-s to be a pho
netic representation of the call note of any passer
ine bird." Similarly the niodern Arabs use the
term ijaij'j (zaoush) for all small birds which

SPARROW

3097

chirp, and

;j;;;

{zerzour) not only for the star

ling, but for any other bird with a harsh, shriU
twitter, both these being evidently phonetic names.
Tzipp&i' is therefore exactly translated by the
LXX. ffrpovdiov, explained by Moschopulus rh
aiKph. rav opvldoiv, although it may sometimes
have been used in a more restricted sense. See
Athen. Deipn. ix. 391, where two kinds of arpov-
dia hx the more restricted signification are noted.
It was reserved for later naturaUsts to discrim
inate the immense variety of the smaUer birds of
tbe passerine order. Excepting in the cases of the
thrushes and the larks, the natural history of Aris
totle scarcely comprehends a longer catalogue than
that of Moses.
5fet in few parts of the world are the species of
passerine birds more numerous or more abundant
than in Palestine. A very cursory survey has sup
plied a Ust of above 100 different species of this
order. See Ibis, vol. i. p. 26 ff. and vol. iv. p.
277 ff
But although' so numerous, they are not gener
ally noticeable for any peculiar briUiancy of plum
age beyond the birds of our own climate. In fact,
with the exception of the denizens of the mighty
forests and fertile alluvial plains of the tropics, it
is a popular error to suppose that the nearer vve
approach the equator, the mors gorgeous neces
sarily is the coloration of the birds. There are
certain tropical famiUes with a brilUancy of plum -
age which is unrivalled elsewhere; but any out
lying members of these groups, as for instance the
kingfisher of Britain, or the bee-eater and roller of
Europe, are nut surpassed in brightness of dress by
any of their southern relations. Ordinarily in the
warmer temperate regions, especially in those which
like Palestine possess neither dense forests nor
morasses, there is nothing in the brilliancy of plum-

•j 5 o ,
*> Comp. tbe Arabic ^ ^ o ^^ (*«u/&r), < i a spar
row."

c »» Q Oft <

age which especially arrests the attention of the
unobservant. It is therefore no matter for surprise
if, in an unscientific age, the smaller birds were
generally grouped indiscriminately under the term
tzipp&r, opvtSiov or passer. The proportion of
bright to obscure colored birds is not greater in
Palestine than in England; and this is especially
true of the southern portion, Judcea, where the wil
derness with its bare hills and arid ravines affords
a home chiefly to those species which rely for safety
and concealment on the modesty and inconspic-
uousness of their plumage.
Although the common sparrow of England {Pas
ser domesticus, L.) does not occur in the Holy
Land, its place is abundantly supplied by two very
closely allied Southern species {Passer salicicola,
Vieill. and Passer cisnlpina, Tem.). Our English
Tree Sparrow {Passer montanus, L.) is also very
common, and may be seen in numbers on Mount
Olivet, and also about the sacred inclosure of the
mosque of Omar. This is perhaps the exact spe
cies referred to in Ps. Ixxxiv. 3, " Yea, the sparrow
hath found an house."
Though in Britain it seldom frequents houses,
yet in China, to which country its eastward range
extends, Mr. Swinhoe, in his Ornithology of Amoy,
informs us its habits are precisely those of our
familiar house sparrow. Its shyness here may be
the result of persecution ; but in the East the Mus
sulmans hold in respect any bird which resorts to
their houses, and in reverence such as build in or
about the mosques, considering them to be under
the Divine protection. This natural veneration
has doubtless been inherited from antiquity. We
learn from ^lian {Var. Hist v. 17) that the Athe
nians condemned a man to death for molesting a
sparrow in the temple of ^Esculapius. The story
of Aristodicus of Cyme, who rebuked the cowardly
advice of the oracle of Branchidce to surrender a
suppliant, by his symbolical actof driving the spar
rows out of the temple, iUustrates the same senti
ment (Herod, i. Iq9), which was probably shared
by David and the IsraeUtes, and is aUuded to in
the psalm. There can be no difficulty in inter
preting mnSTp, not as the altar of sacrifice ex
clusively, but as the place of sacrifice, the sacred
inclosure generally, rh repevo*:-, " fauum." The
interpretation of some commentators, who would
explain ~1*1Q^ in this passage of certain sacred
birds, kept and preserved by the priests in the
temple like the Sacred Ibis of the Egyptians, seems
to be wholly without warrant. See Bochart, iii.
21, 22.
Most of our commoner small birds are found in
Palestine. The starling, chaffinch, greenfinch,
linnet, goldfinch, corn bunting, pipits, blackbird,
song thrush, and the various species of wagtail
abound. The wood lark {Alauda arborea, L.),
crested lark {Galerida cristata, Boie.), Calandra
lark {Melanocorypha calandra, Bp.), short-toed
lark {Calandrella brachydactyla, Kaup.), Isabel
lark {Alauda deserii, Licht.), and various other
desert species, which are snared in great numbers
for the markets, are far more numerous on th^
southern plains than the skylark in England. In
the olive-yards, and among the brushwood of the
hiUs, the Ortolan bunting {Emberiza hortulann
L.), and especiaUy Cretzschmaer's bunting {Embe
riza ccesia, Cretz.), take the place of our common
yeUow-hanimer, an exclusively northern species.
Indeed, the second is seldom out of the tj'aveUOT'v

3098

SPARROW

Bight. ho]iping before him from bough to bough
with Its simple but not unpleasing note. As most
of our warblers (Syhiadce) are summer migrants,
and have a wide eastern range, it was to be expected
tbat they should occur in Syria; and accordingly
upwards of twenty of those on the British list have
been noted there, including the robin, redstart,
whitethroat, blackcap, nightingale, wUlow-wren,
Dartford warbler, whinchat, and stonechat. Be
sides these, the Palestine hsts contain fourteen
others, more southern species, of which the most
interesting are perhaps the little fantail ( Cisticola
schomicola, Bp.), the orphean (Curruca orphtea,
Boie.) and the Sardinian warbler (Si/foia mefano-
cephala, Lath.).
The chats (Saxicolai), represented in Britain by
the wheatear, whinchat, and stonechat, are very
numerous in the southern parts of the country. At
least nine species have been observed, and by their
lively motions and the striking contrast of black
and white in the plumage of most cf them, they are
the most attractive and conspicuous bird-inhab
itants wbich catch the eye in the hill country of
Judsea, the favorite resort of the genus. Yet they
are not recognized among the Bedouin inhabitants
Oy any name to distinguish them from the larks.
The rock sparrow (Pelronia stulta, Strickl. ) is a
common bird in the barer portions of Palestine,
eschewing woods, and generally to be seen perched
alone on the top of a rock or on any large stone.
From this habit it has been conjectured to be the
bird alluded to in Ps. cii. 7, as " the sparrow that

Petrocossyphus cyaneus.
eitteth alone upon the housetop; " but as the rock
eparrow, though found araong ruins, never resorts
to inhabited buildings, it seems more probable that
the bird to which the psalmist alludes is tlie blue
thrush (Petrocossyphus cyaneus, Boie.), a bird so
conspicuous that it cannot fail to attract attention
by its dark-blue dress and its plaintive monotonous
note; and which may frequently be observed
perched on houses and especiaUy on outbuildings in
the villages of Judsea. It is a solitary bird, es-
".hewing the society of its own species, and rarely
more than a pair are seen together. Certainly the
allusion of the psalmist will not apply to the so-
tiable and gaiTulous house or tree-sparrows.
Among the most conspicuous of the small birds

SPARROW
of Palestine arc the shrikes (Lanii), of which tbt
red-backed shrike (Lanius collurio, L.) is a familiar
example in the south of England, bnt there repre
sented by at least five species, all abundantly and
generally distributed, namely, Enneoetanus rufus,
Bp., the woodchat shrike, Lanius meridionaMs, L.;
L. minor, L. ; L. personatus, Tem. ; and Teleph.
onus cucuUatus, Gr.
There are but two allusions to the singing of
birds in the Scriptures, Eccl. xii. 4 and Ps. civ. 12,
" By them shall the fowls (H"'^) of the heaven have
their habitation, which sing among the branches."
As the psalmist is here speaking of the sides of
streams and rivers {" By them "), he probably had
in his mind the bulbul (Jk«^^) of the country, oi
Palestine nightingale (Ixos xanthopygius, Hempr.),
a bird not very far removed from the thrush tribe,
and a closely allied species of which is the true
bulbul of Persia and India. This lovely songster,
whose notes, for volume and variety, surpass those
of the nightingale, wanting only the final cadence,
abounds in all the wooded districts of Palestine, and
especially by the banks of the Jordan, where in the
early morning it fills the air with its music.
In one passage (Ez. xxxix. 4), tapper is joined
with the epithet tO^^ (ravenous), which may very
well describe the raven and the crow, both passerine
birds, yet carrion feeders. Nor is it neeessary to
stretch the interpretation so as to include raptorial
birds, which are distinguished in Hebrew and Arabic
by so many specific appellations.
With the exception of the raven tribe, there is no
prohibition in the Levitical law against any pas
serine birds being used for food; while the wanton
destruction or extirpation of any species was
guarded against by the humane provision in Deut.
xxii. 6. Small birds were therefore probably as
ordinary an article-of consumption among the Is
raelites as they still are in the markets both of the
Continent and of the East. The inquiry of our
Lord, "Are not five sparrows sold for two far
things?" (Luke xii. 6), "Are not two sparrows
sold for a farthing? " (Matt. x. 29), points to their
ordinary exposure for sale in his time. At the pres
ent day the markets of Jerusalem and Jaffa are at
tended by many " fowlers " wbo offer for sale long
strings of little birds of various species, chiefly spar
rows, wagtails, and larks. These are also frequently
sold ready plucked, trussed in rows of about a dozen
on slender wooden skewers, and are cooked and
eaten like kabobs.
It may well excite surprise bow such vast num
bers can be taken, and how they can be vended at
a price too small to have purchased the powder re
quired for shooting them. But the gun is never
used in their pursuit The ancient methods of
fowhng to which we find so many allusions in the
Scriptures are still pursued, and, though simple,
are none the less effective. The art of fowling ia
spoken of no less than seven times in connection
with *1*1S!I, e. g. " a bird caught in the snare,"
" bird hasteth to tbe snare," " fall in a snare,"
" escaped out of the snare of the fowler." There ia
also one still more precise allusion, in Ecclus. xi. 30,
to the well-known practice of using decoy or call-
birds, rripSi^ SripevTijS iu Kap-rdKKtf. The refer-
ence in Jer v. 27, " As a cage is full of birds *'
(D^D^^), is probably t( the same mode of snuiiiy
birds.

SPAKROW
There are four or five simple methods of fowling
practiced at this day in JPalestine which are prob
ably identical with those alluded to in tbe 0. T.
The simplest, but by no means the least successful,
among the dexterous Bedouins, is fowling with the
throw-stick. The only weapon used is a short stick,
about 18 niches long and half an inch in diameter,
and the chase is conducted after the fashion in
which, as we read, the Australian natives pursue
the kangaroo with their boomerang. When the
game has been discovered, which is generally the
red-legged great partridge {Caccnbis saxatiUs,
Mey.), the desert partridge {Ammaperdix Heyi,
Gr.), or the little bustard {Oils tetrax, L.), the
stick is hurled with a revolving motion so as to strike
the legs of the bird as it runs, or sometimes at a
rather higher elevation, so that when the victim,
alarmed by the approach of the weapon, beghis to
rise, its wings are struck and it is sUghtly disabled.
The fleet pursuers soon come up, and using their
burnouses as a sort of net, catch and at once cut
the throat of the game. The Mussulmans rigidly
observe the Mosaic iiy unctions (Lev. xvii. 13) to
spiU the blood of every slain animal on the ground.
This primitive mode of fowUng is confined to those
birds which, Uke the red-legged partridges and bus
tards, rely for safety chiefly on their running powers,
and are with difficulty induced to take fiij^ht. The
writer once witnessed the capture of the Uttle desert
partridge {Ammoptrdix Heyi) by this method in
the wilderness near Hebron : an interesting illustrar-
tion of the expression in 1 Sam. xxvi. 20, " as when
one doth hunt a partridge in the mountains."
A more scientific method of fowling is that al
luded to in Ecclus. xi. 30, by the use of decoy-
birds. The birds employed for this purpose are
very carefuUy trained and perfectly tame, that they
may utter tbeir natural call-note without any alarm
from the neighborhood of man. Partridges, quails,
krks, and plovers are taken by this kind of fowl
ing, especiaUy the two former. The decoy-bird, in
a cage, is placed in a concealed position, while the
fowler is secreted in the neighborhood, near enough
to manj^e his gins and snares. For game-birds,
a comraon method is to construct of brushwood a
narrow run leading to the cage, sometimes using
a sort of bag-net within the brushwood. This has
a trap-door at the entrance, and when the dupe has
entered tbe run, the door is dropped. Great num
bers of quiiil are taken in this manner in spring.
Sometimes, instead of the more elaborate decoy of a
run, a mere cage with an open door is placed in
front of the decoy-bird, of course well concealed by
grass and herbage, and the door is let fall by a
string, as in the other method. For larks and
other smaUer birds the decoy is used in a somewhat
different manner. The cage is placed without con
cealment on the ground, and springes, nets, or horse
hair nooses are laid round it to entangle the feet of
those whom curiosity attracts to the stranger ; or
a net is so contrived as to be drawn over them, if
the cage be placed in a thicket or among brushwood.
Immense numbers can be taken by this means in a
very short space of time. /iVaps, the door of which
overbalances by the weigl«t of the bird, exactly like
the traps used by the shepherds on the Sussex
downs to take wheatears and larks, are constructed
by the Be(.lo,u^n hoys, and also the horse-hair
ipringes so &.bpiUar to all English school-boys,
tlbugh these ^g»ices are not wholesale enough to
repay the prof^ional fowler. It is to the noose on
tbe ground thar reference is made in Ps. czxiv. 7,

SPARKOW

3099

The snare is broken and we are escaped." In tbe
towns and gardens great immbers of birds, starUnga
and others, are taken for the markets at night by
means of a large loose net on two poles, and a
lanthorn, which startles the birds from their perch,
when they faU into the net.
At the season of migration immense numbers of
birds, and especially quails, are taken by a yet more
simple method. When notice has been given of
the arrival of a flight of quaUs, the whole village
turns out. The birds, fatigued by their long flight,
generally descend to rest in some open space a few
acres in extent. The fowlers, perhaps twenty or
thirty in numbp, spread themselves in a circle
round them, and, extending their loose large bur
nouses with both arms before them, gently advance
toward the centre, or to some spot where they
take care there shall be some low brushwood. The
birds, not seeing their pursuers, and only slightly
alarmed by the cloaks spread before them, begin to
run together without taking flight, until they are
hemmed into a very smaU space. At a given signal
the whole of the pursuers make a din on all sides,
and the flock, not seeing any mode of escape, rush
huddled together into the bushes, when the bui-
nouses are thrown over them, and the whole are
easUy captured by hand.
Although we have evidence that dogs were used
by the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, and Indians
in the chase, yet there is no allusion in Scripture to
their being so employed among the Jews, nor does
ifc appear that any of the ancients employed the
sagacity of the dog, as we do that of the pointer and
setter, as an auxiliary in the chase of winged game.
At the present day the Bedouins of Palestine em
ploy, in the pursuit of larger game, a very valuable
race of greyhounds, equalling the Scottish stag-
hound in size aud strength; but the inhabitants oi
the towns have a strong prejudice again.st the un
clean animal, and never cultivate its instinct for
any further purpose than that of protecting their
houses and flocks (Is. Ivi. 10; Job xxx. 1), and of
removing the offal from their towns and villages.
No wonder, then, that its use has been neglected
for purposes which' would have entailed the constant
danger of defilement from an unclean animal, be
sides the risk of being compeUed to reject as food
game which might be torn by the dogs (cf. Ex. xxii.
31; Lev. xxii. 8, <fec.).
Whether falconry was ever employed as a mode
of fowUng or not is by no means so clear. Its
antiquity is certainly much greater than the intro
duction of dogs in the chase of birds ; and from the
statement of Aristotle {Anim. Ilist. ix. 24), "In
the city of Thrace, formerly called Cedropolis, men
hunt birds in the marshes with the help of hawks,"
and from the allusion to the use of falconry in In
dia, according to Photius' abridgment of Ctesias, we
may presume that the arfc was known to the neigh
bors of the ancient Israelites (see also .^Uan, Hist.
An. iv. 26, and Pliny, x. 8). Falconry, however,
requires an open and not very rugged country for
its successful pursuit, and i^ilestine west of the Jor
dan is in its whole extent ill adapted for this species
of chase. At the present day falconry is practiced
with nmch care and skill by the Arab inhabitants
of Syria, though nofc in Judsea proper. It is indeed
the tiavorite amusement of aU the Bedouins of Asia
and Africa, and esteemed an exclusively noble spoi-t,
only to be indulged in by wealthy sheiks. The
rarest and most valuable species of hunting falcoa^
(Falco Lananus, L.), the Lanner, is a native of t^

3100

SPARTA

I.ebanon and of the northern hills of Palestine. It
18 highly prized by the inhabitants, and the young
are taken from the nest and sold for a considerable
price to the chieftains of the Hauran. Forty pounds
sterUng is no uncommon price for a well-trained fal
con. A description of falconry as now practiced
imong the Arabs would be out of place here, as
there is no direct allusion to the subject in tbe O.
T. or N. T. H. B. T.
SPARTA (Sirdprri {cord, strand], 1 Mace.
xiv. 16; AoKeSai/iiij'ioi, 2 Mace. v. 9: A. V.
" Lacedaemonians "). In the history of the Macca
bees mention is made of a remarkable coiTespond-
ence between the Jews and the Spartans, which has
been the subject of much discussion. The alleged
facts are briefly these. When Jonathan endeav-
,ored to strengthen his government by foreign alli
ances (cir. E. c. 144), he sent to Sparta to renew a
friendly intercourse which had been begun at an
earlier time between Areus and Onias [Aeeus;
Onias], on the ground of their common descent
from Abraham (1 Maoc. xii. 5-23). The embassy
was favorably received, and after the death of Jona
than "the friendship and league" was renewed
with Simon (1 Mace. xiv. 16-23). No results are
deduced from this correspondence, which is recorded
in the nari'ative without comment; and iraperfect
copies of the ofRcial documents are given as in the
case of similar negotiations with the Komans.
Several questions arise out of these statements as
to (1) the people described under the name Spar
tans, (2) the relationship of the Jews and Spar
tans, (3) the historic character of the events, and
(4) the persons referred to under the names Onias
and Areus.
1. The whole context of the passage, as well as
the independent reference to the connection of the
*' Lacedssmonians " and Jews in 2 Mace. v. 9, seem
to prove clearly that the reference is to the Spar
tans, properly so called; Josephus evidently under
stood the records in this sense, and the other
interpretations wbich have been advanced are
merely conjectures to avoid the supposed difficul
ties of the hteral interpretation. Thus Michaelis
conjectured that the words in the original text were
"I~CD, D"'1~ICD (Obad. ver. 20; Ges. Thes.
a. v.), which the translators read erroneously as
lalSD, D^laiDD, and thus substituted Sparta
for Sapharad [Sephaead]. And Frankel, a^ain
(Motiaisschrifl, 1853, p. 456), endeavors to show
that the name Spartans may have been given to
the Jewish settlement at Nisibis, the chief centre of
the Armenian Dispersion. But against these hy
potheses it may be urged conclusively that it is in
credible that a Jewish colony should have been so
completely separated from the mother state as to
need to be reminded of its kindred, and also tbat
the vicissitudes of the government of this strange
city (1 Mace. xii. 20, j3o(ri\eiii; xiv. 20, Spxoi^
T€s Kai ri ir6?.is) should have corresponded with
those of Sparta itself.
2. The actual relationship of the Jews and
Spartans (2 Mace. v. 9, auyyeveia) is an ethno
logical error, which it is difficult to trace to its
origin. It is possible that the Jews regarded the
Spartans as the representatives of the Pelasgi, the
supposed descendants of Peleg the son of Eber
(Stillingfleet, Origines Sacrce, iii. 4, 15; Ewald,
Gesch. iv. 277, note), just as in another place the
Pergamenes tiace back their friendship with the

SPARTA
Jews to a connection in the time of Abraham {5<h
seph. Ant. xiv. 10, § 22) ; if this were so, they
might easily spread their opinion. It is certain,
from an independent passage, that a Jewish colony
existed at Sparta at an early time (1 Mace. xv. 23) ;
and the important settlement of the Jews in Cyrene
may have contributed to favor the notion of some
intimate connection between the two races. The
belief in this relationship appears to have continued
to later times (Joseph. B. J. i. 26, § 1), and, how
ever mistaken, may be paralleled by other popular
legends of the eastern origin of Greek states. The
various hypotheses proposed to support the truth of
tbe statement are examined by Wemsdorff (Defide
Lib. Mace. § 94), but probably no one now would
maintain it.
3. The incorrectness of the opinion on which the
intercourse was based is obviously no objection to
the fact of the intercourse itself; and the very ob
scurity of Sparta at the time makes it extremely
unHkely that any forger would invent such an inci
dent. But it is urged tbat the letters said to have
been exchanged are evidently not genuine, since
they betray their fictitious origin negatively by the
absence of characteristic forms of expression, and
positively by actual inaccuracies. To tbis it may
be replied that the Spartan letters (1 Mace. xii. 20-
23, xiv. 20-23) are extremely brief, and exist only
in a translation of a translation, so that it is unrea
sonable to expect that any Doric peculiarities should
have been preserved. The Hellenistic translator ol
the Hebrew original would naturally render the text
before him without any regard to what might have
been its original form (xii. 22-25, sip^vri, Kriirri:
xiv. 20, aSe\(j>oi). On tbe other hand the absence
of the name of the second king of Sparta in the
first letter (1 Mace. xii. 20), and of both kings in
the second (1 Mace. xiv. 20), is probably to be ex
plained by the political circumstances under which
the letters were written. The text of the first letter,
as given by Josephus (Ant. xii. 4, § 10), contains
some variations, and a very remarkable additional
clause at the eud. The second letter is apparently
only a fragment.
4. The difficulty of fixing the date of the first
con'espondence is increased by the recurrence of the
names involved. Two kings bore the name Areus,
one of whom reigned B. c. 309-265, and the other,
his grandson, died B. u. 257, Reing only eight years
old. The same name was also borne by an ad
venturer, who occupied a prominent position at
Sparta, cir. B. c. 184 (Polyb. xxiii. 11, 12). In
Judsea, again, three high-priests bore the name
Onias, the first of whom held office B. c. 330-309
(or 300) ; the second, B. c. 240-226 ; and the third,
cir. B. c. 198-171. Thus Onias I. was for a short
time contemporary with Areus I., and the corre
spondence has been commonly assigned to them
(Palmer, De Epist. etc., Darmst. 1828 ; Grimm, on
1 Mace. xii.). But the position of Judcea at that
time was not such as to make the contraction o(
foreign alliances a likely occurrence ; and the spe
cial circumstances which are said to have directed
the attention of the Spartan king to the Jews ai
likely to effect a diversion against Demetrius Poll
orcetes when he was engaged in the war with Cas-
sander, B. c. 302 (Palmer, quoted by Grimm, I. c.),
are not completely satisfactory, even if the priest
hood of Onias can be extended to the later date."

a Ewald (Gesch. iv. 276, 277, note) supposes that
the letter was addressed to Onias 11. duriug his mi.

SPEAR
rhis being so, Josephus is probably correct in fix
ing tbe event in the time of Onias III. (Ant. xii. 4,
§ 10). The last-named Areus may have assumed
the royal title, if that is not due to an exaggerated
translation, and the absence of the name of a secoud
king is at once explained (Ussher, Annales, a. c.
183; Herzfeld, Gesch. d. V. Isr. i. 215-218). At
the time when Jonathan and Simon made negotia^
tions with Sparta, the succession of kings had
ceased. The last absolute ruler was Nabis, who
was assassinated in B. c. 192. (Wernsdorfi', De
Hde Lib. Mace. §§ 93-112 ; Grimm, I. c. ; Herzfeld,
'I. c. The early Uterature of the subject is given
by Wernsdorff.) B. F. W.
SPEAR. [Arms.]
SPEARMEN (S4ioKd&oi). The word thus
rendered in the A. V. of Acts xxiii. 23 is of very
rare occurrence, and its meaning is extremely ob
scure. Our translators followed tbe lancearii of
the Vulgate, and it seems probable that their ren
dering approximates most nearly to the true mean
ing. The reading of the Codex Alexandrinus is
Se^wpdKovs, which is literally followed by the Pe-
shito-Syi'iac, where the word is translated "darters
with the right hand." l^achmann adopts this read
ing, which appears also to have been that of the
Arabic in Walton's Polyglot. Two hundred Se ji-
oAajSoi formed part of tie escort whicb acconipa-
oied St. Paul in the night-march from Jerusalem
to Csesarea. They are clearly distinguished both
from the a-rpariwrai, or heavy-armed legionaries,
who only went as far as Antipatris, and from the
iiT-ireis, or cavalry, who continued the journey to
Caesarea. As nothing is said of the return of the
ie^io\d$ot to Jerusalem after tbeir arrival at Antip
atris, we may infer that they accompanied the cav-
idry to C«sarea, and this strengthens the supposi
tion that they were irregular light-armed troops, so
lightly armed, indeed, as to be able to keep pace on
the march with mounted soldiers. Meyer (Kom-
mentar, ii. 3, s. 404, 2'® Aufl.) conjectures that
they were a particular kind of light^armed troops
(called by the Romans Velites, or Korarii), proba
bly either javelin-men or slingers. In a passage
quoted by the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogen-
neta (Them. i. 1) from John of Philadelphia, they
are distinguished botb from the archers and from
the peltasts, or targeteers, and with these are de
scribed as forming a body of light-armed troops,
who in the 10th century were under the command
of an officer called a turmarch. Grotius, however,
was of opinion that at this late period the term
had merely been adopted from the narrative in the
Acts, and that the usage in the 10th century is no
safe guide to its true meaning. Others regard
them as body-guards of the governor, and Meursius,
in his Ghssarium Gresco-barbamm, supposes tbem
to have been a kind of military lictors, who bad
the charge of arresting prisoners; but the great
number (200) employed is against botb these sup
positions. In Suidas and the Etymologicum Mag
num TrapaipiKa^ is give:; ss tbe equivalent of Se^i-
o\d^os. The word occurs again in one of the
Byzantine historians, Theophylaetus Simocatta (iv.
1), and is used by him of soldiers who were em
ployed on skirmishing duty. It is probable, there
fore, that the Se^io\dPoi were light-armed troops
d( TOme kind, but nothing is certainly known about
4em. W. A. W.

cority (B. 0. 290-240), In the course of the wars with
Demetrius.

SPICE 3101
• SPED, Judg. V. 30 (from the A.-S. spedan)
means " succeeded," i. e. as a warrior in battlft
The Bishops' Bible has in tbat place " found," i. e
booty, hence Uterally = ^M^^. H
* SPELT. [Eye.]
SPICE, SPICES. Under this head it wUl
be desirable to notice the foUowing Hebrew words,
bdsdm, nScbth, and sammin.
1. Bdsdm, besem, or bbsem (DtD3, 0273, or
D?P3 '¦ rfiiapiaTa, evfiiiiiara: aromata). Tbe
first-named form of the Hebrew term, which occurs
only in Cant. v. 1, " I have gathered my myrrh
with my spice," points apparently to some definite
substance. In the other places, with the exception
perhaps of Cant. i. 13, vi. 2, the words refer more
generally to sweet aromatic odors, the principal of
which was tbat of the balsam, or balm of Gilead;
the tree which yields this substance is now gen
eraUy admitted to be the Amyris (Balsamoden-
dron) opobalsamum ; though it is probable tbat
other species of Amyridacece are included under
the terms. The identity of the Hebrew name
with the Arabic Basham ((?Lwio) or Balasan
S ^ ' ^
(^LuaAj) leaves no reason to doubt that the
substances are identical. The Amyris opobalsa
mum was observed by Forskil near Mecca; it wm

Balsam of Gilead (Amyris GUeaden^isj.
called by the Arabs Abuscham, i. e. " very bdor-
ous." But whether this was the same plant that
was cultivated in tbe plains of Jericho, and cele
brated throughout the world (Pliny, ff. N. xii.
25; Theophrastua, Hist. Plant, ix. 6; Josephus,
Ant. XV. 4, § 2; Strabo, xvi. 367; &c.), it is diffi
cult to determine; but being a tropical plant, il

3102

SPICE

cannot be supposed to have grown except in the
warm valleys of the S. of Palestine. The shrub
mentioned by Burckhardt (Trav. p. 323) as grow
ing in gardens near Tiberias, and which he was
mformed was the balsam, cannot have been the
tree in question. The A. V. never renders Bdsdm
by " balm " ; it gives this word as the representa
tive of the Hebrew tzeri, or fzoi-i [Balm]. The
form Besem or Bosem, which is of frequent occur
rence in the 0. T., may well be represented by the
general term of ".spices," or "sweet odors," in ac
cordance with the renderings of the LXX. and
Vulg. Tbe balm of Gilead tree grows in some
parts .of Arabia and Africa, and is seldom more
than fifteen feet high, with straggUng branches and
scanty foliage. The balsam is chiefly obtained
from incisions in the bark, but the substance is
procured also from the green and ripe berries. The
balsam orchards near Jericho appear to have ex
isted at the time of Titus, by whose legions they
were taken formal possession of, but no remains of

Astragalus Tragacantha.

this celebrated plant are now to be seen in Pales
tine. (See Scripture Herbal, p. 33.)
2. Nicoth (nM23 : Sviilaiia: aromata). The
company of Ishmaelitish merchants to whom Joseph
was sold were on their way from Gilead to Egypt,
with their camels bearing nScdth, tzeri [Balm],
and Idt (ladnnum) (Gen. xxxvu. 25); this same
substance was also among the presents which Jacob
sent to Joseph in Egypt (see Gen. xliii. 11). It is
probable from both these passages that nicdtb, if a
name for some definite substance, was a product of
Palestine, as it is named with other " best fruits
of the land." the I6i in the fornier passage being
the gum of the Cistus creticus, and not " myrrh,"
IS the A. V. renders it. [Mykrh.] Various
opinions have been formed as to what nScdth denotes,
for which see Celsius, Hierob. i. 548, and Rosen
miiller, Schol. in Gen. (1. c); the most probable
aplnnatioii is tbat which refers the word to the
inbic naka'at (UL\j), i. e. " the gum obtained

SPIDER
from the tragacanth " (Astragalus], three or fom
species of which genus are enumerated as occurring
in Palestine; see Strand's Flora Palcestina, No
413-416. The gum is a natural exudation from
the trunk and branches of the plant, which on
being " exposed to the air grow^ hard, and is formed
either into' lumps or slender pieces curled and
winding like worms, more or less long according
as matter offers" (Toumefort, 'Foyage,'!. 59, ed.
Lond. 1741).
It is uncertain whether the word ^33 in 2 K.
XX. 13; Is. xxxix. 2, denotes spice of any kind.
The A. V. reads in the text " the house of his
precious things," tbe margin gives " spieery,"
which has the support ofthe Vulg., Aq., and Symm.
It is clear from the passages referred to that Heze
kiah possessed a house or treasury of precious and
useful vegetable productions, and that ndcdth may
in these plaoes denote, though perhaps not ex
clusively, tragacanth gum. Keil ( Commeni. 1. c. )
derives the word from an unused root (H^S, " im-
plevit loculum "), and renders it by "treasure."
3. Sammim (D'^SD : %So<riw., TiSuajids, ipu/m,
0vp.iap.a: suave fra grans, boniodoris. graiissimus
aromata). A general term to denote those aromatic
substances which were used in the preparation of
the anointing oil, the incense offerings, etc. The
root of the Word, according to Gesenius, is to be
referred to toe Arabic Samm, " olfecit," whence
Samum, " an ^odoriferous substance." P'or more
particular information on the various aromatic sub
stances mentioned in the Bible, the reader is re
ferred to the articles which treat of tbe difierent
kinds : Feankikcense, Galbakum, Myerh,
Spikenard, Cinnamon, etc.
The spices mentioned as being used by Nico
demus for the preparation of our Lord's body (John
xix. 39, 40) are "myrrh and aloes," by which latter
word must be understood, not the aloes of medicine
(Aloe), but the highly-scented wood of the Agui-
l.tria agallochum (but see Aloks, i. 71 f.). The
enormous quantity of 100 lbs. weight of which St.
John speaks, has excited the incredulity of some
authors. Josephus, however, teUs us that there
were five hundred spicebearers at Herod's funeral
(Ant. xvii. 8, § 3), and in the Talmud it is said
that 80 lbs. of opobalsamum were employed at the
funeral of a certain Eabbi ; still there is no reason
to conclude that 100 lbs. weiiiht of pure myrrh and
aloes was consumed; the words of the Evangelist
imply a preparation (^ly^a) in which perhaps the
niyrrh and aloes were the principW or most costly
aromatic ingredients; again, it must be remem
bered that Nicodemus was a rich man, and perhaps
was the owner of large stores of precious sub
stances ; as a constant though timid disciple of our
Lord, he probably did not scruple at any sacrifice
so that he could show his respect for Him.
W. H.
SPIDER. Tbe representative in the A. V. of
the Hebrew words 'accdbish and semdmilh.
1. 'Accdbish {W^'DSV : apdxvri: m-nmea) oc
curs in Job viii. 14, where of the ungodly (.\.. V.
hypocrite) it is said his " hope shaU be cut off, and
his trust shaU be the house of an 'accdbWi," and
in Is. Iix. 5, where the wicked Jews are allegorically
said to " weave the web of the ^acccdnsh." TheM
is no doubt of the correctness of our translation ia
rendering this word " spider." In the two pa*

SPIKENARD
ages quoted above, aUusion is made to the fragile
nature of the spider's web, which, though admirably
suited to fulfiU aU the requirements of the animal,
is yet most easily torn by any violence that may
be offered to it. In the passage in Is. (I. c), how
ever, there is probably allusion also to the lurking
habits of the spider for his prey : " The wicked
hatch viper's eggs and weave the spider's web . . .
their works are works of iniquity, waiting and de
struction are in their paths." We have no infor
mation as to the species of Araneidis that occur in
Palestine, but doubtless this order is abundantly
ri

SPINNING

310S

2. SSmdmith (jT'DDt?? : KaXa$<liT-qs: steliio),
wrongly translated by the A. V. " spider " in Prov.
xxx. 28, the only passage where the word is found,
has reference, it is probable, to some kind of lizard
(Bochart, Hieroz. ii. 510). The semdmilh is men
tioned by Solomon as one of the four things that
are exceeding clever, though they be little upon
earth. " The semdmilh taketh hold with her hands,
and is in kings' palaces." This term exists in tbe
modern Greek language under the form o-a/im/iii'-
Bos. " Quem Grteci hodie a-aijud/j.ii/dov vocant,
antiquae Grseciae est dinca\a^(S>Tr]s, id est steliio —
quse vox pura Hebraica est et reperitur in Prov.
cap. xxx. 28, n^DDE?" (Salmasii Plin. Exercit.
p. 817, b. G.). The lizard indicated is evidently
some species of Gecko, some notice of which genus
of animals is given under the article Lizard, where
the letdeh was referred to the Ptyodnclylus Gecko.
The slmamiih is perhaps another species.
W. H.
SPIKENARD (T13, nerd: ydpSos: nardus).
We are rauch indebted to tbe late lamented Dr.
Eoyle for helping to clear up the doubts that had
long existed as to what particular plant furnished
the 'aromatic substahce known as "spikenard."
Of this substance mention is made twice in the
0. T., namely, in Cant. i. 12, where its sweet odor
is alluded to, and in iv. 13, 14, where it is enumer
ated with various other aromatic substances which
were imported at an early age from Arabia or
India and the far East. The ointment with which
our Lord was anointed as He sat at meat in Simon's
house at Bethany consisted of this precious sub
stance, the costliness of which may be inferred from
the indignant surprLse manifested by some of the
witnesses of the transaction (see Mark xiv. 3-5;
John xii. 3-5). With this may be compared
Horace, 4 Carm. xii. 16, 17 —
a Nardo vina merebere.
Nardi parvus onyx eliciet cadum."
Dioscorides speaks of several kinds of vdpSos,
and gives the names of various substances which
composed the ointment (i. 77). The Hebrew nerd,
according to Gesenius, is of Indian origin, and sig
nifies the stalk of a plant; hence one of the Arabic
names given by Avicenna as the equivalent of nard
is sujibul, "spica; " comp. the Greek i/apSda-raxvs,
(md our " spikena.rd." But whatever may be the
derivation of the Heb. '^"12, there is no doubt that
fwnbul is by Arabian authors used as the represent
ative of the Greek nardos, as Sir Wm. Jones has
shown (Asiat. Res. ii. 416). It appears, however,
Ihat this great oriental scholar was unable to obtain
the plan* from which the drug is procured, a wrong
plant having been sent him by Roxburgh. Ur.
wyle, when director of the E. I. Company's botanic

garden at Saharunpore, about 30 miles from the
foot of tbe Himalayan Mountains, having ascer
tained that the jaUtmansee, one of the Hindu
synonyms for the sunbul, was annually brought
from the mountains overhanging the Ganges and
.lumna rivers down to the plains, purchased some
of these fresh roots and planted them in the botanic
garden. They produced tbe same plant whieh in
1825 had been described by Don from specimens
sent by Dr. WaUich from Nepal, and named by
him Pairiniajatamansi (see the Prodromus Florm
Nepalensis, etc., acceduni planlce a WalUchio
nuperius missce, Lond. 1825). The identity of the
jatamansi with the Sunbul hindoe of the Arabs is
estabUshed beyond a doubt by the form of a portion
of the rough stem of the plant, which the Arabs
describe as being like the tail of an ermine (see
wood-cut). This plant, which has been caUed Nar-

^F^-^as^T

dosiachys jatamansi by De CandoUe, is evidently
the kind of nardos described by Dioscorides (i. 6
under the name of yayyirts, **• e., " the Ganges
nard." Dioscorides refers especially to its having
many shaggy (ttoXukS/ious) spikes growing from
one root. It is very interesting to note that Dios
corides gives the same locaUty for tbe plant as ia
mentioned by Royle, dird rivos rroTa/j.ov irapap-
^eouros tov 6pous, Tdyyov KaXov/ifUov irap ^
(pverat: though he is here speaking of lowland
specimens, he also mentions plants obtained from
the mountains. W. H.
SPINNING (niKl: vfiOei:'). The notices
of spinning in the Bible are confined to Ex. xxxv
25, 26; Matt. vi. 28; and Prov. xxxi. 19. The
latter passage impUes (according to the A. V.) the
use of the same instruments which have been in
vogue for hand-spinning down to the present day
namely, the distafi' and' spindle. The distaff, how
ever, appears to have been dispensed with, and the
term " so rendered raeans the spindle itself, while
that rendered "spindle"' represents the whirt
(veriicillus, Plin. xxxvii. 11) of the spindle, a but
ton or circular rim which was affixed to it, and
gave steadiness to its circular motion. The " whirl "

""Tl!?s.

litt?''?.

3104 SPIRIT, THE HOLY
of the Syrian women was made of amber in the
time of Pliny {I. c). The spindle was held per
pendicularly in the one hand, while the other was
employed in drawing out the thread. The process
is exhibited in the Egyptian paintings (Wilkinson,
ii. 85). Spinning was the business of women, both
among the Jews (Ex. I. c), and for the most part
among the Egyptians (Wilkinson, ii. 84). W. L. B.
SPIRIT, THB HOLY. In the 0. T. He is
generally called Q'^n'bW H^'^, or niTT^ TlTi,
the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Jehovah; some
times the Holy Spirit of Jehovah, as Ps. li. 11;
Is. kiii. 10, 11; or the Good Spirit of Jehovah, as
Ps. cxhii. 10; Neh. ix. 20. In the N. T. He is
generally rh ivvevpa rh aytov, or simply rh irvevfxa,
the Holy Spirit, the Spirit; sometimes the Spirit
of God, of the Lord, of Jesus Christ, as in Matt.
iii. 16; Acts v. 9; Phil. i. 19, &c.
In accordance with what seems to be the general
rule of Divine Revelation, that the knowledge of
heavenly things is given more abundantly and more
clearly in later a^es, tbe person, attributes, and
operations of the Holy Ghost are made known to
us chiefly in the New Testament, And in tbe
light of such later revelation, words which when
heard by patriarchs and prophets were probably un
derstood imperfectly by them, become full of mean
ing to Christians.
In the earliest period of Jewish history the Holy
Spirit was revealed as cooperating in the creation
of the world (Gen. 1. 2), as the Source, Giver, and
Sustainer of life (Job xxvii. 3, xxxiii. 4; Gen. ii.
7); as resisting (if the common interpretation be
correct) the evil inclinations of men (Gen. vi. 3);
as the Source of intellectual excellence (Gen. xii.
38; Deut. xxxiv. 9); of skill in handicraft (Ex.
xxviii. 3, xxxi. 3, xxxv. 31); of supernatural knowl
edge and prophetic gifts (Num. xxiv. 2); of valor
and those qualities of mind or body which give one
man acknowledged superiority over others (Judg.
iii. 10, vi. 34, xi. 29, xiii. 25).
In that period which began with Samuel, the
eflfect of the Spirit coming on a man is described
in the remarkable case of Saul as change of heart
(1 Sam. X. 6, 9), shown outwardly by prophesying
(1 Sam. X. 10; comp. Num. xi- 25, and 1 Sam.
xix. 20). He departs from a man whom He has
once changed (1 Sam. xvi. 14). His departure is
the departure of. God (xvi. 14, xviii. 12, xxviii. 15).
His presence is the presence of God (xvi. 13, xviii.
12). In the period of the Kingdom the operation
of the Spirit was recognized chiefly in the inspira
tion of the prophets (see Witsius, Miscellanea Sa
cra, lib. i. ; J. Smith's Select Discourses, p. 6,
Of Prophecy ; Knobel, Prophetismus der He-
brder). Separated more or less from the common
occupations of men to a life of special religious
exercise (Bp. Bull's Sermons, x. p. 187. ed. 1840),
they were sometimes workers of miracles, always
foretellers of future events, and e;uides and advisers
of the social and political life of the people who
were contemporary with them (2 K. ii. 9; 2 Chr.
xxiv. 20; Neh. ix. 30, &c.). In their writings are
found abundant predictions of the ordinary opera
tions of the Spirit which were to be most frequent
in later times, by which holiness, justice, peace, and
consolation were to be spread throughout the world
(Is. xi. 2, xiii. 1, Ixi. 1, &c.).
Even after the closing of the canon of the 0. T.
the presence of the Holy Spirit in the world con-

SPIRIT, THE HOLY
tinued to be acknowledged by Jewish writers (Wisd
i. 7, ix. 17; Philo, De Gigant. 5; and see Bidley.
Moyer Lectures, Serm. ii. p. 81, &c.).
In the N. T., both in the teaching of our Lord
and m the narratives of the events which preceded
his ministry and occurred in its course, the exist
ence and agency of the Holy Spirit are frequently
revealed, and are mentioned in such a manner as
shows that these facts were part of the common
belief of the Jewish people at that time. Theirs
was, in truth, the ancient faith, but more generally
entertained, which looked upon prophets as inspired
teachers, accredited by the power of working signs
and wonders (see Nitzsch, Christi. I^ehre, § 84).
It was made plain to the understanding of the Jewa
of that age that the same Spirit who wrought of
old amongst the people of God was still at work.
" The Dove forsook the ark of Moses and fixed its
dwelling in the Church of Christ " (Bull, On Jusii-
f cation. Diss. ii. ch. xi. § 7). The gifts of mira
cles, prediction, and teaching, which had cast a
fitful lustre on the times of the great Jewish
prophets, were manifested with remarkable vigor in
the first century after the birth of Christ. Whether
in the course of eighteen hundred years miracles
and predictions have altogether ceased, and, if so,
at what definite time they ceased, are questions
still debated among Christians. On this subject
reference may be made to Dr. Conyers Middleton's
Free Enquiry into the Miraculous Powers of the
Christian Church ; Dr. Brooke's Examination of
Middleton's Free Enquiry ; W. Dodwell's Letter
to Middleton ; Bp. Douglas's Criterion ; J. H. New
man's Essay on Miracles, etc With respect to the
gifts of teaching bestowed both in early and later
ages, compare Neander, Planting of Cho'isiianity,
b. iii. ch. v., with Horsley, Sermons, xiv., Potter,
On Church Government, ch. v., and Hooker, EccL
.72, §§ 5-8.
The relation of the Holy Spirit to the Incarnate
Son of God (see Oxford translation of Treatises of
Athanasius, p. 196, note c^) is a subject for reverent
contemplation rather than precise definition. By
the Spirit the redemption of mankind was made
known, though imperfectly, to the prophets of old
(2 Pet. i. 21), and through them to the people of
God. And when the time for the Incarnation had
arrived, the miraculous conception ofthe Kedeemer
(Matt. i. 18) was the work of the Spirit; by the
Spirit He was anointed in the womb or at baptism
(Acts X. 38; cf. Pearson, On the Creed, Art. ii.
p. 126, ed. Oxon. 1843); and the gi'adual growth
of his perfect human nature was in the Spirit
(Luke ii. 40, 52). A visible sign from heaven
showed the Spirit descending on and abiding with
Christ, whom He thenceforth filled and led (Luke
iv. 1), cooperating witli Christ in his miracles
(Matt. xii. 18). The multitude of disciples are
taught to pray for and expect the Spirit as the best
and greatest boon they can seek (Luke xi. 13).
He inspires with miraculous powers the first
teachers whom Christ sends forth, and He is re
peatedly promised and given by Christ ?o the
Apostles (l\Iatt. \. 20, xii. 28; John xiv, 16, xi
22; Acts i. 8):
Perhaps it was in order to correct the grossly
defective conceptions of the Holy Spirit which
prevailed connuonly among the people, and to teach
them that this is the raost awful possession of the
heirs of the kingdom of heaven, that our I-fird
himself pronounced the strong condemnation of
temers of the Holy Ghost (Matt. xii. 31)

SPIRIT, THE HOLY
This has roused in every age the susceptibility of
tender consciences, and has caused much inquiry to
be made as to the specific character of the sin so
denounced, and of the human actions which fall
under so terrible a ban. On the one hand it is
argued that no one now occupies the exact position
of the Pharisees whom our Lord condemned, for
they had not entered into covenant with the Holy
Spirit by baptism; they did not merely disobey
the Spirit, but blasphemously attributed his works
to the devil; they resisted not merely an inward
motion but an outward call, supported by the evi
dence of miracles wrought before their eyes. On
the other hand, a. morbid conscience is prone to
apprehend the unpardonable sin in every, even un
intentional, resistance of an inward motion which
may proceed frora the Spirit. This subject is re
ferred to in Article XVI. of the Church of Eng
land, and is discussed by Burnet, Beveridge, and
Harold Browne, in their Expositions of the Arti
cles. It occupies the greater part of Athanasius'
Fourth Epistic to Seraphn, cc. 8-22 (sometimes
printed separately as a Treatise on Matt. xii. 31).
See also Augustine, Ep. ad Rom. Expositio in
choata, §§ 14-23, tom. iii. pt. 2, p. 933. Also
Odo Cameracensis (a. d. 1113), De Blasphemia in
8p. Sanctum, in Migne's Patrologia Lat vol. 163;
J. Denison (a. d. 1611), The Sin against ihe Boly
Ghost ; Waterland's Sermons, xxvii. in Works,
vol. v. p. 706; Jackson, On the Creed, bk. viii. ch.
iii. p. 770.
But the Ascension of our Ijird is marked (Eph.
iv. 8; John vii. 39, &c.) as tbe coramencement of
a new period in the history of the inspiration of
men by the Holy Ghost. The interval between
that event and the end of the world is often de
scribed as the Dispensation of the Spirit. It was
not merely (as Didyraus Alex. De Trinitate, iii.
34, p. 431, and others have suggested) that the
knowledge of the Spirit's operations became more
general among mankind. It cannot be allowed
(though Bp. Heber, Lectures, viii. 514 and vii.
488, and Warburton have maintained it) that the
Holy Spirit has sufficiently redeemed his gracious
promise to every succeeding age of Christians only
by presenting us with the New Testament. Some
thing more was promised, and continues to be
given. Under the old dispensation the gifts of the
Holy Spirit were uncovenanted, not universal, in
termittent, chiefly external. All this was changed.
Our Lord, by ordainhig (Matt, xxviii. 19) that
every Christian should be baptized in the name of
the Holy Ghost, indicated at once the absolute ne
cessity from that time forth of a personal connec
tion of every believer with the Spirifc; and (in John
xvi. 7-15) He declares the internal character of the
Spirit's work, and (in John xiv. 16, 17, (fee.) his
perraanent stay. And suhsequentiy the Spirit's
operations under the new dispensation are authori
tatively announced as universal and internal in two
remarkable passages (Acts ii. 16-21; Heb. viii.
8-12). The different relations of the Spirit to
beUevers severally under the old and new dispensa
tion are described by St. Paul under the images of
a master to a servant, and a father to a son (Rom.
viii. 15); so much deeper and more intimate is the
union, so much higher the position (Matt. xi. 11)
of a believer, in the later stage than in fche earlier
(see J. G. Walchius, Miscellanea Sacj-a, p. 763,
De Spiritu Adoptionis, and the opinions collected
in note H in Hare's Mission of the Comforter,
*ol ii. p. 433 ) The rite of imposition of bands,

SPIRIT, THE HOLY 3105
nofc only on teachers, but also on ordinary Chris
tians, which has been used in the Apostolic (Acta
vi. 6, xiii. 3, xix. 6, &o.) and in all subsequent
ages, is a testimony borne by those who corae un
der the new dispensation to their behef of the
reality, permanence, and universality of the gift of
the Spirit.
Under the Christian dispensation it appears to
be the office of the Holy Ghost to enter into and
dwell within every believer (Rom, viii. 9, 11; 1
John iii. 24). Dy Him the work of Redemption is
(so to speak) appropriated and carried out to its
completion in the case of every one of the elect
people of God. To believe, to profess sincerely
tlie Christian faith, and to walk as a Christian, are
his gifts (2 Cor. iv. 13; 1 Oor. xii. 3; Gal. v. 18)
fco each person severally; not only does He bestow
the power and faculty of acting, but He concurs
(1 Cot. iii. 9; Phil. ii. 13) in every particular ac
tion so far as it is good (see South's Sermons,
xxxv., vol. ii. p. 292). His inspiration brings the
true knowledge of all things (1 John ii. 27). He
unites the whole multitude of believers into one
regularly organized body (1 Cor. xii., and Eph.
iv. 4-16). He is not only the source of light to
us on earth (2 Cor. iii. 6; Rom. viii. 2), but also
the power by whom God raises us from the dead
(Rom, viii. 11). All Scripture, by which men in
every successive generation are instructed and made
wise unto salvation, is inspired by Him (Eph. iii.
5; 2 Tim. iii. 16; 2 Pet. i. 21); He cooperates
with suppliants in the utterance of every effectual
prayer that ascends on high (Eph. ii. 18, vi. 18;
Rom. viii. 26)', He strengthens (Eph. iii. 16),
sanctifies (2 Thes. ii. 13), and seals the souls of
men unto the day of completed redemption (Eph
i. 13, iv. 30).
That this work of the Spirit ia a real work, and
not a mere imagination of enthusiasts, may be
shown (1) from the words of Scripture to which
reference has been made, wbich are too definite and
clear to be explained away by any such hypothesis;
(2) by the experience of intelligent Christians in
every age, who are ready to specify the marks and
tokens of his operation in themselves, and even to
describe the manner in which they believe He
works, on which see Barrow's Sermons, Ixxvii. and
Ixxviii., towards the end; Waterland's Sermons,
xxvi., vol. V. p. 686; (3) by the superiority of
Christian nations over heathen nations, in the
possession of those characteristic quaHties which are
gifts of the Spirit, in the establishment of such
customs, habits, and laws as are agreeable thereto,
and in the exercise of an enlightening and purify
ing influence in the world. Christianity and civ- '
ilization are never far asunder: those nations which
are now eminent in power and knowledge are all to
be found within the pale of Christendom, not in
deed free from national vices, yet on the whole
manifestly superior both to contemporary unbe
lievers and to Paganism in its ancient palmy days.
(See Hare's Mission of ihe Comforter, Serra. fi,
vol. i. p. 202 ; Porteus on the Beneficial Effects of
Chirisiianity on the Temporal Concerns of Man
kind, in Works, vol. vi. pp. 375-460.)
It has been inferred frora various passages of
Scripture thafc the operations of the Holy Spirit
are not limited to those persons who either by cir
cumcision or by baptism have entered into covenant
with God. Abimelech (Gen. xx. 3), Melchizedek
(xiv. 18), Jethro (Ex. xviii. 12), Balaam (Num
xxii. 9), and Job in the 0. T.; and the lUofc'

3106 SPIRIT, THE HOLY
(Matt. ii. 12) and the case of CorneUus, with the
declaration of St. Peter (Acts x. 35) thereon, are
instances showing that the Holy Spirit bestowed
his gifts of knowledge and holiness in some degree
even among heathen nations ; and if we may go
beyond the attestation of Scripture, it might be
argued from the virtuous actions of some heathens,
from their ascription of whatever good was in them
to the influence of a present Deity (see the refer
ences in Heber's Lectures, vi. 446), and from their
tenacious preservation of tbe rite of animal sacri
fice, that the Spirit whose name they knew, not
must have girded them, aud still girds such as they
were, with secret blessedness.
Thus far it has been attempted to sketch briefly
the work of the Holy Spirit among men in all ages
as it is revealed to us in the Bible. But after the
closing of the canon of the N. T. the reUgious
subtilty of oriental Christians led them to scru
tinize, with the most intense accuracy, the words
in which God has, incidentally as it were, revealed
to us something of the mystery of the Being of
the Holy Ghost. It would be vain now to con
demn the superfluous aud irreverent curiosity with
which these researches were sometimes prosecuted,
and the scandalous contentions which they caused.
The result of tbem was the formation and general
acceptance of certain statements as inferences from
Holy Scripture which took their place in the estab
lished creeds and in the teaching of the Fathers
of the Church, and which the great body of Chris
tians throughout the world continue to adhere to,
and to guard with more or less vigilance.
The Sadducees are sometimes mentioned as pre
ceding any professed Christians in denying tbe per
sonal existence of the Holy Ghost. Such was the
inference of Epiphanius (Hteres. xii.), Gregory Na-
zianzen (Oratlo, xxxi. § 5, p. 558, ed. Ben.), and
others, from the testimony of St. Luke (Acts xxiu.
8). But it may be doubted whether the error of
¦ the Saflducees did not rather consist in asserting a
corporeal Deity. Passing over this, in the first
youthful age of the Church, when, as Neander ob
serves ( Ch. Hist. ii. 327, Bohn's ed. ), the power
of the Holy Spirit was so mightily felt as a new
creative, transforming principle of life, the knowl
edge of this Spirit, as identical with the Essence
of God, was not so thoroughly and distinctly im
pressed on the understanding of Christians. Simon
Magus, the Montanists, and the Manicheans, are
said to have imagined that the promised Comforter
was personified in certain human beings. The lan
guage of some of the primitive Fathers, though its
deficiencies have been greatly exaggerated, occa
sionally comes short of a, full and complete ac
knowledgment of the Divinity of the Spirit. Their
opinions are given in their own words, with much
valuable criticism, in Dr. Burton's Testimonies of
the Ante-Nicene Fathers io the Doctrine of the
Trinity and the Divinity of the ffoly Ghost (1831).
Valentinus beUeved tbat the Holy Spii'it was an
angel. The Sabellians denied that He was a dis
tinct Person from the Father and the Son. Euno-
mius, with the Anomaeans and the Arians, regarded
Him as a created lieing. Macedonius, with bis
followers the Pneumatomachi, also denied his Di
vinity, and regarded Hiin as a created Being at
tending on the Son. His procession from the Son
as weU as from the Father was the great point of
controversy in the Middle Ages. In modern times
ihe Socinians and Spinoza have altogether denied
the PersonaUty, and have regarded Him as an in-

SPIRIT, THB HOLY
fluence or power of the Deity. It must suffice in
this article to give the principal texts of Scripture
in which these erroneous opinions are contradicted,
and to refer to the principal works in whioh they
are discussed at length. The documents in which
various existing communities of Christians have
stated their beUef are specified by G. B. Winer
(Comparai'ive Darstellung des Lehrbegriffs, etc.,
pp. 41 and 80).
The Divinity of the Holy Ghost is proved by
the fact that He is called God. Compare 1 Sam.
xvi. 13 with xviii. 12; Acts v. 3 with v. 4; 2 Cor.
iii. 37 with Ex. xxxiv. 34; Acts xxviii. 25 with Is.
vi. 8 ; Matt. xii. 28 with Luke xi. 20 ; 1 Cor. iii.
16 with vi. 19. The attributes of God are ascribed
to Him. He creates, works miracles, inspires
prophets, is the Source of holiness (see above), is
everlasting (Heb. ix. 14), omnipresent, and omnis
cient (Ps. cxxxix. 1 ; and 1 Cor. ii. 10).
The personality of the Holy Ghost is shown by
the actions ascribed to Him. He hears and speaks
(John xvi. 13; Acts x. 19, xiii. 2, &c.). He wills
and acts on his decision (1 Cor. xii. 11). He
chooses and directs a certain course of action (Acts
XV. 28). He knows (1 Cor. ii. 11). He teaches
(John xiv. 26). He intercedes (Rom. vUi. 26).
The texts 2 Thes. in. 5, and 1 Thes. iii. 12, 13,
are quoted against those who confound the three
persons of the Godhead.
The procession of the Holy Ghost from the
Father is shown from John xiv. 26, xv. 26, &e.
The tenet of the Western Church that He pro
ceeds from the Son is grounded on John xv. 26,
xvi. 7 ; Eom. viii. 9 ; Gal. iv. 6 ; PhU. i. 19 ; 1
Pet. i. 11; and on the action of our Lord recorded
by St. John xx. 22. The history of the long and
important controversy on this point has been writ
ten by Pfafli; by J. G. Walchius, Bisioria Contro
versial de Processione, 1751, and by Neale, History
ofthe Eastern Church, ii. 1093.
Besides the Expositions of ihe Thirty-nine Arti
cles referred to above, and Pearson, On the Creed,
art. viii., the work ot Barrow (De Spiritu Sancto)
contains an excellent summary of the various here
sies and their confutation. The foUowing works
may be consulted for more detailed discussion:
Athanasius, Epistohs /V. ad Serapitmem; Didy
mus Alex. De Spiritu Sancto; Basil the Great,
De Spiritu Sancto, and Adversus Eunomium ;
Gregory Nazianzen, Orationes de Tlieologia; Greg
ory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium, lib. xiii.; Am
brose, De Spiritu Sancto, lib. iii.; Augustine,
Contra Maximinum, and De Trinitate; Faschasius
Diaconus, De Spiritu Sancto ; Isidorus, Hisp.
Etymologia, vii. 3, De Spiritu Sancto ; Ratramnus
Corbeiensis, Contra Grcecorum, etc., lib. iv. ; Al-
cuin, P. Damian, and Anselm, De Processione;
Aquinas, Sum. Theol. i. 36-43; Owen, Treatise
on the Holy Spirit ; J. Howe, Office and Works
of ihe Holy Spirit; W. Clagett, On the Opera
tions ofthe Spirit, 1678 ; M. Hole, On ihe Gifls and
Graces of the H. S. ; Bp. Warburton, Doctrine of
Grace ; Gl. Ridley, Moyer Lectures on tlie Divin
ity and Operations ofthe ff. S., 1742; S. Ogden,
Sermons, pp. 157-176; Faber, Prnclical Ti'eatise
on the Ordinary Operations ofthe II. S., 1813; Bp.
Heber, Bampton Lectures on the Personality and
~ "Ice ofthe Comforter, 1816; Archd. Hare, Mis
sion of the Comforter, 1846. W. T. B.
I* Though this subject hardly comes within tbe
proper scope of the Dictionary, a few referenoM
may be added to writers of difl'erent theobgiod

SPOIL
schools. F. A. Larape, Diss. I.-VII. de Spiritu
iancto, Brera. 1728-29, 4to. Lardner, First Post-
tcript to his Letter on the Logos { Works, x. 117-
169, ed. 1829). (Henry Ware,) Cse and Meaning
of the Phrase ^^ Holy Spirit,'* in tbe Christ. Dis
ciple (Boston) for July, 1819, i. 260 ffi Buchs-
enschiitz, La doctrine de VEspHt de Dieu selon
I' Anc. ei Nouv. Test, Strasb. 1840. C. F. Fritz
sche, De Spiritu sancto Comm. dogm. et exeget.,
4 pt. Halae, 1840 ff., reprinted in his Nova Opusc.
Acad. (1846), pp. 233-337. K. F. Kahnis, Die
Lehre vom heiligen Geiste, 1^^ Theil, Halle, 1847.
(.4non.,) Die biblische Bedeuiung des Wortes Geist,
(iiessen, 1862 (263 pp.). Kleinert, Zur aittest
Lehre vont Geiste Goties, in the Jahrb. f. deutsche
TheoL, 1867, pp. 3-59. J. B. Walker, The Doc-
tHne of the Holy Spirit, Chicago, 1869. Art.
irvevpa in Cremer's Bibl.-theoL Wdrterb. der
neutest Grdcitdt (1866), and C. L. W. Grimm's
Lex. Gr.-Lat in Libros N. T. (1868). See also
Von Coelln, Biblische Theologie (1836), i. 131 ff.,
456 ff., ii. 97 ff., 256 ff.; Neander, HisL of Chris
tian Dogmas, i. 171 ff., 303 ff., Ryland's trans.
(Bohn): Hagenbach's Hist, of Doctrines, §§ 44,
93; and the other well-known works on BibHcal
and dogmatic theology. A.
'* SPOIL, as a verb = derail or plunder (Gen.
xxxiv. 27, 29; Ex. iii. 22; CoL ii. 8, &c.), like
spoliare in Latin. H.
* SPOIL'E'R = plunderer (Judg. ii. 14; Jer.
vi. 26, vii. 12, &c.). [Spoil.] H.
SPONGE {a-!r6yyos' spongia) is mentioned
only in the N. T. in those passages which relate
the incident of " a sponge filled with vinegar and
put on a reed" (Matt, xxvii. 48; Mark xv. 36),
or "on hyssop" (John xix. 29), being offered to
our Lord on the cross. The commercial value of
the sponge was known frora very early times ; and
although there appears to be no notice of it in the
0. T., yet it is probable that it was used by the
ancient Hebrews, who could readily have ol^tained
it good frora the Mediterranean. Aristotle men
tions several kinds, and carefuUy notices those
which were useful for economic purposes {Hist.
Anim. v. 14). His speculations on the nature of
the sponge are very interesting. W. H.
SPOUSE. [Marriage.]
STA'CHYS Itrdxvs [ear of corn] : Stachys).
A Christian at Rome, saluted by Sfc. Paul in the
Epistle to the Romans (xvi. 9). The name is
Greek. According to a tradition recorded by
Nicephorus Callistus {H. E. viii. 6) lie was ap
pointed bishop of Byzantium by St. Andrew, held
the office for sixteen years, and was succeeded by
Onesiraus. * STALL. [Crib; Mahger.]
STACTE (^^3, ndtdf: araKr-h' stacte), the
name of one of the sweet spices which composed
the holy incense (see Ex. xxx. 34). The Hebrew
word occurs once again (Job xxxvi. 27), where ifc
is used to denote simply "a drop" of water. For
the various opinions as to what substance is in
tended by ndtdf, see Celsius {Hierob. i. 529);
Rosenmiiller {Bib. Bot. p. 164) identifies the ndtdf
with fhe gum of the storax tree {Styrax officinale) ;
fche LXX. o-Ttt/cT^ (from o-rcifw, "to drop") is
the exact translation of the Hebrew word. Now
Dioscorides describes two kinds of ffraKr-f)'- one
[s the fresh gum of the myrrh tree {Balsamo-
iendron myrrha) mixed with water aud squeezed

STAR OF THE WISE MEN 3107
out through a press (i. 74); the other kind, which
he calls, from the manner in which it is prepared,
GK(n\r)Kirr}s arvpa^, denotes the resin of the
storax adulterated with wax and fat. The true
stacte of the Greek writers points to tbe distillation
from fche myrrh tree, of which, according to The-
ophrastas {Fr. iv, 29, ed. Schneider), both a nat
ural and an artificial kind were known ; this is fche
m&i' dSror ("I'l")^ "I'ltt) of Ex. xxx. 23. Perhaps
the ndtdf denotes the stor'ax gum ; but all thafc
is positively known is that it signifies an odorous
distillation from some plant. For some account of
the styrax tree see under Poplar. W. H.
* STAFF. [Sceptre.]
* STAIRS, Neh. iii. 15; Acts xxi. 35. [Je
rusalem, vol. ii. p. 1331 6.]
STANDARDS. [Ensigx.]
* STARGAZERS. " [Magi; and see the
next article.]
STAR OF THB WISE MEN. Until the
last few years the interpretation of St. Matt. ii.
1-12, by theologians in general, coincided in the
main with that whicb would be given to it by any
person of ordinary intelligence who read the ac
count with due attention. Some supernatural light
resembling a star had appeared in some country
(possibly Persia) far to the east of Jerusalem, to
men who were versed hi fche study of celestial
phenomena, conveying to their minds a supernat
ural impulse to repair to Jerusalem, where they
would find ll new-born king. It supposed thera
to be followers, and possibly priests, of the Zend
religion, whereby they were led to expect a Re
deemer in the person of the Jewish infant. On
arriving at Jerusalem, after diligent inquiry and
consultation with the priests and learned men who
could naturally best inform them, they are directed
to proceed to Bethlehem. The star which they
had seen in the east reappeared to them and pre
ceded them {irpo^yev avrovs), until it took up its
station over the place where the young child was
(ews %\6(av iarddri eirdvco ov ifv rh irai^iov)-
The whole matter, that is, was supernatural ;
forming a portion of that divine prean-angement,
whereby, in his deep humihation araong raen, the
child Jesus was honored and acknowledged by the
Father, as his beloved Son in whom He was well
pleased. Thus the lowly shepherds who kept their
nightly watch on the hills near to Bethlehem,
together wifch all that remahied of the highest and
best philosophy of the East, are alike the par
takers and the witnesses of the glory of Him who
was "born in the city of David, a Saviour which
is Christ the Lord." Such is substantially the
account wbich, until the earlier part of the present
century would have been given by orthodox divines,
of the Star of the Magi. Latterly, however, a
very different opirnon has gradually become prev
alent upon the subject. The star bas been dis
placed from the category of the supernatural, and
has been referred to the ordinary astronomical
phenomenon of a conjunction of the planets Jupiter
and Saturn. The idea orieinated wifch Kepler,
who, araong many other brilliant but untenable
fancies, supposed that if he could identify a con
junction of the above-named planets with the Star
of Bethlehem, he would thereby be able to de
termine, on the basis of certainty, the very difficult
and obscure point of the Annus Domini. Kepler'a
suggestion was worked out with great care and Da

3108

STAR OF THE WISE MEN

very great inaccuracy by Dr. Ideler of Berlin, and
the results of his calculations certairdy do, on the
first impression, seem to show a very specious ac
cordance with the phenomena of the star in ques
tion. W e purpose, then, in the first place, to state
what celestial phenomena did occur wifch reference
to the planets Jupiter and Saturn, at » date as
suredly nofc very distant from the time of our
Saviour's birth ; and then to examine how far they
fulfill, or fail to fulfill, the conditions required by
the narrative in St. Matthew.
In the month of May, b. c. 7, a conjunction of
the planets Jupiter and Saturn occurred, not far
from the first poinfc of Aries, fche planets rising in
Chaldsea about 3^ hours before the sun. It is
said that on astrological grounds such a conjunc
tion could not fail to excite the attention of men
like the Magi, and thafc in consequence partly of
their knowledge of Balaam's prophecy, and partly
from the uneasy persuasion then said to be prev
alent that some great one was to be born in the
East, these Magi commenced their journey to Jeru
salem. Supposing thera to have set out at the
end of May B. c. 7 upon a journey for which the
circumstances will be seen to require at least seven
months, the planets were observed to separate slowly
until the end of July, when their motions becom
ing retrograde, they again came infco conjunction
by the end of September. At that time there can
be no doubt Jupiter would present to astronomers,
especially in so clear an atmosphere," a magnificent
spectacle. It was then at its raost brilliant appa
rition, for ifc was at its nearest approach both to
the sun and to the earth. Not far from it would
be seen its duller aud much less conspicuous com
panion Saturn. This glorious spectacle continued
almost unaltered for several days, when the planets
again slowly separated, then carae to a halt, when,
by reassuraing a direct motion, Jupiter again ap
proached to a conjunction for the third tim«: with
Saturn, just as the Magi may be supposed to have
entered the Holy City. And, to complete the fasci
nation of the tale, about an hour and a half after
sunset, the two planets might be seen from Jeru
salem, hanging as it were in the meridian, and
suspended over Bethlehem in the distance. These
celestial phenomena thus described are, it will be
seen, beyond the reach of question, and at the first
Impression they assuredly appear fco fulfill the con
ditions of the Star of the Magi.
The first circumstance which created a suspicion
to the contrary, arose from an exaggeration, unac
countable for any man having a claim to be ranked
among astronomers, on the part of Dr. Ideler hira
self, who described the two planets as wearing the
appearance of one bright but diffused light to per
sons having weak eyes. " So dass fur ein
schwaches Auge der eine Planet fast in den Zer-
streuungskreis des andern trat, miihin beide als ein
einziger Stetm erscheinen konnien," p. 407, vol, ii.
Not only is this imperfect eyesight inflicted upon
the Magi, but it is quite certain fchat had they
possessed any remains of eyesight at all, they could
not have failed to see, not a single star, but two
planets, at the very considerable distance of double
the moon's apparent diameter. Had they been
even twenty tiraes closer, the duplicity of the two
stare must have been apparent: Saturn, moreover.

a The atmosphere in parts of Persia is so trans
parent that the Magi may have seen the satellites of
Jupiter with their naked eyes.

rather confusing than adding to the brilliance of his
companion. This forced blending of the two light*
into one by Ideler was still further improved by
Dean Alford, in the first edition of *iis very valu
able and suggestive Greek Testament, who indeed
restores ordinary sight to the Magi, but represents
the planets as forming a single star of surpassing
brightness, although they were cerfcainly at more
than double the distance of the sun's apparent
diameter. Exaggerations of this description in
duced the writer of this article to undertake the
very formidable labor of calculating afresh an ephiin-
eris of the planets Jupiter and Safcuru, and of
the sun, from May to December b. o. 7. The re
sult was to confirm the fact of there being three
conjunctions during the above period, though some
what to modify the dates assigned to thera hy Dr.
Ideler. Similar results, also, have been obtained
by Encke, and the December conjunction has been
confirmed by fche Astronomer-Royal; no celestial
phenomena, therefore, of ancient date are so cer
tainly ascertained as the conjunctions in question.
We shall now proceed to examine to what extent,
or, as it will be seen, to how slight an extent the
December conjunction fulfills the conditions of the
narrative of St. Matthew. We can hardly avoid
a feeling of regret at the dissipation of so fascinating
an illusion : but we are in quest of the truth, rather
than of a picture, however beautiful.
(a.) The writer must confess himself profoundly
ignorant of any system of astrology; bufc supposing
that some system did exist, it nevertheless is incon
ceivable that solely on the ground of astrological
reasons men would be induced to undertake a seven
months' journey. And as to the widely-spread
and prevalent expectation of some powerful person
age about to show himself in fche East, the fact of
its existence depends on the testimony of Tacitus,
Suetonius, and Josephus. But it ought to be very
carefuUy observed thafc all tliese writers speak of this
expectation as applying to Vespasian, in A. D. 69,
which date was seventy-five years, or two genera
tions affcer the conjunctions in question ! The well-
known and often quoted words of Tacitus are "eo
ipso tempore;" of Suetonius, "eo tempore; "of
Josephus, " Kara rhv Kaiphv ^Kelvov'-, " all pointing
to A. D. 69, and not to b. c. 7. Seeing, then, thafc
these writers refer to no general uneasy expectation
as prevailing in b. c. 7, it can have formed no
reason for the departure of the Magi. And, further
more, it is quite certain that in the February of B
c. 66 (Pritchard, in Trans. R. Ast. Soc. vol. xxv.),
a conjuncfcion of Jupiter and Saturn occurred in
the constellation Pisces, closer than the one on
December 4, b. c. 7. Tf, therefore, astrological
reasons alone impelled the Magi to journey to Jeru
salem in the latter instance, similar considerations
would have impelled their fathers to take the same
journey fifty-nine years before.
(6.) But even supposing the Magi did undertake
the journey at the tirae in question, it seems impos
sible thafc the conjunction of December, b. c. 7 can
on any reasonable grounds be considered as fulfill
ing the conditions in St. Matt, ii- 9. The circum
stances are as follows : On December 4, the sun set
at Jerusalem at 5 p. m. Supposing the Magi to
have then commenced their journey to Bethlehem,
they would first see Jupiter and his dull and some
what distant companion 1^ hour distant from the
meridian, in a S. E. direction, and decidedly to the
east of Bethlehem. By the time they came to
Rachel's tomb (see Robinson's Bibl. Res. it &68)

STATER
tbe planets would be due south of them, on the
meridian, and no longer over the hill of Ijetblehem
(see the maps of Van de Velde and of Tobler), for
that village (see Robinson, as above) bears from
Rachel's tomb S. 5° E. + 8° declension = S. 13°
E. The road then takes a turn to tbe east, and
ascends the hill near to its western extremity ; the
planets therefore would now be on their right hands,
and a Uttle behind them: the "star," therefore,
ceased altogether to go " before them " a« a guide.
Arrived on the hill and in the village, it became
physically impossible for the stiu' to stand over any
house whatever close to them, .seeing tbat it was
now visible far away beyond the hill to the west,
and far off in the heavens at an altitude of 57°. As
tliey advanced, the star would of necessity recede,
and under no circumstances could it be said to
stand "over" ("eirdva)"} any house, unless at
the distance of miles from the place where they
were. Thus the two heavenly bodies altogether fail
to fulfill either of the conditions implied in the
words ^^irpoTJyev avr&bs" or '* iarddi] fVovw."
A star, if vertical, would appear to stand over any
house or object to which a spectator might chance
to be near; but a star at an altitude of 57° could
appear to stand over no house or object in the
Immediate neighborhood of the observer. It is
scarcely necessary to add that if the Magi had left
the Jaffa Gate before sunset, they would not have
seen the planets at tbe outset: and if they had left
Jerusalem later, the " star " would have been a
more useless guide than before. Thus the beauti
ful phant^ism of Kepler and Ideler, which has fasci
nated so many writers, vanishes before the more
perfect daylight ot investigation.
A modem writer of great ability (Dr. Words
worth) has suggested the antithesis to Kepler's
speculation regarding tbe star of the Magi, namely,
that the star was visible to the Magi alone. It is
difficult to see what is gained or explained by the
hypothesis. The song of the multitude of the
heavenly host was published abroad in Bethlehem ;
the journey of the Magi thither was no secret whis
pered in a corner. Why, then, should the heavenly
light, standing as a beacon of glory over the place
where the young child was, be concealed from all
eyes but theirs, and form no part in that series of
wonders which the Virgin Mother kept and pon
dered hi her heart?
The original authorities on this question are
Kepler, De Jesu Christi vero anno naialitio, Frank
furt, 1614; Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologic, ii.
398; Pritchard, Memoirs of Royal Ast. Society,
vol. xxv. C. P.
* See The Wise Men ofthe East, etc. (by F. W.
Upham, LL. D.), N. Y., 1869, 12mo. A.
STATER (arariip: stater: A.V. "a piece
of money; " margin, " stater ").
1. The term stater, from 'laTTi/M, is held to sig
nify a coin of a certahi weight, but perhaps means
a standard coin. It is not restricted by the Greeks
to a single denomination, but is applied to standard
coins of gold, electrum, and silver. The gold staters
were didrachms of the later Phcenician and the
Attic talents, which, in this denomination, differ
only about four grains troy. Of the former talent
Were the Dario staters or Darics (orariipes AapeiKol,
^apeiKoi), the famous Persian gold pieces, and those

STATER

3109

o Tt has been supposed by some ancient and modem
oommentators that the civil tribute is here referred to ;
but by this explanation tha force of our Lord's reason

of Crtesus iKpoia-e7oi), ol the latter, the stater of
Athens. The electrum staters were couied by fch€
Greek towns on the west coast of Asia Minor; the
most faramw «ero those of Cyzicus {ararTJpes
Kv^iKTjvoi t!.u^iK7)vol), whicb weigh aboufc 248
grains, 'i'hey are of gold and silver mixed, in the
proportion, according to ancient authority — for we
believe these rare coins have not been analyzed —
of three parts of gold to one of silver. The gold
was alone reckoned in the value, for it is said that
one of these coins was equal to 28 Athenian silve?
drachms, while the Athenian gold stater, weighing
about 132 grams, was equal to 20 (20 : 132 : : 28
184-|- or ^ of a Cyzicene stater). This stater was
thus of 184-}- grains, and equivalent to a didrachm
of fche .iEginetan talent. Thus far the stater is al
ways a didrachm. In .silver, however, the term is
applied to the tetradrachm of Athens, which was
of the weight of two gold staters of the same cur
rency. There can therefore be no doubt that the
name stater was applied to tbe standard denomina
tion of both metals, and does not positively imply
either a didrachm or a tetradrachm.
2. In the N. T. ths stater is once raentioned, in
the narrative of tbe miracle of the sacred tribute-
money. At Capernaum the receivers of the di
drachms {ol rd diSpaxpa \a/x^avovres) asked
St. Peter whether his master paid fche didrachms.
The didrachra refers to the yearly tribute paid by
every Hebrew into the treasury of the Temple."
The sum was half a shekel, called by the LXX. to
ifjpLa-v rod BiBpdxpov- The plain inference would
therefore be, that the receivers of sacred tributs
took tbeir name from the ordinary coin or weight oJ
metal, the shekel, of which each person paid half.
But ifc has been supposed that as the coined equiva
lent of fchis didrachm afc the period of the Evangel
ist was il, tetradrachm, and the payment of each
person was therefore a current didrachm [of ac
count], the term here applies to single payments of
didrachms. This opinion would appear to receive
sorae support frora the stateraent of Josephus, that
Vespasian fixed a yearly tax of two drachms on
the Jews instead of that they had forraerly paid
into the treasury of the Temple {B. J. vii. 6, § 6).
But this passage loses its force when we remember
that the coramon current silver coin in Palestine at
the time of Vespasian, and that in which the civil
tribute was paid, was the denarius, the tribute-
money, then equivalent to the debased Attic drachm.
Ifc seems also mosfc unlikely fchat the use of the term
didrachm should have so remarkably changed in the
interval between the date of the LXX. translation
of the Pentateuch and that of the writing of St.
Matthew's Gospel. To return to the narrative.
St. Peter was commanded to take up a fish which
should be found to contain a sfcafcer, which he was
to pay to the collectors of tribute for our Lord and
himself (Matt. xvii. 24-27). The stater must here
mean a silver tetradrachm; and the only tetra-
drachms then current in Palestine were of the same
weight as tlie Hebrew shekel. And it is observable,
in confirmation of the minute accuracy of the Evan
gelist, that afc this period the silver currency in
Palestine consisted of Greek imperial tetradrachras,
or staters, and Roman denarii of a quarter their
value, didrachms having fallen infco disuse. Had
two didrachms been found by Sfc. Peter the receivers

for freedom from the payment
missed'

to be completfdy

3110

STEEL

of tribute would scarcely have taken them ; and, no
doubt, the ordinary coin paid was that miraculously
supplied. R. S. P.
STEEL. In all cases where tbe word " steel"
occurs in the A. V. the true rendering cf the He
brew is "copper." nt2?^n3, nechushdh, except in
2 Sam. xxii. 35, Job xx. 24,' Ps. xviii. 34 [35], is
always translated "brass;" as is the case with the
cognate word ntDH?, nlchosheth, with the two
exceptions of Jer.'xv.'l2 (A.V. "steel") and Ezr.
viii. 27 (A. V. "copper"). Whether the ancient
Hebrews were acquainted with steel is not perfectly
certain. It has been inferred from a passage in
Jeremiah (xv. 12), that the " iron from the north "
there spoken of denoted a superior kind of metal,
hardened in an unusual manner, like tbe steel ob
tained from tbe Chalybes of the Pontus, the iron-
smiths of the ancient world. The hardening of
iron for cutting instruments was practiced in Pon
tus, Lydia, and Laconia (Eustath. JI. ii. p. 294,
6u, quoted in Muller, Hand. d. Arch. d. Kunst,
§ 307, n. 4). Justin (xliv. 3, § 8) menljoiis two
rivers in Spain, the BilbiUs (the Salo, or Xalon, a
tributary of the Ebro) and Chalybs, the water of
which was used for hardening iron (comp. Plin.
xxxiv. 41). The same practice is alluded to both
by Homer (Od. ix. 393) and Sophocles (Aj. 650).
The Celtiberians, according to Diodorus Siculus
(v. 33), had a singular custom. They buried
sheets of iron in the earth till the weak part, as
Diodorus calls it, was consumed by rust, and wbat
was hardest remained. This firmer portion w:vs
then converted into weapons of different kinds.
The same practice is said by Beckmann (Hist, of
Inv. ii. 328, ed. Bohn) to prevail in Japan. The
last-menfioned vniet is of opinion tbat of tbe two
methods of making steel, by fusion either from
iron-stone or raw iron, and by cementation, the
ancients were acquainted only with the former.
Ihere is, however, a word in Hebrew, IT^V?!
palddh, which occurs only in Nah. ii. 3 [4], and is
there rendered " torches," but which most prob
ably denotes steel or hardened iron, and refers to
the Hashing scythes of tbe Assyrian chariots. In
Syriao and Arabic the cognate words ( j » i^.gi.
G J ' 6 ' J
pdldo, iiyj\.i,fdludh, O^yi, fulndh) signify a
kind of iron of excellent quaUty, and especially
steel. Steel appears to have been known to the Egyp
tians. The steel weapons in tbe tomb of Rameses
III., saj'S Wilkinson, are painted blue, the bronze
red (Anc. Eg. iii. 247). W. A. W.
STEPH'ANAS (2t€</)oi'5j : Stephanas). A
Christian convert of Corinth whose household Paul
baptized as the " first fruits of Achaia " (1 Cor. i.
16, xvi. 15). He was present with the Apostle at
Ephesus when he wrote his First Epistle to the
Corinthians, having gone thither either to consult
him about matters of discipline connected with the
Corinthian Church (Chrysost. Horn. 44), or on
lome charitable mission arising out of the " service

STEPHEN
for the saints " to which he and his family had
devoted themselves (1 Cor. xvi. 16, 17). VV. L. B.
STE'PHEN (2r4<pavos [" crown] : Stefih-
anus), the First Martyr. His Hebrew" (or rathei
Syriac) name is traditionally said to have been
Chelil, or Cheliel (a crown).
He was the chief of the Seven (commonly called
Deacons) appointed to rectify the complaints in
tbe early Church of .Jerusalem, made by the Hel
lenistic against tbe Hebrew Christians. His Greek
name indicates his own Hellenistic origin.
His importance is stamped on the narrative by a
reiteration of emphatic, almost superlative phrases;
" full of faith and of the Holy Ghost " (Acts vi. 5) ;
"full of graced and power" (ibid. 8); irresistible
" spirit and wisdom " (iind. 10) ; " full of the Holy
Ghost " c (vii. 55). Of his ministrations amongst
the poor we bear nothing. But he seems to have
been an instance, such as is not uncommon in his
tory, of a new energy derived from a, new sphere.
He shot far ahead of his six companions, and far
above his particular office. First, he arrests atten
tion by tbe " great wonders and miracles that he
did." Then begins a series of disputations with
the Hellenistic Jews of North Africa, Alexandria,
and Asia Minor, his companions in race and birth
place. The subject of these disputations is not
expressly mentioned ; but, from what follows, it is
evident tbat he struck into a new vein of teaching,
which eventually caused his martyrdom.
Down to this time the Apostles and the early
Christian community had clung in their worship,
not merely to the Holy Land and the Holy City,
but to the holy place of the Temple. This local
worship, with the Jewish customs belonging to it,
he now denounced. So we ' must infer from the
accusations brought against him, confirmed as they
are by the tenor of his defense. The actual words
of tbe charge may have been false, as the sinister
and malignant intention which they ascribed to
bim was undoubtedly false. " Blasphemous "
(^Kd(T<p7tfia), that is, " calumnious " words,
"against Moses and against God" (vi. 11), he is
not likely to have used. But the overthrow of the
Temple, the cessation of the Mosaic ritual, is no
more than St. Paul preached openly, or than is
implied in Stephen's own speech : " against this
holy place and the Law " — " that Jesus of Naza
reth sball destroy this place, and shall cbange the
customs that Moses delivered us " (vi. 13, 14).
For these sayings he was arrested at the instiga
tion of tbe Hellenistic Jews, and brought before the
Sanhedrim, where, as it would seem, the Pharisaic
party had just before tbis time (v. 34, vii. 51)
gained an ascendency.
When the charge was formally lodged against
him, his countenance kindled as if with the view
of the great prospect which was opening for the
Church ; the whole body even of assembled judges
was transfixed by the sight, and " saw his face as
it had been the face of an angel " (vi. 15).
For a moment, the account seems to imply, the
judges of the Sanhedrim were awed at his presence.''
Then the high-priest that presided appealed to him
(as Caiaphas had in like manner appealed in the

a Basil of Seleucia, Orat. de S. Stephana. See
Uesenius in voce 7^3.
b A, B, D, and most of the versions, read xaotro?.
the Bee. Text reads n-iWeuc.

c Traditionally he was reckoned amongst the Seventy
disciples. d Well described in Cdnybeare and Howson, JJje qf
S. Paul, i. 74 ; the poetic aspect of it beautifolty gtTH
in Tennyson's Two Voices.

STEPHEN
Great Trial in the gospel history) to know his own
lentimeuts on the accusations brought against him.
To this Stephen replied in a speech which has
every appearance of being faithfully reported. The
peculiarities of tbe style, the variations from the
Old Testament history, the abruptness which, by
breaking off the argument, prevents us from easily
doing it justice, are all indications of its being
handed down to us substantially in its original
form. The framework in which his defense is cast is a
summary of tbe history of the Jewish Church. In
this respect it has only one parallel in the N. T.,
the lltb chapter » of the Epistle to the Hebrews —
a likeness that is the more noticeable, as in all
probability the author of that epistle was, like
Stephen, a Hellenist.
In the facts wbich he selects from this history,
he is guided by two principles — at first more or
less latent, but gradually becoming more and more
apparent as he proceeds. The first is the endeavor
to prove that, even in the previous Jewish history,
the presence and favor of God had not been con
fined to the Holy Land or tbe Temple of Jerusalem.
This he illustrates witli a copiousness of detail
which makes his speech a sumraary almost as much
of sacred geography as of sacred liistory — the ap
pearance of God to Abraham " in .Mesopotimii
before he dwelt in Haran " (vii. 2) ; his successive
migrations to Haran and to Canaan (vii. 4); his
want of even a resting-pbice for his foot in Canaan
(vii. 5); the dwelling ofhis seed in a strange land
(vii. 6 ) ; tbe details of the stay in Egypt (vii. 8-13 ) ;
the education of Moses in Egypt (vii. 20-22); his
exile in Midian (vii. 29 ) ; the appearance in Sinai,
with the declaration that the desert grotiml was
holy earth (yrl ayia) (vii. 30-33 ) ; the , forty years
in the uMderness (vii. 36, 44); the long delay
before tbe preparation for tbe tabernacle of
David (vii. 45); the proclamation of spiritual wor
ship even after the building of the Temple (vii.
47-50). The second principle of selection is based on the
attempt to show that there was a tendency from
the earliest times toward the same ungrateful and
narrow spirit tbat had appeared in this last stage
oftheir political existence. And this rigid, suspi
cious disposition be contrasts with the freedom of
the Divine Grace and of the human will, which
were manifested in the exaltation of Abraham (vii.
4), Joseph (vii. 10), and Moses (vii. 20), and in the
jealousy and rebellion of the nation against these
their greatest benefactors, as chiefly seen in the
bitterness against Joseph (vii. 9) and Moses (vii.
27), and in the long neglect of true religious
worship in the wilderness (vii. 39-43).
Both of these selections are worked out on what
may almost be called critical principles. There is
no allegorizing of the text, nor any forced con
structions. Every passage quoted yields fairly the
sense assigned to it.
Besides the direct illustration of a freedom from
local restraints involved in tbe general argument,
there is also an indirect illustpition of the same
doctrine, from his mode of treating tbe subject in
detail. No less than twelve of his references to the

STEPHEN

3111

a Other verbal likenesses to this epistle are pointed
out by Dr. Howson, i. 77 (quoting from Mr. Humphry,
Comm. on the Acts).
& * This is overstating the idea. The dative is that
If opinion, decision, t. t. aoretof in God's view, henca

Mosaic history differ frora it either by variation oi
addition. 1. The call of Abraham before the migration tc
Haran (vii. 2), nofc, as according fco Gen. xii. 1, in
Haran. 2. The death of his father nfler ihe call (vii. 4),
not, as according to Gen. xi. 32, before it.
3. The 75 souls of Jacob's migration (vii. 14),
not (as according to Gen. xlvi. 27) 70.
4. The godlike loveliness (ao"T€?o? ja ®e^)
of Moses'' (vii. 20), not, simply, as according to
Kx. ii. 2, the stateraent that "he was a goodly
child." 5. His Egyptian education (vii. 22) as contrasted
with the silence on this point in Kx. iv. 10.
6. The same contrast with regard to his secular
greatness, " mighty in words and deeds " (vii. 22,
comp. Ex. ii. 10).
7. The distinct mention of the three periods of
forty years (vii. 23, 30, 36) of which only the last
is specified in the Pentateuch.
8. The terror of Moses at the bush (vii. 32), not
raentioned in Ex. iii. 3.
9. The supplementing of the Mosaic narrative
by the allusions in Amos to their neglect of the
true worship in fche deserfc (vii. 42, 43).
10. The intervention of the angels in fche giving
of the law (vii. 53), not mentioned in Ex. xix. 16
11. The burial of the twelve Patriarchs at
Shechem (vii. 16), not mentioned in Kx. i. 6.
12. The purchase of the torab at Shechera by '
Abraham from the sons of Emraor (vii. 16), not, as
accordins: to Gen. xxiii. 15, the purchase of the
cave at Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite.
To which may be added
13. The introduction of Remphan from the LXX.
of Amos V. 26, nofc found in the Hebrew.
The explanation and source of these variations
must be sought under the different names to which
they refer; but the general fact of their adoption
by Stephen is significant, as showing the freedom
with which he handled tbe sacred hisfcory, and the
comparative unimportance assigned by him and by
fche sacred historian who records his speech, to
minute accuracy. It may almost be said tbat the
whole speech is a protest against a rigid view of tbe
mechanical exactness of the inspired records of the
0. T. " He had regard," as St. Jerome says, " to
the meaning, not to the words."
Ifc would seera that, just at the close of his argu
ment, Stephen saw a change in the aspect of his
judges, as if for the first time they had caught the
drift of his meaning. He broke off frora his calm
address, and turned suddenly upon them in an im
passioned attack which shows that he saw what was
in store for hira. Those heads thrown back on
their unbending necks, those ears closed against
any penetration of truth, were too much for his
patience: "Ye stiffnecked and uncircuracised in
heart and ears I ye do always resist the Holy Ghost:
as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of tlie
prophets did not 2/<>Mr fathers persecute? ... the
Just One: of whom ye are the betrayers and mur
derers." As he spoke they showed by their faces
that their hearts (to use the strong language of the
narrative) "were being sawn asunder," and they
= " truly beautiful ; " cf. ttoAis /xeyoXij rcjJ fle^, Jon.
iii. 3, in Sept. See Winer's Gr. of the N. T., p. 213
(Thayer's ed.), and Green's Gr. of the N. T. p. 273
It is a form of the Hebrew superlative. H.

8112

STEPHEN

kept gnashing their set teeth against him ; but still,
though with difificulty, restraining themselves. He,
in this last crisis of his fate, turned his face upwards
to the open sky, and as he gazed the vault of heaven
seemed to him to part asunder (dtfivotyfjieros): and
the Divine Glory appeared through the rending of
the earthly veil — the Divine Presence, seated on a
throne, and on tbe right hand the human form of
"Jesus," not, .is in the usual representations, sit
ting in repose, but standing erect as if to assist his
suffering servant. Stephen spoke as if to himself,
describing the glorious vision ; and, in so doing,
alone of all the speakers and writers in the N. T.,
except only Christ himself, uses tbe expressive
phrase, "the Son of Man." As his judges heard
the words, expressive of the Divine exaltation of
Him whom they had sought so lately to destrov,
they could forbear no longer. They broke into a
loud yell; they clapped their hands to theu: ears, as
If to prevent the entrance of any more blasphemous
words, they flew as with one impulse upon him,
and dragged him out of the city to the place of
execution. It has been questioned by wbat right the San
hedrim proceeded to this act without the concur
rence ofthe Roman government; but it is enough
to reply that the whole transaction is one of violent
excitement. On one occasion, even in our Lord's
life, the Jews had nearly stoned Him even within
the precincts of the Temple (John viii. 59). " Their
vengeance in other cases was confined to those sub
ordinate punishments which were left under their
own jurisdiction i imprisonment, pubhc scourging
in the synagogue, and excommunication " (Mil-
man's Hist, of Latin Christianity, i. 400). See
Conybeare and Howson's St. Paul, i. 74.
On this occasion, however, they determined for
once to carry out the full penalties enjoined by the
severe code of the Mosaic ritual.
Any violator of the Law was to be taken outside
the gates, and tbere, as if for the sake of giving to
each individual member of the community a sense
of his responsibility in the transaction, he was to
lie crushed by stones, thrown at him by all the
lieople. Those, however, were to take the lead in this
wild and terrible act who had taken upon them
selves the responsibihty of denouncing him (Ueut.
xvii. 7; comp. John viii. 7). These were, in this
instance, the witnesses who bad reported or mis-
reported the words of Stephen. They, according
to the custom, for the sake of facility in their
dreadful task, stripped themselves, as is tbe eastern
practice on commencing any violent exertion ; and
ne of the prominent leaders in the transaction was
deputed by custom to signify his assent " to the
act by taking the clothes into his custody, and
standing over them whilst the bloody work went
on. The person who officiated on this occasion
Bas a young man from Tarsus — one probably of
the Cilician Hellenists who had disputed with
Stephen. His name, as the narrative significantly
adds,, was Saul.
Everything was now ready for the execution. It

a Comp. " I was standing by and consenting to his
leath, and kept the raiment of those that slew him"
(Acts xxii. 20).
b These conflicting versions are well given in Cony
beare and Uowaon, 5. Paul, i. 80.
c The date of Stephen's death is unknown. But
KoioBiaatdcaJ tradition fixe? it in the same year as tlie

STEPHEN
was outside the gates of Jerusalem. The earliei
tradition'' 4 :ed it at what is now called the Da
mascus Gale. The later, which is the preseut tra
dition, fixed it at what is hence called St. Stephen's
Gate, opening on the descent to the Mount of Ol
ives ; and in tbe red streaks of the white limestone
rocks of the sloping hill used to be shown the marks
of his blood, and on the first rise of OUvet, oppo
site, the eminence on which the Virgin stood to
support him with her prayers.
The sacred narrative fixes its attention only on
two figures — that of Saul of Tarsus already no
ticed, and tbat of Stephen himself.
As the first volley of stones burst upon him, he
called upon the Master whose human form be had
just seen in the heavens, and repeated almost the
words with which He himself had given up his life
on the cross, " 0 Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."
Another crash of stones brought him on his
knees. One loud, piercing cry (eKpa^e fieydxn
(pairfi) ¦ — answering to the loud shriek or yell with
which his enemies had flown upon him — escaped
his dying lips. Again clinging to the spirit of his
Master's words, he cried, " Lord, lay not this sm to
their charge," and instantly sank upon the ground,
and, in the touching language of the narrator, who
then uses for the first tirae the word, afterwards
applied to the departure of all Christians, but here
the more remarkable from the bloody scenes in the
midst of which the death took place — iKotfi-fidri,
^^feU asleep." *-'
His mangled body was buried by the class of
Hellenists and proselytes to which he belonged (ot
evoe^eis), with an amount of funeral state and
lamentation expressed in two words used here only
in the N. T. (a-uviK6)UiTav and Korrerds).
This simple expression is enlarged by writers of
the fifth century into an elaborate legend. The
high-priest, it is said, had intended to leave the
corpse to be devoured by Leasts of prey. It was
rescued by Gamaliel, carried off in his- own chariot
by night, and buried in a new tomb on his prop
erty at Caphar Gamala (village of the Camel), 8
leagues from Jerusalem. The funeral lamentations
lasted for forty days. All the Apostles attended.
Gamaliel undertook the expense, and, on his death,
was interred in an adjacent'cave.
This story was probably first drawn up on the
occasion of the remarkable event which occurred in
A. D. 415, under the name of the Invention and
Translation of the Relics of St. Stephen. Succes
sive visions of Gamaliel to Lucian, tbe parish priest
of Caphar Gamala, on the 3d and 18th of Decem
ber in that year, revealed the spot where the mar
tyr's remains would be found. They were identi
fied by a tablet bearing his name Clieliel, and were
carried in state to Jerusalem, amidst various por
tents, and buried in tbe church on Mount Zion, the
scene of so many early Christian traditions. The
event of the translation is celebrated in the Latm
Church on August 3, probably from the tradition
of that day being the anniversary of tbe dedication
of a chapel of St. Stephen at Ancona.
The story itself is encompassed with legend, but

Crucifixion, on the 2Bth of December, the day after
Christmas-day. Tt is beautifully said by Augustine (in
allusion to the juxtaposition of the two festivals), that
men would not have had the courage to die for God,
if OQd had not become man to die for them (XUlemonti
5. Etienne, art. 4).

STEPHEN
the event is mentioned in all the chief writers of the
time. Parts of his remains were afterwards trans
ported to different parts of the coast of the West
— Minorca, Portugal, North Africa, Ancona, Con
stantinople, — and in 460 what were still left at Jeru
salem were translated by the Empress Eudocia to a
splendid church called by his narae on the supposed
scene of his martyrdom (Tillemont, S. J^tienne,
art. 5-9, where all the authorities are quoted).
The importance of Stephen's career may be briefly
summed up under three heads : —
I. He was fche firsfc greafc Christian ecclesiastic.
The appointment of '*the Seven," commonly
(though not in the Bible) called Deacons, formed
the first direct institution of the nature of an or
ganized Christian ministry, and of these Stephen
was the head, — "the Archdeacon," as he is called
in the Eastern Church, — and in this capacity rep
resented as the companion or precursor of Lau
rence, Archdeacon of Rome in the Western Church,
In this sense allusion is made to him in the Angli
can Ordination of Deacons.
IL He is the firsfc martyr — the proto- martyr.
To him the name " martyr '' is first apphed (Acts
xxii. 20). He, firsfc of fche Christian (jhurch, bore
witness to fche truth of his convictions by a violent
and dreadful death. The veneration which has ac
crued to his name in consequence is a testimony of
the Bible to the sacredness of truth, fco tbe noble
ness of sincerity, to the wickedness and the folly
of pei-secution. It also contains the first germs of
the reverence for fche character and for the relics of
martyrs, which afterwards grew to a, height now
regarded by all Christians as excessive. A beauti
ful hymn by Reginald Heber commemorates this
side of Stephen's character.
III. He is the forerunner of St. Paul. So he
was already regarded in ancient tiraes. XlavXov
6 diBoLO-Ka\os is the expression used for him by
Basil of Seleucia. But it is an aspect that has
been rauch more forcibly drawn out in modern
times. Not only was his martyrdom (in all prob
abihty) the first means of converting St. Paul, his
prayer for his murderers not only was fulfilled in
the conversion of St. Paul — the blood of the first
martyr the seed of the greatest Apostle, the pangs
of remorse for his death araongst fche stings
of conscience against which the Apostle vainly
writhed (Acts ix. 5) — not only thus, bufc in his
doctrine also he was the anticipator, as, had he
hved, he would have been the propagator, of the
new phase of Christianity, of which St. Paul be
carae the main support. His denunciafcions of local
worship, the stress which he lays on fche spiritual
eide of the Jewish history, his freedom in treating
fchat history, the very turns of expression that he
uses, are all Pauline.
The history of the above account is taken frora
Acts (vi. 1-viii. 2; xxii. 19, 20); the legends frora
Tillemont (ii. 1-24); the more general treatment
from Neander's Planting of the Christian Church,
and from Howson and Conybeare in The Life of
St Paul, ch. 2. A. P. S.
* It is impossible that all the facts in regard to
the Divine dealings with man can have been pre
served in fche sacred records. The memory of
many circumstances, additional to the original rec
ord, must have been long kept alive by tradition;
and, although gradually overlaid hy a mass of hu
man fictions, later writers have frequently rescued
the facts from such inventions and transiixitted
tbem to us in a truthful fonn. For examples of
196

STEl'HKN

3113

this, see Ps. cv. 18; 2 Tira. iii. 8; 2 Pet. ii. 7, 8;
Gal. iii. 19; Heb. ii. 2; Deut. xxxiii. 2; Acts xx.
35, &c. [Tradition, Amer. ed.] It is not
surprising, therefore, to find St. Stephen mention
ing some minor details, evidently already familiar
to his audience, not recorded in the Mosaic narra
tive. Our Lord's promise to his disciples (John
xiv. 26), when placed hi the situation of Stephen,
warrants us in trusting to the accuracy of such sup
plementary information.
Stephen's speech, however, contains sorae appar
ent variations from the Mosaic narrative, pointed
out in the preceding article, of a different kind, and
worthy of a closer examination. One of these re
lates fco the time of Abram's call, represented bj
Stephen as occurring in Mesopotamia, before the
sojourn in Haran. The alleged inconsistency does
not appear in Gen. xii. 1, according to fche A. V.;
for the verb is very properly rendered as pluperfect
and nofc as perfect. The Hebrew verb has in fact
no specific form for the pluperfect; and the form
in Gen. xii. 1 supplies the place of several tensea of
our western tongues. For other instances of fche
same form of this verb as pluperfect (necessarily,
^" had said"), see Ex. xxxiii. 5; IK. xxi. 4; Is.
xxxviii. 21, 22. The same remark apphes of course
to the corresponding forms of ofcher Hebrew verbs.
The truth in this matter, therefore, must depend
not on the Hebrew tense, but the context, and
other Scripture notices.
The most probable reason for the migration of
Terah and his faraily is the one assigned by Ste
phen — the Divine command made known to
Abram in Ur.« "We are not left, however, to mere
conjecture here; but have expHcifc statements, both
in the Mosaic narrative, and in other parts of
Scripture. " I ara the Lord that brought thee
out of Ur of the Chaldees " (Gen. xv. 7); "I took
your father Abraham from ihe other side of the
food'''' (Josh. xxiv. 3); " who didst choose Abrara,
and broughtesfc hira forth out of Ur of the Chal
dees " (Neh. ix. 7). The positive assertions so
often made that according to Gen. xii. 1, and xi. 32,
the call of Abrara was noi before his migration to
Haran, and n/Jt before the death of his father, are
utterly gratuitous. They are founded upon an un
justifiable limitation of the Hebrew tense, and are
contradictory to other parts of the narrative. View
ing Stephen simply as a pious Jew, evidently a raan
of ability, addressing Jews familiar with their own
history, it is inconceivable that he should have
blundered so grossly in the facfcs of thafc history
and fche meaning of words in the sacred language
of his nation, as to be open to correction at the
distance of 1,800 years by men of another tongue.
Another difficulty is about the age of Abram's
father at the tirae of his nativity. Gen. xi. 26
asserts: *' Terah lived 75 years and begat Abram,
Nahor, and Haran;" Gen. xii. 4, "Abram was
75 years old when he departed out of Haran;"
Gen. xi. 32, Terah died afc the age of 205 years
and Abram removed frora Haran after the death
of his father (Acts vii. 4). Now since 205 — 75
= 130, either Abram, in contradiction to Stephen's
stateraent, raust have left Haran before \^e death
of his father, or else — as was really the case —
Terah must have been afc leasfc 130 at the tirae of
his birth. It is neither to be assuraed fchafc Terah's

a * For the expression of this view by Philo, sjnd
by the Christian fathers, see the rf ferences given b?
Wordsworth in loco.

3114

STEPHEN

three sons were all born in one year, nor that
Abram was the eldest because his narae is men
tioned firsfc. In a parallel case, Gen. v. 32, it is
said " Noah was 500 years old, and Noah begat
Shem, Ham, and Japhefch; bufc in Gen. x, 21, it is
expressly said that Japheth was older than Shem,
and by comparing v. 32 with vii. 11 and xi. 10,
we see that Noah was at least 502 afc Shera's birfch.
In both cases all fche sons are raentioned together
in connection with the birth of the eldest; and that
one is mentioned first from whom the Jews were
descended. It is nowhere stated in tenns tbat
Abrara was the younger brother, bufc the facts of
the narrative show that he must have been very
much the younger. Nahor married the daughter
of Haran (Gen. xi. 29), and was therefore probably
many years his junior; Isaac, Abraham's sOT^,^mar-
ried Rebecca, the granddaughter of Nahor through
Bethuel the youngest of his eight sons (Gen. xxii.
20-23). This would raake Abram — notwithstand
ing his advanced age at the birth of Isaac — much
younger than Nahor. as he in turn was much
younger than Haran. These facts put together
imply that Abram was afc least tbe sixty years
younger than Haran required by the facts men
tioned at the outset, and hence that Terah was at
leasfc 130 years old at his birth. In accordance
wifch fchis was the Jewish tradition (mentioned by
Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. in Acts vii. 4, II.) that
Abrara was the youngest of the brothers. In ac
cordance with this, also, is the fact fchat Haran,
already the father of a family (Gen. xi. 29, 31),
died before his father left Ur (xi. 28), while Abram
raust have been still a comparatively young man.
Again, Stephen puts the number who went down
into Egypt at 75, in accordance with the LXX.;
but whether he took this number frora the LXX.,
or the text of that version has been altered to cor
respond with his speech, does not matter. In Gen.
xlvi. 26, the number is given as 66, and again in
tbe following verse as 70. All these statements
are the result of looking at the same facfcs from dif
ferent points of view. Now, Jacob hiraself and Jo
seph with his two sons already in Egypt are ex
cluded frora the number to make 66 ; now they are
included to make 70; and now with thera are also
included (as in the LXX.) the children of Joseph's
sons — the sons themselves having been taken for
heads of tribes — to make 75. Obviously by in-
eluding the wives, and in other ways, still other
Buiiibers might be obtained. Stephen, not stop
ping fco discuss the matter, merely gives the reck
oning then in mosfc comraon use.
'Hie Egyptian education of Moses is surely a
neeessary consequence of his being the adopted son
of Pharaoh's daughter (Ex. ii. 10); while the
stateraent that be was "mighty hi words and
deeds " manifestly refers fco the whole life and char
acter of Moses, and there is no raan in history of
whom it could raore truly be affirmed. We know
fchat his entire age was 120 years, during tbe last
forty of which he was the leader and lawgiver of
his people. At exactly what age he fied from the
court of Pharaoh is not recorded. Probability
would point to the age of about forty, according to
the tradition, thus making the three periods men
tioned by Stephen (vii. 23, 30, 36). The same
tradition appears to have kept alive the memory of
his fear at the bush (ver. 32), as similar fear at
Mount Sinai is elsewhere recorded (Heb. xii. 21).
As Stephen does not profess to confine himself to
the Mosaic narrative he was quite free to make use

STEPHEN
of what was true in these traditi- ns, as well as ta
embody in his speech any addilional information
contained in the prophetic writings (Am. v. 25, 26),
or in other parts of Scripture, such as " the inter
vention of angels in the giving of the law" men
tioned in Deut. xxxiii. 2, and well known to the
Jews, as appears frora Gal. iii. 19, and Heb. ii. 2,
The burial of ( — not explicitly, " fche twelve patri
archs," but of — ) "our fathers" at Shechem
must have been a fact within the knowledge of
every Jew at the time, and in regard to oue of
them, Joseph, we have fche express record of it in
Josh. xxiv. 32.
The only point in Stephen's speech that involves
any real difficulty is the purchase of the tomb at
Shechem by Abraham of the sons of Emmor (Acts
vii. 16). The facts recorded are, that Abraham
bought the cave of Machpelah, with the adjoining
field, "for a possession of a burymg-place of the
sons of Ephron the Hittite " (Gen. xxiii. 3-20),
and that Jacob also bought a field near Shechem
of the sons of Emmor (xxxiii. 18, 19). These
purchases were made at some distance of time frora
each ofcher, and were made hy different persons of
different parties. In the former Jacob was buried
(1. 13); in the latter Joseph (Josh. xxiv. 32), and
according to constant tradition, Jewish as well as
Christian, also hia brothers. Is it possible that
Stephen can have confused the two places and
transactions togefcher? On the supposition that
he makes one comraon statement in regard fco the
burial-place of Jacob and his sons, and thafc he
refers to the purchases mentioned above, the diffi
culty is palpable. As to the first, his words are:
" So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he
and our fathers , and were carried over into Sychem
and laid in the sepulchre," etc. (Acts vii. 15, 16).
The sentence raay, in itself, be understood in either
of two ways: either as referring throughout to
both Jacob and fche patriarchs; or as, in the num
ber of its clauses, dropping out Jacob from the
latter ones, and predicating them only of " our
fathers." In the original this is much plainer;
indeed, by placing a period after irarepes rjpav,
the following /j.ersr467]a-av and Sredrjo-av would
naturally take irarepes for their nominative, and
the meaning, if at all doubtful in the written text,
would have been clear when spoken by fche living
voice. There was, too, the less need of explicifc-
ness because tbe burial-places were so familiarly
known to every one in the audience. In tins
therefore there is no real difficulty. But Stephen
continues, " in the sepulchre that Abraham bought
for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor ihe
father of Sychem." It is certain that this does
not refer to the cave of jMachpelah which was pur
chased of Ephron, and where fche twelve patriarchs
were not buried. A conjectural emendation of the
text, substituting the name of Jacob for thafc of
Abraham has been suggested, bufc is not necessary,
since tbe same result follows frora tbe supposition
that Abraham did actually purchase this field,
which, being reclaimed by the Shechemites, waa
afterwards purchased again by Jacob; and there
is some ground for this supposition. From Gen.
xii. 6, 7, we leatn fchafc there God appeared to
Abram, and there he " builded an altar unto the
Lord." Now while he mighfc have done fchis with
out hesitation in an uninhabited place (as Jacob
afterwards did at Bethel, Gen. xxviii. 11-22, xxxv.
1), it is unlikely tbat one so scrupulous in matters
of property (see e. g. xiv. 23) would have done sa

STOCKS
irithout purchase in an inhabited region, where
rights of property already existed. That this was
the case at Sychem appears from the statement
.(xii. 6), "the Canaanite was then in the land,"
and from the subsequent purchase by Jacob in this
very locality, and apparently for the same purpose
(xxxiii. 18-20). It is in itself, therefore, not un-
Ukely that Abraham did make a purchase there.
Again, this probability is increased by the fact of
Jacob's purchase. For in the prolonged absence
nf Abram and his descendants, the field would
»lmost certainly have been reoccupied by the She-
rhemites, just as the Philistines stopped the wells
dug by Abraham (Gen. xxvi. 15, 18). And just
as L-ddO reopened those wells (ver. 18), so Jacob
would have desired to repossess the field and to
rebuild the altar of his grandfather. A reason is
thus found for his purchase of this particular
locality; and it is not probable that be would have
built another altar there if Abram's remained un
disturbed. Further, if in Acts vii. 16 we translate
according to the all but universal Greek usage (in
the N. T. quite universal), we must read, not
"Emmor the father," but "Emmor the son of
Sychem." Of course it is possible that Hanior's
father and son may both have been named Sychem,
but it is more likely that a different Hamor is
referred to; if so, then it is evident that Stephen
had in mind distinctly a purchase made by Abram
of the sons of one Hamor, quite distinct from the
subsequent repurchase by Jacob of the same field
from the sous of another Hamor. Such repetitions
of names are of no uncommon occurrence in orien
tal — or for that matter, in occidental — genealo
gies. On the whole, then, it seems that while,
negatively, there is no reason whatever to deny the
previous purchase of this field by Abraham, there
is positively no inconsiderable reason in favor of
the supposition.
Thus in Stephen's speech we find no loose and
inaccurate references to the Mosaic narrative; but
rather a most careful and conscientious, as well as
able, use of the facts in the ancient history of his
people. Some of these facts, but for Stephen, might
have been lost to us ; preserved as they are, they
lead to still further knowledge of the details of the
patriarchal story. F. G.
STOCKS (npQn.a, id-, ^i^oy). The
term " stocks " is applied in the A. V. to two dif
ferent articles, one of which (tbe Hebrew rnahpe-
cedt) answers rather to our pillory, inasmuch as its
narae implies that the body was placed in a bent
position by the confinement of the neck and arms
as well as the legs; while the other (sad) answers
to our " stocks," the feet alone being confined in it.
The former may be compared with the Greek kv-
(frjtu, as described in the Scholia ad Aristoph. Plut.
476: the latter with the Roman nervus (Plaut.
Asin. iii. 2, 5; Capt. v. 3, 40), which admitted,
however, of being converted into a species of tor-

STOICS

3115

« * The term iu Acts xvi. 24 is ^vAoi'. The writer
was told at Kavalla (Neapolis), that this is still a com
mon mode of puoishmeat ia that part of Greece. H.
& E. g. Seneca, De Clem. § 5 : " Peccavimus om
nes . . , nee deliquimus tantum sed ad extremum
Bvi delinquemus.'^ Kom. iii. 23 : ^^ Peccaverunt am-
IM" ....
Ep. i. : " Quem mihi dabis .... qui intelligat se
*uotidie mori?" Rom. xv. 31 : "Quotidit morior."
De Vit. beata, § 12 : " Laudant enim [Epicure!] ea

ture, as the legs could be drawn asunder afc the will
of the jailer (Biscoe on Acts, p. 229). The prophet
Jeremiah was confined in the first sort (Jer. xx.
2), which appears to have been a coramon mode of
punishment in his day (Jer. xxix. 26), as fche pris
ons confcained a chamber for fche special purpose,
termed '' the house of the pillory " (2 Chr. xvi.
10; A. Y. '^prison-house"). The stocks {sad)
are noticed in Job xiii. 27, xxxiii. 11, and Acts
xvi., 24." The terra used in Prov. vii. 22 (A. V.
"stocks") more properly means a fetter. W. L. B.
STOICS. The Stoics and Epicureans, who are
mentioned together in Acts xvii. 18, represent the
two opposite schools of practical philosophy which
survived the fall of higher speculation in Greece
[Philosophy]. The Stoic school was founded
by Zeno of Citium (cir. b. c. 280), and derived its
narae frora the painted portico (^ TroiKiKt) orod,
Diog. L. vii.) in whicb he taught. Zeno was fol
lowed by Cleanthes (cir. b. o. 260), Cleanthes by
Chrysippus (cir. b. c. 240), who was regarded as
fche intellectual founder of the Stoic system (Diog.
L. vii. 183). Stoicisra soon found an entrance at
Rome. Diogenes Babylonius, a scholar of Chry
sippus, was its representative in the famous em
bassy of philosophers, b. c. 161 (Aulus Gellius,
A''. A. vii. 14); and not long afterwards Panaatius
was the friend of Scipio Africanus the younger, and
many other leading men at Rome. His successor
Posidonius numbered Cicero and Pompey araong
his scholars; and under the empire stoicism was
not unnaturally connected with republican virtue
Seneca (fA. d. 65) and Musonius (Tac. Hist. iii.
81) did much to popularize the ethical teaching of
the school by their writings ; but the fcrue glory of
the later Stoics is Epicfcetus (|cir. a. d. 115), the
records of whose doctrine form the noblest mon
ument of heathen morality {Epictetece Phihs.
Monum. ed. Schweighauser, 1799). The precepts
of Epictetus were adopted by Marcus Aurelius
(a. d. 121-180) who endeavored to shape his pub
lic life by their guidance. With this last effort
stoicism reached its climax and its end. [Phi
losophy.] The ethical system of the Stoics has been com
monly supposed to have a close connection with
Christian morality (Gataker, Antoninus, Prcef. ;
Meyer, Stoic. Eth. c. Christ, compar., 1823), and
the outward similarity of isolated precepts is very ¦
close and worthy of notice.^ But the morality of
stoicism is essentially based on pride, that of Chris
tianity on humihty; the one upholds individual in
dependence, fche ofcher absolute faith in another; the
one looks for consolation in the issue of fate, the
other in Providence; the one is limited by periods
of cosmical ruin, the ofcher is consummated in a
personal resurrection (Acts xvii. 18).
Bufc in spite of the fundamental error of stoicism,
which lies in a supreme egotism,^" the teaching of
quibus eruhescebant et vitio gloriantur." Phil. iii.
19 : " Quorum .... gloria in confusioue eorum.*'
Ibid. § 15 : "In regno nati sumus : Deo parere lib
ertas est."
Epict. Diss. ii. 17, 22 : airKw jin/fiev oAAo &€\e y\a.o
debs de'Aet.
Anton, vii. 74 : jut^ q^v Kaixve Ci^ehovfievos ev ^
(ii^eAeis. c Seueca, De Vit. beata, § 8 : " Incorruptus vir sit
extemis et Insuperabilis miratorque tantum^ sui, fldens
animo atque In utrumque paratus artifex vite."

3116

STOMACHER

this school gave a wide currency to the noble doc-
truies of the Fatherhood of God (Cleanthes, Hymn.
al-38; comp. Acts xvii. 28), the common bonds
of mankind (Anton, iv. 4), the sovereignty of the
soul. Nor is ifc to he forgotten that the earlier
Stoics were very closely connected with the East,
from which much of the form, if not of the essence,
of their doctrines seeras to have been derived. Zeno
himself was a native of Citium, one of the oldest
Phoenician settlements. [Chittim.] His successor
Chrysippus came from SoU or Tarsus; and Tarsus
is raentioned as the birthplace of a second Zeno and
Antipater. Diogenes came from Seleucia in Baby
lonia, Posidonius from Apamea in Syria, and Epic
tetus from the Phrygian Hierapolis (corap. Sir A.
Grant, The Ancient Stoics, Oxfo9'd Essays, 1858,
p. 82).
The chief authorities for the opinions of the
Stoics are Diog. Laert. vil. ; Cicero, De Fin. ;
Plutarch, De Stoic, repugn. ; De plac. Phihs.
adv. Stoic; Sexfcus Erapiricus; and the remains
of Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. Gat
aker, in his edition of the Meditations of M. Au
relius, has traced out with tbe greatest care the
parallels which they offer to Christian doctrine.B. F. W.
* See Merivale, History ofthe Romans (vi. 190-
233), for an account of the Stoics and their prin
ciples. Some have supposed thafc Seneca may have
been one of the members of the emperor's house
hold, to whom Paul refers in Phil. iv. 22. On
thia question of the possibility of an acquaintance
between the Apostle and the philosopher during
Paul's captivity at Rome, Professor Lightfoot has
an extended Dissertation in his Commentary on
Philippians (pp. 268-331). The discussion in
volves an elaborate examination of tbe spirit and
teachings of Stoicism as compared with those of the
Gospel. The fourteen letters said to be written by
Seneca to St. Paul are undoubted forgeries. H.
STOMACHER (b''n\nQ). The Heb. peih-
igil describes some article of female attire (Is. iii.
24), the character of which is a raere matter of
conjecture. The LXX. describes it as a variegated
tunic {xtrdiv peo-OTr6p(pvpo?)l the Vulg. as a spe
cies of girdle {fascia 2->ectoralis). The word is
evidently a compound, bufc its elements are uncer
tain. Gesenius {Thes. p. 1137) derives it from
/*'il TJ^'inQ, with very much the same sense as in
the LXX.; Saalschiitz {ArchaoL i. 30) frora ''riB
7^5, witli the sense of "undisguised lust," as ap
plied to sorae particular kin^ of dress. Other
explanations are given in Gesen. Thes. I. c.
W. L. B.
STONES (15W). The uses to which stones
were applied in ancient Palestine were very various.
(1.) They were used for the ordinary jiurposes of
building, and in this respect the most noticeable
point is the very large size to which they occasion
ally run (Mark xiii. 1). Robinson gives the di
mensions of one as 24 feet long by 6 feet broad
and 3 feet high {Res. i. 233 ; see also p. 284, note).
For most public edifices hewn stones were used : an
exception was made in regard to altars, which were
to bo built of unhewn stone (Ex. xx. 25; Deut.
Kxvii. 5; Josh. viii. 31), probably as being in a

« in:?^^!?.

STONES
more natural state. The Phoenicians were partio-
ularly famous for their skill in hewing stone (2
Sara. V. 11; 1 K. v. 18). Stones were selected of
certain colors in order fco form omamental string
courses: in 1 Chr. xxix.. 2 we find enumerated
" onyx stones and stones to be set, glistering stones
(lit. stones of eye-paint), and of divers colors (i. e.
streaked with veins), and all manner of precious
stones, and marble stones " (corap. 2 Chr. iii. 6).
They were also employed for paveraents (2 K. xvi.
17; corap. Esth. i, 6). (2.) Large stones were
used for closing the entrances of caves (Josh. x.
18; Dan. vi. 17), sepulchres (Matt, xxvii. 60;
John xi. 38, xx. 1), and springs (Gen. xxix. 2).
(3.) Flint stones <* occasionaUy served thepurpose
of a knife, particularly fbr circumcision and similar
objects (Ex. iv. 25; Josh. v. 2, 3; comp. Herod, ii.
86; Plutarch, Nicias, p. 13; Catull. Carm. Ixii. 5).
(4.) Stones were further used as a munition of
war for sUngs (1 Sam. xvii. 40, 49), catapults (2
Chr. xxvi. 14), and bows (Wisd. v. 22; comp, 1
Mace. vi. 51); as boundary marks (Deut. xJx. 14,
xxvii. 17; Job xxiv. 2; Prov. xxii. 28, xxiii, 10);
such were probably the stone of Bohan (Josh. xv.
6, xviii. 17), the stone of Abel (1 Sam. vi. 15, 18),
the stone Ezel (1 Sam. xx. 19), the great stone by
Gibeon (2 Sam. xx. 8), and the stone Zoheleth (1
K. i. 9): as weights for scales (Deufc. xxv. 13;
Prov. xvi. 11); and for mills (2 Sam. xi. 21). (5.)
Large stones were set up to commeraorate any re
markable events, as by Jacob at Bethel after his
interview with Jehovah (Gen. xxviii. 18, xxxv. 14),
and again when he made the covenant with Laban
(Gen. xxxi. 45); by Joshua after the passage ofthe
Jordan (Josh. iv. 9); and by Samuel in token of
his victory over the Philistines (1 Sam. vii. 12).
Similarly the I'^yptian monarchs erected their ste-
loi at the farthest point they reached (Herod, ii.
106). Such stones were occasionally consecrated
by anointing, as instanced in the stone erected at
Bethel (Gen. xxviii. 18). A similar practice ex
isted in heathen countries, and by a singular coin
cidence these stones were described in Phoenicia by
a name very similar to Bethel, namely, bcetyHa
{^air6\ia), whence it has been surmised that the
heathen name was derived from the Scriptural one,
or vice versa (Kalisch's Comm. in Gen. 1. c.).
But neither are the names actually identical, nor
are the associations of a kindred nature; the bce-
tylia were meteoric stones, and derived their sanc
tity from the belief that they had fallen from heaven,
whereas the stone afc Bethel was siraply commemo
rative. [Bethel; InOL.] The only pomt of re
semblance between the two consists in the custom
of anointing — the anointed stones {\l6oi \nrapoi)i
which are frequently mentioned by ancient writers
as objects of divine honor (Arnob. adv. Gent. i. 39;
Euseb. Prc^. Evan. i. 10, § 18; Plin. xxxvii. 51),
being probably aerolites. (6.) That the worship of
stones prevailed among the heathen nations sur
rounding Palestine, and was borrowed from them
by apostate Israelites, appears from Is. Ivii. 6, ac
cording to the ordinary rendering of the passage;
but the original ^ admits of another sense, " in the
smooth (clear of wood) places of the valley," and
no reliance can be placed on a peculiar term intro
duced partly for the sake Of alliteration. The eben
mascUh,f^ noticed in Lev. xxvi. 1 (A. V. *' image of
stone"), has again been identified with the boelylia,

'^V^U ^nrVrrD^' "" n*t?^n 1?^

STONES, PRECIOUS
Ihe doubtful term masclth (comp. Num. xxxiii. 52,
I picture"; Ez. viii. 12, "imagery ") being sup
posed to refer to devices engraven on the stone.
[Idol.] The statue (matstsebdh ") of Baal is said
to have been of stone and of a conical shape (Movers,
Phien. i. 673), but this is hardly reconcilable with
the statement of its being burat in 2 K. x. 26 (the
correct reading of which would be matstssbah, and
not malslsebdtli). (7.) Heaps of stones were piled
up on various occasions, as in token of a treaty
(Gen. xxxi. 46),. in which case a certain amount of
sanctity probably attached to them (cf. Hom. Od.
xvi. 471); or over tbe grave of some notorious of
fender (Josh. vii. 26, viii. 29 ; 2 Sam. xviii. 17 ; see
Propert. iv. 5, 75, for a similar custom among the
Romans). The size of some of these heaps becomes
very great from tbe custom prevalent among tbe
Arabs that each passer-by adds a stone : * Burck
hardt mentions oue near Damascus 20 ft. long, 2 ft.
high, and 3 ft. broad (Syria, p. 46). (8.) The
*¦ white stone " noticed in Rev. ii. 17 haa been va
riously regarded as refen-ing to the pebble of acquit
tal used in the Greek courts (Ov. Met xv. 41); to
the lot cast iu elections in Greece : to hoth these
combined, the white conveying the notion of acquits
tal, the stone that of election (Bengel, Gnom.): to
the stones in the high-priest's breastplate (ZiiUig);
to tbe tickets presented to the victors at the pubhc
games, securing them maintenance at the public
expense (Hammond); or, lastly, to the custom of
writing on stones (Alford ini. c). (9.) The use
of stones for tablets is aUuded to iu Ex. xxiv. 12,
and Josh. viii. 32. (10.) Stones for striking fire
are mentioned in 2 Mace. x. 3. (11.) Stones were
prejudicial to the operations of husbandry: hence the
custom of spoiling an enemy's field by throwing
quantities of stones upon it (2 K. iii. 19, 25), and,
again, the necessity of gathering stones previous to
cultivation (Is. v. 2) : allusion is made to both these
practices in Eccl. iii. 5 ("a time to cast away
stones, and a time to gather stones " ). (12.) The
notice m Zech. xii. 3 of the " burdensome stone " is
referred by Jerome to the custom of hfting stones
as an exercise of strength, whieh he describes as
being practiced in Judsea in his day (comp. Ecclus.
vi. 21); but it may equally well be explained of a
large corner-stone as a symbol of strength (Is.
xxviii. 16).
Stones are used metaphorically to denote hard
ness or insensibUity (1 Sam. xxv. 37; Ez. xi. 19,
xxxvi. 26), as weU as firmness or strength, as in
Gen. xlix. 24, where " the stone of Israel " is equiv
alent to "the rock of Israel " (2 Sam. xxiii. 3; Is.
xxx. 29). The membera of the Church are called
"Uving stones," as contributing to rear that living
temple in whioh Christ, himself "a living stone,"
is the chief or head of the corner (Eph. ii. 20-22;
1 Pet. ii. 4-8). 'W. L. B.
STONES, PRECIOUS. The reader is re
ferred to the separate articles, such as Agate,
Uabbuncle, Sardonyx, etc., for such informa
tion as it has been possible to obtain on the various
, jems mentioned in the Bible. The identification

T •' -
& A reference to this practice is supposed by Gese-
I'lis to be contained in Prov. xxvi. 8, which he reu-
lers " aa a bag of gems in a heap of stones " ( Tlifs.
.). 1263). The Vulgate has a curious version of this
pusifage : " Sicut qui mittit lapidem in acervum Mer-
»unt,"

STONES, PRECIOUS 3117
of many of tlie Hebrew nanies of precious stonet
is a task of considerable difficulty: sometimes we
have no further clew to aid us in the determination
of a name than the mere derivation of the word,
whicb derivation is always too vague tc be of any
service, as it merely expresses some quaUty often
common to many precious stones. As far, how
ever, as regards the stones of the high-priest's
breastplate, it must be remembered that the au
thority of Josephus, who had frequent opportuni
ties of seeing it worn, is preferable to any other.
The Vulgate agrees with his nomenclature, and in
Jerome's time the breastplate was still to be in
spected in the Temple of Concord: hence this
agreement of the two is of great weight.'^ The
modern Arabic names of tbe more usual gems.
which have probably remained fixed the last 2,000
years, afford us also some approximations to the
Hebrew nomenclature; still, as it was intimated
above, there is much that can only be regarded as
conjecture in attempts at identification. Precious
stones are frequently alluded to in the Holy Scrip
tures; they were known and very highly valued in
the earUest times. The onyx-stone, fine specimens
of which are still of great value, is expressly men
tioned by Moses as being found in the land of
Havilah. The sard and sardonyx, the amethyst
or i-ose-quartz, with many agates and other varie
ties of quartz, were doubtless the best known and •
most readUy procured. " Onyx-stones, and stones
to be set, glistering stones and of divers colors,
and aU manner of precious stones " were among
the articles coUected by David for the temple (1
Chr. xxix. 2). The Tyrians traded in precious
stones supplied by Syria (Ez. xxvii. 16), and the
robes of their king were covered with the most
brUliant gems. The merchants of Sheba and
Raamah in South Arabia, and doubtless India and
Ceylon, supplied tbe markets of Tyre with various
precious stones.
The art of engraving on precious stones was
known from the very earliest times. Sir G. Wil
kinson says (Anc. Egypt. U. 67, Loud. 1854),
" The Israelites learnt the art of cutting and en
graving stones from the Egyptians." There can
be no doubt that they did learn much of the art
from this skillful nation, but it is probable tbat it
was known to tbem long before their sojourn in
Egypt; for we read in Gen. xxxviii. 18, that when
Tamar desired a pledge Judah gave her bis signet,
which we may safely conclude was engraved with
some device. The twelve stones of the breastplate
were engraved each one with the name of one of
tbe tribes (Ex. xxviu. 17-21). The two onyx (or
sardonyx) stones which formed the high-priest's
shoulder-pieces were engraved with the names of
the twelve tribes, six on one stone and six on tbe
other, " with the work of an engraver in stone like
the engravings of a signet." See also ver. 36,
like the engravings of a signet." It is an unde
cided question whether the diamond was known to
the early nations of antiquity. The A. V. gives
it as the rendering of the Heb. Yahalom, D vH])),

c The LXX., Vulg., and Josephus, are all agreed
as to the names of tbe stones ; there is, however,
some little difference as to their relative positions in
the breastplate : thus tho tao-jriv, whicti, according to
Josephus, occupies the second place in the third row,
is by the LXX. and Vulg. put in the third place;
a similar transpasition occurs witb respect to ttu
(Mieflucrro? and the axanjs i" the third row.

3118 STONES, PRECIOUS
out it is probable tbat the jasper is intended. Sir
G. WiUtinson is of opinion that the ancient Egyp
tians were acquainted with the diamond, and used
it for engraving (ii. 67 ). Beckmann, on the other
hand, maintains tbat the use of the diamond was
unknown even to the Greeks and Romans : " I
must confess that I have found no proofs tbat the
ancients cut glass with a diamond " (Hist, of
Inventions, ii. 87, Bohn's ed.). The substance
used for polishing precious stones by the ancient
Hebrews and Egyptians was emery powder or the
emery stone (Corundum), a mineral inferior only
to the diamond in hardness [Adamant]. There
is no pi'oof that the diamond was known to the
ancient Orientals, and it certainly must be banished
from the list of engraved stones which made the
sacerdotal breastplate ; for the diamond can be cut
only by abrasion with its own powder, or by friction
with another diamond ; and this, even in the hands
of a well-praoticed artist, is a work of most patient
labor and of considerable difficulty ; and it is not
likely that the Hebrews, or any other oriental
people, were able to engrave a narae upon a dia
mond as upon a signet ring.'' Again, Josephus tells
us (Ani. iii. 7, § 5) that the twelve stones of the
breastplate were of great size and extraordinary
beauty, '^e have no means of ascertaining their
size; probably they were nearly an inch square;
at any rate a diamond only half that size, with
the five letters of 1v1!2T (Zebulun) engraved on
it — for, as he was the sixth son of Jacob (Gen.
xxx. 20), his name would occupy the third place
in the second row — is quite out of the question,
and cannot possibly be the Yalidlom of the breast
plate. Perhaps the stone caUed " ligure " by the A. V.
has been the subject of more discussion than any
other of the precious stones mentioned in the Bible.
In our article on that subject we were of opinion
that the stone denoted was probably tourmaline.
We objected to the " hyacinth stone " representing
the lyncurmm of the ancients, because of its not
possessing attractive powers in any marked degree,
as we supposed and had been informed by a weU-
known jeweler. It appears, however, from a com
munication kindly made to us by Mr. King, that
the hyacinth (zircon) is highly electric when
rubbed. He states he is practically convinced of
this fact, although he allows that highly electric
powers are not usually attributed to it by mineralo
gists. Mr. King asserts tbat our Jiyacinlh (Jacinth,
zircon) was greatly used for engraving on by
Greeks, Romans, and Persians, and that numerous
uitagUos in it exist of the age of Theopbrastus.
Tbe ancient hyacinthus was our sapphire, as
SoUnus shows.
Precious stones are used in Scripture in a figu
rative sense, to signify value, beauty, durabiUty,
etc., in those objects with wbich they are com
pared (see Cant. v. 14; Is. Uv. 11, 12; Lam. iv.
7; Rev. iv. 3, xxi. 10-21). As to the precious
stones in the breastplate of the high-priest, see
Josephus, Ani. iu. 7, § 5; Epiphanius, irepl tuv
(/3' Kidav Tuv vvTwv ir t- ctoX. t. *Aapd>v,
in Epiphanii Opusc, ed. Petavius, u. 225-232,
Cologne, 1682 (this treatise has been edited sepa
rately by Conr. Gesner, De omni rerum fossil.
<)enere, etc., Tiguri, 1565; and by Mat. HiUer,

a " The artists of the Benaissance actually suc-
Mtded in engraving on the diamond ; the discovery is

STORK
the author of the Ilierophyiicon, in his Syntag
mata Hermeneuiica, p. 83, 'I'ubing. 1711) ; Braun,
De 'Vesiitu Sacerdotum Hebrocwum (Amstel. 1680,
and 2d ed. 1698), lib. u. caps. 7 and 8; Beller
mann, Die Urim vmd Tliummim die Aelteslen
Gemmen, Beriin, 1824 ; RosenmiiUer, " The Min
eralogy of the Bible," Biblical Cabinet, vol. xxvii
W.H.
* STONB-SQUARERS. [Giblites.]
STONING. [Punishments.]
* STOOL. [Midwife.]
* STORE-CITIES (n'l3?pia "'nr, LXX
irdXeis bxvpai, A. V. " treasure-cities " once, Ex.
1. 11). mjSpip occurs alone in 2 Chr. xxxii. 28
(A. V. "store-houses"), and is foUowed by '^^S
in 2 Chr. xvi. 4 (A. V. incorrectly " store-cities").
The rendering store-houses for iT133pD seems
therefore more appropriate than stores. According
to 2 Chr. xxxii. 28, tbey were for the products of
the soil. But whether the provisions thus stored
up were designed chiefly for purposes of trade
(Ewald, Gesch. d. V. Israel, ii. p. 16), or for the
benefit of traveUers and their beasts (Bertheau ou
2 Chr. viii. 4, 6), or for times of need (Knobel on
Ex. i. 11; Thenius on 1 K. ix. 19), or for purposes
of war (Bush on Ex. i. 1] ; Kurtz, Gesch. d. A.
Bundes, ii. 167), and, if for the latter purpose,
whether fortified (LXX. Bush, I. c; Hengstenberg,
Die BUclier Mose's u. jEyypten, p. 46; Hawks,
Egypt and its Monuments, p. 178) or not (Kurtz,
/. c, and Keil on Ex. i. 11), is disputed, ''he con
jecture that the store cities had a mihtary object,
is favored by the position of Pitiiom and Raamses,
Ex. i. 11, and of Hamath, 1 K., ix. 19, 2 Chr.
viii. 4 ; and by the mention of tbe building of store-
cities in connection with that of fortresses, as iUus-
trating Jehoshaphat's greatness, 2 Chr. xvii. 12.
C. M. M.
STORK (ni^pn, chasiddh: translated in
differently by LXX. daiSa, eiroi//, ipa5ios, ireKeKdy:
Vulg. herodio, herodius, milvus : A. V. " stork,"
except in Job xxxix. 13, where it is translated
"wing" ("stork" in the margin). But there is
some question as to the correct reading in this
passage. The LXX. do not seem to have recog
nized the stork under the Hebrew term H^^'pn ;
otherwise tbey could scarcely have missed the ob
vious rendering of ireKapyds, or have adopted in
two instances the phonetic representation of the
original, dalSa (whence no doubt Hesych. dois,
elSos opveov). It is singular that a bird so con
spicuous and familiar as the stork must have been
both in Egypt and Palestine should have escaped
notice by the LXX., but there can be no doubt of
the correctness of the rendering of A. V. The
Heb. term is derived from the root ^P^, whence
"ipn, " kindness," from the maternal and filial
affection of which this bird has been in all ages the
type). The White Stork (Ciconia alba, L.) is one of
the largest and most conspicuous of land burds
standing nearly four feet high, the jet black of its
wings and its bright red beak and legs contrasting

assigned to Clement Birago, by others to .1. da Trezao
Philip n.'s engraver." 0. W. lifflO.

STORK
Snely with tbe pure white of its plumage (Zech. v.
a, " They had wings like the wings of a stork ").
[t is placed by naturalists near the Heron tribe,
with which it has some atfinity, forming a connect
ing link between it and the spoonbill and ibis, like
all of which, the stork feeds on fish and reptiles,
sspecially on the latter. In the neighborhood of
uian it devours readily all kinds of ofial and garb-

^Vhite Stork ( Ciconia alba).
^e. For this reason, doubtless, it is placed in the
hst of unclean birds by the Mosaic law (Lev. xi. 19 ;
Deut. xiv. 18). The range of the white stork ex
tends over the whole of Europe, except the British
isles, where it is now only a rare visitant, and over
Northern Africa and Asia, as far at least as Bur-
mah. The Black Stork {Ciconia nigra, L.), though
less abundant in places, is scarcely less widely dis
tributed, but bas a more easterly range than its
congener. Both species are very numerous in Pal
estine, the white stork being universally distributed,
generally in pairs, over tbe whole country, the black
stork living in large flocks after the fashion of
herons, in the more secluded and marshy districts.
The writer met with a flock of upwards of fifty
black storks feeding near the west shore of the
Dead Sea. They are still more abundant by the
Sea of Galilee, where also the white stork is so
numerous as to be gregarious ; and in the swamps
round the waters of Merom.
While the black stork is never found about
buildings, but prefers marshy places in forests, and
breeds on the tops of the loftiest trees, where it
heaps up its ample nest far from the haunts of man ;
the white stork attaches itself to him, and for the
service which it renders in the destruction of rep
tiles and the removal of offal has been repaid from
.he earliest times by protection and reverence.
This is especially the case in the countries where it
oreeds. In the streets of towns in Holland, in the
illages of Denmark, and in the bazaars of Syria
»nd Tunis, it may be seen stalking gravely among
bhe crowd, and woe betide the stranger either in
Holland or in Palestine who should dare to molest
'L The claim of the stork to protection seems to

STORK 3119
have been equally recognized by the ancients.
Sempr. liufus, who first ventured to bring young
storks to table, gained the following epigram, on
the failure of his candidature for the prsetorship: —
*' Quanquam est duobus elegantior Plapcis
SiUIragiorum puncta uon tulit septem.
Ciconiarum populua ultus est mortem."
Horace contemptuously alludes to the same sacril^e
in the lines " Tutoque ciconia nido,
Donee vos auctor docuit praetoriua " {Sat, ii. 2, 49).
Pliny {Nat Hist a. 21) tells us that in Thessaly
it was a capital crime to kill a stork, and that they
were thus valued equally with human life, in con
sequence of their warfare against serpents. They
were not less honored in Egypt. It is said that at
Fez in Morocco, there is an endowed hospital for
the purpose of assisting and nursing sick cranes
and storks, and of burying them when dead. The
Marocains bold that storks are human beings in
that form from some distant islands (see note to
Brown's Pseud. Epid. iii. 27, § 3). The Turks in
Syria point to the stork as a true follower of Islam,
from the preference he always shows for the Turkish
and Arab over the Christian quarters. For this
undoubted fact, however, there may be two other
reasons — the greater amount of offal to be found
about the Moslem houses, and the persecutions
suffered from the skeptical Greeks, who rob the
nests, and sbuw none of the gentle consideration
towards the lower animals which often redeems the
Turkish character. Strickland, Mmi. and Papers,
vol. ii. p. 227, states that it is said to have quite
deserted Greece, since the expulsion of its Moham
medan protectors. The observations of the writer
corroborated this remark. Similarly the rooks were
said to be so attached to the old regime, that most
of thera left France at the Revolution ; a true state
ment, and accounted for by tbe clearinir of most
of the fine old timber which used to surround the
chateaux of the noblesse.
The derivation of ni^DP points to the paternal
and filial attachment of which the stork seems to
have been a type among the Hebrews no less than
the Greeks and Romans. It was believed that the
young repaid the care of their parents by attaching
themselves to them for life, and tending them in
old age. Hence it was commonly called among the
[.-atins "avispia." (See Laburnus in Petronius
Arbiter; Aristotle, Hist Anim. ix. 14; and Pliny,
Nat Hist X. 32.)
Pliny also notices their habit of always returning
to the same nest. Probably there is no foundation
for the notion that the stork so far differs from
other birds as to recognize its parents after it has
become mature; but of tbe fact of these birds re
turning year after year to the same spot, there is
no question. Unless when molested by man, storks'
nests all over the world are rebuilt, or rather re
paired, for generations on the same site, and in
Holland the same individuals have been recognized
for many years. That the parental attachment of
the stork is very strong, has been proved on many
occasions. The tale of the stork which, at the
burning of the town of Delft, vainly endeavored to
carry off her young, and at length sacrificed her
life with theirs rather than desert them, has been
often repeated, and seems corroborated by unques
tionable evidence. Its watchfulness over its young
is unremitting, and often shown in a somewhat
droll manner. The writer was once in camp aeai

3120

STORK

jn old mmed tower in the plain of Zana, south of
the Atlas, where a pair of storks had their nest.
The four young might often be seen fi-om a little
distance, surveying the prospect from their lonely
height; but whenever any of the human party hap
pened to stroll near tbe tower, one of the old storks,
invisible before, would instantly appear, and, light
ing on the nest, put its foot gently on the necks of
all the young, so as to hold them down out of sight
till the stranger had passed, snapping its bill mean
while, and assuming a grotesque air of indifference
and unconsciousness of there being anything under
its charge.
Few migratory birds are more punctual to tbe
time of their reappearance than the white stork, or
at least, from its familiarity and conspicuousness,
its migrations have been more accurately noted.
" The stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed
times " (see Virgil, Georg. ii. 319, and Petrou.
Sat). Pliny states that it is rarely seen in Asia
Minor after the middle of August. This is prob
ably a slight error, as the ordinary date of its ar
rival in Holland is the second week in April, and
it remains until October. In Denmark Judge Boie
noted its arrival fi-om 1820 to 1847. The. earliest
date was the 26th March, and the latest the 12th
April (Bjaerbolhng, Danmarks Fugle, p. 262). in
Palestine it has been observed to arrive on the 22d
March. Immense flocks of storks may be seen on
the banks of tbe Upper Nile during winter, and
some few further west, in the Sahara; but it does
not appear to migrate very far south, unless indeed
the birds that are seen at the Cape of Good Hope
in December be the same which visit Europe.
The stork has no note, and the only sound it
emits is that caused by the sudden snapping of
its long mandibles, well expressed by the epithet
*' crotalistria " in Petron. (quasi KporaXi^w, to
rattle the castanets). From the absence of voice
probably arose the error alluded to by Pliny, " Sunt
qui ciconiis non inesse linguas confirment."
Some unnecessary difficulty has been raised re
specting the expression in Ps. civ. 17, " As for the
stork, the fix-trees are her house." In the west of
Europe the home of the stork is connected with
the dwellings of man, and in the East, as the eagle
is mentally associated with the most sublime scenes
in nature, so, to the traveller at least, is the stork
with the ruins of man's noblest works. Amid the
desolation of his fallen cities throughout Eastern
Europe and the classic poi-tions of Asia and Africa,
we are sure to meet witli them surmounting his
temples, his theatres or baths. It is tbe same in
Palestine. A pair of storks hai'e possession of the
only tall piece of ruin in the plain of Jericho; they
are the only tenants of the noble tower of Richard
CcEur de Lion at Lydda; and they gaze on the
plain of Sharon fi'om the lofty tower of Ramleh
(the ancient Arimathea). So they have a pillar at
Tiberias, and a corner of a ruin at Nebi Mousseh.
And no doubt in ancient times the sentry shared
the watch-tower of Samaria or of Jezreel with the
cherished storks. But the instinct of the stork
seems to be to select the loftiest and most con
spicuous spot he can find where his huge nest may
be supported; and whenever he can combine this
aste witb his instinct for the society of man, he
naturally selects a, tower or a roof. In lands of
ruins, which from their neglect and want of drain
age supply him with abundance of food, he finds a
column or a solitary arch the most secure position
for his nest; but where neither towers nor ruins

STRAIN AT
abound he does not hesitate to select a tall tree, an
botb storks, swallows, and miny other birds musi
have done before they were tempted by the artificlfd
conveniences of man's buildings to desert their
natural places of nidification. [Nest, Amer. ed.]
Thus the golden eagle builds, according to circum
stances, in cliffi, on trees, or even on the ground;
and the common heron, which generally associates
on the tops of the tallest trees, builds in West
moreland and in Galway on bushes. It is therefore
needless to interpret the text of the stork merely
perching on trees. It probably was no less numer
ous in Palestine when David wrote than now; but
the number of suitable towers must have been far
fewer, and it would therefore resort to trees.
Though it does not frequent trees in South Judsea,
yet it still builds ou trees by the S^ of Gahlee,
according to several travellers; and the writer may
remark, that while he has never seen the nest ex
cept on towers or pillars in tbat land of ruins, Tunis,
the only nest he ever saw in Morocco was on a tree.
Varro {Re Rmtica, iii. 5) ol«erves, "Advense
volucres puUos faciunt, in agro dconice, in tecto
hirundines." All modern authorities give instances
of the white stork building on trees. Degland
mentions several pairs which still breed in a marsh
near Chalons-sur-Marne {O^-n. Europ. ii. 153).
Kjaerbolling makes a similar statement with re
spect to Denmark, and Nillson also as to Sweden.
Biideker observes " that in Germany the white
stork builds in the gables, etc., and in trees, chiefly
the tops of poplars and the strong upper branches
of the oak, binding the branches together with
twigs, turf, and earth, and covering the fiat surface
with straw, moss, and feathers" {Eier Ew. pi.
xxxvi. ).
The black stork, no less common in Palestine,
has never relinquished its natural habit of building
upon trees. This species, in the northeasteni
portion of the land, is the most abundant of the
two (Harmer's Obs. iii. 323). Of either, how
ever, the expression may be taken literally, that
" the fir-trees are a dwelling for the stork."
H B T
* STORY, 2 Chr. xiii. 22, xxiv. 27, is used in
the sense of history (Ital. storia). So " story-
writer " for historian, 1 Esdr. ii. 17. A.
STRAIN AT. The A. V. of 1611 renders
Matt. xxiu. 24, " Ye blind guides ! which strain at
a gnat, and swaUow a camel." There can be Uttle
doubt, as Dean lYench has supposed, that this ob
scure phrase is due to a printer's error, and that
the true reading is "strain out." Such is the
sense of the Greek SivKl^eiv, as used by Plutarch
( Op. Mor. p. 692 D, Symp. Probl. vi. 7, § 1 ) and
Dioscorides (n. 86), namely, to clarify by passing
through a strainer (vKia-rifp). " Strain out " is
the reading of Tyndale's (1539), Cranmer's (1539),
tbe Bishops' (1568), and the Geneva (1557) Bibles,
and " strain al," which is neither correct nor in
teUigible, could only have crept into our A. V.,
and been allowed to remain there, by an oversight.
Dean Trench gives an interesting Ulustration of the
passage from a private letter written to him by a
recent traveller in North Africa, who says: " In a
ride from Tangier to Tetuan, I observed that a
Moorish soldier who accompanied me, when hs
drank, always unfolded the end of his turban and
placed it over the mouth of his boia, drinking
through the muslin, to stmin oul the gnats, whose
larviE swarm in the water of that country " (On ike
Auth. !>"». ofthe N. T. pp. 172, 173}. If one might

STRAITLY
tonjecture the cause which led, even erroneously, to
the substitution of at for out, it is perhaps to be
found in the marginal note of the Geneva Version,
which explains the verse thus : " Ye stay at that
which is nothing, and let pass that which is of
greater importance."
* STRAITLY is often used in the A. V. in
the now obsolete senses of closely (Josh. vi. 1 ; Wisd.
xvii. 16; Gen. xUii. 7); and strictly (Matt. ix. 30;
Acts V. 28, etc.). A.
* STRANGE, as used for foreign, in some
passages of tbe A. V. may not be understood by aU
readers; e. g. "strange vanities," Jer. viii. 19, for
" foreign idols." The " strange woman " in Prov.
ii. 16 is so designated as being the wife of another
(ver. 17), or at least, as one who has no business
with the person whom she tempts. A.
STRANGER (12, 3ttJ'in). A "stranger"
in the technical sense of the term may be defined to
be a person of foreign, «. e. non-IsraeUtish, extrac
tion, resident within the limits of the promised land.
He was distinct from the proper "foreigner,""
inasmuch as the latter still belonged to another
country, and would only visit Palestine as a travel
ler: he was still more distinct from tbe " nations," >>
or non-Israelite peoples, who held no relationship
vrith the chosen people of God. The term answers
most nearly to the Greek /xeroiKos, and may be
compared with our expression *' naturalized for-.
eigner," in as far as this impUes a certain political
sbitus in the country where the foreigner resides ; it
is opposed to one " born in the land," <> or, as tbe
term more properly means, " not transplanted," in
the same way that a naturaUzed foreigner is opposed
to a native. The terms applied to tbe " stranger "
nave special reference to the fact of his residing <>¦ in
the land. The existence of such a class of persons
among the IsraeUtos is easily accounted for: the
" mixed multitude " tbat accompanied them out of
Egypt (Ex. xii. 38) formed one element; the Ca
naanitish population, which was never wholly extir
pated from their native soil, formed another and a
stiU more important one; captives taken in war
formed a third ; fugitives, hired servants, merchants,
etc., formed a fourth. The number from these va
rious sources must have been at all times very con
siderable; the census of them in Solomon's time
gave a return of 153,600 males (2 Chr. ii. 17), which
was equal to about a tenth of the whole population.
The enactments of tbe Mosaic Law, which regu
lated the poUtical and social position of. resident
strangers, were conceived in a spirit of great liber
ality. With the exception of the Moabites and Am
monites (Deut. xxiii. 3), aU nations were admissible
to the rights of citizenship under certain conditions.
It would appear, indeed, to be a consequence of the
prohibition of intermarriage with the Canaanites
(Deut. vii. 3), that these would be excluded from
the rights of citizenship ; but the Rabbinical view
that this exclusion was superseded in the case of
proselytes seems highly probable, as we find Doeg

STRANGER

3121

« nD3.

!- n-'ia.

= niTs.

'^ *ia, nty^i^. These terms appear to describe,
-ot two different classes of strangers, bufc the strauj^er
mder two different aspects, gfr rather implying his
'weign Oklgin, or the fact of his having turned aside
0 abide with another people, tbshi^b implying his per-
oanent residence, in the land of his adoption. Winer
Rtidvtb. " Fremde ") regards the latter as equivalent

the Edomite (1 Sam. xxi. 7, xxu. 9), Uriah the
Hittite (2 Sam. xi. 6), and Araunah the Jebusite
(2 Sam. xxiv. 18), enjoying to aU appearance the
fuU rights of citizenship. Whether a stranger could
ever become legally a landowner is a question about
which there may be doubt. TheoreticaUy the whole
of the soil was portioned out among the twelve tribes,
and Ezekiel notices it as a peculiarity of the division
which he witnessed in vision, that the strangerj
were to share the inheritance with the Israelites,
and should thus become as those "born in the coun
try" (Ez. xlvii. 22). Indeed the term "stranger"
is raore than once appUed in a pointed manner to
signify one wbo was not a landowner (Gen. xxiii. 4;
Lev. xxv. 23): while on tbe other hand ezrach (A.
V. "born in the land ") may have reference to the
possession of the soil, as it is borrowed from the
image of a tree noi transplanted, and so occupying
its native soil. The IsraeUtes, however, never suc
ceeded in obtaining possession of the whole, and it
is possible that the Canaanitish occupants may in
course of time have been recognized as " strangers,"
and had the right of retaining their land conceded
to them. There was of course nothing to prevent a
Canaanite from becoming the mortgagee in posses
sion of a plot, but this would not constitute him a
proper landowner, inasmuch <ns he woidd lose aU
interest in the property when the year of Jubile*
came round. That they possessed land in one of
these two capacities is clear from the case of Arau
nah above cited. The stranger appears to have
been eligible to aU civil offices, that of king excepted
(Deut. xvii. 15 ). In regard to religion, it was abso
lutely neeessary that the stranger should not in
fringe any of the fundamental laws of the IsraeUtish
state: he was forbidden to blaspheme thr name of
Jehovah (Lev. xxiv. 16), to work On tht Sabbath
(Ex. XX. 10), to eat leavened bread at the time of
the Passover (Ex. xii. 19), to commit any breach of
the marriage laws (Lev. xviii. 26), to worship Mo-
lech (Lev. XV. 2), or to eat blood or the flesh of
any animal that had died otherwise than by the
hand of man (Lev. xvii. 10, 15). He was required
to release a Hebrew servant in the j'ear of Jubilee
(Lev. xxv. 47-54), to observe the day of atonement
(Lev. xvi. 29), to perform the rites of purification
when necessary (Lev. xvii. 15; Num. xix. 10), an(?
to oflfer sin-off'erings after sins of ignorance (Num.
XV. 29). If the stranger was a bondsman he was
obUged to submit to circumcision (Ex. xii. 44); if
he was independent, it was optional with him ; hut
if he remained uncircuracised, he was prohibited
from partaking of the Passover (Ex. xii. 48), and
could not be regarded as a fuU citizen. Liberty
was also given in regard to tbe use of prohibited
food to an uncircumcised stranger; for on this
ground alone can we harmonize the statements iu
Deut. xiv. 21 and Lev. xvii. 10, 15. Assuming,
however, that the stranger was circumcised, no dis
tinction existed in regard to legal rights between
the stranger and the Israelite: "one law" for both
classes is a principle affirmed in respect to religious

to hireling. Jahn (Archaol. i. 11, § 181) explains
tdsh&b of one who, whether Hebrew or foreigner, was
destitute of a home. We see no evidence for either ol
thesa opinions. In the LXX. these terms are most
frequently rendered by TrdpoiKos, the Alexandrian sub
stitute for the classical ^e'roiKo?. Sometimes Trpoo^-
AvTos is used, and in two. passages (Ex. xii. 19 ; I?,
xiv. 1) yeiuipas, as representing the Chaldee form o*
the word gSr.

8122

STRAW

Dbaervances (Ex. xii. 49; Num. xv. 16), and to
l^al proceedings (Lev. xxiv. 22), and the judges
are strictly warned against any partiality in their
decisions (Deut. i. 16, xxiv. 17, 13). The Israel
ite is also enjoined to treat him as a nrother (Lev.
xix. 34; Deut. a. 19), and the precept is enforced
in each case by a reference to his own state in the
land of Egypt. Such precepts were needed in or
der to counteract the natural tendency to treat per
sons in the position of strangers with rigor. For,
though there was the possibility of a stranger ac
quiring wealth and becoming the owner of Hebrew
slaves (Lev. xxv. 47), yet his normal state was one
of poverty, as implied in the numerous passages
where he is coupled with the fatherless and the
widow (e. g. Ex. xxii. 21-23; Deut. x. 18, xxiv.
17), and in the special directions respecting his
having a share in the feasts that accompanied cer
tain religious festivals (Deut. xvi. 11, 14, xxvi. 11),
in tbe leasing of the cornfield, the vineyard, and
the olive-yard (Lev. xix. 10, xxiii. 22 ; Deut. xxiv.
20), in the produce of the triennial tithe (Deut.
xiv. 28, 29), in the forgotten sheaf (Deut. xxiv. 19),
and in the spontaneous production of the soil in the
sabbatical year (Lev. xxv. 6). It also appears that
the " stranger " formed the class whence the hire
lings were drawn : the terms being coupled together
in Ex. xii. 45 ; Lev. xxii. 10, xxv. 6, 40. Such la
borers were engaged either by the day (Lev. xix.
13; Deut. xxiv. 15), or by the year (Lev. xxv. 53),
and appear to have been considerately treated, for
the condition of the Hebrew slave is favorably com
pared with that of the hired servant and the so
journer in contradistinction to the bondman (Lev.
xxv. 39, 40). A less fortunate class of strangers,
probably captives in war or for debt, were reduced
to slavery, and were subject to be bought and sold
(Lev. xxv. 45), as well as to be put to task-work, as
was tbe case with the Gibeonites (Josh. ix. 21) and
with those whom Solomon employed in the build
ing of the Temple (2 Chr. ii. 18). The liberal
spirit of the Mosaic regulations respecting strangers
presents a strong contrast to the rigid exclusiveness
of the Jews at the commencement of the Christian
era. The growth of tbis spirit dates from the time
of the Babylonish Captivity, and orit^inated partly
in tbe outrages which the Jews suffered at the
hands of foreigners, and partly through a fear lest
their nationality should be swamped by constant
admixture with foreigners : the latter motive appears
to have dictated the stringent measures adopted by
Nehemiah (Neh. ix. 2, xiii. 3). Our Lord condemns
this exclusive spirit in the parable of the good Sa
maritan, where He. defines the term "neighbor"
in a sense new to his hearere (Luke a. 36). It
should be observed, however, that the proselyte ^
of the New Testament is the true representative of
the stranger of the Old Testament, and towards
this class a cordial feeling was manifested. [I'ROS-
ELYTE.] The term " stranger " (^eVoy) is gen
erally used in the New Testament in the general
sense of foreigner, and occasionally in its more
technical sense as opposed to a citizen (Eph. ii.
ig).** W. L. B.
STRAW (15^ J tehen: &xvpov' palea). Both
wheat and barley straw were used by the ancient
Hebrews chiefly as fodder for their horses, cattle,

« The term Trpocr^Xuros occurs in tho LXX. a.i =
13 in Ex. xii. 19, xx. 10, xxii. 21, xxiii. 9.
6 • « Strangers of Rome " (oi cTriSij/ioui'Tey 'Pw-

STKEET
and camels (Gen. xxiv. 25; 1 K. iv. 28; Is. xi. 7
Ixv. 25). The straw was probably often chopped
and mixed with barley, beans, etc., for provender
(see Harmer's Observations, i. 423, 424; Wilkin
son, Anc. Egypt, ii. 48, Lond. 1854). There is no
intimation that straw was used for litter; Harmer
thinks it ¦was not so employed ; the litter the people
now use in those count^-ies is the animals' dung,
dried in the sun and bruised between their hands,
which they heap up again in the morning, sprink
ling it in the summer with fresh water to keep it
from corrupting {Obs. p. 424, Lond. 1797). Straw
was employed by the Egyptians for making bricks
(Ex. V. 7, 16): it was chopped up and mixed with
the clay to make them more compact and to prevent
their cracking {Anc. Egypt, ii. 194). [Bricks.]
The ancient Egyptians reaped their corn close to
the ear, and afterwards cut the straw close to the
ground {ibid. p. 48) and laid it by. This was the
straw that Pharaoh refused to give to the Israelites,
who were therefore compelled to gather " stubble *'
(tt?|2, Kash) instead, a, matter of considerable difii
cnlty, seeing that the straw itself had been cut o3
near to the ground. The stubble frequently al
luded to in the Scriptures may denote either the
short standing straw, mentioned above, which was
commonly set on fire, hence the allusions in Is. v.
24; Joel ii. 5, or the small fragments that would be
left behind after the reapings, hence the expression,
" as the kash before the wmd " (Ps. Ixxxiii. 13; Is.
xii. 2; Jer. xiii. 24). W.H.
STREAM OF EGYPT (ai"^^a bn3:
"PivoK6povpa (ph): tm-rens jEgypti) once occurs
in the A. V. instead of "the river of Egypt," ap
parently to avoid tautology (Is. xxvii. 12). It is
the best translation of this doubtful name, for it ex
presses the sense of the Hebrew while retaining the
vagueness it has, so long as we cannot decide whether
it is applied to the Pelusian branch of the Nile or
the stream of the Wadi-W Areesh. [River of
Egypt; Nile.] R. S. P.
STREET (v^n, ':xyrn, p^ttJ: ,r\oT6ro,
p6p7}). The streets of a modern oriental town pre
sent a great contrast to those with which we are
familiar, being generaUy narrow, tortuous, and
gloomy, even in the best towns, such as Cairo
(Lane, i. 25), Damascus (Porter, i. 30), and
Aleppo (Russell, i. 14). Their character is mainly
fixed by tbe climate and the style of architecture,
the narrowness being due to the extreme heat, and
the gloominess to the circumstance of the windows
looking for the most pai't into the inner court. As
these same influences existed in ancient times,
we should be incUned to think that the streets
were much of the same character as at present.
The opposite opinion has, indeed, been maintained
on account of the Hebrew term rechob, frequently
applied to streets, and properly meaning a ivide
place. The specific signification of this term is
rather a court-yard or square : it is appUed hi this
sense to the broad open space adjacent to the gate
of a town, where public business was transacted
(Deut. xiii. 16), and, again, to the court before the
Temple (Ezr. x. 9) or before a palace (Esth. iv. 6).
Its application to the sti-eet may point to the comr
parative width of the main street, or it may per-
ftaioOj Acts ii. 10, are literaUy " Romans who ar«
sojourners,'' i. e. as the subjoined apposition shows,
"Jews and proselytes" who had coioe to Jerusalem
from Rome. B

STRIKING THE MOUTH
haps, convey the idea of publicity rather than or
width, a sense weU adapted to the passages in
which it occurs (e. g. Gen. xix. 2; Judg. xix. 15:
2 Sam. xxi. 12). The street caUed " Straight," in
Damascus (Acts ix. 11), was an exception to the
rule of narrowness: it was a noble thoroughfare,
100 feet wide, divided in the Roman age by colon
nades uito three avenues, the central one for foot
passengers, the side passages for vehicles and horse
men going in different directions (Porter, i. 47).
The shops and warehouses were probably coUected
together into bazars in ancient as in modern times :
we read of the bakei-s' bazar (Jer. xxxvii. 21), and
of the wool, braaier, and clothes bazai-s (dyopd) in
Jerusalem (Joseph. B. J. v. 8, § 1), and perhaps
the agreement between Benhadad and Ahab, tbat
the latter should " make streets in Damascus " (1
K. XI. 34), was in reference rather, to bazars (the
terra chdts here used being the same as in Jer. xxxvii.
21), and thus amounted to the estabUshment of a
jus commercii. A lively description of the bazare
at Damascus is furnished us by Porter (i. 58-60).
The broad and narrow streets are distuiguished un
der the terms rechbb and chuls in the foUowing pas
sages, though the point is frequently lost in the A.
V. by rendering tbe latter term "abroad" or"with-
out": Prov. v. 16, vii. 12, xxii. 13; Jer. y. 1, ix
21; Am.v. 16; Nah. ii. 4. The same distinction is
apparently expressed by the terms rechob and shuk
in Cant. iii. 2, and by TrKareia and ^iJ/ht) in Luke
xiv. 21 : but the etymological sense of shuk points
rather to a place of concourse, such as a market
place, whUe jiip.rt ^ appUed to the " Straight " street
of Damascus (Acts ix. 11), and is also used in ref
erence to the Pharisees (Matt. vi. 2) as a place of
the greatest publicity: it is therefore doubtful
whether the contrast can be sustained: Josephus
describes the aUeys of Jerusalem under the term
(TTevanrot (B. J. V. 8, § 1). Tbe term shdk oc-
cura elsewhere only in Prov. vii. 8 ; Eccl. xii. 4, 5.
The term chdts, aheady noticed, applies generally
to tbat which is outside the residence (as in Prov.
vii. 12, A. V. " she is without "), and hence to
other places than streets, as to a pasture-ground
(Job xviii. 17, where the A. V. requires emenda
tion). That streets occasionally had names ap
peai-s from Jer. xxxvii. 21; Acts ix. 11. That
they were generally unpaved may be inferred from
the notices of the pavement laid by Herod tbe
Great at Antioch (Joseph. Ani. xvi. 5, § 3), and
by Herod Agrippa II. at Jerusalem (Ani. xx. 9,
§ 7). Hence pavement forms one of the pecuUar
features of the ideal Jerusalem (Tob. xiii. 17 ; Rev.
xxi. 21). Eaoh street and bazar in a modern town
is locked up at night (Lane, i. 25 ; RusseU, i. 21),
and hence a person cannot pass without being ob
served by tbe watchman : the same custom appears
to have prevaUed iu ancient times (Cant. iii. 3).
W. L. B.
* STRIKING THE MOUTH. [Punish
ments, Amer. ed.]

SUCCOTH

8123

« D'^3|Jt, A. V. " elders." The word has exactly
Che signification of the Arabic Sheikh, an old man,
and hence the head of a tribe.
^ * Gideon as he was pursuing Zebah and Zal
munna, kings of jUidian, threatened to '^ tear the flesh
of the princes of Succoth," because they refused to
supply his men with bread (Judg. viii. 8 ff.). ba re-
tuniibg from his victory he executed that menace.
<' He took the elders of the city and thorns of the
vildemesp and briars, and with them he taught (puu-

STRIPES. [Punishments.]
SU'AH(n-lD [JltJi]:%ov4; [Vat. corrupt:]
Sue). Son of Zophah, an Asherite (1 Chr. vii.
36). SU'BA {2a$i'fi', [Vat.] Alex. 2ovfias: Suba).
The sons of Suba were among the sons of Solo
mon's servants who returned with Zerubbabel
(1 Esdr. V. 34). There is nothing corresponding
to the name in the Hebrew lists df Ezra and Ne
hemiah. SU'BAI (2i/j8at; [Vat.] Alex. Su^aeC Obai)
= Shalmai (1 Esdr. v. 30; comp. Ezr. n. 46).
* SUBURBS, as the composition of the
word {sub and urbs) would imply, designates any
thing, a.s land or buildings, under the walls of a
town, i. e. lying close around it. In several 0. T.
passages it designates land given to the Levites in
connection with their cities as pasturage ior their
animals and for other purposes. See Lev. xxv. 34;
Num. xxxv. 3 ff. and elsewhere. Num. xxxv. 5
gives the extent of the territory designated as sub
urbs. The usual Hebrew term denoting such de
pendencies is ti?"!?^, properly a place whither
flocks and herds are driven. E. D. C. K.
SUCCOTH (n'iSD [booths] : ^KTjvai in Gen.
[and Ps.,] elsewhere 2,0KX<^d, 2okx«^«; [Vat. in
2 Chr. iv. 17,] SexX'*'^' Alex. ^okxojB^ [i" Josh.
xiii. 27, ^eox<>>'] hi Gen. Socoth, id est, tabcrnac-
ula; [Socolh^ Soccoth, [Sochoth, Sochot]), A
town of ancient date in the Holy Land, which is
first heard of in the account of the homeward
journey of Jacob from Padan-aram (Gen. xxxiii.
17). The name is fancifully derived from the fact
of Jacob's having there put up '• booths " {Succoth,
inSD) for his cattle, as weU as a house for him
self. Whether tbat occurrence originated the name
of Succoth (and, following the analogy of other
history, it is not probable that it did), the mention
of the house and the booths in contrast to the
" tents " of the wandering life indicates that the
Patriarch made a lengthened stay there — a fact
not elsewhere alluded to.
From the itinerary of Jacob's return it seems
that Succoth lay between Peniel, near the ford of
the toiTent Jabbok, and Shechem (comp. xxxii. 30,
and xxxiii. 18, which latter would be more accu
rately rendered "Came safe to the city Shechem").
In accordance with this is the mention of Succoth
in the narrative of Gideon's pursuit of Zebah and
Zalmunna (Judg. viii. 5-17). His course is east
ward — the reverse of Jacob's — and he comes first
to Succoth, and then to Penuel, the latter being
further up the mountain than the fornier (ver. 3,
"went up thence"). Its importance at this time
is shown by the organization and number of its
seventy-seven head-men — chiefs and " sheikhs —
and also by the defiance with which it treated
Gideon on his first application.**

ished) the men of Succoth." The Egyptians in like
manner sentenced certain criminals " to be lacerated
with sharpened reeds, and after being thrown on
thorns to be burnt to death " (Wilkinson, Ancient
Egyptians, ii. 209). Dr. Robinson found almosc a
forest of thistles at Safciil (Succoth) sometimes so high
as to overtop the rider's head ou horseback {Later
Res., p. 313). Such thickets however are by no
means peculiar to any one locaUty in Palestine.

3124

SUCCOTH

It would appear from this passage that it lay on
the east of Jordan, which is corroborated by the
fact that it was allotted to the tribe of Gad (Josh.
xiii. 27). In the account of Jacob's journey, all
mention of the Jordan is omitted.
Succoth is named once again after this — in 1
K. vii. 46 ; 2 Chr. iv. 17 — as marking the spot
at which the brass foundries were placed for cast
ing the metal-work of the Temple, " in the district
of Jordan, in the fat or soft ground between Suc
coth and Zarthan." But, as the position of Zar-
than is not yet known, this notice has no topo
graphical value beyond the mention of the Jordan.
It appears to have been known in the time of
Jerome, who says (Queest. in Gen. xxxiii. 16) that
there was then a town named Sochoth beyond the
Jordan (trans Jordanem), in the district (parte)
of Scythopolis. Nothing more, however, was heard
of it till Burckhardt's journey. He mentions it in
a note to p. 345 (July 2). He is speaking of the
places about the Jordan, and, after naming three
ruined towns " on tbe west side of the river to tbe
north of Bysan," he says: " Near where we crossed
w 9
to the south are the ruins of Sukkot (JaiLwi/). On
the western bank of the river there are no ruins
between Ain Sultan (which he has just said was
the southernmost of the three ruined places north
of Bysan) and Kieba or Jericho." There can,
therefore, be no doubt that the Sukkot of Burck
hardt was on the east of the Jordan. The spot
at which he crossed he has already stated (pp. 343,
344) to have been "two hours from Bysan, which
bore N. N. W."
Dr. Robinson (Bibl. Res. iii. 309, &e.) and Mr.
"Van de Velde (Syr. and Pal. ii. 343) have discovered
a place named Sdkui (cJ «j \m), evidently en
tirely distinct both in name and position from that
of Burckhardt. In the accounts and maps of these
traveUers it is placed on the west side of the Jor
dan, less than a mile from the river, and about 10
miles south of Beisan. A fine spring bubbles out
on the east side of the low bluff on which the ruins
stand. The distance of Sdkdi from Beisan is too
great, even if it were on the other side of the
Jordan, to allow of its being the plaoe referred to
by Jerome. The Sukkot of Burckhardt is more
suitable. But it is doubtful whether either of
them can be the Succoth of the Old Test. For
the events of Gideon's story the latter of the two
is not unsuitable. It is in the line of flight and
pursuit which we may suppose the Midianites and
Gideon to have taken, and it is also near a ford.
Sdkdi, on the other hand, seems too far south, and
is also on the west of the river. But both appear
too far to the north for the Succoth of Jacob, lying
as that did between the Jabbok and Shechem, es.
pecially if we place the Wady Zerka (usually iden
tified with the Jabbok) further to the south than it
is placed in Van de Velde's map, as Mr. Beke «
proposes to do. Jacob's direct road from the Wady
Zerka to Shechem would have led him by the
Wady Ferrah, on the one hand, or through Ya
nun, on the other. If he went north as far as

a This gentleman, an old and experienced traveller,
\ IS lately returned from a journey between Damascus,
(he Wady Zerka, and Nablus. It was undertaken
witb the view of testing his theory tbat Haran was in
he neighborhood of Damascus [Haram, Amer. ed.].
Wlthiiat going into that question, all that concemB

SUCCOTH
Sdkut, be must have ascended by the Wady Maleh
to Teyasir, and so through Ttdids and the Wady
Biddn.' Perhaps his going north was a ruse to
escape the dangerous proximity of Esau; and if he
made a long stay at Succoth, as suggested in the
outset of this article, the detour from the direct
road to Shechem would be of little Importance to
him. Until the position of Succoth is more exactly
ascertained, it is impossible to say what was the
Valley of Succoth mentioned in Ps. Ix. 6 and
cviii. 7. The word rendered " Valley " is 'Smek in
both cases (^ Koihas rHv ait'r\vS>v: Vallis Soccoth).
The same word is employed (Josh. xiii. 27) in
specifying the position of the group of towns
amongst which Succoth occurs, in describing the
allotment of Gad. So that it evidently denotes
some marked feature of the country. It is not
probable, however, that the main valley of the
Jordan, the Ghdr, is intended, that being always
designated in the Bible by the name of " the Ara
bah." G.
SUCCOTH (n'"l3p [booths]: ioicxtie; [ex.
xii. 37, Vat. ^oKxaiBa:} Socoth, Soccoth, " booths,"
or "tents "), the first camping-place of the Israel
ites when they left Egypt (Ex. xii. 37, xiii. 20;
Num. xxxiii. 5, -6). This place was apparently
reached at the close of the first day's march. It ,
can scarcely be doubted that each of the first three
stations marks tbe end of a single journey. Ka
mcses, the starting-place, we have shown was proba^
bly near the western end of the Wddi-i-Tumeyldl.
We have calculated the distance traversed in each
day's journey to have been about fifteen miles, and
as Succoth was not in the desert, the next station,
Etham, being " in the edge of the wilderness"
(Ex. xiii. 20; Num. xxxiii. 6), it must have been
in the valley, and consequently nearly due east of
Rameses, and fifteen miles distant in a straight
line. If Rameses may be supposed to have been
near the mound called EU' Abbdseeyeh, the position
of Succoth can be readily determined within mod
erate limits of uncertainty. It was probably, to judge
from its name, a resting-place of caravans, ora mih
tary station, or a town named from one of the two.
We find similar names in Scense Mandrte (Mn.
Ant.), Scense Mandrorum (Not. Dign.) or 'ix-qv^
MavSpSiv (Noi. Grose. iJpiscijpatoMm), Scense Veter-
anorum (It. Ant. Not. Dign. ), and Scenes extra
Ger asa (sic ; Not. Dign.). See, for all these places,
Parthey, Zur Erdkunde des alten .Mgyptens, p.
535, It is, however, evident that such a name
would be easily lost, and even if preserved, hard tc
recognize, as it might be concealed under a corre
sponding name of similar signification, though very
different in sound, as that of the settlement of
Ionian and Carian mercenaries. Called rd Sr/ia-
TiiireSo (Herod, ii. 154).
We must here remark upon the extreme careless
ness with which it has been taken for granted tbat
the whole journey to the Red Sea was through the
desert, and an argument against the authenticity
of the sacred narrative based upon evidence which
it uot only does not state but contradicts. For,
as we have seen, Etham, the second camping-place,

us here is to say that he haa fixed the latitude of tbe
mouth of the 'Wady Zerka at 32° 13/, or moro than
ten mites south of- its position in Van de Velde's map.
Mr. Beke's paper and map will be published in ths
Journal of the E. Geogr. Society for 1883.

SUCCOTH-BENOTH
ivas "in the edge of the wilderness," and the
«mntry was once cultivated along the valley
ylirough which passed the canal of the Red Sea.
The demand that Moses was commissioned to
make, that the Israelites might take " three days'
'oumey into the wilderness " (Ex. iii. 18), does
not imply tbat the journey was to be of three days
through the wildemess, but rather that it would be
necessary to make three days' journey in order to
sacrifice in the wildemess. [E.KODUs, the ; Red
Sea, Passage of.] R. S. P.
sucooTH-BE'NOTH (nia^i-n'isD
[booths of daughters'] : Swkx^^ 'Bevid [Vat. Pox"
XaiB SaireiBei, Alex. 2o«rx«"<' BeyiBei] : Soclioth-
benoth) occurs only in 2 K. xvii. 30, where the
Babylonish settlers in Samaria are said to have set
up the worship of Succoth-benoth on their arrival
in that country. It has generally been supposed
that this term is pure Hebrew, and signifies the
"tents of daughters;" which some explain as
" the booths in which the daughters of the Baby
lonians prostituted themselves in honor of their
idol," others as "small tabernacles in which were
contamed images of female deities " (compare Ge
senius and S. Newman, ad ^oc. HSD ; Winer,
Realwbrlerbuch, ii. 543 ; Calmet, Commeniaire
Litteral, ii. 897). It is a strong objection to both
these explanations, that Succoth-benoth, which in
the passage in Kings occurs in the same construc
tion with Nergal and various other gods, is thus
not a deity at all, nor, strictly speaking, an object
of worship. Perhaps therefore the suggestion of
Su: H. Rawlinson, against which this objection does
not Ue, may be admitted to deserve some attention.
This writer thinks that Succoth-benoth represents
the Chaldsean goddess Zir-banil, the wife of Me-
rodach, who was especially worshipped at Babylon,
in conjunction with her husband, and who is called
the " queen " of the place. Succoth he supposes
to be either " a Hamitic term equivalent to Zir,"
or possibly a Shemitic mistranslation of the term
— Zirat, "supreme," bemg confounded with Za-
rat, " tents." (See the Essay of Sir H. Rawlin
son in Rawlinson's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 630. )
G. R.
SU'CHATHITBS (iD\'n3W [patr. whence
unknown]: ['Saxadi/M; "V^t- Alez.] ^wKadieifj.: in
tabei'naculis commorantes). One of the families
of scribes at Jahez (1 Chr. ii. 55).
SUD (2ou5: Sodi). A river in the immediate
neighborhood of "Babylon, on the banks of which
Jewish exiles lived (Bar. i. 4). No such river is
known to geographers: but if we assume that the
fii'st part of the book of Baruch was written in
Hebrew, the original text may have been Sur, the
final ^ having been changed into 1. In this
case the name would represent, not the town of
Sora, as suggested by Bochart (Phaleg, i. 8), but
the river Euphrates itself, which is always named
by Arab geographers " the river of Sura," a cor
ruption probably of the " Sippara" of the inscrip
tions (RawUnson's Herod, i. 611, note 4).
W. L. B.
SUD ('SouSd; [Vat. 2oua;] Alex. Sova-a;
JAld. SovS:] Su) = SiA, or Siaha (1 Esdr. v.
89; comp. Neh. vii. 47; Ezr. ii. 44).
SUDI'AS ('SovSias : Serebias et Edias) =
Hodaviah 3 and Hodhvah (1 Esdr. v. 26;
nmf. Ezr. iii. 40; Neb. vii. 43).

SUN

3125

SUK'KIIMS (t3''*3p [booth-dwellers] : [Rom.
Vat. TparfoSirai; Alex.] TpayKoSvrai: Troglo-
dtlw), a nation mentioned (2 Chr. xii. 3) with the
Lubim and Cushim as supplying part of the army
which came with Shishak out of Egypt when he
invaded Judah. Gesenius (Lex. s. v.) suggests
that their name signifies " dweUers in tents," in
which case it might perhaps be. better to suppose
them to have been an Arab tribe hke the Scenitae,
than Ethiopians. If it is borne in mind that
Zerah was apparently aUied with the Arabs south
of Palestine [Zerah], whom we know Shishak to
have subdued [Shishak], our conjecture does not
seem to be improbable. The Sukkiims may cor
respond to some one of the shepherd or wandering
races mentioned on the Egyptian monuments, but
we have not found any name in hieroglyphics re
sembling their name in the Bible, and tbis some
what favors tbe opinion that it is a Shemitic ap-
pellation. R. S. P.
* SUMMER. [Agkicultuke, p. 40 i ;
Palestiue, p. 2317; Rain.]
* SUMMER-PAKLOR. [House, p. 1105.]
SUN (E7Ctt7). In the history of the creatior
the sun is described as the "greater Ught" in con
tradistinction to the moon or " lesser light," ii
conjunction with which it was to serve " for signs
and for seasons, and for days, and for years,'
while its special office was "to rule the day " (Gen
i. 14-16). The "signs" referred to were prob
ably such extraordinary phenomena as ecUpses
which were regarded as conveying premonitions ot
coming events (Jer. x. 2; Matt. xxiv. 29, with Luke
xxi. 25). The joint influence assigned to the sun
and moon in deciding the "seasons," both for
agricultural opemtions and for religious festivals,
and also in regulating the length and subdivisions
of the "years," correctly describes the combina
tion of the lunar and solar year, which prevailed
at aU events subsequently to the Mosaic period —
the moon being the measurer (xar 4^oxtl'') of the
lapse of tirae by the subdivisions of months and
weeks, while the sun was the ultimate regulator
of the length of the year by means of tbe recur
rence of the feast of Pentecost at a fixed agricul
tural season, namely, when the corn became ripe.
The sun "ruled the day" alone, sharing the do
minion of the skies with the moon, the briUiancy
and utiUty of which for journeys and other pur
poses enhances its value in eastern countries. It
" ruled the day," not only in reference to its pow
erful influences, but also as deciding the length of
the day and supplying the means of calculating
its progress. Sun-rise and sun-set are the only
defined points ot time in the absence of artificial
contrivances for telUng the hour of the day : and
as these points are less variable in the latitude of
Palestine than in our country, tbey served tbe pur
pose of markin,^ the commencement and conclu
sion of the working day. Between these two
points the Jews recognized three periods, namely,
when the sun becarae hot, about 9 A. M. (1 Sam.
xi. 9 ; Neh. vii. 3 ) ; the double light or noon (Gen.
xliii. 16 ; 2 Sam. iv. 5), and " tbe cool of tbe day "
shortly before sunset (Gen. in. 8). The sun alsc
served to fix the quarters of the hemisphere, east,
west, north, and south, which were represented
respectively by the rising sun, the setting sun (Is.
xiv. 6; Ps. 1. 1), the dark quarter (Gen. xiii. H;
Joel u. 20), and the briUiant quarter (Dent, iiiiii

3126

SUN

23 ; Job xxxvii. 17 ; Ez. xl. 24) ; or otherwise ))y
their position relative to a person facing the rising
sun — before, behind, on the left hand, and on the
right hand (Job xxiu. 8, 9). The apparent motion
of the sun is frequently referred to in terms that
would imply its reality (Josh. x. 13; 2 K. xx. 11;
Ps. xix. 6; Eccl. i. 5; Hab. iu. 11). The ordinary
name for the sun, shemesh, is supposed to refer to
the extreme briUiancy of its rays, producing stupor
or astonishment in the mind of the beholder; the
poetical names, chammdh" (Job xxx. 28; Cant.
vi 10; Is. xxx. 26), and chores'' (Judg. xiv. 18;
.lob ix. 7) have reference to its heat, the Jieneficial
effects of which are duly commemorated (Deut.
xxxiii. 14; Ps. xix. 6), as well as its baneful influ
ence when in excess (Ps. cxxi. 6 ; Is. xlix. 10 ; Jon.
iv. 8 ; Ecclus. xUii. 3, 4). The vigor with which
tbe sun traverses the heavens is compared to that
of a " bridegroom coming out pf his chamber,"
and of a " giant rejoicing to run his course " (Ps.
xix. 5). The speed with which the beams of the
rising sun dart across the sky, is expressed in the
term "wings" applied to them (Ps. cxxxix. 9;
Mai. iv. 2).
The worship of the sun, as the most prominent
and powerful agent in the kingdom of nature, was
widely diffused throughout the countries adjacent
to Palestine. The Arabians appear to have paid
direct worship to it without the intervention of any
statue or symbol (Job xxxi. 26, 27; Strab. xvi.
p. 784), and this simple style of worship was prob
ably fiimiliar to the ancestors of the Jews in
Chaldsea and Mesopotamia. In Egypt the sun
was worshipped under the title of Re or Ra, and
not as was supposed by ancient writers under the
form of Osiris (Diod. Sic. i. 11; see Wilkinson's
Anc. Eg. iv. 289): the, name came conspicuously
forward as tbe title of the kings, Pharaoh, or rather
Phra, meaning "the sun" (Wilkinson, iv. 287).
The Hebrews must have been well acquainted with
the idolatrous worship of the sun during the Cap
tivity in Egypt, both from the contiguity of On,
the chief seat of the worship of the sun as implied
in the name itself (On = the Hebrew Beth-she
mesh, " house of the sun," Jer. xliii. 13), and also
from the connection between Joseph and Poti-
pherah (" he who belongs to Ra"), the priest of
On (Gen. xii. 45). After their removal to Canaan,
the Hebrews came in contact with various forms of
idolatry, which originated in the worship of the
sun ; such as the Baal of the Phoenicians (Movers,
Phon. i. 180), the Molech or Milcom of the Am
monites, and the Hadad of the Syrians (Plin. xxxvii.
71). These idols were, with the exception of the
last, introduced into the Hebrew commonwealth at
various periods (Judg. ii. 11; 1 K. xi. 5); but it
does not follow that the object symbolized by them
was known to the Jews themselves. If we have
any notice at all of conscious sun-worship in the
earjy stages of their history, it exists in the doubts
ful term chammdnim^ (Lev. xxvi. 30; Is. xvii. 8,
Sus.), which was itself significant of the sun, and
probably described the stone pillars or statues
under which the solar Baal (Baal-Haman of the
Punic inscriptions, Gesen. Thes. i. 489) was wor-
jhipped at Baal-Hamon (Cant. viii. 11) and other
places. Pure sun-worship appears to have been
introduced by the Assyrians, and to have become
Icrmally established by Manasseh (2 K. xxi. 3, 5),

r\^r

!¦ D-in.

SUR
in contravention of the prohibitions of Moses (Deut
iv. 19, xvii. 3). Whether the practice was bor
rowed from the Sepharvites of Samaria (2 K. xviL
31), whose gods Adrammelech and Anammelech
are supposed to represent the male and female sun,
and whose original residence (the HeliopoUs of
Berosus) was the chief seat of the worship of the
sun in Babylonia (Rawlinson's Herod, i. 611), or
whether the kings of Judah drew their model of
worship more immediately from the east, is uncer
tain. The dedication of chariots and horses to
the sun (2 K. xxui. 11) was perhaps borrowed from
the Persians (Herod, i. 189; Curt. iii. 3, § 11;
Xen. Cyrop. vui. 3, § 24), who honored the sun
under the form of Mithras (Strab. xv. p. 732). At
the same time it should be observed that the horse
was connected with the worship of the sun in other
countries, as among the MassagetsB (Herod, i. 216),
and the Armenians (Xen. Anab. iv. 5, § 35), both
of whom used it as a sacrifice. To judge from
the few notices we have on the subject in the
Bible, we should conclude that the Jews derived
their mode of worshipping the sun from several
quarters. The practice of burning incense on the
house-tops (2 K. xxiii. 5, 12; Jer. xix. 13; Zeph.
i. 5) might have bi§en borrowed from the Arabians
(Strab. xvi. p. 784), as also the simple act of adora
tion directed towards the rising sun (Ez. viii. 16 ;
comp. Job xxxi. 27). On the other hand, the use
of the chariots and horses in the processions on
festival days came, as we have observed, from Per
sia; and so also the custom of " putting the branch
to the nose" (Ez. viii. 17), according to tbe gen
eraUy received explanation, which identifies it with
the Persian practice of holding in the left hand
a bundle of twigs called Bersam while worshipping
the sun (Strab. xv. p. 733 ; Hyde, liel. Pers. p.
345). This, however, is very doubtful, the expres
sion being otherwise understood of " putting the
knife to the nose," i. e. producing self-mutilation
(Hitzig, On Ezek.). An objection Ues against
the former view from the fact that the Persians are
not said to have held the branch to the nose. The
iraportance attached to the worship of the sun by
the Jewish kings, may be inferred from the fact that
the horses were stalled within the precincts of the
temple (the term parvar'' meaning not "suburb"
as in the A. V., but either a portico or an out
building of the temple). They were removed thence
by Josiah (2 K. xxiii. 11).
In the metaphorical language of Scripture the
sun is emblematic of the law of God (Ps. xix. 7),
of the cheering presence of God (Ps. Ixxxiv. 11),
of the person of the Saviour (John i. 9 ; Mai. iv.
2), and of the glory and purity of heavenly beings
(Rev. i. 16, X. 1, xii. 1). W. L. B.
* SUN-DIAL. [Dial.]
* SUPPER. [Lord's Supper; Meals.]
* SUPPER, THE LAST. [Passover, ui.]
SUR (Soip; [Vat.lAtro-oup; Sin.Toup:] Vulg
omits). One of the places on the sea-coast of Pal
estine, which are named as having been disturbed
at tbe approach of Holofernes with the Assyrian
army (Jud. ii. 28). It cannot be Tyre, the mod
ern Sur, since that is mentioned immediately be
fore. Some have suggested Dor, others a place
named Sora, mentioned by Steph. Byz. as in
Phoenicia, which they would identify with Athlli,

c csian.

¦"lis.

SURETISHIP
others, again, Surafend. But none of these are
satisfactory. SURETISHIP. (1.) The A. V. rendering
for t6kl'tm,a Ut. in marg. " those that strike
(hands)." (2.) The phrase' tisdmeth ydd, "de
positing in the hand," i. e. giving in pledge, may
be understood to apply to the act of pledging, or
virtual though not personal suretiship (Lev. vi. 2,
in Heb. v. 21). In the entire absence of commerce
the Law laid down no rules on the subject of sure
tiship, but it is evident that in the time of Solo
mon commercial deaUngs had beconie so multiplied
that suretiship in the commercial sense was com
mon (Prov. vi. 1, xi. 15, xvii. 18, xx. 16, xxu. 26,
xxvii. 13). But in older times the notion of one
man becoming a surety for a service to be dis
charged by another was in full force (see Gen. xliv.
32), and it is probable that the same form of. un
dertaking existed, namely, the giving the hand to
(striking hands with), not, as Michaelis represents,
the person who was to discharge the service — in
the commercial sense tbe debtor — but the person
to whom it was due, the creditor (.Job xvii. 3;
Prov. vi. 1; Michaelis, Laws of Moses, § 151, ii.
322, ed. Smith). The surety of course became
liable for his client's debts in case of his failure.
In later Jewish tinies the system had become com
mon, and caused much distress in many instances,
yet the duty of suretiship in certain cases is recog
nized as valid (Ecclus. viii. 13, xxix. 14, 15, 16,
18, 19). [Loan.] H. W. P.
* SURETY. [Suretiship; Pledge.]
SUSA ([SoCo-a:] Susan). Esth. xi. 3, xvi.
18. [Shushan.]
SU'SANCHITBS (N';D2tt7ntt7 [seebelow]:
Sova-avaxaioi ; [Vat. M. -erui'- :] Susanechwi) is
found once only — in Ezr. iv. 9, where it occurs
among the Ust of the nations whora the Assyrians
had settled in Samaria, and whose descendants stiU
occupied the country in the reign of the Pseudo-
Smerdis. There cjn be no doubt that it designates
either the inhabitants of the city Susa (^ 27^127), or
those' of the country — Susis or Susiana — where
of Susa was the capital. Perhaps as the Elamites
are mentioned in the same passage, and as Daniel
(vui. 2) seems to caU the country Elam and the
city Shushan (or Susa), the former explanation is
preferable. (See Shushan.) G. R.
SUSAN'NA ([Theodot.] Swdrm, [Alex.]
Souiravva; [LXX. Sov<Tdvm:] i- e. TliW^W, " a
Uly"). 1. The heroine ofthe story of the Judg
raent of Daniel. [Daniel, Apocryphal Ad
ditions TO.] The name occurs in Diod. Sic. as
that of the daughter of Ninus (ii. 6 ), and Sheshan
(1 Chr. ii. 31, 34, 35) is of the same origin and
meaning (Ges. Thes. s. v.).
2. One of the women who ministered to the Lord
(Luke vui. 3). B. F. W.
SU'SI OpTO: Souo-l [Vat.-o-€i]: Susi). The
fiither of Gaddi the Manassite spy (Num. xiii. 11).
SWALLOW, "I'lT^, derdr,&ndnW,dgu7;
5oth thus translated in A. V. TITT occurs twice,
Ps. Ixxxiv. 3, and Prov. xxvi. 2 : transl. by LXX.
ouyiiy and ffrpovBds; Vulg. iurtur and passer.

SWALLOW

3127

" D"'y |?'in : Vulg. laqueos : from VpJ^, " strike '
8m. p. 16lV).

"in3^ also twice. Is. xxxvui. 14, and Jer. viii. 7,
both times in conjunction with 0*^0 or D^D,
and rendered by LXX. irepicTTepd and arpouBiov,
Vulg. "columba" and "ciconia." In each passage
D''P is rendered, probably correctly, by LXX. ^e-
Mbiv (swallow), A. V. crane [Crane], whieh
is more probably the true signification of "1^51?.

D'^Dis

1, connected with Arab. au,A.u*.0

(Unsissi), appHed to many warbling birds.
The rendering of A. V. for "lI'Tl seems less
open to question, and the original (quasi Tn^,
" freedom ") may include the swaUow with other
swiftly flying or free birds. The old commentators,
except Bochart, who renders it " columba fera,"
apply it to the swallow from the love of freedom in
this bird, and the impossibUity of retaining it in
captivity. Whatever be the precise rendering, the characters
ascribed in the several passages where the names
occur, are strictly .applicable to the swallow, namely,
its swiftness of flight, its nesting in the buildings
of the Temple, its mournful, garrulous note, and its
regular migration, shared indeed in common with
several otheis. But the turtle-dove, for which the
LXX. have taken "m'?, was scarcely likely to be
a familiar resident in the Temple Inclosure. On
Is. xxxviii. 14, "Like a swaUow, so did I chatter,"
we may observe that tbe garrulity of tbe swallow
was proverbial among the ancients (see Nonn.
Dionys. ii. 133, and Aristoph. Batr. 93). Hence
its epithet K<oTi\ds, "the twitterer," nariXaSas
Se rds x^^'S"^""") A""^"' P' ^^'^- ^^^ Anacr.
104, and ¦ bpBpoySri, Hes. Op. 566 ; and Virg.
Georg. iv. 306.
Although Aristotle in his " Natural History,"
and Pliny following him, have given currency to the
fable that many swallows bury themselves during
winter, yet the regularity of their raigration alluded
to by the Prophet Jereraiah was familiarly recog
nized by the ancients. See Anacreon ( Od. xxxiii. ).
The ditty quoted by Athen. (p. 360) from The-
ognis is weU known —
'HA9' ^XOe XP^tSwi/, jeaAas 3)pas ayoutra,
KaAovs €FtaVTOUS, eirt yaoTepot AevKa, eirt i/WTa
jiAeAaiva.
So Ovid (Fast. ii. 853), " Prsenuntia -veris hi-
rundo." Many species of swallow occur in Palestine. All
those famiUar to us in Britain are found. The
swallow (Uirundo ruslica, L., var. Cahiric,
Lichst.), martin (Chelidon urbica, L.), sand martin
(Cotyle riparia, L.) abound. Besides these the
eastern swallow (Ilir. rufula, Tem.), whicb nestles
generally in fissures in rocks, and the crag martin
(Cotyle rupestris, L.), which is confined to moun
tain gorges and desert districts, are also common
See .Ibis, vol. i. p. 27, vol. ii. p. 386. The crag
martin is the only meraber of the genus wliicli
does not migrate from Palestine in winter. Of the
genus Cypselus (swift), our swift ( Cypselus apus. L.)
is common, and the splendid alpine swift { Cyps.
melia, L.) may be seen in aU suitable localities
A third species, pecuUar, so far as is yet known

i T" na-iti^ri : ^.pasi-r,.

S128

SWAN

to the northeast of Palestine, has recently been
described under the name of Cypselus Galileensis.
Whatever be the true appellation for the swallow
tribe in Hebrew, it would perhaps include the bee-
eaters, so simUar to many of the swaUows, at least
in the eyes of a cursory observer, in flight, note,
and habits. Of this beautiful genus three species
occur in Palestine, Merops apiaster, L., Merops
Persious, L., and in the valley of the Jordan only,
the eastern sub-tropical form Merops viridis, L.
H. B. T.
SWAN (naC??;^, Unskemeth). Thus ren
dered by A. V. in Lev. xi. 18 ; Deut. xiv. 16, where it
occurs in the Ust of unclean birds ; LXX. irop(pupia>y,
l^is; Vulg. pmphyrlo, ibis. Bochart (Hieroz. ii.
290) explains it noctua (owl), and derives the name
from DQti?,. " to astonish," because other birds
are startled at the apparition of the owl. Gesenius
suggests tbe ^e&an, from Dtt73, "to breathe, to
puffj" with reference to the inflation of its pouch.
Whatever may have been the bird intended by
Moses, these conjectures cannot be admitted as saf>
isfactory, the owl and pelican being both distinctly
expressed elsewhere in the catalogue. Nor is the
A. V. translation likely to be con'ect. It is not
prob-able that the swan was known to Moses or the
Israelites, or at least that it was sufficiently famil
iar to have obtahied a place in this list. Hassel
quist indeed mentions his having seen a swan on
the coast of Damietta , but though a regular winter
visitant to Greece, only accidental stragglers wan
der so far south as the Nile, and it has not been
observed by recent naturaUsts either in Palestine
or Egypt. Nor, if it had been known to the Israel
ites, is it easy to understand why the swan should
have been classed among the unclean birds. The
renderings of the LXX-, " porphjrio " and " ibis,"
are either of them more probable. Neither of these
birds occur elsewhere in the catalogue, both would
be familiar to residents in Egypt, and the original
seems to point to some water-lbwl. The Samaritan
Version also agrees with the LXX. Vlop<f>vpitcu,
poiphyrio antiqufyi-um , Bp., tbe purple water-hen, is
mentioned by Aristotle (Hist. An. viii. 8), Aristoph
anes (Av. 707), PUny (Nat. Hist. x. 63), and
more fuUy described by Athenseus (Deipn. ix. ,388).
It is aUied to our corn-crake and water-hen, and is
the largest and most beautiful of the family Rallidce,
being larger than the domestic fowl, with a ricii
dark-blue plumage, and briUiant red beak and legs.
From the extraordinary length of its toes it is en
abled, lightly treading on the flat leaves of water-
plants, to support itself without immersion, and
apparently to run on tbe surface of the water. It
frequents marshes and the sedge by the banks of
rivers in all the countries bordering on the Medi
terranean, and is abundant in Lower Egypt. Athe
nseus has correctly noted its singular habit of grasp
ing its food with its very long toes, and thus
conveying it to its mouth. It is distinguished from
all the other species of RaUidce by its short powerful
mandibles, with which it crushes its prey, consisting
often of reptiles aud young birds. It wiU fre
quently seize a young duck with its long feet, and
at once crunch the head of its victim with its beak.
Ifc is an omnivorous feeder, and from the miscel
laneous character of its food, might reasonably find
a place in the catalogue of uncljan birds. Its flesh
Is rank, coarse, and very dark-colored. H. B. T.
SWEARING [Oath.]

SWEAT, BLOODY
SWEAT, BLOODY. One of the physica,
phenomena attending our Lord's agony in the
garden of Gethsemane is described by St. Luke
(xxii. 44): " His sweat was as it were great drops
(lit. clots, ep6p.Poi) of blood falUng down to the
ground." 'I he genuineness of this verse and of the
preceding has been doubted, but is now generally
acknowledged. They are omitted in A and B, but
are fomid in the Codex Sinalticus (S), Codex Bezse,
and others, and in the Peshito, Philoxenian, and
Curetonian Syriac (see TregeUes, Greek New Test. ;
Scrivener, Inlrod. to Ihe Crit. of Ihe N. Tp. 434)
and Tregelles points to the notation of the section
and canon in ver. 42 as a trace of the existence of
the verse in the Codex Alexandrinus.
Of this malady, known in medical science by the
term diapedesis, there have been examples recorded
both in ancient and niodern times. Aristotle was
aware of it (De Part. Anim. iu. 5). The cause
assigned is generally violent mental emotion.
" Kannegiesser," quoted by Dr. Stroud (Phys.
Cause ofthe Death of Christ, p. 86), "remarks,
' Violent mental excitement, whether occasioned by
uncontrollable anger or vehament joy, and in like
manner sudden terror or intense tear, forces out a
sweat accompanied with signs either of anxiety or
hilarity.' After ascribing this sweat to the unequal
constriction of some vessels and dilatation of others,
he further observes : ' If the mind is seized with a
sudden fear of death, tbe sweat, owing to the exces
sive degree of constriction, often becomes bloody.' "
Dr. MiiUngen ( Curiosities of Medical Experience,
p. 489, 2d ed.) gives the following explanation of
the phenomenon : " It is probable that tbis strange
disorder arises frora a violent commotion of the
nervous system, turning tbe streams of blood out
of their natural course, and forcing the red particles
into the cutaneous excretories. A mere relaxation
of the fibres conld not produce so powerful a re
vulsion. It may also arise in cases of extreme de
bility, in connection with a thinner condition of the
blood." The following are a few of the instances on record
which have been collected by Calmet (Diss, sur la
Sueur du Sang), MiUingen, Stroud, Trusen (Die
Silten, Gebrduche, und Krankheilen d. alt. Hebr.,
Breslau, 1853). Schenkius (Obs. Med. Ub. iii.
p. 458) mentions the case of a nun who was so ter
rified at faUing into the hands of soldiers that blood
oozed from all the pores of her body. The same
writer says that in the plague of Miseno, in 1554,
a woman who was seized sweated blood for three
days. In 1552, Conrad Lycosthenes (de Prodigiis,
p.623,ed. 1557) reports, a woman sick of the plague
sweated blood from the upper part of her body.
Maldonato ( Comm. in Jivang. ) gives an instance,
attested by eye-witnesses, of a raan at Paris in fuli
health and vigor, who, hearing the sentence ol
death, was covered with a bloody sweat. Accord
ing to De Thou (Ub. xi. vol. i. p. 326, ed. 1626),
the governor of Montemaro, being seized by strata
gem and threatened with death, was so moved
thereat that he sweated blood and water. Another
case, recorded in the same historian (Ub. Ixxxii.
vol. iv. p. 44), is that of a Florentine youth who was
unjustly condemned to death by Pope Sixtus V.
The death of Charles IX. of France was attended bj
the same phenomenon. Mezeray (Hist, de France,
ii. 1170, ed. 1646) says of his last moments,
" II s'agitoit et se remuoit sans cesse, et le siug
luy jailUssoit par tous les conduits uicsme par les

SWINE
pores, de Sorte qu'on le trouva une fois qui baign-
oit dedans." A sailor, during a fearful storm, is
said to have fallen with terror, and when taken up
his whole body was covered with a bloody sweat
(MiUingen, p 488). In the Melanges d Histoire
(in. 179), by Dom Bonaventure d'Argonne, the case
is given of a woman who suffered so much from this
malady tbat, after her death, no blood was found
in her veins. Another case, of a girl of 18 who
suffered in the same way, is reported by Mesaporiti,"
a physician at Genoa, accompanied by the observa
tions of ValUsneri, Professor of Medicine at Padua.
It occurred in 1703 (Phil. Trans. No. 303, p.
2144). There is stiU. however, wanted a well-
authenticated instance in modem tiiues, observed
with all the care and attested by aU the exactness
of later medical science. That given in Caspar's
Wochenschrifl, 1848, as having been observed by
1 )r. Schneider, appears to be the most recent, and
resembles the phenomenon mentioned by Theo-
phrastus (London .Ved. tiia., 1848, vol. ii. p. 953).
l-'or further reference to authorities, see Copland's
IHct. of Medicine, ii. 72. W. A. W.
SWINE (1^tr]j chdzir : 5s, t'eios, ais ; x°^pos
in N. T. : sus, oper). Allusion will be found in the
Hible to these animals, both (1) in their doraestic
and (2) hi their wild state.
(1.) The flesh of swine was forbidden as food by
the Levitical law (Lev. xi. 7; Deut. xiv. 8); the
abhorrence which the Jews as a nation had of it
may be inferred from Is. Ixv. 4, where some of the
Idoktrous people are represented as " eating swine'fe
flesh," and as having the " broth of abominable
things in their vessels; " see also Ixvi. 3, 17, and 2
Mace. vi. 18, 19, in which passage we read that Elea
zar, an aged scribe, when compeUed by Antiochus
to receive in liis raouth swine's flesh, " spit it forth,
choosing rather to die gloriously than to live stained
with such an abomination." The use of swine's
flesh was forbidden to the Egyptian priests, to
whom, says Sir G. Wilkinson (Anc. Egypt, i. 322),
" above all meats it was particularly obnoxious "
(see Herodotus, ii. 47 ; jElian, de Nat. Anim. x.
16; Josephus, Contr. Apion. u. 14), though it was
occasionaUy eaten by the people. The Arabians also
were disallowed the use of swine's flesh (see Pliny,
riii. //. jV. 52; Koran, ii. 175), as were also the
Phoenicians, jEthiopians, and other nations of the
I^t. No other reason for the command to abstain from
swine's flesh is given in the Law of Moses beyond
the general one which forbade any of the marama-
lia as food which did not Uterally fulfiU the terms
ofthe definition of a "clean animal,'' namely, that
it was to be a cloven-footed ruminant. The pig,
therefore, though it divides the hoof, but does not
chew the cud, was to be considered unclean ; and
consequently, inasrauch as, unlike the ass and the
liorse in the tirae of the Kings, no use could be
made of the animal when alive, the Jews did not
lireed swine (Lactant. Instii. iv. 17). It is, bow-
ever, probable that dietetical considerations may
have influenced Moses in his prohibition of swine's
flesh; it is generaUy believed that its use in hot
countries is Uable to induce cutaneous disorders;
lience in a people liable to leprosy the necessity for
the observance of a strict rule. " The reason of
the meat not being eaten was its unwholesomeness,

SWINE

3129

on which account it was forbidden to the t ews and
Moslems " (Sir G. Wilkinson's note in RawUnson's
Herodotus, ii. 47). Ham. Smith, however (Kitto's
Cycl. art. "Swine"), maintains that this reputed
unwholesomeness of swine's flesh has been much
exaggerated ; and recently a writer in Colburn's
New Monthly Magazine (July 1, 1862, p. 266)
has endorsed this opinion. Other conjectures for
the reason of the prohibition, which are more curi
ous than valuable, may be seen in Bochart (Hieroz.
i. 806, f.). Callistratus (apud Plutarch. Sympos.
iv. 5) suspected that the Jews did not use swine's
flesh for the same reason which, he says, influenced
the Egyptians, namely, that this animal was sacred,
inasmuch as by turning up the earth with its snout
it first taught men the art of ploughing (see Bo
chart, Hieroz. i. 806, and a dissertation by Cassel,
entitled De Judceorum odio ei abslinenlia a porcina
ejusque causis, Magdeb. ; also MichaeUs, Comment.
on ihe Laws of Moses, art. 203^ iii. 230, Smith's
transl.). Although the Jews did not breed swme,
during the greater period of tlieir existence as a
nation, there can be little doubt that the heathen
nations of Palestine used the flesh as food.

o So the name is given in the PhUos. Trans.
Cahnet writes it " II. Saporitius." 197

Wild Boar.
At the time of our Lord's muiistry it would ap
pear that the Jews occasionaly violated the law of
Moses with respect to swine's flesh. Whether
" the herd of swine " into which the devils were
allowed to enter (Matt. viii. 32; Mark v. 13) were
the property of the Jewish or Gentile inhabitants
of Gadara does not appear from the sacred narra
tive; but that the practice of keeping swine did
exist apiongst some of the Jews seems clear from
the enactment of the law of Hyrcanus, "ne cui
porcum aiere liceret" (Grotius, Annol. ad Mall. 1.
c). Allusion is made in 2 Pet. ii. 22 to the fond
ness which swine have for " wallowing in the mire ; '
this, it appears, was a proverbial expression, with
whioh raay be corapared tbe " araica Into sus " ol
Horace (Ep. i. 2, 26). Solomon's comparison of a
"jewel of gold in a swine's snout '" to a "fair
woman without discretion " (Prov. xi. 22), and
the expression of our Lord, " neither cast ye youi
pearls before swihe," are so obviously intelligible as
to'reuder any remarks unnecessary. The transac
tion of the destruction of the herd of swine already
alluded to, Uke the cursing of the barren fig-tree,
has been the suhject of most unfair cavil : it is well
answered by Trenqji (Miracles, p. 173), who ob
serves that " a man is of more value than many
swine ; " besides wbich it must be remembered
that it is not necessary to suppose that onr Lord

3130

SWORD

tent the devils into the swine. He merely permit
ted them to go, as Aquinas says, " quod autem
porci in mare prsecipitati sunt non fuit operatic di-
vini miraculi, sed operatio dsemonum e permissione
divina; " and if these Gadarene villagers were Jews
and owned the swine, they were rightly punished
by the loss of that which they ought not to have
had at all.
(2.) The wild boar of the wood (Ps. Ixxx. 13)
is the common Sus scrofa which is frequently met
with in the woody parts of Palestine, especially in
Mount Tabor. The allusion in the psalm to the
injury the wild boar does to tiie \ ineyards is well
liorne out by fact. " It is astonishing what
havoc a wild boar is capable of effecting during a
shigle night; what with eating and trampling un
der foot, he will destroy a vast quantity of grapes "
(Hartley's Researches in Greece, p. 234).
W.H.
SWORD. [Arms.]
SYCAMINE TREE {trvKdpivos: morus) h
mentioned once only, namely, in Luke xvii. 6, " tf
ye had faith as a grain of mustard-seed, ye might

Morus nigra (Mulberry).
gay to this sycamine tree. Be thou plucked up,''
etc. There is no reason to doubt tbat the a-vKd-
uivos is distinct from the a-vKOficvpaia of the same
EvangeHst (xix. 4) [Sycamore], although we learn
from Dioscorides (i. 180) that this name was some
times given to the avKSpopos- The sycamine is
the mulberry tree {Morus), as is evident from Di
oscorides, TJieophrastus {H. P. i. 6, § 1 ; 10, § 10 ;
13, § 4, &c.), and various other Greek writers; see
Celsius, Hierob. i. 288. A form of the same word,
T'vKa/jLTivpd, is still one of the names for the mul-

« * The size of this tree ma/le it a fitting emblem
for the Saviour's use (Luke xvii. 6). " Its ample
girth, its wide-spread arms branching off fi'om the par-
vnt trunk only a few feet from the ground, its enor
mous roots, as thick, as numeroufi,, and as wide-spread
m'lO the deep soil below as the branches extend into
tna air above, made it the very best type of invinci
ble sreadfastncsa " (Thomson, Land and Book, i. 24)

SYCAMORli!
berry tree in Greece (see Heldreich's Nut^fltmzen
Gi-iechenlaMs, Athen. 1862, p. 19. "Morus alba
L. und M. nigi-a L. 7\ Mopr]d, Movpypd, und Mov-
prjd, auch ^vKatnjvrid — pelasg;. mur^,— ed.").
Both black and white mulberry trees are common
in Syria and Palestine, and are largely cultivated
there for the sake of supplying food to the caterpil
lars of tbe silk-worm, which are bred in great num
bers. The mulberry tree is too well known to ren
der further remarks necessary. W. H.
SYCAMORE ('n'Ciptp, shik'mdh: ffvKd-
fjLivos. o'VKOpoipea or o'VKOfiiapaia, in the N. T. :
sycamorus, morus, fceium). The Hebrew word
occurs in the 0. T. only in the plural form masc,
and once fem., Ps. Ixxviii. 47 ; and it is in the
LXX. always translated by the Greek word cvKd-
fxivos. The two Greek words occur only once each
in the N. T, a-vKdfxivos (Luke xvii. 6), and cuko-
ficopea (Luke xix. 4). Although it may be admit
ted that the sycamine is properly, and in Luke
xvii. 6, the mulberry, and the sycamore the fg-
mulberry, or sycamore-tig {Ficus sycomorus), yet
the latter is the tree generally referred to in the 0.
T., and called by the LXX. sycamine, as 1 K. x.
27; 1 Chr. xxvii. 28; Ps. Ixxviii. 47," Am. vii. 14.
Dioscorides expressly says ^vKdpopov, 4vioi S^ /cal
rovro a'vKap.ivov Keyooffi, lib. i. cap. 180.' Com
pare Gesenius, Thesawus Heb. p. 1476 6; Winer,
Rxob. ii. 65 ff. ; Kosenmiiller, Alterihumskimde, B.
iv. § 281 ff. ; Celsius, Hierob. i. 310.
The sycamwe, or fg-mulberry (from cvkov,
fig, and pSpov-, mulberry), is in Egypt and Pales
tine a tree of great importance and very extensive
use. It attains the size of a walnut tree, has wide-
spreading branches, and affords a delightful shade."
On this account it is frequently planted by the
waysides. Its leaves are heart-shaped, downy on
the under side, and fragrant. The fruit grows di
rectly from the trunk itself on Uttle sprigs, and in
clusters like the grape. To make it eatable, each
fruit, three or four days before gathering, must, it
is said, be punctured with a sharp instrument or
the finger-nail. Comp. Theophrastus, He Caus.
Plant i. 17, § 9; Hist PL'iv. 2, § 1; Pliny, H.
N. xiii. 7 ; Forskal, Descr. Plant p. 182. This
was the original employment of the prophet Amos,
as he says, vii. 14.* Hasselquist {Trav. p. 260;
Lond. 1766) says, "The fruit of this tree tastes
pr.etty well ; when quite ripe it is soft, watery,
somewhat sweet, with a very little portion of an
aromatic taste." It appears, however, that a
species of gall insect ( Cynips sycomori) often spoils
much of the fruit. " The tree," Hasselquist adds,
" is wounded or cut by the inhabitants at the time
it buds, for without this precaution, aa they say, it
will not bear fruit" (p. 261). In form and smell
and inward structure it resembles the fig, and hence
its name. The tree is always verdant, and bears
fruit several times in the year without being con
fined to fixed seasons, and is thus, as a permanent
food-bearer, invaluable to the poor. The wood of
tbe tree, though very porous, is exceedingly durable.
It suffers neither from moisture nor heat. The

This writer supposes the sycamine and sycamore tree
to be one and the same. H.
b Amos says of himself he was D'^Qpti? Dv13 I
LXX. KvC^iav (rvKOLfiLva : Vulg. veUicans sycamina ; i. «
a cutter of the fruit for the purpose of ripening i*
KvL^ft) is the very word used by Theophrastus.

SYCHAR
Egyptian mummy coffins, wbich are made of it, are
still perfectly sound after au entombment of thou
sands of years. It was much used for doors, and
large furniture, such as sofas, tables, and chairs."
So great was tbe value of these trees, that David
appointed for them in his kmgdom a special over
seer, as he did for the olives (1 Chr. xxvii. 28);
and it is mentioned as one of the heaviest of Egypt's
calamities, that her sycamores were destroyed by
hailstones (Ps. Ixxviii. 47). That which is called
sYcamove in N. Araerica, the Occiderdal plane or
button^wood tree, has no resemblance whatever to
the sycamore of the Bible ; tbe name is also applied
to a species of maple (the Acer pseudo-plntaniis or
False-plane), whicb is much used by turners and
millwrights.'' C. E. S.

SYCHAR

3131

, : 'r ""i "i>
' ^-w i/^" \'"
^ vw   -

Ficus sycomorus.

SY'CHAR {-^.vxdp in W A C D; but Rec.
Text "Ziydp ^ith B : Sichar ; but Codd. Am. and
" Fuld. Sychar : Syriac, Socar). A place named

« See Wilkinson's Ancient Egyptians, ii. 110, Lond.
1854. " For cofifins, boxes, tables, doors, and other
objects which required large and thick planbp, for idols
and wooden statues, the sycamore waa principally em
ployed ; and from the quantity discovered in the tombs
Oklone, it is evident that the tree was cultivated to a
dfreat extent." Don, however, believed that the mum-
Jiy-casea of the Kgyptians were made of the wood of
Lhe Cordia myxa, a tree which furnishes the Sebesten
plums. There can be no doubt, however, that the
wood of the Ficus sycomorus was extensively used in
ancient days. The dry climate of Egypt might have
helped to have preserved the timber, which must have
been valuable in a country where large timber-trees
•re scarce.

only in John iv. 5. It is specified as a city of
Samaria, called Sychar, near the ground which
-Jacob gave to Joseph his son; and there was tha
well of Jacob."
Jerome believed that the name was merely a
copyist's error for Sychem; but the unanimity of
the MSS. is sufficient to dispose of this supposition.
Sychar was either a name applied to tbe town of
Sbechem, or it was an independent place. 1. The
first of these alternatives is now almost universally
accepted. In the words of Dr. Robinson {Bibl. Res.
ii. 290), " In consequence of the hatred which ex
isted between the Jews and the Samaritans, and in
allusion to their idolatry, the town of Sichem re
ceived, among the Jewish common people, the by
name Sychar." This theory may be correct, but
the only support which can be found for it is the
very imperfect one afforded by a passage in Isaiah
(xxviii. 1, 7), in which the prophet denounces the
Ephraimites as shiccorhn — " drunkards; " and by
a passage in Plabakkuk (ii. 18) in which the words
moreh sheker, " a teacher of lies," are supposed to
contain an allusion to Moreh, the original name of
the district of Shechem, and to the town itself.
liut this is surely arguing in a circle. And had
such a nickname been applied to Shechem so habits
ually as its occurrence in St. John would seem to
imply, there would be some trace of it in those
passages of tbe Talmud which refer to the Samari
tans, and in which every term of opprobrium and
ridicule that can be quoted or invented is heaped
on them. It may be affirmed, however, with cer
tainty that neither in Targum nor Talmud is there
any mention ot such a thing. Lightfoot did not
know of it. The numerous treatises on the S;v
maritans are silent about it, and recent close search
has failed to discover it.
Presuming that Jacob's well was then, where it
is now shown, at the entrance of the valley of
Nablus, Shechem would be too distant to answer
to the words of St. John, since it must have been
more than a mile off.
" A city of Samaria called Sychar, near to the
plot of ground which Jacob gave to Joseph " —
surely these are hardly the terms in which such a
place as Shechem would be described ; for though it
was then perhaps at the lowest ebb of its fortunes,
yet the tenacity of places in Syria to name and
fame is almost proverbiah
There is not much force in the argument that
St. Stephen uses the name Sychem in speaking of
Shechem, for he is recapitulating the ancient his
tory, and the names of the Old Testament narrative
(in the LXX. form) would come most naturally to
his mouth. But the earliest Christian tradition, in
the persons of Eusebius and the Bordeaux Pilgrim
— both in the early part of the 4th century —
iliscriminates Shechem from Sychar. Eusebius
{ Onom-isi. '^vxdp and Aou{,'a) says that Sychar
'' * Trench states after Robinson (see Bibl. Res. ii.
290), that "There are no sycamores now in the Plain
of Jericho " {Studiesin the Gospels, p. 264, Amer. ed.).
But Tristram {Land of Israel, p. 509) says: "Here
(near Jericho) was a fine old sycamore fig-tree, perhaps
a lioeal descendant, and nearly the last, of that into
which Zacch^ua climbed." In his Nat. Hist, of tht
Bible, p. 399, he says that this tree " is very easy to
climb, wifch its short trunk and its wide lateral
branches forking out in all directions ; and would
naturally be selected by Zacchfcus (Luke xix. 4) aa
the most accessible position from which to obtain s
view of our Lord as he passed " H

3132

SYCHAR

was in front of the city of Neapolis; and, again,
that it lay by the side of Luza, which was " three
miles from Neapolis. Sychem, on the other hand,
he places in the suburbs of Neapolis by tbe tomb
of Joseph. The Bordeaux Pilgrim describes Se
chim as at the foot of the mountain, and as con
taining Joseph's monument >> and plot of ground
(villa). And he then proceeds to say that a thou
sand paces thence was the place called Sechar.
And notwithstanding all that has been said of
the predilection of Orientals for the water of certain
springs or wells (Porter, Handbook, p. 342), it does
appear remarkable, when the very large number of
sources in Ndblus itself is remembered, that a
woman should have left them and come out a dis
tance of more than a mile. On the other hand,
we need not suppose that it was her habit to do so ;
it may have been a casual visit.
2. In favor of Sychar having been an independ
ent place is the fact that a village named ^ Askar
' (wJCa«*&). still exists " at the southeast foot of
Ebal, about northeast of the WeU of Jacob, and
about half a mile from it. Whether this is the
village alluded to by Eusebius, and .Jerome, and the
Bordeaux Pilgrim, it is irapossible to tell. The
earliest notice of it wbich the writer has been able
to discover is in Quaresniins (liluddalio, ii. 808 b).
It is uncertain if he is speaking of hiraself or
quoting Brocardus. If the latter, he bad a different
copy frora tbat which is published.'' It is an im
portant point, because there is a difference of more
thaij four centuries between tlie two, Brocardus
having written about 1280, and Quaresmius about
16.30. The statement is, that " on the left of the
well," i. e. on the north, as Gerizim has just been
spoken of as on the right, " is a large city (oppidum
magnum), but deserted and in ruins, which is be
lieved to have been the ancient Sichem. . . . The
natives told rae tliat they called the place Islar."
A village like 'Askar ' answers much raore ap
propriately to the casual description of St. John
than BO large and so venerable a place as Shechem.
On the other hand there is an etymological dif
ficulty in the way of this identification. 'Askar
begins with the letter 'A'm, which Sychar does not
appear to have contained ; a lettor too stubborn and
enduring to be easily either dropped or assuraed in
a name. [But see p. 2979 a, (b.) — A.]
In favor of the theory that Sychar was a "nick
name " of Sbechem, it should not be overlooked
tbat St. John appears always to use the expression
Keydjj.evos, "called," to denote a soubriquet or
title borne by place or person in addition to the
name, or to attach it to a place remote and little
known. Instances of the former practice are xi.
16, XX. 24, xix. 13, 17; ofthe latter, xi. 54.
Thqse considerations have been stated not so
much with the hope of leading to any conclusion
on tbe identity of Sychar, which seems hopeless, as
with the desire to show that the ordinary explaiia-
u The text of Eusebius reads d = 9 miles ; but this
is corrected by Jerome to 3.
b The tomb or monument alluded to in these two
passages must have occupied tho place of the Moslem
tomb of Yusuf, now shown at the foot of Gerizim, not
far from the ea.st gate of N&blus.
c Dr Rosen, in Zeilsdiri/l der D M G. xiv. 684.
Van de Velde (S. ^ P. ii. 383) proposes 'Askar as the
native place of Judas Iscariot.
d Perhaps this is one of the variations spoken of by
Robinuon (ii S39).

SYENE
tion is not nearly so obvious as it is usually assumeil
to be. [Shechem, at the end.] G.
SY'CHBM (2uxf'i"= Sichem; Cod. Amiat.
Sychem). The Greek form of the word Shechem,
the name of the well-known city of Central Pales
tine. It occurs in Acts vii. 16 only. The main
interest of the passage rests on its containing two
of those numerous and singular variations from the
early bistory, as told in tbe Pentateuch, with which
tbe speech of St. Stephen/ abounds. [Stephen,]
This single verse exhibits an addition to, and a
discrepancy from, the earlier account. (1.) The
patriarchs are said in it to have been buried at
Sychem, whereas in the 0. T. this is related of tbo
bones of Joseph alone (Josh. xxiv. 32). (2.) The
sepulchre at Sychem is said to have been bought
from Emmor by Abraham; whereas in the 0. T.
it was the cave of Machpelah at Kirjath-arba which
Abraham bought and made into his sepulchre, aud
Jacob who bought the plot of ground at Shechem
from Hamor (Gen. xxxiii. 19). In neither ofthese
cases is tbere any doubt of the authenticity of the
present Greek text, nor has any explanation been
put forward which adequately meets the difficulty
. — if difficulty it be. That no attempt should have
been made to reconcile the numerous and obvious
discrepancies contained in the speech of St. Stephen
by altering the MSS. is remarkable, and a cause of
great thankfulness. Thankfiilness because we are
thus permitted to possess at once a proof that it is
possible to be aa thoroughly inspired by the Spirit
of God as was Stephen on this occasion, and yet
have remained ignorant or forgetful of minute facts.
— and a broad and conspicuous seal to the unim
portance of such slight variations in the different
accounts of the sacred history, as long as the gen
eral tenor of tbe whole remains harmonious.
A bastard variation of the name Sychem, namely,
Sichem, is found, and its people are mentioned
as — SY'CHEMITE, THE (-rhv Soxe/i: Heraius),
in Jud. V. 16. This passage is remarkable for giving
the inhabitants of Shechem an uidependent place
among the tribes of the country who were dispos
sessed at the conquest. G.
* SYCOMORE, originally and properly so
written in the A. V. [Syca.more.] H.
SYE'LUS (SuijAos; [Vat. 7, avvoSos'i] Alex.
H(ru7)\os: om. hi Vulg.) = Jehiel 3 (1 Esdr. i. 8;
comp. 2 Chr. xxxv. 8). [The A. V. ed. 1011 reads
'* Sielns."] SYE'TSTE, properly Sevekeh (n3ip [see be
low]: SviivTi; [Alex. Sotivti, Sovrivn<] Syene), a
town of Egypt on the frontier of Cush or Ethiopia.
The prophet Ezekiel speaks of the desolation of
Egypt " from Migdol to Seveneh, even unto the
border of Cush " (xxix. 10), and of its people being
slain " from Migdol to Seveneh " (xxx. 6). Migdol
was on the eastern border [Migtiol], and Seveneh
is thus rightly identified with the town of Syene,
which was always the last town of Egypt on the

c The identity of Askar with Sychar is supported
by Dr. Thomson (Land and Book, ch. xxxi.), and by
Mr. Williams in the Diet, of Geogr. (ii. 412 6). CSo
Ewald, Gesch. iv. 284, T. 348, 3e Ausg. ; Neuboue-,
Giog. du Talmud (1868), p. 169 f. ; Casparl, amn.-
geog. Einleitung (1869), p. 106 f. ; comp. Raumer,
Pal. p. 162 f. — A.]
/ These are examined at great length, and elab
orately reconciled, in the New Testaraent of Canon
Wordsworth, 1860, pp. 65-69.

SYNAGOGUE
?-5tith, th{>ugh at one time included in the nome
Nuliia. Its ancient Egyptian name is SUN
(brugsch, Geogr. Inschrift i. 155, tab. i.. No. 55),
preserved in the Coptic COY^Jl, CeilOilj
and the. Arabic Aswan. The modern town is
filightly to the north of the old site, which is marked
by an interesting early Arab burial-ground, covered
with remarkable tombstones, having inscriptions
in the Cufic character. Champollion suggests the
derivation C^, causative, OVHJl, OVeil,
" to open," as though it signified the opening or key
of Egypt {D'J^gypte, i. 161-166), and this is the
meaning of the hieroglyphic name. R. S. P.
SYNAGOGUE {:ivvaycoyh: Synagoga). It
may be well to note at the outset the points of con
tact between the history and ritual of the syna
gogues of the Jews, and the facts to which the
inquiries of the Biblical student are principally
directed. (1.) They meet us as the great charac
teristic institution of the later phase of Judaism.
More even than the Temple and its services, iu the
time of which the N. T. treats, they at once repre
sented and determined the religious life of the
people. (2.) We cannot separate them from the
most intimate connection with our Lord's life and
ministry. In them He worshipped in his youth,
and in his manhood. M'^hatever we can learn of
the ritual which then prevailed tells us of a worship
which He recognized and sanctioned ; which for
that reason, if for no other, though, like the state
lier services of the Temple, it was destined to pass
away. Is worthy of om* respect and honor. They
were the scenes, too, of no small portion of his
work. In them were wrought some of bis mightiest
works of healing (Mark i. 23 ,' Matt. xii. 9 ; Luke
xiii. 11). In them were spoken some of the most
glorious of his recorded words (Luke iv. 16; John
vi. 59); many more, beyond all reckoning, which
are not recorded (Matt. iv. 23, xiii. 54; John xviii.
20, etc., etc.). (3.) Tbere are the questions, lead
ing us hack to a remoter past: In what did the
worship of the synagogue originate? what type was
it intended to reproduce ? what customs, alike in
nature, if not In name, served as the starting-point
for it? (4.) The synagogue, with all that be
longed to it, was connected with the future as well
as with the past. It was the order with which the
first Christian beUevers were most familiar, from
which they were most likely to take the outlines,
or even the details, of the worship, organization,
government of their own society. Widely divergent
as the two words and the things they represented
afterwards became, the Ecclesia had its starting-
point in the Synagogue.
Keephig these points in view, it remains to deal
with the subject in a somewhat more formal manner.
I. Name. — (1.) The Aramaic equivalent
Mnti?33 first appears in the Targum of Onkelos
as a substitute for the Hebrew H^^ ( = congre
gation) in the Pentateuch (l^eyrer, ut infr.). The
more precise local designation, riDpSH Jn*^5
[Beth ha- Cenneseth = House of gathering), be
longs to a yet later date. This is, in itself, tolerably
'.trong evidence that nothing precisely answering
to the later synagogue was recognized before the
Exile. If it had been, the name was quite as likely
io have been perpetuated as the thing.
(2.) Tbe word a-vvaycayr), not unknown in clas-
*cal Greek (Thuc. ii. 18, Plato, RepnbL 526 D.),

SYNAGOGUE

3133

became prominent in that of the Hellenists. It
appears in the LXX. as the translation of not leas
than twenty-one Hebrew words in which the idea
of a gathering is implied (Tromm. Concordant s. v.).
With most of these we have nothing to do. Two
of them are more noticeable. It is used 130 times
for n"T5?? where the prominent idea is that of an
appointed meeting (Gesenius, s. v.), and 25 times
for 7np, a meeting called together, and theretbre
more commonly translated in the LXX. by ^«-
KKriaia. In one memorable passage (Prov. v. 14),
the two words, ^KK\Tja'ia and avvaycay-f}, destined
to have such divergent hisU-ries, to be representa
tives of such contrasted s} stems, appear in close
juxtaposition. In the books of tbe Apocrypha the
w(trd, as hi those of the 0. T., retains its general
nieanintr, and is not used specifically for any recog
nised place of worship. For this the received phrase
seems to be r6Tros irpoaevxvs (1 Mace. iii. 46,
3 Mace. vii. 20). In the N. T., however, the local
meaning is the dominant one. Sometimes the word
is applied to the tribunal which was connected with
or pat in the synagogue in the narrower sense
(Matt. X. 17, xxiii. 34; Mark xiii. 9; Luke xxi. 12,
xiL 11). Within the limits of the Jewish Church
it perhaps kept its ground as denoting the place of
meeting of the Christian brethren (Jas. ii. 2). It
seems to have been claimed by some of the pseudo-
Judaizing, half-Gnostic sects of the Asiatic churches
for their meetings (Kev. ii. 9;. It was not alto
gether obsolete, as applied to Christian meetings,
in tbe time of Ignatius {Ep. ad Trail, c. 5, ad
Polyc. u. 3). Even in Clement of Alexandria the
two words appear united as they had done* in the
T>XX. (eVl r^v avvaycvy^v ^K/cA.Tjo'iay, Strom, vi.
p. 633). Afterwards, when the chasm between Ju
daism and Christianity became wider, Christian
writers were fond of dwelling on tbe meanings of
the two words which practically represented them,
and showing how far the Synagogue was excelled
by the Ecclesia (August. Enarr. in Ps. Ixxx.;
Trench, Synonyms of N. T. § i.). The cognate
word, however, (xlva^is, was formed or adopted in
its place, and applied to the highest act of worship
and communion for which Christians met (Suicer,
Thes. s. v.; [Sophocles, Gr. Lex. s. v.]).
II. History. — (1.) Jewish writers have claimed
for their synagogues a very remote antiquity. In
well-nigh every place where the phrase " before the
Lord " appears, they recognize in it a known
sanctuary, a fixed place of meeting, and therefore
a synagogue (Vitringa, De Synag. pp. 271 ei seq.).
The Targum of Onkelos finds in Jacob's " dwelHng
in tents" (Gen. xxv. 27) his attendance at a syna
gogue or house of prayer. That of Jonathan finds
them in Judg. v. 9, and in " the calling of assem
blies '* of Is. i. 13 (Vitringa, pp. 271-315).
(2.) Apart from these far-fetched interpretations,
we know too little of the life of Israel, both before
and under tbe monarchy, to be able to say with
certainty whether there was anything at all corre
sponding to tbe synagogues of later date. On the
one hand, it is probable that if new moons and
Sabbaths were observed at all, they must have been
attended by some celebration apart from, as well aa
at, the Tabernacle or the Temple (1 Sam. xx. 5:
2 K. iv. 23). On the other, so far as we find
traces of such local worship, it seems to have fallen
too readily into a fetich -religion, sacrifices to ephods
and teraphim (Judg. viii. 27, xvii. 5) in groves and

3134

SYNAGOGUE

3n high-places, offering nothing but a contrast to
the "reasonable iervice." the prayers, psalms, in
struction in the Law, of the later synagogue. The
special mission of the Priests and Levites under
Jehoshaphat (2 Chr. xvii. 7-9) shows that there
was no regular provision for reading the " book of
tbe law of the Lord " to the people, and makes it
probable that even the rule which prescribed that it
^ should be read once every seven years at the feast
of Tabernacles had fallen into disuse (Deut. xxxi.
10). With the rise of the prophetic order we
trace a more distinct though still a partial approxi
mation. Wherever there was a company of such
prophets there must have been a life analogous in
many of its features to that of the later Essenes
and Therapeutse, to that of the ccenobia and mon
asteries of Christendom. In the abnormal state of
the polity of Israel under Samuel, they appear to
have aimed at purifying the worship of the high-
places from idolatrous associations, and met on
fixed days for sacrifice and psalmody (1 Sam. ix.
12, X. 5). The scene in 1 Sam. xix. 20-24 indi
cates that the meetings were open to any worship
pers who might choose to come, as well as to " the
sons of the prophets," the brothers of the order
themselves. Later on in the time of Elisha, the
question ofthe Shunammite's husband (2 K. iv. 23),
" Wherefore wilt thou go to him (the prophet) to
day ? It is neither new moon nor sabbath," implies
frequent periodical gatherings, instituted or perhaps
revived by Elijah and his successors, as a means of
sustahiing the rehgious life of the northern king
dom, and counteracting the prevalent idolatry. The
date of Ps. Ixxiv. is too uncertain for us to draw any
inference as to the nature of the " synagogues of
God" (7S *''l5*^^j meeting-places of God), which
the invaders are represented as destroying (v. 8).
It may have belonged to the time of the Assyrian
or Chaldsean invasion (Vitringa, Synag. pp. 396-
405). It has been referred to that of the Macca
bees (De Wette, Psalmen, in loc. ), or to an inter
mediate period when Jerusalem was taken and the
land laid waste by tbe army of Bagoses, under Ar
taxerxes II. (Ewald, Poet Biich. ii. 358). The
"assembly of the elders," in Ps. cvii. 32, leaves us
in like uncertainty.
(3.) During the exile, in the abeyance of tbe
Temple- worship, the meetings of devout Jews
probably became more systematic (Vitringa, De
Synag. pp. 413-429; Jost, Judenthum, i. 168;
Bornitius, De Synagog^ in Ugolini, Thes. xxi.),
and must have helped forward the change which
appears so conspicuously at the time of the Return.
The repeated mention of gatherings of the elders
of Israel, sitting before the prophet Ezekiel, and
hearing his word (Ez. viii. 1, xiv. 1, xx. 1, xxxiii.
31), implies the transfer to the land of the captiv
ity of the custom that had originated in the schools
of the prophets. One remarkable passage may
possibly contain a more distinct reference to them.
Those who still remained in Jerusalem taunted the
prophet and his companions with their exile, as
outcasts from the blessings of the sanctuary. " Get

a The passage is not without its difficulties. The
InterpretaHoo given above is supported by the LXX.,
Vulg., and A. V. It is confirmed by the general con-
enf'US of Jewish interpreters (Vatablus, in Crit. Sac.
In loco, Calmet, s. v Synagogue). The other render
ings (comp. Ewald and Rosenmuller, in loc), " I will
be to them a sanctuary, for a little time," or " in a
little measure," give a less satisfactory meauing. The

SYNAGOGUE
ye far from the Lord ; unto us is this laud given ir
a pos_session." The prophet's answer is, that it
was not so. Jehovah was as truly with thein in
their " little sanctuary " as He had been in the
Temple at Jerusalem. His presence, not the out
ward glory, was itself the sanctuary (Ez. xi. 15,
16).« The whole history of Ezra presupposes the
habit of solemn, probably of periodic meetings
(Ezr. viii. 15; Neh. viii. 2, ix. 1; Zech. vii. 5).
'To that period accordingly we may attribute the
revival, if not the institution of synagogues. The
" ancient days " of which St. James speaks (Acts
XV. 21) may, at least, go back so far. Assuming
Ewald's theory as to the date and occasion of Ps.
Ixxiv., there must, at some subsequent period, have
been a great destruction of the buildings, and a
consequent suspension of the services. It is, at
any rate, striking that they are not in any way
prominent in the Maccabsean history, either as ob
jects of attack, or rallying points of defense, unless
we are to see in the gathering of the persecuted
Jews at Maspha (Mizpah) as at a " place where
they prayed aforetime in Israel" (1 Mace. iii. 46),
not only a reminiscence of its old glory as a holy
place, but the continuance of a more recent custom.
When that struggle was over, there appears to have
been a freer development of what may be called the
synagogue parochial system among the Jews of
Palestine and other countries. The influence of
John Hyrcanus, the growing power of the Phari
sees, the authority of the Scribes, the' example,
probably, of the Jews of the " dispersion " (Vi
tringa, p. 426), would all tend in the same direction.
Well-nigh every town or village had its one or
more synagogues. Where tbe Jews were not in
sufficient numbers to be able to erect and fill a
building, there was the rrpoffevx'llt <"" P*^* "^
prayer, sometimes open, sometimes covered in,
commonly by a running stream or on the sea-shore,
in which devout Jews and proselytes met to wor
ship, and, perhaps, to read (Acts xvi. 13; Jos.
Ant. xiv. 10, 23; Juven. Sai. iii. 296).'' Some
times the term irpoaevxh ( = f^^?''^; '"'''?) '^'^
applied even to an actual synagogue (Jos. Vii. c.
54). (4.) It is hardly possible to overestimate tbe
influence of the system thus developed. To it we
may ascribe the tenacity with which, after the
Maccabsean struggle, the Jews adhered to the re
ligion of their fathers, and never again relapsed
into idolatry. The people were now in no danger
of forgetting the Law, and the external ordinances
that hedged it round. If pilgrimages were still
made to Jerusalem at the great feasts, the habitual
religion of the Jews in, and yet more out of Pales
tine, was connected much more intimately with
the synagogue than with the Temple. Its simple,
edifying devotion, in wbich mind and heart could
alike enter, attracted the heathen proselytes who
might have been repelled by the bloody sacrifices of
the Temple, or would certainly have been driven
from it unless they could make up their minds to
submit to circumcision (Acts xxi. 28; comp.
language of the later .Jews applied the term " sanc
tuary " to the ark-end of the synagogue (infra).
6 We may trace perhaps in this selection of locali
ties, like the "sacri fontis nemvs" of Juv. S»/. iii.
13, the reappearance, freed from its old abominations,
of the attachment of the Jews to the worship of tlie
groves, of the chann wbich led thera to bow down
under " every green tree " ^Is Ivii. 5 ; Jer. I' . 20).

SYNA.aOGUE
Pboselttes). Here too, as in the cognate order
of the Scribes, there was an influence tending to
diminish and ultimately almost to destroy the
authority of the hereditary priesthood. The ser
vices of the synagogue required no sons of Aaron ;
gave them nothing more than a complimentary
precedence. [Pkiksts; Scribes.] The way was
silently prepared for a new and higher order, which
should rise in *'the fullness of time " out of the
decay and abolition of both the priesthood and the
Temple. In another way too the synagogues every
where' prepared the way for that order. Not
" Moses" only, but " the Prophets " were read in
them every Sabbath-day, and thus the Messianic
hopes of Israel, the expectation of a kingdom of
Heaven, were universally diffused.
IIL Struciure. — (1.) The size of a synagogue,
like that of a church or chapel, varied with the
population. We have no reason for belie^'hlg that
there were any fixed laws of proportion for its di
mensions, like those which are traced in the Taber
nacle and the Temple. Its position was, however,
determinate. It stood, if possible, on the highest
ground, in or near the city to which it belonged.
t'aiUng this, a tall pole rose from the roof to render
it conspicuous (Leyrer, &. v. Synag. in Herzog's
Real-Encykl.). And its direction, too, was fixed.
Jerusalem was the Kibleh of Jewish devotion. The
synagogue was so constructed, that the worshippers
as they entered, and as they prayed, looked toward
it" (Vitringa, pp. 178, 457). The building was
commonly erected at the cost of the district,
whether hy a church-rate levied for the purpose,
or by free gifts, must remain uncertain (Vitringa,
p. 229). Sometimes it was built by a rich Jew,
or even, as in Luke vii. 5, by a friendly proselyte.
In the later staL^es of eastern Judaism it was often
erected, like the mosques of Mohammedans, near
the tombs of famous Kabbis or holy men. When
the building was finished it was set apart, as the
Temple had been, by a special prayer of dedication.
From that time it had a consecrated character.
The common acts of life, eating, drinking, reckon
ing up accounts, were forbidden in it. No one
was to pass through it as a short cut. Even if it
ceased to be used, the building was not to be ap
plied to any base purpose — might not be turned,
e. g. into a bath, a laundry, or a tannery. A
flcraper stood outside the door that men might rid
themselves, before they entered, of anything that
would be defiling (l.,eyrer, I. c, and Vitringa).
(2.) In the internal arrangement of the syna
gogue we trace an obvious analogy, mutatis mu
tandis, to the type of the Tabernacle. At the

SYNAGOGUE

S18o

a The practice of a fixed Kibleli { = direction) in
prayer was clearly very ancient, and commended itself
to some special necessities of the eastern character.
It Ps, xxviii., ascribed to David, we have probably
th" earliest trace of it (De Wette, in loc). It is recog-
Dizfad in the dedication prayer of Solomon (1 K. viii.
29, et at). It appears as a fixed rule in the devotions
of Daniel (Dan. vi. 10). It waa adopted afterwards
by Mohammed, and the point of the Kibleh, affcer
some lingering reverence to the Holy City, transferred
from Jerusalem to the Kaaba of 'Mecca. The early
Christian practice of praying toward the east indi
cates a like feeling, aod probably originated in the
»doption by the churches of Europe and Africa of
the structure of the synagogue. The position of the
iltap in those churches rested on a like analogy. The
ftble of the Lord, bearing witness of the blood of the
.Vpw Covenant, took the place of the Ark which con-
uiued tho Law that was the groundwork of the Old.

upper or Jerusalem end stood the Ark, the chest
which, like the older and raore sacred Ark, con
tained the Book of the Law. It gave to that eud
the name and character of a sanctuary (vD'^n).
The same thought was sometimes expressed by ita
being called after the name of Aaron (Buxtorf,
Synag. Jud. ch. x.), and was developed still further
in the name of Cophereth, or Mercy-seat, given to
the lid, or door of the chest, and in the Veil which
hung before it (Vitringa, p. 181). This part of
the synagogue wag naturally the place of honor.
Here were the TrpcaroKadeSpiat, after which Phari
sees and Scribes strove so eagerly (Matt, xxiii. 6),
to which the wealthy and honored worshipper was
invited (James ii. 2, 3). Here too, in front of the
Ark, still reproducing the type of the Tabernacle,
was the eight-branched lamp, lighted only on the
greater festivals. Besides this, there was one lamp
kept burning perpetually. Others, brought by de
vout worshippers, were lighted at the beginning of
the Sabbath, i. e. on Friday evening (Vitringa, p.
198).'' A Uttle further toward the middle of the
building was a raised platform, on which several
persons could stand at once, and in the middle of
this rose a pulpit, in which the Reader stood to
read the lesson, or sat down to teach. The con
gregation were divided, men on one side, women on
the other, a low partition, five or six feet high,
running between them (Philo, De Vit. Contempl.
ii. 476). The arrangements of modern synagogues,
for many centuries, have made the separation more
complete, by placing the women in low side-galleries,
screened off by lattice-work (Leo of Modena, in
Picart, Cerem. Relig. i.). Within the Ark, as
above stated, were the rolls of the sacred books.
The rollers round whii.h they were wound were
often elaborately decorated, the cases for them em
broidered or enameled, according to their material.
Such cases were customary offerings from the rich
when they brought their infant children on the
first anniversary of their birthday, to be blessed
by the Kabbi of the synagogue.*^ As part of the
fittings we have also to note (1), another chest for
the Haphtaroih, or rolls of the prophets. (2.)
Alms-boxes at or near the door, after the pattern
of those at the Temple, one for the poor of Jerusa
lem, the other for local charities.'^' (3.) Notice-
boards, on which were written the names of offend
ers who had been " put out of the Synagogue."
(4.) A chest for trumpets and other musical instru
ments, used at the New Years, Sabbaths, and other
festivals (Vitringa, Leyrer, l. c.).«
IV. Officers. — (1.) In smaller towns there waa
& Here also the customs of the Eastera Church,
the votive silver lamps hanging before the shrines
and holy places, bring the old practice vividly befort
our eyes.
c The custom, it may be noticed, connects itself
with the memorable history of those who " brought
young children " to Jesus that He should touch them
(Mark x. 13).
d If this practice existed, as is probable, in the first
century, it throws light upon the special stress laij
by Sfc. Paul on the collection for the " poor saints "
in Jerusalem (1 Cor. xvi. &c.). The Christian
Churches were not to be behind the Jewish Syna
gogues in their contributions to the Palestine Belief
Fund. e * For remains of ancient synagogues in Galilee^
see Notes on Jewish Synagogues, by Capt. C. W. Wj^
son {Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Explatatton
Fund, No. ii. 1869). H.

3136 SYNAGOGUE
often but one Rabbi (Vitringa, p. 549). Where a
fuller organization was possible, there was a college
of Elders (D^'ppt =:irpea-^vrepoi, Luke vii. 3) pre
sided over by one who was /car' i^ox'^^i ^ ^PX*-'
avvdyecyos (Luke viii. 41, 49, xiii. 14; Acts xviii.
8, 17). To these elders belonged a variety of syn
onyms, each with a special significance. They
were D^'D^HD (Parnasim = 7roz/i6V6y, Eph. iv.
11), watching over their flock, irpo^fTr ares, r]yov-
fj.€voi, as ruling over it (1 Tim. v. 17; Heb- xiii.
7). With their head, they formed a kind of Chap
ter, managed the affairs of the synagogue, possessed
the power of excommunicating (Vitringa, pp. 549-
621, 727).
(2.) The most prominent functionary in a large
synagogue was known as the PT'^ti? {Sheliach^
legatus), the oflQciating minister who acted as the
delegate of the congregation, and was therefore the
chief reader of prayers, etc., in their name. The
conditions laid down for this office remind us of St.
Paul's rule for the choice of a bishop. He was to
be active, of full age, the father of a family, not rich
or engaged in business, possessing a good voice, apt
to teach (comp. 1 Tim. iii. 1-7; Tit. i. 6-9). In
him we find, as the name might lead us to expect,
the prototype of the &yyeXos 4KKK7}o-las of Rev. i.
20, ii. 1, &c. (Vitringa, p. 934).
(3.) The Chazzdn (^-fH)? or uirTjper-fis of the
synagogue (Luke iv. 20) had duties of a lower kind
resembUng those of tbe Christian deacon, or sub-
deacon. He was to open the doors, to get tbe
building ready for service. For him too there were
conditions like those for the legatus. Like the le
gatus and the elders, he was appointed by the im
position of hands (Vitringa, p. 836). Practically
he often acted during the week as school-master of
the town or village, and in this way came to gain
a prominence which placed him nearly on the same
level as the legatus.^
(4.) Besides these there were ten men attached
to every synagogue, whose functions have been the
subject-matter of voluminous controversy.* They
were knovm as the Batlanim (n*'3 vlSn =Otiosi),
. and no synagogue was complete without them.
They were to be men of leisure, not obliged to la
bor for their livelihood, able therefore to attend the
week-day as well as the Sabbath services. By some
(Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. in Matt. iv. 23, and, in part,
Vitringa, p. 532) they have been identified with
the above oflBciais, with tbe addition of the alras-
collectors.c Rhenferd, however (Ugolini, Thts. vol.

a * With the account here given of the functions of
the Shellach or legatus, and of the Chnzz&n, should
be compared the more detailed statements of Dr. Gins
burg in his valuable and elaborate art. Synagogue, in
the 3d ed. of Kitto's OycL of Bibl. Lit. lie makes the
ofiice of the Chazzan in the time of Christ, and for sev
eral centuries later, more like that of the sexton or
beadle in our churches, than that of deacon, and de
nies that either he or the legatus was appointed by
the imposition of hands. The function of the legatus,
he says, " was not permanently vested in any individ
ual ordained for this purpose, but was alternately con
ferred upon any lay member who was supposed to
poflsesB the qualifications necessary for offeriog up
prayer in the name of the congregation." A.
b The two treatises De decern Otio.'iis, by Rhenferd
aodVitriuga in Ugolioi's jyiesaurtts, vol. xxi., occupy
more than 700 foho pages. The preseut writer has

SYNAGOGUE
xxi.), sees in them simply a body of men, perma^
nently on duty, making up a congregation (ten
being tbe mininmm number ^), so that there migh*
be no delay in beginning the service at the proper
hours, and that no single worshipper might go
away disappointed. The latter hypothesis is sup
ported by the fact that there was -a. like body of
men, tbe Stationarii or Viri Stationis of Jewish
Archaeologists, appointed to act as permanent rep
resentatives of the congregation in the services of
the Temple (Jost, Gesch. Judenth. i. 168-172). It
is of course possible that in many cases the same
persons may have united both characters, and been,
e. g., at once Otiosi and alms-collectors.
(5.) It will be seen at once how closely the or
ganization of the synagogue was reproduced in that
of the Ecclesia. Here also there was the single
presbyter-bishop [Bishop] in small towns, a council
of presbyters under one head in large cities. The
legatus of the synagogue appears in the St-yyeKos
(Rev. i. 20, ii. 1), perhaps also in the aTr6(rro\os
of the Christian Church. To the elders as such
is given the name of Shepherds (Eph. iv. 11; 1
Pet. V. 1). They are known also as Tjyovfxevoi
(Heb. xiii. 7). Even the transfer to the Christian
proselyte=i of the once distinctively sacerdotal name
of Upsvs, foreign as it was to the feelings of the
Christians of the Apostolic Age, was not without
its parallel in the history of the synagogue. Sceva,
the exorcist Jew of Ephesus, was probably a " chief
priest " in this sense (Acts xix. 14). In the edicts
of the later Roman emperors, the terms apxiepeh
and Upe^s are repeatedly applied to the rulers of
synagogues (Cod. Theodos. De .lud., quoted by
Yiiringa, De decern Otiosis,in Ugolini, Thes.xxi.).
Possibly, however, this may have been, in part,
owing to the presence of the scattered priests, after
the destruction Of the Temple, as the Rabbis ot
elders of what was now left to them as their only
sanctuary. To them, at any rate, a certain prece
dence was given in the synagogue services. They
were invited first to read the lessons for the day.
The benediction of Num. vi. 22 was reserved for
them alone.
V. V^^orship. — (1.) The ritual of the syna
gogue was to a large extent the reproduction (here
also, as with the fabric, with many inevitable
changes) of the statelier liturgy of tbe Temple.
This is not the place for an examination of the
principles and structure of that liturgy, or of the
baser elements, wild Talmudic legends, curses
against Christians under the name of Epicureans, «
and other extravagances which have mingled with
it (McCaul, Old Paths, ch. xvii., xix.). It will be

not read them through. Is there any one living who
has? c Lightfoot's classification is as follows. The Ten
consisted of three Judges, the Legatus, whom this
writer identifies with the Chazzan, three Parnasim,
whom he identifies with alms-collectors and compares
to the deacons of the church, the Targumist or inter
preter, the school-master and his assistant. The whole
is, however, very conjectural.
d This was based on a fantastic inference firom Num
xiv. 27. The ten unfaithful spies were spoken of aa
an " evil congregation." Sanhedr. iv. 6, in Lightfoot,
I. c. e * Dr. Ginsburg, art. Synagogue in the 8d ed. ol
Kitto's Cyclop, of BibL Lit., iii. 907, note, denies that
the Jewish prayers contain " curses against ChriatianB
under the name of Epicureans." His account of- the
Jewish hturgy is very full and interesting. A.

SYNAGOGUE
Boough, in this place, to notice in what way the
ritual, no less than the organization, was connected
with the facts of the N. T. history, and with the
life and order of the Christian Church. Here too
we meet with multiplied coincidences. It would
hardly be an exaggeration to say that the worship
of the Church was identical with that of the Syna
gogue, modified (1) by the new truths, (2) by the
new institution of the Supper of the Lord, (3) by
the spiritual Charismata.
(2.) From the synagogue came the use of fixed
forras of prayer. To that the first disciples had
been accustomed from their youth. They had asked
tbeir Master to give them a distinctive one, and He
had complied with their request (Luke xi. 1), as
the Baptist had done before for his disciples, as
every Rabbi did for his. The forms miglit be and
were abused. The Pharisee might in synagogues,
or, when the synagogues were closed, in the open
street, recite aloud the devotions appointed for
hours of prayer, raight gabble through the Shema
(" Hear 0 Israel," etc , from Deut. vi. 4), his Kad-
dish, his Shemdneh Esrch, the eighteen Berachoth
or blessings, with the " vain repetition " which has
reappeared in Christian worship. But for the dis
ciples this was, as yet, the true pattern of devo
tion, and their Master sanctioned it. To their
rainds there would seem nothing inconsistent with
true heart worship in the recurrence of a fixed order
{Kara, rd^iv, 1 Cor. xiv. 40), of the same prayers,
hymns, doxologies, such as all liturgical study leads
us to thhdt of as existing in the Apostolic Age. If
tlie gifts of utterance which characterized the first
period of that age led for a time to greater iireedom,
to unpremeditated prayer, if tbat was in its turn
succeeded by the renewed predominance of a formal
fixed order, the alternation and the struggle which
have reappeared in so many periods of the history
of the Church were not without their parallel in
that of Judaism. There also, was a protest against
the rigidity of an unbending form. Eliezer of
Lydda, a contemporary of the second GamaUel
(circ. A. D. 80-115), taught that the legatus of the
synagogue should discard even the Shemdneh Es-
reh, the eighteen fixed prayers and benedictions of
tbe daily and Sabbath services, and should pray as
his heart prompted him. The offense against the
formalism into which Judaism stiffened, was appar
ently too great to be forgiven. He was excommu
nicated (not, indeed, avowedly on this ground), and
died at Caesarea (Jost, Gesch. Judenth. n. 36, 45).
(3.) The large admixture ofa didactic element
m Christian woi-ship, that by which it was distin
guished from all Gentile forms of adoration, was
derived from the older order. " Moses " was " read
in the synagogues every Sabbath-day " (Acts xv.
21), the whole Law being read consecutively, so as
to be completed, according to one cycle, in three
years, according to that which ultimately prevailed
and determined the existing divisions of the He
brew text (Bible, and Leyrer, L c), in the 52
yeeks of a single year. The writings of the Proph
ets were read as second lessons in a corresponding
order. They were followed by the Derash, the
\6yos 7rapaK\'ha-ecos (Acts xiii. 15), the exposition,
the sermon of the synagogue. The first Christian
fnagogues, we must believe, followed this order
with but little deviation. It remained for them
before long to add "the other Scriptures" which
ihey had learned to recognize as more precious even
lhan the Law itself, the " prophetic word " of the
N'ew Testament which not less truly than that of

SYNAGOGUE

3137

the Old, came, in epistle or in narrative, from the
same Spirit [Sckiptuke]. The synagogue use ol
Psalms again, on the plan of selecting those which
had a special fitness for special times, answered to
that which appears to have prevailed in the Church
of the first three centuries, and for which the sim
ple consecutive repetition of the whole Psalter, in a
day as in some Eastern monasteries, in a week as
in the Latin Church, in a month as in the English
Prayer-book, is, perhaps, » less satisfactory substi
tute. (4.) To the ritual of the synagogue we may
probably trace a practice which has sometimes been
a stumbling-block to the student of Christian an
tiquity, the subject-matter of fierce debate among
Christian controversialists. Whatever account may
be given of it, it is certain that Prayers for the
Dead appear in the Church's worship as soon as we
have any trace of it after the immediate records of
tbe Apostohc age. It has well been described by a
writer, whom no one can suspect of Romish ten
dencies, as an " immemorial practice." Though
" Scripture ia silent, yet antiquity plainly speaks."
The prayers " have found a place in every early
liturgy of the world " (Ellicott, Destiny of ihe
Creature, Serm. vi.). How, indeed, we may ask,
could it have been otherwise? The strong feeUng
shown in the time of the Maccabees, that it was
not "superfluous and vain" to pray for the dead
(2 Mace. xii. 44), was sure, under the influence of
the dominant Pharisaic Scribes, to show itself in
the devotions of the synagogue. So far as we trate
back these devotions, we may say that there also
tbe practice is " immemorial," as old at least i\i>
tbe traditions of the Rabbinic fathers (Buxtorf, De
Synag. pp. 709, 710 ; McCaul, Old Paths, ch.
xxxviii.). There is a probability indefinitely great
that prayers for the departed (the Kaddish of later
.Judaism) were familiar to the synagogues of Pales
tine and other countries, that the early Christian
beUevers were not startled by them as an innova
tion, that they passed uncondemned even by our
Lord himself. The writer already quoted sees a
probable reference to them in 2 Tim. i. 18 (ElU-
cott. Past Epistles, in loc). St. Paul remember
ing Onesiphorus as one whose " house" had been
bereaved of him, prays that he may find mercy of
the Lord " in that day." Prayers for the dead
can hardly, therefore, be looked upon as anti-Scrip
tural. If the Enghsh Church has wisely and
rightly eliminated thera from her services, it is not
because Scripture says nothing of them, or that
their antiquity is not primitive, but because, in
such a matter, experience is a truer guide than the
silence or the hints of Scripture, or than the voice
of the most primitive antiquity.
(5.) The conformity extends also to the times
of prayer. In the hours of service this was obvi
ously the case. The third, sixth, and ninth hours
were, in the times of the N. T. (Acts iii. 1, x. 3,
9), and had been, probably, for some time before
(Ps. lv. 17; Dan. vi. 10), the fixed times of devo
tion, known then, and stiU known, respectively as
the Shachdriih, the Mincha, and the 'Ardbith;
they had not only the prestige of an authoritative
tradition, but were connected resi>ectively with the
names of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to whom, as
to the first originators, tbeir institution was ascribe 1
(Buxtorf, Synag. p. 280). The same hours, it ia
well known, were recognized in the Church of the
second, probably in that of the first century also
(Clem. Al. Strom. 1. o.; TertuU. De Orat c. xxv.).

8138

SYNAGOGUE

1'he sacred days belonging to the two systems
seem, at first, to present a contrast rather than a
resemblance; but here, too, there is a symmetry
^hich points to an original connection. The sol
emn days of the synagogue were the second, the
fifth, and the seventh, the last or Sabbath being
the conclusion of the whole. In whatever way the
change was brought about, the transfer of the
sanctity of the Sabbath to the Lord's Day involved
ft corresponding change in the order of the week,
and the first, the fourth, and the sixth became to
the Christian society what the other days had been
to the Jewish.
(6.) The following suggestion as to the mode in
which this transfer was effected, involves, it is be
lieved, fewer arbitrary assumptions than any other
[comp. Lord's Day, Sabbath], and connects it
self with another interesting custom, common to
the Church and the Synagogue. It was a Jewish
custom to end the Sabbath with a feast, in which
they did honor to it as to a parting king. The
feast was held in the synagogue. A cup of wine,
over which a special blessing had been spoken, was
handed round (Jost, Gesch. Judenth. i. 180). It
is obvious that, so long as the Apostles and their
followers continued to use the Jewish mode of
reckoning, so long, /. e. as they fraternized with
their brethren of the stock of Abraham, this would
coincide in point of time with their Selirvov on the
first day of the week. A supper on what we
should call Sunday evening would have been to
them on the secmul. By degrees, as has been
shown elsewhere [Lord's Suppkr], the time be
came later, passed on to midnight, to the early
dawn of the next day. So the Lord's Supper
ceased to be a supper really. So, as the Church
rose out of Judaism, the supper gave its hoUnesa
to the coming, instead of deriving it from the de
parting day. The day came to be KvpiaK-h, because
it began with the Setrrvov xupiaKdv." Gradually
the Sabbath ceased as such to be observed at all.
The practice of observing both, as in the Church
of Rome up to the fifth century, gives us a trace
of the transition period.
(7.) From the synagogue lastly came many less
conspicuous practices, which meet us in the litur
gical life of the first three centuries. Ablution,
entire or partial, before entering the place of meet
ing (Heb. X. 22; John xiii. 1-15; TertuU. De Oral.
cap. xi. ) ; standing and not kneeling, as the attitude
of prayer (Luke xviii. 11; Tertull. ibid. cap. xxiii.);
the arms stretched out (Tertull. ibid. cap. xiii.);
the face turned toward the Kibleh of the East
(Clem. Al. Sir'om. I. c); the responsive Amen of
the congregation to the prayers and benedictions
of the elders (1 Cor. xiv. 16).' In one strange ex
ceptional custom of the Church of Alexandria we
trace the wilder type of Jewish, of oriental devotion.
There, in the closing responsive chorus of the prayer,

a It has always to be borne in mind that the word
was obviously coined for the purposes of Christian life,
and is applied in tbe first Instance to the supper (lOor.
xi. 20), afterwards to the day (Rev. i. 10).
ty One point of coutrai^t is as striking as these pointa
jf resemblance. Tbe Jew prayed with his head cov-
jrod, with the TaUith drawn over his ears and i-each-
n% to the shoulders. The Greek, however, habitually
A u-orship as in other acts, wett bare-beaded ; and
the Apostle of the Gentile churches, renouncing all
tMVj prtgudices, recognizes tbis as more fitting, more

SYNAGOGUE
the worshippers not' only stretched out their necki
and lifted up their hands, but leapt up with wild
gestures (rods re irdSas iireyetpo/j.ei'), as if they
would fain rise with their prayers to heaven itself
(Clem. Al. Strom, vii. 40)." This, too, reproduced
a custom of the synagogue. Three tinies did the
whole body of worshippers leap np simultaneously
as they repeated the great Ter-sanctus hymn ot
Isaiah vi. ("Vitringa, p. 1100 fl'. ; Buxtorf, cap. x.).
VI. Judicial Functions. — (1.) The language of
the N. T. shows that the oflScers of the synagogue
exercised in certain cases a judicial power. The
synagogue itself was the place of trial (Luke xii.
11, xxi. 12); even, strange aa it may seem, of the
actual punishment of scourging (Matt. x. 17 ; Mark
xiii. 9). They do not appear to have had the right
of inflicting any severer penalty, unless, under this
head, we may include that of excommunication, or
" putting a man out of the synagogue " (John xii.
42, xvi. 2), placing him under an anathema (1 Cor.
xvi. 22; Gal. i. 8, 9), "delivering him to Satan"
l\ Cor. V. 5; 1 Tim. i. 20). (Meyer and Stanley,
in he.) In some cases they exercised the. right,
even outside the limits of Palestine, of seizing the
persons of the accused, and sending them in chains
to take their trial before the Supreme Council at
Jerusalem (Acts ix. 2, xxii. 5).
(2.) It is not quite so easy, however, to define
the nature of the tribunal, and the precise limits of
its jurisdiction. In two of the passages referred to
(Matt. x. 17; Mark xiii, 9) they are carefully dis
tinguished from the ouveSpta, or councils, yet both
appear as instruments by which the spirit of re
ligious persecution might fasten on its victims.
The explanation commonly given that the council
sat in the synagogue, and was thus identified witb
it, is hardly satisfactory (Leyrer, in Herzog's ReaL
Encyk. " Synedrien "). It seems more probable
that the council was the larger tribunal of 23, which
sat in every city [Council], identical with that
of the seven, with two Levites as assessors to each,
which Josephus describes as acting in the smaller
provincial towns (Ant. iv. 8, § 14; B. J. ii. 20,
§ 5),^' and that under the terra synagogue we are
to understand a smaller court, probably that of the
Ten judges mentioned in the Talmud (Gem. Hieros.
Sanhedr. 1. c. ), consisting either of the elders, the
chazzan, aud the legatus, or otherwise (as Herzfeld
conjectures, i. 392) of the ten Batlanim, or Otka
(see above, IV. 4).
(3.) Here also we trace the outline of a Christian
institution. The 4KKKr)aia, either by itself or by
appointed delegates, was to act as a Court of Arbi
tration in all disputes among its members. The
elders of the Church were not, however, to descend
to the trivial disputes of daily life (ri PuoTixd).
For these any men of common sense and fairness,
however destitute of official honor and position (oi
i^ovSevrifievoi) would be enough (1 Cor. vi. 1-8).

natural, more in harmony with the right relation of
the sexes (1 Cor. xl. 4).
c The same curious practice existed in the 17tb
century, and is perhaps not yet extinct in the Church
of Abyssinia, in tbis, as in other things, preserving
more than any other Christian society, the type of
Judaism (Ludolf, Hist. JEthiop. iii. 6 ; Stanley, Eastern
Church, p. 12).
rf The identification of these two is due to an in-
geniouB conjecture by Grotius (on Matt. v. 21). TbJ
addition of two scribes or secretaries makes the nun*
ber in both cases equal.

SYNAGOGUE
For the elders, as for those of the synagogue, were
reserrjd the graver offenses against religion and
morsis. In such cases they had power to excom
municate, to " put out of" the Ecclesia, which had
taken the place of the synagogue, sometimes by
their own authority, sometimes with the consent
of the whole society (1 Cor. v. 4). It is worth men
tioning that Hammond and other commentators
have seen a reference to these judicial functions in
James ii. 2-4. The special sin of those who fawned
upon the rich was, on tbis view, that they were
^^ judges oi evil thoughts,'' carrying respect of per
sons into their administration of justice. The in
terpretation, however, though ingenious, is hardly
sufficiently supported. E. H. P.
» Synagogues as related to the Spread of Chris
tianity. — That the first preachers of the gospel
made much use of the synagogues in spreading the
new faith is evident from many passages in the
book of Acts. Thus Paul in Damascus (ix. 20), im
mediately after his conversion, " preached Christ in
the synagogues, that he is the Son of God." So
Paul and Barnabas at Salamis in Cyprus (xiii. 6)
" preached tbe word of God in the synagogues of
the Jews; " and so again at Antioch in Pisidia (xiii.
14-16); and yet again at Iconium (xiv. 1). When
Paul and Silas had come to Amphipolis (xvii. 1, 2),
"where was a synagogue of the Jews," it is stated
that " Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them,
and three sabbath-days reasoned with them out of
the Scriptures." Coraing thence to Berea (xvii. 10),
they "went into the synagogue of the Jews." At
Athens (xvii. 16, 17), while Paul was waiting for
his companions, " he disputed in the synagogue with
the Jews, and with the devout" [Greeks]. At
Corinth (xviii. 4), "he reasoned in the synagogue
every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the
Greeks." At Ephesus (xviii. 19) "he hiraself
entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the
Jews." In like manner, Apollos at Ephesus (xviii.
26) "began to speak boldly in the synagogue; " and
when, in Achaia (xviii. 28), " he mightily convinced
the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the Scrip
tures that Jesus was Christ," it was, doubtless, in
the synagogues that he did so. 'That this use
of the place was sometimes long continued is seen
in the statement of xix. 8, that in Ephesus Paul
" went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the
space of three months, disputing and persuading
the things concerning the kingdom of God."
These passages are raore than sufficient to show
that iu the early diffusion of Christianity the syna
gogues bore a very important part. To its first
preachers they afforded a pulpit and an audience, —
a place where they could set forth their new doctrine,
and an assembly prepared to hear it. In the free
and pliable order of the synagogue-service, an oppor
tunity of Scripture-reading, exposition, or exhorta
tion seems to have been offered to any who wished
it. Of such opportunities our Lord had made
habitual use (Matt. iv. 23, xiii. 54; Mark i. 21;
John vi. 59 ; "I e.ver taught in the synagogues,"
John xviii. 20). In Luke iv. 16, it is said of
Jesus at Nazareth, that, "as his custom was, he^
went into the synagogue on the sabbath-day, and
stood up io read," and after the reading began an
address to the people. When Paul and Barnabas
were at Antioch in Pisidia (Acts xiii. 15), it is
Jtated that, "after the reading of the law and the
Drophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent unto
Jiem, saying. Ye men and brethren, if ye have any
word of exhoi tation for the people, say on." The

SYNAGOGUE, THE GREAT 3139
opposition of the Jews to Christianity was not for
some tirae so developed that its apostles were ex
cluded from this privilege of the synagogue. Ii>
every Jewish community (and one was found in
almost every city of the civiUzed world) there were
persons ready to hear and receive a faith which
offered itself as the necessary complement of the
Jewish rehgion and scriptures. But the synar
gogues brought together many Gentiles, who had
either becorae members of the Jewish body by cir
cumcision, or had adopted the belief and worship
of the Jews without submitting to the ritual law
[Pkoselytes]. The latter class were, doubtless,
more open than the Jews themselves to the truths
and principles of Christianity.
It was under the influences of the synag(^ue that
the Greek language assumed the peculiar character
which fitted it to be the vehicle for Christian teach
ing. That process of translating Jewish ideas into
Greek words, which we see fii-st in the Septuagint.
must have gone on wherever Jewish worship was
conducted in the Greek language; that is, in most
synagogues out of Palestine, and, to some extent
certainly, in those of Palestine itself. [Language
or THE New Testament.] Hence arose the
idiom of the New Testament writers, colored by
Semitic forms of speech, and thoroughly impreg
nated with the religious conceptions coramon to
both the Old and New Testaraents. The posses
sion of such an idiom, fully developed and widely
understood, was an iraportant advantage to the first
preachers of Christianity. Many new words must
he formed, many old words taken in new connec
tions and senses, before the language of Xenophon
could express the doctrine of Christ. But changes
like these require tirae for their accoraplishmeut :
if it had been left for the apostles to make and in
troduce them, the spread of the new religion must
have been seriously retarded.
It is not easy to overestimate the value of these
preparations and opportunities for the preaching of
the gospel. Unquestionably, tbey had much to do
with its immediate and rapid progress. The New
Testament accounts of this progress will not seem
incredible to any one who duly appreciates these
favoring influences. Among the causes which by
divine arrangement paved the way for the spread
of Christianity, we may claim as high a place for
the general planting of the Jewish synagogues, as
for the universal diffusion of the Greek language,
or the unifying conquests of the Roman Empire. J. H.
SYNAGOGUE, THE GREAT (n5.3?
nyTlSn), The institution thus described, though
not Biblical in the sense of occurring as a word in
the Canonical Scriptures, is yet too closely con
nected with a large number of Biblical .facts and
names to be passed over. In the absence of direct
historical data, it wUl be best to put together the
traditions or conjectures of Rabbinic writers.
(1.) On the return of the Jews from Babylon, a
great council was appointed, according to these
traditions, to reorganize the religious life of tbe
people. It consisted of 120 members (Megilloth,
17 b, 18 c), and these were known as the men of
the Great Synagogue, the successora of the prophets,
themselves, in their turn, succeeded by scribes
prominent, individually, as teachers (Pirke Abnih.
i. 1). Ezra was recognized as president. Among
the other members, in part together, in part suc
cessively, were Joshua, the high-priest, Zerubbaliel,

S140 SYNTYCHE
wad their companions, Daniel and the three *' chil
dren." the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi,
the rulers Nehemiah and Mordecai. Their aim was
fco restore again the crown or glory of Israel, i. e.
fco reinstate in its majesty the name of God as
Great, Mighty, Terrible (Deut. vii. 21, x. 17; Neh.
i. 6, ix. 32; Jer. xxxii. 18; Dan. ix. 4). To this
end they collected all the sacred writings of former
ages and their own, and so completed the canon of
the O. T. Their work included the revision of the
text, and this was settled by the introduction of
the vowel points, which have heen handed down to
us by the Masoretic editors. They instituted the
feast of Purim. They organized the ritual of the
synagogue, and gave their sanction to the Shemoneh
Esreh, the eighteen solemn benedictions in it
(Kwald, Gesch. iv. 193). Their decrees were quoted
afterwards as those of the elders (the irpeafivrepoi
of Mark vii. 3, the apxaToi of Matt. v. 21, 27, 33),
the Dihre Sophenm (=r: words of the scribes), which
were of more authority than the Law itself. They
left l>ehir)d them the characteristic saying, handed
down by Simon the high-priest, the last member
of tbe order, " Be cautious in judging; train up
many scholars ; set a hedge about the Law '' {Pirke
Aboth, i. 1). [Scribes.]
(2.) Much of this is evidently uncertain. The
absence of any historical mention of such a body,
not only in the 0. T. and the Apocrypha, but in
Josephus, Philo, and the Seder Olam, so that the
earliest record of it is found in the Pirke Abath.,
circ. the second century after Christ, had led some
critics (e. g. De Wette, J. D. Michaelis) to reject
the whole statement as a Rabbinic invention, rest
ing on no other foundation than the existence, after
the exile, of a Sanhedrim of 71 or 72 members,
charged with supreme executive functions. Ewald
{Gesch. Isr. iv. 192) is disposed to adopt this view,
and looks on the number 120 as a later element, in
troduced for its symbolic significance. Jost {Gesch.
des Jiul. i. 41) maintains that the Greek origin of
the word Sanhedrim points to its later date, and
that its functions were prominently judicial, while
those of the so-called Greafc Synagogue were prom
inently legislative. He recognizes, on the other
hand, the probability thafc 120 was used as a round
number, never actually made up, and thinks that
the germ of fche institution is to be found in tbe
85 names of those who are recorded as having
joined in the solemn league and covenant of Neh.
X. 1-27. Tbe narrative of Neh. viii. 13 clearly
hnplies the existence of a body of men acting as
counsellors under the presidency of Ezra, and these
may have been (as Jost, following the idea of an
other Jewish critic, suggests) an assembly of dele
gates from all provincial synagogues — a synod (to
nse the terminology df a later time) of the National
Church. The Pirke Aboth, it should be men
tioned, speaks of the Great Synagogue as ceasing
to exist before the historical origin of the San
hedrim (x. 1), and it is more probable that the lat
ter rose out of an attempt to reproduce the former
than that the fornier was only the mythical trans
fer of fche latter to an earlier time. (Comp. Leyrer,
B, V. Synagoge, die grosse, in Herzog's Encyklop.)
E. H. P.
SYN'TYCHE {twrvx-n \pccldent, evenf]:
Syniyche), a female member of tbe Church of
phiiippi, mentioned (Phil. iv. 2, 3) along with an
other named Euodias (or rather Euodia). To
what has been said under the latter head tbe fol
lowing may he added. The Apostle^s injunction

SYRACUSE
to these two women is, fchat they should live in
harmony with one another: from which we infei
that they had, more or less, failed in this respect.
Such harmony was doubly important, if they held
an office, as deaconnesses, in the church : and it is
highly probable that this was the case. They had
afforded to St. Paul active cooperation under dif
ficult circumstances {iv r£ evayyeKlcp (rvvi\6KT]tTav
fioi, ver. 2), and perhaps there were at Phiiippi
other women of the same class {arrives, ibid.). At
all events this passage is an illustration of what the
Gospel did for women, and women for the Gospel,
in the Apostohc fcimes: and it'is the more interests
ing, as having reference to that church which was
the first founded by St. Paul in Europe, and the
first member of which was Lydia. Some thoughts
on this subject will be found in RilHet, Comm. sur
Vl^pUre aux Philipp. pp. 311-314. J. S. H.
SYR'ACUSE (SupoHToStrai : Syi'acusa). The
celebrafced city on the eastern coast of Sicily. St
Paul arrived thither in an Alexandrian ship from
Melita, on his voyage to Rome (Acts xxviii. 12),
The magnificence which Cicero describes as still re
maining in his time, was then no doubt greatly im
paired. The whole of the resources of Sicily had
been exhausted in the civil wars of Caesar and
Pompey, and the piratical warfere which Sextua
Pompeius, tbe youngest son of the latter, subse-
quently carried on against the triumvir Octavius.
Augustus restored Syracuse, as also Catana and
Centoripa, which last had contributed much to the
successful issue of his struggle with Sextus Pompeius.
Yet the island Ortygia, and a very small portion of
the mainland adjoining, sufficed for the new colo
nists and the remnant of the former population.
But the site of Syracuse rendered it a convenient
place for the African corn-ships to touch at, for the
harbor was an excellent one, and the fountain Are-
thusa in the island furnished an unfailing supply of
excellent water. The prevalent wind in this part of
the Mediterranean is the W. N. W. This would
carry the vessels from the corn region lying east
ward of Cape Bon, round the southern point of
Sicily, Cape Pachynus, to the eastern shore of tho
island. Creeping up under the shelter of this, they
would he either in the harbor of Messana, or at
Rhegium, until the wind changed to a southern
point and enabled them to fetch the Campanian
harbors, PuteoU or Gaeta, or to proceed as far as
Ostia. In crossing from Africa to Sicily, if the
wind was excessive, or varied two or three points
to the northward, they would naturally bear up for
Malta, — and this had probably been the case with
the " Twins," the ship in which St. Paul found a
passage after his sliipwreck on the coast of thafc isl
and. Arrived in Malta., they watched for the op
portunity of a wind to take them westward, and
with such a one they readily made Syracuse. To
proceed further while it continued blowing would
have exposed them to the' dangers of a lee-shore, and
accordingly they remained '' three days." They
then, fche wind having probably shifted into a west
erly quarter so as to give them smooth water,
coasted the shore and made {wepisXdSvre^ Kartiv-
ri\<Tapev els) Rhegium. After one day there, the
wind got round still more and blew from the south;
they therefore weighed, and arrived at Puteoli in the
course of the second day of the run (Acts xxviii.
12-14). In the time of St. Paul's voyage, Sicily did not
supply the Romans with com to the extent it had
done in the time of King Hiero, and in a less degree

SYRIA
u late as the tirae of Cicero. It is an error, how-
aver, to suppose that the soil was exhausted; for
Strabo expressly says, that for corn, and sorae other
productions, Sicily even surpassed Italy. But the
country had becorae depopulated by the long series
of wars, and when it passed into the hands of Rome,
her great nobles turned vast tracts into pasture.
In the time of Augustus, the whole of the centre
of the island was occupied in this manner, and
among its 'exports (except from the neighborhood
of the volcanic region, where excellent wine was
produced), fat stock, hides, and wool appear to have
been the prominent articles. These grazing and
horse-breeding farras were kept up by slave labor;
and this was the reason that the whole island was
in a chronic state of disturbance, owing to the
slaves continually running away and forming bands
.of brigands. Sometimes these becarae so formi
dable as to require the aid of regular military opera
tions to put them down ; -a circumstance of which
Tiberius Gracchus made use as an argument in
favor of his measure of an Agrarian law (Appian,
B. C. i. 9), which would have reconverted the spa
cious grass-lands into small arable farms cultivated
by Koman freemen.
In the time of St. Paul there were only five Ro
man colonies in Sicily, of which Syracuse was one.
Tiie others were Catana, Tauromenium Thermie,
and Tyndaris. Messana too, although not a colony,
was a town filled with a Roman population. Prob
ably its inhabitants were raerchants connected with
the wine trade of the neighborhood, of which Mes
sana was the shipping-port. Syracuse and Panor-
mus were important as strategical points, and a
Koman force was kept up .at each. Sicels, Sicani,
Morgetes, and Iberes (aboriginal inhabitants of the
island, or very early- settlers), still existed iu the
interior, in what exact political condition it is. im-
* possible to say ; but most hkely in that of villeins.
Some few towns are mentioned by Pliny as having
the Latin franchise, and some as paying a fixed
tribute; but with the exception ofthe five colonies,
the owners of the soil of the island were mainly
great absentee proprietors, and almost all its prod
uce came to Kome (Strabo, vi. c. 2 ; Appian, B. C.
iv. Si S., v. 15-118; Cicero, Verr. iv. 53; Plin.
H. N. ii. 8). J. W. B.
SYR'IA (D^S: Svpla: Sp'ia) is the terra
used throughout our version for the Hebrew Ai-am,
as well as for the Greek Sopla- The Greek writers
generally regarded it as a contraction or corruption
of Assyria (llerod. vii. 63; Scylax, Peripl. p. 80;
Uionys. Perieg. 970-975; Eustath. Comment, ad
loc, etc.). But this derivation is exceedingly doubt
ful. Most probably Syria is for Tsy7-ia, tlie coun
try about Tsur ('^'2), or Tyre, which was the first
of the Syrian towns known to the Greeks. The
resemblance to Assyria ("nWM) is thus purely ac
cidental ; aud the two words raust be regarded as
in reality completely distinct.
1. Geographical Extent. — It is very difflcult to
fix the limits of Syria. The Hebrew Aram seems
to commence on the northern frontier of Palestine,
and to extend thence northward to the skirts of
Taurus, westward to the Mediterranean, and east
ward probably to the IChabour River. Its chief
iivisions are Aram-Dammesek, or " Syria of Da
mascus," Aram-Zobah, or " Syria of Zobah," Aram-
Naharaim, " Mesopotamia," or " Syria of the Two
iiveri " and Padan-Aram, " the plain Syria," or

SYRIA

3141

" the plain at the foot of the mountains.' Of these
we cannot be mistaken in identifying the iirst with
the rich country about Damascus, lying between
Anti-Libanus and the desert, and the last with the
district about Harrau and Orfah, the flat country
stretching out from the western extremity of Mons
Masius toward the true source of the Khabour at
lias el-Ain. Aram-Naharaiin seems to be a term
including this last tract, and extending beyond it,
though how far beyond is doubtful. The " two
rivers " intended are probably the Tigris and the
Euphrates, which approach very near each other in
the neighborhood of Uiarbekr; and Aram-Naha-
raim may have originally been applied especially to
the mountain tract which here separates thera. If
so, it no doubt gradually extended its raeaning ; fot
in Gen. xxiv. 10 it clearly includes the district
about Harrau, the Padan-Aram of other places.
Whether the Scriptural meaning ever extends much
beyond this is uncertain. It is perhaps most prob
able that, as the Mesopotamia of the later Greeks,
so the Aram-Naharaiin of the Hebrews was limited
to tbe northwestern portion of the country con
tained between the two great streams. [See Mkso-
roTAfiiiA.] Arara-Zobah seems to be the tract
between the Euphrates and Ccele-Syria; since, on
tbe one hand, it reaches down to the Great River
(2 Sam. viii. 3, x. 16), and on the other excludes
Hamath (2 Sara. viii. 9, 10). The other divisions
of Aram, such as Aram-Maachah and Aram-beth-
Rechob, are more difficult to locate with any cer
tainty. Probably they were portions of the tract
intervening between Anti-Libanus and the desert.
The Greek writers used the term Syria still more
vaguely than the Hebrews did Aram. On the one
hand they extended it to tbe Euxine, including in
it Cappadocia, and even Bithynia (Herod, i. 72, 76,
ii. 10-1; Strab. xvi. 1, § 2; Dionys. Perieg. 972);
on tbe other they carried it to the borders of Egypt,
and raade it comprise Philistia and Edora (Herod.
iii. 5; Strab. xvi. 2, § 2). Again, through the
confusion in their rainds between the Syrians and
the Assyrians, tbey sometimes included the country
of tbe latter, and even its southern neighlior Baby
lonia, in Syria (Strab. xvi. 1, § 2). Still they seem
always to have had a feeUng that Syria Proper was
a narrower region. Herodotus, while he calls the
Cappadocians and the Assyrians Syrians, gives the
name of Syria only to the country lying on the Med
iterranean between CiUcia and Egypt (ii. 106, 157,
159, iii. 6, 91). Dionysius, who speaks of two Syriaa,
an eastern and a western, assigns the first pLice
to the latter (Perieg. 895). Strabo, Uke Herod
otus, has one Syria only, which he defines as the
maritime tract between Egypt and the Gulf of Issus
The ordinary use of the term Syria, by the LXX.
and New Testament writers, is even more restricted
than this. They distinguish Syria from Phoenicia
on tbe one hand, and from Samaria, Judffia, Idu
msea, etc., on the other. I'n the present article it
seems best to take the word in this narrow sense,
and to regard Syria as bounded by Amanus and
Taurus on the north, by the Euphrates and the
Arabian desert on the east, by Palestine, or the
Holy Land, on the south, by the Mediterranean
near the raouth of the Orontes, and then by Pho?-
nicia upon the west. The tract thus circumscribed
is about 300 miles long from north to south, and
from 50 to 160 miles broad. It contains an area
of about 30,000 square miles.
2. General Physical Features. — The general
character of the tract is moimtainous, as the H&

3U2

SYRIA

brew name Aram (from a root signifymg " height " )
sufficiently implies. . On the west, two longitudinal
chains, running parallel with the coast at no great
distance from one another, extend along two thirds
of the leugth of Syria, from the latitude of Tyre to
that of Antioch. These chains, toward the south,
were known respectively as Libanus and Anti-
Libanus, after which, about lat. 35°, the more
western chain, Libanus, became Bargylus, while the
eastern, sinking insbo comparative insignificance,
was without any special appellation. In the lati
tude of Antioch the longitudinal chains are met by
tbe chain of Amanus, an outlying barrier of Taurus,
having the direction of that i-ange, which in this
part is from southwest to northeast. From this
poinfc northward to the true Taurus, which here
bounded Syria, and eastward to the Euphrates
about Bireh-jik and Sumeisai, the whole tract ap
pears to consist of mountains infinitely ramified;
below which, toward Sajur and Aleppo, are some
elevated plains, diversified with ranges of hills, while
south of these, in about lat. 36°, you enter the
desert. The mosfc ferfcile and valuable tract of
Syria is the long valley intervening between Li
banus and Anti-Libanus, which slopes southward
from a point a little north of Baalbek, and is there
drained by the Litany ; while above that poinfc the
slope is northward, and the streams form fche
Orontes, whose course is in fchat direction. The
northern mountain region is also fairly productive;
but the soil of tbe plains about Aleppo is poor, and
the eastern flank of the Anti-Libanus, except in one
place, is pecuharly sterile. The exception is at the
lower or southern extremity of the chain, where
fche stream of the Barada forms the rich and de
lightful tract already described under the head of
Damascus.
3. The Miruntain Ranges. — (a.) Lebanon. Of
the various mountain ranges of Syria, Lebanon
possesses the greatest interest. It extends from the
mouth of the Litany to Arka, a distance of nearly
100 miles, and is composed chiefly of Jura lime
stone, but varied with sandstone and basalt. It
culminates toward its northern extremity, half-way
between Tripoli and Beyrut, and at tbis point at
tains an elevation of nearly 10,000 feet (Robinson,
BibL Researches, iii. 547). Anciently it was
thickly wooded with cypresses, cedars, and firs ; but
it is now very scantily clothed. As a minute de
scription of its present condition has been already
given in the proper place, it is unnecessary to pro
long the present account. [Lebanon.] {b.) Anti-
Libanus. This range, as the name implies, stands
over against Lebanon, running in the same direc
tion, i. e. nearly north and south, and extending
the same length. It is composed of Jura limestone,
oolite, and Jura dolomite. The culminating point
is Hermon, at the southern, or rather the south
eastern end of the chain ; for Anti-Libanus, unlike
Libanus, bifurcates at its lowest extremity, dividing
uito two distinct ridges, between which flows the
stream of the Hisbeya. Hermon is thought to ex
ceed the height of 9,000 feet, (c.) Bargylus. Mount
iargylus, called now Jebel Nosairi toward the
south, and toward the north Jebel Kraad. extends
from the mouth of the Nahr el-Kebir (Eleutherus),
learly opposite Hems, to the vicinity of Antioch, a
Jistance of ratlier more than 100 miles. It is
separated from Lebanon by a comparatively level
tract, 15 or 20 miles broad {eUBukeva), through
which flows the stream called el-Kebir. Mount
Bargylus is broader than Lebanon, and throws out

SYRIA
a number of short spurs east and west both towaid
the sea and toward the valley of the Orontes.
One of the western spurs terminates in a remark
able headland, known to the ancients as Mount
Casius, and now called Jebel eUAhra, or the " Bald
Mountain," which rises abruptly from the sea to a
height exceeding 5,000 feet. At the northern ex
tremity of Bargylus, where it overhangs the lower
course of the Orontes, was Daphne, the delicious
suburb of Antioch, and the favorite haunt of it^
luxurious populace, {d.) Amanus. North of the
mouth of the Orontes, between its course and the
eastern shore of the Gulf of Issus {Iskanderun),
lies the range of Amanus, which extends from the
southwest end of the gulf, in a northeasterly di
rection, -a. distance of 85 or 90 miles, and finally
forms a junction with Taurus in aboufc long. 36°
25'. Amanus divides Syria from Cilicia, and is a
stony range with bold rugged peaks and conical
summits, formed of serpentines and other secondary
rocks supporting a tertiary formation. Its average
elevation is S'jOOO feet, and it terminates abruptly at
Ras el-Khanzir, hi a high cliif overhanging the sea.
There are only two or three passes across it; and
one alone, that of Beilan, is tolerably commodious.
Amanus, like Anti-Libanus, bifurcates afc ifcs south
western extremity, having, besides its termination
at the Ras el-Khanzir, another, now called Mum
Dagh, which approaches within about six miles of'
the mouth of the Orontes, and seems to be the
Pieria of Strabo (xvi. 2, § 8). This spur is of
limestone formation. The flanks of Amanus are
well clothed with forests of pine, oak, and larch, or
copses of myrtle, arbutus, oleander, and other
shrubs. The range was well known to the Assyrians,
who called it Khamana, and not unfrequentiy cut
timber iu it, which was conveyed thence to their
capital. 4. The Rivers. — The principal rivers of Syria
are the Litany and the Orontes. The Litany springs
from a small lake situated in the middle of tlie
Ccele-Syrian valley, about six miles to the south
west of Baalbek. Hence it descends the valley
called el-BOkaa, with a course a little west of
south, sending out on each side a number of canals
for irrigation, and receiving rills from the opposite
ranges of Libanus and Anti-Libanus, which com
pensate for the water given oflf. The chief of these
is called el-BUrdony, and descends from Lebanon
near Zahleh. The Bukaa narrows as it proceeds
southward, and terminates in a gorge, through
which the Litany forces itself with a course which
is still to the southwest, flowing deep befcween high
precipices, and spanned by a bold bridge of a single
arch, known as the Jisr Buryhus. Having emerged
from the ravine, it floA\'S first southwest by west,
and then nearly due south, till it reaches the lati
tude of Tyre, when meeting the mountains of Upper
Galilee, it is forced to bend to the west, and, pass
ing with many windings through the low coast
tract, enters the sea about 5 miles north of the
great Phrenician city. The entire course of the
stream, exclusive of small windings, is abont 80
miles. The source of the Orontes is but about 15
miles from that of the Litany. A little north of
Baalbek, the highest point or water-shed of the
Ccele-Syrian valley is reached, and the ground be
gins to descend northward-. A small rill breaks
oiit from tbe foot of Anti-Libanus, which, after
flowmg nearly due north for 15 miles across the
plain, meets another greater source given cut by
Lebanon in lat. 34° 22', which iii now cons'.dered

SYRIA
Ihc tnie " head of the stream." The Orontes from
this point flows down the valley to the northeast,
and passing through the Bahr el-Kades — a lake
about 6 miles long and 2 broad — approaches Hems
(Emesa), which it leaves on its right bank. It
then flows for 20 miles nearly due north; after
which, on approaching Hamnh (Hamath), it makes
a slight hend to the east round the base of the
Jtibel Erbayn, and then, entering the rich pasture
country of el-Ghab, runs northwest and north to
Jisr Hadid. The tributaries which it receives in
this part of its course ai'e many but sraall, the only
oue of any importance being the Wady el-Saruj,
which enters it from the west a little below Hamath.
At Jisr Hadid, or " the Iron Bridge," the course
of the Orontes suddenly changes. Prevented by
the range of Amanus from flowing any further to
the north, it sweeps round boldly to the west, and
receiving a large tributary — the Kara-Su — from
the northeast, the volume of whose water exceeds
its own, it enters the broad valley of Antioch,
" doubling back here upon itself, and flowing to
the southwest." In this part of its course the
Orontes has been corapared to the Wye (Stanley,
Sinai and Palestine, p. 409). The entire length
of the stream is estimated at above 200 miles.
Its modern name is the Nuhr el-Asi, or " Rebel
Stream," an appeUation given to it on account of
its violence and impetuosity in many parts of its
course. The other Syrian streams of some consequence,
besides the Litany and the Orontes, are the Bar-
rftda, or Kiver of Damascus, the Koweik, or River
of Aleppo, and the Sajur, a tributary of the Eu
phrates. The course of the Barada has already
been described under the head of Damascus. [Da
mascus.] The Koweik rises in the highlands
south of Ain- 7'ah, frora two sources, one of which
is known as the Baloldu-Su, or " Eish-River." It
seeras to be the Chalus of Xenoplion (Anab. i. 4,
§ 9). Its course is at first fcist, but soon becomes
south, or a Uttle west of south, to Aleppo, after
which it meanders considerably through the high
plain south of that city, finally terminating in a
marsh known as el^Malkh. The Sajur rises a
Uttle further to the north, in the mountains north
cX Ainr-Tab. Its course forthe first 25 mUes is
southeast, after which it runs east for 15 or 20
miles, finally resuming its first direction, and flow
ing by the town of Sajur into the Euphrates. It
is a larger river than the Koweik, though its course
is scarcely so long.
5. The Lakes. — The principal lakes of Syria
are the Agh-Dengiz, or Lake of Antioch ; the Sa-
bukhali, or Salt Lake, between Aleppo and Balis ;
the Bahr el-Kades, on tbe Upper Orontes ; and
the Bahr el-.Merj, or Lake of Damascus, (a. ) The
Lake of Antioch is an oblong fresh-water basin, 10
miles long by 7 broad, situated to the north of the
Orontes, where it sweeps round through the plain
of Umic, before receiving the Kara-Su. It is
formed by the waters of three large streams — the
Kara-Su, the Afnn, and the Aswad — which col
lect the drainage of the great mountain tract lying
northeast and east, of Antioch, between the 36th
and 37th parallels. It has been argued, from the
silence of Xenophon and Strabo, that this lake did
not exist in ancient times (RenneU, Illustrations of
the Expedition of Cyrus, p. 65), but modern inves-
(igations pursued upon the spot are thought to dis
prove this theory (Ainsworth, Researches in Meso-
ivtamia, p 299). The watei-s flow uito the lake on

SYRIA 3143
the east and north, and flow out ot it at its south
west angle by a broad and deep stream, known as
the Kara-Su, which falls uito tbe Orontes a few
miles above Antioch. (b. ) The Siibakhah is a salt
lake, into which only insignificant streams flow,
and which has no outlet. It lies midway between
Balis and Aleppo, the route between these places
passing along its northern shore. It is longer than
the Lake of Antioch, but narrower, being about 13
miles from cast to west, and 4 railes only from
north to south, even where it is widest, (c.) The
Bahr el-Kades is smaller than either of the forego
ing lakes. It has been estimated at 8 miles long
and 3 broad (Pococke, Description of the East, i.
140), and again at 6 miles long and 2 broad (Ches
ney, Euphrates Exp. i. 394), but has never been
accurately measured. Pococke conjectures that it
is of recent formation ; but his only reason seems to
be the silence of ancient writers, which is scarcely
sufficient to prove the point, (d.) The Bahr el-
Merj, Uke the piece of water in which the Koweik
or River of Aleppo ends, scarcely deserves to be
called a lake, since it is little better than a large
marsh. The length, according to Colonel Chesney.
is 9 miles, and the breadth 2 miles (Euphrat. Exp.
i. 503); but the size seems to vary with the seasons,
and with the extent to which irrigation is used
along the course of the Barada. A recent travel
ler, who traced the Barada to its termination,
found it divide a few miles below Damascus, and
observed that each branch terminated in a marsh
of its own; while a neighboring stream, the
Awadj, coramonly regarded as a tributary of the
Barada, also lost itself in a third marsh separate
from the other two (Porter in Geograph. Journ.
iivi. 43-46).
6. The Great Valley. — By far the must im
portant part of SyTia, and on the whole its most
striking feature, is the great valley which reaches
from the plain of Vmk, near Antioch, to the nar
row gorge on which the Litany enters in about lat.
33° 30'. This valley, which runs nearly parallel
with the Syrian coast, extends the length of 230
railes, and has a width varying from 6 or 8 to 15
or 20 miles. The more southern portion of it was
known to tlie ancients as Ccele-Syria, or " the
HoUow Syria," and has been already described.
[C<ELESYRIA.] In length this portion is rather
more than 100 miles, terminating with a screen of
hills a, little south of Hems, at which point the
northeastern direction of the valley also ceases,
and it begins to bend to the northwest. The lower
valley from Hems downward is broader, generally
speaking, and richer than the upper portion. Here
was " Hamath the Great " (Am. vi. 2), now
Hamah ; and here too was Apameia, a city buf
little inferior to Antioch, surrounded by rich pa.s.
tures, where Seleucus Nicator was wont to feed 500
elephants, 300 staUion horses, and 30,000 mares
(Strab. xvi. 2, § 10). Tbe whole of this region is
fertile, being watered not only by the Orontes, buf
by the numerous affluents which flow into it from
the mountain ranges inclosing the valley on either
side. 7. The Nor-thern Highlands. — Northern Syria,
especially the district caUed Commagene, between
Taurus and the Euphrates, is still very insufti-
ciently explored. It seeras to be altogether an ele
vated tract, consisting of twisted spurs from Taurus
and Amanus, with narrow valleys between them,
which open out into bare and sterile plains. Tlie
vaUeys themselves are not very fertile. They are

3144

SYRIA

watered by small streams, producing often abiui-
dant fish, and, for the most part, flowing into the
Orontes or the Euphrates. A certain number of
the more central ones, however, unite, and consti
tute the " river of Aleppo," which, unable to reach
either of the oceanic streams, fornis (as we have
seen) a lake or marsh, wherein its waters evaporate.
Along the course of the Euphrates there is rich land
and abundant vegetation; but the character of the
country thence to the valley of the Orontes is bare
i»nd woodless, except in the vicinity of the towns,
where fruit-trees are cultivated, and orchards and
gardens make an agreeable appearance. Most of
this region is a mere sheep-walk, which grows more
and more harsh and repulsive as we approach the
south, where it gradually mingles with the desert.
The highest elevation of the plateau befcween tbe
two rivers is 1500 feet; and tbis height is reached
soon after leaving the Euphrates, while toward the
west the decline is gradual.
8. The Eastern Desert. — East of the inner
mountain-chain, and south ofthe cultivable ground
about Aleppo, is the great Syrian Deserfc, an " ele
vated dry upland, for the most part of gypsum and
marls, producing nothing but a few spare bushes of
wormwood, and the usual aromatic plants of the
wilderness." Here and there bare and stony ridges
of no great height cross this arid region, but fail to
draw water from the sky, and have, consequently,
no streams flowing from them. A few wells sup
ply the nomad population with a brackish fluid.
'1 he region is traversed with difficulty, and has
never been accurately surveyed. The most remark
able oasis is at Palmyra, where there are several
small streams and abundant palm-trees. [See Tad-
MOH.] Toward the more western part of fche re
gion along the foot of the mountain range which
there bounds it, is likewise a good deal of tolerably
ferfcile country, watered by the streams which flow
eastward from the range, and after a longer or a
shorter course are lost in the desert. The l;est known
and the mosfc productive of these tracts, which seem
stolen from the desert, is the famous plain of Da
mascus — the el-Ghutah and el-Merj of the Arabs
— already described in the account given of that city.
[Damascus.] No rival to this "earthly paradise "
is to be found along the rest of the chain, since no
other stream flows down from it at all comparable
to the Barada; bufc wherever the eastern side of the
chain has been visited, a certain amount of cultiva
ble territory has been found afc ifcs foofc; corn is
grown in places, and olive-fcrees are abundant
(Burckhai'dfc, Travels in Syria, pp. 124-129; Po
cocke, Descmption of the East, ii. 146). Further
from the hills all is bare and repulsive ; a dry, hard
deserfc like that of fche Sinaitic peninsula, with a
soil of marl and gravel, only rarely diversified with
Band. 9. Chief Divisions. — According to Strabo, Syria
Proper was divided into tbe following districts:
(1.) Commagene; (2.) Cyj-rhesiica ; {S.)Seleucis;
(4.) Ccele-Syiia ; and (5.) Damascene. If we take
its limits, however, as laid down above (§ 1), we
umst add to these districts three others: Chalybo-
nitis, or the country about Aleppo; Chalcis or
Chalcidice, a small tract south of this, aboufc fche
.ake in which the river of Aleppo ends ; and Pal
myrene, or the desert so far as we consider it to
save been Syrian, {a.) Commagene" lay to the

a The root of this name appeiirs in the early Assyr
ian iDscription" a= that of a people, the Qiuvmukh, or

SYRIA
north. Its capital was Samosata or Sttmeisat
The territory is said to have been fairly ferfcile, but
small; and from fchis we may gather that it did not
descend lower than about Ain- Tab. (6.) From Ain-
Tab, or perhaps from a'point higher up, commenced
Cirrhestica or Cyristica. It was bounded on the
north by Commagene, on the northwest by Ama
nus, on the west and southwest bv Seleucis, and
on the south by Chalybonitis or the region of Chal-
ybon. Both it and Commagene reached eastward
to the Euphrates. , Cyrrh estica was so called from
its capital Cyirhus, which seems to be the modern
Corns. It included Hierapolis {Bambitk), Bafcnse
{Dahabf), and Gindarus {Gmdaries). (c.) Chal-
ybonitis adjoined Cyrrhestica on the souths lying
between thafc region and fche desert. It extended
probably from the Euphrates, about Balis, to Mount
St. Simeon {Amguli Dagh). Like Cyn-hestica, it
derived its name from its capital city, which was
Chalybon, now corrupted into Haleb or Aleppo.
((/.) Chalcidic^ was south of the more western por
tion of Cbalybonitis, and was named from its capi
tal, Chalcis, which seems to be marked bythe mod
ern Keminsserin, a little south of the lake in wliich
the River of Aleppo ends (Pococke, Travels, ii. 149).
(e.) Seleucis lay between CjTrhestica, Cbalybonitis,
and Chalcis on the one side, and the Mediterranean
on the other. It was a large province, and con
tained four important subdivisions: (1) Seleucis
Proper or Pieria, the little corner befcween Amanus
and the Orontes, wifch its capital, Seleucia, on the
coast, above the mouth of the Orontes; (2) Anti-
ochis, the region about Antioch; (3) Laodicfin(^,
the coast tract between the mouth of the Orontes
and Phoenicia, named after its capital, Laodiceia
(still called Ladikiyeh), which was an excellent
port, and situated in a most fertile district (Strab.
xvi. 2, § 9); and (4) Apam^nd, consisting of the
vaUey of the Orontes from Jisr Hadid to Hamah.,
or perhaps to Hems, and having Apameia (now Fa-
mieh ) for its chief city. (/'. ) Coele-Syria lay south
of Apameia, being the continuation of the Great
Valley, and extending from Hems to the gorge in
which the valley ends. The chief town of this
region was Heliopolis {Baalbek), {g.) DamascSii^
included the whole cultivable tract between the
bare range which breaks away from Anti-Libanus
in lat. 330 30', and the hills which shut in the
valley of the Awaj on the south. Ifc lay east of
Ccele-Syi'ia and southwest of Palmyren^. {h.)
Palmyren^ was the name applied to the whole
of fche Syrian Desert. It was bounded on the east
by the Euphrates, on the north by Cbalybonitis
and Chalcidic^, on the west by Apamgn^ and
Ccele-Syria, and on the south by the great deseii of
Arabia, 10. Principal Toicns.~The chief towns of Syria
may be thus arranged, as nearly as possible in the
order of their importance : 1. Anfcioch; 2. Damas
cus ; 3. Apameia ; 4. Seleucia ; 5. Tadmor or
Palmyra; 6. Laodiceia; 7. Epipbaneia (Hamath);
8. Samosata; 9. HierapoHs (Mabog); 10. Chaly
bon ; 11, Emesa ; 12. Heliopolis ; 13. Laodiceia
ad Libanum ; 14. Cyrrhus ; 15. Chalcis ; 16
Poseideium ; 17. Heracleia ; 18. Gindarus ; 19
Zeugma ; 20. Thapsacus. Of these, Samosata
Zeugma, Thapsacus, are on the Euphrates ; Seleucia,
Laodiceia, Poseideium, and Heracleia, on the sea
shore; Antioch, Apameia, Epipbaneia, and Emesa

Qummuhki. They dwell, however, east of the ^<i'
phrates, between Smnfisat and Diarf)pkr

SYKIA
{H&m) on the Orontes; HeliopoUs and Laodiceia
od Libanum, in Coale-Syria; Hierapolis, Chalybon,
Cyrrhus, Chalcis, and Gindarus, in the northern
highlands; Damascus on the skirts, and Palmyra
in tbe centre of the eastern desert.
11. Histwy. — • The first occupants of Syria ap
pear to have been of Hamitic descent. The Ca
naanitish races, the Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites,
etc., are oonnected in Scripture with Egypt and
Ethiopii*, Cush and Mizraim (Gen. x. 6 and 15-18);
and eveu independently of this evidence, there seems
fco be sufficient reason for believing that the races
in question stood in close ethnic connection with
the Cushite stock (Rawlinson's Herodotus, iv. 243-
245). These fcribes occupied not Palestine only,
hut also Lower Syria, in very early times, as we
may gather from the fact tha/ Hamath is assigned
to them in Genesis (x. 18). Afterwards they seem
fco have become possessed of Upper Syria also, for
when the Assyrians first push their conquests be
yond the Euphrates, they find the Hittites {Khatii)
established in strength on fche right bank of the
Great River. After a while the first comers, who
were still to a great extent nomads, received a
Shemitic infusion, which most probably came to
them from the southeast. The family of Abraham,
whose oiiginal domicile was in Lower Babylonia,
may, perhaps, be best regarded as furnishing us
with a specimen of the migratory movements of the
period. Another example is that of Cbedorlaomer
vrith his confederate kings, of whom one at least —
Amraphel — must have been a Shemite. The move
ment may have begun before the time of Abraham,
and hence, perhaps, the Shemitic names of many of
the inhabitants when Abraham first comes into the
country, as Abimelech, Melchizedek, Eliezer, etc.«
The only Syrian town whose existence we find dis
tinctly marked at this time is Damascus (Gen. xiv.
L5, XV. 2), which appears to have been already a
place of some importance. Indeed, in one tradition,
Abraham is said to have been king of Daraascus
fora time (Nie. Dam. Fr. 30); but this is quite
unworthy of credit. Next to Damascus must be
placed Hamath, which is mentioned by Moses as a
well-known place (Num. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 8), and
appears in Egyptian papyri of the time of the
¦eighteenth dynasty {Cambridge Essays, 1858, p.
268). Syria afc this time, and for many centuries
afterwards, seems to have been broken up among a
number of petty kingdoms. Several of these are
mentioned iu Scripture, as Damascus, Rehob,
Maachah, Zobah, Geshur, etc. We also hear oc
casionally of " the kings of Syria and of the Hit
tites " (1 K. X. 29; 2 K. -vii. 6) — an expression
indicative of thafc extensive subdivision of the tract
among nuoierous petty chiefs which is exhibited to
us very clearly in the early Assyrian inscriptions.
At various times different states had the preemi
nence; but none was ever strong enough to estab
lish an authority over the others.
The Jews first come into hostile contact with the
Syrians, u?ider ihat name, in the time of David.
The wars of Joshua, however, must have often been
with Syrian chiefs, with whom he disputed the
possession of the tract about Lebanon and Hermon
(Josh. xi. 2-18). After his time the Syrians were
apparently undisturbed, until David began his ag
gressive wars upon them. Claiming the frontier of
the Euphrates, which God had promised fco Abraham

a It is possible, however, that these
ttM Shemitic equivalents of the real
198

SYRIA 3145
(Gen. XV. 18), David made war on Hadadezer, king
of Zobah, whom he defeated in a great battle, kill
ing 18,000 of his men, and taking from him 1,000
chariots, 700 horsemen, and 20,000 footmen (2 Sam.
viii. 3, 4, 13). The Damascene Syrians, having
endeavored to succor their kinsmen, were likewise
defeated with great loss {ibid. ver. 5); and fche
blow so weakened tbem thafc they shortly afterwards
submitted and became David's subjects (ver. 6).
Zobah, however, was far from being subdued as
yet. When, a few yeai-s later, the Ammonites de
termined on engaging in a war with David, and
appUed to the Syrians for aid, Zobah, together with
Beth-Rehob, sent tbem 20,000 footmen, aud two
other Syrian kingdoms fiirnished 13,000 (2 Sam.
X. 6).' This army being completely defeated by
Joab, Hadadezer obtained aid from Mesopottimia
{ibid. ver. 16), and tried the chance of a third bat
tle, which likewise went against him, and produced
the general submission of Syria to the Jewish
monarch. Tbe submission thus begun continued
under the reign of Solomon, who " reigned over
all the kingdoms from the river (Euphrates) unto
the land of the Phihstines and unto the border of
Egypt; they brought presents and served Solomon
all the days of his hfe" (1 K. iv. 21). The only
part of Syria which Solomon lost seems to have
been Damascus, where an independent kingdom
was set up by Rezon, a native of Zobab (1 K. xi.
23-25). Ou the separation of the two kingdoms,
soon after the accession of Rehoboam, the remainder
of Syria no doubt shook ofi" the yoke. Damascus
now became decidedly the leading state, Hamath
being second to it, and the northern Hittites,
whose capital was Carchemish near Bambuk, third.
[Carchemish.] The wars of this period fall most
properly into the history of Damascus, and have
already been described in the account given of that
city. [Damascus.] Their result was to attach
Syria to the great Assyrian empire, from which ifc
passed to the Babylonians, after a. short attempt
on the part of Egypt to liold possession of it, which
was frustrated by Nebuchadnezzar. From the
Babylonians Syria passed to the Persians, undei
whom it formed a satrapy in conjunction vvith
Judsea, Phoeiiicia, and Cyprus (Herod, iii. 91). Its
resources were still great, and probably it was hio
confidence in them which encouraged the Syrian
satrap, Megabazus, to raise the standard of revolt
against Artaxerxes Longimanus (n »j. 447). After
this we hear little of Syria till the year of the battle
of Issus (b. c. 333), when it submitted to Alex
ander without a struggle.
Upon the death of Alexander Syria became, for
the fii'st time, the head of a great kingdom. On
the division of the provinces among his generals
(B. c. 321), Seleucus N"icator received Mesopotamia
and Syria; and thougli, in the twenty years of
struggle which followed, this country was lost and
won repeatedly, it remained finally, with the ex
ception of Ccele-Syria, in the hands of tbe prince
to whom it wiLs originally assigned. That prince,
whose dominions reached from the Mediterranern
to the Indus, and from the Oxus to the Southern
Ocean, having, as he beheved, been exposed to
great dangers on account of the distance from
Greece of his original capital, Babylon, resolved
immediately upon his victory of Ipsus (b. c. 301)
to fix his metropolis in the West, and settled upon

may he persons, which names might in that case have heen
of these Hamitie

3146

SYRIA

Syria as the fittest place for it. Antioch was be
gun in B. 0. 300, and, being finished in a few years,
was made the capital of Seleucus' kingdom. The
whole realm was thenceforth ruled from this centre,
and Syria, which had long been the prey of stronger
countries, and had been exhausted by their ex
actions, grew rich with the wealth which now flowed
into it on all sides. The luxury and magnificence
of Antioch were extraordinary. Broad straight
streets, with colonnades from end to end, temples,
statues, arches, bridges, a royal palace, and various
other public buildings dispersed throughout it,
made the Syrian capital by far the most splendid
of all the cities of the East. Afc fche same time, in
the provinces, other towns of large size were grow
ing up. Seleucia in Pieria, Apameia, and both
Laodiceiiis were foundations of the Seleucidse, as
their names sufficiently indicate. Weak and in
dolent as were many of these monarchs, it would
seem that they had a hereditary taste for building;
and so each aimed at outdoing his predecessoi^ in
the number, beauty, and magnificence of his con
structions. As the history of Syria under the
Seleucid princes has been already given in detail,
in the articles treating of each monarch [Anti
ochus, Demetrius, Seleucus, etc.], it will be
unnecessary here to do more than sum it up gen
erally. The most flourishing period was the reign
of the founder, Nicator. 1'he empire was then al
most as large as tbat of the Achsemenian Persians,
for ifc afc one fcime included Asia Minor, and fchus
reached from the ^gean to India. It was organized
into satrapies, of which the number was 72. Trade
flourished greatly, old lines of traffic being restored
and new ones opened. The reign of Nicator's son,
Antiochus I., called Soter, was the beginning of
fche decline, which was progressive frora his dafce,
with only one or two slight interruptions. Soter
lost territory to the kingdom of Pergamus, aud
failed in an attempt to subject Bithynia. He was
also unsuccessful against Egypt. Under his son,
Antiochus II., called ®e6s, or " fche God," who
ascended fche throne in b. c. 261, fche disinfcegration
of the empire proceeded more rapidly. The revolt
of Parthia in n. c. 256, followed by that of Bactria
in E. c. 254, deprived fche Syrian kingdom of some
of its best provinces, and gave it a new enemy
which shortly became a rival and finally a superior.
At the same fcime the war with Egypt was prose
cuted wifchoufc either advantage or glory. Fresh
losses were suffered in tbe reign of Seleucus IL
(Callinicus), Antiochus the Second's successor.
While Callinicus was engaged in Egypt against
Ptolemy Euergetes, Eumenes of Pergamus obtained
possession of a great part of Asia Minor (b. c- 242);
and about the same fcime Arsaces II., king of
Parthia, conquered Hyrcania and annexed it to
his dominions. An attempt to recover this latter
province cost Callinicus his crown, as he was de
feated and made prisoner by fche Partbians (b. c.
226). In fche nexfc reign, thafc of Seleucus III.
((-eraunus), a slighfc reaction set in. Most of Asia
Minor was recovered for Ceraunus by his wife's
nephew, Achasus (n. C. 224), and he was preparing
to invade Pergamus when he died poisoned. His
successor and brother, Antiochus IIL, though he
gained the surname of Great from the grandeur of
his expeditions and the partial success of some of
them, can scarcely be said to have really done any
thing toward raising the empire from its declining
sondition, since his conquests on the side of Egypfc,
oonaiFting of Coele-SyTia, Phoenicia, and Palestine,

SYRIA
formed no sufficient compensation for the loiw of
Asia Minor, which he was -forced to c^de to Kome
for the aggrandizement of the rival kingdom of
Pergamus (B. c. 190). Even had the terrifcorial
balance been kept more even, the ill policy of making
Rome an enemy of the Syrian kingdom, with which
Antiochus the Great is taxable, would have neces
sitated our placing him among the princes to whom
its ultimate ruin was mainly owing. Toward fche
Easfc, indeed, he did somefching, if not to thrust
back the Partbians, at any rate to protect his em
pire from their aggressions. But the exhaustion
consequent upon his constant wars and signal de
feats — • more especially those of Raphia and Mag
nesia — left Syria far more feeble at his death than
she had been at any former period. The almost
eventless reign of Seleucus IV. (Philopator), his son
and successor (b. o. 187-175), is sufficient proof
of this feebleness. Ifc was not till twenty years of
peace had recruited the resources of Syria in men
and money, that Antiochus IV. (Epiphanes), brother
of Philopator, ventured on engaging in a great war
(b. c. 171) — a war for the conquest of Egypt. At
first it seemed as if the attempt would succeed.
Egypt was on the point of yielding to her foe of so
many years, when Rome, following out her tradi
tions of hostility to Syrian power and infiuence,
interposed her mediation, and deprived Epiphanes
of all the fruits of his victories (b. c. 168). A
greater injury was, about the same time (b. c. 167),
inflicted on Syria by the folly of Epiphanes him
self. Not content with replenishing his treasury by
the plunder of the Jewish temple, he madly ordered
the desecration of the Holy of Hohes, and thus
caused tbe revolt of the Jews, which proved a per
manent loss to fche empire and an aggravation of
its weakness. After tbe death of Epiphanes the
empire rapidly verged to its fall. The regal power
fell into the hands of an infant, Antiochus V.
(Eupator), son of Epiphanes (b. c 164); the nobles
contended for the regency; a pretender to the crown
started up in the person of Demetrius, son of
Seleucus IV. ; Rome put in a claim to administei
the government; and amid the troubles thus caused,
the Partbians, under Mithridates L, overran the
eastern provinces (b. c. 164), conquered Media,
Persia, Susiana, Babylonia, etc., and advanced their
frontier to the Euphrates. It was in vain that
Demetrius II. (Nicator) made an attempt (b. c
142) to recover the lost territory; his boldness cost
him his liberty; while a similar attempt on tht
part of his successor, Antiochus VII. (Sidet«s), cost
that monarch his life (b. u. 128). Meanwhile, in
the shorn Syrian kingdom, disorders of every kind
were on the increase; Commagen^ revolted and
established her independence; civil wars, murders
mutinies of the troops, rapidly succeeded one an
ofcher; the despised Jews were called in by botb
sides in the various struggles; and Syria, in tht
space of about ninety years, from b. c. 154 to B. c
64, had no fewer tlian ten sovereigns. All the
wealth of the country bad been by this time dis
sipated; much had flowed Romewards in the shape
of bribes; more, probably, had been spent on the
wars ; and still more had been wasted by the kings
in luxury of every kind. Under these circumstances
the Romans showed no eagerness to occupy the
exhausted region, which passed under the power of
Tigranes, king of Armenia, in ». c. 83, and was
not made a province of the Roman Empire till after
Pompey's complete defeat of Mithridates and hh;
ally Tigranes, b. c. 64.

SYRIA
The chronology of this period has been well
worked out by Clinton (F. H. vol. iii. pp. 308-
346), from whom the foUowing table of the kings,
with the dates of their accession, is taken : —

SYRIA

3147

Kings.

Seleucus Nicator .
Antiochus Soter .
Antiochus Theus .
Seleucus Callinicus
Seleucus Ceraimus
Antiochus Magnus
Seleucus Philopator
Antiochus Epiphanes
Antiochus Eupator
Demetrius Soter
Alexander Bala
Demetrius Nicator (Ist reign)
Antiochus Sidetes .
Demetriut! Nicator (2d reign)
Antiochus Grypus
Antiochus Cyzlcenus
Antiochus Eusebes and )
Philippus . . . J
Tigranes 
Antiochus Asiaticus .

Length of

Keign.

32 years.

19

({

15

[(

20

[C

3

({

36

(i

12

tt

11

tt

2

tt

12

tt

5

ct

9

tt

9

ti

3

tt

13

ct

18

Cf

12

tt

14

(t

4

((

Date of
Accession.

Oct. 312
Jan. '
Jan. 261
Jan. 246
Aug. 226
Aug. 223
Oct. 187
Aug. 17o
Deo. 164
Nov. 162
Aug. 160
Nov. 146
Feb. 137
Teb. 128
Aug. 12.1 113

95

As Syria holds an important place, not only in
the Old Testament, but in the New, some account
of its condition under the Romans must now be
given. That condition was somewhat peculiar.
While the country generally was formed into a Eo
man province, under governors who were at first
propraetors or quastors, then proconsuls, and finally
legates, there were exempted from the direct rule
of the governor, in the first plaoe, a number of
"free cities," which retained the administration of
their own afiairs, subject to a tribute levied accord
ing to the Eoman principles of taxation ; and 2dly,
a number of tracts, which were assigned to petty
princes, commonly natives, to be ruled at their
pleasure, subject to the same obligations with the
free cities as to taxation (Appian, Syr. 50). The
firee cities were Antioch, Seleucia, Apameia, Epi
phaneia, Tripolis, Sidon, and Tyre; the principali
ties, Commaggn^, Chalcis ad Belum (near Baal
bek), Arethusa, Abila or Abilen^, Palmyra, and
Damascus. The principalities were sometimes
called kingdoms, sometimes tetrarchies. They
were established where it was thought that the na
tives were so inveterately wedded to their own cus
toms, aud so well disposed for revolt, that it was
necessary to consult their feelings, to flatter the
national vanity, and to give tbem the semblance
without the substance of freedom, (a.) Comma-
gSn^ was a kingdom (regnum). It had broken off
from Syria during the later troubles, and becorae a
separate state under the government of a branch of
the Seleucidie, who affected the names of Antiochus
and Mithridates. The Komans allowed this con
dition of things to continue till A. D. 17, when,
upon the death of Antiochus III., they made Com-
m^Sn^ into a province ; in which cojidition it con
tinued till A. D. 38, when Caligula gave the crown
to Antiochus IV. (Epiphanes), the son of Anti
ochus III. Antiochus IV. continued king till A.
D. 72, when he was deposed by Vespasian, and
CommagSn^ was finally absorbed into the Enipure.
He had a son, called also Antiochus and Epiphanes,
vho was betrothed to Drusilla, the sister of " King

Agrippa," and afterwards the wife of Felix, the
procurator of Judaea, (b.) Chalcis "ad Belum"
was not the city so called near Aleppo, whioh gave
name to tbe district of Cnaloidice, but a town ol
less importance near Heliopolis (Baalbek), whence
probably the suffix " ad Belum." It is mentioned
in this connection by Strabo (xvi. 2, § 10), and
Josephus says that it was under Lebanon (Ant. xiv.
7, § 4), so that there cannot be much doubt as to
its position. It must have been in the " Hollow
Syria" — the modern BUkaa — to the south of
Baalbek (Joseph. B. J. i. 9, § 2), and therefore
probably at Anjnr, where there are large ruins
(Kobinson, Bibl. Pes. iii. 496, 497). This too was
generally.or perhaps always, a " kingdom." Pom
pey found it under a certain Ptolemy, " the son of
Mennseus," and allowed him to retain possession of
it, together with certain adjacent districts. From
bim it passed to his son, Lysanias, who was put to
death by Antony at the instigation of Cleopatra
(ab. u. c. 34), after which we find its revenues
farmed by Lysanias' steward, Zenodorus, the roy
alty bemg in abeyance (Joseph. Ant. xv. 10, § 1).
In B. c. 22 Chalcis was added by Augustus to the
dominions of Herod the Great, at whose death it
probably passed to his son Phihp (ibid. xvii. 11, §
4). Philip died A. d. 34; and then we lose sight
of Chalcis, until Claudius in his first year (A. D.
41) bestowed it on a Herod, the brother of Herod
Agrippa I., still as a " kingdom." From this
Herod it passed (a d. 49) to his nephew, Herod
Agrippa II., who held it only three or four years,
being promoted from it to a better government
(ibid. XX. 7, § 1). Chalcis then fell to Agrippa'a
cousin Aristobulus, son of the first Herodian king,
under whom it remained till a. d. 73 (Joseph. B.
J. vii. 7, § 1). About tbis time, or soon after, it
ceased to be a distinct government, being finally
absorbed into tlie Roman province of Syria, (c.)
Arethusa (now JUeslun) was for a time separated
from Syria, and governed by phylarchs. The city
lay on the right bank of the Orontes between Ha
mah and Hems, rather nearer to the former. In
the government were included the Emiseni, or peo
ple of Hems (Emesa), so that we may regard it as
comprising the Orontes valley from the Jebel Er
bayn, at least as high as the Bahr el-Kades, or
Baheiret-Hems, the lake of Hems. Only two gov
ernors are known, Sampsiceramus, and Jamblichus,
his son (Strab. xvi. 2, § 10). Probably this prhi-
eipality was one of the first absorbed, (d. ) Abilen^,
so called from its capital Abila, was a " tetrarchy."
It was situated to the east of Anti-Libanus, on the
route between Baalbek aud Damascus (liin. Ani.).
Kuins and inscriptions mark tbe site of the capital
(Robinson, Bibl. lies. iii. 479-482), which was at
the village called el-Suk, on tbe ri\er Barada, just
where it breaks forth from the mountains. The
limits of the territory are uncertain. We first hear ,
of this tetrarchy in St. Luke's Gospel (iii. 1), where
it is said to have been in the possession of a certain
Lysanias at the commencemeut of St. John's min
istry, which was probably a. d. 27. Of this Ly
sanias nothing more is known ; he certainly cannot
be the Lysanias who once held Chalcis; since that
Lysanias died above sixty years previously. Eleven
years after the date mentioned by St. Luke, A. i».
38, the heir of Caligula bestowed " the tetrarchy of
Lysanias," by which Abilen^ is no doubt intended,
on the elder Agrippa (Joseph. Ani. xviii. 6, § 10);
and four years later Claudius confirmed the same
prince in the possession of the " Abila of Lysaniai ''

3148 SYRIA
{^id. xix. 5, § 1). Finally, in A. d. 53, Claudius,
among other grants, conferred on the younger
Agrippa " Abila, which had been the tetrarchy of
Lysanias " {ibid. xx. 7, § 1). Abila was taken by
Placidus, one of the generals of Vespasian, in b. c.
69 (Joseph. BelL Jud. iv. 7, § 6), and thenceforth
was annexed to Syria. (e.) Palmyra appears to
have occupied a different position from the rest of
the Syrian principalities. It was in no sense de
pendent upon Rome (Plin. //. N. v. 25), but rely
ing on its position, clairaed and exercised the right
of self-government from the breaking up of the
Syrian kingdom to the reign of Trajan. Antony
made an attempt against it, b. c. 41, but failed.
It was not till Trajan's successes against the Par
tbians, between A. d. 114 and a. d. 116, that
Palmyra was added to the lijnph'e. {f) Damas
cus is the last of the principalities which it is nec
essary to notice here. It appears to have been left
by Pompey in the hands of an Arabian prince,
Aretas, who, however, was to pay a tribute for it,
and to allow the Romans to occupy it at their pleas
ure with a garrison (Joseph. Ant xiv. 4, § 5; 5,
§ 1; 11, § 7). This state of things continued
most likely to tbe settlement of the Empire by Au
gustus, when Damascus was attached to the prov
ince of Syria. During the rest of Augustus' reign,
and during the entire reign of Tiberius, this ar
rangement was in force ; but it seems probable that
Caligula on his accession separated Daraascus frora
Syria, and gave it to another Aretas, who was king
of Petra, and a relation (son V) of tbe former. [See
Aretas.] Hence the fact, noted by St. Paul (2
Cor. xi. 32), that at the time of his conversion
Damascus was held by an " ethnarch of king Are
tas." The semi-independence of Daraascus is
thought to have continued through the reigns of
Caligula and Claudius (from a. d. 37 to A. D. 54),
but to have come to an end under Nero, when the
district was probably reattached to Syria.
The list of the governors of Syria, from its con
quest by the Romans to the destruction of Jeru
salem, has been made out with a near approach to
accuracy, and is as follows : — Date, of Date of
Names. Titlcsof office, entering quitting
office. office.
M- iEmilius Scaurus I „.. «« ,.-,
\ praatore . b. c. 62 . B. c. 61
L. Marcius Philippus . . Propraetor . . 61 . .59
Lentulus Marcellinus . Proprajtor . . 59 .57
Gabiniaa .... Proconsul . . 56 . .55
Crassus .... . . 55 . . 53
Cassius . . . QuEcstor ... 53 . 51
M. Calpurnius Bibuluf . Proconsul . . 51 . 47
Sext. Jtdius Ceesar . . . 47 . . 46
Q. Caecilius Bassus . . Praetor . . 46 . .44
(Q. Cornificius . . . ( received authority from the
(L. Statius Murcus . \ Senate to dispossess Bassus,
(Q. Marcius Crispus . ( but failed.)
0. Cassius Longinus . . Proconsul b. o. 43 B. c. 42
L. Becidius Saxa . . . Legatus . . . 41 . .40
P. Yentidius Bassus . Legatus . . . 40 . .38
C Soaius . ... Legatus ... 38 .36
L. Munatius Plancus . . Legatus . . . 35 . .32
L. Calpurnius Bibulus . Legatus . , . 31 . .31
Q. Bidius ..... Legatus ... 30
M Valerius Messalla . . Legatus ... 29 .29
Varro  Legatus ... 24
M. Vipsaniufl Agrippa . Legatus . . . 22 . .20
M. Tullius  Legatus . . . 19 (?)
til. Vipsaniua Agrippa . Legatus ... 15
M. Titius  Legatus . . 11 . . 7
G ideatius Siihiruinus Legatus . . 7 . . S
p. OuiDtiliiid V.Lrus . . Ijegatus . . 3 .a. S.S

Names.

SYRIA Date of Date of
Titles of office, entering quitting
office. office.

, Legatus .
[Legatus .
Legatus .

A. D. 5

17
19
. 22
35
39
, 42
. 48
61 60

11
19

424861

P. Sulpicius Quirinus
Q- CseciliuB Metellus
Creticus Silatius .
M. Calpurnius Piso .
Cn. Sentius Satuminus . Prolegatus
L. Pomponius Tlaccus . Propraetor
L. Vitelliua  Legatus .
P. Petronius .... Legatus .
Vibius Marsus .... Legatus .
C. Cassius Longinus . * Legatus .
T. Numidiua i Quadratus Legatus .
Bornitius Corhulo . . Legatus .
Cincius . . . Legatus . . 63
C. Cestius Glallus . . . Legatus . . . 65 . .67
P. Licinius Mucianus . I^egatus . . . 67 . -69
The history of Syria during this period may be
summed up in a few words. Down to the battle
of Pharsaha, Syria was fairly tranquil, the only
troubles being with the Arabs, who occasionally at
tacked the eastern frontier. The Roman governors
labored hard to raise the condition of the province,
taking great pains to restore the cities, which had
gone to decay under the later Seleucidse. Gabinius,
proconsul in the years 56 and 55 b. u., made him
self particularly conspicuous in works of this kind.
After Pharsalia (b. c. 46) the troubles of Syria were
renewed. Julius Csesar gave the province to hia
relative Sextus in b. vj. 47; but Pompey's party
was still so strong in the east, that in the next
year one of his adherents, Caecilius Bassus, put
Sextus to death, and established himself in the
government so firmly that he was able to resist for
three years three proconsuls appointed by the Senate
to dispossess him, and only finally yielded upon
terms which he himself offered to his antagonists.
Many of the petty prhices of Syria sided with him,
and some of the nomadic Arabs took his pay and
fought under his banner (Strab. xvi. 2, § 10).
Bassus had but just made his submission, when,
upon the assassination of Csesar, Syria was disputed
between Cassius and Dolabella, tbe friend of An
tony, a dispute terminated by the suicide of Dola
bella, E. c. 43, at Laodiceia, where he was besieged
by Cassius. The next year Cassius left bis, province
and went to Phiiippi, where, after the first unsuc
cessful engagement, he too committed suicide.
Syria then fell to Antony, who appointed as his
legate L. Deeidius Saxa, in b. c. 41. The troubles
of the empire now tempted the Partbians to seek
a further extension of their dominions at the ex
pense of Rome, and Pacorus, the crown-prince, son
of Arsaces XIV., assisted by the Koman refugee,
Labienus, overran Syria and Asia Minor, defeating
Antony's generals, and threatening Rome with tho
loss of all her Asiatic possessions (b. c. 40-39).
Ventidius, however, in b. c. 38, defeated the Par
tbians, slew Pacorus, and recovered for Kome her
former boundary. A quiet time followed. From
B. c. 38 to b. c. 31 Syria was governed peaceably
by the legates of Antony, and, after his defeat at
Actium and death at Alexandria in that year, by
those of Augustus. In b. c. 27 took place that
formal division of the provinces between Augustus
and the Senate, from which the imperial adminis
trative system dates ; and Syria, being from its ex
posed situation among the provincice pj'incijns,
continued to be ruled by legates, who were of
consular rank {consulai'es) and bore severally the

1 CaUed « Vintdius " by Tacitu*.

SYKIA
foil title of " Legatus Augusti pro prsetore." Dur
ing the whole of this period the province enlarged
Dr contracted its limits according as it pleased the
reigning emperor to bestow tracts of land on the
native princes, or to resume them and place them
under his legate. Judaja, when attached in this
way to Syria, occupied a peculiar position. Partly
perhaps on account of ita remoteness frora the Syr
ian capital, Antioch, partly no doubt because of
the peculiar character of its people, it was thought
best to raake it, in a certain sense, a sepai-ate gov
ernment. A special procurator was therefore ap
pointed to rule it, who was subordinate to the
governor of Syria, but within his own province had
the power of a legatus. [See Jud^a.] Syria
continued without serious disturbance from the
expulsion of the Partbians (b. c. 38) to the break
ing out of the Jewish war (a. t>. 66). In b. c.
19 it was visited by Augustus, and in A. d. 18-19
by Germanicus, who died at Antioch in the last-
named year. In A. d. 44-47 it was the scene of
a severe famine. [See Agabus.] A little earlier
Christianity had begun to spread into it, partly by
means of those who " were scattered " at the time
of Stephen's persecution (Acts xi. 19), partly by
the exertions of St. Paul (Gal. i. 21). The Syrian
Church soon grew to be one of the most flourishing
(Acts xiii. 1, XV. 23, 35, 41, &c.). Here the name
of " Christian " fii'st arose — at the outset no doubt
a gibe, but thenceforth a, glory and a boast.
Antioch, the capital, became as early probably as
A. D. 44 the see of a bishop, and was soon recog
nized as a patriarchate. The Syrian Church is ac
cused of laxity both in faith and morals (Newman,
Arians, p. 10); but, if it must admit the disgrace
of having given birth to Lucian and Paulus of
Samosata, it can claira on -the other hand the glory
of such names' as Ignatius, Theophilus, Ephraem,
and Babyliis. It suffered without shrinking many
grievous persecutions; and it helped to make that
emphatic protest against worldliness and luxurious-
ness of Uving at which monasticisra, according to
its origmal conception, must be considered to have
aimed. The Syrian monks were among the most
earnest and most self-denying; and the names of
Hilarion and Simon StyUtes ai-e enough to prove
that a most important part was played by Syria in
the ascetic movement of the 4th and 5th centuries.
(For the geography of Syria, see Pococke's De
scription of ihe East, vol. ii. pp. 88-209; Burck
hardt's Travels in Syria and the Holy Land, pp.
1-309; Robinson's Later Blbllcn I Researches, pp.
419-625; Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, pp. 403-
414; Porter's Five Years in Damascus; Ains-
worth's Travels in the Track of' the Ten Thousand,
pp. 57-70; Researches, etc., p. 290 ff For
the history under the Seleucid^, see (besides the
original sources ) Clinton's Fasti Hellenici, vol. iii.
Appendix iii. pp. 308-346; Vaillant's Imperium
Seleucidarum, and Fri lich's Annales Rerum. et
Regum Synoe. For the history under the Romans,
see Norisius, Cenotophia Pisana, Op. vol. iii. pp.
424-531.) G. R.
* For a table of Meteorological Observations
taken at Beirut from Nov. 1868 to July 1869, see
Uu'trterly Sintement of the Palestine Exploration
Fund, No. iii., 1869. The two articles on Mount
Lebanon, in the Bibl. Sacra, xxvi. 641-571, and
373-713, by Rev. T. Laurie, D. D., treat some
what fuUy of the topography and antiquity of
Northern Syria. For a graphic description of
'[kele-Syria (the modern Bukd'a), the great miUtary

SYKG-PHGINICIAN 3149
road of the ancient invaders of Palestine, see Raw
Unson's Ancient Monarchies, iii. 244 ff. H.
* SYRIAC, Dan. ii. 4. [Syrian.]
SYRIAC VERSIONS. [Versions, Stb-
iac] * SYR'IAN C^7?1M.: SiJpos: Syrus), a na.
tive or inhabitant of Syria (Gen. xxv. 20, xxviii. 5,
xxxi. 20, 24; Deut. xxvi. 5; 2 K. v. 20). The
plural, " Syrians," is commonly the translation of
D^M, Akam; e. g. 2 Sam. viii. 5-13, x.. 6-19,
&c.; but of D'^a'DH, 2 K. viii. 28, 29, ix. 15;
comp. 2 Chr. xxii. 5. "In the Syrian language"
or " tongue," 2 IC xviii. 26; Is. xxxvi. 11; Ezr. iv.
7; or "in Syriac," Dan. ii. 4, is n^p"lM {^vpi-
ffri: Syriace, Syra lingua, sermone Syro); in 2
Mace. XV. 36, t^ ^vptaKy <f)a}vr}, voce Syriaca A.
* SYR'IA-MA'AOHAH, 1 Chr. xix. 6.
[Aram: Maachah, 2].
SY'RO-PH(ENIC'IAN {^vpo4>oivlKiaa'a
[Lachm., Tisch., 8th ed.], :S,vpo(poivia-o-a [Rec.
Text; 2ivpa ^oiviKta-aa or 2,vpa<l>., Griesb., Tisch.
7th ed., Treg.], or ^vpa ^olvta-aa [no good MS.] :
Syro-Phcenissa) occui's only in Mark vii. 26. The
coinage of the words " Syro-Phcenicia," and " Sy-
ro-Phoenicians," seeras to have been the work of
the Romans, though it is difficult to say exactly
what they intended by tbe expressions. It haa
generally been supposed that they wished to dis
tinguish the Phcenicians of Syria from those of
Africa (the Carthaginians); and the term *' Syro-
phoenix" has been regarded as the exact converse
to "Libypboenix " (Alford, in loc.). But the Liby-
phoinices are not the Phcenicians of Africa gen
erally — they are a pecuUar race, half-African and
half-Phoenician ("mixtuni Punicura Afris genus,"
Liv. xxi. 22). The Syro- Phoenicians, therefore,
should, on this analogy, be a mixed race, half-Phte-
nicians and half-Syrians. This is probably the
sense of the word in the satirists Lucilius (ap. Non.
Marc. De proprietat. serm. iv. 431) and Juvenal
{Sat. viii. 159), who would regard a mongrel
Oriental as peculiarly contemptible.
In later tinies a geographic sense of the terras
superseded the ethnic one. The Emperor Hadrian
divided Syria into three parts, Syria Proper, Syro
Phoenice, and Syria Palsestina; and henceforth a
Syro-Phoenician meant a native of this sub-prov
ince (Lucian, /)e Cone. Deor. § 4), which included
Phoenicia Proper, Daraascus, and Palniyren^.
As the geographic sense had not come into use
in St. Mark's time, and as the ethnic one would be
a refinement unlikely in a sacred writer, it is per
haps most probable that he really wrote Siipa
*oiV((rcra, " a Phcenician Syrian," which is found
ill some copies. [The reading Svpa ^oivlKio'a'a is
much better supported. — A.]
St. Matthew uses "Canaanitish" {Xavavaia)in
the place of St. Mark's " Syro-Phoenician,*' or
" Phoenician Syrian," on the same ground thatthe
LXX. translate Canaan by Phoenicia (*o(ct/c?j).
The terms Canaan and Phoenicia had succeeded
one another as geographical names in the same
country; and Phcenicians were called "Canaan
ites," just as Englishmen are called " Britons-"
No conclusion as to the identity of tbe Canaanites
with the Phcenicians can properly be drawn front
the indifferent use of the two terms. (See RawUn
son's Herodotus, vol. iv. pp. 243-245.) G. H.

3150

SYRTIS

? SYR'TIS. [Quicksands.]
* SYZ'YGUS or SYN'ZYGUS, Phil. iv.
8. [Yoke-fellow, Amer. ed.]

TA'ANAOH CTT??^ [perh. casih, Dietr.]:
Zax«« [Vat. ZaKflK]) ®avdx, ®avadXi [lOaavax,
Vat. corrupt;] Alex. &avaXi Tavax^ eKQavaad,
®€vvax, ©atti/ax: [Thenac,] Thanac, Thanach).
An ancient Canaanitish city, whose king is enum
erated amongst the thirty-one conquered by Joshua
(Josh. xii. 21). It came into the hands of the half
tribe of Manasseh (Josh. xvii. 11, xxi. 25 ; 1 Chr. vii.
29), though it would appear to have lain outside
their boundary and within the allotment of either
Issachar or Asher (Josh, xvii. 11), probably the
former. It was bestowed on the Kohathite Levites
(Josh. xxi. 25). Taanach was one of the places
in which, either fi'om sorae strength of position, or
from the ground near it being favorable for their
mode of fighting, the Aborigines succeeded in mak
ing a stand (Josh. xvii. 12; Judg. i. 27); and in
the great struggle of the Canaanites under Sisera
against Deborah and Barak, it appears to have
forraed the head-quarters of their array (Judg. v.
19). After this defeat the Canaanites of Taanach
were probably made, Uke the rest, to pay a tribute
(Josh. xvii. 13; Judg. i. 28), but in the town they
appear to have remained to the last. Taanach is
almost always named in corapany with Megiddo,
and they were evidently the chief towns of that
fine rich district which forras the western portion
of the great plain of Esdraelon (1 K. iv. 12).
There it is stiU to be found. The identification
of Ta^annuk with Taanach, may be taken as one of
the surest in the whole Sacred Topography. It was
known to Eusebius, who mentions it twice in the
Onomasticon {Qaavdx ^nd ©ai/a-ij) as a "very
large village," standing between 3 and 4 Roman
miles from Legio — the ancient Megiddo. It was
known to hap-Parchi, the Jewish raediseval travel
ler, and it still stands about 4 miles southeast of
LejjUn, retaining its old narae with hardly the
change of a letter. The ancient town was planted
on a large mound at the terraination of a long
spur or promontory, which runs out northward
from the hills of Manasseh into the plain, and
leaves a recess or bay, subordinate to the main
plain on its north side and between it and Lejjun.
The modern hamlet clings to the S. \V. base of
the mound (Rob. ii. 316, 329; Van de Velde, i.
358; Stanley, Jemsh Church, pp. 321, 322).
In one passage the name is slightly changed both
in [the] original and A. V. [Tanach.] G.
TA'ANATH-SHI'LOH (hVu? ri3Hn
[circle of Shiloh, Fiirst] : « ©^yotra Kal XeXKr^s
[Vat. SeAA-Tjo-a]; Alex. Tnvad a-))\Q): Tanath-
Selo). A place named once only (Josh. xvi. 6) as
one of the landmarks of the boundary of Ephraim,
but of which boundary it seems impossible to as
certain. All we can tell is, that at this part tbe
enumeration is from west to east, Janohah being
east of Taanath Shiloh. With this agrees the
itateraent of Eusebius ( Onomasticon), who places

a * Dietrich resolves the name into Taanath by
Bhiloh {Ges. Hebr. Lex. p. 906, 6te Aufl.). H.
b Ptolemy names Thena and NeapoUs as the two

TABEAL
Janohah \2, and Thenath, or as 't was theu called
Thena,'' 10 Roman miles east of Neapolis. Jano
hah has been identified with some probabiUty at
YanUn, on the road from Nablus to the Jordan
: Valley, The name Tana, or Ain Tana, seems to
: exist in that direction. A place of that name was
seen by Robinson N. E. of Mejdel {BibL Res. iii.
295), and it is mentioned by Barth (Ritter, Jordan^
p. 471), but without any indication of its position.
Much stress cannot however be laid on Eusebius's
identification. In a list of places coutained in the Talmud
{Jerusalem Megillah i.), Taanath Shiloh is said to
be identical with Shiloh. This has been recently
revived by Kurtz {Gesch. des Alt. Bundes, ii. 70).
His view is that Taanath was the ancient Canaanite
name of the place, and Shiloh the Hebrew namCf
conferred on it in token of the "rest" which al
lowed the Tabemacle to be established there after
the conqutet of tbe country had been corapleted.
This is ingenious, but at present it is a mere con
jecture, and it is at variance with the identification
of Eusebius, with the position of Janohah, and, as
far as it can be inferred, of Michmethath, which is
mentioned with Taanath Shiloh in Josh. xvi. 6. G.
TAB'AOTH {Ta&ac&e; Alex. Ta^Swff: Tob
loch). Tabbaoth (1 Esdr. \. 29).
TAB'BAQTH (ni^Sl?) [rings, Ges.]: Ta$
ac&e; [Vat. Ta^wd, TaSaajfl;] Alex. Ta$^ata9
Tabbaoth, Tebbaoth). The children of Tabbaoth
were a family of Nethinim who returned with Ze
rubbabel (Ezr. ii.,43; Neh. vii. 46). The name
occurs in the form Tabaoth in 1 Esdr. v. 29.
TAB'BATH (HS^ [perh. celebrated] : Ta-
$d9; Alex. Ta^a9: Tebbnih). A place raentioned
only in Judg vii. 22, in describing the flight of
the Midianite host after Gideon's night attack.
The host fled to Beth-shittah, to Zererah, to the
brink of Abel-meholah on OV) Tabbath. Beth-
shittah may be ShUttah, which lies on the open
plain between Jebel Fukiia and Jebel Duhy, 4
miles east of Ain JalHd, the probable scene of
Gideon's onslaught. Abel-meholah was no doubt
in the Jordan Valley, though it may not have been
so much as 8 miles south of Beth-shean, where
Eusebius and Jerome would place it. But no
attempt seems to have been made to identify Tab-
bath, nor does any name resembUng it appear in
the books or maps, unless it be T^ukhat-Fahil,
i. e. " Terrace of Fahil." Tbis is a very striking
natural bank, 600 feet in height (Rob., ni. 325),
with a long, horizontal, and apparently flat top,
which is embanked against the western face of the
mountains east of the Jordan, and descends with a
very steep front to the river. It is such a remark
able object in the whole view of this part of the
Jordan Valley that it is difficult to imagine that it
did not bear a distinctive name in ancient as weU aa
modern times. At any rate, there is no doubt
that, whether this Tubukah represents Tabbath or
not, the latter was somewhere about this part of
tbe Ghor. G.
TAB'EAL (bW^tt [God is good]'. TajSeijA:
Tabeel). Properly " Tabeel," the pathach being

chief towns of the district of Samaria (cap. 16, quotad
in Keland, Pal. p. 461).

TABEEL
due to the pause (Gesen. Lehrg. § 52, 1 A ; Heb. Gr.
§ 29, 4 c). The son of Tabeal was apparently an
Ephraimite iu the army of Pekah the son of Hema-
liah. or a Syrian in the army of Rezin, when they
went up to besiege Jerusalem in the reign of Ahaz
(Is. vii. 6). The Aramaic form of the name favors
the latter supposition [comp. Tabkimmoh]. The
Targum of Jonathan renders the name as an appel
lative, " aud we will make king in the midst of her
him who seems good to us" (^273? 15 iT'
SD7), Rashi fey Gematria turns the name into
S vD'n, Rimla, by which apparently he would un
derstand RemuUah.
TAB'BEL (b«5p [see above]; TaSeVJA:
Thabeel). An ofEcer of the Persian government
in Samaria in the reign of Artaxerxes (Ezr. iv. 7).
His name appears to indicate that he was a Syrian,
for it is really the same as that of the Syrian vassal
ot Kezin who is called in our A. V. " Tabael." Add
to this that the letter which he and hia companions
wrote to the king was in the Syrian or Aranisean
language. Gesenius, however (Jes. i. 280), thinks
that he may have been a Samaritan. He is called
Tabellius in 1 Esdr ii. 16. The name of Tobiei
the father of Tobit is probably the same.
W. A. W.
TABEL'LIUS (Tct^f'AAios: Sabellius) IEsAt.
ii. 16. [Tabeel.]
TAB'ERAH (iTIS'^ri [a burnir^y] r 4uTrv-
pia/i6s). The name of a place in the wilderness of
Paran, given from the fact of a •' burning " among
the people by the " fire of the Lord " which there
took place (Num. xi. 3, Deut. ix. 22). It has not
been identified, and is not mentioned among the list
of encampments in Nura. xxxiii. H. H.
TABERING (hlDphp : ^eeyy6ii.evai.
murmurantes): The obsolete word thus used in
the A. V. of /Nah. ii. 7 requires some explanation.
The Hebrew word connects itself with ^Fi, "a
timbrel," and the image which it brings before us
in this passage is that of the women of Nineveh, led
nway into captivity, mourning with the plaintive
tones of doves, and beating on their breasts in an
guish, as women beat upon their timbrels (comp.
Ps. Ixviii. 25 [26], where the same verb is used).
The LXX. and Vulg., as above, make no attempt
at giving the exact meaning. The Targum of
.lonathan gives a word which, like the Hebrew, has
the meaning of " tympanizantes." The A. V. in
like manner reproduces the original idea of the
words. The " tabour " or " tabor " was a musical
histrument of the drum type, which with the pipe
formed the band of a eountry village. We retain
a trace at once of the word and of the thing in the
" tabourine " or " tambourine " ot modern music,
in the " tabret" of the A. V. and older English
TOters. To " tabour," accordingly, is to beat with
loud strokes as men beat upon such an instrument.
The verb is found in this sense in Beaumont and
I'letcher, The Tamer Tamed ("I would tabor
her"), and answers with a, singular felicity to the
exact meaning of the Hebrew. E. H. P.
TABERNACLE ClStfO, bri"H: ffKnvl,:
tabernaculum). The description of the Tabernacle
and its materials will be found under Temple.
The writer of that article holds that he cannot deal
latisfactorily with the structural order and propor-

TABBRNACLE 315]
tions of the one without discussing also those of the
other. Here, therefore, it remains for us to treat —
(1) of the word and its synonyms; (2) of the his
tory of the Tabernacle itself; (3) of its relation to
the religious life of Israel ; (4) of the theories of
later times respecting it.
I. The Wm'd and its Synonyms. — (1.) The
first word thus used (Ex. xxv. 9) is IStDQ (Mish-
c&n), formed from ^5^^ t° settle down or dwell,
and thus itself = dwelling. It connects itself with
the Jewish, though not Scriptural, word Shecbinah,
as describing the dweUing-place of the Divine Glory.
It is noticeable, however, that it is not applied in
prose to the coramon dwellings of men, the tents of
the Patriarchs in Genesis, or those of Israel in the
wilderness. It seeras to belong rather to the speech
of poetry (Ps. Ixxxvii. 2; Cant. i. 8). The loftier
character of the word may obviously have helped to
determine its religious use, and justifies translators
who have the choice of synonyms like " tabernacle "
and " tent " in a like preference.
(2.) Another word, however, is also used, more
connected with the common life of men; VHS
{6hel),ihe "tent" of the Patriarchal age, of Abra
ham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob (Gen. ix. 21, &c.).
For the most part, as needing something to raise it,
it is used, when applied to the Sacred Tent, with
some distinguishing epithet. In one passage only
(1 K. i. 39) does it appear with this meaning by
itself. The LXX. not distinguishhig between the
two words gives a-Kr/vii for both. The original
difference appears to have been that vHw repre
sented the outermost covering, the black goat's hair
curtains; 13E?12, the inner covering, the curtains
which rested on the boards (Gesenius, s. v.). The
two words are accordingly .sometimes joined, as in
Ex. xxxix. 32, xl 2, 6, 29 (A. V. "the tabernacle
of the tent "). Even here, however, the LXX.
gives oKriri] only, with the exception of the var.
led. of ij oKTivii rrjs OKiirTJs in Ex. xl. 29.
(3.) ri^3 (Bailh): oIkos'. domus, is applied to
the Tabernacle in Ex. xxiii. 19, xxxiv. 26; Josh. vi.
24, ix. 23; Judg. xviii. 31, xx. 18, as it had been,
apparently, to the tents of the Patriarchs (Gen.
xxxiii. 17). So far as it differs from the two pre
ceding words, it expresses more definitely the idea
of a fixed,settled habitation. It was therefore fitter
for the sanctuary of Israel after the people were
settled in Canaan, than during their wanderings.
For us the chief interest of the word lies in its hav
ing descended frora a yet older order, the first word
ever applied in the 0. T. to a local sanctuary,
" Beth-el," " Ihe house of God " (Gen. xxviii. 17,
22), keeping its place, side by side, with other
words, tent, tabernacle, palace, teraple, synagogue,
and at last outliving all of them, rising, in the
Christian Ecclesia, to yet higher uses (1 Tim. iii.
15). (4.) W'j'p (Kodesh), C£?^r?i? (Mikdash): 'ayi-
ao'fia, ayiaffT^piov, rh ay tov, Tci ay ta'- sanctua-
rium, the holy, consecrated place, and therefore ap
plied, according to the graduated scale of holiness
of which the Tabernacle bore witness, sometimes to
the whole structure (Ex. xxv. 8; Lev. xii. 4), some
times to the court iuto which none but the priests
might enter (Lev. iv. 6; Num. iii. 38, iv. 12;, ,
sometimes to the innermost sanctuary of all, the
Holy of Holies (Lev. iv. 6 ?). Here also the word

3152

TABERNACLE

had an earlier starting-point and a far-reaching his
tory. En-Mishpat, the city pf judgment, the
seat of some old oracle, had been also Kadesh,
the sanctuary (Gen. xiv. 7; Ewald, Gesch. Isr. ii.
307). The name el-Kliuds cUngs still to the walls
of Jerusalem.
(5.) v3^n (Becdl): va6s. (eniptas, as meaning
the stately building, or palace of Jehovah (1 Chr.
xxix. 1, 19), is applied more commonly to the
Temple « (2 K. xxiv. 13, <iic.), but was used also
(probably at the period when the thought of the
Temple had affected the religious nomenclature of
the time) of the Tabernacle at Shiloh (1 Sam. i. 9,
iii. 3) and Jerusalem (Ps. v. 7). In either case the
thought which the word embodies is, that the
"tent," the "house," is royal, the dwelling-place
of the great king.
(6.) The two words (1) and (2) receive a new
meaning in combination (o) with ^??^^ (mo'id),
and (b) with n^^27^, ha'edulh. To understand
the full meaning of the distinctive titles thus formed
is to possess the key to the significance of the whole
Tabernacle, (a.) The primary force of ^3J^ is " to
meet by appointment," and the phrase vHS
^3?1Q has therefore the meaning of " a place of or
for a fixed meeting." Acting on the belief that
the meeting in this case was that of the worship
pers, the A. V. has uniformly rendered it by " tab
ernacle of the congregation " (so Seb. Schmidt,
"tentorium conventus; " and Luther, " Stifts-
hiitte" in which Stift=:Pfarrkirche), while the
LXX. and Vulg. confounding it with the other
epithet, have rendered both by ^ crxriui} rov /mp-
Tvpiov, and "tabernaculum testimonii." None of
these renderings, however, bring out the real raean
ing of the word. This is to be found in what may
be called the locus classicus, as the interpretation
of all words connected with the Tabernacle. " This
shall be a continual burnt-offering ... at the
door of the tabernacle of meeting ('T]S?1Q) where
I will meet you (^1?JM, yvoiaBiiaoi^ai) to speak
there unto thee. And there will 1 meet (^/^^S3 ,
Tat^Ojuai) with the children of Israel. And f will
sanctify (''^tT^i?) the tabernacle of meeting
and I will dwell (^'i^PDti?) among the children
of Israel, and will be their God. And they shall
know that I am the Lord their God " (Ex. xxix.
42-46). The same central thought occurs in Ex.
xxv. 22, " There I will meet with thee " (corap. also
Kx. xxx. 6, 36; Num. xvii. 4). It is clear, there-
lore, that " congregation " is inadequate. Not the
uiathering of the worshippers only, but the raeeting
of God with his people, to commune with them, to
make himself known to them, was what the name
embodied. Ewald has accordingly suggested Offen-
barungszelt = Tent of Revelation, as the best equiv-

TABERNACLB
alent (Alierthiimer, p. 130). This made the plact
a sanctuary. Thus it was that the lent was the
dweUing, the house of God (Bahr, Symbolik, 1. 81).
(7.) The other compound phrase, (b.) ^HM
^^Sl' ^ connected with T'iS (=to bear wit
ness), is rightly rendered by ij a'Krjvi] tov p.ttpTvj>iov,
tabernaculum testimonii, die Wohnung des Zeug-
nisses, " the tent of the testimony " (Num. ix. 16),
"the tabernacle of witness " (Num. xvii. 7, xviii.
2). In this case the tent derives its name from
that which is the centre of its hoUneBS. The two
tables of stone within the ark are emphatically the
testimony (Ex. xxv. 16, 21, xxxi. 18). They were
to all Israel the abiding witness of the nature and
will of God. The tent, by vu'tue ot its relation to
them, became the witness of its own significance as
the meeting-place of God and man. The probable
connection of the two distinct names, in sense as
well as in sound (Bahr, Symb. i. 83 ; Ewald, Alt.
p. 230), gave, of course, a force to each which no
translation can represent.
II. History. — (1. ) The outward history of the
Tabernacle begins with Ex. xxv. It comes after
the first great group of Laws (xix.-xxiii.), after the
covenant with the people, after the vision of the
Divine Glory (xxiv.). For forty days and nights
Moses is in the mount. Before him there lay a
problem, as measured by human judgment, of gi
gantic difficulty. In what fit symbols was he to em
body the great truths, without which the nation
would sink into brutality? In what way could
those symbols be guarded against the evil which he
had seen in Egypt, of idolatry the most degrading ?
He was not left to solve tbe problem for himself.
There rose before him, not without points of con
tact with previous associations, yet in no degree
formed out of them, the " pattern " of the Taber
nacle. The lower analogies of the painter and the
architect seeing, with their inward eye, their com
pleted work, before the work itself begins, may help
us to understand how it was that the vision on the
mount included all details of form, measurement,
materials, the order of the ritual, the apparel of tbe
priests.'' He is directed in his choice of the two
chief artists, Bezaleel of the tribe of Judah,<: Aholiab
of the tribe of Dan (xxxi.). The sin of the golden
calf apparently postpones the execution. For a
moment it seems as if the people were to be left
without the Divine Presence itself, without any
recognized symbol of it (Ex. xxxiii. 3). As in a
transition period, the whole future depending on the
penitence of the people, on the intercession of their
leader, a tent is pitched, probably that of Moses
himself, outside the camp, to be provisionally the
Tabemacle of Meeting. There the mind of the
Lawgiver enters into ever-closer fellowship with the
mind of God (Ex. xxxiii. 11 ), leains to think of
Him as "merciful and gracious" (ICx. xxxiv. 6),
in the strength of that thought is led back to the
fulfillment of the plan which had seemed likely to
end, as it began, in vision. Of this provisional

a * In Acts vii. 46, " tabernacle " in the A. V. is
anachronistic. It should be " habitation " or " place
ef abode " (see Scholefield's Hints for the Improvement
ofthe A. v., p. 40) David desired to build a Temple
for Jehovah ; the Tabernacle had already existed for
centuries. H,
^> An interesting parallel is found in the preparations
for the Temple. There also the extremest minutiee
veie aiaoug the things whicb the Lord made David

" to understand in writing by his hand upon him,"
i. e. by au inward illumination which seemed to ex
clude the slow process of deliberation aud decision (1
Chr. xxviii. 19).
c The prominence of artistic power in the geneal
ogies of the tribe of Judah is wortti noticing (1 Chr.
iv. 4, 14, 21, 23). Dan, also, in the person of Uiram, i«
afterwards conspicuous (2 Chr. ii 14 ; corap. 1 It. Til
13, 14).

TABERJi ACTiE
labernacle it has to be noticed, that there was as
yet no ritual and no priesthood. The people went
3ut to it as to an oracle (Ex. xxxiii. 7). Joshua,
though of the tribe of Ephraim, had free access to
it (ICx. xxxiii. 11).
(2.) Another outline Law was, however, given;
another period of soUtude, like the first, followed.
The work could now be resumed. The people
offered the necessary materials in excess of what
was wanted (Ex. xxxvi. 6, 6). Other workmen
(Ex. xxxvi. 2) and work-women (Ex. xxxv. 25)
placed themselves under the direction of Bezaleel
and Aholiab. The parts were completed sepa
rately, and then, on the first day of the second
. year from the Exodus, the Tabernacle itself was
erected and the ritual appointed for it begun (Ex.
xl. 2).
(3. ) The position of the new tent was itself sig
nificant. It stood, not, like the provisional Taber
nacle, at a distance from the camp, but in its very
centre. The multitude of Israel, hitherto scatt,ered
with no fixed order, were now, within a month of
its erection (Num. ii. 2), grouped round it, as
around the dwelling of the unseen Captain of the
Host, in a fixed order, according to their tribal rank.
The Priests on the east, the other three families of
the Levites on the other sides, were closest m at
tendance, the " body-guard " of the Great King.
[Levites.] In the wider square, Judah, Zebulun,
Issachar, were on the east; Ephraim, Manasseh,
Benjamin, on the west; the less conspicuous tribes,
Dan, Asher, Naphtali, on the north; Reuben, Sira
eon, Gad, on the south side. When the army put
itself in order of march, the position of the Taber
nacle, carried by the Levites, was still central, the
tribes of the east and south in front, those of tbe
north and west in the rear (Num. ii.). Upon it
there rested the symbolic cloud, dark by day, and
fiery red by night (Ex. xl. 38). When the cloud
removed, the host knew that it was the signal for
them to go forward (Iix. xl. 36, 37; Num. ix. 17).
As long as it remained, whetiier for a day, or
month, or year, they continued where they were
(Sum. ix. 15-23). Each march, it must be re
membered, involved the breaking up of the whole
structure, all the parts being carried on wagons
by the three Levite families of Kohath, Gershon,
and Merari, while the " sons of Aaron " prepared
for the removal by covering everything in the
Holy of Holies with a purple cloth (Num. iv. 6-
15). (4.) In all special facts connected with the Tab
emacle, the original thought reappears. Id is the
place where man meets with God. There the Spirit
"comes upon" the seventy Elders, and they proph
esy (Num. xi. 24, 25). Thither Aaron and Mir
iam are called out, when they rebel against the
servant of the Lord (Num. xii. 4). There the
" glory of the Lord " appears after the unfaithful
ness of the twelve spies (Num. xiv. 10), and the
rebellion of Korah and his company (Num. xvi. 19,
42), and the sin of Meribah (Num. xx. 6). Thither,
when there is no sin to punish, but a difficulty to
je met, do the daughters of Zelophehad come to
bring their cause " before the Lord " (Num. xxvii.
2). There, when the death of Moses draws near.

TABERNACLE

3153

a The occurrence of tho same distinctive word in
Ex. xxxviii. 8, implies a recognized dedication of some
tind, by which women bound themselves to the ser
vice of tae Tabernacle, probably as singers and dan
gers. ^Vhal we find unde.- Eli was the corruption of

is the solemn "charge" given to his s accessor
(Deut. xxxi. 14).
(5. ) As long as Canaan reraained unconquered,
and tlie people were still therefore an army, the
Tabernacle was probably moved from place to place,
wherever the host of Israel was, for the time, en
camped, at Gilgal (Josh. iv. 19), in the valley be
tween Ebal and Gerizim (Josh. viii. 30-35); again,
at the headquarters of Gilgal (Josh. ix. 6, x. 15,
43); and, finally, as at " the place which the Lord
had chosen," at Shiloh (Josh. ix. 27, xviii. 1). The
reasons ot the choice are not given. Partly, per
haps, its central position, partly its belonging to
the powerfid tribe of Ephraim, the tribe of the
great captain of the host, may have determined the
preference. There it continued during the whole
period of the Judges, the gathering-point for " the
heads of the fathers " of the tribes (Josh. xix. 51),
for councils of peace or war (Josh. xxii. 12; Judg.
xxi. 12), for annual solemn dances, in which the
womeu of Shiloh were conspicuous (Judg. xxi. 21).
There, too. as the religion of Israel sank towards
the level of an orgiastic heathenism, troops of
women assembled, « shameless as those of Midian.
worshippers of Jehovah, and, Hke the lep6Sov\oi
of heathen temples, concubines of his priests (1
Sam. ii. 22). It was far, however, from being
what it was intended to be, the one national sanc
tuary, the witness against a locahzed and divided
worship. The old religion of the high places kept
its ground. Altars were erected, at first under pro
test, and with reserves, as being not for sacrifice
(Josh. xxii. 26), afterwards freely and without
scruple (Judg. vi. 24, xiii. 19). Of the names by
which the one special sanctuary was known at this
period, those of the " House," or the " Temple,"
of Jehovah (1 Sam. i. 9, 24, iii. 3, 15) are most
prominent. (6.) A state of things which was rapidly assim
ilating the worship of Jehovah to that of Ashta
roth, or Mylitta, needed to be broken up. The
Ark of God was taken and the sanctuary lost its
glory ; and the Tabernacle, though it did not per
ish, never again recovered if* (1 Sam. iv. 22).
Sarauel, at once the Luther and the Alfred of Is
rael, who had grown up within its precincts, treats
it as an abandoned shrine (so Ps. Ixxviii. 60), and
sacrifices elsewhere, at Mizpeh (1 Sam. vii. 9), at
Ramah (ix. 12, x. 13), at Gilgal (x. 8, xi. 15). It
probably became once again a movable sanctuary,
less honored as no longer possessing the symbol of
the Divine Presence, yet cherished by the priest
hood, and some portions, at least, of its ritual kept
up. For a time it seems, under Saul, to have
been settled at Nob (1 Sam. xxi. 1-6), which thus
became what it had not been before — a priestly
city. The massacre of the priests and the flight of
Abiathar must, however, have robbed it yet further
of its glory. It had before lost the Ark. It now
lost the presence of the High-Priest, and with it
the oracular ephod, the Uium and the Thum.hiji
(1 Sam. xxii. 20, xxiii. 6). What change of for
tune then followed we do not know. The fact
that all Israel was encamped, iu the last days of
Saul, at Giiboa, and that there Saul, though with
out success, inquired of the Lord by Urim (1 Sam.

the original practice (comp. Ewald, Atterth. 297). In
tbe dances of Judg. xxi. 21, we have a stage of tran
sition. b Ewsdi (Geschithte, ii. 540) intern that Shilch ts«li
IS comiuered and laid waste.

3 154 TABEKNACLE
xxviii. 4-6), makes it probable that the Tabernacle,
as of old, was in the encampment, and that Abia
thar had returned to it. In some way or other, it
found its way to Gibeon (1 Chr. xvi. 39). The
ftnomalous separation of the two things which, in
the original order, had been joined, brought about
yet greater anomalies; and, while the ark remained
at Kirjath-jearim, the Tabernacle at Gibeon con
nected itself with the worship of the high-places
(1 K. iii. 4). The capture of Jemsalem and the
erection there of a new Tabernacle, vrith the ark, of
which the old had been deprived (2 Sam. vi. 17; 1
Chr. XV. 1), left it little more than a traditional,
historical sanctity. It retained only the old altar
of burnt-offerings (1 Chr. xxi. 29). Such as it
was, however, neither king nor people could bring
themselves to sweep it away. The double service
went on; Zadok, as high-priest, officiated at Gib
eon (1 Chr. xvi. 39): the more recent, more pro
phetic service of psahns and hymns and music,
under Asaph, gathered round the Tabernacle at
Jerusalem (1 Cbr. xvi. 4, 37). The divided wor
ship continued all the days of David. The sanc
tity of both places was recognized by Solomon on
his accession (1 K. iii. 15; 2 Chr. i. 3). But it
was time that the anomaly should cease. As long
as it was simply Tent against Tent, it was difficult
to decide between them. The purpose of David
fulfilled by Solomon, was that the claims of both
should merge in the higher glory of the Temple.
Some, Abiathar probably among them, clung to the
old order, in tins as in other things [Solomon;
Urim and Thujimim], but the final day at last
came, and the Tabernacle of Meeting was either
taken down," or left to perish and be forgotten.
So a page in the religious history of Israel was
closed. So the disaster of Shiloh led to its natural
consummation. III. Relation io ihe Religious Life of Israel. —
(1.) Whatever connection may be traced between
other parts of the ritual of Israel and that of the
nations with which Israel had been brought into
contact, the thought of the Tabei-nacle meets us as
entirely new.'' The " house of God " [Bethel]
of the Patriarchs had been the large " pillar of
stone" (Gen. xxviii. 18, 19), bearing record of
sorae high spiritual experience, and tending to lead
men upward to it (Bahr, SymboL i. 93), or the
grove which, with its dim, doubtful light, attuned
the souls of men to a divine awe (Gen. xxi. 33).
The temples of Egypt were stately and colossal,
hewn in the solid rock, or built of huge blocks of
granite, as unlike as possible to the sacred tent of
Israel. The conmiand was one in which we can
trace a special fitness. The stately temples be
longed to the house of bondage which they were
leaving. The sacred places of their fathers were in
the land toward which they were journeying. In
the mean while they were to be wanderers in the
wilderness. To have set up a Bethel after the old
pattern would have been to raake that a resting-
place, the object then or afterwards of devout pil-

TABERNaOLE
grimage; and the multiplication of such placet
at the different stages of their march would have i i i i i n
led inevitably to polytheism. It would have failed
utterly to lead them to the thought which they
needed most — of a, Divine Presence never ab
sent from thera, protecting. ruHng, judging. A
sacred tent, a moving Bethel, was the fit sanctu
ary for a people still nomadic'' It was capable of
being united afterwards, as it actually came to be,
with " the grove" of the older cultzts (Josh, xxivi
26). (2.) The structure of the Tabernacle was obvi
ously determined by a complex and profound sym-
boUsm ; but its meaning remains one of the things
at which we can but dimly guess. No interpreta
tion is given iu the Law itself. The explanations
of Jewish writers long afterwards are manifestly
wide of the mark. That which meets us in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, the application of the types
of the Tabernacle to the mysteries of Kedemptioij,
was latent till those mysteries were made known.
And yet we cannot but beUeve that, as each por
tion of the wonderful order rose before the inward
eye of the lawgiver, it must have embodied dis-
tmctly manifold truths which he apprehended
himself, and sought to communicate to others. It
entered, indeed, into the order of a divine educa
tion for Mosas and for Israel : and an education by
means of symbols, no less than by means of words,
presupposes au existing language. So far from
shrinking, therefore, as men have timidly and un
wisely shrunk (Witsius, /Egypiiaca, in Ugohni,
Thes. vol. i.) from asking what thoughts the Egyp
tian education of Moses would lead him to connect
with the symbols he was now taught to use, we
may see in it a legitimate method of inquiry — al
most the only method possible. Where that fails,
the gap may be filled up (as in Bahr, Symbol, pas
sim) from the analogies of other nations, indicating,
where they agree, a wide-spread primeval symbol
ism. So far from laboring to prove, at the price 
of ignoring or distorting facts, tbat everything was
till then unknown, we shall as little, expect to find
it so, as to see in Hebrew a new and heaven-bom
language, spoken for the first time on Sinai, writ
ten for the first time on tbe Two Tables of the Cov
enant. (3.) The thought of a graduated sanctity, like
that of the outer court, the Holy Place, the Holy oi
Holies, had its counterpart, often the same "aumber
of stages, in the structure of Egyptian temples
(Bahr, i. 216). The interior Adytum (to proceed
from the innermost recess outward) was small in
proportion to the rest of the building, and com
monly, as in tbe Tabemacle (Joseph. Ant. li. 6,
§ 3), was at the western end (Spencer, iii. 2), and
was unlighted from without.
In the Adytum, often at least, was the sacred
Akk, the culminating point of holiness, containing
the highest and most mysterious symbols, winged
figures, generally like those of the chei-ubim (Wil
kinson, Anc. Egypt v. 275; Kenrick, Egypt, i.

a Tlie language of 2 Chr. v. 5, leaves it doubtful
whether the Tabernacle there referred to was that
at Jerusalem or Gibeon. (But see Joseph. Ant, viii.
4, § 1-)
b Spencer {De leg. Hebrceor. iii. 8) labors hard, but
not successfully, to prove that the tabernacles of Mo
loch of Amos v. 26, were the prototypes of the Tent of
Meeting. Ifc has to be remembered, however, (1) thafc
the word used in Amos {siccUth) is never used of the
rAb«rnacle, and means something very different ; an \

(2) that tbe Moloch-worship represented a defection of
the people subsequent to the erection of the Tabernacle.
On these grounds, then, and not from any abstract re
pugnance to the idea of such a transfer, I abide by the
statement in the text.
c Analogies of like wants met in a like way, with no
ascertainable historical connection, are to be found
among the Gtetulians and other tribes of northern
Africa (Sii. Ital. iii. 289). and in tbe Sacred Tent -f th«
Cartturginian encampments (Diod. Sic. xx. 66)>

TABERNACLE
460), the emblems of stability and life. Here were
outward points of resemblance. Of all elements of
Egyptian worship this was one which could be
transferred with least hazard, with most gain. No
one could think that the Ark itself was the likeness
of the God he worshipped. When we ask what
gave the Ark its holiness, we are led on at once to
the infinite difference, the great gulf' between the
two systems. That of Egypt was predominantly
cosmical, starting from tbe productive powers of
nature. The symbols of those powere, though not
originally involving what we know as impurity,
tended to it faially and rapidly (Spencer, iii. 1;
Warburton, Divine Legation, II. 4 note). That of
Israel was predominantly ethical. 1'he nation was
taught to think of God, not chiefly as revealed in
nature, but as manifesting himself in and to the
spirits of men. In the Ark of the Covenant, as the
highest revelation then possible of tbe Divine Na
ture, were the two tables of stone, on which were
graven, by the teaching of the Divine Spirit, and
therefore by " the finger of God," ^ the great un
changing laws of human duty which had been pro
claimed on Sinai. Here the lesson taught was
plain enough. The highest knowledge was as the
simplest, the esoteric as the exoteric. In the depths
of the Holy of Holies, and for the high-priest as for
all Israel, tbere was the revelation of a righteous
Will requiring righteousness in raan (Saalschiitz,
ArchdoL c. 77). And over the Ark was the Coph
ereth (Mercy-Seat), so called with a twofold ref
erence to the root-meaning of the word. It covered
the Ark. It was the witness of a mercy covering
sins. As the "footstool" of God, the " throne "
of the Divine Glory, it declared that over the Law
which seeraed so rigid and unbending there rested
the compassion of One forgiving " iniquity and
transgression." '^ And over the Mercy-seat were
the Cherubim, reproducing, in part at least, the
symboUsm of the great Hamitic races, forms famil
iar to Moses and Israel, needing no description for
them, interpreted for us by the fuller vision of the
later prophets (Ez. i. 5-13, a. 8-15, xU. 19), or by
the winged fornis of the imagery of Egypt. Rep
resenting as they did the manifold powers of na
ture, created life in its highest form (Bahr, i. 341),
theu" " overshadowing wings." " meeting " as in
token of perfect harmony, declared that nature as
well as man found its highest glory in subjection to
a Divine Law, tbat men might take refuge in that
Order, as under "the shadow of the wings" of
God (Stanley, Jeuoish Chw*ch, p. 98). Placed
where those and other like figures were, in the tem-

TABERNACLE

3156

a The equivalence of the two phrases, " by the
Spirit of God," and " by the finger of God," is seen
by comparing Matt. xii. 28 and Luke xi. 20. Comp.
also the language of Clement of Alexandria {Strom, vi.
§ 133) and the use of " the hand ,of the Lord " in 1
K. xviii. 46 ; 2 K. iii. 15 ; Ez. i. 3, iii. 14 ; 1 Chr.
xxviii. 19.
6 Ewald, giving to 1Q3, the root of CDphereth, the
raeining uf " to scrape," " erase," derives from that
meaning the idea implied in the LXX. iAatrr^pioj', and
denies that the word ever signified iirtOeixa {Atterth.
Op. 128, 12d).
c A full discussion of the subject is obviously im
possible here, but it may be useful to exhibit briefly
the chief thoughts which have been connected with
the numbers thafc are most prominent in the language
af symbolism. Arbitrary as some of them may seem,
\ sufficient induction to establish each will be found
in Bahr's elaborate di'isertaUon, i. 128-255j and other

pies of Egypt, they might be hindrances and not
helps, might sensualize in.stead of purifying the
worship of the people. But it was part of the wis
dom which we may reverently trace in the order of
the Tabernacle, that while Egyptian symbols are
retained, as in the Ark, the Cherubim, the Urim
and the Thummim, their place is changed. They
remind the high-priest, the representative of the
whole nation, of the truths on which the order rests.
The people cannot bow down and worship thafc
which they never see.
The material not less than the forms, in the
Holy of Holies was significant. The acacia or
shittim- wood, least liable, of woods then accessible,
to decay, might well represent the imperishable-
ness of Divine Truth, of the Laws of Duty (Bahr,
i. 286). Ark, mercy-seat, cherubim, tbe very
walls, were all overlaid with gold, the noblest of all
metals, the symbol of light and purity, sun-light
itself as it were, fixed and embodied, the token of
the incorruptible, of the glory of a great king
(Bahr, i. 282). It was not without meaning that
all this lavish expenditure of what was most costly
was placed where none might gaze ou it. The gold
thus offered taught man, tbat tbe noblest acts of
beneficence and sacrifice are not those which are
done that they may be seen of men, but those
which are known only to Hira who " seeth in
secret" (Matt. vi. 4). Dimensions also had their
meaning. Difficult as it may be to feel sure that
we have the key to the enigma, there can be but
Uttle doubt that the older religious systems of the
world did attach a mysterious significance to each
separate number; that the training of Moses, as
afterwards the far less complete initiation of Pythag
oras in the symbobsm of Egypt, must have made
that transparently clear to him, which to us is
almost impenetrably dark." To those who think
over the words of two great teachers, one heathen
(Plutarch, De Is. et Os. p. 411), and one Christian
(Clem. Al. Strom, vi. pp. 84-87), who had at least
studied as far as they could the mysteries of the
rehgion of Egypt, and had inherited part of the old
system, the precision of the numbers in tbe plan of
the Tabernacle will no longer seem unaccountable.
If in a cosmical system, a right-angled triangle
with the sides three, four, five, represented the triad
of Osiris, Isis, Orus, creative force, receptive matter,
the universe of creation (Plutarch, L c), the perfect
cube of the Holy of Holies, the constant recurrence
of the numbers 4 and 10, may well be accepted aa

wofks. Comp. Wilkinson, Anc. E^. iv. 190-199 i
Leyrer iu Herzog^s Encyclop. " Stiftshiitte."
One — The Godhead, Eternity, Life, Creative Force
the Sun, Man.
Two — Matter, Time, Death, Receptive Capacity, th«
Moon, Woman.
Three (as a number, or in the triangle) — The
Universe in connection with God, the Abso
lute in itself, fche Unconditioned, God.
Four (the number, or in the square or cube) — Con
ditioned Existence, the World as created.
Divine Order, RevelatioQ-
SEViSN (as = 3 + 4) — The Union of the World and
God, Rest (asin the Sabbath), Peace, Blessing,
Purification.
Ten (ag = l-f-2-|-S-!-4) — Completeness, moral
and physical, Perfection.
Five — Perfection half attained, Incompreteness.
Twelve — The Signs ofthe Zodiac, the Cycle of the
Seasons ; in Israel the ideal number of th<
people, of the Covenant of God with tkem.

3156

TABERNACLE

lymbolizing order, stability, pprtection (Bahr, i.
225 ).«
(4.) Into the inner sanctuary neither people nor
the priests as a body ever entered. Strange as it
may seera, tbat ir which everything represented
tight and life was left in utter darkness, in pro
found solitude. Once only in the year, on the
Day of Atonement, might the high-priest
enter. The strange contrast has, however, its
parallel in the spiritual life. Death and life, light
and darkness, are wonderfully united. Only
through death can we truly live. Only by passing
into the " thick darkness " where God is (Ex. xx.
21; IK. viii. 12), can we enter at all into the
" light inaccessible," ui which He dwells everlast
ingly. The solemn annual entrance, like the with
drawal of symbolic forms from the gaze of the
people, was itself part of a wise and divine order.
Intercourse with Egypt had shown how easily the
symbols of Truth raight becorae common and
familiar things, yet without symbols, the truths
themselves might be forgotten. Both dangers were
met. To enter once, and once only in the year,
into the awful darkness, to stand before the Law
of Duty, before the presence of the God who gave
it, not in the stately i-obes that became the repre
sentative of God to man, but as representing man
in his humiliation, in the garb of the lower priests,
bare-footed and in the linen ephod, to confess his
own sins and the sins of the people, this was what
connected the Atonement-day {Cippur) with the
Mercy-seat {Cophereth). And to come tbere with
blood, the symbol of life, touching with that Mood
the mercy-seat, witb incense, the symbol of adora^
tion (Lev. xvi. 12-14), what did that express but
the truth: (1) that man must draw near to the
righteous God with no lower offering than the pure
worship of the heart, with the living sacrifice of
body, soul, and spirit; (2) that could such a
perfect sacrifice be found, it would have a myste
rious power working beyond itself, in proportion to
its perfection, to cover the multitude of sins ?
(5.) From all others, from the high-priest at all
other tinies, the Holy of Holies was shrouded by the
double Veil, bright with many colors and strange
forras, even as curtains of golden tissue were to be
seen hanging before the Adytura of an Egyptian
temple, a strange contrast often to the bestial forra
behind them (Clem. Al. Pflsrf« iii. 4). In one
memorable instance, indeed, the veil was the wit
ness of higher and deeper thoughts. On the shrine
of Isis at Sais, there were to be read words which,
though pointing to a pantheistic rather than an
ethical rehgion, were yet wonderful in their lofti
ness, "I am all that has been {irav rh yey ov6s)-,
and is, and shall be. and my veil no mortal hath
withdrawn " {arteKdKv^sv) {He Js. et Osir. p.
394). Like, and yet more, unlike the truth, we
feel that no such words could have appeared on the
veil of the Tabernacle. In that identification of
the world and God, all idolatry was latent, as in
the faith of Israel in, the I AM, all idolatry was
excluded.'' In that despair of any withdrawal of
the veil, of any revelation of the Divine Will, there
were latent all the arts of an unbelieving priestcraft,
substituting symbols, pomp, ritual for such a revela-

" The symbol reappears in the mosfc startling form
^D the closing visions of the Apocalypse. There the
heavenly Jerusalem is described, io words which
absolutely exclude the literalism which has sometimes
been blindly applied to it, aa a city fonr-square,

TABKRNACLE
tion. But wnat then was the meaning of the veil
which met the gaze of the priests as they did
service in the sanctuary? Colors in the art of
Egypt were not less significant than number, and
the four bright colors, probably, after the fashion
of that art, in parallel bands, blue symbol of
heaven, and purple of kingly glory, and crimson of
life and joy, and white of light and purity (Bahr, i.
305-330), formed in their combination no remote
similitude of the rainbow, which of old had been
a symbol of the Divine covenant with man, the
pledge of peace and hope, the sign of the Divine
Presence (Ez. i. 28; Ewald, Alterth. p. 333).
Within the veil, light and truth were seen in their
unity. The veil itself represented the infinite
variety, the vo\viroiKi\os ao<pia of the divhie
order in Creation (Eph. iii. 10). And there again
were seen copied upon the veil, the mysteilous forms
of the cherubim ; how many, or in what attitude,
or of what size, or in what material, we are not
told. The words "cunning work" in Ex. xxxvi.
35, applied elsewhere to combinations of embroidery
aud metal (Ex. xxviii. 15, xxxi. .4), justify perhaps
the conjecture that here also they were of gold. In
the absence of any other evidence it would have
been, perhaps, natural to think that they repro
duced on a larger scale, the number and the
position of those that were over tbe mercy-seat.
The visions of Ezekiel, however, reproducing, aa
they obviously do, the forms witb which his priestly
life had made him familiar, indicate not less than
four (c. i. and x.), and those not all alike, having
severally the faces of a man, a lion, an ox, and an
eagle, strange symbolic words, which elsewhere we
should have identified with idolatry, but which here
were bearing witness agahist it, emblems of the
manifold variety of creation as at once manifesting
and conceahng God.
(6.) The outer sanctuary was one degree less
awful in its holiness than the inner. Silver, the
type of Human Purity, took the place of gold, the
type of the Divine Glory (Bahr, i. 284). It was to
be trodden daily by the priests, as by men who Uved
in the perpetual consciousness of the nearness of
God, of the mystery behind the veil. Barefooted
and in garments of white Hnen, like the priests of
Isis [Priests], they accomplished their ministra
tions. And here, too, there were other emblems
of Divine realities. With no opening to admit
light from without, it was illumined only bythe
golden LAMP With it« seven lights, one taller than
the others, as the Sabbath is more sacred than the
other days of the week, never all extinguished
together, the perpetual symbol of all derived gifts
of wisdom and holiness in man, reaching their
mystical perfection when they shine in God's sanc
tuary to his glory (Ex. xxv. 31, xxvii. 20; Zech."
iv. 1-14). The Shew-bkead, the "bread of
feces," of the Divine Presence, not unlike in out
ward form to the sacred cakes which the Egyptians
placed before the shrines of their gods, served as a
token that, though there was no form or likeness
of tbe Godhead, He was yet there, accepting all
offerings, recognizing in particular that special
offering which i-epresented the life of the nation at
once in tbe distinctness of its tribes and in ita

12,000 furlongs in length and breadth and height
(Bev. xxi. 16).
h The name Jehovah, it has been well said, wu
" the reading asunder of the veil of Sais-" (Stanly
Jewish Churdi, p. 110.)

TABERNACLE
anity as a people (Ewald, Alterth. p. 120). The
meaning of the Altau of Incense was not less
obvious. The cloud of fragrant smoke was the
natural, almost the universal, emblem of the
heart's adoration (Ps. cxli. 2). The incense
sprinkled on the shew-bread and the lamp taught
men that all other offerings needed the inter-
.laiugling of that adoration. Upon that altar no
"strange fire" was to be kindled. When fresh
fii-e was needed it was to be taken from the Altar
OP BuEHT-OFKERiNG in the outer court (Lev. ix.
24, X. 1). Very striking, as compared with what
is to follow, is the sublimity and the purity of
these symbols. It is as though the priestly order,
already leading a consecrated life, were capable of
understanding a higher language which had to be
translated into a lower for those that were still
without (Saalschiitz, Archdol. § 77).
(7.) Outside the tent, but still within the con
secrated precincts, was the Court, fenced in by an
enclosure, yet open to all the congregation as well
as to the Levites, those only excepted who were
ceremonially unclean. No GentUe might pa.ss
beyond the curtains of the entrance, but every
member of the priestly nation might thus far
"draw near" to the presence of Jehovah. Here
therefore stood the Altar of Burnt-offerings,
at which Sacrifices in all their varieties were
efiered by penitent or thankful worshippers (Ex.
xxvii. 1-8, xxxviii. 1), the brazen Laver at which
those worshippers purified themselves before they
sacrificed, the priests before they entered into the
sanctuary (Ex. xxx. 17-21). Here the graduated
scale of holiness ended. What Israel was to the
world, fenced in and set apart, that the Court of
the Tabernacle was to the surrounding wilderness,
just as the distinction between it and the sanc
tuary answered to that between the sons of Aaron
and other Israelites, just as the idea of holiness cul
minated personally in the high-priest, locally in the
Holy of Holies.
IV. Theories of Later Times. — (1.) It is not
probable that the elaborate symbolism of such a
stiiicture was understood by the rude and sensual
multitude that came out of Egypt. In its fullness
perhaps no mind but that of the lawgiver himself
ever entered into it, and even for him, one half, and
that tbe highest, of its meaning must have been
altogether latent. Yet it was not the less, was
perhaps the more fitted, on that account to be an
instrument for the eduisation of the people. To
the most ignorant and debased it was at least a
witness of the nearness of the Divine King. It
met the craving of the human heart which prompts
to worship, with an order which was neither idol
atrous nor impure. It taught men that their fleshly
nature was tbe hindrance to worship; that it ren
dered them unclean ; that only by subduing it, kill
ing it, as they killed the bullock and the goat,
could they offer up an acceptable sacrifice ; that
such a sacrifice was the condition of forgiveness, —
a higher sacrifice than any • they could oflfer the
^ouud of that forgiveness. The sins of the past
were considered as belonging to the fleshly nature
which was slain and ofiered, not to the true inner
self of the worshipper. More thoughtful minds
were led jnevitably to higher truths. They were
not slow to see in the Tabernacle the parable of
God's presence manifested in Creation. Darkness

TABERNACLE

3157

^ It is curious to note how in Clement of Alexan-
iilft tba two syotems of interpretation cross each other,

was as his pavilion (2 Sam. xxii. 12). He has
raade a Tabernacle for the Sun (Ps. xix. i). The
heavens were spread out like its curtains. The
beams of his chambers were in the mighty waters
(Ps. civ. 2, 3; Is. xl. 22; Lowth, De Sac. Poes.
viii.). The majesty of God seen ui the storm and
tempest was as of one who rides upon a cherub (2
Sam. xxii. 11). If the words, " He that dwelleth
between the cherubim," spoke on the one side of a
special, localized manifestation of the Divine Pres
ence, they spoke also on the other of that Presence
as in the heaven of heavens, in the light of setting
suns, in the blackness and the flashes of the thun
der-clouds. (2.) The thought thus uttered, essentially poet
ical in its nature, had its fit place in the psalms
and byn:ns of Israel. It lost its beauty, it led men
on a false track, when it was formalized into a sys
tem. At a time when Judaism and Greek phil
osophy were alilie etiete, when a feeble physical
science which could read nothing but its owu
thoughts in the symbols of an older and deeper
systera, was after its own fashion rationalizing
the mythology of heathenism, there were found
Jewish writers willing to apply the same principle
of interpretation to the Tabernacle and its order.
In that way, it seemed to them, they would secure
the respect even of the men of letters who could
not bring themselves to be Proselytes. The result
appears in Josephus and in Philo, in part also in
Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Thus int^-
preted, the entire significance ofthe Two Tables of
tbe Covenant and tbeir place within the ark disap
peared, and the truths which the whole order rep
resented became cosmical instead of ethical. If
the special idiosyncrasy of one writer (Philo, De
Profug.) led hira to see in the Holy of Holies
and the Sanctuary that which answered to the Pla
tonic distinction between the visible {altrdTjrd) and
the spiritual {vorfrd), the coarser, less intelligent
Josephus goes still more completely into the new
system. The Holy of Holies is the visible firma
ment in which God dwells, the Sanctuary as the
earth and sea which men inhabit {Ant iii. 6, § 4,
7; 7, § 7). The twelve loaves of the shew-bread
represented the twelve months of the year, the
twelve s^ns ofthe Zodiac. The seven limps were
the seven planets. The four colors of the veil were
the four elements {aroix^'ia), air, fire, water, earth.
Even the wings of the cherubim were, in the eyes
of some, the two hemispheres of the universe, or
the constellations of the Greater and the Lesser
Bears! (Clera, Alex. Strom, v. § 35). The table
of shew-bread and the altar of incense stood ou the
north, because north winds were most fruitfid, the
lamp on the south because the motions of the plan
ets were southward {ibid. §§ 34, 35). We need not
follow such a system of interpretation further. It
was not unnatural that the authority with which it
started should secure for it considerable respect.
We find it reappearing in some Christian writers,
Chrysostom {Horn, in Joann. Bapt) and Theodo
ret {Qucest in Exod.) — in some Je^vish, Ben
Uzziei, Kimchi, Abarbanel (Biihr, i. 103 f.). It
was well for Christian thought tbat the Church*
had in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apoc
alypse of St. John that which helped to save it
from the pedantic puerihties of this physico-the-

leading sometimes to extravagances like those in tlu
text, sometimes to thoughts at ence lofly and trne

8158

TABERNACLE

(3). It will have been clear from all that has
been said that the Epistle to the Hebrews has not
been looked on as designed to limit our inquiry
into the meaning of the symbolism of the Taber
nacle, and tbat there is consequently no ground for
adopting the system of interpreters who can see m
it nothing but an aggregate of types of Christian
mysteries. Such a system has, in fact, to choose
between two alternatives. ' Either the meaning was
made clear, at least to the devout worshippers of
old, and then it is no longer true that the mystery
was hid " from ages and generations," or else the
mystery was concealed, and then the whole order
was voiceless and unmeaning as long as it lasted,
then only beginning to be instructive when it was
" ready to vanish away." Eightly viewed thereis,
it is believed, no antagonism between the interpre
tation which starts from the idea of symbols of
Great, Eternal Truths, and that which rests on the
idea of types foreshadowing Christ and his Work,
and his Church. If the latter were the highest
manifestation of the fornier (and this is the key
note of tbe Epistle to the Hebrews), then the two
systems run parallel with each other. The type
may help us to understand the symbol. The sym
bol may guard us against misinterpreting the type.
That the same things were at once symbols and
types may take its place among the proofs of an in
sight and a foresight more than human. Not the
veil of nature only but the veil of the flesh, the
humanity of Christ, at once conceals and manifests
the Fiernal's Glory. The rending of tbat veil en
abled all, who had eyes to see and hearts to believe,
to enter into the Holy of Holies, into the Divine
Presence, and to see, not less clearly than the High
Priest, as he looked on the ark and the Mercy Seat,
that Eighteousness and Love, Truth and Mercy
were as one. Blood had been shed, a life had been
offered which, through the infinite power of its
Love, was able to atone, to satisfy, to purify."
(4. ) We cannot here follow out that strain of a
higher mood, and it would not be profitable to enter
into the speculations which later writers have en
grafted on the first great thought. Those who wish
to enter upon that line of inquiry may find materi
als enough in any of the greater commentaries on tbe
Epistle to the Hebrews (Owen's, Stuart's Bleek's,
Tholuck's, Delitzsch's, Alford's), or in special treat
ises, such as those of Van Till (De Tabernac. in
Ugolini, Thes. viii.); Bede (Expositio Mystica et
Moralis Mosnici Tnbernanili); Witsius (De Tab-
em. Levii. Mysleriis, in Miscell. Sacr.). Strange,
outlying hallucinations, like those of ancient Rat-
bis, inferring, from " the pattern showed to Moses
in the Mount," the permanent existence of a heav
enly Tabernacle, like in form, structure, proportions
to that which stood in the wildemess (Leyrer, I. c),
or of later writers who have seen in it (not in the
spiritual but the anatomical sense of the word) a
type of humanity, representing the outer bodily
framework, the inner vital organs (Friederich,
Symb. der Mos. Slifleshulte, in Leyrer, I. c; and
Ewald, AU. p. 338), may be dismissed with a sin
gle glance : —

TABERNACLE
" Non ragioniam di lor, ma guarda e passB."
(5.) It is not quite as open to us to ignore a
speculative hypothesis whioh, though in itself un
substantial enough, has been lately revived under
circumstances which have given it prominence. It
has been maintained by Von Bohien and Vatke
(Biihr, i 117, 273) that the commands and the de
scriptions relating to the Tabernacle in the Books
of Moses are altogether unhistorical, the result of
the effort of some late compiler to ennoble the cra
dle of his people's history by transferring to a re
mote antiquity what he found actually existing in
the Temple, modified only so far as was necessary
to fit it in to the theory of a migration and a wan
dering. The structure did not belong to the time
of the Exodus, if indeed there ever was an Exodu^.
The Tabernacle thus becomes the mythical after
growth of the Temple, not the Temple the histor
ical sequel to the Tabernacle. It has lately been
urged as tending to the same conclusion that the
circumstances connected with the Tabernacle in
the Pentateuch are manifestly unhistorical. The
whole congregation of Israel are said to meet in a
court wbich could not have contained more than a
few hundred men (Colenso, Pentateuch and Book
of Joshua, P. I. c. iv., v.). The number of priests
was utterly inadequate for the services of the Taber
nacle (ibid. c. XX.). The narrative of the head-
money collection, of the gifts of the people, is full
of anachronisms (ibid. c. xiv.).
(6.) Some of these objections — those, e. g. as
to the number of the first-born, and the dispropor
tionate smallness of the priesthood, have been met
by anticipation in remarks under Priests and Le
vites, written some months before the objections,
in their present form, appeared. Others bearing
upon the general veracity of the Pentateuch his
tory it is impossible to discuss here. It will be
sufficient to notice such as bear immediately upon
the subject of this article. (1.) It may be said
that this theory, like other similar theories as to the
history of Christianity, adds to instead of dimin
ishing difficulties and anomalies. It may be pos
sible to make out plausibly that what purports to
be the first period of an institution, is, with all its
docun.ents, the creation of the second; but the
quesiion then comes how we are to explain the ex
istence of the second. The world rests upon an
elephant, and the elephant on a tortoise, but the
footing of the tortoise is at least somewhat inse
cure. (2.) Whatever may be the weight of the
argument drawn from the alleged presence of the
whole congregation at the door of the Tabemacle
tells with equal force against the historical exist
ence of the Temple and the narrative of its dedica
tion. There also when the population nunibererl
some seven or eight millions (2 Sam. xxiv. 9), " all
the men of Israel" (1 K. viii. 2), all "the congre
gation " (ver. 5), all the children of Israel (ver. 63)
were assembled, and the king " blessed " all the
congregation (vv. 14, 65). (3.) There are, it is
believed, undesigned touches indicating the nomad
life of the wilderness. The wood employed for the
Tabernacle is not the sycamore of the valleys nor

Some of these have been already noticed. Others, not
to be pajsped over, are, that the seven lamps set forth
the varied degrees and forms (irohvfiepias Kat jroAvrpo-
Tws) of God's Revelation, the form and the attitude of
the Cherubim, the union of active ministry and grate-
Mi, ceaseless contemplation (Strom, v. §§ 36, 37).
a Ibe allusions to the Tabernacle in the Apocalypse

are, aa might be expected, full of interest. As in a
vision, which loses sight of all time limits, tbe Templfl
of the Tabernacle is seen iu heaven (Rev. xv. 5), and
yet in the heavenly Jerusalem there is no Temple seen
(xxi. 22). And in the heavenly Temple there ifl no
longer any veil ; it is open, and the ark of the oov
enant is clearly seen (xi. 19).

TABERNACLE
the cedar of I.«banon, as afterwards in the Temple,
but the shittim of the Sinaitic peninsula. [Shit
iah Tree, Shittim.] The abundance of fine
linen points to Egypt, the seal or dolphin skins
(" badgers " in A. V. but see Gesenius ». v.
tt7nn) to the shores of the Red Sea. [Badger-
Skins.] The Levites are not to enter on their
office till the age of thirty, as needing for their
work as bearers a man's full strength (Num. iv.
23, 30). Afterwards when their duties are chiefly
those of singers and gate-keepers, they were to be
gin at twenty (1 Chr. xxiii. 24). Would a later
history again have excluded the priestly tribe from
all share in the structure of the Tabernacle, and
left it in the hands of mythical persons belonging
to Judah, and to a tribe then so little prominent
as that of Dan? (4.) There remains the strong
Egyptian stamp impressed upon weU-nigh every
part of the Tabernacle and its ritual, and implied
ui other incidents. (Comp. Priests, Levites,
Urim and Thumjiim, Brazen Serpent.]
Whatever bearing this may have on our views of
the things themselves, it points, beyond all doubt,
to a time when the two nations had been brought
into close contact, when not jewels of silver and
gold only, but treasures of wisdom, art, knowledge
were " borrowed " by one people from the other.
To what other period io the history before Samuel
than that of the Exodus of the Pentateuch can we
refer that intercourse? When was it likely that a
wild tribe, with difficulty keeping its ground against
neighboring nations, would have adopted such a
complicated ritual from a system so alien to its own ?
So it is that tbe wheel comes full circle. The facts
which when urged by Spencer, with or without a
hostile purpose, were denounced as daring and dan
gerous and unsettling, are now seen to be witnesses
to the antiquity of the religion of Israel, and so to
the substantial truth of the Mosaic history. They
are used as such by theologians who in various de
grees enter their protest against the more destruc
tive criticism of our own time (Hengstenberg,
Egypt and the Books of Moses ; Stanley, Jewish
Church, leet. iv.). (5.) We may, for a moment,
put an imaginary case. Let us suppose tbat the
records of the 0. T. had given us in 1 and 2 Sam.
a history like that which men now seek to substi
tute for what is actually given, had represented
Sarauel as the first great preacher of the worship of
Elohim, Gad, or some later prophet as introducing
for the first time the name and worship of Jehovah,
and that the 0. T. began with this (Colenso, P. II.
c. xxi.). Let us then suppose that sorae old papy
rus, freshly discovered, slowly deciphered, gave us
the whole or the greater part of what we now find
ill Exodus and Numbers, that there was thus given
an explanation both of the actual condition of the
people and of the Egyptian element so largely in
termingled with tbeir ritual. Can we not imagine
witb what jubilant zeal the books of Sarauel would
then have been " critically examined," what incon
sistencies would have been detected in them, how
eager men would have been to prove that Samuel
had had credit given him for a work which was not

TABERNACLES, FEAST OF 3159
his, that not he, but Moses, was the founder of the
polity and creed of Israel, that the Tabernacle on
Zion, instead of coming fresh from David's creative
mind, had been preceded by the humbler Taber
nacle in the Wilderness ? E. H. P.
TABERNACLES, THE FEAST OF
(niSDn 2in : eoprij ourivSiv'. ferice tabernac-
ulorum : ?]pMn ^H, Ex. xxiii. 16, " the feast of
ingathering: " iTK7}voir7jyia, John vii. 2; Jos. Ant.
viii. 4, § 5 : aKnrai, Philo, De Sept. § 24 ; ^ cia)vii,
Plut. Sympos. iv. 62), tbe third of the three great
festivals of the Hebrews, which lasted from the 15th
till the 22d of Tisri.
I. The following are the principal passages in
the Pentateuch which refer to it: Ex. xxiii. 16,
where it is spoken of as the Feast of 'ingathering,
and is brought into connection with the other fes
tivals under their agricultural designations, the
Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Feast of Harvest ;
Lev. xxiii. 34-36, 39-43, where it is mentioned as
commemorating the passage of the Israelites through
the desert ; Deut. xvi. 13-15, in which there is no
notice of the eighth day, and it is treated as a
thanksgiving for the harvest; Num. xxix. 12-38,
where there is an enumeration of the sacrifices
which belong to the festival; Deut. xxxi. 10-13,
where the injunction is given for the public reading
of the Law in the Sabbatical year, at the Feast of
Tabernacles. In Neh. viii. there is an account of
the observance of the feast by Ezra, from which
several additional particulars respecting it may be
gathered. 11. The time of ^he festival fell in the autumn,
when the whole of the chief fruits of the ground,
the corn, the wine, and the oil, were gathered in
(Ex. xxiii. 16; Lev. xxiii. 39; Deut. xvi. 13-15).
Hence it is spoken of as occurring " in the end of
tbe year, when thou hast gathered in thy labors
out of the field." Its duration was strictly only
seven days (Deut. xvi. 13; Ez. xiv. 25). I5ut it
was followed by a day of holy convocation, distin
guished by sacrifices of its own, wbich was some
times spoken of as an eighth day (Lev. xxiii. 36;
Neh. viii. 18).
During the seven days the Israelites were com
manded to dwell in booths or huts " formed of the
boughs of trees. These huts, wlien the festival was
celebrated in Jerusalem, were constructed in the
courts of houses, on the roofs, in the court of tbe
Temple, in tbe street of the Water Gate, and in
the street of the Gate of Ephraim. The boughs
were of the olive, palm, pine, myrtle, and other
trees with thick foliage (Neh. viii. 15, 16). The
command in Lev. xxiii. 4(1 is said to have been so
understood,'' tbat tbe Israelites, from tbe first day
of the feast to the seventh, carried in their hands
"the fruit (as in the margin of the A. V., not
branches, as in the text) of goodly trees, with
branches of palm trees, boughs of thick trees, and
willows of the brook."
According to Rabbinical tradition, each Israelite
used to tie the branches into a bunch, to be carried
in his hand, to which the name lulab<: was given.

« The word HSD means " a hut," and is to be
Jstlnguished fi:om 7i|7M, '' a tent of skins or cloth,"
ivhioh is the term applied to the Tabemacle of the
SoDgregation. See Gesen. s. v.
^ This is the view of the Rabbinists, which appears

to be countenanced by a comparison of v. 40 with v
42. But the Karaites held that the boughs here men
tioned were for no other purpose than to cover the
huts, and that the willow branches were merely fui
tying the parts of the huts together.
o The word ub^? strictly means simply > pans

3160

TABERNACLES, THE FEAST OF

The "fruit of goodly trees" is generally taken by
the Jews to mean the citron. « But Josephus {Ant
iii. 10, § 4) says that it vpas the fruit of the persea,
a tree said by Pliny to have been conveyed from
Persia to Egypt {Hist Nat xv. 13), and which some
have identified with the peach {Makes persica).
The boughs of thick trees were understood by
Onkelos and others to he myrtles (G*^D'in), but
that no such limitation to a single species could
have been intended seems to be proved by the
boughs of thick trees and myrtle branches being
mentioned together (Neh. viii. 15).
The burnt-offerings of the Feast of Tabernacles
were by far more numerous than those of any other
festival. It is said that the services of the priests
were so ordered that each one of the courses was
employed during the seven days {Succah, v- 6).
There were offered on each day two rains, fourteen
lambs, and a kid for a sin-offering. But what was
most peculiar was the arrangement of the sacrifices
of buUocks, in all amounting to seventy. Thirteen
were offered on the first day, twelve on the second,
eleven on the third, and so on, reducing the num
ber by one each day till the seventh, when seven
ouUocks only were offered (Num. xxix. 12-38).
The eighth day was a day of holy convocation
>f peculiar solemnity, and, with the seventh day of
the Passover, and the day of Pentecost, was desig
nated riTl?? [Passovee, iii. 2343, note a]. We
are told that on the morning of this day the He-
Drews left their huts and dismantled theni, and took
up their abode again in their houses. The special
offerings of the day were a bftllock, a ram, seven
lambs, and a goat for a sin-offering (Num. xxix.
36-38j.'> When the Feast of Tabernacles fell on a Sab
batical year, portions of the Law were read each day
in public, to men, women, children, and strangers
(Deut. xxxi. 10-13). It is said that, in the time
of the Kings, the king himself used to read from a
wooden pulpit erected in the court of tbe women,
and that the people were summoned to assemble by
sound of trumpet.^ Whether the selections were
made from the book of Deuteronomy only, or from
the other books of the Law also, is a question. But
according to the Mishna {Soia, vi. 8, quoted by
Reland) the portions read were Deut. i. 1-vi. 4, xi.
13-xiv. 22, xiv. 23-xvi. 22, xviii. 1-14, xxvii. 1-
xxviii. 68 (see Fagius and Rosenmiiller on Deut.
xxxi. 11; Lightfoot, Temple Sei-vice, c. xvii.). We
find Ezra reading the Law during the festival " day
by day, from the fijst day to the last day " (Neh.
viii. 18 ).'^
in. There are two particulars in the observance
of tlie Feast of Tahernacles which appear to be re
ferred to in the New Testament, but are not noticed

branch. Buxt. Lex. Talm. o. 1143 ; Carpzov, App.
Crit. p. 416 ; Drusius, Not. Maj. in Lev. xxiii.
" 2"ni7lM. So Onkelos, Jonathan, and Succah.
See JBuxt, Lex. Talm. sub 3*1^.
b The notion of Miinster, Godwin, and others, that
the eighth day was called " the day of palms," is
utterly without foundation. No trace of such a desig
nation is found in any Jewish writer. It probably
resulted from a theory that the Feast of Tabernacles
must, like the Passover and Pentecost, have a festival
to answer to it in the calendar of the Christian Church.
Hid tbat '^ the day of palms" passed into Palm Sun-

in the Old. These were, the ceremony of pouring
out some water of the pool of Siloam, and the
display of some great lights in the court of the
women. We are told that each Israelite, in holiday attire,
having made up his lulab, before he broke his fast
(B'agius in Lev. xxiii.), repaired to the Temple with
the lulcU) in one hand and the citron in the other,
at the time of the ordinary morning sacrifice. The
parts of the victim were laid upon the altar. One
of the priests fetched some water in a golden ewer
from the pool of Siloam, which he brought into the
court through the Water Gate. As he entered the
trumpets sounded, and he ascended the slope of
the altar. At the top of this were fixed two silver
basins with small openings at the bottom. Wine
was poured into that on the eastern side, and the
water into that on the western side, whence it was
conducted by pipes into the Kedron (Maimon. ap.
Carpzov. p. 419). The liallel was then sung, and
when the singers reached the first verse of Ps.
cxviii. all the company shook their lulabs. This
gesture was repeated at the 25th verse, and again
when they sang the 29th verse. The sacrifices
which belonged to the day of the festival were then
ofiered, and special passages from the Psalms were
chanted. In the evening (it would seem after the day of
holy convocation with which the festival had com
menced had ended), both men and women assembled
in the court of the women, expressly to hold a
rejoicing for the drawing of the water of Siloam.
On this occasion, a degree of unrestrained hilarity
was permitted, such as would have been unbecoming
while the ceremony itself was going on, in the
presence of the altar and in connection with the
offering of the morning sacrifice (Succah, iv. 9, v.
1, and the passages from the Gem. given by Light
foot, Temple Service, § 4).
At the same time there were set up in the court
two lofty stands, each supporting four great lamps.
These were lighted on each night of the festival.
It is said that they cast their light over nearly the
whole compass of the city. The wicks were fur
nished from tbe cast-ofF garments of the priests,
and tbe supply of oil was kept up by the sons of
the priests. Many in the assembly carried flam
beaux. A body of Levites, stationed on the fifteen
steps leading up to the women's court, played in
struments of music, and chanted the fifteen psalms
which are called in the A. V. Songs of Degrees
(Ps. oxx.-cxxxiv.). Singing and ¦ dancing were
afterwards continued for some time. The same
ceremonies in the day, and the same joyous meet
ing in the evening, were renewed on each of the
seven days.
It appears to be generally admitted that the

c A story is told of Agrippa, tbat when he was once
performing this ceremony, as he came to the words
" thou may'st not set a stranger over thee which is
not thy brother," the thought of his foreign blood
occurred to him, aud he was affected to tears. But
the bystanders encouraged him, crying out "Fear not,
Agrippa ! Thou art our brother." Lightfoot, T. S. c.
xvii. d Dean Alford considers that there may be a refer
ence to the pubhc reading of the Law at che Feast of
Tabernacles, John vii, 19 — " Did not Mo-ses give you
the law ? aod yet none of you keepeth the law " —
eveu if that year was not the Sabbatical year, and tbe
observance did not actually take place at the time

TABERNACLES, THE FEAST OF

3161

words of our Saviour (John vii. 37, 38) — " If any
nian thirst, let him come unto me and drhik. He
that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said,
out of his belly shall tlow rivers of living water " —
were suggested by the pouring out of the water of
Siloam. The Jews seem to have regarded the rite
as symbolical of the water miraculously supplied to
their fathers from the rock at Meribah. But they
also gave to it a more strictly spiritual signification,
in accordance with the use to which our Lord ap-
pear.s to turn it. Maimonides (note in Succah)
applies to it the very passage which appears to be
referred to by our Ix)rd (Is. xii. 3) — " Therefore
with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of
salvation." The two meanings are of course per
fectly harmonious, as is shown by the use which
St. Paul makes of the historicid fact (1 Cor. x. 4)
— " they drank of that spiritual rock that followed
them: and that rock was Christ."
But it is very doubtful what is meant by " the
last day, that great day of the feast." It would
seem that either the last day of the feast itself, that
is the seventh, or the last day of the religious ob-
seiTances of tho series of annual festivals, the eighth,
must be intended. But there seems to have been
nothing, according to ancient testimony, to distin
guish tlie seventh, as a great day, compared with
the oth^r days; it was decidedly inferior, in not
being a day of holy convocation, and in its number
of sacrifices, to the first day.« On the other hand,
it is nearly certain that the ceremony of pouring
out the water did not take place on the eighth
day,'' though the day might have been, by an easy
license, called the great day of the feast (2 Mace.
X. 6; Joseph. Ant iii. 10, § 4; Philo, De Sept
§ 24). Dean Alford reasonably supposes that the
eighth day raay be meant, and that the reference
of our I-iOrd was to an ordinary and well-known
observance of the feast, though it was not, at the
very tirae, going on.
We must resort to some such explanation, if we
adopt the notion that our Lord's words (John viii.
12) — "I am the light of the world " — refer to the
great laraps of the festival. The suggestion must
have arisen iu the same way, or else from the
apparatus for lighting not being removed, although
the festival had come to an end. It should, how
ever, be reraarked that Bengel, Stier, and some
others, think that the words refer to the light of
morning which was then dawning. The view that
may be taken of the geimineness of John viii. 1-11
will modify the probability of the latter interpre
tation. IV. There are raany directions given in the
Mishna for the dimensions and construction of the
huts. They were not to be lower than ten palms,
nor higher than twenty cubits. They were to stand
by themselves, and not to rest on any external sup
port, nor to be under the shelter of a larger build
ing, or of a tree. They were not to be covered
with skins or cloth of any kind, but only with
boughs, or, in part, with reed mats or laths. They
were to be constructed expressly for the festival, out

" But Buxtorf, who contends that St. John speaks
of the seventh day, saya that the modern Jews of his
time called that day " the Great Hosanna," and dis
tinguished it by a greater attention than usual to
their personal appearance, and by perforDung certain
peculiar rit«s in tho synagogue {Syn. Jud. xxi).
t> ft. Jehuda, however, said that the water was
199

of new materials. ' Their forms might vary in ac
cordance with the taste of the owners.^ According
to some authorities, the Israelites dwelt in them
during the whole period of the festival {Stfri, in
Reland). but others said it was sufiicient if they ate
fourteen meals in them, that is, two on each day
{Succah, ii. 6). Persons engaged in religious ser
vice, the sick, nurses, women, slaves, and minors,
were excepted altogether from the obligation of
dwelling in them, and some indulgence appears to
have been given to all in very tempestuous weather
{Succah, i. ii. ; Miinster on Lev. xxiii. 40; Buxt.
Syn. Jud. c. xxi.).
The furniture of the huts was to be, according to
raost authorities, of the plainest description. There
was to be nothing which was not fairly necessary.
It would seem, however, that there was no strict
rule on this point, and that there was a, consider
able difference according to the habits or circum
stances of the occupant"^ (Carpzov, p. 415; Buxt.
Syn. Jua. p. 451).
It is said that the altar was adorned throughout
the seven days with sprigs of willows, one of which
each Israelite who came into the court brought
with him. The great number of the sacrifices has
been already noticed. The number of pubUc vic
tims offered on the first day exceeded those of any
day in the year {Menach. xiii. 5). But besides
these, the Chagigahs or private peace-offerings
[Passovee, iii. 2346 f.] were more abundant than
at any other time; and there is reason to believe
that ihe whole ofthe sacrifices nearly outnumbered
all those offered at the other festivals put together.
It belongs to the character of the feast that on each
day the trumpets of the Temple are said to have
sounded twenty-one times.
V. Though all tbe Hebrew annual festivals were
seasons of rejoicing, the Feast of Tabernacles was,
in this respect, distinguished above them all. The
huts and the lulabs must have made a gay and
striking spectacle over the city by day, and the
lamps, the flambeaux, the music, and the joyous
gatherings in the court of the Temple must have
given a still more festive character to the night.
Hence, it was called by the Rabbis DH, the festi
val, Kar' l\oxJ\v. There is a proverb in Succah
(v. 1), " He who has never seen the rejoicing at the
pouring out of the water of Siloam has never seen
rejoicing in his life." Maimonides says that he
who failed at the Feast of Tabernacles in contrib
uting to the public joy according to his means,
incurred especial guilt (Carpzov, p. 419). The
feast is designated by Josephus {Ant viii. 4, § 1)
6opr^ aytatrdrr] Kal fieyio'rrji ^^^ ^J Philo, lop-
rcov peyio-rT}. Its thoroughly festive nature is
shown in the accounts of its observance in Josephus
{Ant. viii. 4, § 1, xv. 33), as well as in the accounts
of its celebration by Solomon, Ezra, and Judas
Maccab£eus. From this fact, and its connection
with the ingathering of the fruits of the year, es
pecially the vintage, it is not wonderful that Plu
tarch should have likened it to the Dionysiac fes-'
tivals, calling it Bvpao^opia and Kpar'r)potpopia

poured out on eight days. {Succah, iv. 9, with Bar
tenora's note.)
c 'There are some curious figures of different forma
of huts, and of the great lights of the Feast of Taberna
cles, in Surenhusius' Mishna, vol. ii.
d There is a lively description of some of the huta
used by the Jews in modern times in La Vie Juive en
Alsace, p. 170, &c.

Pi 16 2 TABERNACLES, FEAST OF
{Sympos. iv.). The account which he gives of it ia
curious, but it is not much to our purpose here. It
contains about as much truth as the more famous
passage on the Hebrew nation in the fifth book of
the History of Tacitus.
VI. The main purposes of the Feast of Taber
nacles are plainly set forth (Ex. xxiii. 16, and Lev.
xxiii. 43). It was to be at once a thanksgiving for
the harvest, and a commemoration of the time when
the Israelites dwelt in tents during their passage
through the wilderness. In one of its meanings, it
stands in connection with the Passover, aa the
Veast of Abib, the month of green ears, when the
first sheaf of barley was offered before the Lord ;
and with Pentecost, as the feast of harvest, when
the first loaves of the year were waved before the
altar; in its other meaning, it ia related to the Pass
over as the great yearly memorial of the deliverance
from the destroyer, and firom tbe tyranny of Egypt.
The tents of the wilderness furnished a home of
freedom compared with the house of bondage out
of whieh they had been brought. Hence the
Divine Word assigns as a reason for the command
that they should dwell in huts during the festival,
•' that your generations may know that I made
the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I
brought them out of the land of Egypt " (Lev.
Kxiii. 43).
But naturally connected with this exultation in
their regained freedom, was the rejoicing in the
more perfect fulfillment of God's promise, in the
settlement of his people in the Holy Land. Hence
the festival became an expression of thanksgiving
for the rest and blessing of a settled abode, and, as
connected with it, for the regular annual cultivation
of the ground, with the storing up of the com and
the wine and the oil, by which the prosperity of the
nation was promoted and the fear of famine put into
a remoter distance. Thus the agricultural and the
historical ideas of the feast became essentially con
nected with each other.
But besides this, Philo saw in this feast a wit
ness for the original equality of all the members of
the chosen race. All, during the week, poor and
rich, the inhabitant alike of the palace or the hovel,
lived in huts which, in strictness, were to be of the
plainest and most ordinary materials and construc
tion." From this point of view the Israelite would
be reminded with still greater edification of tbe per
ilous and toilsome march of his forefathers through
the desert, when the nation seeraed to be more im
mediately dependent on God for food, shelter, and
protection, while the completed harvest stored up
tor the coming winter set before him the benefits he
had derived from the possession of the land flowing
with railk and honey which had been of old prora-
Iged to his race.
But the culminating point of this blessing was
the establishment of the central spot of the national

TABITHA
worship in the Temple at Jerusalem. Ilence il
was evidently fitting that the Feast of rabernacla
should be kept with an unwunted degree of observ
ance at the dedication of Solomon's Temple (1 K,
viii. '2, 65; Joseph. Ant viii. 4, § 5), again, after
the rebuilding of the Temple by Ezra (Neh. viii.
13-18), and a third time by Judas Maccabsus
when he had driven out the Syrians and restored
the Temple to the worship of Jehovah (2 Mace.
X. 5-8).The origin of the Feast of Tabernacles is by
some connected with Succoth, the first halting-
place of the Israelites on their march out of
ligypt; and the huts are taken not to commem-
orate the tents in the wilderness, but the leafy
booths {succoth) in which they lodged for the last
time before they entered the desert. The feast
would thus call to mind the transition from settled
to nomadic hfe (Stanley, (Sinai ancl Palestine, Ap
pendix, § 89).
Carpzov, App. Crit p. 414; Bahr, Symbolik, ii.
624; Buxt. Syn. Jud. e. xxi.; Keland, Ant. iv. 5:
Lightfoot, Temple Service, xvi. and Exerai. in
Joan. vii. 2, 37; Otho, Lex. Rab. p. 230; the
treatise Succah, in the Mishna, with Surenhusius'
Notes; Hupfeld, De Fest Hebr. part ii. Of the
monographs on the subject the most important
appear to be, Ikenius, De Libaiione Agme in
Fest Tab. ; Groddek, Ue Ceremonia Palmarwn
in Fest. Tab. (in Ugolini, vol. xviii.), with the
Notes of Dachs on Succnh^in the Jerusalem Ge
mara. S. C-
TABTTHA {TaMd [gmelle] : Tabitha), also
called Dorcas (Aop/ccts) by St. Luke: a female dis
ciple of Joppa, " full of good works," among which
that of making clothes for the poor is specifically
mentioned. While St. Peter was at the neighbor
ing town of Lydda, Tabitha died^ npon which the
disciples at Joppa sent an urgent message to the
Apostle, begging him to come to them without de
lay. It is not quite evident fi-om the narrative
whether they looked for any exercise of miraculous
power on his part, or whether they simply wished
for Christian consolation under what they regarded
aa the common calamity of their Church; but the
miracle recently performed on Eneas (Acts ix. 34),
and the expression in ver. 38 {SieKBuv eias iipap),
lead to the former supposition. Upon his arrival
Peter found the deceased already prepared for bur
ial, and laid out in an upper chamber, where she
was surrounded by the recipients and the tokens of
her charity. After tlje example of our Sa\iour in
the house of Jairus (Matt. ix. 25; Mark v. 40).
" Peter put them all forth," prayed for the Divine
assistance, and then commanded Tubitha to arise
(comp. Mark v. 41 ; Lnke viii. 54). She opened
her eyes and sat up, and then, assisted by the Apos
tle, rose from her couch. This great miracle, as we
are further told, produced an extraordinary effect in

a Some Jewish authorities and others connect with
lliia the fact that in the month Tisri the weather be
comes rather cold, and hence there was a degree of
self-denial, at least for tho rich, in dwelling in huts
(Joseph. Ant. iii. 10, §4; Buxt. Syn. Jud. p. 447;
Bel. Ant. iv. 5). They see iu this a reason why the
commemoration of the journey through the desert
should have been fixed at this season of ,the year.
The notion seems, however, not to be in keeping with
the general character of the feast, the time of which
appears to have been determined entirely on agricul
tural grounds. Hence the appropriateness of the lan-
Ktuge of the prophet, Zech. xiv. 16, 17 ; oomp. Ks.

xxiii. 16; Deut. xvi. 13-17. As little worthy of more
than a passing notice is the connecting the fall of
Jericho with the festival (Godwyn, p. 72 ; Reland, iv.
5), and of the seventy bullocks offered during the
seven days being a symbol of the seventy Gentile na
tions (Reland, iv. 5 ; Bochart, Phaleg, i. 15). But of
somewhat more interest is the older notion found in
Onkelos, that the shade of the branches represented
the cloud by day which sheltered the Israelites. Ua
renders the words in Lev. xxiii. 43 — " that I madr*
the children of Israel to dwell under the shadow of »
cloud."'

TABLE
Joppa, and was the occasion of many conversions
there (Acts ix. 36-42).
The name of "Tabitha" (Mn"^nt3) ia the
Aiumaic form answering to the Hebrew H^'D^,
a " female gazelle," the gazelle being regarded in
the East, araong both Jews and Arabs, as a stand
ard of beauty, — indeed, the word "^H^ properly
means "beauty." St. Luke gives "Dorcas" as
the Greek equivalent of the name. Similarly we
find SopKds as the LXX. rendering of **3^ in
I.)eut. xii. 15, 22; 2 Sam. ii. 18; Prov. vi. 5. It
lias been inferred from the occurrence of the two
names, that Tabitha was a Hellenist (see Whitby,
in loc). This, however, does not follow, even if we
suppose that the two names were actually borne by
her, as it would seem to have been the practice even
of the Hebrew Jews at this period to have a Gentile
name hi addition to their Jewish name. But it is
by no means clear from the language of St. Luke
that Tabitha actually bore the name of Dorcas. All
he tells us is that the name of Taiiitha means "ga
zelle" {BopKds), and, for the benefit of his Gentile
readers, he afterwai-ds speaks of her by the Greek
equivalent. At the same time it is very possible
that she may have been known by hoth names ; and
we learn from Josephus {B. J. iv. 3, § 5) that the
name of Dorcas was not unknown in Palestine.
Among the Greeks, also, as we gather from Lucret.
iv. 1154, it was a term of endearment. Other ex
amples of the use of the narae will be found in
Wetstehi, in loc. W. B. J,
* TABLE. See under other heads for impor
tant information connected with this word [Meals;
MoNEY-Cfi angers; Shew Bkeaii; Taberna
cle]. The eariiest Hebrew term may have been
a/mlchdn (fi:ora V\jW, to stretch out), being
simply a piece of leather or cloth spread on the
ground on which the food was placed. The word
naturally passed to other applications so as to de
note a table of any kind. We read in Judg. i. 7
that the vassals of Adoni-bezek (which see) " gath
ered their meat under his table," apparently there
fore a raised cushion or triclinium at that early
period. A table formed part of the furniture of
the prophet Elisha's chamber (2 K. iv. 10). The
table and its entertainments stand figuratively for
the soul's food which God provides for his people
(Ps. xxiii. 5, Ixix. 22); and also for the enjoy
ments of Christ's perfected kingdom in heaven
(Matt. viii. 11; Luke xiii. 29). To " serve tables "
(Acts vi. 2) meant to provide food, or the means
of purchasing it, for the poor, aa arranged in the
primitive Church at Jerusalem. The "table ofthe
Lord," 1 Cor. x. 21, designates the Lord's Supper
as opposed to the "table of demons" {SaL/jLoviwv)
or feasts of heathen revelhng. The " writing-ta-
lle " on which Zacharias wrote the name of John
(Luke i. 63) was no doubt a. "tablet" {irtvaKl-
Siov) covered with wax, on which the ancients
wrote with a stylus. As Tertullian says: "Zach
arias loquitur in stylo, auditur in cera."
In Mark vii, 4 "tables" is a mistranslation for
"beds" or "couches." The same Greek term
{Kklvai) is rendered " bed " in the nine other pas
sages where it occurs (Matt. ix. 2, 6; Mark iv. 21,

TABOR AND MOUNT TABOK 3163
vii. 30; Luke v. 18, viii. 16, xvii. 34; Acts v. 15;
Kev. ii. 22), aind should be so rendered here. No*
beds of every sort are intended in Mark vii. 4, but
as Meyer observes {in loc), "table-beds" {Speise-
lager), which might be defiled by the leprous, the
menstruous, or others considered unclean, for the
entire context relates to the act of eating. This ia
made reasonably certain by the raanifest relation of
the passage to Lev. xv. 4, where the same rule is
enjoined, and where the language is: " Every bed
whereon he lieth that hath the issue, is unclean ;
and everything whereon he sitteth shall be un
clean." They were couches or raised sofas on
which the ancients reclined at meals, or on ordi
nary occasions raay have been little more than
cushions or rugs (see Matt. ix. 6; Acts v. 15).
This washing of such articles was something which
the Pharisees were always careful to have done
after the couches had been used, before they them
selves would run the risk of any defilement. It
should be added tbat I'ischendorf rejects Khlvai
from Mark vii. 4, but against adequate testimony
for it. H.
TA'BOK and MOUNT « TABOR ("IH
ni^i^l, .probably = " height," as in Simonis'
Onomasticon, p. 300: VaiQ^dip [Alex. Ta</)a)0],
(fpos ®a^d}p, ®a&d>p, Iiut rh 'Ira&vpiov in Jer.
and Hosea, and in Josephus. who has also 'Arap-
^upiov'- Thaoor), one'of the most interesting and
remarkable of the single mountams in Palestine.
It was a Rabbinic saying (and shows the Jewish
estiraate of the attractions of the locaUty), that the
Temple ought of right to have been built here, but
was required by an express revelation to be erected
on Mount Moriah. It rises abruptly from the north-
eastei'n arm of the plain of Esdraelon, and stands
entirely insulated, except on the west, where a nar
row ridge connects it with the hills of Nazareth.
It presents to the eye, as seen from a distance, a
beautiful appearance, being so symmetrical in its
proportions, and rounded off like a hemisphere or
the segment of a circle, yet varying somewhat as
viewed from different directions. The body of the
mountain consists of the peculiar limestone of the
country. It is studded with a comparatively dense
forest of oaks, pistacias, and other trees and bushes,
with the exception of an occasional opening on the
sides, and a small uneven tract on the summit.
The coverts afford at present a shelter for wolves,
wild boars, lynxes, and various reptiles. Its height
from the base is estimated at 1,000 feet, but may be
somewhat more rather than less.'* Its ancient name,
as already suggested, indicates its elevation, though
it does not rise much, if at all, above some of the
other summits in the vicinity. It is now called
Jebel ei-Tur. It lie.s about six or eight miles al
most due east from Nazareth. The writer, in re
turning to that village toward the close of the day
(May 3, 1852), found the sun as it went down in
the west shining directly in his face, with hardly
any deviation to the right hand or the left by a
single turn of the path. The ascent is usually
made on the west side, near the little village of De
burieh, probably the ancient Daberath (josh. xix.
12), though it can be made with entire ease in other
places. It requires three-quarters of an hour or an
hour to reach the top. The path is circuitous and

a The full form occurs in Judg. iv. 6, 12, 14 ; that
of Tabor only, in Josh. xix. 22 ; Judg. viii. 18 ; Ps.
Izjxlx. 12 ; Jer. xlvi. 18 ; Hos. t. 1.

6 * Tristram {Land of Israel, p. 499) says 1,300 feel
from the base, and 1,865 from the sea-level. The lattei
is Van de Velde's estimate U

3164

at times steep, but not so much so as to render it
difBcult to ride the entire way. The trees and
bushes are generally so thick as to intercept the
prospect; hut now and then the traveller as he as
cends comes to an open spot which reveals to him
a magnificent view of the plain. One of the most
pleasing aspects of the landscape, as seen from
such points, in the season of the early harvest, is
that presented in the diversified appearance of the
fields. The different plots of ground exhibit vari
ous colors, according to the state of cultivation at
the time. Some of them are red, where the land
has been newly plowed up, owing to the natural
priiperties ofthe soil; others yellow or white, where
tlie harvest is beginning to ripen oris already ripe;
and others green, lieing covered with grass or spring-

TABOR AND MOUNT TABOR
The top of Tabor consists of an irregular platfonn,
embracing a circuit of half an hour's walk, and
commanding wide views of the subjacent plain
from end to end. A copious dew falls here dur
ing the warm months. Travellers who have
spent the night there have found their tents as
wet in the morning as if they had been drenched
with rain.
It is the universal judgment of those who have
stood on the spot that the panorama spread before
them as they look from Tabor includes as great a
variety of objects of natural beauty and of sacred
and historic interest as any one to be seen from
any position in the Holy Land. On the east the
waters of the Sea of Tiberias, not less than fifteen
miles distant, are seen glittering through the clear

ing grain. As they are coutiguons'to each other, I atmosphere in the deep bed where they repose so
or intermixed, these parti colored plots -present, as j quietly. Though but a small portion of the surface
looked do«n upon from above, an appearance of , of the lake can be distinguished, the entire outhne
gay checkered work whioh is singularly beautiful. ' of its basin can be traced on every side. T" *I^»

In the

'^'if.w of Mount Tabor from the S. "W., from a sketch taken in 1842 by W. Tipping, Esq., and engraved by his
permission.

same direction the eye follows the course of the
Jordan fbr many miles; while still further east it
rests upon a boundless perspective of hills and
valleys, embraeing the niodern Hauran, and
further south the mountains of the ancient (lilead
and Bashan. 'i'he dark lil'le which skirts the
horizon on the west is the Mediterranean ; the rich
plains of Galilee fill up the intermediate space as
far as the foot of Tabor. The ridge of Carmel
lifts its head in the northwest, though the portion
which lies directly on the sea is not distinctly
visible. On the north and northeast we behold
the last ranges of Lelianon sis they rise into the
hills about Safed, overtopped hi the rear by tbe
snow-capped Hermon, and still nearer to us the
Horns of Hattin, the reputed Mount of the Beati
tudes. On tbe south are seen, first the summits
of Giiboa, which David's touching elegy on Saul
aidl .lonathan has fixed forever in the memory of
mankind, and further onward a confused view of

the mountains and valleys which occupy the
central part of Palestine. Over the heads of Dflhy
and Giiboa the spectator looks into the valley of
the Jordan in the neighborhood of Beisan (itself
not within sight), tlie ancient Beth-shean, on whose
walls the Philistines hung up the headless trunk
of Saul, after their victory over Israel. Looking
acro.ss a branch of the plain of Esdraelon, we
behold Endor, the abode of the sorceress whom the
king consulted on the night before his fatal battle.
Another little village cHngs to the hill-side of
another ridge, on which we gaze with still deeper
interest. It is Nain, the village of that name in
the New Testament, where the Saviour touched
the bier, and restored to life the widow's son. The
Saviour must have passed often at the foot of this
mount in the course of his journeys in diflirent
parts of Galilee. It is not surprising that the
Hebrews looked up with so much admiration to
this glorious work of the Creator's hnnd. The

TABOR AND MOUNT TABOR

S165

same beauty rests upon its brow to-day, the same
richness of verdure refreshes the eye, in contrast
with the bleaker aspect of so raany of the adjacent
mountains. The Christian traveller yields sponta-
ueously to the impression of wonder and devotion,
and appropriates as his own the language of the
psalmist (Ixxxix. 11, 12): —
" The heavens are thine, the earth also is> thine ;
The world and tbe fullness thereof, thou hast found
ed them.
The north and the south thou hast created them ;
Tabor and Hermon shall rejoice in thy name."
Tabor does not occur in the New Testament,
but raakes a prorainent figrj-e iu the Old. The
book of Joshua (xix. 22; mentions it as the
boundary between Issachai and Zebulon (see ver.
12). Barak, atthe command of Deborah, assem
bled his forces on Tabor, nnd, on the arrival of the
opportune moment, descended thence with " ten
thousand meu after him " into the plain, and con
quered Sisera on the banks of the Kishon (Judg.
iv. 6-15). The brothers of Gideon, each of whora
" reserabled the children of a king," were murdered
here by Zebah and Zalmunna (Judg. viii. 18, 19).
Some ^vriters, after Herder and others, think that
Tabor is intended when it is said of Issachar and
Zebulon in Deut- xxxiii. 19, that " they shall call
the people unto the mountain; there they shall
pffer sacrifices of righteousness." Stanley, who
adopts this view {Sinai and Palestine, p. 351),
remarks that he was struck with the aspect of the
open glades on the summit as specially fitted for
the convocation of festive assemblies, and could
well beheve thai in some remote age it raay have
been a sanctoarr vi the northern tribes, if not of
the whole naiion. Tbe prophet in Hos. v. 1, re
proaches the priests aod royal family with having
"been a suare <hi ^fijyh and a net spread upon
Tabor." The chaise s^ainst them probably is
that they had set op idob and practiced heathenish
rites on the bish ^hees which were usually selected
for such wcfship. The comparison in Jer. xlvi.
18, " as Tah«- is amon^ the mountains and Carmel
by the sea," imports apparently that these heights
were proverbial &»¦ their conspicuousness, beauty,
and strength-
Dr. Kobinson {Researches, ii. 353) has thus
described the ruins which are to he seen at present
on the summit of Tabor. « All around the top are
the foundations of a thick wall built of large stones,
some of which are beveled, showing that the entire
wall was perhaps originally of that character. In
several parts are the remains of towers and bastions.
I he chief remains are upon the ledge of rocks on
the south of the little basin, and especially towards
its eastern end ; here are — in indiscrinnnate con
fusion — walls, and arches, and foundations, ap
parently of dweUing-houses, as well as other build
ings, some of hewn, and some of large beveled
stones. The walls and traces of a fortress are
seen here, and further west along the southern
brow, of which one tall ponded arch of a Saracenic
gateway is still standing, and bears the name of
Bab el-Hawa, * Gate of the Wind.' Connected
with it are loopholes, and others are seen near by.

a Professor Stanley, in his Notices qf Localities
vnited with the Prince of Wales, has mentioned some
i»rticu1ar8 attached to the modern history of Tabor
irhicb appear to have escaped former travellers.
"The fortress, of which the ruins crown the summit,
bud evidently four gateways, Uke those by which the

These latter fortifications belong to the era of the
Crusades; but the large beveled stones we refer to
a style of architecture not later than the times of
the Romans, before which period, indeed, -a town
and fortress already existed on Mount Tabor. In
the days of the crusaders, too, and earlier, there
were here churches and monasteries. The summit
has many cisterns, now mostly dry." The same .
writer found the thermometer here at 10 a, m.
(June 18th) at 98° F., at sunrise at 6lo, and at
sunset at 74°. The Latin Christians have now an
altar here, at which their priests from Nazareth
perform an anuual mass. The Greeks also have
a chapel, where, on certain festivals, they assemble
for the celebration of religious rites."
Most travellers who have visited Tabor in recent
times have found it utterly solitary so far as regards
the presence of human occupants. It happened to
the writer on his visit here (1852) to meet, un
expectedly, with four raen who had taken up their
abode in this retreat, so well suited to encourage
the devotion of reUgious devotees. One of them
was an aged priest of the Greek Church, a native
of AVallachia, named Erinna, according to his own
account more than a hundred years old, who had
come here to await the final advent of Christ.
Dean Stanley found the old hermit still livini^ in
1862. According to his own story. Eriima " in hia
early years received an intimation in his sleep that
he was to build a church on a mountain shown to
him in his dream. He wandered through raany
countries, and found his mountain at last in Tabor.
There he lived and collected money from pilgrims,
which at his death, a few years ago, amounted to
a sufficient sum to raise the chiu-ch, which is
approaching completion. He was remarkable for
his long beard and for a tame panther, which, like
the ancient hermits, he made his constant com
panion " {Sermons in the /iast, p. 191 f.). He
was a man of huge physical proportions, and stood
forth as a good witness for the efl5cacy of the diet
of railk and herbs, on which, according to his own
account, he subsisted. The other three men were
natives of the, same province. Two of them, havhig
been to Jerusalem and the Jordan on a pilgrimage
had taken Tabor in their way on their retunj
homeward, where, finding unexpectedly tbe priest,
whom they happened to know, they resolved to
remain with him for a time. One of them was
dehberating whether he should not take up his per
manent abode there. The fourth person was a
young man, a relative of the priest, who seemed to
have taken on himself the filial office of caring for
his aged friend in the last extremity. In the
monastic ages Tabor, in consequence, partly, of a
belief that it was the scene of the Saviour's trans
figuration, was crowded with hermits. It was one
of the shrines frora the earliest period which pilgrims
to the Holy Land regarded it as a sacred duty to
honor with their presence and their prayers.
Jerome, in his Itinerary'of Paula, writes, " Scan-
debat montem Thabor, in quo transfiguratus est
Dominus; aspiciebat procul Hermon et Herraonim
et campos latissimos Galiljese (Jesreel), in quibus
Sisara prostratus est. Torrens Cison qui mediam

great Roman camps of ou • own country were entered.
By one ofthese gateways my attention was called to
an Arabic iuscription, said to be the only one on tha
mountain." It records the building or rebuilding of
*' this blessed fortress " by the order of the Sultan Aba
Bekr on his return from the East a. b. 607.

3166

TABOR

planitiem dividebat, et oppidum juxta, Nairn, mon-
strabantur." This idea that our Saviour was transfigured on
Tabor prevailed extensively among such of the
early Christians as adopted legends of this nature
(though not earlier than the 6th century), and re
appears often still in popular religious works. If
one might choose a place which he would deem
peculiarly fitting for so sublime a transaction, there
is none certainly which would so entirely satisfy
our feelings in this respect as the lofty, majestic,
beautiful Tabor. It is impossible, however, to
¦ acquiesce in the correctness of this opinion. It is
susceptible of proof from the Old Testament, and
from later history, that a fortress or town existed
on Tabor from very early times down to B. c. 50
or 53; and as Josephus says (Bell. Jud. iv. 1, § 8)
that he strengthened the fortifications of a city
there, about A. D. 60, it is morally certain tliat
Tabor must have been inhabited during the inter
vening period, that is, in the days of Christ.
Tabor, therefore, could not have been the Mount
of Transfiguration; for when it is said that Jesus
took his disciples " np into a high mountain apart
and was transfigured before them" (Matt. xvii. 1,
2), we must understand that He brought them to
the summit of the mountain, where they were alone
by themselves (kot' ISiav). It is inipossilile to
ascertain with certainty what place is entitled to
the glory of this marvelous scene. The evan
gelists record the event in connection with a jour
ney of the Saviour to Caesarea Phiiippi, near the
sources of the Jordan. It is conjectured that the
Transfiguration may have taken place on one of the
summits of Mount Hermon in that vicinity. [Hkr-
MON, Amer. ed.] See Ritter's Erdkunde, xv. 394
ff ; and Lichtenstein's Leben Jesu, p. 309. For
the history of the tradition which connects Tabor
with the Transfiguration, consult Robinson's Re
searches, ii. 358, .359. [Tk,\kscigukation, Amer.
ed.] H. B. H.
TA'BOR("l12ri [;/CTi,Ai!]: [Vat.] @axx^iu;
[Rom.] Alex. Qa^oip' Thabw) is mentioned in
the lists of 1 Chr. vi. as a city of the Merarite Le
vites, in the tribe of Zebulun (ver. 77). The cata
logue of Levitical cities in Josh. xxi. does not con
tain any name answering to this (comp. vers. 34,
35). But the Ust of the towns of Zebulun (ib.
xix.) contains the name of Chisloth-Tabor (ver.
12). It is, therefore, possible, either that Chisloth-
Tabor is abbreviated into Tabor by the chronicler,
or that by the time these later lists were compiled,
the Merarites had established themselves on the
sacred mountain, and that Tabor is Mount Tabor. G.
TA'BOR, THE PLAIN OP(ni3n "I'lbN
[oak ofthe height]: rj Spus Qafiiip: quercus Tha
bor). It has been already pointed out [see Plain,
iii. 2547 f.], that this is an incorrect translation,
and should be the Oak ov Tabor. It is men
tioned in 1 Sam. x. 3, only as one of the points in
the homeward journey of Saul after his anointing
by Samuel. It was the next stage in the journey
alter " Rachel's sepulchre at Zelzach." But un
fortunately, like so many of the other spots named
iu this interesting passage, the position of the Oak
(f Tabor has not yet been fixed.
Ewald seems to consider it certain (gewiss) that
Tabor and Deborah are merely different modes of
pronouncing the same name, and he accordingly
identifies the Oak of Tabor with the tree under

TACHMONITE, THE
which Deborah, Rachel's nurse, was buried (Gen.
xxxv. 8), and that again witb the palm, under
which Deborah the prophetess delivered her oracles
(Gesch. iii. 29, i. 390, ii. 489), and this again with
the Oak of the old Prophet near Bethel (ib. iii.
444). But this, though raost ingenious, can only
be received as a conjecture, and the position on
which it would land us — " between Ramah and
Bethel " (Judg. iv. 5), is too far from Rachel's
sepulchre to fall in with the conditions of the nar
rative of Saul's journey, aa long as we hold that to
be the traditional sepulchre near Bethlehem. A
further opportunity for examining this most puz-
zUng route will occur under Zelzah; but the
writer is not sanguine enough to hope that any
light can be thrown on it in the present state of
our knowledge. [See Ramah, Amer. ed.] G.
TABRET. [Timbrel.]
TAB'RIMON (Vai3^ : Ta$epe/id; Alex.
Ta^evparifia: Tabremon). Properly, Tabrimmon,
i. e. "good is Rimmon," the Syrian god; compare
the analogous forms Tobiei, Tobiah, and the Phoe
nician Tab-arani (Gesen. Mon. Plioen. p. 456).
The father of Benhadad I., king of Syria in the
reign of Asa (1 K. xv. 18).
TACHE (D.7P.: Kpinos: circulm,fbuh). The
word thus rendered occurs only in the description
of the structure of the Tabemacle and its fittings
(Ex. xxvi. 6, 11, 33, xxxv. 11, xxxvi. 13, xxxix.
33), and appears to indicate the small hooks by
which a curtain is suspended to the rings from
whieh it hangs, or connected vertically, as in the
case of the veil of the Holy of Holies, with the
loops of another curtain. The bistory of the Eng
lish word is philologically interestuig, as presenting
points of contact with many different langtiages.
The Gaelic and Breton branches of the Keltic fam
ily give tlic, or tach, in the sense of a nail or book.
The latter meaning appears in the aiiaccare, stac-
care, of Italiai^, in theo/tocAec, detacher, oi Frencb.
On the other hand, in the tnk of Dutch, and the
Zncke of German, we have a word of like sound
and kindred meaning. Our Anglo-Saxon taecan
and English take (to seize as with a hook?) are
probalily connected with it. In later nse the word
has slightly altered both its form and meauing, and
the tack is no longer a hook, but a small flat-headed
nail (comp. Diez, Roman. Worteb. s. >. 7*(tcco).
E. H. P.
TACH'MONITE, THE C'3b3nri [see
below]: b Xavavaios; [Comp. a vtbs Bm^navii]
sripieulissimus). " The Tachnionite (properly,
Taehcemonite) that sat in the seat," chief among
David's captains (2 Sam. xxiii. 8), is in 1 Chr.
xi. 11 called " Jashobeam an Hachmonitc," or, as
the margin gives it, "son of Hachmoui." i'he
Geneva version has in 2 Sam. «xiii. 8, " He that
sate in the seate of wisedome, being chiefe of the
princes, was Adino of Ezni," regardine "Tach
nionite " as an adjective derived from jSH, cha-
cam, " wise," and in this derivation following
Kimchi. Kennicott has shown, with much ap
pearance of probability, that the words 3t£7''
ri3*^3, ybsheb basshebeth, " he that sat in the
seat," are a corruption of Jashobeam, the true
name of the hero, and that the mistake arose
from an error of the transcriber, who carelessly
inserted j1|3**'2 from the previous verse where it

TACKLING
scours. He further considers " the Tachmonite "
tb corru[»tion of the appellation in Chronicles, " son
of Hachmoni," which was the family or local name
of Jashobeam. " The name here in Samuel was
at first "'^liSnn, the article H at the beginning
having been corrupted into a j"l; for the word ']'2,
in Chronicles is regularly supplied in Samuel by
that article " (Dissert, p. 82). Therefore he con-
eludes "Jashobeam the Hachmonite" to have been
the true reading. Josephus (Aut. vii. 12, § 4)
calls him 'Ua-<rapiJ>s vihs ' AxepJiiou, which favors

TADMOR

3167

Kennicott's emendation.

W. A. VV.

* TACKLING. For this nautical term in
Acts xxvii. 17, see Ship (6). It occurs also Is,
xxxiii. 23, where in the prophet's allegory it
{/^V}) refers to the ropes connected with the vea-
sel's mast and sails. H.
TAD'MOR ("ibl^n [prob. city of palms]:
[in 1 K. ix. 18, Rom. Vat. omit, Alex. @eppa9', in 2
Chr., Kom.] ©oeSpop., [Vat. ®oeSopop, Alex. &eS-
fiop'] Palmira), called *' Tadmor in the wilderness "
(2 Chr. viii. 4). There is no reasonable doubt that
this city, said to have been built by Solomon, is tlie
same as the one known to the Greeks and Romans
and to niodern Europe by the name, in some form
or other, of palmyra {na\pvpd, TlaXfiipd, Pal
mira). The identity of the two cities results frora
the following circumstances: 1st, The same city is
specially mentioned by -losephus {Ant. viii. 6, § 1)
as bearing in his time the name of Tadmor among
the Syrians, and Palmyra among the Greeks; and
in his Latin translation of fche Old Testament, Je
rome translates Tadulor by Palmira (2 Chr. vJii. 4).
2dly, '1'he modern Arabic nanje of Palmyra is
substantiaUy the same as the Hebrew word, being
Tadmur or Tathmur. 3dly, The word Tadmor
has nearly the same nieaning as Palmyra, signifying
probably the " City of Palms," frora Tamar, a palm ;
and this is confirmed by the Arabic word for Palma,
a Spanish town on the Guadalquivir, which is said
to be called Tadmir (see Gesenius in his Thesaurus,
p. '64:b). 4thly, The name Tadmor or Tadmor
actually occurs as the narae of the city in Aramaic
and Greek inscripf.ons whieh have been found
there. 5fchiy, In the Chronicles, the city is men
tioned as having been built by Solomon after his
conquest of Hamath Zobah, and it is named in
conjunction with "all the store-cities which he
built in Hamath." This accords fully with the
situation of Palmyra [Hamath]; and there is
no other known city, either in the desert or not in
the desert, which can lay claim to the name of
Tadmor. In addition to the passage in the Chronicles,
there is a passage in the book of Kinj!;s (1 K. ix.
18) in which, accordintj; to the marginal reading
{Ktri), the statement that Solomon builfc Tadmor
likewise occurs. But on referring to the original
text {Cithlb), the word is found fco be not Tadmor,
but Tamar. Now, as all the other towns men
tioned in fchis paasage with 'i araar are in Palestine
(Gezer, Beth-horon, Baalafch), as ifc is said of
Tamar fchat it was " in the wilderness in the land,''''
and as, iti ICzekiel's prophetical description of the

a A misunderstaading of this passage has counte-
DUQced the ideas of thoiie who believe ia a future sec-
Wd return of the Jews to Palestine. This belief may,
mder peculiarly favorable circiuDstaDces, lead here-

Holy Land, there is a Tamar mentioned aa one of
the borders of the land on the south (Ez. xlviii
19 ), where, as is notorious, there is a desert, it ia
probable thafc the aufchor of the book of Kings did
not really mean to refer to Palmyra, and thafc the
marginal reading of " Tadmor " was founded on the
passage in the Chronicles (see Thenius, Exegetisches
Handbuch, 1 K. ix. 18).
If this is admitted, fche suspicion naturally sug
gests itself, thafc the compiler of fche Chronicles may
have misappreiiended the original passage in the
book of Kings, and may have incorrectly wrifcten
" Tadmor " instead of « Tamar." On this hypothe
sis there would have been a curious circle of mis
takes; and the final result would be, that any sup
posed connection between Solomon and the foun
dation of Palmyra must be regarded as purely
imaginai'y. This conclusion is not necessarily in
correct or unreasonable, but there are not sufficient
reasons for adopting it. In the first place, the
Tadmor of the Chronicles is nofc mentioned in
connection wifch the same cifcies as the Tamar of
the Kings, so there is nothing cogent to suggest
the inference that the statement of the Chronicles
was copied from the Kings. Secondly, admitting
the historical correctness of the statement that the
kingdom of Solomon extended from Gaza, near the
Mediterranean Sea, to Tiphsah or Thapsacus, on
the Euphrates (1 K. iv. 24; comp. Ps. Ixxii. 8, 9),
it would be in the highest degree probable that
Solomon occupied and garrisoned such a very im
portant station for connecting different parts of hia
dominions as Palmyra. And, even without refer
ence fco military and political considerations, it
would have been a raasterly policy in Solomon to
have secured Palmyra as a poinfc of commercial
communication with the Euphrates, Babylon, and
the Persian Gulf. It is evident that Solomon had
largo views of commerce; and as we know that he
availed himself of the nautical skill of the Tyrians
by causing some of his own subjects fco accompany
them in distant voyages frora a port on the Red
Sea (1 K. ix. 26, 27, 28, x. 22), it is unlikely thafc
he should have neglected trade by land wifch such
a centre of wealth and civilizafcion as Babylon.
Bufc fchafc great city, though so nearly in the same
lafcitude with Jerusalem that there is not the dif
ference of even one degree between them, was sep
arated from Jerusalem by a great deserfc, so that
regular direct communication between the two
cities was impracticable. In a celebrated passage,
indeed, of Isaiah (xl. 3), connected with "the
voice of him that crieth in the wilderness," images
are introduced of a direct return of the Jewish
exiles from Bab_) Ion through the deserfc. Such a
route was known to the Bedawin of the desert ;
and may have been exceptionally passed over by
others; but evidently these images are only poetical,
and it may be deemed indisputable that the sue
cessive caravans of Jews who returned to their owr;
land from Babylon arrived frora fche same quarter
as Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldaeans (Jer. i. 14,
15, X. 22, xxv 9 J, namely, from the North. In fact,
Babylon thus became so associated wifch the North
in fche minds of the Jews, that in one passage of
Jeremiah « (xxiii. 8) it is called " fche North coun
try," and it is by no means impossible that many

after to its own realization. It has not, however, beec
hitherto reiiUy proved that a second dispersion or a
second return of the Jews was ever costsmplatfid by
any Hebrew prophet.

3168

TABMOK

of the Jews may have been ignorant that Babylon
was nearly due east from Jerusalem, althoufrh
Bomewhafc more than 600 miles distant. Now, the
way in which Palmyra would have been useful to
Solomon in trade between Babylon and the west
is evident from a glance afc a *good map. By
merely following the road up the stream on the
right bank of the Euphrates, the traveller goes in
a northwesterly direction, and the width of the
desert becomes proportionally less, till afc lengfch,
from a point on the Euphrates, there are only
fibout 120 miles across the desert to Palmyra,^'
and thence about the same distance across the
desert to Danjascus. From Damascus there were
ultimately two roads into Palestine, one on each
side of the Jordan; and there was an easy com
munication with Tyre by Paneias, or C^sarea
Phiiippi, now Banias. It is true that the Assyrian
and Chaldee armies did nofc cross the desert by
Palmyra, but took the more circuitous road by
Hamath on ihe Orontes: but this was doubtless
Dwing to the greater facihties which that route
iflforded for ths subsistence of the cavalry of which

TADMOK
those armies wer© mainly composed. For meia
purposes of trade, the shorter road hy Palmyra
had some decided advantages, as long aa it was
thoroughly secure. See Movers, Das Pkonizische
Alterthum, 3ter Theil, p. 243, &c.
Hence there are not sufficiently valid reasons for
denying the statement in the Chronicles that Solo
mon built Tadmor in the wilderness, or Palmyra.
As, however, the city is nowhere else mentioned in
the whole Bible, it would be out of place to enter
into a long, detailed history of it on the preseut
occasion. The following leading facts, however,
may be mentioned. The first author of antiquity
who mentions Palmyra is Pliny the Elder {Hist.
Nat. V. 26), who says, "Palmira nobiHs urbs situ,
divitiis soli et aquis amcenis vasto undique arabitu
arenis includit agros ; " and then proceeds to speak of
it as placed apart, as it were between the two em
pires of the Romans and the Partbians, and as the
first object of solicitude to each at the commence
ment of war. Afterwards it was raentioned by Ap
pian {De BelL Cioil. v. 9), in reference to a still
earher period of time, in connection with a design

Kuins of Tadmor or Palmyra.

of Mark Antony to let his cavalry plunder it. The
inhabitants are said to have withdrawn themselves
and their effects to a strong position on the Eu
phrates — aud the cavalry entered an empty city.
In the second century A. D. it seems to have been
beautified by the Emperor Hadrian, as may be in
ferred frora a statement of Stephanus of Byzantium
as to the name of the city having been changed to
Hadrianopolis (s. v. TlaXfxvpd). In the beginning
of the third century A. d. it becanie a Roman
colony under Caracalla (211-217 a. d.), and re
ceived the jus Italicum. Subsequently, in the reign
of Gallienus, the Roman Senate invested Odena-
thus, a senator of Palmyra, with the regal dignity,
on account of his services in defeating Sapor king
of Persia. On the assassination of Odenathus, his
celebrated wife Zenobia seems to have conceived
the design of erecting Palmyra into an independent
monarchy; and in prosecution of this object, she
for a while successfully resisted the Roman arms.
a The exact latitude aud longitude of Palmyra do
aot seem to have been Bcientiflcall.v taken. Mr. Wood
uentioua that his party had no quadraut with them,

^4fifai!^

She was at length defeated and taken captive by
the Emperor Aurelian (a. r>. 273), who left a
Roman garrison in Palmyra. This garrison was
massacred in a revolt; and Aureliau punished the
city by the execution nofc only of those who were
taken in arms, but likewise of common peasants, of
old men, women, and children. From this blow
Palmyra never recovered, though there are proo,''fl
of its havhig continued to be inhabited until tlu-
downfall of the Roman Empire. There is a frag
ment of a building, with a I^atin inscription, bear
ing the name of Diocletian ; and there are existing
walls of the city of the age of the Emperor Justinian.
In 1172. Benjamin of Tudela found 4,000 Jews
there; and at a later period Abulfeda mentioned it
as full of splendid ruins. Subsequently iis very
existence had become unknown to modem Europe,
when, in 1691 A. d., it was visited by some mer
chants from the English factory in Aleppo^ and an
account of their discoveries was published in 1695

and there is a disagreement between various niapa
and geographical works. According to }u*. Jolmnton
the position is. lat. 34° 18' N., and long 88° IS' S. .

TAHAN
in the Philosojihical Trans tctions (vol. xix. No.
air, p. 83, No. 218, p. 129). In 1751, Kobert
Wood took drawings of the ruins on a very large
scale, which he published in 1753, in a splendid folio
work, under the title of The Ruins of Palmyra,
uthei'wise, Tadmor in the Desert. This work still
continues to be the best on Palmyra; and its valu
able engravings fully justify the powerful impression
which the ruins make on every intelligent traveller
who crosses the desert ' to visit them. The colon
nade and individual temples are inferior in beauty
and majesty to those which may be seen elsewhere
— such, for example, as the Parthenon, and the re
mains of the Temple of Jupiter, at Athens : and
tiiere is evidently no one temple equal to the Temple
of the Snn at iiaalbek, which, as built both at about
tbe same period of time and in the same order of
architecture, suggests itself most naturaUy as an
objeiit of comparison. But the long Unes of Corin
thian columns at Palmyra, as seen at a distance,
are peculiarly imposing; and in their general effect
aud apparent vastness, they seem to surpass all
other ruins of the same kind. All the buildings to
which these columns belonged were probably erected
in the second and third centuries of our era. Many
inscriptions are of later date, but no inscription
earlier than the second century seems yet to have
been discovered,
For further information consult the original au
thorities for the history of Palmym in the Scrip-
tares Ilistw-ice Auguslai, Triginta Tyranni, xiv.,
Divus Aureiutnus, xxvi. ; Eutropius, ix. cap. 10,
11, 12. In 1696 A. u., Abraham Seller pubhshed
a most instructive work entitled. The Antiquities
of Palmyra, containing the History of ihe City and
its Emperors, which contains several Greek inscrip
tions, with translations and explanations. The
Preface to Wood's work likewise contains a detailed
history ofthe city; and Gibbon, in the llth chap
ter of the Decline and Pall, has given an account
of Palmyra with his usual vigor and accuracy. For
an interesting account of the present state of the
ruins see Porter's Handbook for Syria and Pales
tine, pp. 5-13-549, and Beaufort's Egyptian Sepul
chres, etc., vol. i. E. T.
TA'HAN (ini^ [lent.-place, encampmenf]:
Tavdx, ®aep: Thehen, Tliaan). A descendant of
Ephraim, but of what degree is uncertain (Num.
xxvi. 36). In 1 Chr. vii. 25 he appears as the son
of Telah.
TA'HANITBS, THE C'?i7ilin [patr.] : b
Tavax'i [Vat. -xet] '• Ththenilos). The descend
ants of tbe preceding, a branch of the tribe of Eph
raim (Num. xxvi. 35).
*TAHAP'ANES. [Tahpanhes.]
TA'HATH (nnn [place, station']; Qatid;
[Vat. in ver. 24, Kaafl:] Thahath). 1. A Koha
thite Levite, ancestor of Samuel and Heman (1 Chr.
/i. 24, 37 [9, 22]).
2. (®aaS; [Vat. omits;] Alex. @aa6.) Ac
cording to the present text, son of Bered, and great-
grandson of Ephraim (1 Chr. vii. 20). Burring
ton, however (Geneal. i. 273), identifies Tahath
with Tahan, the son of Ephraim.
3. (2ati8; [Vat. Noo/ie;] Alex. No/xee.) Gi-and-
ion of the preceding, as the text now stands (1 Chr.
rii. 20). But Burrington considers him as a son
of Ephraim (ii. tab. xix.). In this case Tahath
was one of the sons of Ephraim who were slain by
the men of Gath in a raid made upon their cattle.

TAHPANHES

3169

TA'HATH (nnn [see below] : Karaiie :
[Thahath]). The name of a desert-station of the
Israelites between Makheloth and Tarah (Num.
xxxiii. 26). The name, signifying "under" oi
"below," may relate to the level of the ground.
The site has not been identified.
Tachta, from the same root, is the common word
employed to designate the lower one of the double
villages so common in Syria, the upper one being
foka. Thus Beitir el-foka is the upper Beth-
horon, BeitUr el-tachta the lower one. H. \i.
TAH'PANHES, TEHAPHNEHES,
TAHAP'ANES (DTOQnn, Djiasnn,
DDQnn, the last form in text, but Keri has iSist
[seebelow]: Tdtpvas.TMii'ai: Tapknis, Taphne).
A city of h^ypt, of importance in the time of the
prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The name is evi
dently Egyptian, and closely resembles that of the
Egyptian queen Tahpenes. The Coptic name
of this place, TAcbil<5.C, (Quatremere, .Wem.
Geog. et Hist. 1. 297, 298), is evidently derived from
the LXX. form : the Gr. and I^at. forms, A(i<l>rai,
Hdt., Atiipvr], Steph. Byz., Dafno. Itin. Ant., are
perhap,« nearer to tbe Egyptian original (see Par
they, Zur Erdkunde des Allen JEgyptens, p. 528).
Tahpanhes was evidently a town of Lower Egypt
near or on the eastern border. . When Johauan and
the other captains went into Egypt " they came to
Tahpanhes" (Jer. xliii. 7). Here Jeremiah proph
esied the conquest of the country by Nebuchad
nezzar (8-13). Ezekiel foretells a battle to be
there fought apparently by the king of Babylon
just mentioned (xxx. 18). Tlie Jews in Jeremiah's
time remained here (Jer. xHv. 1). It was an im
portant town, being twice meutioned by the latter
prophet with Noph or Memphis (ii. 16, xlvi. 14),
as well as in the passage last previously cited. Here
stood a house of Pliaraob Hophra before which
Jeremiah hid great stones, where the throne of
Nebuchadnezzar would afterwards be set, and his
pavilion spread (xliii. 8-10). It is mentioned with
" Ramesse and all the land of Gesen " in J ud. i. 9.
Herodotus calls tbis place Daphnje of Pelusium
(Aii^vai ttlYlrjXovalaj.), and relates that Psammet
ichus I. here had a garrison against the Arabians
and Syrians, as at Elephantine against the Ethio-
plans, and at JMarea against libya, adding that in
his own time the Persians had garrisons at Daph
nse and Elephantine (ii. 30). Daphnee was there
fore a very important post under the XXVIth
dynasty. According to Stephanus it was near
Pelusium (s. v.).
In the Itinerary of Antoninus this town, called
Dafno, is placed 16 Roman miles to the southwe?t
of Pelusium (ap. Parthey, Map vi., where observe
that the name of Pelusium is omitted). This po
sition seems to agree with that of Tel-Defenneh,
which Sir Gardner Wilkinson supposes to mark the
site of Daphnse (Modern Egypt and Thebes, i. 447,
448). This identification favors the inland posi
tion of the site of Pelusium, if we may trust to the
distance stated in the Itinerary. [Sin.] Sir G.
Wilkinson (I. o.) thinks it was an outpost of Pelu
sium. It may be observed that the Camps, t^
2TpoT(!ireSa, the fixed garrison of lonians and Ca-
rians estabhshed by Psammetichus I., may possi
bly have been at Daphnse. Can the name be ol
Greek origin? If the Hanes mentir.::ed by Isaiah
(xxx. 4) be the same as Tahpaiihes, i\a we ha?«

3170

TAHPENES

suggested (s. v.), this conjecture must be dismissed.
No satisfactory Egyptian etymology of this name has
been suggested, Jablonski's T^C^66JIG^,
" the head " or " beginning of the age " ( Ojnisc. i.
343), being quite untenable, nor has any Egyptian
name resembling it been discovered." The narae
of Queeu Xahpenes throws no light upon this
matter. R. S. P.
TAH'PENES (D"^2?r7n [see above]: @eK€-
liiva.'i [Vat. -;iet-; Comp". ©eKe^eVivs:] Taphnes),
a proper name of an Egyptian queen. She was
wife of the Pharaoh who received Hadad the E<lom--
ite, and who gave him her sister in marriage (1 K.
xi. 18-20). Iu the LXX. the latter is called the
elder sister of Thekemina, and in the addition to
ch. xii. Shishak (Susakim) is said fco have given
Ano, the elder sister of Thekemina his wife to Jer
oboam. It is obvious that this and the earlier
statement are irreconcilable, even if the evidence
from fche probable repetition of an elder sister be
set aside, and it is scarcely necessary to add that
the name of Shishak's chief or only wife, KAKAA-
MAT, does nofc support the LXX. addition. [Shi
shak:.] There is therefore but one Tahpenes or
Thekemina. At the time to which the nairative
refers there were probably two, if not three, lines
ruling in Egypt, the Tanites of the XXIsfc dynasfcy
in the lower country, the high-priest kings at
Thebes, but possibly they were of the same line,
and perhaps one of the last faineants of the Kame-
ses family. To fche Tanite line, as apparenfcly then
the most powerful, and as holding fche territory
nearest Palestine, fche Pharaoh in quesfcion, as well
as the &ther-in-law of Solomon, probably belonged.
If Manetho's list be correct he may be conjectured
to have been Psusennes. [Phakaoh.] No name
that has any near resemblance to either Tahpenes
or Thekemina bas yefc been found among those of
the period (see Lepsius, Koniysbu/:h). K. S. P.
TAHRE'A (?rr^ \craft, cunning] : ©„-
pdx'^ Alex. 0a/)a; [Comp. Aid. ©apactO Tharaa).
Son of Micah, and grandson of Mephibosheth (1
Chr. ix. 41). In fche parallel Ust of 1 Chr. viii. 35
his name appears ae Tarea.
TAH'TIM HOD'SHI, THB LAND OF
Ott^in D^'rinri VT?M [see below] ; ety y^v &a-
0aa&iv tJ i<rriv*A0axrai [Vat. Na^.]; Alex, -yiji^
eOacov aicurai' i^rra inferior Hodsi). One ofthe
places visited by Joab during his census of the land
of Israel. It occurs between Gilead and Dan-jaan
(2 Sam. xxiv. 6). The tiame has puzzled all the
interpreters. The old versions throw no light upon
it. Fiirst {Handwb. i. 380) proposes to separate
the " Land of the Taehthn " from " Hodshi," and
to read the latter as Harshi — the people of Haro
sheth (corap. .ludg. iv. 2). Thenius restores fche
text of fche LXX. fco read "the Land of Bashan,
which is Edrei." This in itself is feasible, although
it is certainly very difficult to connect ifc wifch fche
Hebrew. Ewald {Gesch. iii. 207) proposes to read
Hermon for Hodshi; and Gesenius ( Thes. p. 450 a)
dismisses the passage with a vix pro sano haben
dum. There is a districfc called the Ard eir-tahta, to
the E. N". E. of Damascus, which recalls the old

« Dr. Brugsch, following Mr. Heath {Excdm Pa
pyri, p. 174), identities the fort TeBNwT with Tahpan-
btf i but this name does not seem to us sufficiently

TALMOK
name — but there is nothing to show that any Is
raelite was living so far from the Holy Land iu the
tinle of David. Gr*
TALENT ("133 : rdxavrov : ialentum), the
greatest weight of the Hebrews. Its Hebrew name
properly signifies "a circle" or " globe," and waa
perhaps given to ifc on accounfc of a form in which
ifc was anciently made. The Assyrian name of fche
talenfc is tihm according to Dr. Hincks.
The subject of the Hebrew talent will be fully
discussed in a later article [Weights]. li. S. P.
TAL'ITHA CU'MI (raKM Kovpu:
u^OJ:> j La^^). Two Syriao words (Mark
v. 41), signifying " Damsel, arise."
The word SrT^^tD occurs in the Chaldee para
phrase of Prov. ix. 3, where ifc sigixifies a girl; and
Lightfoot {Hoi'os Heb. Mark v. 41) gives an in
stance of its use in the same sense by a Rabbinical
writer. Gesenius {Thesaurus, p. 550) derives it
from the Hebrew rT7ti, a lamb. The word ''XSIp
is both Hebrew and Syriac (2 p. fem. Imperative,
Kal, and Peal), signifying stand, arise.
As mighfc be expecfced, fche lasfc clause of thig
verse, after Curai, is not found in the Syriac ver
sion. Jerome (Ep. Ivii. ad Pammachiuvi, Oi^. tom. i.
p. 308, ed. Vallars.) records that St. Mark waa
blamed for a false translation on account of the in
sertion of the words, "I say unto thee; " but Je
rome points to this as an instance of the superiority
of a free over a literal translation, inasmuch as the
words inserted serve to show the emphasis of our
lord's manner in giving this command on his owu
personal authority. W. T. B.
TAL'MAI [2 syl.] (^'Obn [furrowed]; ©g-
Xafjii, &o\api, &oXfj.i', [Vat. ®e\ap€t, ®oa\pei,
&o\peiv ;]' Alex. @e\a/x€iv, &o\pai, &ap.ei.
Tholmu'i). 1. Oue of fche three sons of " the
Anak," who were driven out frora their settlement
in Kirjath-Arba, and slain by the men of Judah,
under the command of Caleb (Num. xiii. 22; Josh
XV. 14: Judg. i. 10).
2. {QoXui [Vat. @o\pei, @oKfxai\T}p.] in 2 Sam..
&o\pai [ Vafc. ®oapai] in 1 Chr. ; Alex. ©oKpei,
&o\ofia'i, @o\pa'i' Tholnia'i, Tholomai.) Son of
Ammihud, king of Geshur (2 Sam. iii. 3, xiii. 37;
1 Chr. iii. 2). His daughter Maachah was one of
the wives of David and mother of Absalom. He
was probably a petty chieftain dependent on David,
and his wild retreat in i^ashau afforded a shelter to
his grandson affcer the assassination of Amnon.
TAL'MON (V'ltS^?! [oppressed] : TeXpt&v,
but TcAauiV in Neh. xi. 19 ; [in 1 Chr., Vat. Ta/i-
fiap.; in Neh. xi. 19, Vat. F.\. TeKafxcaV, xii. 25,
Kom. Vat. Alex. FA.l omit, EA.^ TaKfiuv;] Alex.
Tekfiav, Tokptav, TeXapetv '¦ Telmon). The
head of a family of doorkeepers in the Temple,
" the porters for the camps of the sons of I^vi "
(1 Chr. ix. 17; Neh. xL 19). Some of his de
scendants returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 42;
Neh. vii. 45), and were employed in their heredi
tary office in the days of Nehemiah and Ezra (Neh.
xii. 25), for the proper nanies in this passage must
be considered as fche names of families.
near either to the Hebrew or go the Greek {b»0&
Inschr. i. 300, 301; Taf. Ivi. nv 1T28J.

TALMUD
* TAL'MTJD. [Pharisees, iii. 2472 f., and
.lote b ; Sckibes, p. 2867, and note b.]
TAL'SAS (¦S,a\6as; [Vat. 2aA.8as; Wechel
VaKais-^ Tlialsas). Elasaii (1 Esdr. ix. 22)
TA'MAH (nan [prob. laughter] : &n/jLd;
[Vat.] FA. HfiaS: Thema). The children of Ta-
uiah, or Thamah (Ezr. ii. 53), were among the
Nethinim who returned with Zerubbabel (>feh. vii.
56). TATVIAR ("1^i[? = "palm-tree"). The
name of three women remarkable in the history of
Israel. 1. (@a,p.ap : Thamar. ) The wife successively of
the two sons of Judah, Ek and Onak (Gen. xxxviii.
6-30). Her importance in the sacred narrative
depends on the great anxiety to keep up the lineage
of Judah. It seemed as if the family were on the
point of extinction. Er and Onan had succes
sively perished suddenly, Judah's wife Bathshuah
died ; and there only reraained a child Shelah,
whom Judah was unwilling to trust to the danger
ous union, as it appeared, with Tamar, lest he
should meet with the same fate aa his brothers.
That he should, however, marry her seems to have
been regarded aa part of the fixed law of the tribe,
whence its incorporation into the Mosaic Law in
after times (Deut. xxv. 5; Matt. xxii. 24); and, as
such, Tamar was determined not to let tbe oppor
tunity escape through Judah's parental anxiety.
Accordingly she resorted to the desperate expedient
of entrapping the father himself into the union
which he feared for his son. He, on the first emer
gence from his mourning for his wife, went to one
of the festivals often mentioned in Jewish bistory as
attendant on sheep-shearing. He wore on his fin
ger the ring of his chieftainship ; he carried his staff
in his hand ; he wore a collar or necklace round his
neck. He was encountered by a veiled woman
on the road leading to Timnath, the future birth
place of Samson, amongst the hills of Dan. He
took her for one of the unfortunate women who
were consecrated to the impure rites of the Canaan
ite worship. [SonoMiTES.] He promised her,
as the price ofhis intercourse, a kid from the flocks
to which he was gonig, and left as his pledge his
ornaments and his staff. The kid he sent back by
his shepherd (LXX.), Hirah of Adullam. The
woman could nowhere be found. Months after
wards it was discovered to be his own daughter-in-
law Tamar who had thus concealed herself under
the veil or mantle, which she cast off on her return
home, where she resumed the seclusion and dress of
a widow. She was sentenced to be burned aUve,
and was only saved by the discovery, through the
pledges which Judah had left, that her seducer was
no less than the chieftain of the tribe. He had the
magnanimity to recognize that she had been driven
into this crime by his own neglect of his promise to
1,'ive her in marriage to his youngest son. " She
hath been more righteous than I . . . . and he
knew her again no more" (Gen. xxxviii. 26). The
fruit of this intercourse were twins, Pharez and
Zarah, and through Pharez the .sacred line was
continued. Hence the prominence given to Tamar
In the nuptial l-enediction of the tribe of Judah
(Kuth iv. 12), and in the genealogy of our Lord
(Matt. i. 3).
The story is important (1) as showing the sig
nificance, from early times, attached to the contin-
luiine of the line of Judah; (2) as » glimpse into

TAMAR

3171

the rough manners of the patriarchal time; (3) as
the germ of a famous Mosaic law.
2. (©Tj/Actp ; Alex. @apap [exc. I Chr. 07j/tap] i
Joseph, tdapdpa- Thamar.) Daughter of David
and Maachah the Geshurite princess, and thus sis
ter of Absalom (2 Sam. xiii. 1-32; 1 Chr. iii. 9
Joseph. Ant. vii. 8, § 1). She and her hrothei
were alike remarkable for their extraordinary beauty.
Her name ('* Palm-tree ") may have been given
her on this account. This fatal beauty inspired a
frantic passion in her half-brother Amnon, the eld
est son of David by Ahinoam. He wasted away
frora the feeling that it was impossible to gi'atify
his desire, " for she was a virgin " — the narrative
leaves it uncertain whether frora a scruple on hia
part, or from the seclusion hi which in her unmar
ried state she was kept. Morning by morning, as
he received the visits of his friend Jonadau, he is
;r and thinner (Joseph. Ant. vii. 8, § 1). Jona
dab discovers the cause, and suggests to him the
means of acconipHsbing his wicked purpose. He
was to feign sickness. The king, who appears to
have entertained a considerable affection, almost
awe, for him, as the eldest son (2 Sam. xiii. 5, 21:
LXX.), came to visit him; and Amnon entreated
the presence of Tamar, on the pretext that she
alone could give him food that he would eat. What
follows is curious, as sliowing the simplicity of the
oyal life. It would almost seem that Tamar was
supposed to have a peculiar art of baking palatable
cakes. She came to his house (for each prince ap
pears to have had a separate establishment), took
the dough and kneaded it, and then in his presence
(for this was to be a part of his fancy, as though
there were something exquisite in the manner ot
her performhig the work) kneaded ifc a second lime
into the form of cakes. The name giveu to these
cakes (^e6^6fl/0, " heart cakes," has been variously
explained; "hollow cakes" — "cakes with some
stimulating spices " (like our word cordial) — cakes
in the shape of a heart (like the Moravian geruhrie
Herzen, Thenius, ad he.) — cakes " the delight of
the heart." Whatever it be, it implies somefching
special and pecuUar. She then took fche pan, in
which fchey had been baked, and poured them all
out in a heap before the prince. This operation
seems to have gone on in an outer room, on which
Amnon's bedchamber opened. He caused his at
tendants to retire — called her to the inner room
and there accomplished his design. In her touch
ing remonstrance two points are remarkable. First,
the expression of the infamy of such a crime " in
Israel,'' implying the loftier standard of morals
that prevailed, as compared with ofcher countries at
that time; af-", secondly, the belief thafc even this
standard might be overborne lawfully by royal au
thority — « Speak to the king, for he will not with
hold me from thee." This expression has led to
much needless explanation, from its contradiction to
Lev. xviii. 9, XX. 17; Deut. xxvii. 22: as, e. g.,
that, her mother Maachah not behig a Jewess,
there was no proper legal relationship between her
and Amnon ; "or that she was ignorant of the law;
or that the Mosaic laws were not then in existence.
(Thenius, ad he.) It is enough to suppose, what
evidently her whole speech impUes, that the kin-^
had a dispensing power, which was conceived tc
cover even extreme cases.
The brutal hatred of Amnon succeedhig to hia
brutal passion, and the indignation of Tamar at
his barbarous insult, even surpassing her indigna
tion at hia sharaefal outrage, are pRthetically and

2172

TAMAK

graphically told, and in the narrative another
glimpse is given us of the raanners of the royal
household. The unmarried princesses, it seems,
were distinguished by robes or gowns wifch sleeves
(so the LXX., Josephus, etc., take fche word trans-'
lated in the A.V. "divers colors"). Such was
the dress worn by Tamar on the present occasion,
and when the guard at Amnon's door had thrust
her out and closed the door after her to prevent her
refcurn, she, in her agony, snatched handfuls of
ashes from the ground and threw them on her hair,
then tore off her royal sleeves, and clasped her bare
hands upon her head, and rushed to and fro through
the streets screaming aloud. In this state she en
countered her brother Absalom, who took her to
his house, where she remained as if in a state of
widowhood. The king was afraid or unwiUing to
interfere wifch the heir fco the throne, but she was
avenged by Absalom, as Dinah had been by Simeon
and Levi, and out of that vengeance grew the series
of calamities which darkened the close of David's
reign. The story of Tamar, revolting as it is, has the
interest of revealing to us the interior of the royal
household beyond that of any other incident of
those times. (1.) The establishments of the princes.
(2.) The simplicity of the royal employments. (3.)
The dress of fche princesses. (4.) The relafcion of
the king to the princes and to the law.
3- (©Tj^ap; Alex. ®apap' Thamar.) Daughter
of Absalom, called probably after her beautiful aunt,
and inheriting the beauty of both aunt and father
(2 Sam. xiv. 27). She was the sole survivor of fche
house of Absalom; and ultimately, by her mar
riage wifch Uriah of Gibeah, became the mother of
Maachah, the future queen of Judah, or wife of
Abijah (1 K. xv. 2), Maachah being called after
her greafc-grandmother, as Tamar affcer her aunfc.
A. P. S.
TA'MAR ("l^jfjl [palm-tree] : ®aipdv « in
both MSS.: Thama?'). A spofc on the south
eastern frontier of Judah, named in Ez. xlvii. 19,
xlviii. 28 only, evidently called from a palm-tree.
If not Hazazon Tamar, the old name of En-gedi, it
may be a place called Thamar in the Onomasticon
("Hazazon Tamar"), a day's journey south of
Hebron. The Peutinger Tables give Thamar in the
same direction, and Robinson {BibL Res. ii. 198, 201)
identifies fche place wifch the ruins of an old fortress
afc Kurnuh. De Saulcy {Narr. i. ch. 7) endeavors
fco esfcablish a connection befcween Tamar and fche
Kalaat embarrheg, afc fche mouth of the ravine of
thafc name on fche S. W. side of fche Dead Sea, on
the ground (amongst ofchers) fchat the names are
similar. Bufc fchis, to say fche least, is more than
doubtful. A. P. S.
TAM'MUZ (t^TSnn [see below] : t ®afi~
pov('' Adtmis). [Ez. viii. 14.] Properly "the
Tanimuz," the article indicating that afc sorae time
or other the word had heen regarded as an appel
lative, though afc the time of its occurrence and
subsequently ifc may have been applied as a proper
name. As ifc is found once only in fche 0. T., and
fchen in a passage of exfcreme obscurity, it is nofc
surprising that many conjectures have been formed
concerning ifc; and as none of fche opinions which
have been expressed rise above the importance of

a Mz. xlvii. 19 contains an lustaDce of the double
translation not infrequent in the present ttxb of the
LXXm ano &aiiiav Kal ^oi.nKiiivo%,

T AM MUZ
conjecture, it will be the cbject of this articL to set
them forth as clearly as possible, and to give at
least a hisfcory of whafc has been said upon tbe
subject. In the sixth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin,
in the sixth month, and on the fifth day of the
month, the prophet Ezekiel, as he sat in his house
surrounded by the elders of J udah, was transported
in spirit to the far distanfc Temple afc Jerusalem.
The hand of fche Lord God was upon him. and led
him " fco the door of the gate of the house of Je
hovah, which was towards the north ; and behold
there the women sitting, weeping for the Tammuz."
Some translate the lasfc clause " causing the Tam
muz fco weep," and fche influence which this ren
dering has upon the interpretation will be seen
hereafter. If T^Sri be a regularly formed Hebrew
word, it must be derived either from a root TXi3
or T^n (comp. the forms H^''^* I^^Wi which
is not known to exist. To remedy fchis defecfc Fi^mt
{Handwb. a. v.) invents a root to which he gives
the signification " to be strong, mighty, victorious,"
and transitively, "to ovei-power, annihilate." It ia
to be regretted that this lexicographer cannot be
contented to confess his ignorance of whafc is un
known. Roediger (in Gesen. Thes. ». v.) suggests
the derivation from a root, DDD = T^D ; accord
ing to which WQiJl is a contraction of WTDr),
and signifies a melting away, dissolution, departure,
and so fche a<f>avia'/j.hs 'ASc^ciSoy, or disappearance
of Adonis, which was mourned by fche Phcenician
women, and after them by the Greeks. But the
etymology is unsound, and is evidently contrived
so as to connect the name Taramuz with fche gen
eral tradition regarding it.
The ancient versions supply us with no help.
The LXX., the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziei,
the Peshito Syriac, and tbe Arabic in Walton's
Polyglot, merely reproduce the Hebrew word. The
Vulgate alone gives Adojiis as a modern equivalent,
and fchis rendering has been eagerly adopted by
subsequent commentators, with bufc few exceptions.
It is at leasfc as old, therefore, as Jerome, and the
fact of his having adopted, ifc shows fchafc ifc must
have embodied the most credible tradition. In his
note upon the passage he adds that since, accord
ing to the Gentile fable, Adonis had been slain in
the month of June, the Syrians ^ive the name of
Tanimuz to this month, when they celebrate fco him
an anniversary solemnifcy, in which he is lamented
by fche woraen as dead, and afterwards coraing fco
life again is celebrated with songs and praises. In
another passage {ad .Paulinum, Op. i. p. 102, ed.
Basil. 15t)o) he laments that Bethlehem was over
shadowed by a grove of Tamrauz, that is, of Adonis,
and that " in the cave where the infant Christ once
cried, the lover of Venus was bewailed." Cyril'of
Alexandria {in Oseam, Op. Iii. 79, ed. Paris, 1638),
and Theodoret {in Ezech.), give the same explana
tion, and are followed by the author ofthe Chronicon
Paschale. The only exception to this uniformity
ia in the Syriac translation of Melito'a Apology,
edited by Dr. Cureton in his Spicileginni Synacum.
The date of the translation is unknown ; the original
if genuine must belong to the second century. The
foUowing is a literal rendering of the Syriac: " Tht
sons of Phoenicia worshipped Balfchi, the queen of
Cyprus. For she loved Taniuzo, the son of Cuthal,
the king of the Phosnicians, and forsook her kiug-

TAMMUZ
Jom, ae.d came and dwelt in Gebal, a fortress of
fche Phoenicians. And at fchafc time she made all
the villages « subject to Cuthar the king. For be
fore Tamuzo she had loved Ares, and coraniitted
adultery with him, and Hephaestus her husbaftd
caught her, and was jealous of her. And he {i. e.
Ares) came and slew Tanmzo on Lebanon while he
made a hunting among the wild boara.'' And from
that time Balthi remained in Gebal, and died in
the city of Aphaca, where Tamuzo was buried "
(p. 25 of the Syriac text). We have here very
clearly the Greek legend of Adonis reproduced wifch
a simple change of name. Whether this change
is due to the translator, as is not improbable, or
whether he found " Tammuz " in the original of
Melito, ifc is impossible to say. Be this as it may,
the tradition embodied in the passage quoted is
probably as valuable as that in the same author
which regards Serapis as the deification of Jo3eph.
_ The Syriac lexicographer Bar Bahhil (lOth cent.)
gives the legend as it had come down to his time.
" Tomuzo was, as they say, a hunter shepherd and
chaser of wild beasts; who when Belathi loved him
fcook her away frora her husband. And when her
husband went forth to seek her Tomuzo slew hira.
And with regard to Tomuzo also, there met hira
Ul the desert a wild boar and slew hira. And his
father made for hira a great lamentation and weep
ing in the month Tomuz : and Belathi his wife,
she too made a lamenfcafcion and mourning over
nim. And this tradition was handed down among
the heathen people during her lifetime and after
her death, which same tradition the Jews received
with the rest of the evil festivals of the people, and
in that month Tomuz used to make for hira a
great feast. Tomuz also is the name of one of the
months of the Syrians." •= In the next century the
legend assumes for the fii'st time a different tbrm
in the hands of a Kabbinical commentator. Kabbi
Solomon Isaaki (Kashi) has the following note on
the passage iu Ezekiel. " An image which the
women raade hot in the inside, and its eyes were
of lead, and they melted by reason of the heat of
the burning, and it seemed as if it wept; and they
(fche women) said, He tiskefch for offerings. Tara
muz is a word signifying burning, as "^"^ vl?
n;'Tn^ nTq (Dan. iii. i9),and r\r^ ranw
n'l'^.n;? {ibid. ver. 22)." And instead of render
ing " weeping for the Tamrauz," he gives, whafc
appears fco be fche equivalenfc in French, " faisantes
pleurer Techauffe." It is clear, therefore, that
Rashi regards Tammuz as an appellative, derived
from the Chaldee mot W^W, dza, " to make hot."
U is equally clear thafc his etymology cannot be
defended for an instant. In the i2tli century
(A.D. 1161), Solomon ben Abraham Parchon in
his Lexicon, compiled at Salerno irora the works of
Jehuda Chayug and Abulwalid Merwan ben Gan-
nach, has the following observations upon Taramuz.
*'It is the likeness of a reptile which they make
upon the water, and the water is collected in it
and flows through its holes, and it seems as if it
wept. But 'the month called Tammuz is Persian,
and so are all our months; none of them is from

TAMMUZ

3173

a No»i '' Cyprians," as Dr. Oureton translates.
^ Dr. Cureton's emendation of this corrupt passage
vems tbe only one which can be adopted.
'^ Ia thia translation 1 have followed the MS. of Bar

the sacred tongue, though they are written in the
Scripture they are Persian ; bufc in the sacred tongue
the first month, the second month," etc. At the
close of this century we meet for the first time with
an entirely new tradition repeated by R. David
Kirachi, both in his Lexicon and in his Com
mentary, from the Moreh Nebuchim of Maimonides.
" In the month Tanimuz they made a feast of an
idol, and the women came to gladden him; and
sorae say that by crafty means they caused the water
to come into the eyes of the idol which is called
Tammuz, and it wept, as if it asked them to worship
it. And some interpret Tammuz ' the burnt one,'
as if fi'ora Dan. iii. 19 (see above), i. e. thev wept
over him because he was burnt; for they used to
burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, and
the women use I to weep over them. . . , But the
Rab, the wise, the great, our Kabbi Moshe bar
Maimon, of Ijlessed memory, has written, that it is
found written in one of the ancient idolatrous books,
that there was a man of the idolatrous prophets,
and his name was Tammuz. And he called to a
certain king and commanded him to serve the
seven planets and the twelve signs. And that king
put him to a violent death, and on the night of his
death there were gafchcred together all the images
from the ends of the earth to the temple of Baliel,
to the golden image which was the image of the
sun. Now this image was suspended between
heaven and earth, and it fell down in the midst of
the teraple, and the images likewise (fell down)
round about it, and it told them what had berallen
Tanmiuz the prophet. Aud the images all of thera
wept and lamented all the night; and, as it came
to pass, in the morning all the images flew away
to their own temples in the ends of the eartli. And
tijis -was to tbem for an everlasting statute; at the
beginning of the first day of the njonth Tamrauz
each year they lamented and wept over Tamrauz.
And some interpret Tamnmz as fche name of an
animal, for fchey used to worship an image which
fchey had, and the Targum of (the passage) 11i?3D1
Q-^^S n« D'^'^iS (Is. xxxiv. 14) is i*n^"ivM
T^binnn imnn. But in most copies "imisr
is written with two vaws." The book of the an
cient idolaters from which Maimonides quotes, is
the now celebrated work on the Agriculture of the
Nabatheans, to which reference will be made here
after. Ben Melech gives no help, and Abendami
merely quotes the explanations given by l^ashl and
Kimchi. The tradition recorded by Jerome, which identi
fies Tammuz with Adonis, has been followed by
most subsequent commentators: among others by
Vatablus, Castellio, CorneUus a Lapide, Osiander.
Caspar Sanctius, Lavater, Villalpandus. Selden,
Simonis, Calmet, and in later times by J. D.
iMichaelis, (jesenius, Ben Zeb, Rosenmiiller, Maurer,
Ewald, Havernick, Hitzig, and Movers. Luther
and others regarded Tammuz as a name of Bacchus.
That Tammuz was the Egyptian Osiris, and that
his worship was introduced to Jerusalem from
Egypt, was held by Calvin, Piscator, Junius,
Leusden, and Pfeiffer. This view depends chiefly
upon a false etymology proposed by Kircher, which

Bahlul in the Cambridge University Library, the read
ings of which feem preferable in many respects to those
in the extract furnished by Bernstein to Chwoliolu:
{Die Ssaiiier, etc. ii. 2061

SlT-l

TAMMUZ

connects the word Tammuz with the Coptic lamul,
to hide, and so makes it signify the hidden or con
cealed one ; and therefore Osiris, the Egyptian king
slain by Typho, whose loss was commanded by Isis
to be yearly lamented in Egypt. The women weep
ing for Tamnmz are in this case, according to
Junius, the priestesses of Isis. The Egyptian origin
of the name Tammuz has also been defended by a
reference to the god Aniuz, mentioned by Plutarch
and Herodotus, who is identical with Osiris. There
is good reason, however, to believe that Amuz is a
mistake for Aniun. That something coiTesponding
to Tanimuz is found in Egyptian proper names, as
tbey appear in Greek, cannot be denied. Ta/uis,
^" Kgyp'i^n, appears in Thucydides (viii. 31) as a
Persian officer, in Xenophon (Aniib. i. 4, § 2) as
an admiral. The Egyptian pilot who heard the
mysterious voice bidding him proclaim, " Great Pan
is dead," was called ©a/xouj (Plutarch, De Defect.
Orac. 17). The nanies of the Egyptian kings,
<dovij.p.a>(Tis, T46/ioi(7ts, and @p,a(ns, mentioned by
Manetho (Jos. c. Ap. i. 14, 1.5), have in turn been
corapared with Tammuz; but unless some more
certain evidence be brought forward than is found
in these apparent resemblances, there is little reason
to conclude that the worship of Tammuz waa of
Egyptian origin.
It seems perfectly clear, from what has been said,
that the name Tammuz affords no clew to the
identification of the deity whom it designated. The
slight hint given by the prophet of the nature of
the worship and worshippers of Tammuz has been
sufHcient to connect them with the yearly mourn
ing for Adonis by the Syrian damsels. Beyond
this we can attach no especial weight to the expla
nation of Jerome. It is a conjecture and nothing
more, and does not appear to represent any tradi
tion. All that can be said therefore is that it is
not impossible that Tammuz may be a name of
Adonis the sun-god, but that there is nothii g to
prove it. The town of Byblos in Phoenicia was the
headquarters of the Adonis-worship " The feast in
Lis honor was celebrated each year in the temple of
Aphrodite on tbe Lebanon'' (Lucian, De Dea Syrd,
§ 6), with rites partly sorrowful, partly joyful.
The Emperor Julian was present at Antioch when
the same festival was held (Amm. Marc. xxii. 9,
§ iZ). It lasted seven daj's (Amm. Marc. xx. 1),
tbe period of mourning among the Jews (Ecclus.
xxii. 12; Gen. 1. 10; 1 Sam. xxxi. 13; Jud. xvi.
24), the Egyptians (Heliodor. ./Eth'. yii. 11), and
the Syrians (Lucian, De Dea Syrd, § 52), and be
gan with tbe disappearance (a<paviiriJi.6s) of Adonis.
Then followed the search ((iirriais) made by the
women after him. His body was represented by a
wooden image placed in the so-called " gardens of
Adonis " ('ASdiviSos xTjiroi), which were earthen
ware vessels filled with mould, and planted with
wheat, barley, lettuce, and fennel. They were ex
posed by the women to the heat of the sun, at the
house-doors or in the "porches of Adonis; " and
the withering of the plants was regarded as symbol
ical of the slaughter of the youth by the fire-god
Mars. In one of these gardens Adonis was found
again, whence the fable says ho was slain by the
boar in the lettuce (aiJia/tTj = Aphaca?), and was
ihere found by Aphrodite. The finding again (eg-
a There was a temple at Amathus, in Cyprus,
¦barca by Adonis and Aphrodite (Paus ix, 41, § 2) ;
md the worship of Adonis is said to have come from
^pnu to Athens in the time of tbe Fersian War.

TAMMUZ
pecis) was the commencement of a wake, accompt
nied by all the usages which hi the East attend
such a ceremony — prostitution, cutting ofi? the bait
(comp. Lev. xix. 28, 29, xxi. 5; Deut. xiv. 1), cut
ting the breast with knives (Jer. xvi. 0), and play
ing on pipes (comp. Matt. ix. 23). The image o(
Adonis was then washed and anointed with spices,
placed in a cotHn on > bier, and the wound made
by the boar was shown on the figure. The people
sat on the ground round the bier, with their clothes
rent (comp. Ep. of Jer. 31, 32 [or Bar. vi. 31,
32] ), and the women howled and cried aloud. The
whole terminated with a sacrifice for the dead, and
the burial of the figure of Adonis (see Movers, PhS-
nizier, i. c. 7). According to Lucian, some of the
inhabitants of Byblos maintained that the Egyp
tian Osiris was buried among them, and that the
mourning and orgies were in honor of hira, and
not of Adonis (De Dea Syrd, § 7). This is in ac
cordance with the legend of Osiris as told by Piu
tarch (De Is. et Os.). Lucian further relates tbat,
on the same day on which the women of Byblos
every year mourned for Adonis, the inhabitants o(
Alexandria sent theni a letter, inclosed in a vessel
which was wrapped in rushes or papynis, announ
cing that Adonis was found. The vessel was cast
into the sea, and carried by the current to Byblos
(Piocopius on Is. xviii.). It is called by Lucian
fiufixivrtv Ke<pa\i)p, and is uaid to have traversed
the distance between Alexandria and Byblos in seven
days. Another marvel related by the same narra
tor is tbat of the river Adonis (Nahr Ibrahim),
which flows down from the Lebanon, and once a
year was tinged with blood, which, according to the
legend, came from the wounds of Adonis (comp.
Milton, P. L. i. 460); but a rationalist of Byblos
gave him a diflTerent explanation, how that the soil
of the Lebanon was naturally very red-colored, and
was carried down into the river by violent winds,
and so gave a bloody tinge to the water; and to
this day, says Mr. Porter (Handb. p. 187), "after
every storm that breaks upon the brow of Lebanon,
the Adonis still ' runs purple to the sea.' The
rushing waters tear from the banks red soil enough
to give them a ruddy tinge, which poetical fancy,
aided by popular credulity, converted into the blood
of Thanimuz."The time at which these rites of Adonis were
celebrated is a subject of much dispute. It is not
so important with regard to the passage in Ezekiel,
for there does not appear to be any reason for sup
posing that the time of the prophet's vision was
coincident with the time at which Tammuz was
worshipped. Movers, who maintained the contrary,
endeavored to prove that the celebration was in the
late autumn, the end of the Syrian year, and cor
responded with the time of the autumnal equinox.
He relies chiefly for his conclusion on the account
given by Ammianus Marcellinus (xxii. 9, § 13) of
the feast of Adonis, which was being held at Anti
och when the luiiperor Julian entered the city. It
is clear, from a letter of the emperor's (Ep. Jul.
52), that he was in Antioch before the first of Au
gust, and his entry may therefore have taken place
in July, the Tammuz of the Syrian year. This
time agrees moreover with the explanation of the
symbolical meaning of the rites given by Ammia
nus Marcellinus (xxii. 9, § 15), that they were a
token of the fruits cut down in their prime. Now

b Said to have been founded by Klnyrlfl, the l»
pu^ed father of Adonis.

TAMMUZ
It Aleppo (Russell, Aleppo, i. 72) the harvest is all
over before the end of June, and we may fairly con
clude that the same was the case at Antioch. Add
to this that in Hebrew astronomical works nSlpD
tinn, tlkiphath TammOz, is the "summer sol
stice," and it seems more reasonable to, conclude
that the Adonis feast of the Phoenicians and Syr
ians was celebrated rather as the summer solstice
than as the autumnal equinox. At this time the
sun begins to descend among the wintry signs (Ken
rick, Phainida, p. 310).
The identification of Tammuz with an idolatrous
prophet, which has already been given in a quota
tion from Maimonides, who himself quotes from the
Agnculture of the Nubathceuns, bas been recently
revived by Professor Chwolsohn of St. Petersburg
(Ueber Tammuz, etc. 1860). An Arab writer of
the 10th century, En-Nedim, in his book called
F'thrist eU Ulum, says (quoting from Abii Sa'id
Wahb ben Ibrahim) that in the middle of the
month Tammuz a feast is held in honor of the god
Ta'Uz. The women bewailed him because his lord
slew him and ground his bones in a mill, and scat
tered them to the winds. In consequence of this
the women ate nothing during tbe feast that had
been ground in a mill (Chwolsohn, Die Ssabier, etc.
ii. 27). Professor Chwolsohn regards Ta-'fiz as a
corruption of Tanimuz; but the most important
passage in his eyes is ii-om the old Babylonian book
called the Agnculture ofthe Nabathoeans, to which
he attributes a ftibulous antiquity. It was written,
he maintains, by one Qut'arai, towards the eud of
the 14th century n. c, and was translated into
Arabic by a descendant of the ancient Chaldjeans,
whose name was Ibn Washiyyah. As Professor
Chwolsohn's theory has been strongly attacked, and
as the chief materials upon which it is founded are
not yet before the public, it would be equally prem
ature to take him as an authority, or to pronounce
positively against his hypothesis, though, judging
from present evidence, the writer of this article is
more than skeptical as to its truth. Qut'ami then,
in that dim antiquity from which he speaks to us,
tells the same story of the prophet Tanimuz as has
already been given in the quotation from Kimchi.
It was read in the temples after prayers, to an au
dience who wept and wailed ; and so great was the
magic influence of the tale that Qat'ami himself,
though incredulous of its truth, was unable to re
strain his tears. A part, he thought, might be
true, but it referred to an event so far removed by
time from the age in which he lived that he was
compelled to be skeptical on many points. His
translator, Ibn Washiyyah, adds that Tammuz be
longed neither to the Chaldaeans nor to the Ca-
naiinites, nor to the Hebrews, nor to the Assyrians,
but to the ancient people of Janban. This last,
Chwolsohn conjectures, may be the Shemitic name
given to tlie gigantic Cushite aborigines of Chal-
dffia, whom the Shemitic Nabathseans found when
they first carae into the country, and from whora
they adopted certain elements of their worship.
'I'hus Tammiiz, or Tammfizi, belongs to a religious
epoch in Babylonia which preceded the Shemitic
(Chwolsohn, Ueberreste d. Alibdbyl. Lit. p. 19).
Ibu Washiyyah says moreover that all the Sabians
if his time, both those of Babylonia and of Harran,
wept and wailed for Taramuz in the month which
was named after him, but tliat none of tbem pre-
¦erved any tradition of the origin of the worship.
I'his fact alone apprars to militate strongly against

TANNER 317.5
the truth of Ibn Washiyyah's story as to the man
ner in which he discovered the works he professed
to translate. It has been due to Professor Chwol
sohn's reputation to give in brief the substance of
his explanation of Tammuz; but it must be cen
fessed that he throws little light upon the obscu
rity of the subject.
In the Targum of Jonathan on Gen. viii. 5,
" the tenth month " is translated " the month
Tammuz." According to Castell (Lex. Hept.),
iamxisi is used in Arabic to denote " the heat of
summer ; " and Tamuzi is the name given to the
Pharaoh who cruelly treated the Israelites.
W. A. W.
TA'NACH (Tiarri [perh. castle, Dietr.] : jf,
Tavdx', Alex, r) ©novap^: Thanach). A slight
variation, in the vowel-points alone, of the name
Taanach. It occurs in Josh. xxi. 25 only. G.
TANHU'METH (HpHDn [comfort] : ®ay-
afld6, ©avaefied; [Vat. @ai/€^d, Qai/aefiaiB',]
Alex. QavepLav in 2 IC. ; Thanehuiiielli). The fa
ther of Seraiah in the time of Gedaliah (2 K. xxv.
23; Jer. xl. 8). In the former passage he is called
" the Netophathite," but a reference to the parallel
narrative of Jeremiah will show that some words
have dropped out of the text.
TA'NIS (Tdvts), Jud. i. 10. [Zoan.]
* TANNER. This was Simon's occupation
with whom Peter lodged at Joppa at the time of
his vision on the house-top, and of the arrival of
the messengers from Cornelius (Acts x. 5). He is
termed Bupoevs, for which the more descriptive
equivalent is 0opo'oSe^ris (from ^bpira, a skin, and
Se'i^oi, to soften, moke supple): while <rKUToSe'i^r)i
(from oKvTos, a dressed hide) designates the oper
ation with reference to its result or product.
Among the Jews, as well as the Greeks and Ro
mans, the tanning process included the removal of
the hair of the skins, and also the making of the
skins smooth and soft. (For the manipulations of
the art and the depilatory astringents used, see es
pecially Walch's DisserliUiones in Acta Apostolo-
rum, ii. 91-328.) Skins tanned and dyed were
used for covering tbe Tabernacle (Ex. xxv. 5, xxvi.
14), [Badgek.] The occupation of the tanner
was in ill-repute araong all the ancient nations, es
pecially the Jews. The Jews considered the enter
ing into this business and concealing the fact before
marriage, or the entering into it after marriage, a
sufficient cause for divorce. It was also one of tbe
few interdicted trades from which they held that no
one could be taken for the office of high-priest or
king. For other reasons as well as the disrepute of
the business, tanners were required to live, or at
least to carry on their work, outside of the cities.
The Greeks and Romans made it a law that they
should remove their houses and workshops out of
the towns, and estabUsh themselves near streams or
other bodies of water. " Apud veteres coriarii ple-
rumque extra urbes, prope flumina, ofiicinas et
domos suas habuerant, nun solum ob niortua ani-
malia, quorum usuni ipsa eorum opificii ratio ef-
flagitabat ; sed etiam ob fcetidos in eorum ofEcinis
et aidibus odores et sordes; turn vero, quod aqua
hi, coria prseparantes, nullo fere pacto carere pote-
rant" (Walch). Yet such restrictions, from the
nature of the case, would be more or less severe in
diflferent places, and in the same plaoe be enforced
or relaxed very much as a variable public feeling
might dictate. Generally in the East at present

3176 TAPHATH
" such establishments are removed to a distance be
yond the walls, because they are offensive as well as
prejudicial to health " (Thomson, Land and Book,
ii. 281). Yet even at Jerusalem a tannery is toler
ated, near the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, a
nuisance and ofl'ense to all the neighborhood (Tobler,
Denkwiirdigkeilen de^ Jerus. p. 242). Peter in
being the guest of Simon may have been less scru
pulous than most of the Jews. According to the
Talmud the house of a tanner was considered like
that of a heathen. It has been suggested that as
both the host and the guest bore the name of Simon
fchey may have iieen related to each other, and that
Pefier act«d the more freely on that account. Ifc
certainly was not this relationship that brought
Peter to Joppa from Lydda, but information of the
death of Dorcas (Acts ix. 38). The two places
(now Jaffa and Lvid) are within sight of each other.
The house of Simon was " by the sea-side "
(Acts X. 6 ), and though Peter is said to have dwelt
with him " in Joppa " (Acts ix. 43 ), we may under
stand tbis expression of fche suburbs as well as of
the town itself. Stanley seriously thinks that the
house at Jaffa now shown as Simon's may occupy
the original site. It is " close on the sea-shore ;
the waves beat against the low wall. In the courfc-
yard is a spring of fi-esh water, such as raust always
have been needed for the purposes of tanning. . . .
There is a tradition which describes the premises
to have been long employed as a tannery " (Sin.
and Pal. p. 26^). Sepp suggests with more prob
ability that it ni.-iy have been further out of the
town, though at no very great distance from it,
near the mouth of a brook where there are now
four tanneries still in operation (Jerus. u. das heil.
Land, i. 11). H.
TA'PHATH (nSp [drop, ornament] : Te-
^de; Alex. Tafara: Topheth). Tlie daughter of
Solomon, who was married to Ben- Ahinadab, one
of the king's twelve commissariat ofiicers (1 K. iv.
11). * TAPH'NES (Taipvds), Jud. i. 9. [Tah-
pajjhes.] H.
TA'PHON dl Te<fiiv; Joseph. Toxia or To-
XOat/^'. Thopo; Syr. I'efos). One of the cities in
Judsea fortified by Bacchides (1 Mace. ix. 50). It
is probably the Beth-Tappuah of the Old Test.
which 'ay near Hebron. The form given by Jose
phus suggests Tekun, but Grimm (Exeg. Hand
buch) has pointed out that his equivalent for fchat
name is ©e/coie; and there is besides too much
unanimity among the Versions to allow of its being
accepted. G.
TAPPU'AH (n^lQiH [apple, apple-tree] : [in
Josh. xii. 17, TaipoiiT, Alex, ©acfxpop.; in xv. 34, J
(.XX. omits in both MSS. [but Comp. Aid. Taip-
<poyd:J Tnphhua). 1. A city of Judah, in the
district of the Shefelah, or lowland (Josh. xv. 34).
Ifc is a member of fche group which contains Zoreah,
Zanoah, and Jarmuth; and was therefore no doubt
situated on the lower slopes of the mountains of
the N. W. portion of Judah, about 12 miles W. of
Jerusalem, where these places have all been identi
fied wifch tolerable probability. It is remarkable
that the name should be omitted in both MSS. of
the LXX. The Syriac Peshito has Pathuch,

a It Is probable that the v is the sign of the accu-
saiive case. Jericho, Emmaus, aud Bethel, in the
Bame paragraph, are certainly in the accusative.

TAREA
which, when connected with the Enam that fol
lows it in the list, recalls the Palhuch^enayim ot
Gen. xxxviii. 14, long a vexed place with the com
mentators. [See Enam, i. 732.] Neither Tap
puab nor Pathuch have however been encountered.
This Tappuah must not be confounded either with
the Beth-Tappuah near Hebron, or with the Land
of Tappuah in the territory of Ephraim. It is un
certain which of the three is named in the list of
the fchirfcy-one kings in Josh. xii.
2. (Tdtpov, @afp48; Alex. E<l>(pove, 0a(/)9»e;
[Comp. Qarripove:] Taphua.) A place on the
boundary of the " children of Joseph " (Josh. xvi.
8, xvii. 8). Its full narae was probably En-tap-
puah (xvii. 7), and it had attached to it a district
called the Land of Tappuah (xvii. 8). This docu
ment is evidently in so imperfect or confused a state
thafc ifc is impossible to ascertain from it the situa
tion of the places it names, especially as compara
tively few of them have been yet met with on the
gronnd. But from the apparent connection be
tween Tappuah and the Nachal Eanah, it seems
natural to look for the former somewhere to the
S. W. of Ndblus, -in the neighborhood of the Wady
Ealaik, the most likely claimant for the Kanah.
We must await further investigation in this hith
erto unexplored region before attempting to forra
any conclusion. G.
TAPPU'AH (nSn [apple]: [Rom. 0aB-
ipois; Vat.] ©airour; Alex. 0o0</)ou; [Comp. 0o-
<povd:] Taphua). One of the sons of Hebron, of
the tribe of Judah (1 Cbr. ii. 43). Ifc is doubfcless
the same as Beth-Tappuah, now Teffult.nea.r''
Hebron ; and the meaning of the record is that
Tappuah was colonized by the men of Hebron. G.
TAPPU'AH, THE LAND OF (V!?^
TOSri [land of Ihe apple] : Vat. omits ; [so also
Rom. Alex. :] tei-j'a Taphua). A district named
in the specification of the boundary between Eph
raim and Manasseh (Josh. xvii. 8). It apparently
lay near the torrent Kanah (probably the 'Wady
Falaik), but the name has not yet been met with
at all in the cenfcral district of Palestine. G.
TA'RAH (n^/n [turning or wandering]'.
Tapdd; [Alex, ©apafl: Thare,] Num. xxxiiL 27).
A desert-station of the Israelites between Tahath
and Mithcah, not yet identified with any known
site. H. H.
TAR'ALAH (n7M"^i^ [reeling, drunkenness,
Ges., Fiirst]: ©apeijAa; Alex. 0apaAa' Tharela).
One of the towns in the allotment of Benjamin
(Josh, xviii. 27, only). Ifc is named letweeu Iipeel
and Zelah; but nothing certahi is known of tbe
position of either of those places, and no name at
all resembling Tai-.-ilah has yet been discovered.
Schwarz's ideiitificati-di (with " Thaniel " Daniyal),
near Lydd, is far-fet<;bed in etymology, and unsuit
able as to position ; for there is nothing to lead to
the conclusion that the Benjamites had extended
themselves so far to the west when fche lists of
Joshua were drawn up. G
TARB'A iV^ifPi [Jlight, FiiTsl]: Qapdxl
[Vat. ©epee;] Alex. 0ap€E: Tharaa). The sarae

& The principal valley of the town of Hebron Is
called Watty Tujfah (Map to Rosen's paper in Znti 'h.
D. M. G. xii. and p. 481).

TAKES
u TaJiroa. the son of Micah (1 Chr, viii. 35), the
Hebrew lefcfcers S and H being infcerchanged, a
phenomenon of rare occurrence (Gesen. Thes. p. 2).
TARES {^i^dvia' zizania). There can be lifc-
tle doubt that the (i(dvta of the parable (Matt.
xiii. 25) denote fche weed called " darnel " {Lolium
temulentum), a widely distributed grass, aud the
oidy species of the order thafc has delefcerious prop
erties. The word used by the Evangelist is an
Oriental, and not a Greek term. It is the Arabic
zawdn (loNsX ^^^ ^^® zdntn (1*^3*1^) of the
Talmud (Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. s. v.). The deri-
ration if the Arabic word, from zdn {^V\)i
''nausea," is well suited to the character of the
plant, the grains of which produce vomiting and
pulling, convulsions, and even death. Volney
{Trav. ii, 306) experienced the ill effects of eating
ifcs seeds; and fche '' whole of the himates of the
Sheffield workhouse were attacked some years ago

Bearded Darnel.
with symptoms supposed fco be produced by their
oatmeal having been accidenfcally adulterated with
lolium^* {Engl. Cyc. b. v. Lolium).^ The darnel
before it comes into ear is very similar in appear
ance to wheat; hence the command that ihe zizania
should, be left to the harvest, lest while men plucked
up the tares " they should root up also the wheafc
with them," Prof. Sfcanley, however {S. tf P. p.
426), speaks of women and children picking out
from the wheat in the cornfields of Samaria the

o * The ^iCdviov ifl described in the Geoponica (ii.
0. 13) as a plant which, "destroys the wheat, and
w^Q mixed with bread produces blindness in those
200

TAIIPELITES, THE 3177
tall green stalks, still called by the Arabs zutodn
" These stalks," he continues, " if sown design
edly throughout the fields, would be inseparable
from the wheat, from which, even when growing
naturally and 'by chance, they are at first sight
hardly distinguishable." See also Thomson {Land
and Book, p. 420): "The grain is just in the
proper stage to illustrate the parable. In those
parts where the grain has headed out, the tares
have done the same, and then a child cannot mis
take them for wheafc or barley ; but where both are
less developed, the closest scrutiny will often fail
to detect thera. Even the farmers, who in fchis
couufcry generally weed their fields, do not attempt
to separate the one frora the other." The grain-
growers in Palestine believe that the zuwan is
merely a degenerate wheat: that in wet seasons
the wheat turns fco fcares. Dr. Thomson asserts that
this is their fixed opinion. It is curious to observe
the retention of the fallacy through many ages.
" Wheat and zunin,'' says Lightfoot {Hor. Heb. on
Mafcfc. xiii. 25), quofcing from the Talmud, "are not
seeds of different kinds." See also Buxtorf {Lex.
Talm. s. V. 1*^31?) : " Zizania, species tritici
degeneris, sic dicti, quod scortando cum
bono tritico, in pejorem naturam degenerafc."
The Roman writers appear to have enter
tained a similar opinion with respect to some
ofthe cereals: thus Phny {H. N. xviii. 17),
borrowing probably from Theophrastus, assert*
that " barley will degenerate into the oat."
The notion that the zizania of the parable
are merely diseased or degenerate wheat has
been defended by P. Brederod (see his lefcfcer
fco Schulfcefcus in Exercit. Evang. ii. cap. 65),
and sfcrangely adopted by Trench, who {Notes
on the Parables, p. 91, ith ed.) regards the
distinction of these two plants to be '* a
falsely assumed fact." If the zizania of the
parable denote the Lolium temulentum, and
there cannot be any reasonable doubt about it,
the plants are certainly distinct, and the L.
temulentum has as rauch right to specific
disfcincfcion as any ofcher kind of grass.
W.H.
* TARGET. [Arms, I. 2. b ; II. 5. b ;
Akmory.] TARGUMS. [Versions, Chaldeic.]
TAR'PELITES, THE (S:ib?)l^ :
TapfaXaToi; Alex. TapcpaWaTof- Thar-
phauBi). A race of colonists who were planted
in fche cities of Saraaria after the captivity of
the northern kingdom of Israel (Ezr. iv. 9).
They have not been identified with any cer
tainty. Junius and others have found a kind
of resemblance in name to the Tarpelites in
the Tapyri (TaTTOupoi) of Ptolemy (vi. 2,
§ 6), a tribe of Media wbo dwelt eastward of Ely-
mais, but the resemblance is scarcely more than
apparent. They are called by Strabo TcsTrupoi (xi.
514, 515, 520, 523). Others, with as Uttle proba-
bility, have sought to recognize the Tarpelites iu the
Tarpetes (Tapir^res, Strab. xi. 495), a Masotic race.
In the Peshito-Syriac the resemblance is greater, foi
they are there called Tarpoye. Fiirst {Ilandicb,)
says in no case can Tarpel, the country of the Tar-
peUtes, be the Phoenician Tnpolis. W. A. W.

who eat it ; " to ^i^dvtov, to Keyofievov aipa, ^dctpti
rhv tTLTOv, dpTOts fie ixtyw^iivr) {TkotoI tous ecrStovTas.
Comp. lib. xiv. c. 1, § 5 ; c. 7, § 3. 4

3178

TARSHISH

TAR'SHISH (E;"'tt7n.r) [prob. ftrHress,
Dietr.]: [generally] ©opo-eis [or Qapais; in Is.
xxiii. Ka/>x')Siii' ; in Ez. KapxriSittoi, exc. Alex.
ill l!J5. xxxviii. 13, xa^KV^i^''' i.'XX. in Is. ii. IS,
0d\aa-aa:] Thars'is, [in Is. xxiii., Ix., Ixvi., and
Ez. xxvii. 25, xxxviii. 13, mare ; in Ez. xxvii. 12,
Carlhaginenses,] Gen. x. 4). 1. Probably Tar
tessus; Gr. TaprriairSs. A city aud emporium of
the Phoenicians in the south of Spain. In psalm
Ixxii. 10, it seems apphed to a large district of
country ; perhaps, to that portion of Spain which
was known to the Hebrews when that psalm was
written. And the word may have been likewise
used in this sense in Gen. i. i, where Knobel ( Vot-
kertafel der Genesis, Giessen, 1850, ad he.) ap
pUes it to the Tuscans, though he agrees with nearly
all Biblical critics in regarding it elsewhere as sy
nonymous with Tartessus. The etymology is un
certain. With three exceptions in the book of Chronicles,
which will be noticed separately (see below, No. 2),
the following are references to all the passages in
the Old Tesfcamenfc, m which the word " Tarshish"
occurs; commencing witb the passage in the book
of Jonah, which shows that it was accessible from
Yapho, Yafa, or Joppa, a city of Palestine with a
weU-knowu harbor on the Mediterranean Sea (Jon.
i. 3, iv. 2; Gen. x. 4; 1 Chr. i. 7; Is. ii. 16, xxiii.
1, 6, 10, 14, Ix. 9, Ixvi. 19 ; Jer. x. 9 ; Ez. xxvii. 12,
25. xxxviii. 13 ; 1 K. x. 22, xxii. 48 [49] ; [hi ] K.,
A. V. Thaeshish;] Ps. xlviii. 7, Ixxii. 10). On
a review of these passages, it will be seen that not
one of them furnishes direct proof that Tarshish
and Tartessus were fche same cities. But their
identity is rendered highly probable by the follow
ing circumstances. 1st, There is a very close simi
larity of name between them, Tartessus Ijeing merely
Tarshish in the Aramaic form, as was first pointed
out by J3ochart (Piialeg, lib. iii. cap. 7). Thus
the Hebrew word Ashsbur = Assyria, is in the
Aramaic form Alhur, Altur, and in Greek 'Aroupia
(Strabo, X'vi. 1, 2), and 'Arupio (Dion Cass. Ixviii.
2f)) — though, as is well known, the ordinary Greek
form was 'Aaavpla. Again, the Hebrew word
Bashan, translated in the same form in the A. V.
of the Old Testament, is Balhan or Buthnan in
Aramaic, and Baravaia in Greek ; whence also Ba-
tansea in l^tin (see Buxtorfii Lexicon ChaUaicum
Tahnudicum ei Rabbinii,"um, s. vv.). Moreover,
there are numerous changes of the same kind in
common words; such as the Aramaic numeral 8,
ianinei, which corresponds with tlie Hebrew word
shemoneh. ; and ielag, the Aramaic word for
''snow," which is the same word as the Hebrew
sheleg (see Gesenius, Thesaurus, p. 1344). And
it is likely that in some way which cannot now be
explained, fche Greeks received the word " Tarshish "
from the Phcenicians in a partly Aramaic form, just
as they received in tbat form many Hebrew letters
of the alphabet. The last sh of Tarshish " w-ould
naturally be repref.ented by the double s in the
Greek ending, as tne sound and letter sh was un
known to the Gieek language. [Shiuboleth.]
2dly, There see'ns to have been a special relation
Iietween Tarshi-jh and Tyre, as tbere was at one
time between Tartessus and the Phcenicians. In
the 23d chapter of Isaiah, there is something like

TAKSHISH
an appeal to Tarshish fco assert its independence (m
the notes of RosenmiiUer, Gesenius, and Ewald, on
verse li). And Arrian (De Exped. Alexandri,ii
16, § 3) expressly states that Tartessus was founded
or colonized by the Phoenicians, saying, 4>aii'i'Kiiii>
KTiVjua q TapTiia<r6s. It has been suggested that
this is a mistake on the part of Arrian, because
Diodorus (xxvi. 14) represents Hamilear as defeat
ing the Iberians and Tartessians, which has been
thought to imply that the latter were not Phceni
cians. But it is to be remembered that there was a
river in Hispania Baetica called Tartessus, as well as
a city of that name (Strabo, iii. 148 1, and it may
easily have been the case that tribes which dweit on
its banks may have been called Tartessians, and maj
have been mentioned under this name, as defeated
by Hamilear. Still, this would be perfectly com
patible with the fact, that the Phoenicians estab
lished there a factory or settlement called Tartessus,
which had dominion for a while over the adjacent
territory. It is to be borne in luuid, likewise, that
Arrian, who must be pronounced ou tbe whole to
be a judicious writer, had access to the writings of
Menander of Ephesus, who translated some of the
Tyrian archives into Greek (Joseph- Ant. ix. 14,
§ 2), and it may be presumed Arrian consulted
those writings when he undertook to give some ac
count of Tyre, in reference to its celebrated siege
by Alexander, in connection with which he makes
his statement respecting Tartessus.
Sdly. The articles which Tarshish is stated by
the prophet Ezekiel to have supplied to TjTe are
precisely such as w-e know through classical writers
to have been productions of the Spanish Peninsula.
ILzekiel specifies silver, iron, lead, and tin (Ez. xxvii.
12), and in regard to each of these metals as con
nected with Spain, there are the following au
thorities. As to silver, Diodorus, wbo (v. 36)
speaks of Spain as possessing this metal in the
greatest abundance and of the greatest beauty
{axeS6v Tt irKe'iaTov Kal ndWitrTov), and par
ticularly mentions that the Phoenicians made a
great profit by this metal, and established colonies
in Spain on its account, at a time when the mode
of working it was unknown to the natives (comp.
Aristot. de Mirabil. c. 135, 87). This is confirmed
by Pliny, who says (Hist. Nat. xxxiii. 31), "Ar-
gentum reperitur — in Hispania pulcherrimum ; id
quoque in sterili solo, atque etiam montibus; " and
he proceeds to say that wherever one vein has heen
found, another vein is found nofc far off. With re
gard to iron and lead, Pliny says, " metallis plumbi,
ferri, seris, argenti, auri tota ferme Hispanii
scatet" (H'lsi. Nat. iii. 4). And as to lead, more
especially, this is so true even at present, that a
writer on Mines and Mining in the last edition A
the Encyc. Britannica, p. 242, states as follows!
" Spain possesses numerous and valuable lead
mines. The most important are those of Linares,
which are situated to the east of Bailen near the
Sierra Morena. They have been long celebrated,
and perhaps no known mineral field is naturally so
rich in lead as this." And, lastly, in regard ta
tin, the trade of Tarshish in this metal is peculiarly
significant, and taken in conjuncfcion with similarity
of name and other circumstances already men
tioned, is reasonably conclusive as to its identity

' « It is unsafe to lay any stress on Tarseium (Tap-
ffijtoi'), which Stephanus of Byzantium says (5. v.j was
ii city near the Columns of Hercules. Stephanus was I montorium of Cartilage.
probably misled by a pissage to whieh he refers iu

Polybius, iii. 24. The Tapir^ioi' of Polybius coulJ
scarcely have been very far &om the Pule brum Ptt>

TARSHISH
irith Tartessua. For even now the countries in
Europe, or on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea
where tin is found are very few; and in reference
to ancient times, it would be dithcult to name any
Buch countries except Iberia or Spain, Lusitania,
wliich was somewhat less in extent than Portugal,
and Cornwall in Great Britain. Now if the Phce
nicians, for purposes of trade, really made coasfcing
voyages on the Atlantic Ocean as far as fco Great
Britain, no emporium was more favorably situated
for such voyages than Tartessus. If, however, in
accordance with the views of Sir G. Cornewall
Lewis, it is deemed unlikely that Phoenician ships
made such distant voyages {llistmicfil .Suruty of
the Astronomy of the Ancients, p. 455), it may be
added, that ifc is improbable, and uot to be admitted
as a, fact wifchoufc distiucfc proof, fchat nearly 600
years before Christ, when Ezekiel wrote his proph
ecy against Tyre, they should have supplied the
nations on the shores of the Mediterranean with
British tin obtained by the mouths of the Uhone.
Diodorus indeed mentions (v. 38), that in his time
tin was imported into Gaul from Britain, and was
theu conveyed on horseback by traders across Gaul
to Massilia, and the Koman colony of Narbo. But
it would be a very different thing to assume that
this was the case so many centuries earlier, when
Rome, at that time a small and insignificant town,
did not possess a foot of land in Gaul; aud when,
according to the received systems of chronology, the
settlement of MassiUa had only just been founded
by the Pliocseans. As countries then from which
Tarshish was likely to obtain its tin, there remain
only Lusitania and Spain. And in regard to both
of these, the evidence of Pliny the Elder at a time
Tjvhen tliey were flourishing provinces of fche Roman
empire, remains on record fco show fchafc tin was
found in each of fchem {Hist Nat xxxiv. 17). After
meutioning fchat there were two kinds of lead,
namely, black lead and white lead, the latter of
which was called " Cassiteros " by fche Greeks, and
was fabulously reporfced fco be obtained in islands of
fche Afclanfcic Sea, Pliny proceeds to say, " Nunc cer-
tum eat in Lusitania gigui, et in Gall^ecia; *' and
he goes on fco describe where ifc is found, and the
mode of extracting ifc (compare Pliny himself, iv.
3-i, and Diodorus, /. c. as fco tin in Spain). It may
be added that Strabo, on the aufchorifcy of Posei-
donius, had made previously a similar statement
(iii. 147), though fully aware that in his time tin
was likewise brought fco fche Mediterranean, through
Gaul by Massilia, from the supposed Cassiterides or
Tin Islands. Moreover, as confirming fche state-
:aenfc of Strabo and Pliny, tin mines now actually
txist in Portugal; both in parts which belonged
V) ancient Lusitania, and in a district which formed
part of ancient Gallsecia." And it is to be borne in
mind that Seville on the Guadalquivir, which has
free communication with the sea, is only about 80
miles distant from the Portuguese frontier.
Subsequently, when Tyre losfc its independence,
the relation,between it and Tarshish was probably
altered, and for a while, the exhortation of Isaiah
(xxiii. 10) may have been realized by the inhabitants
passing through their land, free as a river. This
independence of Tarshish, combined with fche over
shadowing growth of the Carthaginian power,
would explain why in after times the learned Jews
do nofc seem to have known where Tarshish was.

TARSHISH

3179

Q Namely, in tbe provinces of Porto, Beira, and
Braganza. Specimens were in the International Bx-
liibitioQ of 1862.

Thus, although in the Septuagint translation of
the Pentateuch fche Hebrew word was as closelj
followed as it could be in Greek (©ttpereis, in which
the e is merely H without a point, and et is equiv
alent to i, according to the pronunciation in modern
Greek), the Septuagint translators of Isaiah and
Ezekiel translate the word by " Carthage " and
"the Carthaginians" (Is. xxiii. 1, 10, 14; Ez.
xxvii. 12, xxxviii. 13); and in the Targum of the
book of Kings and of Jeremiah, ifc is translated
'• Aiirica," as is pointed out by Gesenius (1 K. xxii.
48; Jer. x. 9). In one passage of the Septuagint
(Is. ii. 16), and in others of the Targum, the word
is translated sea ; which receives apparently some
countenance from Jerome, in a note on Is. ii. 16,
wherein he states that the Hebrews believe that
Tharsis is the name of the sea in their own lan
guage. And Josephus, misled, apparently, by the
Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch, which he
misinterpreted, regarded Tharsis as Tarsus in Cilicia
(Ant. i. 6, § 1), in which he was followed by other
Jews, and (usuig Tarsus in the sense of all CiUcia)
by one learned writer in modern times. See Hart-
mann's Aufkldrungen iiber Asien, vol. \. p. 69, as
quoted by Winer, s. v.
It tallies with the ignorance of the Jews respect
ing Tarshish, and helps to account for it, that in
Strabo's fcime the emporium of Tartessus had long
ceased to exist, and its precise site had become a
subject of dispute. In the absence of posifciie proof,
we may acquiesce in the statement of Strabo (iii
148), that the river Bffitis (now the Guadal
quivir) was formerly called Tartessus, that the city
Tartessus was situated between the two arms by
which the river flowed into the sea, and thafc the
adjoining country was called Tarfcessis. But there
were two other cities wliich some deemed to have
been Tartessus ; one, Gadir, or Gadira (Cadiz)
(Sallust, Fragm. lib. ii. ; Pliny, Hisi. Nat. iv. 36,
and Aiienus, Descript. Orb. Terr. p. 614); and
the other, Carteia, in the bay of Gibraltar (Strabo,
iii. 151; Ptolem., ii. 4; Pliny, iii. 3; Mela, ii. 6).
Of the three, Carteia, which has found a learned
supporter at the present day (Ersch and Gruber's
Encyclopddie, s. v.), seems to have the weakest
claims, for in the earliest Greek prose work extant,
Tartessus is placed beyond tbe Columns of Hercules
(Herodotus, iv. 152); and in a still earlier fragment
of Stesichorus (Strabo, iii. 148), mention is made
of the river Tartessus, whereas there is no stream
near Carteia ( ^ pi Roccadillo) which deserves to
be called more than a rivulet. Strictly speaking,
the same objection would apply to Gadir; bufc, for
poefcical uses, fche Guadalquivir, which is only 20
miles disfcant, would be sufficiently near. It was,
perhaps, in reference to the claira of Gadir that
Cicero, in a letter to Atticus (vii. 3), jocosely calls
Balbus, a native of that town, " Tartessiuni istuiu
tuum." But Tartessius was, likewise, used by
poets to express the extreme west where tbe sun
set (Ovid, Melam. xiv. 416; Silius Italiciis, x.
358; compare Sii. Ital. iii. 399).
Literature. — For Tarshish, see Bochart, Phaleg,
lib. iii. cap. 7; Winer, Biblisches Realworlcrbuch,
s. v.; and Gesenius, Tliesaw-us Ling. Hebr. el
Chald. s. V. For Tartessus, see a learned Paper ol
Sir G. Cornewall Lewis, Notes and Que- es, 2d
Series, vol. vii. pp. 189-191.
2. If the book of Chronicles is fco be followed,
there would seem to have been a Tarshish, acces
sible from the Ked Sea, in addition to the Tarshisl

3180

TARSHISH

of the south of Spain. Thus, wifch regard to the
ships of Tarshish, which Jehoshaphat caused to be
constructed afc Ezion-geber on fche .Elanitic Gulf of
fche Ked Sea (1 K. xxii. 48), it is said in the
ohronicles (2 Chr. xx. 36) thafc fchey were made to
go to Tarshish; and in like manner the navy of
ships which Solomon had previously made in lizlon-
geber (1 K. ix. 26) is said in the Chronicles
(2 Chr. ix. 21) to have gone to Tarshish with the
servanfcs of Hiram. Ifc is not fco be supposed fchafc
fche author of these passages in the Chronicles con
templated a voyage to Tarshish in the soutli of
Spain by going round what has since been called
llie Cape of Good Hope. Sir G. Cornewall Lewis
{Notts mid Queries, 2d series, vol. vi. pp. 61-64,
8l-8i) has shown reasons to doubt whether the
3 n-cum navigation of Africa was ever effected by fche
Phanicians, even in the celebrated voyage which
Herodotus says (iv. 42} fchey made by Neco's orders;
but at any race it cannot be seriously supposed
thafc, according to the Chronicles, this great voyage
was regularly accomplished once in three years in
fche reign of Solomon. Keil supposes that the
vessels built at Kzion-geber, as mentioned in 1 K.
xxii. 49, 50, were really destined for the trade to
Tarshish in Spain, but that they were intended to
be transported across the isthmus of Suez, and to be
launched in one of the havens of Palestine on the
Mediterranean Sea. (See his Notes ad locum,
Engl, transl.) But this seems improbable; and
the two alternatives from which selection should be
niade seem to be, 1st, fchat there were two emporia
or districts called Tarshish, namely, one in fche south
of Spain, and one in the Indian Ocean; or, 2dly,
that fche compiler of the Chronicles, misapprehend
ing fche expression "ships of Tarshish,*' supposed
fchafc fchey meant ships destined to go to Tarshish ;
whereas, although this was the original meaning,
the words had come to signify large « Phcenician
ships, of a particular size and description, destined
for long voyages, just as in English " Easfc India-
man " was a general name given to vessels, some
of which were not intended to go to India at all.
The firsfc alternative was adopted by Bochart, Pha
leg, lib. iii. c. 7, and has probably been fche ordinary
view of fchose who have perceived a difficulfcy in the
passages of the Chronicles; but the second, which
was first suggested by Vitringa, has been adopted
by the acutest Biblical critics of our own time,
such as De AVette, Introduction io ike Old Testor-
nient, Parker's translation, Boston, 1843, p. 267,
vol. ii. ; Winer, Biblisches Realwbrierbuch, s. v.;
Gesenius, Thesaurus Linguce Heb. et Chald. s. v.,
and Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. iii.
1st ed. p. 76; and is acknowledged by Movers,
Ud}er die bibl. Chrmiik. 1834, 254, and Hiivernick,
Spezielle Einleitung in das Alte Tcstanu-nf, 1839,
vol. ii. p. 237. This alternative is in itself by far
the most probable, and ought not to occasion any
surprise. The compiler of the Chronicles, who
probably hved in the time of Alexander's succes
sors, had the book of Kings before him, and in
copying its accounts, occasionally used later and
more common words for words older and more un-
isual (De Wette, I. c. p. 266). It is probable thafc
during fche Persian domination Tartessus was in-

a Sir Emerson Tennent bas pointed out and trans
lated a very instructive passage in Xenophon, CEconom.
cap. Tiii., in which there is a detailed description of a
large Phoenician vessol, to /leya rrXotoi' to ^olvlkov.
This seemi to h»7fr struck Xeuop'-ion with the same

TARSHISH
dependent (Herodotus i. 163); at any rate, when
first visited by the Greeks, it appears to have bad
its own kings. It is not, therefore, by any means
unnatural that the old trade of the Phoenicians
with Tarshish had ceased to be understood ; and
fche compiler of fche Chronicles, when he read of
" ships of Tarshish," presuming, as a matter of
course, that they were destined for Tarshish, con
sulted, as he thoughfc, fche convenience of his readers
by inserting the explanation as part of the fcexfc.
Alfchough, however, the point to vhich the fleet
of Solomon and Hiram went once in three years did
not bear the name of Tarshish, the question here
arises of what thafc point was, however ifc was
called? And the reasonable answer seems to be
India, or the Indian islands. This is shown by the
nature of the imports with which the fleet returned,
which are specified as '*gold, silver, ivory, apes,
and peacocks " (1 K. x. 22). The gold might
possibly have been obtained from Africa, or from
Ophir in Arabia [OphirJ, and fche ivory and fche
apes mighfc likewise have been imporfced from
Africa; bufc the peacocks point conclusively, not to
Africa, but to India. One of the English transla
tors of Cuvier's Animal Kingdom, London, 1829,
vol. viii. p. 136, says, in reference to this bird:
" It has long since been decided that India was the
cradle of the peacock. It is in the countries of
Southern Asia, and the vast archipelago of the
Eastern Ocean, that this bird appears to have fixed
its dwelling, and to Hve in a state of freedom. All
traveUers who have visited these countries make
mention of these birds. Thevenot encountered
great numbers of them in the province of Guzzerat;
Tavemier throughout all India, and Payrard in fche
neighborhood of Calcutta. Labillardiere tells us
that peacocks are common in the island of Java."
To this may be added the statement of Sir William
Jardine, Naturalises Library, vol. xx. p. 147.
There are only two species "known; both inhabit
the continent and islands of India " — so that fche
menfcion of fche peacock seems to exclude the possi
bility of the voyage having been to Africa. Mr.
Crawfurd, indeed, in his excellent Oescnpiive Die-
tionary of the Indian Islaiuls, p. 310, expresses an
opinion that the birds are more likely to have been
parrots than peacocks; and he objects to the pea
cock, that, independent of its great size, it is of
dehcate constitution, which would make it nearly
impossible to convey it in small vessels and by a
long sea voyage. It is proper, however, to menfcion,
on the authority of Mr. Gould, whose splendid
works on birds are so well known, that tbe peacock
is by no means a bird of delicate consfcitufcion, aud
fchat it would bear a sea voyage very well. Mr-
Gould observes that ifc mighfc be easily fed during a
long voyage, as it lives on grain ; and that it would
merely have been necessary, in order to keep it in
a cage, fco have cut off its train ; which, it is to be
observed, falls off of itself, and is naturally renewed
once a year.
The inference to be drawn from the importation
of peacocks is confirmed by the Hebrew name for
the ape and the peacock. Neither of these names
is of Hebrew, or even Shemitic origin ; and each
points to India.* Thus the Hebrew word for ape is

kind of admiration which every one feels who bfr
comes acquainted for the first time with the arrange'
ments of an English man-uf-war. See Encycl. BrU
tannira, Sth ed. s. v. ^' Tar^ihish."
b The woz'd ^' shenhabhim'''' = ivory, is likewiae

TARSHISH
Kdph, while the Sansknt word is kapi (see Gese
nius and Fiirst, o. v , and Max Miiller, On the Sci
ence if Language, p. I'M). Again, the Hebrew
- word for peacock is tukki, whicb cannot be ex
plained in Hebrew, but is akin to toka in the Tamil
language, in which it is likewise capable of expla^
nation. Thus, the Rev. Dr. E. Caldwell, than whom
there is no greater Authority on the Tamil language,
writes as loiiuws from Palamcottah, Madras, June
12. 1862: " Tokaf is a well recognized Tamil word
for peacock, though now used only in poetry. The
Sanskrit sikki refers to the peculiar crest of the
peacock, and nieans (avis) cristata ; the Tamil toka
refers to the other and still more marked pecuharity
of the peacock, its tail (i. e. its train), and nieans
(avis) caudata. The Tamil toka signifies, accord
ing to the dictionaries, ' plumage, the peacock's tail,
the peacock, the end of a skirt, a flag, aud, lastly, a
woman ' (a comparison of gayly-dressed women wifch
peacocks being implied). The explanation of all
these meanings is, that toka literally nieans that
which hangs — a iianijing. Hence lokhai, another
form of the same word in provincial use in Tamil
(see also the togai of lU.diger in Gesenius's The-
Sf'irus, p. 1602), means 'skirt,' and in Telugu,
ioica means a tail." It is to be observed, however,
that, if there was any positive evidence of the
voyage having been to Africa, the Indian origin of
the Hebrew name fbr ape and peacock would not be
of much weight, as it cannot be proved that the
Hebrews first became acquahited with the names of
these animals through Solomon's naval expeditions
from Ezion-geber. Still, this Indian origin of
those nanies must be regarded as important in the
absence of any evidence in favor of Africa, and in
conjunction with the fact that the peacock is an
Indian and not an African bird.^
It is only to be added, thafc there are not suf
ficient data for determining what were the ports in
India or the Indian islands which were reached by
the fleet of Hiram and Solomon. Sir Emerson
Tennent has made a suggestion of Point de Guile,
in Ceylon, on the ground that from three centuries
before the Christian era there is one unbroken
chain of evidence down to the present time, to
prove that it was the grand emporium for tbe com
merce of all nations east of the Red Sea. [See
article Takshish, above.] But however reasonable
this suggestion may be, it can only be received as
a pure conjecture, inasmuch as there is no evidence
that any emporium at all was in existence at the
Point de Galle 700 years earlier. It can scarcely
be doubted that there will always henceforth be an
emporium at Singapore; and it might seem a spot
marked out by nature for the commerce of nations;
yet we know how fallacious ifc would be, under any
circumstances, to argue 2,000 years hence that it
must have been a great emporium in the twelfth

TARSUS

3181

HBually regarded as of Indian origin, " ibha " being
Id Sanskrit, " elephant " Bnt " shenhabbim," or
" shnnllavim," as the word would be without points,
Is nowhere used for ivory except in connection with
this voyage, the usual word for ivory being shen by
itself The conjecture of Rodiger in Gesenius's The
saurus, s. V. is very probable, that the correct reading
b D^3DrT 3t2?, Ivory (and) ebony = shen habnim,
irhich is reinarkab'y confirmed by a passage in Eze
kiel (xxvii. 15). where he speaks of the men of Dedan
Having brought to Tyre horns of iv^ry and ebony.

century, or even previous to the nineteenth century
of the Christian era. E. T.
* In addition to the two cities in the extreme
East and West, there were others called Tarshish
One of these, Tarsus of Cilicia, has a fair claim tc
recognition as mentioned in the 0. T. as well as
the N. T. That the name is the same is shown on
the one hand by the Sept. rendering of t£'''tt?"]^
in Gen. a. 4, Jon. i. 3, ®dpo'Gis, and by the sair^e
rendering by other (ireek interpreters in other
passages (Is. ii. 16, xxiii. 10; Kz. xxxviii. 13); and
on the other hand, by the fact that in the N. T.
the Greek TapaSs is uniformly rendered in the
ancient Syriac of Acts ix. 11, 30, xi. 25, xxi. 3!l,
xxii. 3, tCOQ.£Oi-.jJ, and in the modern Hebrew
tl!?*^ti?*iri. Now Tarsus of CiHcia is said to have
been founded by the Assyrian king Sardanapalus
(Smith's Diet of Greek and Rom. Geogr. s. v.),
and therefore in fche fcime of Jonah would naturally
have been in active communication with Nineveh.
If then we may suppose Tarsus of Cilicia to be the
Tarshish of the book of Jonah, we readily see how
the prophet might have found afc Joppa a vessel
bound for fchis port. The prophet's story, carried
by the ship's crew to Tarsus, would thence have
gone on before him to Nineveh, and woidd have
prepared fche city to receive his preaching. Ifc is
interesfcing to think of this city as thus possibly
connected with the ancient prophet sent to the
heathen, and with the Christian Apostle sent to the
Gentiles. F. G.
TAR'SUS {Tapa-6s)- The chief town of CiLi
CIA, " no mean city " in other respects, but illua
trious to all time as the birthplace and early
residence of the Apostle Paul (Acts ix. 11, xxi.
39, xxii. 3). It is simply in this point of view that
tlie place is mentioned in the three passages just
referred to. And the only other passages in which
the name occurs are Acts ix. 30 and xi. 2o, which
give the limits of thafc residence in his native town
which succeeded the firsfc visit to Jerusalem after
his conversion, and preceded his active ministerial
work at Antioch and elsewhere (compare Acts xxii.
21 and Gal. i. 21). Though Tarsus, however, is
not actually mentioned elsewhere, there is little
doubt that St. Paul was there at the beginrung of
his second and third missionary journeys (Acts xv
41, xviii. 23).
Even in the flourishing period of Greek history
it was a city of some considerable consequence (Xeu.
Anab. i. 2, § 23). After Alexander's conquests had
swept this way (Q. Curt. iii. 5), and the Seleucid
kingdom was established at Antioch, Tarsus usually
belonged to that kingdom, though for a time it was
under the Ptolemies. In the civil wars of Rome
o The Greeks received the peacock through ths
Persians, as in shown by the Greek name taosjrcuus
which ia nearly identical with fche Persian name taiis,
Uo.

LTV

The fact that the peacock is mentioned

for the first time in Aristophanes, Aves, 102, 269 (being
unknown to the Homeric poems), agrees with this
Persian origin.
h * Wheo it is said (2 Chr. ix.21) that " once every
three years came the ships of Tarshish,-' it is fairly
implied that the length of a voyage corresponded in
some measure with the interval of time at which it
was repeated. This accords very well with a Tarshish
in India, but not with a Tarshish in Spain. E. Q.

3182

TARTAR

it took Ccesar's side, and on the occasion of a visit
firom him had its name changed to JuUopolis (Cses.
Bell. Alex. 66; Dion Cass, xlvii. 26). Augustus
made ifc a " free city." We are nofc fco suppose
;hat St. Paul had, or could have, his Roman citizen
ship from this circumstance, nor would it be neces
sary to mention fchis, bufc that many respectable
commentators have fallen into this error. We
ought to note, on fche ofcher hand, the circumstances
in the social state of Tarsus, which had, or may be
conceived fco have had, an influence on the Apostle's
training and character. It was renowned as a
place of education under the early Roman emperors.
Strabo compares it in this respect to Athens and

TARTASr
Alexandtia, giving, as regards fche zeal for Isaming
showed by the residents, the preference to Tarsus
(xiv. 673). Some eminent Stoics resided here,
among others Athenodorus, the tutor of Augustus,
and Nestor, the tutor of Tiberius. Tarsus also waa
a place of much commerce, and St. Basil describes
it as a point of union for Syrians, Cilicians, Isaur-
ians, and Cappadocians (Basil, Ep. Euseb. Samos.
Episc). Tarsus was situated in a wide and fertile plain
on the banks of the Cydnus, fche waters of which
are famous for the dangerous fever caught by Alex
ander when bathing, and for fche meeting of Antony
and Cleopatra. This part of Cilicia was intersected

in Roman times by good roads, especially one cross
ing the Tarsus northwards by the " Cilician Gates"
to the neighborhood of Lystra and Iconium, the
other joining Tarsus with Antioch, and passing
eastwards by the " Amanian" and " Syrian Gates."
No ruins of any importance remain. The following

Coin of Tarsus.

authorities may be consulted : Belley in vol. xxvii.
of the Academic des Inscript. ; Beaufort's Kara-
mania, p. 275 ; Leake's Asia Minor, p. 214 ;
Barkers Lares and Penates, pp. 31, 173, 187.
J. S. H.
TAK'TAK (piJl'IW [see below] : QapBdit :
ITiarthac). One of the gods of the Arite, or Av-
rite, colonists who were planted in the cities of

Samaria after the removal of the tribes by Shal
maneser (2 K. xvii. 31). According to Rabbinical
tradition, Tartak is said to have been worshipped
under the form of an ass (Talm. Babl. Sanhednn,
foi. 63 b). From this it has been conjectured that
this idol was the Egyptian Typho, but though in
the hieroglyphics the ass is the symbol of Typho,
it was so far from being regarded as an object of
worship, that it was considered absolutely unclean
(Pint. 7s. et Os. c. 14). A Persian or Pehlvi
origin has been suggested for Tartak, according to
which it signifies either "intense darkness," or
"hero of darkness," or the underworld, and so
perhaps some planet of ill-luck as Saturn or Mars
(Ges. r^es.; Kiirst, Handwb.). The Carnianians,
a warlike race on the Persian Gulf, worshipped
Mars alone of all the gods, and sacrificed an ass
in his honor (Strabo, xv. 727). Perhaps some
trace of this worship may have given rise to the
Jewish tradition. W. A. W.
TAR'TAN Ori"in [see below] : @ap9ilai
[Vat. Ooi'flai'], Tai'ifloi'i [in Is., Vat.''' Sin. Alex.
Noflay;] Thartlian), which occurs only in 2 K.
xviii. 17, and Is. xx. 1, has been generally regarded
as a proper name. (Gesen. Lex. Heb. s. v. ; Winer,
Reabiiorlerbuch ; Kitto Bibl. Cyclcpced., etc )

TATNAI
Winer assumes, on account of the identity of name,
that the same person is intended in the two places.
Kitto, with more caution, notes that this is uncer
tain. Recent discoveries make it probable that in
Tartan, as in Kabsaris and Rabshakeh, we have not
a proper name at all, but a title or ofiicial designa
tion, like Pharaoh or Surena." The Assyrian Tar-
ian is a general, or commander-in-chief. It seems
as if the Greek translator of 2 Kings had an inkling
of the truth, and therefore prefixed the article to
all three names (airecTeiA-e ^aaiKevs 'Aaaopitov
rhv &apdciu Kal rh y 'Patois ( V) /cal rhv 'Paij/a-
KTiv vphs t!)!' paa-iKea 'E^eKiav), which he very
rarely prefixes to the nanies of persons where they
are first mentioned.
If fchis be the true account of the tenn Tartan,
we must understana m 2 K. xviii. 17, that Sen
nacherib sent "a general,'' fcogether with his "chief
eunuch " and " chief cup-bearer," on an embassy
to Hezekiah, and in Is. xx. 1 that " a general " —
probably a different person — was employed by
Sargon against Ashdod, and succeeded in taking
the city. G. R.
TAT'NAI [2 syl.] 03^1.0 [perh. gift] :
©afflafai; [Vat. ®ai/avat, &av6avas, Tav9ayali]
Alex. ®aeeava'i, [©aSSarais :] Thathaniii: Si
monis, Gesenius, Fiirst), Satrap (nHQ) of the prov
ince west of fclie Euphrates in the time of Darius
Hystaspis and Zerubbabel (Ezr. v. 3, 6, vi. 6, 13).
[Shetiiar-Boznai.] The name is thought to be
Persian. A. C. H.
* TAU or TAV, one of the Hebrew letters.
[Writing.] H.
TAVERNS, THE THREJE. [Three
Taverns.]
TAXES. In the history of Israel, as of other
nations, the student who desires to form a just
estimate of the social condition of the people must
take into account the taxes which they had to pay.
According as these are light or heavy may vary the
happiness and prosperity of a nation. ' To them,
though lying in the background of history, may
often be traced, as to the true motive-power, many
political revolutions. Within the limits of the
present article, it will not be possible to do more
than indicate the extent and form of taxation in
the several periods of Jewish history and its influ
ence on the life of the people.
I. Under the Judges, according fco the theocratic
government contemplated by fche law, fche only pay
ments obligatory upon the people as of permanent
obligation were the Tithes, the Fihst Fruits,
the Repejiptios-mosey of the first-born, and
olher otterings as belonging to special occasions
[Priests]. The payment by each Israelite of the
lalf-shekel as " atonement-money," for the service
of the Tabernacle, on taking the census of the people
(Ex. xxx. 13), does not appear to have had the
character of a recurring tax, but to have been sup
plementary to tbe free-will oiferings of Ex. xxv.
1-7, levied for the one purpose of the construction
of the sacred tent. In later tinies, indeed, after the
return from Babylon, there was an annual payment

TAXES

3183

a Surena, the Parthian term for " a general," waa
often mistaken for a proper name by the classical
writers. (Strab. xvi. 1, § 23 ; Appian, BelL Parth. p.
140 ; Dion CasB, xl. 16 ; Plut. Crass, p. 561, E, etc.)
Tacitus is the first author who seems to be aware fchat
it is a title (inn. vi. 42).

for maintaining the fabric and son-ices of th«
Temple; but the fact fchafc fchis begins by the vol
untary compact to pay one third of a shekel (Neh
X. 32) shows that till fchen there was no such pay
ment recognized as necessary. A little later the
third became a half, and under the name of the
didrachma (Matt. xvii. 24) was paid by every Jew,
in whatever part of the world he might be living
(Jos. Ani. xviii. 9, § 1). Large sums were fchus
collected in Babylon and other eastern cities, and
were sent to Jerusalem under a special escort (Jos.
Ant 1. c. ; Cic. pro Flacc. u. 28). We have no
trace of any further taxation than this during the
period of the Judges. It was not in itself heavy:
it was lightened by the feeling that it was paid as
a reUgious act. In return for it the people secured
the celebration of their worship, and the presence
among them of a body of raen acting more or less
eflSciently as priests, judges, teachers, perhaps also
as physicians. [Priests.] We cannot wonder
that the people should afterwards look back to the
good old days when they had beeu so Ughtly bur
dened. II. The kingdom, with its centralized govern
ment and greater magnificence, involved, of course,
a larger expenditure, and therefore a heavier taxa
tion. This may have come, during fche long his
tory of the monarchy, in many different forma,
according to the financial necessities of the tinies.
The chief burdens appear fco have been: (1.) A fcifche
of the produce both of tbe soil and of live stock,
making, together with the ecclesiastical tithe, 20
per cent, on incomes of fchis nafcure (1 Sam. viii.
15, 17). (2.) Forced military service for a month
every year (1 Sam. viii. 12; 1 K. ix. 22; 1 Chr.
xxvii. 1). (3.) Gifts to fche king, theoretically free,
Uke fche old Benevolences of English fcaxafcion, but
expecfced as a fching of course, afc fche commence-
menfc of a reign (1 Sam. x. 27) or in time of war
(comp. the gifts of Jesse, 1 Sam. xvi. 20, xvii. 18).
In the case of subject -prin ces the gifts, still made
in kind, armor, horses, gold, silver, etc., appear to
have been regularly assessed (1 K. a. 25 ; 2 Chr.
ix. 24). Whether this was ever the case with the
presents from Israelite subjects must remain uncer
tain. (4.) Import duties, chiefly on the produce
of the spice districts of Arabia (1 K. x. 15). (5.)
The monopoly of certain branches of coraraerce, as,
for example, that of gold (1 K- ix. 28, xxii. 48),
tine linen or byssus from Egypt (1 K. x. 28), and
hor.ses (ibid. ver. 29). (6.) The appropriation to
the king's use of the early crop of hay (Am. vii. 1}.
This may, however, have been peculiar to fche
norfchern kingdom or occasioned by a special emer
gency (Ewald, Proph. in loc.).^
Ifc is obvious fchafc burdens such as these, coming
upon a people previously unaccustomed to them,
must have been almosfc intolerable. Even under
Saul exemption frora taxes is looked on as a
sufficient reward for great military services (1
Sam. xvii. 25). Under fche outward splendor and
prosperifcy of fche reign of Solomon there lay the
deep discontent of an over-taxed people, and it
contributed largely to the reiolution that followed.
The people complain not of Solomotrs idolatry
but of their taxes (1 K. xii. 4). Of all the king's
officers he whom fchey hafce most is Adokam ot

0 The history of the drought in the roigu.of Ahab
(1 K. xviii. 5) shows thafc in such cases a power Uk*
this must have been essential to the support of tha
cavalry of the royal army.

8184 TAXES
Adonibam, who was "over the tribute" (i K.
tii. 18). At times, too, in the history of both
the kingdoms there were special burdens. A trib
ute of 50 shekels a head had to be paid by Mena
hem to fche Assyrian king (2 K. xv. 20), and
under his successor Hoshea, this assumed the form
of an annual tribute (2 K. xvii. 4; amount not
stated). After the defeat of Josiah by Pharaoh-
Necho, in like manner a heavy income-tax had to
be imposed on the kingdom of Judah to pay the
tribute demanded by Egypt (2 K. xxiii. 35), and
fche change of masters consequent on the battle of
Carchemish brought in this respect no improve
ment (Jos. Ant. X. 9, §§ 1-3).
III. Under the Persian empire, the taxes paid
by fche Jews were, in fcheir broad oufclines, fche
same in kind as those of other subject races. The
financial system which gained for Darius Hystaspis
the narae of fche "shopkeeper king" {Kdirr}\os,
Herod, iii. 89), involved the payment by each
satrap of a fixed sum as the tribute due from his
province {ibid.), and placed him accordingly in the
position of a publicanus, or farmer of the revenue,
exposed to all the temptation to extortion and
tyi'anny inseparable from such a system. Here,
accordingly, we get glimpses of taxes of many
kinds. In Jurla;a, as in other provinces, the in
habitants had to provide in kind for the mainte
nance of the governor's household (comp. ihe case
of Theraistocles, Thuc. i. 138, and Herod, i. 192,
ii. 98), besides a money-payment of 40 shekels a
day (Neh. v. 14, 15). In Ezr. iv 13, 20, vii. 24,
we get a, formal enumeration of the three great
branches of the reveime. (1.) The TT^D, fixed,
measured payuient, probably direct taxation (Gro
tius). (2.) "175, the excise or octroi on articles
of consumption (Gesen. s. v.). (3.) tJ^H, prob
ably the toll payable at bridges, fords, or certain
stations on the high road. The influence of P>zra
secured for the whole ecclesiastical order, from fche
priests down fco the Nethinim, an immunity from
aU three (Ezr. vii. 24); but the burden pressed
heavily on the great body of the people, and they
complained bitterly both of this and of the 07-
yapii'iov, or forced service, to which they and their
cattle were liable (Neh. ix. 37). They were com
pelled to mortgage their vineyards and fields, bor
rowing money at 12 per cent., the interesfc being
payable apparently either in money or in kind
^Neh. V. 1-11). FaiUng payment, the creditors
exercised fche power (wifch or wifchoufc fche mitiga
tion of the year of Jubilee) of seizing the per
sona of the debtors and treating them as slaves
(Neh. V. 5; comp. 2 K. iv. 1). Taxation was
leading at Jerusalem to precisely the same evils as
those which appeared from like causes in the early
history of Rome. To this cause may probably
be ascribed the incomplete payment of tithes or
offerings at this period (Neh. xiii. 10, 12; Jlal.
iii. 8), and the consequent necessity of a special
poll-tax of the third part of a shekel for the ser
vices of the Temple (Neh. x. 32). What could be
done to mitigate the evil was done by Nehemiah,
but the taxes continued, and oppression and uijus-
tice marked the governraent of the province accord
ingly (l^kiel. V. 8).°
IV. Under the Egyptian and Syrian lungs the

a The later date of the book is assumed in this
cefsxvnce. Cump. Ecclesiastes.

TAXES
taxes paid by fche Jews became yefc heavier. 'ITib
" farming " sysfcem of finance was adopted in ita
worsfc forra. The Persian governors had had to
pay a fixed sum infco the treasury. Now the taxes
were put up to auction. The contract sum for
fchose of Phoenicia, Judsea, Samaria, had been es
timated afc about 8,000 talents. An unscrupulom
adventurer (e. g. Joseph, under Ptolemy Euergetes)
would bid double that sum, and would then gc
down to the province, and by violence and cruelty
like that of Turkish or Hindoo collectors, squeeze
out a large margin of profit for himself (Jos. Ant
xu. 4, § 1-5).
Under the Syrian kings we meet with an ingen
ious variety of taxation. Direct tribute {^6poi),
an excise duty on salt, crown-taxes {(rretpavot,
golden crowns, or their value, sent yearly fco the
king), one half the produce of fruit trees, one third
that of com land, a tax of some kind on cattle:
these, as the heaviest burdens, are ostentatiously
enumerated in the decrees of fche fcwo Demetriuses
remitting fchem (1 Mace. n. 29, 30, xi. 35). Even
affcer fchis, however, fche golden crown and scarlet
robe continue to be sent (1 Mace. xiii. 39). The
proposal of the apostate Jason fco farm the revenues
at a rate above tbe average (460 talents, while
Jonathan — 1 Mace. xi. 28 — pays 300 only), and
to pay 150 talents more for a license to open a
circus (2 Mace. iv. 9), gives us a glimpse of
another source of revenue. The exemption given
by Antiochus to the priests and other ministers,
with the deduction of one tliird for all the residenta
in Jerusalem, was apparently only temporary (Jos.
Ant xii. 3, § 3).
V. The pressure of Roman taxation, if not
absolutely heavier, was probably more galling, as
being more thorough and systematic, more dis
tinctively a mark of bondage. The capture of
Jerusalera by Pompey was followed immediately
by the imposition of a tribute, and within a short
time the sum thus taken from the resources of fche
country amounted to 10,000 talents (.los. AnU xiv.
4, §§ 4. 5)i The decrees of Julius Csesar showed
a characteristic desire to lighten the burdens that
pressed upon the subjects of the republic The
tribute was not to be farmed. It was nofc to be
levied at aU in the Sabbatic year. One fourth
only was demanded in the year that followed (Jos.
Ant. xiv. 10, §§ 5, 6). The people, still under fche
government of Hyrcanus, were thus protected
against their own rulers. The struggle of the
republican party after the death of the Dicfcator
brought fresh burdens upon the whole of Syria,
and Cassius levied not less than 700 talents from
Judsea alone. Under Herod, as might be expected
from his lavish expenditure in public buildings,
the taxation became heavier. Even in years of
famine a portion of the produce of the soil was
seized for the royal revenue (Jos. Ant. xv. 9, § 1),
and it was not till the discontent of the people
became formidable that he ostentatiously dimin
ished fchis by one third (Jos. Ant xv. 10, § 4). It
was no wonder that when Herod wished to found a
new city in Trachonitis, and to attract a population
of residents, he found that the most effective bait
was to promise imnmnity from taxes (-Jos. Ant
xvii. 2, § 1), or that on his death tlie people should
be loud in their demands that Archelaus should
release them from their burdens, conipla'ning spe
cially of the duty levied on all sales (Jos. Ant xvii.
8, § 4).
When Judsea became formally a Koman prov-

TAXING
nee, the whole financial system of the Empire came
as a natural consequence. The taxes were sys
tematically farmed, and the pubUcans appeared as
a new curse to the country. [Publicans.] The
Portoria were levied at harbors, piers, and the gates
of cifcies. These were fche re\Tj of Matt. xvii. 24;
Kom. xiii. 7. In additioti to tliis there was the
Krjvffos or poll-tax (Cod. D. gives e7ri/c6<^aAaio»' in
Mark xu. 15) paid by every Jew, and looked upon,
for that reason, as the special badge of servitude.
Ifc was aboufc the lawfulness of this payment that
the Rabbis disputed, while they were content to
acquiesce in the payraent of the customs (Matt.
xxii. 17; Mark xii. 13; Luke xx. 20). It was
against this apparently that the struggles of Judas
of Galilee and his followers were chiefly directed
(Jos. Ant xviii. 1, § 6; B. J. ii. 8, § 1). United
with this, as part of the same system, there was
also, in aU probability, a property-tax of some
kind. Quirinus, after the deposition of Archelaus,
was sent to Syria to complete the work — begun,
probably, afc the time of our Lord's birth — of
valuing and registering property [Cyeknius, Tax
ing], and this would hardly have been necessary
for a mere ^oil-tax. The influence of Joazar fche
high-priesfc led the people generally (the followers
of Judas and the Pharisee Sadduc were the only
marked exceptions) to acquiesce in this measure
and to make the required returns (Jos. Ani. xviii.
1, § 1); but their discontent stiU continued, and,
under Tiberius, they appUed for some aUeviation
(Tac. Ann. ii. 42). In addition to these general
taxes, the inhabitants of Jerusalem were subject to
a special house-duty about this period ; Agrippa, in
hia desire to reward the good-will of the people, re
mitted it (Jos. Ant. xix. (J, § 3).
It can hardly be doubted fchafc in fchis, as in most
ofcher cases, an oppressive fcaxafcion tended greatly
fco demoralize the people. Many of the most glar
ing faults of fche Jewish cbaracfcer are distinctly
traceable to it. The fierce, vindictive cruelty of
the GalilEeans, the Zealots, fche Sicarii, was ifcs
nafcural fruifc. Ifc was not the least striking proof
fchat the teaching of our Loi'd and his disciples was
more than the natural outrush of popular feeling,
that it sought to raise men to the higher region in
which all such matters were regarded as things
indifferent; and, insfcead of PxpVessing fche popular
impatience of taxation, gave, as the true counsel,
the precept "Render unto Caesar the things that
are Ciesar's," " tribute to whom tribute is due,
custom to whom custom." E. H. P.
TAXING. I. {¦}} airoypap-i} ¦ descr-iptio, Luke
ii. 2; professio. Acts v. 371 The cognate verb
inroypd<pea-6ai in like manner is rendered by '' to
be taxed " in fche A. V.,'=' while the Vulgate em
ploys " ut describeretur universus orbis " in Luke
ii. 1, and " ut profiterentur singuli " in ver. 3.
Both the Latin words thus used are found in class
ical writers with the meaning of a registration or
formal return of population or property (Cic. Verr.
ii. 3, § 47; dt Of. i. 7; Sueton. Tiber, p. 30).
The EngUsh word conveys to us more distinctly
fche notion of a tax or tribute actually levied, but
it appears to have been used in fche 16fch century
for the simple assessment of a subsidy upon the
property of a given county (Bacon, Hen. VII. p.
87), or the r^isfcration of the people for the pur-

TAXING

3185

a In Heb. xii. 23 (irptaTUTOKtiiV aTroy€ypaat/.iviav iv
vpavoii), where the idea is that of the registration
ft the flrst-born as citizens of tte heavenly Jeru-

pose of a poll-tax (Camden, Hist, of Ehz.). Thia
may account for the choice of the word by Tindal
in lieu of " description" and " profession," whieh
Wickliffe, following the Vulgate, had given. Since
then " taxing " has kept its ground in most Eng
lish versions with the exception of "tribute" in
the Geneva, and " enrolment " in the Rhemish of
Acts v. 37. The word airoypoi^^ by itself leaves
the question whether the returns made were of
population or property undetermined. Josephus,
using the words ^ owrorijUTja-is tmv oio-iav (Ant.
xviii. 1, § 1) as an equivalent, shows that "the
taxing " of which Gamaliel speaks included both.
That connected with the nativity, the first step
toward the complete statistical returns, was prob
ably hmited to the former (Greswell, Harmony, i.
542). In either ease " census " would have seemed
the most natural Latin equivalent, but in the Greek
of the N. T., and therefore probably in the familiar
Latin of the period, as afterwards in the Vulg.,
that word slides off into the sense of the tribute
actually paid (Matt. xvii. 24, xxii. 17).
IL Two distinct registrations, or taxings, are
mentioned in the N. T., both of them by St. Luke.
The first is said to have been the result of an edict
of the emperor Augustus, that " all the world (i. e.
the Roman empire) should be taxed (awoypd-
(fyeffOai irairav T^v otKov^evrju) (Luke ii» 1), and
is connected by the Evangelist with the name of
Cyrenius, or Quirinus. The second, and more im
portant (rj aTToypatjrl}, Acts v. 37), is referred to in
the report of (Gamaliel's speech, and is there dis
tinctly associated, in point of time, with the revolt
of Judas of Galilee. The account of Josephus (Ant.
xviii. 1, § 1; B. J. ii. 8, § 1) brings together the
two names which St. Luke keeps distinct, with an
interval of several years between them. Cyrenius
comes as governor of Syria after the deposition of
Archelaus, accompanied by Copoiiius as procurator
of Judsea. He is sent to make an assessment of
the value of property in Syria (no intimation being
given of its extension to the otKovfjieirrj), and it is
this which rouses Judas and his followers to their
rebellion. The chronological- questions presented
by these apparent discrepancies have been discussed,
so far as they are connected with the name of the
g(*vernor of Syria, under Cykenius. An account
of the tumults caused by the taxing will be found
under Judas of Galilee.
III. There are, however, some other questions
connected with the statement of Luke ii. 1-3, which
call for some notice.
(1.) The truth of the statement has been ques
tioned by Strauss (Leben Jesu, i. 28) and De Wette
(Comm. in he), and others, on the ground that
neither Josephus nor any other contemporary writer
mentions a census extending over the wliole empire
at this period (A. V. c. 750). An edict hke this,
causing a general movement from the cities where
men resided to those in which, for some reason or
other, they were to be registered, must, it is said,
have been a eonspieuous fact, such as no historian
would pass over. (2. ) Palestine, it is urged further,
was, at this time, an independent kingdom under
Herod, and therefore would not have come under
the operation of an imperial edict. (3.) If such a
measure, involving the recognition of Roman sov
ereignty, had been attempted under Herod, it would

salem, the A. V. has simply "written," tb. Vulg
" qui conscript! sunt."

3186

TAXIKU

have roustxl the same resistance as the undisputed
census under Quirinus did at a later period. (4.)
The statement of Sfc. Luke fchafc " aU wenfc to be
fcaxeil, every one into his own city," is said to be
inconsistent wifch fche rules of the Roman census,
which took cognizance of fche place of residence only,
nofc of fche place of birfch. (5.) Neither in the
Jewish nor the Konian census would it have been
necessary for the wife to travel with her husband
in order to appear personally before the registrar
(ctnsiior). The conclusions from all these objec
tions are, thafc this stafcenienfc belongs fco legend, not
to history; that it was a contrivance, more or less
ingenious, to accounfc for fche birfch at Bethlehem
(that being assumed in popular tradition as a pre
conceived necessity for the Messiah) of one whose
kindred lived, and who himself had grown up at
Nazareth; that fche whole narrative of the Infancy
of our Lord, in St. Luke's Gospel, is to be looked
on as mythical. A sufficient defense of that narra
tive may, it is believed, be presented within com
parafcively narrow limits.
(1.) It must be remembered that our history of
this portion of the reign of Augustus is defective.
Tacitus begins bis Annals with the emperor's death.
Suefconius is gossiping, inaccurafce, and iU-an*anged.
Dion Cassius leaves a gap frora a. u. c. 748 fco 756,
with hardly any incidents. Josephus does not pro
fess to give a history of the empire. It raight easily
be that a, general census, cir. a. u. c. 749-760,
should remain unrecorded by tbem. If the measure
was one of frequent occurrence, ifc would be all
the more Ukely to be passed over. The testimony
of a writer, like St. Luke, obviously educated and
weU informed, giving many casual indications of a
study of chronological data (Luke i. 5, iii.; Acts
xxiv. 27), and of acquaintance with the Herodian
family (Luke viii. 3, xxiii. 8; Acts xii. 20, xiii. 1)
and other official people (Acts xxiii.-xxvi.), recog
nizing distinctly fche lafcer and raore conspicuous
airoypa<fyf}^ must be admifcted as fair presumptive
evidence, hardly to be set aside in the absence of
any evidence fco fche contrary. How hazardous such
ao inference from fche silence of historians woidd be,
we may judge from the fact that there was un
doubtedly a geometrical survey of the empire at
some period in the reign of Augustus, of which
none of the above wi-iters take any notice (comp.
the extracts from fche Rei Agrariae Scriptores in
Greswell, Harmony, i. 537). It has been argued
further that the whole policy of Augustus rested on
a perpetual communication to fche central govem-
nienfc of fche sfcatistics of all parts of the empire.
The inscription on the monument of Ancyra (Gru
ter, Co}-jms Inscript. i. 230) names fchree general
censuses hi fche years a. u. c. 726, 746, 767 (comp.
Sueton. Octav. c. 28; Greswell, Harm, i. 535).
DloQ Cass. (lv. 13) mentions another in Italy in
A. u. c. 757. Others in Gaul are assigned to A.
V. C. 727, 741, 767. Strabo (vi. 4, § 2) wxitmg
eariy in fche reign of Tiberius, speaks of ^ia rS>v
tcad' TipRs rtfi-ija-ewv, as if fchey were common
things. In A. u. c. 726, when Augustus offered to
resign his power, he laid before the senate a " ratio-
nariuni imperii " (Sueton. Octav. e. 28). After
his death, in like manner, a " breviarium fcofcius
imperii " was produced, containing fuU returns of
the population, wealth, resources of all parts of fche

a The fuUneee with which Josephus dweUs on the
history of David^s census and the toiie in which he
ipeftks of it {Ant. vii. 13} make it probable that there

TAXING
empire, a careful digest apparently of facts collected
during-the labors of many years (Sueton. Octav, c.
101; DionCass.lv.; Tacifc. Ann. i. 11). It will
hardly seem strange that one of fche routine official
sfceps in this process should only be mentioned by
a writer who, like Sfc. Luke, had a special reason
for noticing it. A census, involving property-re
turns, and the direct taxation consequent on them,
might excifce attention. A mere arroypatp-h would
have little in it to disturb men's minds, or force
itself upon a writer of hisfcory.
There is, however, sorae evidence, more or less
circumstantial, in confirmation of St. Luke's state
ment. (1.) The inference drawn from the silence of
historians may be legitimately met by an inference
dravra from the silence of objectors. It never oc
curred to Celsus, or Lucian, or Porphyry, quesfcion-
ing all fchafc fchey could in the Gospel hisfcory, to
quesfcion fchis. (2.) A remarkable passage in Sui
das {s. V. a.Troypa<p4]) menfcions a census, obviously
differing frora the three of the Ancyran monument,
and agreeing, in some respects, with fchafc of Sfc.
Luke. It was made by Augustus not as censor,
but by his own imperial authority {'86^av avr^\
comp. e|ijA06 S6yfjM, Luke ii. 1). The returns
were collected by twenty commissioners of high,
rank. They included property as well as popula
tion, and extended over the whole erapire. (3.)
Tertullian, incidentally, writing controversially, not
against a heathen, but against JNIarcion, appeals to
the returns of the census for Syria under Sentius
Saturninus as accessible to all who cared to search
them, and proving the birth of Jesus in the city o(
David (Tert. adv. Marc. iv. 19). Whatever diffi
culfcy fche difference of names raay presenfc [comp
Cykenius], here is, at any rate, a strong indicap
tion of the fact of a census of population, cir. A. u.
c. 749, and therefore in harmony wifch Sfc. Luke's
narrafcive. (4.) Greswell {Hai-m. i. 476, iv. 6) haa
poiufced to some circurastances mentioned by Jose
phus in the last year of Herod's life, and therefore
coinciding with the time of the Nativity, which im
ply some special action of the Koman government
in Syria, the nature of which the historian care
lessly or deliberately suppresses.'* When Herod
attends the council afc Berytus there are mentioned
aa pi'esent, besides Saturninus and the Procurator,
ol irepl TlehdviQv irpea^eis, as though the officer
thus named had come, accompanied by other com
missioners, for some purpose which gave him for
the fcime almosfc coordinate influence with the gov
ernor of Syria himself {B. J. i. 27, § 2). Just after
this again, Herod, for some unexplained reason,
found it necessary to administer fco fche whole peo
ple an oafch, nofc of allegiance to himself, but oi
good-will to the emperor; and this oath 6,000 of the
Pharisees refused to take (Joseph. Ant xvii. 2, § 4;
B, J. i. 29, § 2). This sfcafcemenfc implies, ifc ia
urged, some disfcurbing cause affecfcing fche pubhc
fcranquillity, a formal appearance of all citizens be
fore the king's officere, and lastly, some measure
specially distasfceful to the Pharisees. The narra
tive of St. Luke offers an undesigned explanatior
of fchese phenomena.
(2.) The second objecfcion admits of as satisfac
tory an answer. The statistical docuraent already
referred to included subject-kingdoms and aUiea,
no leas than the provinces (Sueton. /. c). Ii

may-have been a superstitious un trilling ness to spoak
of this population census, which would not app^ tc
the property assessment of Quirious.

TAXING
Augustus had any desire fco know fche resources of
TuJEea, fche position of Herod made him neither
willing nor able to resist. Frora first to last we
meet with repeated instances of subservience. He
does nofc dare fco try or punish his sons, but refers
their cause to the emperor's cognizance (.loseph.
Ant xvi. 4, § 1, xvii. 5, § 8). He holds his kuig
dom on condition of paying a fixed tribute. Per
mission is ostentatiously given him to dispose of
the succession to his throne as he likes best (.loseph.
Ant. xvi. 4, § 5). He binds his people, as we have
seen, by an oath of allegiance to the emperor (Jo
seph. Atit. xvii. 2, § 4). The threat of Augustus
that he would treat Herod no longer as an ally but
as a suliject (Joseph. Ani. xvi. 9, § 3J would be
followed naturally enougli by some such step as
this, and the desire of Herod to regain his favor
would lead him to acquiesce in it.
(3.) We need not wonder thafc the measure
should have been carried into effect without any
popular outbreak. Ifc was a return of the popula
tion only, not a valuation of property; there was
no immediate taxation as the , consequence. It
might offend a parfcy hke the Pharisees. Ifc was
not likely to excifce the multitude. Even if it
leemed to some the prognostication of a coming
change, and of direct government by fche Konian
emperor, we know that fchere was a large and influ
ential parfcy ready to welcome tbat cbange as the
best fching that could happen for their country (Jo
seph. Ant xvii. 11, § 2).
(4.) The alleged iuconsistrncy of wbat St- Luke
narrates is precisely what mighfc be expected under
the known circumstances of the case. The census,
though Roman iu origin, was effected by Jewish
instrumentality, and in harmony therefore with
Jewish customs. The alleged practice is, however,
doubtful, and ifc has been maintained (Huschke,
iiber den Census, ele. in Winer " Schatzung ")
fchafc the inhabitants of the provinces were, as far
as possible, registered in their forum oriyims —
not in the place in which they were only residents.
It raay be noticed incidentally that the journey
from Nazareth to Bethlehem belongs to a tirae when
GaUlee and Judsea were under the sarae ruler, and
would therefore have been out of the question (as
the subject of one prince would certainly not be
regisfcered as belonging to another) after the death
of Herdd the Great. The circurastances of the
Nativity indicate, if tbey do not prove, that Joseph
wenfc fchere only for personal enrollment, nofc because
he was the possessor of house or land.
(5.) The last objection as to the presence of fche
Virgin, where neifcher Jewish nor Koman practice
woiUd have required it, is perhaps the most frivolous
and vexatious of all. If Mary were herself of the
liouse and Hneage of David, there may have been
special reasons for her appearance at Bethlehem.
In any case the Scripture naiTative is consistent
with itself. Nothing could be more natural, look
ing to the unsettled state of Palestine afc this period,
fchan thafc Joseph should keep his wife under his
own protection, insfcead of leaving her by herself
iu an obscure village, exposed fco danger and re
proach. In proportion to the hopes he had been
taught to cherish of the birth of a Son of David,
in proportion also to his acceptance of the popular
belief tnat the Christ was to be born in the city of
David (Matt. ii. 5; John vii. 42), would be his
leslre lo guard against the accident of birth in the
despised Nazareth out of which " no good thing"
»uld come (John i. 40).

TAXING

3187

The literature connected with this subject is, v
mighfc be expected, very extensive. Every co;n-
meiitary contains somefching on it. Meyer, Words
worth, and Alford may be consulted as giving tbe
latest summaries. Good articles will be found un
der " Schatzung " in Winer, Realwb. ; and Her
zog's Real- Encyklop. A very full and exhaustive
discussion of all points connected with the subject
is given by Spanheim, Dabia Evang. ii. 3-9 ; and
Hichardus, Diss, de Censu Augvsd., in Menthen's
Thesaurus, ii. 428; comp. also Ellicott, Hulsean
Ltctures, p. 57. E. H. P.
* The exact nature of the census at the tirae of
our Lord's birth cannot be ascertained, as we know
nothing of the census, itself except what Luke tells
us. Thafc all fche provinces were subjected to au
airoypa^-fl indicates nothing, since tbis raight be
on one plan in Syria and Judsea, and on another in
Gaul. At that age of Rorae it was still tbe policy
not to sraooth down all the differences in the em
pire. A. W. Zumpt iu his recent work, Das Ge~
burtsjahr Christi (Leipz. 1869), strives to show
thafc the airoypaip-f} was held for the purpose of
levying a capitation tax. l''or had it been of the
same kind with the census of Quirinius, in A. i).
6, when property in land was certainly registered
and assessed, we might expect, Zumpt thinks, fco
have mention raade of it by Josephus, and to hear
of commotions such as occurred owing to that cen
sus. But if tributum capitis included only a poll-
tax, of equal amount for all, what need to send
the population to the ancestral abodes of their
tribes, families, and smaller subdivisions ? If how
ever this tax included also a levy upon movable
property (see Rein, in Pauly v. tributum, Maxqaardt
iu Bekker-Marq. iii.), there would be more need to
make a registration at the places where the holders
of property had been gathered for this purpose in
earlier times.
This census then cannot be shown to be a mere
enumeration of inhabitants. The population of
the provinces does not appear to have been counted
except for the purpose of ascertaining their taxable
capacity. It has been said fchafc the Breviarium of
Augustus contained lists of the population of the
empire, but the passages (Tac. AnnaL i. 11 ; Suet.
August, sub fin., Dion Cass. Ivi. § 33, ed. Sfcurz)
show only that Augustus had prepared a brief
statement of the resources of fche empire in money
and troops together wifch the expenses. Pliny fche
elder, although often referring to measurements of
distances made under the supervision of Agrippa
gives no sufficient proof thafc he was acquainted
with general tables of population. A passage of
the lexicographer Suidas, under the word Augustus,
does indeed speak of an enunreration, but all schol
ars admit, we believe, that the fact to which he re
fers is fco be restricted to the number of Koman
citizens. In the ofcher passage spoken of on page
3186, ifc is clearly imphed that tribute was the ob
ject of fche aTToypacp-}}, This passage, nofcwithstand
ing ifcs eiTOrs aud its derivation from a Christian
writer, who had Luke ii. in his mind, is thought by
A. W. Zumpt and Marquardt, two of the leading
archfieologists of our day, fco contain substantial truth
(Zumpt, u. s., p. 160; Bekker-Marq. iii. 2, 168).
The difficulty found by some hi a census of
Judaea, when Herod was king there, ia best met by
Wieseler, iu his recent Beitrdge (Gotha, 1869), a
supplement to his Synapse. Herod had very limited
powers. He could not make war on his own account,
nor even coin money in gold and silver. Judsea

Sl88 TEBAH
had been suhject to tribute from Pompey's time
down to the appointment of Herod as king, and
there are indications that this subjection to Koraan
taxation did not cease at his accession. Comp.
Wieseler, u. s., pp. 67, 69 ff. If made under the di
rection of fche presidenfc of Syria by Jewish officers,
it would not greatly differ from a similar registra
tion made by Herod, nor need it have alarmed the
Jews, if carefully managed.
Some find it hard to helieve that Joseph, if living
at Nazareth, could be obliged to go to Bethlehem
to be registered. We are forced to say that noth
ing is known of the relations of men to the tribes
and towns of their fathers at this period of Jewish
history. The difficulty here is an argument frora
our ignorance and cannot be removed. Tertullian,
a lawyer of no mean learning, accepted the state
raent. If it be called mythical, we can fairly say
that the myth does not invent new usages but
grows up around old ones. So, then, if the history
of our Lord's birth were a myth, this passage it
self would prove that Joseph might have gone to
Bethlehem to be registered, consistently with pre
vailing usage in Judsea. Add to this that family
genealogies were still kept up, as is shown by the
cases of Zacharias, lather of John, of Anna,
daughter of Phanuel (Luke ii. 36), though belong
ing to one of the ten tribes, of our Lord's family
(Euseb. Hist iii. 20), and by the family registers
of Matthew and Luke, which at least show that it
was then supposed fchafc descenfc might be and ought
to be traced a good way backwards.
One more reraark: in the discussions on the
taxing and some other histori(.al difficulties, Luke
is brought to the stand by a certain class of writ
ere, as if he had no *.ndepeudent authority in him
self. But this is unfair. Luke's honesty is more
clear than thafc of Josepliuj, and his accuracy in
many respects is shown hy niodern research to be
great. If one pufcs againsfc a statenienfc of his the
absence of all raention by Josephus, or ofcher his
torians, this is unfair, and proceeds upon the as
sumption that there is a greafc balance of proba
bility against the truth of the Gospels. Such a
oue should also remeuiber tuo, that Josephus de
spatches fche whole reign of Archelaus in a few
passages ; fchafc Dion Ciissius is defecfcive just where
we want his fcesfciraony, and fchafc Tacifcus begins hia
annals affcer the birth of Christ, and notices only
that which is pohtically important to Rorae.
T. D. W.
TE^BAH (n?^ [slaughter]: TajSeV: Tabee).
Eldest of the sons of Nahor, by his concubine Reu-
mah (Gen. xxii. 24). Josephus calls him TajSalos
{Ant i. 6, § 5).
TEBALI'AH (^H^bzitp [JehovaJi immerses
or puri/les, Ges.]: Ta^Aot; Alex. TajSeAias: Ta~
belias). Third son of Hosah of the children of
Merari (1 Chr. xxvi. 11).
TE'BETH. [Month.]
* TEHAPHTSTEHES, Ez. xxx. 18. [Tah-
PANHKS.] TEHIN'NAH (HSiniil [cry for mercy,
mercy]: ®atpdv', Alex. ®ava\ [Comp. ®€€vvd:]
Tehinna). The father or founder of Ir-Nahash,
the city of Nahash, and son of Eshton (1 Chr. iv.
13). His name only occurs in an obscure geneal-
apy of the tribe of Judah, among those who are
called *' the men of Kechah."

TEKOA
TEIL-TRBE. [Oak.]
TEKO'A and TEKO'AH (J^'pip, but" in
2 Sam. xiv, 2 only, H^'^pn [see below]: ®eKcoi
and ®eKove; Joseph, ©erewe, @eK(^a' Thecua,
Thecue), a town in fche tribe of Judah (2 Chr. xi.
6, as the associated places show), on the range of
hills which rise near Hebron, and stretch eastward
toward fche Dead Sea. These hills bound fche
view of the spectator as he looks to the south from
the summit of the Mount of Ohves. Jerome {in
Amos, Prooim.) says that Tekoa was six Konian
railes from Bethlehem, and that as he wrote {in
Jerem. vi, 1) he had that village daily before his
eyes ( Thekoam quotidie oculis cei-nimus). In his
Onomasticon (art. Elthece, 'EkdcKdi) he represents
Tekoa as nine miles only from Jerusalem; but else
where he agrees with Eusebius in raaking the dis
tance twelve railes. In the latter case he reckon?
by the way of Bethlehem, the usual course in going
frora the one place to the other; but there may
have been also another and shorter way, to which
he has reference in the other computation. Some
suggest (Baehiene, Paldstina, ii. 60) that an error
may have crept into Jerome's text, and fchafc we
should read twelve fchere insfcead of nine. In 2
Chr. XX. 20 (see also 1 Mace ix. 33), mention is
raade of " the wilderness of Tekoa," which must be
underetood of -the adjacent region on the east of
the town (see infra), which in its physical charac
ter answers so entirely to that designation. It is
evident from the name (derived from Vp^H " to
strike," said of driving the stakes or pins into the
ground for securing the tent), as well as from the
manifest adaptation of tbe region to pastoral pur
suits, thafc the people who lived here must have
bten occupied mainly as shepherds, and fchafc Tekoa
in its best days could have been little more fchan a
cluster of tents, to which the raen returned at in
tervals from the neighboring pastures, and in whieh
their families dwelt during their absence.
The Bibhcal interest of Tekoa arises, not so much
from any events which are related as having oc
curred there, as from its connection with various
pereons who are mentioned in Scripture. It is not
enumerated in the Hebrew catalogue of towns in
Judah (Josh. xv. 49), but is inserted in that pas
sage of the Septuagint. The " wise woman '* whom
Joab employed to effect a reconciliation between
David and Absalom was obtained from this place
(2 Sam. xiv. 2). Here also, Ira, the son of Ikkesh,
one of David's thirty "mighty men" (C^"123)
waa bom, and was called on fchafc account "theTe-
koite " (2 Sam. xxiii. 26). Ifc was one of the placea
which Rehoboam fortified, at the beginning of his
reign, as a defense against invasion from the south
(2 Chr. xi. 6). Some of the people from Tekoa
took part in building the walls of Jerusalem, after
the return frora the Capti\ity (Neh. iii. 5, 27). In
Jer. vi. 1 the prophet exclaims, " Blow the trum
pet in Tekoa and set up a sign of fire in Beth-Hac-
cerem " — the latter probably the " Frank Moun
tain," the cone-shaped hill so conspicuous from
Bethlehem. It is the sound of the trumpet as a
warning of fche approach of enemies, and a signal-
fire kindled at night for the same purpose, which
are described here as so appropriately heard and
seen, in the hour of danger, among the mouiitahia
of Judah. Put Tekoa is chiefly memorable as the
birthplace of tbe prophet Amos, who was here called

TEKOA
by a special voice from heaven to leave his occupa
tion as *' a herdraan " and "a gatherer of wild
figa,' aud was sent forth thence to Bethel to testify
against the sins of the kingdom of Israel (Amos vii.
14).'* Accustomed as Amos was to a shepherd's
life, he must have been familiar with the solitude
of the desert, and with the dangers there incident
to such an occupation. Some effect of his peculiar
training amid- such scenes may be traced, as critics
think (De Wette, EinL ins Alte Test. p. 356), in
the contents and style of his prophecy. Jerome
{ad Am. i. 2) says, '*.... etiam Amos proph-
etam qui pastor de pastoribus fuit et pastor non in
locis cultis et arboribus ac vineis consitis, aut certe
inter sylvas et prata virentia, sed in lata eremi vas-
titate, in qua versatur leonuni feritas et interfectio
pecorum, artis suw usum esse sernnmibus." "The
imagery of his visions," says Stanley, "is fullof
his country life, whether in Judeea or Ephraim.
The locusts in the royal meadows, the baskefc of
fruit, vineyards and fig-trees, the herds of cows
rushing heedlessly along the hill of Samaria, the
shepherds fighting with hons for their prey, the
lion and the bear, the heavy-laden wagon, the sift
ing of corn, — these are his figures" {Jewish
Church, i. 399, Amer. ed.). See, also, the striking
renxarka of Dr. l*usey {Introd. ioAmos). Compare
Am. ii. 13, iii. 4, 12, iv. 1, vi. 12, vii. 1, &c.
In the genealogies of Judah (i Chr. ii. 24, and
iv. 5), Ashur, a posthumous son of Hezron and a
brother of Caleb, is mentioned as the father of
Tekoa, which appears to mean that he was the
founder of Tekoa, or at least the owner of that vil
lage. (See Roediger iu Geseu. Thes. iii. 1518.)
If he was the owner of fche village, it was of course
in his capacity as the prince or sheik of Tekoa
(Bertheau, Biicher der Chr. p. 17).
Tekoa is known still as Teku'a, and, though it
lies somewhat aside frora fche ordinary route, has
been visited and described by several recent travel
lers. The writer was there on the 21st of April,
1852, during an excursion from Jerusalem by the
way of Bethlehem and Urtas. Its distance from
Beit Lahm agrees precisely with thafc assigned by
fche early writers as the distance befcween Tekoa
and Bethlehem. Ifc is wifchin sighfc also of the
*' Frank Mountain," beyond quesfcion the famous
Herodium, or site of Herod's Casfcle, which Jose
phus {B. J. iv. 9, § 5) represents as near the an
cient Tekoa. It Ues on an elevated hill, which
spreads itself out infco an iiTegular plain of mod
erate extent. Its "high position" (Robinson,
BibL Res. i. 486} "gives it a wide prospect. To
ward the northeast fche land slopes down toward
Wady Khureitun ; on the ofcher sides the hill is
surrounded by a belt of level table-land; beyond
which are valleys, and then other higher hills. On
the south, at sorae distance, another deep valley
runs off southeast toward the Dead Sea. The view
in thia direction is bounded only by the level moun
tains of Moab, with frequent bursts of the Dead
Sea, seen thruugh openings araong the rugged and
desolate intervening mountains." The scene, on
the occasion of the writer's journey above referred
to, was eminently a pastoral one, and gave back no
doubt a faithful image of the olden times. There

TEKOA

3189

a * It was a journey qf 6 or 7 hours only, being
fixsi fche same distance (12 miles) north of Jerusalem
that Tekoa was south of it. H.
b • A stillness almost fearful hangs over the deep
haam. H. von Schubert tells us in his characteris-

were two encampments of shepherds fcnere, consist
ing of tents covered with the black goat-skina so
commonly used for thafc purpose; they were sup
ported on poles and turned up in part on one side,
so as to enable a person wifchoufc to look into the
interior. Flocks were at pasture near the tent?
and on the remoter bill-sides in every direcfclon.
There were horses and cattle and camels also,
though these were not so numerous as the sheep
and goats. A well of living water, on the outskirts
of the village, was a centre of great interest and
activity; women were coniing and going with their
pitchers, and men were filling the troughs to water
the animals which they had driven thither for that
purpose. The general aspect of the region waa
sterile and unattractive; though here and there
were patches of verdure, and some of the fields,
which had yielded au early crop, bad been recently
ploughed up as if for some new species of cultiva
tion. Fleecy clouds, white as the driven snow,
were floating toward the Dead Sea, and their shad
ows, as they chased each other over the landscape,
seemed to be fit emblems of the changes in the des
tiny of men and nations, of which there was so
much to remind one at such a time and in such a
place. Various ruins exist at Tekoa, such as fche
walls ofhouses, cisterns, broken columns, and heaps
of building-stones. Some of these stones have the
so-called " beveled " edges which are supposed to
show a Hebrew origin. There was a convent here
at the beginning of the 6th century, and a Chris
tian settleraent in the time of the Crusaders; and
undoubtedly most of these remains belong to mod
ern times rather than ancient. Among these should
be mentioned a baptismal font, sculptured out of a
liniesfcone block, three feet and nine inches deep,
with an internal diameter at the top of four feet,
and designed evidently for baptism as administered
in the Greek Church. It stands in tbe open air,
like a similar one which the writer saw at Jufna,
near Beitin, fche ancient Bethel. [Ophni, Amer.
ed.] See more fully in the Christian Review (New
York, 1853, p. 519).
Near T'eku'a, among fche same mountains, on
the brink of a frightful precipice,'' are fche ruins of
KhUreitun, which some have fcfaoughfc may be a
corruption of Kerioth (Josh. xv. 25), and in that
case perhaps the birthplace of Judas the traitor,
who was thence called Iscariot, i. e. •' man of Keri
oth." Ifc is impossible to survey the scenery of the
place, and nofc feel fchafc a dark spirit would find it
self in ifcs own elemenfc amid fche seclusion and wild
ness of such a spot. High up frora the bottom of
the ravine is an opening in the face of the rocks
which leads into an immense subterranean laby
rinth, which many suppose may have been the
Cave of Adullam, in which David and his followers-.
sought refuge from the pursuit of Saul. [Addl^
LAM.] It is large enough to contain hundreds ol
men, and is capable of defense againat almost any
attack fchafc could be made upon ifc frora wifchout.
When a party of the Turks fell upon Teku'a and
sacked it, a. d. 1138, most of fche inhabitants, an
ticipating the danger, fled to this cavern, and thus
saved fcheir lives. Ifc is known among fche Arabs
aa fche "Cave of Refuge." Ifc may be quesfcioned

tic way how he was impressed there- His firsfc iti
pulse on reaching the place was to fire his carbine and
wake the echoes, but the next moment he was so awed
thafc he dared not disturb the silence {Reise in das
MorgenlanO, iii. 29). H-

3190

TEKOA

f Robinson, i. 481) whether this was the actual
place of David's retreat, but it illustrates, at all
events, that peculiar geological formation of the
country, which accounts for such frequent allusions
to "dens and caves" in the narrations of the Bi-
Dle. The writer was told, as a common opinion of
the natives, that some of the passages of this par
ticular excavation extended as far as to Hebron,
several miles distant, and that all the cord at Jeru
salem would not be sufficient to serve as clew for
traversing its windings. [Odollam.] Tobler, in
his exploration of the cave, found a number of sar
cophagi and some Ph<ienician inscriptions.
One of the gates of Jerusalem in Christian times
seems to have borne the name of Tekoa. Arculf,
at any rate, mentions the '¦ gate called Tecuitis "
in his enumeration of the gates of the city (a. d.
700). It appears to have led down into the valley
of the Kedron, probably near the southern end of
the east wall. (See Tobler's Topogr. mm Jerusa
lem, p. 165.) But his description is not very clear.
Can it be U> this that St. Jerome alludes in the
singulai expression in the Epii, PauhB (§ 12),
.... reverlar J erosolymam et per Thecuam at
que Amos, rutilanlem montis Oliveli Crucem aspi-
ciam. The Church of the Ascension on the sum
mit of Olivet would be just opposite a gate in the
east wall, and the *' glittering cross " would be par
ticularly conspicuous if seen from beneath its
shadow. There is no more prima facie improba
bility in a Tekoa gate than in a Bethlehem, Jaffa,
or Damascus gate, all which still exist at Jerusalem.
But it is strange that the allusions to it should be
so rare, and that the circumstances which made
Tekoa prominent enough at that period to cause a
gate to be named after it should have escaped pres
ervation. H. B. H.
TEKO'A {"S^pP] [striking, pitching of tents]:
&eKue: Tliecua). A name occurring in the gene
alogies of Judah (1 Chr. ii. 24, iv. 5), as the son
of Ashur. There is little doubt that the town of
Tekoa is meant, and that the notice implies that
the town was colonized or founded by a man or a
town of the n.ame of Asiiuu. G.
TEKO'ITE, THB O^ypnil; in Chr.
¦'Pl-nn [patr.]: 6 BeKtiWrfS [Vat. Alex. -ei-],
i ©EKft'i [Vat. FA. 0eKiu], i QeKwiriis [Vat. -vei-;
in Neh., ol QeKiai/j., Vat. -eiv, Alex, -eip., FA.
-eifjL, -eit>:] de Thecua, [Thecuiles, Thecuenus]).
liiA ben- Ikkesh, one of David's warriors, is thus
designated (2 Sam. xxiii. 26; 1 Chr. xi. 28, xxvii.
9). The common people among the Tekoites
dijplayed great activity in the repairs of the wall
ol Jerusalem under Nehemiah. They undertook
two lengths of the rebuilding (Neh. iii. 5, 27).
It is however specially mentioned that their
'lords " (Qn^i^S) took no part in the work. G.
TBL-A'BIB (3"'5N-bn [Chald. corn^hiU]:
u.ere(apos: ad acei"imm novarum frugum) [Ez. iii.
16] was proliably a city of Chaldiea or Babylonia,
not of Upper Mesopotamia, as generally imagined.

TBLASSAR
(See Calmet on Ez. iii. 15, and Winer, ad roc.)
The whole scene of Ezekiel's preaching and vision*
seems to have been Chaldffia Proper ; aud the rivei
Chebar, as already observed [see Chebar], was
not the Khabour, but a branch of the Euphrates.
Ptolemy has in this region a Thel-bencane and a
Thal-atha (Geograph. v. 20); but neither name
can be identified with Tel-abib, iinless we suppose
a serious corruption. The element " Tel " in Tel-
abib, is undoubtedly " hill." It is appUed in mod
ern tinies by the Arabs especially to the mounds or
heaps which mark the site of ruined cities all over
the Mesopotamian plain, an application not very
remote from the Hebrew use, according to which
" Tel " is " especially a heap of stones " (Gesen.
ad voc). It thus forms the first syllable in many
modern, as in many ancient names, throughout
Babylonia, Assyria, and Syria. (See Assemanu,
Bibl. Orient, iu. pt. ii. p. 784.)
The LXX. have given a translation of the term,
by which we can see that they did not regard it as
a proper name, but which is quite inexplicable.
The Vulgate likewise translates, and correctly
enough, so far as Hebrew scholarship is concerned;
but there seems to be no reason to doubt that the
word is really a proper name, and therefore ought
not to be translated at all. G. E.
TE'LAH {VhB [breach]: @a\ds; Alex.
0aAe: Thale). A descendant of Ephraim, and
ancestor of Joshua (1 Chr. vii. 25).
TBL'AIM (D^WbtSn, with the article
[lambs] : iv Ta\yd\ois in both MSS., and so also
Josephus: gu^si ognos). The place at which Saul
collected and numbered his forces before his attack
on Amalek (1 Sam xv. 4, only). It may be iden
tical with Telesi, the southern position of which
would be suitable for an expedition against Ama
lek; and a certain support is given to this by the
mention of the name (Thailam or Thelam) in
the LXX. of 2 Sam. iii. 12. On the other hand
the reading of tbe LXX. in 1 Sam. xv. 4 (not only
in the Vatican MS., but also in the Alex., usually
so close an adherent of the Hebrew text), and of
Josephus (Ant. vi. 7, § 2), who is not given to fol
low " the LXX. slavishly — namely, Gilgal, is re
markable ; and when the frequent connection of that
sanctuary with Saul's history is recollected, it is al
most sufficient to induce the belief that in this case
the LXX. and Josephus have preserved the right
name, and that instead of Telaim we should, with
them, read Gilgal. It should be observed, how
ever, that the Hebrew MSS. exhibit no variation
in the name, and that, exceptuig the LXX. and the
Targum, the Versions all agree with the Hebrew.
The Targum renders it " lambs of the Passover,"
according to a curious fancy, mentioned elsewhere
in the Jewish books ( Yalkut on 1 Sam.xv. 4, &e.^,
that the army met at the Passover, and that the
census was taken by counting the lambs.' This
is partly indorsed by Jerome in the VulqaU. G.
TBLAS'SAR ("l'®l?W [Assyrian hill]:
©aco-fleV, 0eejUff8; [Alex. BoAao-ffap, ©aiyiioS,

a In this instance liis rendering is more worthy of
notice, because it \iDuld have been easy for him to
liave interpreted the name as the Rabbis do, with
whose traditions he waa well acquainted.
b A similar fancy in reference to the name Bszek
Il Sam. xi. 8) is found iu the Midrash. It is takeu

literally as meaning " broken pieces of pottery," by
which, as by counters, the numbering was effected.
Bezek and Telaim are considered by the Talmudistl
as two of the ten numberings of Israel, past and
future.

TELEM
Mn. in Is., @ee/ia:] Thelassnr, Thalassar) is
mentioned in 2 K. xix. 12 and in Is, xxxvii. 12 as
a city inhabited by " the children of Eden," which
had been conquered, and was held in the time of
Sennacherib by the Assyrians. In the former pas
sage the name is rather differently given both iu
Hebrew and English. [Thelasak.] In both
it is connected with Gozan (Gauzanitis), Haran
(Carrhffi, now Harran), and Rezeph (the Rnzappa
of the Assyrian Inscriptions), all of which belong
to the hill country above the Upper Mesopotamian
plain, the district from which rise the Khabir and
Belik rivers. [See Mesopotamia, Gozan, and
Hakan.] It is quite in accordance with the indi
cations of locaUty which arise from this connection,
to find Eden joined in another passage (Kz. xxvii.
23) with Haran and Asshur. Telassar, the chief
city of a tribe known as the Beni Eden, must have
been in Western Mesopotamia, in the neighborhood
of Harran and Orfa. It would be uncritical to
attempt to fix the locality more exactly. The name
is one which might have been giveu by the Assyr
ians to any place where they had built a temple
to Asshur," and hence perhaps its application by
the Targums to the Kesen of Gen. x. 12, which
must have been on the Tigris, near Nineveh and
Calah. [Resen.] G. K.
TE'LEM (Q^^ [oppression] : maivdfi;''
Alex. TeAe/i: Telern). One of the cities in the
sxtreme south of Judah (Josh. xv. 24). It occurs
between Ziph (not the Ziph of David's escape) and
Bealoth: but has not been identified. The name
Dhulldm is found in Van de Velde's map, attached
to a district immediately to the north of the Kub-
bet el-Baul, south of el-Milh and Ar'arah — a
position very suitable; but whether the coincidence
of the name is merely accidental or not, is not at
present ascertainable. Telem is identified by some
with Telaim, which is found in the Hebrew text of
1 Sam. XV. 4; but there is nothing to say either
for or against this.
The LXX. of 2 Sam. iu. 12, in both MSS., ex
hibits a singular variation from the "Hebrew text.
Instead of " on the spot " (VDnri, A. V. incor
rectly, "on his behalf") they read "to Thailam (or
Thelam) where he was." If this variation should
be substantiated, there is some probability that
Telem or Telaim is intended. David was at the
time king, and quartered in Hebron, but there is
uo reason to suppose that he had relinquished his
marauding habits; and the south country, where
Telem lay, had formerly been a favorite field for
his expeditions (1 Sam. xxvii. 8-11).
The Vat. LXX. in Josh. xix. 7, adds the name
®a\xd, between Remmon and Ether, to the towns
of Simeon. This is said by Eusebius (Onomasi.)
and Jerome to have been then existing as a very
large village called Thella, 16 miles south of Eleu
theropolis. It is however claimed as equivalent to
TOCHEH. G.
TE'LEM (Q^^ iqppressicm]: Te\ijii,v; [Vat.
TeAij/i! FA 1 Alex'. TeWrifi.: Telem). A porter
or doorkeeper of the Temple in the time of Ezra,
who had married a foreign wife (Ezr. x. 24). He

TEMA

3191

a It would Signify simply " the Hill of Asshur."
Compare Tel-ane, " the Hill of Ana," a name which
teems to have been applied in later times to the city
T&Ued by the Assyrians "Asshur," and marked by the
•vins a.t Kileh Shprgliat (Steph. Byz. ad voc. TeAanj.)

is probably the same as Talmon in Neh. xii. 35
the name being that of a family rather than of
an individual. In 1 Esdr. ix. 25 he is called Toi^
BASES. TBL-HAR'SA, or TEL-HARESHA
(Mtt?"in"7Pl [see below]: QeXapnad; [in Ezr.,
Vat. corrupt; in Neh., Vat. FA ApTjo-a, Alex.
©fAapo-o:] Tbelliursa) was one of the Babylonian
towns, or villages, from which some Jews, who
"could not show their father's house, nor their
seed, whether they were of Israel," returned to
Judsea with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 59; Neh. vii. 61).
Gesenius renders the term " Hill of the Wood "
(Lex. ad voc). It was probalily in the low coun
try near the sea, in the neighborhood of Tel-Melah
and Cherub; but we canrot identify it with any
known site. G. K.
TEL-ME'LAH (Ptba-bri [Itill of salt] :
@e\^e\ex, @e\fie\e6', [Vat. m Ezr., ©ep^eAefi-
9a; Alex. ©sA^eveA, &eAfj.e\ex', FA. in Neh.,
@epiieXe0:] Thelmala) is joined with Tel-Harsa
and Cherub in the two passages already cited under
Tel-Haesa.. It is perhaps the Thelme of Ptolemy
(v. 20), which some wrongly read as Theame
(0EAMH for 0EAMH), a city of the low salt tract
near the Persian Gulf, whence probably the name,
which means " Hill of Salt " (Gesen. Lex. Heb.
sub voc). Cherub, which may be pretty surely
identified with Ptolemy's Chiripha (Xtpicpd), waa
in the same region. G. R.
TE'MA (Ma"'r) [on the right, south] : Baifidv:
Thema, [terra Austii]). The ninth son of Ish
mael (Gen. xxv. 15; 1 Chr. i. 30); whence the
tribe called after him, mentioned in Job vi. 19,
" The troops of Tema looked, the companies of
Sheba waited for them,'' and by Jeremiah (xxv.
23), " Dedan, Tema, and Buz; " and also the land
occupied by this tribe : " The burden upon Arabia.
In the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye trav
elling companies of Dedanim. The inhabitants of
the land of Tema brought water to him that was
thirsty, they prevented with their bread him that
fled " (Is. xxi. 13, 14).
The name is identified satisfactorily with Teymd,
"'.^^JlJ, a small town on the confines of Syria,
between it and IVadi el-Kurd, ou the road of the
Damascus pilgrim-caravan (Marasid, s. v.). It is
in the neighborhood of Doomai el-Jendel, which
agrees etymologically and by tradition with the
Ishmaelite Dumah, and the country of Keyddr,
or Kedak. Teymd is a well-known town and
district, and is appropriate in every point of vi?w
as the chief settlement of Ishmael's son Tenia. It
is commanded by the castle called el-Ablak (cr
elAblak el-Fard), ol Es-Semiiw-al (Samuel) Ibn-
'Adiya the Jew, a contemporary of Imra el-Keys
(a. d. 550 cir.); but according to a tradition it
was built by Solomon, which points at any rate to
its antiquity (comp. el-Bekree, in .Marasid, iv. 23);
now in ruins, described as being built of rubble
and crude bricks, and said to he named el-Ablak
from having whiteness and redness in its stru'-ture

b The passage is in such confusion in the Vaticai
MS., that it is difflcult rightly to assign the words,
and impossible to infer anything from the ei|UiT-
alenta.

3192 TEMAN
{Marasid, s. v. Ablah). This fortress seems, like
that of Doomai el-Jendel, fco be one of fche sfcrong-
holds fchafc niusfc have profcected fche caravan roufce
nlong the norfchern frontier of Arabia: and fchey
recall the passage following the enumeration of fche
sons of Ishmael : "These [are] tb.e sons of Ishmael,
and fchese [are] their names, by fcheir towns, and
by fcheir castles ; twelve princes according to their
nafcions " (Gen. xxv. 16).
Teymd signifies "a desert," "an unfcilled dis
trict," etc. Freytag (s. v.) writes fche name wifch
oufc a long final alif bufc nofc so the Marasid.
Ptolemy (xix. 6) menfcions de/j-firj in Arabia De-
serfca, which may be fche same place as fche existing
Teymd. The LXX. reading seems to have a refer
ence to Tesian, which see. E. S. P.
* "The troops of Tema," "fche companies of
Sheba" (Job vi. 19), elsewhere referred to as
"predafcory bands" [Sheba], were, probably,
sompanies of fcravellers, or caravans, crossing fche
wilderness in the dry season. Parched wifch fchirsfc,
fchey pressed forward wifch eager hope to the re
membered beds of winter-streams, only to find that
under the extreme heat fche winding " brook " had
disappeared — evaporated and absorbed in fche sands
¦ — leaving ifcs channel as dry as fche confciguous
desert. Their keen disappointment was a lively
image of fche experience of Job, when in his deep
affliction he looked for sympathy from his brethren,
and listened to censure instead of condolence.
The simile, poetic and vivid, is scarcely less forci
ble in ifcs bruader applicafcion to the illusiveness of
the fairest earthly promises and fco fche fading hopes
of mortals. [Dkckitfully, Amer. ed. ; River,
2.] S. W.
TE'MAN (l^'^.r? [on ihe Hght hand, south] :
Qaipdv'- Theman). 1. A son of Eliphaz, son of
Esau by Adah (Gen. xxxvi. 11; 1 Chr. i. 36, 53),
afterwards named as a duke (phylarch) of Edom
(ver. 15), and raentioned again in fche separafce list
(vv. 40-43) of "the names of the rulers [fchat
came] of Esau, according fco their families, after
their places, by their names; " ending, "these be
the dukes of Edom, according to fcheir habifcafcions
in the land of their possession : he [is] Esau the
father of fche Edomites."
2. [Rom. Vat. @apav, Am. i. 12; FA. and Sin
®efiav, Jer. xlix. 7, Ob., Hab.: Theman, auster,
meridies,] A country, and probably a city, named
after the Edomite phylarch, or from which fche
phylarch took his name, as may be perhaps inferred
from the verses of Gen. xxxvi. just quoted. The
Hebrew signifies "south," etc. (see Job ix. 9; Is.
xliii. 6; besides fche use of it to mean fche south
sideof tbe Tabernacle in Ex. xxvi. and xxvii., etc.);
and it is probable that the land of Teman was a
southern portion of the land of Edom, or, in a
wider sense, fchafc of fche sons of the East, tbe
Bene-kedem. Teman is raentioned in five places by
fche Prophefcs. in four of which ifc is connecfced wifch
Edom, showing ifc fco be fche same place as that in
dicated in fche list of the dukes; twice ifc is named
wifch Dedan.
" Concerning Edom, thus saith the Lord of
hosts: [Is] wisdom no more in Teman? is counsel
perished frora the prudent? is their wisdom van

o * In some of the topographical allusions in this
article, the reader will recognize the author's peculiar
%nd unsupported theory respecting the topography of
lerusalem, which we have examined in the article

TEMPLE
ished? Flee ye, turn back, dwell deep, O inhab
itants of Dedan" (Jer. xlix. 7, 8); and " I will
make it [Edom] desolate from Teman; and they
of Dedan shall fall by fche sword " (Ez. xxv. 13).
This connecfcion wifch fche great Keturahite fcribe
of Dedan gives addifcional iniporfcance to Teman,
and helps to fix its geographical position. This is
further dfefined by a passage in fche chapter of Jer.
already cited, vv. 20, 21, where it is said of Edom
and Teraan, " The earth is moved at the noise of
their fall ; at the cry the noise thereof was heard
in fche Red Sea {yam Suf).''' In the subhme
prayer of Habakkuk, ifc is written, " God came
from Teman, and the Holy One frouj Mount Paran "
(iii. 3). Jeremiah, ifc has been seen, speaks ofthe
wisdom of Teman ; and fche prophecy of Obadiah
implies fche same (vv. 8, 9), " Shall I nofc in fchafc
day, saith the Lord, even destroy fche wise (men)
out of Edora, and understanding out of fche mouut
of Esau? And thy [mighty] men, 0 Teman, shall
be dismayed." In wisdom, the descendants of
Esau, and especially the iuhabifcanfcs of Teman,
seera to have been preeminent among fche sons of
fche Easfc.
In common wifch mosfc Edomite names, Teman
appears to have been lost. The occupation of the
country by the Nabathaeans seems to have oblit
erated almost all of fche fcraces (always obscure) of
fche migratory tribes of fche deserfc. Ifc is not likely
fchafc much can ever be done by modern research to
clear up the early hisfcory of fchis part of the " east
country." True, Eusebius and Jerome mention
Teman as a town in fcheir day distanfc 15 miles
(according to Eusebius) from Petra, and a Roman
post. The identification of the existing Maan (see
Burckhardt) with this Teman may be geograph
ically correct, bufc it cannot rest on etymological
grounds. The gentilic noun of Teman is ''3D'*ri (Job ii.
11; xxii. 1), and Ehphaz the Temanite was one
of the wise men of Edom. The gen. n. occurs
also in Gen. xxxvi. 34, where fche land of Temani
(so in the A. V.) is mentioned. E. S. P.
TE'MANI. [Teman.]
TE'MANITE. [Teman.]
TEM'ENI {^yr^ [patr.]: ©aifidvi The-
mani). Son of Ashur, the father of Tekoa, hy his
wife Naarah (1 Chr. iv. 6). [Tekoa.]
» TEMPER AKCE (A. V. Acts xxiv. 25,
Gal. V. 23; 2 Pet. i. 6) is the rendering of the
Greek iyKpdreia, which signifies "self-control,"
the resfcrainfc of all the appetites and passions.
" Temperate " is used in the A. V. in a con'espond
ing sense. A.
TEMPLE." There is perhaps no building of
the ancient world which has excited so much at-
fcenfcion since fche time of its destruction as the
Temple which Solomon built at Jerusalem, and ite
successor as rebuilt by Herod. Its spoils were
considered worthy of forraing the principal illus
tration of one of the most beautiful of Roman
triumphal arches, and ,lustinian's highest archi
tectural ambition was fchafc he mighfc surpass ifc-
Throughoufc the Middle Ages it influenced to a
considei-able degree the forms of Christian churches,
Jerusalem (ii. 1330 ff., Amer. ed.), and which we pass
without comment here, as not affecting his reasoniniji
respecting this edifice — its history, its form, diuien-
sions, style of architecture, etc. S. U.

TEMPLE
and ifcs pecuUarifcies were the watchwords and rally-
hig points of all associations of builders. Since
fche revival of learning in fche Ififch century its
arrangements have employed fche pens of number
less learned antiquarians, and architects of every
country have wasted their science in trying to re
produce its fornis.
But it is not only to Christians that the Temple
of Solomon is so intei'esting; fche whole Moham
medan world look fco it as the foundation of all
architectural knowledge, and the Jews still recall
its glories and sigh over fcheir loss with a constant
tenacity, unmatched by that of any ofcher people
to any ofcher building of fche ancienfc world.
Wifch all fchis interest and attention it mighfc
fairly be assumed thafc fchere was nothing more to
be said on such a, subject — fchat every source of
information had been ransacked, and every form of
restoration long ago exhausted, and some setfclemenfc
of fche disputed points arrived at which had been
generally accepted. This is, however, far from
being the case, and few things would be raore curi
ous than a collection of the various restorations
that have been proposed, as showing what different
meanings may be applied to the same set of simple
architectural terras.
The mosfc imporfcanfc work on this subject, and
that which was principally followed by restorers
in the 17th and 18th centuries, was that of the
brothers Pradi, Spanish Jesuits, better known as
Villalpandi. Their work was published in foho at
Rome, 1596-1604, superbly illustrated. Their idea
of Solomon's Temple was, that both in dimensions
and arrangement ifc was very like the Escurial in
Spain. But it is by no raeans clear whether the
Escurial was being built while their book was in
the press, in order fco look like fche Temple, or
whefcher its authors took fcheir idea of fche Temple
from fche palace. Afc all evenfcs their design is so
much the more beautiful and commodious of the
two, thafc we cannot but regret thafc Herrera was
nofc eraployed ou fche book, and fche Jesuits sefc fco
build fche palace.
When fche French eipedifcion to Egypfc, in fche
first years of this century, had raade the world
familiar with the wonderful architectural remains
of that country, every one jumped to the conclusion
fchafc Solomon's Temple must have been designed
after an Egyptian model, forgetting entirely how
hateful that land of bondage was to the Israelites,
and how completely all the ordinances of their
rehgion were opposed to fche idolafcries they had
escaped from — forgefcfcing, fcoo, fche centuries which
had elapsed since the Exode before the Temple was
erected, and how little communication of any sort
there had been between the two countries in the
interval. The Assyrian discoveries of Botta and Layard
have within the last twenty years given an entirely
new direction to the researches of fche resfcorers, and
fchis fcirae wifch a very considerable prospect of suc
cess, for fche analogies are now fcrue, and whatever
can be brought to bear on the subjecfc is in the
right direction. The original seats of the progen
itors of the Jewish races were in Mesopotamia.
Thfir language was practically the same as that
spoken on the banks of fche Tigris. Their historical
traditions were consentaneous, and, so far as we can
judge, almost all the outward symbolism of their
religions was the same, or nearly so. Unfortunately,
however, no Assyrian teraple has yet been ex
humed of a nafcure to throw much light on this
201

TEMPLE 3193
subject, and we are still forced to have recourse to
fche later buildings at Persepolis, or to general de
ductions from fche style of the nearly contemporary
secular buildings at Nineveh and elsewbere, for
such illustrations as are available. These, however,
nearly suffice for all that is required for Solomon's
Temple. For the details of that erected by Herod
we must look to Rorae.
Of the intermediate Temple erected by Zerub
babel we know very htfcle, bufc, from fche circum-
sfcance of its having been erected under Persian
influences contemporaneously wifch the buildings at
Persepolis, it is perhaps the one of which it would
be most easy to restore the details wifch anyfching
Uke certainty.
Before proceeding, however, to investigate the
arrangements of the Temple, ifc is indispensable
firsfc carefully to determine those of the Tabernacle
which Moses caused to be erected in the Desert of
Sinai immediately after the promulgation of the
Law from that mountain. For, as we' shall pres
ently see, the Temple of Solomon was nothing more
nor less than an exact repetition of thafc earUer
Temple, differing only in being ei'ected of raore
durable raaterials, aud wifch exacfcly double fche
dimensions of its prototype, but still in every essen
fcial respecfc so idenfcical fchafc a knowledge of fche
one is indispensable in order fco understand the
other.
Tabernacle.
The written authorities for fche restoration of the
Tabernacle are, first, the detailed accounfc to be
found in the 26th chapter of Exodus, and repeated
in the 36th, verses 8 to 38, without any variation
beyond the slightest possible abridgraent. Sec
ondly, fche accounfc given of fche building by Josephus
{Ant. iii. 6), which is so nearly a repetition of the
account found in the Bible thafc we may feel assured
thafc he had no really important authorifcy before
him excepfc fche one which is equally accessible to
us. Indeed we mighfc almosfc pufc his accounfc on
one side, if it were not that, being a Jew, and so
much nearer the time, he may have had access to
some traditional accounts which may have enabled
hira to realize its appearance more readily than we
can do, and his knowledge of Hebrew technical
terms may have enabled him fco undei'sfcaud whafc
we mighfc otherwise be unable fco explain.
The additional indications contained in the Tal
mud and in Philo are so few and indistinct, and
are besides of such doubtful autbenticifcy, thafc fchey
practically add nothing to our knowledge, and may
safely be disregarded.
For a complicated architectural building fchese
written authorities probably would not suffice wifch
out some remains or other indications to supple
ment them ; but the ^arrangements of the Taber
nacle were so simple that they are really aU tha*
are required. Every iraportant dimension was either
5 cubits- or a multiple of 5 cubits, and aU the
arrangements in plan were either squares or double
squares, so that there really is no ditficulty in put
ting the whole togefcher, and none would ever have
occurred were it not that the dimensions of the
sanctuary, as obtained from the " boards " thai
formed its walls, appear afc firsfc sighfc fco be one
thing, while those obtained from the dimensions
of the curtains which covered it appear to give
another, and no one has yet succeeded in recon
ciling these wifch one another or with the text ol
Scripture. The apparent discrepancy is, however
easily explained, as we shaU presently see, and never

3194

TEMPLE

would have occurred fco any one who had lived long
ondei canvas or was famiUar wifch the exigencies
of fcenfc archifcecfcure.
Outer Inclosure. — The courfc of fche Tabemacle
was surrounded by canvas screens — in fche Easfc
called Kannaufcs — and still universally used to in
close the private apartments of important person
ages. Those of the Tabernacle were 5 cubits in
height, and supported by piUars of brass 5 cubits
apart, to which the curtains were attached by hooks
and fillets of silver (Ex. xxvii. 9, &c.). This in
closure was only broken on the eastern side by the
entrance, which was 20 cubits wide, and closed by
curtains of fine fcwined linen wroughfc with needle
work, and of fche most gorgeous colors.

60 Cj^its.
10 20 30 40 60 GO 70 75 Teet.
No. 1. — Plan ofthe Outer Court of the Tabernacle.
a The cubit used throughout this article is asaumetl
to be the ordinary cubit, of the length of a man's fore
arm from the elbow-joint to the tip of the middle
finger, or 18 Greek inches, equal to 18^ English inches.
There seems to be little doubt but that the Jews also
used occasionally a shorter cubit of 6 handbreadths, or
15 inches, but only (in so far aa can be ascertained) in
speaking of vessels or of metal work, and never applied
it to buildings. After the Ilabylonish Captivity they
seem also occasionally to have employed the Baby-
bniau cubit of 7 handbreadths, or 21 inches. This,
bowever, can evidently have no application to the
riberuacle or Solomon's Temple, which was erected
b'.-ihrc i-he C;uiri\it, , nor C8.n it bu available to ex-

TEMPLE
The space inclosed within fchese screens waa a
double square, 50 cubits, or 75 feet north « and
south, and 100 cubits or 150 ft. east and west. In
the outer or eastern half was placed the altar of
burnt-offerings, described in Ex. xxvii. 1-8, and be
tween it and the Tabernacle the laver {Ant. iu. 6.
§ 2), at which the priests washed fcheir hanis and
feet on entering the Temple.
In the square towards the west was situated the
Temple or Tabemacle itself. The dimensions iu
plan of this structure are easily ascertained. Jo
sephus states fchem {Ant in. 6, § 3) as 30 cubits
long by 10 broad, or 45 feet by 15, aud the Bible
is scarcely less distinct, as it says that the north
and soutli walls were each composed of twenty iip-
right boards (Ex. xxvi. 15, &c.), each board pne
cubit and a half in width, and afc the west ew^
fchere were six boards equal to 9 cubits, which, with
the angle boards or posts, raade up the 10 cubits
of Josephus.
Each of fchese boards was furnished with two
tenons at its lower extremity, which fitted inlo
silver sockets placed on the ground. At the tup
at leasfc fchey were jointed and fastened together by
bars of shittim or acacia wood run through rings
of gold (Ex. xxvi. 26). Both authorities agree that
there were five bars for each side, but a little dif
ficulfcy arises from fche Bible describing (ver. 28) a
raiddle bar whicli reached from end to end. As
we shall presently see, fchis bar was probably ap
plied to a totally different purpose, and we may
therefore assume for the present that Josephus'
description of the mode in which they were applied
is tbe correct one: " Every one," he sa_)s {Aid iii.
6, § 3), " of the pillars or boards had a rii:g of gold
affixed to its front outwards, infco which were in
serted bars gilt with gold, each of them 5 cubits
long, and fchese bound fcogefcher the boards; the
head of one bar running into another after the
manner of one tenon inserted into another. But
for the waU behind there was only one bar thafc
wenfc fchrough aU the boards, into which one of the
ends ofthe bars on both sides was inserted."
Sq far, therefore, everything seeras certain and
easily understood. The 'J'abernacle was an oblong
rectangular stmcture, 30 cubits long by 10 broad,
open at the eastern end, aud divided internally into
fcwo apartments. The Holy of HoUes, hito which
no one entered — not even tlie priest, except on
very extraordinary occasions — was a cube, 10 cubits
square in plan, and 10 cubits high to fche top of
the wall. In this was placed the Mercy-seat, sur
mounted by the cherubim, and on it was placed
the Ark, & contauiiug the tables of the Law. In
front of these was an outer chamber, called Ihe
Holy Place— -20 cubits long by 10 bread, and 10
high, appropriafced to the use of the priests. In it

plain the peculiarities of Herod's Temple .is Josephut,
who is our principal authority regarding it, most cef'
tainly did always employ the Greek cnbit of 18 inches,
or-400 to 1 stadium of 600 Greek feet ; and the Tal
mud, which is the only other authority, always gives
the same number of cubits where we can be certain
they are speaking of the same thing ; so that we mS.y
feel perfectly sure they both were using the same
measure. Thus, whatever other cubits the Jews may
have used for other purposes, we may rest assured
that for the buildings referred to. in this article the
cubit of 18 inches, and that only, was the one em
ployed. b * The Mfrcy-seat w:is on or over the .\rk. A.

TEMPLE
«ere placed the golden candlestUk on one side, the
ialilc of shew-bread opposite, and between them in
rhe centre the altar of incense.

TEMPLE

3196

No. 2. — The Tabernacle, showing one half ground
plan and one half as covered by the curtains.
The roof of the Tabernacle was formed by 3, or
rather 4, sets of curtains, the dimensions of two of
which are given with great minuteness both in the
Bible and by Josephus. The innermost (Ex. xxvi.
1, Ac), of fine twined linen according to our trans
lation (Josephus calls them wool: ipiojv, Ani. iii.
6, § 4), were ten in number, each 4 cubits wide
and 28 cubits long. These were of various colors,
and ornamented with cherubim of " cunning' work."
Five of these were sewn together so as to form
larger curtains, each 20 cubits by 28, and these
two again were joined together, when used, by fifty
gold buckles or clasps.
Above these were placed curtains of goats' hair
each 4 cubits wide by 30 cubits long, but eleven in
number; these were also sewn together, six into
one curtain, and five into the other, and, when
used, wer3 likewise johied together by fifty gold
buckles. Over these again was thrown a curtain of rams'
slins with the' wool on, dyed red, and a fourth
BOVDring is also specified as being of badgers' skins,
80 named iir the A. V., but which probably really
consisted of seal.«kins. [Badger-Skins, vol. i.
p. 224 f-J This did not of course cover the rams'
skins, but most probably was only used us a cop
ing or ridge piece to protect the junction of the two
curtains of rams' skhis which were laid on each
ilope of the roof, and probably only laced together
at the top.
The question which haa hitherto proved a stum
bling block to restorers is, to know how these cur
tains were applied as a covering to the Tabernacle.
Strange to say, this has appeared so difficult that,
with hardly an exception, they have bten content
to assume that they were thrown over its walls as a

I)all is thrown over a coffin, and they have thus cut
the Gordian knot in defiance of all probabilities,
as well as of the distinct specification of the Pen
tateuch. To this view of the matter there are sev.
eral important objections.
First. If the inner or ornamental curtain was so
used, only about one third of it would be seen; 9
cubitiS on each side would be entirely hidden be
tween the walls of the Tabemacle and the goats'-
hair curtain. It is true that Bahr (Symbolik des
Mosaischen Cullus), Neumann (Der Stifisbiitie,
1861), and others, try to avoid this difficulty by
hanging this curtaiu oO as to drape the walls inside ;
but for this there is not a shadow of authority, and'
the form of the curtain would be singularly awk
ward and unsuitable for this purpose. If such a
thing were intended, it is evident that one curtain
would have been used as wall-hangings and another
as a ceiling, not one great range of curtains all
joined the same way to hang the walls all round.
and form the ceiling at the same time.
A second and more cogent objection will strike
any one who has ever hved in a tent. It is, that
every drop of rain that fell on the Tabemacle would
fall through ; for, however tightly the curtains might
be stretched, the water could never run over the
edge, and the sheep-skins would only make the mat
ter worse, as when wetted their weight would de
press the centre, and probably tear any curtain that
could be made, while snow lying on such a roof
would certaiuly tear the curtains to pieces.
But a third and fatal objection is, that this ar
rangement is in direct contradiction to Scripture.
We are there told (Ex. xxvi. 9) that half of one of
the goats'-hair curtains shall be doubled back in
front of the Tabernacle, and only the half of another
(ver. 12) hang down behind; and (ver. 13) that
one cubit shall hang down on each side — whereas
this arrangement makes 10 cubits hang down all
round, except iu front.
The solution of the difficulty appears singularly
obvious. It is simply, that the tent had a ridge,
as all tents have had from the days of Moses down
to the present day; and we have also very little
difficulty in predicating that the angle formed by
the two sides of the roof at the ridge was a right
angle — not only because it is a reasonable and
usual angle for such a roof, and one that would
most likely be adopted in so regular a building, but
because its adoption reduces to harmony the only
abnormal measurement in the whole building. As
mentioned above, the principal curtaiug were only
28 cubits in length, and consequently not a mul
tiple of 5 ; but if we assume a right angle at the
ridge, each side of the slope was 14 cubits, and
W^ -j- 142 = 392, and 2()2 = 400, two numbers
which are practically identical in tent-building.
The base of the triangle, therefore, forraed by the
roof was 20 cubits, or in other words, the roof of
the Tabernacle extended 5 cubits beyond the walls,
not only in front and rear, but on both sides ; and
it may be added, that the width of the Tabernacle
thus became identical with the width of the en
trance to the enclosure ; which but for this circum
stance would appear to have been disproportionately
large. With these data it is easy to explain all the other
difficulties which have met previous restorers.
First. The Holy of Hohes was divided from the
Holy Place by a screen of ftmr pillars supporting
curtains which no one was allowed to pass. But.
strange to say, in the entra- ce there were fve pil.

3196 TEMPLE
lars in a' similar space. Now, no one would put
a pillar in the centre of an entrance without a
motive; but the moment a ridge is assumed it be-
romes indispensable.

c<>f

X

uin

(nXi>1- X
m X
3 \
u X

i ^
,"5 cubits;

20 CUBITS
10 CUBITS )

m m
vSCUBITS,

No. 3. — Diagram of the Dim'ensions of the Tabernacle
in Section.
It may be assumed that all the five pillars were
spaced within the limits of the 10 cubits of the
breadth of the Tabernacle, namely, one in the
centre, two opposite the two ends of the walls, and
the other two between them ; but the probabilities
are so infinitely greater that those two last were
beyond those at the angles of the tent, that it is
hardly worth while considering the first hypothesis.
By the one here adopted the pillars in front would,
like everything else, be spaced exactly 5 cubits
apart. Secondly. Josephus twice asserts (Ant. iii. 6,
§ 4) that the Tabemacle was divided into three
parts, though he specifies only two — the Adytum
and the Pronaos. The third was of course the
porch, 5 cubits deep, which stretched across the
width of the house.
Thirdly. In speaking of the western end, the
Bible always uses the plural, as if there were two
fcides there. There was, of course, at least one pil-
lar in the centre beyond the wall, — there may
have been five, — so that there practically were two
sides there. It may also be remarked that the
Pentateuch, in speaking (Ex. xxvi. 12) of this after
part calls It Mishcan, or the dweUing, as contradis-
tmguished from Ohel, or the tent, which applies to
the whole structure covered by the curtains.
Fourthly. We now understand why there are 10
breadths in the under curtains, and 11 in the
upper. It was that they might break joint — in
other words, that the seam of the one, and espe
cially the great joining of the two divisions, might
be over the centre of the lower curtain, so as to
prevent the rain penetrating through the joints. It
may also be remarked that, as the two cubits which
were in excess at the west hung at an angle, the
depth of fringe would be practically about the same
as on the sides.
With these suggestions, the whole description in
the Book of Exodus is so easily understood that it
is not necessary to dilate further upon it ; there are,
however, two points which remain to be noticed,
but more with reference to the Temple which suc
ceeded it than with regard to the Tabernacle itself.
The first is the disposition of the side bars of
Bhittim-wood that joined the boards together. At
first sight it would appear that there were four short
and one long bar on each side, but it seems impos
sible to see how these could be arranged to accord
with the usual interpretation of the text, and very

TEMPLE
improbable that the Israelites would have carried
about a bar 45 feet long, when 5 or 6 bars would
have answered the purpose equally well, and 5 rows
of bars are quite unnecessary, besides being in op
position to the words of the text.
The explanation hinted at above seems the most
reasonable one — that the flve bars named (vers. 26
and 27) were joined end to end, as Josephus asserts,
and the har mentioned (ver. 28) was the ridge-pole
of the roof. The words of the Hebrew text will
equally well bear the translation — *' and the mid
dle bar which is between,'' instesLi of '> in Ihe midst
o/'the boards, shall reach from end to end." This
would appear a perfectly reasonable solution but for
the mechanical difficulty that no pole could be
made stiflf enough to bear its own weight and that
of the curtains over an extent of 45 feet, without
intermediate supports. A ridge-rope could easily be
stretched to twice that distance, if required for the
purpose, though it too would droop m the centre.
A pole would be a much more appropriate and
likely architectural arrangement — so much so, that
it seems more than probable that one was employed
with supports. One pillar in the centre where the
curtains were joined would be amply sufficient for
all practical purposes; and if the centre board at
the back of the Holy of Hohes was 15 cubits high
(which there is nothing to contradict), the whole
would be easily constructed. Still, as no uiternal
supports are mentioned either by the Bible or Jo
sephus, the question of how the ridge was formed
and supported must remain an open one, incapable
of proof with our present knowledge, hut it is one
to which we shall have to revert presently.
The other question is — were the sides of the
Verandah which surrounded the Sanctuary closed
or left open ? The only hint we have that this was
done, is the mention of the western sides always in
the plural, and the employment of Mishcan and
Ohel throughout this chapter, apparently in opposi
tion to one another, Mishcan always seeming to
apply to an inclosed space, which was or might be
dwelt in, Oiiel to the tent as a whole or to the
covering only ; though here again the point is by
no means so clear as to be decisive.
The only really tangible reason for supposing the
sides were inclosed is, that the Temple of Solomon
was surrounded, on all sides hut the front, by a
range of small cells five cubits widej in which tha
priests resided who were specially attached to the
service of the Temple.
It would have been so easy to have done this in
the Tabernacle, and its convenience — at night at
least — so great, that I cannot help suspecting it
was the case.
It is not easy to ascertain, with anything like
certainty, at what distance from the tent the teBt-
pegs were fixed. It could not be less on the sides
than 7 cubits, it may as probably have been 10
In front and rear the central peg could hardly have
been at a less distance than 20 cubits ; so that it
is by no nieans improbable that from the front tc
rear the whole distance may have been 80 cubits,
and from side to side 40 cubits, measured fironi
peg to peg; and it is this dimension that seems to
have governed the pegs of the inclosures, as it would
just allow room for the fastenings of the inclosure
on either side, and for the altar and laver in front.
It is scarcely worth while, however, insisting
strongly on these and some other minor points.
Enough has been said to explain with the wood
cuts all the main points of the proposed restoration

TEMPLE
and to show tliat it is possible to reconstruct the
Tabernacle in strict conformity with every word and
every indication of the sacred text, and at the same

TEMPLE 3197
time to show that the Tabernacle was a reasonabla
tent-like structure, admirably adapted to the pur
poses to which it was applied.

No. i. — Southeast View of the Tabemacle, as restored.

SoTX)aiou's Temple.
The Tabemacle accompanied the Israelites in all
fcheir wandeiings, and remained their only Holy
Place or Temple till David obtained possession of
Jerusalem, and erected an altar in fche fchreshing-
floor of Araunah, on the spot where tbe altar of
the Temple always afterwards stood. He also
brought the Ark out of ICiijath-jearim (2 Sam. vi.
2; 1 Chr. xiii. 6) and prepared a tabernacle for it
in the new city which he called affcer his own name.
Bofch theae were brought up thence by Solomon
(2 Chr. V. 5); fche Ark placed in fche Holy of
Hohes, bufc the Tabernacle seems to have been put
on one side as a relic (1 Chr. xxiii. 32). We have
no account, however, of the removal of the original
Tabernacle of Moses from Gibeon, nor anything
tbat would enable us to connect it with that one
which Solomon removed out of fche City of David
(2 Chr. V. 5). In fact, from the tune of the build
ing of the Temple, we lose sight of the Tabernacle
altogefcher. Ifc was David who firsfc proposed fco re
place fche Tabernacle by a more permanenfc building,
but was forbidden for the reasons assigned by the
prophet Nathan (2 Sam. vii. 5, &c.), and though
he collected materials and made arrangements, the
execution of the task was left for his son Solomon.
He, with the assistance of Hiram king of Tyre,
. commenced fchis greafc underfcaking in fche fourth
year of his reign, and completed it in seven years,
about 1005 B. c. according to the received chro-

On comparing the Temple, as described in 1
R inga vi. and 2 Chronicles iii. and by Josephus
vii. 3, with ths Tabernacle, as just explained, the
first thing that strikes us is fchafc all fche arrange-
menfcs were idenfcical, and fche dimensions of every-
pai'fc were exacfcly double those of fche preceding
Btrucfcure. Thus fche Holy of Holies in the Taber
nacle was a cube, 10 cubits each way; in the Tem
ple it was 20 cubits. The Holy Place, or outer
hall was 10 cubits wide by 20 long and 10 high in
the Tabernacle. In the Temple all these diraen-
lions were exactly double. The porch in the
Tabernacle waa 5 cubits deep, in the Temple 10;
its width in both instances being the width of the

house. The chambers round the House and the
Tabernacle were each 5 cubits wide on the ground-
floor, the difference being that in the Temple fche
fcwo walls taken together made up a thickness of
5 cubits, fchus making 10 cubits for the chambers.
Taking all these parts togefcher, fche ground-plan
of fche Temple measured 80 cubifcs by 40; thafc of
fche Tabernacle, as we have jusfc seen,, was 40 by 20;
and what is more striking fchan even fchis is fchafc
fchough fche walls were 10 cubits high in the one

No. 5. — Plan of Solomon's Temple, showiuf; che dis
position of the chambers in fcwo stories.
and 20 cubifcs in the ofcher, fche whole heighfc of fche
Tabemacle was 15, thafc of fche Temple 30 cubifcs;
fche one roof rising 5, fche ofcher 10 culiits above the
height of the internal walls." So exact indeed is thia
a In the Apocrypha there is a passage which bMW
curiously and distinctly on this subject. Tn Wisd U

n98

TEMPLE

coincidence, that it not only confirms to the fullest
extent the restoration of the Tabemacle whioh has
just been explained, but it is a singular confirma
tion of the minute accuracy which characterized the
WTiters of the Pentateuch and the books of Kings
and Chronicles in this matter ; for not only are we
able to check the one by the other at this distance
of time with perfect certainty, but, now that we
know the system on which they were constructed,
we might almost restore both edifices from Jose
phus' account of the Temple as reerected by Herod,
of which more hereafter.
'I'he proof that the Tehiple, as built by Solomon,

TEMPLE
was only an enlarged copy of the Tabemacle, goes
far also to change the form of another important
question which has been long agitated by the stu
dents of Jewish antiquities, inasmuch as the in
quiry as to whence the Jews derived the plan and
design of the Temple must now he transferred to
the earlier type, and the question thus stands,
Whence did they derive the scheme of the Taber
nacle? From Egypt?
There is not a shadow of proof that the Egyptiani
ever used a movable or t£nt-hke temple ; neither tha
pictures in their temples nor any historical recnrda

No. 6. — Tomb of Darius near Persepolis.

point to such a form, nor has any one hitherto ven
tured to suggest such an origin for that structure.
From Assyria?
Here too we are equally devoid of any authority
or tangible data, for though the probabilities cer-
tahily are that the Jews would rather adopt a form
from the kindred Assyrians than from the hated
strangers whose land they had just left, we have
nothing further to justify us in such an assumption-

It, it is said, " '•'hou bast commanded me (i. e. Solo-
monl to build a Temple in Thy Holy Mount, and an
altar in the citv whirein Thou dwellest, a resemblance

From Arabia?
It is possible that the Arabs may have used
movable tent-like temples. They were a peopis
nearly allied in race with the Jews. Moses" father-
in-law was an Arab, and something he may have
seen there may have suggested the form he adopted.
But beyond this we cannot at preseut go."

of the Holy Tabernacle which Thou haat prepared
from the beginning."
a The only thing resembling it we .kuow of is the
Holy Tent of the Carthagimaas, meutionod by Diod
orus Siculus, XX 65, which, in consequenne of *

TEMPLE
For the present, at least, it must suffice to know
that the form of the Temple was copied from the
Tabemacle, and that any architectural ornaments
that may have been added were such as were usu
ally employed afc fchat time in Palestine, and more
especially afc Tyre, whence most of the artificers
were obtained who assisted in its erection.
So far as the dimensions above quoted are con
cerned, everything is as clear and as certain as any
thhig that can be predicated of any building of
which no remains exist, but beyond this there are
certain minor problems hy no means so easy to
resolve, but fortunately they are of much less im
portance. The firsfc is the —
Height. — .That given in 1 K. vi. 2 — of 30 cubits
- is so reasonable in proportion to the other di
mensions, thafc fche mafcfcer mighfc be allowed to rest
there were it not for the assertion (2 Chr. iii. 4)
fchat tie height, though apparently only of the
porch, was 120 cubits = 180 feet (as nearly as may
be the height of the steeple of St. Martin's in the
Fields). Tliis is so unlike anything we know of in
ancient architecture, that, having no counterpart in
the Tabernacle, we mighfc afc first sight I'eel almost
justified in rejecting it as a mistake or hiterpolation,
but for the assertion (2 Chr. iii. 9) that Solomon
overlaid the upper chambers with gold, and 2 K.
xxiii. 12, where the altars on tbe top of the upptr
chairUiers, apparently of the Temple, are mentioned.
In addition fco fchis, both Josephus and fche Talmud
persisfcently assert that there was a superstructure
on the Temple equal in heighfc to the lower part,
and the total height they, iu accordance with the
book of Chronicles, call 120 cubifcs or 180 feefc
{Ant viii. 3, § 2). Ifc is evidenfc, however, that he
obtains these dimensions firsfc by doubling the
height of the lower Temple, making it 60 instead
of 30 cubits, and in Uke manner exaggerating
every other dimension to make up this quantity.
Were it not for these authorities, it would satisfy
all the real exigencies of the case if we assumed
that the upper chamber occupied the space between
the roof of the Holy Place and the roof of the
Temple. Ten cubits or 15 feet, even after deduct
ing the thickness of the two roofs, is sufficient to
constitute such an apartment as history wonld lead
us to suppose existed there. Bufc fche evidence fchafc
fchere was somefching beyond fchis is so strong that
It cannot be rejected.
In looking through the monuments of antiquity
for something to suggest what this might be, the
only thing thafc occurs is the platform or Talar fchat
existed on the roofs of. the Palace Temples at Per-
sepoHs — as shown in Wood-cut No. 6, which rep
resents the Tomb of Darius, and is an exact repro
duction of the ia^ade of the Palace shown in plan,
Wood-cufc No. 9. It is true theae were erected five
centuries after the building of Solomon's Temple
but they are avowedly copies in stone of older As
syrian forras, and as such may represent, with more
or less exactness, contemporary buildings. Nothing
in fact could represent more correctly " the altars
on the top of the upper chambers " which Josiah
beat down (2 K.. xxiii. 12) than this, nor could any
thing more fully meet all the architectural or de
votional exigencies of the case ; but its height never

TEMPLE

3i9i'

sudden change of wind at night blowing the flames
from which victims were being sacrificed, towards ¦riji'
Itpajf tricriirqv, took fire, a circumstance which spread
such consternation througho;:'^ the army as to lead to
Ub destruction.

could have been 60 cubits, or even 30, but it mighl
very probably be the 20 cubits which incidentally
Josephus (xv. 11, § 3) mentions as "sinking down
in the failure of the foundations, but was so left till
the days of Nero." There can be little doubt but
that the part referred to in this paragraph was
some such superstructure as that shown in the last
wood-cut; and the incidental mention of 2^) cubits
is much more to be trusted fchan Josephus' heighfcs
generaUy are, which he seems systematically to havi
exaggerated when he was thinking about them.
Jachin and Boaz. — There ^ are no features con
nected with the Temple of Solomon which have
given rise to so much controversy, or been so diffi
cult to explain, as the form of the two pillars of
brass which were s6t up in the porch of the house.
It has even been supposed that tbey were nofc pillars
in fche ordinary sense of fche fcerm, but obelisks; for
this, however, there does not appear fco be any au
fchorifcy. T'he porch was 30 feefc in width, and a
roof of that extent, even if composed of a wooden

No. 7  Cornice of lily-work at 1 arsepolifi.
beam, would nofc only look painfully weak without
some support, but he, in fact, almost impossible to
construct with the imperfect science of these days.
Anofcher difficulfcy arises from the fact that the
book of Chronicles nearly doubles fche dimensions
given in Kings; bufc this arises from the system
atic reduplication of the heighfc which misled Jose
phus ; and if we assume fche Temple to have been
60 cubits high, the height of the pillars, as given in
the book of Chronicles, would be appropriate tc
support the roof of its porch, as those in Kings are
the proper height for a temple 30 cubits high,
which there is every reason to believe was the true
dimension. According fco 1 K. vii. 15 ff., fche pil
lars were 18 cubits hi^h and 12 in circumference,
with capitals five cubits in height. Above thig
was (ver. 19) another member, called also chapiter
of Uly-work, four cubits in height, but which from
The Carthaginians were a Shemitic people, and seem
to have carried their Holy Tent about with their ar
mies, and to have performed sacrifices in front of it,
precisely as was done by the Jews, excepting, of
course, the nature of ihe victims.

3200

TEMPLE

the seeond mention of it in ver. 22 seems more
probably to have been an entablature, which is ne
cessary to complete the order. As these members
make out 27 cubits, leaving 3 cubits or 4^ feet for
the elope of the roof, fche whole design seems rea
sonable and proper.
If this conjecture is correct, we have no great
lifficulty in suggesting that the Uly-work must
have been somethhig hke the Persepolitan cornice
(Wood-cut No. 7), which is probably nearer in style
to that of the buildings at Jerusalem than anything
else we know of.
It seems almost in vain to try and speculate on
whafc was the exact form
of the decoration of fchese
celebrated pillars. The
nefcs of checker-work and
wreafchs of chain-work,
and the pomegranates.
etc., are all features ap
plicable to metal archi
tecture; and though we
know that the old Tartar
races did use metal archi
tecture everywhere, and
especially in bronze, from
the very nature of the
material every specimen
has perished, and we have
now no representations
from which we can restore
them. The styles we are
familiar with were aU de
rived more or less from
wood, or from stone with
wooden ornaments re
peated in the harder ma^
terial. Even at Persepo
lis, though we may feel
certain thafc everything
we see there had a wooden
profcofcype, and may sus
pect that much of their
wooden ornamentation
was derived from the ear
lier metal fornis, stiU it is
so far removed from the
original source that in
the present state of our
knowledge, ifc is danger
ous (0 insisfc too closely
on any point. Notwith
standing this, the pUlars
at Persepolis, of which
Wood-cut No. 8 is a fcype,
are probably more like
Jachhi and Boaz fchan any
ofcher pillars which have
40 feet reached us from anfciquifcy,
and give a befcter idea of
the immense capitals of
%?rttc^'Ke°/sf/jS.'™ these columns than we ob-
tain from any other ex
amples i but being in stone, they are far more sim
ple and less ornamental than they would have heen
ia wood, and infinitely less so than their metal
prototypes. Internal Supports. — The existence of these two
pUlars in the porch suggests an inquiry which has
hitherto been entirely overlooked : Were there any
pillars in the interior of the Temple ? Considering
/hat the clear space of the roof was 20 cubits, or

ill

:|i|i!'l!l

|,.|!

¦iiilh

ii

TEMPLE
30 feet, it may safely be asserted fchat no ccdu
beam could be laid across fchis wifchoufc sinking in
the centre by its own weight, unless trussed or suji-
ported from below. There is no reason whatever
to suppose that -the Tyrians in those days were
acquahited with the scientific fornis of carpentry
implied in the first suggestion, and there is no
reason why they should have resorted to them even
if they knew how; as it cannot be doubted but
thafc architecturally the introduction of pillars in the
interior would have increased the apparent size and
improved the aitistic effecfc of fche building to a very
considerable degree.
If they were introduced afc all, fchere must have
been four in fche sanctuary and ten in the hall, not
necessarily equally spaced, in a transverse direction,
bui probably standing 6 cubits from fche walls,
leaving a cenfcre aisle of 8 cubifcs.
The only building afc Jerusalem whose construc-
fcion fchrows any light on this subjecfc is the House
of the Forest of Lebanon. [Palace.] There the
pillars were an inconvenience, as the purposes of
the hall were state and festivity ; but though the
pillars in fche palace had nofching fco supporfc above
fche roof, fchey were spaced probably 10, cerfcainly
nofc more fchan 12^, cubits apart. If Solomon had
been able fco roof a clear space of 20 cubifcs, he cer
fcainly would nofc have neglecfced to do ifc there.
At Persepolis there is a small building, called
the Palace or Temple of Darius (Wood-cut No. 9),
which more closely resembles the Jewish Temple
than any other building we are acquainted with.
It has a porch, a central haU, an adytum — ¦ fche plan
of which cannot now be made out — and a range
of smaU chambers on either side. The prineipd
difference is thafc ifc has four pillars in its porch m-
stead of two, and consequently four rows in its in
terior hall insfcead of half that number, as suggested
above. All the buildings at Persepolis have then"
floors equally crowded with pillars, and, as there is
no doubt bufc thafc they borrowed this peculiarity
from Nineveh, there seems no a pi-iori reason why
Solomon should not have adopted this expedient to
get over what otherwise would seem an insuperable
constructive difficulty.
The question, in fact, is very much the same
that met us in discussing the construction of the
Tabemacle. No internal supports to the roofs oi
either of these buildings are mentioned anywhere.
But the difficulfcies of construcfcion wifchout them
would have been so enormous, and their introduc
tion so usual and so entirely unobjectionable, that
we can hardly understand their not being employed.
Either building was possible without them, but
certainly neither in the least degree probable.
It may perhaps add something to the probability.
of their arrangement to mention that the ten bases
for the lavers which Solomon made would stand
one within each inter-column on either hand, where
fchey would be beautiful and appropriate ornaments.
Without some such accentuation of the space, ifc
seems difficult to understand what they were, and
why ten.
Chand)ers. — The only other feature which re
mains to be noticed is fche application of three tiers
of small chambers to the walls of the Temple exter
nally on aU sides, excepfc fchafc of the entrance-
Though not expressly so stated, these were a sort of
monasfcery, appropriafced fco the I'esidence of the
priests who were either permanently or hi turn de
voted to the service of the Temple. Tbe lowest
story was only 5 cubits in width, the next 6, and

TEMPLE
the upper 7, allowing an offset of 1 cubit on the
side of the Temple, or of 9 inches on each side, on
which the flooring joists rested, so as not to cut
into the walls of the Temple. Assuming the wall
of the Temple at the level of the upper chambers to
have been 2 cubits thick, and the outer wall one, —
it could not well have been less, — this would ex
actly make up the duplication of the dimension
found as before mentioned for the verandah of the
Tabernacle. It is, again, only at Persepolis that we find any
thing at all analogous to this ; but in the plan last
quoted as that of the Palace of Darius, we find a
similar range on either hand. The palace of Xerxes
possesses this feature also; but in the great hall
there, and its counterpart at Susa, the place of
these chambers is supplanted by lateral porticoes
outside the walls that surrounded the central pha
lanx of pUlars. Unfortunately our knowledge of
Assyrian temple architecture is too limited to en
able us to say whether this feature was common
elsewhere, and though something very like it occurs

No. 9. — Palace of Darius at PersepoUs. Scale of 50 feet to 1 inch.
in Buddhist Viliai'as in India, these latter are com- that of Solomon,
paratively so modern that their disposition hardly
bears on the inquiry.
Outer Com-t  The inclosure of the Temple
consisted, according to the Bible (1 K. vi. 36 ), of
a low wall of three courses of stones and a row of
cedar beams, both probably highly ornamented. As
it is more than probable that the same duplication
of dimensions took place in this as in all the other
features of the Tabernacle, we may safely assume
that it was 10 cubits, or 15 feet, in height, and
almost certainly 100 cubits north and south, and
200 east and west.
There is no mention in the Bible of any porti
coes or gateways or any architectural ornaments of
this inclosure, for though names which were after
wards transferred to the gates of the Temple do oc
cur in 1 Chr. ix., xxiv., and xxvi., this was before
the Temple itself was built; and although Josephus
does mention such, it must be recollected that he
was writing five centuries after its total destruction,
and he was too apt to confound the past and the
present in his descriptions of buildings which did
not then exist. There was an eastern porch to
Herod's Temple, whioh was called >iolomon's Porch,
»nd Josephus tells us that it was built by that
monarch ; but of this there is absohitely no proof,

TEMPLE oJOl
and as neither in the account of Solomon's building
nor in any subsequent repairs or incidents is any
mention made of such buildings, we may safely
conclude that they did not exist before the time ot
the great rebuilding immediately preceding the
Christian era. Temple of Zekubbabel.
We have very few particulars regarding the
Temple which the Jews erected after their return
from the Captivity (cir. 520 b. c.), and no de
scription that would enable us to realize its appear
ance. But there are some dimensions given in the
Bible and elsewhere which are extremely interest
ing as affording points of comparison iietween it
and the temples which preceded it, or were erected
after it.
The first and most authentic are those given in
the book of Ezra (vi. 3), when quoting the decree
of Cyrus, wherein it is said, " Let the house be
builded, the place where they offered sacrifices, and
let the foundations thereof be strongly laid; the
height thereof threescore cubits, and
the breadth thereof threescore cubits,
with three rows of great stones and a
row of new timber." Josephus quotes
this passage almost literally (xi. 4,
§ 6), but in doing so enables us with
certainty to translate the word here
called row as "story" (Sii/tos) — as
indeed the sense would lead us to infer
— for it could only apply to the three
stories of charabers that surrounded
Solomon's, and afterwards Herod's
Temple, and with this again we come
to the wooden Talar which sur-
moinited the Temple and forraed a
fourth story. It may be remarked
in passing, tbat this dimension of 60
cubits - iu height accords perfectly
with the words which Josephus puts
into the mouth of Herud (xv. 11, § 1 )
when he makes him say that the
Teraple built after the Captivity
wanted 60 cubits of the height ol
For as he had adopted, as we
have seen above, the height of 120 cubits, as writ
ten in the Chronicles, for that Temple, this one re
mained only 60.
The other dimension of 60 cubits in breadth is
20 cubits m excess of that of Solomon's Temple,
but there is no reason to doubt its correctness, for
we find hoth from Josephus and the Talmud that
it was the dimension adopted for the Temple wheu
rebuilt, or rather repaired, by Herod. At the sama
time we have no authority for assuming that any
increase was made in the dimensions of either the
Holy Place or the Holy of Holies, since we find
that these were retained in Ezekiel'^ description of
an ideal Temple — and were afterwards those of
Herod's. And as this Temple of Zerubbabel was
still standing in Herod's time, and was more strictly
speaking repaired than rebuilt by him, we cannot
conceive that any of its dimensions were then di
minished. We are left therefore with the alterna
tive of assuming that the porch and the chambers
all . round were 20 cubits in width, including the
thickness of the walls, instead of 10 cubits, as in
the earlier building. This may perhaps to some ex
tent be accounted for by the introduction of a pas
sage between the Temple and the rooms of the
priest's lodgings Instead of each being a thorough-

3202 TEMPLE
fare, as must certainly have been the case in Solo
mon's Temple.
This alteration in the width of fche Pfceromata
made the Temple 100 cubits in length by 60 in
breadth, with a height, ifc is said, of 60 cubits, in
cluding the upper room or Talar, though we cannofc
help suspecting that this last dimension is some
what in excess of the truth.**
The only ofcher description of this Temple is
found in Hecatasus the Abderite, who wrote shortly
after the death of Alexander the Great. As quoted
by Josephus {cont. Ap. i. 22), he says, that " In Je
rusalem towards fche middle of fche cifcy is a sfcone
walled inclosure aboufc 500 feefc in lengfch {us irev-
Td^^\€6pos)^ and 100 cubits in width, with double
gafces," in which he describes the Temple as being
situated. The last dimension is exactly what we obtained
above by doubhng the width of the Tabernacle in
closure as applied to Solomon's Temple, and may
therefore be accepted as tolerably certain, but the
500 feet in length exceeds anyfching we have yefc
reached by 200 feefc. Ifc may be fchafc afc fchis age ifc
was found necessary to add a courfc for fche women
or fche Gentiles, a sort of Narthex or GaUlee for
fchose who could not enter the Temple. If this or
these together were 100 cubits square, ifc would
make up fche *' nearly 5 plefchra " of our aufchor.
HecatEeus als6 menfcions thafc the altar was 20 cu
bits square and 10 high. And although he men
tions fche Temple itself, he unfortunately does not
supply us wifch any dimensions.
From these dimensions we gather, that if " the
Priests and Invites and Elders of families were dis
consolate afc seeing how much more sumptuous the
old Temple waa than the one which on accounfc of
their poverfcy they had just been able to erect"
(Ezr. iii. 12; Joseph. Ani. xi. 4, § 2), ifc cerfcainly
was nofc because ifc was smaller, as almost every di
mension had been increased one third; but it may
have been that the carvhig and the gold, and other
ornaments of Solomon's Temple far surpassed this,
and the pillars of the portico and fche veils may all
have been far more splendid, so also probably were
the vessels; and all this is what a Jew would mourn
over far more than mere architectural splendor. In
speaking of these temples we must always bear in
mind fchafc fcheir dimensions were pracfcicaUy very far
inferior fco those of the heathen. Even fchat of Ezra
is not larger than an average parish church Of the
lasfc cenfcury, — Solomon's waa smaller. It was the
lavish display of the precious metals, the elabora
tion of carved ornament, and the beauty of the tex
tile fabrics, which made up their splendor and ren
dered them so precious in the eyes of the people,
and there can consequently be no greater mistake
than to judge of fchem by fche number of cubifcs they
measured. They were temples of a Shemitic, not
of a Celtic people. Temfi-e of Ezekiel.
The vision of a Temple which the prophet Eze
kiel saw while residing on fche banks of the Chebar
in Babylonia in the 25th year of the Captivity, does
not add much fco our knowledge of fche subject. Ifc
is nofc a descripfcion of a Temple fchafc ever was builfc

" In recounting the events narrated by Ezra (x 9),
Josephus says {Ant. xi. 5, § 4) that the assembly there
referred to took place iu the upptsr room, er tw vnept^tji
TtnJ Upoi), which would be a very curious illustration
of th(j ust of that apartment if it could be depended

TEMPLE
or ever could be erecfced afc Jerusalem, and can ooD-
sequenfcly only be considered as fche beau ideal oJ
whafc a Shemitic temple ought to be. As such it
would certainly be interesting if it could be cor
rectly restored, but unfortunately the difficulties of
making out a complicafced plan from a mere verbal
description are very great indeed, and are enhanced
in this instance by our imperfect knowledge of the
exact meaning of the Hebrew architecture terms
and it may also be from the prophet describing not
what he actually knew, bufc only whafc he saw iu a
vision. Be fchis as it may, we find that the Temple itself
was of the exact dimensions of thafc builfc by Solo
mon, namel}', au' adyfcum (Ez. xl. 1-4), 20 cubits
square, a naos, 20X40, and surrounded by cells of
10 cubits' width including fche t.hickness of the
walls, fche whole, with the porch, making up 40 cu
bits by 80, or very little more than one four-thou
sandth part of the whole area of the Temple: the
height unfortunately is not given. Beyond this
were various courts and residences for the priests,
and places for sacrifice and other ceremonies of the
Temple, till he comes fco the outer court, which
measured 500 reeds on each of its sides ; each reed
(Ez. xl. 5) was 6 Babylonian cubits long, namely,
of cubits each of one ordinary cubifc and a hand
breadth, or 21 inches. The reed was therefore 10
feet 6 inches, and the side consequently 5,250 Greek
feet, or within a few feet of an b^nglish mile, con
siderably more than fche whole area of the city of
Jerusalem, Temple included !
Ifc has been atfcempted fco gefc over fchis difficulfcy
by saying fchafc fche prophefc meant cubits, not reeds;
bufc fchis is quifce untenable. -Nothing can be more
clear than the specification of the lengfch of the reed,
and nothing more careful than fche mode in which
reeds are disfcinguisbed from cubits throughoufc; aa
for instance in the two next verses (6 and 7) where
a chamber and a gateway are mentioned, each of
one reed. If cubit were substituted, it would be
nonsense. Notwithstanding ifcs ideal character, the whole is
extremely curious, as showing what were the aspi
rations of the Jews in this direction, and how dif
ferent fchey were from those of other nations; and
it is interesting here, inasmuch as there can -be
little doubt but thafc fche arrangements of Herod's
Temple were in a great measure influenced by the
description here given. The outer courfc, for in
stance, with its porticoes measuring 400 cubifcs each
way, is an exaefc counterpart on a smaller scale of
fche oufcer courfc of Ezekiel's Temple, and is not
found in either Solomon*8 or Zerubbabel's; and
so too, evidently, are several of the internal ar
rangements.
Temple of Herod.
For our knowledge of the last and greatest of the
Jewish Temples we are indebted almost ^vhoUy tc
the works of Josephus, with an occasional hint
from the Talmud.
The Bible unfortunately contains nothing to as
sist the researches of the antiquary in this respect.
With true Shemifcish indifference fco such objecfcs,
fche wrifcers of fche New Testament do nofc furnish

upon, but both fche Hebrew and LXX. are so clear that
it was in the " street," or " place " of the Temple, that
we cannot base any argument upon it, though it ia
curious as indicatiug what was passing in th^ mhid nl
Josephus.

TEMPLE
» single hint which would enable us to ascertain
either what the situation or the dimensions of the
Temple were, nor any characteristic feature of its
architecture. But Josephus knew the spot per
sonally, and his horizontal dimensions are so mi
nutely accurate that we almost suspect he had be
fore his eyes, when writing, some ground-plan of the
building prepared in the quartermaster-general's de
partment of Titus's army. They form a strangQ con
trast with his dimensions in height, which, with
scarcely an exception, can be shown to be exagger
ated, generaUy doubled. As the buildings were all
thrown down during the siege, it was impossible to
convict him of error in respect to elevations, but as
regards plan he seems always to have had a whole
some dread of the knowledge of those among whom
le was Uving and writing.

TEMPLE ' 32US
The Temple or naos itself was in dimensions and
aiTangement very similar to that of Solomon, or
rather thatof Zerubbabel — more like the latter:
but this was surrounded by an inner inclosure of
great strength and magnificence, measuring as
nearly as can be made out 180 cubits by 240, and
adorned by porches and ten gateways of great
magnificence; and beyond this again was an outer
inclosure measuring externally 400 cubits each
way, which was adorned with porticoes of greater
splendor than any we know of attached to any
temple of the ancient world: all showing how
strongly Roman influence was at work in envelop
ing with heathen magnificence the simple templar
arrangements of a Shemitic people, which, how
ever, remained nearly unchanged amidst aU thia
external incrustation.

COURT or C.ENTILES

ogo

STOA BASILICA

No 10. — Temple of Herod restored Scale of 200 feet to 1 inch.

It has already been pointed out [Jerusalem,
vol. ii. pp. 1313-14] that the Temple was cerfcainly
Bifcuafced in fche S. W. angle of the area now known
as the Haram area at Jerusalem, and it is hardly
necessary to repeat here the arguments there ad
duced to prove that its dimensions were what
Josephus states them to be, 400 cubits, or one sta
dium, each way.
At the time when Herod rebuilt it he inclosed a
ipace "twice as large " as that before occupied by
the Temple and its courts {B. J. i. 21, § 1), an

« * Since the writer's note at the commencement
of this article was sent to press, the report of Lieut.
VTarren's latest excavations about the south wall of
the Haram area has come to hand, containing, he
thinks, " as much information with regard to this
portion of the Haram Wall, as we are likely to be
able to obtain." His conclusions are advei'se to the
theory given abovp. Of this massive wall, he thinks
'.hat fche 600 Kiec east of the Doubh Gate is of a dif-

expression that probably niust nofc be fcaken too
Uterally, at least if we are to depend on the meas
urements of Hecatseus. According to them the
whole area of Herod's Temple was between four
and five times greater than that which preceded it.
What Herod did apparently was to take in the
whole space between the Temple and the cifcy wall
on its eastern side, and fco add a considerable space
on the north and south to support the porticoes
which he added there.« [See Palestine, vol. iii
p. 2303, note, Amer. ed.]

ferent construction from the 300 feet west of it, and
more ancient. It is built up with beveled stones from
the rock, and on some of the stones at the S. E an
gle were found signs and characters (supposed to bo
Phoenician) which had bean cut before the stones were
laid (Pa;. ExpL Fund, Warren's Letters, XLV.). Re
jecting Mr. Fergusson's theory, that the S. W angle
of the area was the site of the Temple, Lieat. Warreu
is undecided between three points, whicb presentt he

3204

TEMPLE

As the Temple terrace thus became the principal
defense of the city on the east side, there were no
gates or openings in that direction," and being situ
ated on a sort of rocky brow — as evidenced from
its appearance in the vaults that bound it on this
Bide — it was at all fiiture times considered unat-
ta«kable from the eastward. The north side, too,
where not covered by the fortress Antonia, became
part of the defenses of the city, and was likewise
without external gates. But it may also have been
that, as the tombs of the kings, and indeed the
general cemetery of Jerusalem, were situated im
mediately to the northward of the Temple, there
was some reUgious feeling in preventing too ready
access fi»m the Temple to the burying-places (Ez.
sliii. 7-9).
On the south side, which was inclosed by the
waU of Ophel, there were double gates nearly in
the centre (Ant. xv. 11, § 5). These gates stiU
exist at a distance of about 365 feet from the
southwestern angle, and are perhaps the only
architectural features of the Temple of Herod
which remain in situ. This entrance consists of
a double archway of Cyclopean architecture on the
level of the ground, opening into a square vestibule
measuring 40 feet each way. In the centre of this
is a p'lUar crowned by a capital of the Greek —
rather than Roman — Corinthian order (Wood-cut
No. 11); the acanthus alternating with the water-
leaf, as in the Tower of the Winds at Athens, and
other Greek examples, but which was an arrange
ment abandoned by the Komans as early as the
time of Augustus, and never afterwards employed.'
From this piUar spring four flat segmental arches,
and the space between these is roofed by flat

^c 11. — Capital of Pillar in Vestibule of southern
entrance.
domes, constructed apparently on the horizontal
principle. Tbe walls of this vestibule are of the
same beveled masonry as the exterior; but either
at the time of erection or subsequently, the pro
jections seem to have been chiseled off in some
parts 80 as to form pilasters. From this a double
tunnel, nearly 200 feet in length, leads to a flight

ttiinks, about equal claims — namely, the present
Dome of the Rock platform, a spa^e* east of it reach
ing tr the east wall, and the S. E. angle of the area.
Further examination and evidence will be necessary,
to shake the traditional belief In the first-named site.
S.W.
« The Talmud, it is true, does mention a gate as
lixistjng in the eastern wall, but its testimony on this
point is so unsatisfactory and in such direct opposition
to Josephus and the probabilities of the case, that it
goay safely be disregarded.

TEMPLE
of steps which rise to the surface in the court at
the Temple, exactly at that gateway of the inner
Temple which led to the altar, and is the one of
the four gateways on this side by which any one
arriving from Ophel would naturally wish to entet
the inner inclosure. It seems to have been this
necessity that led to the external gateway being
placed a Uttle more to the eastward than the exact
centre of the inclosure, where naturally we should
otherwise have looked for it.
We learn from the Talmud (Mid. ii. 6), that the
gate of the inner Temple to which this passage led
was called the "Water Gate; " and it is interesting
to be able to identify a spot so prominent ui the de
scription of Nehemiah (xii. 37). The Water Gate
is more often mentioned in the mediaeval references
to the Temple than any other, especiaUy by Mo
hammedan authors, though by them frequently
confounded with the outer gate at the other end of
this passage.
Towards the westward there were four gateways
to the external inclosure of the Temple (Ani. xv.
11, § 5), and the positions of three of these can
StiU he ti-aced with certainty. The first or most
southern led over the bridge the remains of which
were identified by Dr. Robinson (of which a view
is given in art. Jerusalem, vol. ii. p. 1313), and
joined the Stoa Basilica of the Temple with the
royal palace (Ant. ibid.). The second was that
discovered by Dr. Barclay, 270 feet from the S. W.
angle, at a level of 17 feet below that of the south-
em gates just described. The site of the third is
so completely covered by the buildings of the
MeckmJ that it has not yet been seen, but it will
be found between 200 and 250 feet from the N. W.
angle of the Temple area; for, owing to the greater
width of the southern portico beyond that on the
northern, the Temple itself was not in the centre
of its inclosure, but situated more towards the
north. The fourth was that which led over the
causeway which still exists at a distance of 600
feet from the southwestern angle.
In the time of Solomon, and until the a:ea was
enlarged by Ilerod, the ascent from the western
valley to the Temple seems to have been by an
external flight of stairs (Neh. xu. 37 ; 1 K. x. 5,
&c. ), simUar to those at Persepolis, and Uke them
probably placed lateraUy so as to form a part of
the architectural design. When, however, the
Temple came to be fortified " modo arcis " (Tacit.
H. V. 12), the causeway and the bridge were es
tablished to afTord communication with the upper
city, and the two intermediate lower entrances to
lead to the lower city, or, as it was originaUy called,
" the city of David."
Cloisters  The most magnificent part of the
Temple, in an architectural point of view, seems
certainly to have been the cloisters which were
added to the outer court when it was enlarged by
Herod. It is not quite clear if there was not an
eastern porch Wore this tirae, and if so, it may

& Owing to the darkness of the place, blocked up
as it now is, and the ruined state of the capital, it is
not easy to get a correct delineation of It. This is to
be regretted, as a considerable controversy has arisen
as to its exact character. It may therefore be interest
ing to mention that the drawing made by the archi
tectural draughtsman who accompanied M. Renan in
his late scientific expedition to Syria confirms to the
fullest extent the character of the architecture, as
shown in the view given above from Mr. Arundale'l
drawing.

TEMPLE
have been nearly on the site of thafc subsequently
erected ; but on the three other sides fche Temple
area was so extended at the last rebuilding that
there can be no doubt but that from the very
foundations the terrace walls and cloisters belonged
wholly to the last period.
The cloisters in the west, north, and past side were
composed of double rows of Corinthian columns, 25
cubits or 37 feet 6 niches hi height {B. J. v. 5, § 2),
with flat roofs, and resting against the outer wall
of the Temple- These, however, were immeasurably
surpassed in magnificence by the royal porch or Stoa
Basilica which overhung the southern wall. This
is so minutely described by Josephus {Ant xv. 11,
§ 5) that there is no difficulty in understanding its
arrangement or ascertaining ife dimensions. It
consisted (in the language of Gothic architecture)
of a nave and two aisles, that towards the Temple
being open, tbat towards the country closed by a
wall. The breadth of the centre aisle was 45 feet;
of the side aisles 30 from centre to centre of the
Pinal's; their height 50 feet, and fchafc of the centre
aisle 100 feefc. Ifcs secfcion was fchus somefching in
excess of fchafc of York Cathedral, while its total
length was one stadium or 600 Greek feet, or 100
feet in excess of York, or our largest Gothic ca
thedrals. This magnificenfc structure was sup
ported by 162 Corinthian columns, arranged in
four rows, forty in each row — the two odd pillars
forming apparently a screen at the end of the bridge
leading to the palace, whose axis was coincident
wifch fchat of the Stoa, which thus formed the
principal entrance from the city and palace to the
Temple. At a short disfcance from fche front of fchese
cloisfcers was a marble screen or inclosure, 3 cubits
in heighfc, beautifully ornamented with carving, but
bearing inscriptions in Greek and Roman characters
forbidding any Gentile fco pass wifchin ifcs bounda
ries. Again, at a short distance within this was a
flight of steps supporting the terrace or platform
on which fche Temple itself stood. According to
Josephus {B. J. v. 5, § 2) this terrace was 15
cubits or 22^ feet high, aud was approached firsfc
by fourteen steps, each we maj assume about one
foofc in heighfc, afc the top of which was a berm or
platform, 10 cubifcs wide, called fche Chel; and
there were again in fche depth of the gateways
five or six steps more leading fco fche inner court
of the Temple, thus making 20 or 21 sfceps in the
whole heighfc of 22| feet. To the eastward, where
the courfc of the women was situated, fchis arrange-
menfc was reversed; five steps led to the CheJ, and
fifteen from fchafc to the court of fche Temple.
The court of fche Temple, as mentioned above,
was very nearly a square. Ifc may have been ex
acfcly 80, for we have nofc all fche defcails to enable
us to feel quite certain about it. The Middoth
gays it was 187 cubifcs E. and W., and 137 N. and
S. (ii. 6). But on the two lasfc sides there were

a It does not appear difficult to account for this ex
traordinary excess. The Eabbis adopted the sacred
Dumber of Ezekiel of 600 for their external dimensions
of fche Temple, without caring much whether it meant
reeds or cubits, aud though the commentators say
that they only meant the smaller cubit of 15 inches,
ir 625 feet in all, this explanation will not hold good,
cs all their other measurements agree so closely with
those of Josephus that they evidently were using the
Kime cubit of 18 inches. The ihct seems to be, that
b&Tins erroneously adopted 500 cubits instead of 400

TEMPLE 3205
the gateways with their exhedrae and chambers.
which may have made up 25 cubits each way,
though, wifch such measurements as we have, it
appeal's they were something less.
To the eastward of this was tbe court of the
woraen, the dimensions of which are not given by
Josephus, but are in the Middoth, as 137 cubite
square — a dimension we may safely reject, first,
from the extreme improbability of the Jews allot
ting to the women a space more than ten times
greater than fchafc allofcted to the men of Israel or
to the Levites, whose courts, according to the same
authorifcy, were respecfcively 137 by 11 cubits; bufc,
more fchan fchis, from fche impossibilifcy of finding
room for such a courfc while adhering to the other
dimensions given.** If we assume that the inclosure
of the court of the Gentiles, or the Chel, was nearly
equidistant on aU four sides from the cloisters, ite
dimension must have been about 37 or 40 cubits
east and west, most probaldy the former.
The great ornament of these inner courts seema
fco have been fcheir gafcewa}s, fche three especially
on the north and south leading to the Temple
court. These, according to Josephus, were of great
height, strongly fortified and ornamented with greafc
elaboi*afcion. But fche wonder of all was the great
eastern gate leading from fche courfc of the women
to fche upper court. This seems to have been the
pride of the Temple area — covered with carving,
richly gilt, having apartments over it {Ant xv.
11, § 7), more like the Gopura ^ of an Indian tem
ple fchan anyfching else we are acquainfced wifch in
architecture. It was also in all probabihty the one
called fche "Beautiful Gate" in the Xew Testament.
Immediately within this gateway stood the altar
of burnt-offerings, according to Josephus {B. J, v.
5, § 6), 50 cubits square and 15 cubits high, with
an ascent to ifc by an inclined plane. The Talmud
reduces fchis dimension fco 32 cubits {Middoth, iii.
1), and adds a nuraber of parfciculars, which make
it appear fchat ifc must have been like a model of
the Babylonian or other Assyrian temples- On fche
norfch side were the rings and stakes to which the
victims were attached which were brought in fco be
sacrificed ; and to fche south an inclined plane led
down, as before mentioned, to the Water Gate —
so called because immediately in front of it was the
great cistern excavated in fche rock, firet explored
and described by Dr. Barclay ( City of the Great
King, p. 526), from which water was supplied fco
the Altar and the Temple. And a htfcle beyond
fchis, afc the S. W. angle of the Altar was an open
ing {Middoth, iii. 3), through which the blood of
the victims flowed '^ westward and soufchward to the
king's garden at Siloam.
Both the Altar and the Temple were inclosed by
a low parapet one cubifc in heighfc, placed so as fco
keep fche people separafce from fche nriesfcs while the
latter were performing their ftmctions.
Within this last inclosure towards fche wesfcward

for the external dimensions, they had 100 cubits tc
spare, and introduced them where no authority jx-
isted to show they were wrong.
& Handbook of Architecture, p. 93 ff.
c A channel exactly corresponding to that described
in the Talmud has been discovered by Signor Pierofcti,
running towards the southwest. In his published ac
counts he mistakes it for one flowing northeast, in
direct contradiction to fche Talmud, -vhich is our oalj
authorifcy ou the subject

3206

TEMPLE

stood the Temple itself. As before mentioned, its
internal dimensions were the same as those of the
Temple of Solomon, or of that seen by the prophet
in a, vision, namely, 20 cubits or 30 feefc, by 60
cubifcs or 90 feefc, divided infco a cubical Holy of
Hohes, and a holj place of 2 cubes ; aud fchere is
no reason whatever for doubting but that the Sanc
tuary always stood on the idenfcically same spofc in
which ifc had been placed by Solomon a thousand
years before ifc was rebuilfc by. Herod.
Although fche internal dimensions remained the
same, fchere seems no reason to doubt bufc thafc
the whole plan was augmented by the Pteromata
or surrounding parts being increased from 10 to
20 cubits, so that fche fchird Temple like the second,
measured 60 cubits across, and 100 cubits east and
west. The width of the facade was also augmented
by wings or shoulders {B. J. v. 5, § 4j projecfcing
20 cubits each way, making the whole breadth 100
cubits, or equal to the length. So far all seems
certain, bufc when we come to the height, every
measurement seems doubtful. Both Josephus and
the Talmud seem delighted wifch fche fcruly Jewish
idea of a building which, wifchoufc being a cube,
was 100 cubits long, 100 broad, and 100 high —
and everything seems to be made to bend fco fchis
simple ratio of proportion. It may also be partly
owing to the difficulty of ascertaining heights as
compared with horizontal dimensions, and the ten
dency that always exists fco exaggerate these latter,
that may have led to some confusion, but from
whatever cause ifc arose, ifc is almosfc impossible fco
beheve fchafc fche dimensions of fche Temple as re
gards' height, were whafc they were asserted fco be
by Josephus, and specified with such minute defcail
in the Middoth (iv. 6). This authorifcy makes the
height of the floor 6, of the hall 40 cubits; the
roofing 5 cubifcs in thickness; then the coeiiaculum
or upper room 40, and the roof, parapet, etc., 9 ! —
all the parts being named with the most detailed
particularity. As the adytum was cerfcainly nofc raore fchan 20
cubits high, the first 40 looks very like a dupUca-
tion, and so does the second; for a room 20 cubits
wide and 40 high is so absurd a proportion that it
is impossible to accept it. In fact, we cannot help
suspecting thafc in fchis insfcance Josephus was guilty
of systematicall}' doubhng the altitude of the build
ing he was describing, as ifc can be proved he did
in some other instances."
From the above ifc would appear, thafc in so far
as the horizontal dimensions of the various parts
of this celebrated building, or their arrangement in
plan is concerned, we can restore everj part with
very tolerable certainty; and there does not appear
either to be very much doubt as to their real height.
But when we turn from acfcual measnremenfc and
fcry fco realize ifcs appeai-ance or the details of its
architecture, we launch into a sea of conjecture
vrith very little indeed fco guide us, at least in re
gard to the appearance of the Temple itself.
We know, however, that the cloisters of the

n As it is not easy always to realize figured dimen
sions, it may assist thof^e who are not in the habit of
doing BO to state that the western fapade and nave of
Lincoln Cathedral are nearly the same as those of Her-
id's Temple. Thus, the fapade with its shoulders is
about 100 cubits wide. The nave ia 60 cubits wide
and 60 high, and if you divide the aisle into three
Btories you can have a correct idea of tbe cliambers ;
%nd if the nave with ita clerestory were divided by a

TEMPLE
outer court were of the Corinthian order, and ftutn
the appearance of neariy contemporary cloisteis at
Palmyra and Baalbec we can judge of tiieir isffecfc.
There are also in fche Haram area at Jerusalem a
number of pillars which once belonged fco thesfl
colonnades, and so soon as any one will take fcfas
fcrouble to measure and draw them, we may restore
the cloisfcers at all events with almosfc absolute cer
tainty. We may also realize very nearly the general ap
pearance of the inner fortified inclosure with its
gates and their accompaniments, and we can also
restore the Altar, bufc when we fcurn fco fche Temple
itself, all is guess work. Still the speculation is so
interesting, that it may not be out of place to say
a few words regarding it.
In the first place we are told {Ant. xv. 11, § 5)
that the priests built the Temple itself in eighteen
months, while ifc fcook Herod eight years fco com-
plefce his part, and as only priesfcs apparenfcly were
employed, we may fairly assume fchafc ifc was nofc a
rebuilding, but only a repair — it may be with
additions — which fchey underfcook. We know also
from Maccabees, and from the unwillingness of the
priests fco allow Herod to undertake fche rebuildmg
afc all, fchafc fche Temple, fchough afc one time dese
crated, was never destroyed ; so we may fairly as-
sunie fchat a great part of fche Temple of Zerubbabel
was sfciU sfcanding, and was incorporafced in fche
new. Whatever may have been the case with the
Temple of Solomon, it is nearly certain that the
style of the second Temple must have been iden
tical with that of the buildings we are so famihar
vrith at Persepolis and Susa. In fact the Wood
cut No. 6 correctly represents the second Temple
in so far as its details are concerned; for we must
not be led away with the modem idea that diflferent
people built in different styles, which they kept dis
tinct and practiced only within their own narrow
hmits. The Jews were fcoo closely connected with
the Persians and Babylonians at this period to
know of any other style, and in fact fcheir Temple
was builfc under fche superintendence of the very
parties who were erecting fche confcemporary edifices
afc Persepolis and Susa.
The question sfciU remains how much of fchis
buUding or of its defcails were retained, or how
much of Roman feeling added. We may afc once
dismiss fche idea thafc anything was borrowed from
Egypt. That country had no influence at this
period beyond the limits of her own narrow valley,
and we cannot trace one vestige of her taste or feel
ing in anything found in Syria afc or about this
epoch. Turning to fche building itself, we find fchafc fche
only things that were added at this period were the
wings to the fa9ade, and it may consequently be
surmised thafc the facade was entirely remodeled
at this time, especially as we find in the centre a
great arch, which was a very Roman feature, and
Tery unhke anything we know of as existing before.

floor, they wduld correctly represenfc the dimensious
of the Temple and its upper rooms. The nave, how
ever, to the transept, is considerably more than 100
cubits long, while the fapade is only between 50 and
60 cubits high. Those, therefore, who adhere to the
written text, must double its height in imagination to
realize its appearance, but my own conviction is thai
the Temple was not higher in reality than the fepwk
of the cathedral.

TEMPLE, CAPTAIN OF THE
Thig, Josephus says, was 25 cubifcs wide and 70
high, which is so monsfcrous in proporfcion, and,
being wider than the Temple itself, so unlikely, that
it may safely be rejected, and we may adopt in ifcs
sfcead the more moderafce dimensions of fche Middoth
(iii. 7), which makes ifc 20 cubifcs wide by 40 high,
which is nofc only more in accordance with fche
dimensions of fche building, bufc also wifch the pro
portions of Roman architecture. This arch occu
pied the cenfcre, and may easily be restored; bufc
what is fco be done with the 37 cubits on either
hand ? Were they plain like an unfinished Egyp
tian propylon, or covered with ornament Uke an
Indian Gopura ? My own impression is thafc fche
facade on eifcher hand was covered wifch a series of
small arches and panels four sfcories in heighfc, and
more like the Tak Kesra at Ctesiphon « than any
other building now existing. It is true that nearly
five centuries elapsed between fche desfcrucfcion of fche
one building and the erection of the other. But
Herod's Temple was not fche lasfc of its race, nor
was Nushirvan's the firsfc of ifcs class, and its pointed
arches and clumsy details show just such a degra
dation of style as we should expect from the in
terval which had elapsed between them. We know
so Utfcle of fche archifcecfcure of fchis part of Asia fchafc
ifc is impossible to speak with certainty on such a
subject, but we may yefc recover many of fche losfc
links which connect the one with the other, and so
restore the earlier examples with at least proximafce
cerfcainfcy. Whafcever tiie exacfc appearance of ifcs defcails raay
have been, ifc may safely be asserted that the triple
Temple of Jerusalem — the lower courfc, standing
on ifcs magnificenfc terraces — the inner court, raised
on its platform in the centre of this — and the
Temple itself, rising out of this group and crown
ing the whole — must have formed, when combined
with the beauty of its situation, one of the most
splendid architectural combinations of the ancient
world. J. F..
* On this subject one may also consult the Ap
pendix to Dr. James Strong's New Harmony and
Eaqyos. of the Gospels (N. Y. 1852), pp. 24-37;
T. 0. Paine, Salomonis Temple, etc., Boston, 1861
(21 plates); Merz's art. Tempel zu Jerusalem, in
Herzog's Real-EncykL xv. 500-516 ; and the hfcer-
ature referred fco under Ezekiel, vol. i. p. 801 b.
A.
* TEMPLE, CAPTAIN OF THE. [Cap
tain.] * TEMPT (Lafc. temptare, tentare) is very
often used in the A. V. in the sense of "to try,"
"put to the test." Thus God is said to have
" tempted " Abraham when he tried his faith by
commanding the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen. xxii. 1).
The IsraeUtes "tempted God" in the wilderness
when they pufc his patience and forbearance to the
proof by murmuring, distrust, and disobedience
(Exod. xvii. 2, 7; Num. xiv. 22; Deufc. vi. 16;
Ps. Ixxviii. 18, 41, 56, xcv. 9, evi. 14). The lawyer
is said fco have " fcempted " Chrisfc when he asked

o Handbook of Architecture, p. 376.
& Ewald is disposed to think that even in the form
in which we have the Commandmenfcs there are some
additions made at a later period, and that the second
ind the fourth commaudmeots were' originally as
briefly imperative as the sixth or seventh {Gesch. Isr.
U. 206). The difference between the reason given in
Cx. XX. 11 for fche fourth commandment, and that
itated to have been given in Deut. v. 15, makes.

TEN COMMANDMENTS 3207
him a question to see how he would answer it
(Matt. xxu. 35; Luke x. 25). So the word is
used in reference to the ensnaring questions of the
Pharisees (Matt. xvi. 1, xix. 3; Jlark xii. 15; Luke
XX. 23). [Te:\iptation.] A.
* TEMPTATION is often used in the A. V.
in its original sense of "trial" (e. g. Luke xxii.
28; Acts XX. 19; Jaraes i. 2, 12; 1 Pet. i. 6;
Rev. iii. 10). The plagues of Egypt are caUed
" tempfcafcions " (Deut. iv. 34, vii. 19, xxix. 3), be
cause they tested the extent to which Pharaoh
would carry his obstinacy. [Tempt.] A.
TEN COMMANDMENTS. (1.) The pop
ular name in thia, as in so many instances, is not
fchat of Scripture. There we have the '* ten words "
(D'^^ri'^n ri^i?75; t^ SeVa ^^ra: verba
decern), not the Ten Commandments (Ex. xxxiv.
28; Deut. iv. 13, i. 4, Heb.). The difference is
not altogefcher an unmeaning one. The word of
God, fche "word of fche Lord," fche constantiy re
curring terra for the fullest revelation, was higher
than any phrase expressing raerely a command, and
carried with it more the idea of a self-fulfilHng
power. If on the one side fchere was fche special
confcrast to which our Lord refers between fche com-
niandmenfcs of God and the traditions of men
(Matt. XV. 3), the arrogance of the Rabbis showed
itself, on the other, in placing the woi'ds of the
Scribes on tbe sarae level as the words of God.
[Comp. Sckibes.] Nowhere in the later books
of the 0. T. is any direct reference made to fcheir
number. The treatise of Philo, however, trepl rwv
deKa Koyicov, shows that ifc had fixed ifcself on the
Jewish mind, and later still, it gave occasion to the
formation of a new word ("The Decalogue" tj
BeKd\oyos, first in Clem. Al. Peed., iii. 12), which
has perpefcuafced ifcself in modern languages. Ofcher
names are even more significanfc. These, and these
alone, are "the words of the covenant," the un-
changhig ground of the union befcween Jehovah and
his people, aU else being as a superstructure, acces
sory and subordinate (Ex. xxxiv. 28;. They are
also the Tables of Testimony, sometimes simply
" the fcesfcimony," fche wifcness to men of the Divine
will, righteous itself, demanding righteousness in
man (Ex. xxv. 16, xxxi. 18, »fec.). It is by virtue
of fcheir presence in ifc fchafc fche Ark becomes, in its
fcurn, fche Ark of the Covenant (Num. x. 33, &c.),
thafc fche sacred tent became the Tabemacle of
Wifcness, of Tesfcimony (Ex. xxxviii. 21, &c.).
[Tabernacle.] They remain there, throughoid
fche glory of the kingdom, the primeval reUcs of a
hoar antiquity (1 K. viii. 9), their material, the
wrifcing on fchem, the sharp incisive character of the
laws themselves presenting a striking confcrasfc fco
fche more expanded fceaching of a later time. Not
less did the commandments themselves speak of
the earlier age when not the silver and the gold,
bufc the OS and the ass were the great representa
tives of wealth* (comp. 1 Sara. xii. 3).
(2.) The circurastances in which fche Ten gn-at

perhaps, such a conjecture possible. Scholia which
modern annotators put into the margin are iu the
existing state of the 0. T. incorporated into the text.
Obviously both forms could not have appeared written
on the two Tables of Stone, yet Deut. v. 15, 22 not
only states a different reason, but affirms that " all
these words" were thus written. Keil {Comm. on
Ex. xx.) seems on this poitt disposed to agree witb
Ewald.

o20S TEN COMMANDMENTS
Words were first given to the people surrounded
them >vifch an awe which attached to no other pre
cept. In the midst of the cloud, and fche darkness,
and the flashing lightning, and the fiery smoke,
and the thunder, like the voice of a trumpet, Moses
was called to receive the Law without which the
people would cease to be a holy nation. Here, as
elsewhere, Scripture unites two facts which raen
separate. God, and not raan, was speaking to the
Israelites in those terrors, and yet in the language
of later inspired teachers, other instrumentality was
not excluded." The law was " ordained by angels "
(Gal. in. 19), " spoken by angels " (Heb. ii. 2), re
ceived as the ordinance of angels (Acts vii. 53).
The agency of those whom the thoughts of the
Psalmist connected with the winds and fche flaming
fire (Ps. civ. 4; Heb. i. 7) was present also on
Sinai. And the part of Moses himself was, as the
language of St. Paul (Gal. iii. 19) affirms, fchafc of
" a mediator." He stood '• between " the people
and the Lord, " to show thera the word of the
Lord " (Deufc. v. 5), while they stood afar off', to
give form and distinctness to what would else have
been fcerribleand overwhelming. The '¦'¦ voice oi
fcae Lord " which they heard in the thunderings
and the sound of the trumpet, "fuU of majesty,"
*' dividing the flames of fire " (Ps. xxix. 3-9), was
for him a Divine rixyrd, the testimony of an Eternal
will, jusfc as in fche parallel instance of John xii. 29,
a Uke testimony led some to say, " it thundered,"
while others received the witness. No other words
were proclaimed in Hke raanner. The people shrank
even frora this nearness to the awful presence, even
from the very echoes of the Divine voice. And the
record was as exceptional as the original revelation.
Of no other words could it be said that they were
written as these V\'eve written, engraved on the
Tables of Stone, not as originating in man's con-
fcrivance or sagacity, ,but by fche power of the Eternal
Spirit, by fche " finger of God " (Ex. xxxi. 18, xxxii.
16; comp. nofce on Tabehnacle).
(3.) The numl)er Ten was, we can hai'dly doubt,
itself significant to Moses and the Israehtes. The
received symbol, then and at all times, of complefce-
ness (Biihr, Symbolik, i. 176-183), ifc taught the
people fchafc fche Law of Jehovah was perfecfc (Ps.
xix. 7). 'The fact that they were wrifcfcen nofc on
one, bufc on fcwo tables, probably in two groups of
five each {infra), taught men (though with some
variations, from the classification of later ethics) fche
greafc division of duties toward God, and duties
toward our neighbor, which we recognize as the
groundwork of every true moral systera. It taught
them also, five being fche symbol of imperfecfcion
(Bahr, i. 183-187), how incomplete each set of
duties would be when divorced frora ifcs companion.
The recuiTence of these numbers in the Pentateuch
is at once frequent and striking. Ewald ( Gesch. Isr,
ii. 212-217) has shown by a large hiduction how
continually laws and precepts meet us in groups
of five or ten. The numbers, it will be remem
bered, raeet us again as the basis of all the propor
tions of the Tabernacle. [Temple.] It would
show an ignorance of aU modes of Hebrew thoughfc

TEN COMMANDMENTS
to exclude this symboUc aspect. We need n.t,
however, shut out alfcogether that which some
writers (e. g. Grotius, De Decal, p. 36) have sub
stituted for it, the connection of the Ten Words
with a decimal system of numeration, wifch fche ten
fingers on which ^i. raan counts. Words which
were to be the rule of life for fche poor as well as the
learned, the groundwork of education for all chil-
dren, mighfc well be connecfced wifch the simplest
facts and processes in man's mental growth, and
thus stamped more indelibly on the memory.^
(4.) In what way the Ten Commandments were
to be divided has, however, been a matter of much
controversy. At leasfc four distinct arrangements
present themselves.
{a,) In the received teaching of fche Lafcin Church.
resting on thafc of Sfc. Augustine ( Qu. in E^. 71,
Ep. adJanuar, c. xi., De Decal. etc., etc.), the first
Table confcained three commandments, the second
the other seven. Partly on mystical grounds, be
cause the Tables thus symbolized the Trinity of
Divine Persons, and the Eternal Sabbath, partiy as
seeing iu ifc a true ethical division, he adopted this
classification. It involved, however, and in part pro
ceeded from an alteration in the received arrange
ment. What we know as the first and second were
united, and consequenfcly the Sabbath law appeared
at the close of the I'irst Table as the third, not aa
the fourth commandment. The completeness of
the number was restored in the Second Table by
making a separate (the ninth) command of fche
precept, "Thou shalfc nofc covet thy neighbor's
wife," which with us fornis part of the tenth. It
is an almost fatal objection to this order that in fche
First Table it confounds, where it ought to distin
guish, the two sins of polytheism and idolatry; and
that in the Second it introduces an arbifcrai'y and
meaningless disfcincfcion. The lafcer fcheology of fche
Church of Rorae apparenfcly adopted it as seeming
to prohibit image-worship only so far as ifc accom
panied the acknowledgraent of another God ( Catech.
Trident iii. 2, 20).
{b.) The famiUar division, referring fche first four
to our duty toward God, and the six remaining to
our duty toward raan, is, on ethical grounds, simple
and natural enough. If it is not altogether satisfy
ing, ifc is because ifc fails fco recognize the symmetry
which gives to the number five so great a promi
nence, and, perhaps also, because it looks on the duty
of the fifth commandment from the pomt of view
of moderu ethics rather than from thafc of fche an
cient IsraeUtes, and the first disciples of Christ
{infra). (c.) A modification of {a) has been adopted hy
later Jewish writers (Jonathan ben Uzziei, Aben
Ezra, Moses ben Nachman, in Suicer, Thes, s. v.
heKd\oyos). Retaining the combination of the
first and second commandments of the common
order, fchey have made a new " word " of fche open
ing declaration, " I am the Lord thy God which
brought fchee out of the land of Egypt, out of the
house of bondage," and so have avoided the neces
sity of the subdivision of the tenth. The objection
to this division is, (1) fchat it rests on no adequate

a liuxtorf, it is true, asserts that Jewish interpreters,
with hardly an exception, maintain that " Deum verba
Decalogl per se immediate locufcum esse " (Diss, de
Decal.). The language of Josephus, however {Ant. xv.
5, § 3), not less than tbat of the N. T., shows that at
one time the traditions of the Jewish schools pointf 1
to tbe opposite conclusion

& BJihr, absorbed iu symbolism, has nothing for this
natural suggestion but two notes of admiration (! I).
The analogy of Ten Great Commandmente in the moral
law of Buddhism might have shown him how naturally
men crave for a number that thus helps them. A trup
system was as little likely to ignore the natural craving
as a false. (Comp note iu Ewald, Gesch. Isr. ii. 207','

TEN COMMANDMENTS
aufchorifcy, and (2) that it turns into a single precept
what is evidently given as the groundwork of the
whole body of laws.
{d.) Rejecting these three, there remains that
recognized Ity the older Jewish writera, Josephus
(ni. 6, § 6) and Philo (De DecaL i.), and sup
ported ably and thoughtfully by Ewald {Gesch. Isr.
ii. 208], which places five commandments in each
Table; and thus preserves the pentad and decad
grouping which pervades the whole- code. A
modern jurist would perhaps object that this places
the fifth comraanduieiit iu a wrong position, that a
duty to parents is a duty toward our neighbor.
From the Jewish point of view, ifc is believed, fche
place thus giveii to that commandment was essen-
fcially the right one. Instead of dufcies toward God,
and dufcies toward our neighbors, we must think of
fche Firsfc Table as containing all fchafc belonged fco
fche EuffcjSeio of fche Greeks, fco fche Pietas of fche
Romans, dufcies i. e. with no corresponding rights,
while the second deals wifch duties which involve
rights, and come therefore under the head of JutS-
titia. The duty of honoring, i. e. supporting, par-
enfcs came under fche former head. As soon as fche
son was capable of ifc, and fche parents required it,
it was an absolute, unconditional duty. His right
to any maintenance from fchem had ceased. He
owed them reverence, as he owed ifc to his Father in
heaven (Heb. xii. 9). He was to show piety (eiitre-
$e7v] to them (1 Tim. v. 4). What made the
'' Corban " casuistry of the scribes so specially evil
was, fchafc ifc was, in fchis way, a sin againsfc fche piefcy
of the Firsfc Table, nofc merely againsfc fche lower
obligations of the second (Mark vii. 11; comp.
Piety). Ifc afc leasfc harmonizes with this division
thafc the second, third, fourth, and fiffch command
ments, all sfcand on fche same foofcing as having spe
cial sanctions attaching to them, while fche ofchers
fchat follow are left in their simplicity by themselves,
as fchough the reciprocity of righfcs were in itself a
sufficient ground for obedience."
(5.) To these Ten Commandments we find in
the Samaritan Pentateuch an eleventh added: —
*' Bufc when fche I^rd thy God shall have brought
thee into the land of Canaan, whither thou goesfc to
possess it, fchou shalfc sefc thee up two great stones,
and shalfc plaister ^lem wifch plaisfcer, and shalfc
write upon these stones all the words of this Law.
Moreover, after fchou shalfc have passed over Jordan,
fchou shalt sefc up fchose stones which I command
thee this day, on Mount Gerizim, and fchou shalfc
build fchere an alfcar to the Lord thy God, an altar
of stones: fchou shalfc nofc lift up any iron fchereon.
Of unhewn stones shalt thou build that altar to the
Lord thy God, and thou shalt offer on ifc burnfc-
offerings fco the Lord thy God, and fchou shalt sacri
fice peace-offerings, and shalfc eafc them tiiere, and
thou shalt rejoice before the Lord thy God in that
mountain beyond Jordan, by the way where the
sun goeth down, in the land of the Canaanite fchafc
dwellefch in the plain country over against Gilgal,
by the oak of Moreh, towards Sichem " (Walton,
BibL Polyglott). In the absence of any direct
evidence we can only guess as to the hisfcory of this
remarkable addition. (1.) Ifc will be seen that the
whole passage is made up of two which are found
m the Hebrew text of Deufc. xxvii. 2-7, and xi. 30,
wifch fche substitution, in fche former, of Gerizim for

a A further confirmation of the truth of this division
ts found in Rom. xiii. 9. St. Paul, summing up the
duties " brieflv comprehended " in the one great Law,
202

TEN COMMANDMENTS. 3209
Ebal. (2.) In the absence of confirmation from any
other version, Ebal must, as far as textual criticism
is concerned, be looked upon as the true reading,
Gerizim as a falsification, casual or deliberate, of
the text. (3.) Probably the choice of Gerizim as
the site of the Samaritan temple was determined by
the fact fchat it had been the Mount of Blessings,
Ebal thafc of Curses. Possibly, as Walton suggests
{Prolegom. c. xi.), the diiUculfcy of understanding
how the latter should have been chosen instead of
the former, as a place for sacrifice and offering, may
have led thera to look on fche reading Ebal as er
roneous. They were unwilling to expose themselves
to the taunts of their Judaean eneraies by building
a temple on the HiU of Curses. They would claim
the inheritance of fche blessings. They would set
the authority of fcheir fcexfc againsfc that of the
scribes of the Great Synagogue. One was as Ukely
to be accepted as the other. The " Hebrew verity "
was nofc fchen acknowledged as it has been since.
(4.) In other repetitions or transfers in the Samar
itan Pentateuch we may perhaps admit the plea
which Walton makes in its behalf {I, c), that in
fche firsfc formation of the Pentateuch as a Codex,
the transcribers had a large number of separate
documents to copy, and that consequently much
was left to the discretion of fche individual scribe.
Here, however, fchafc excuse is hardly admissible.
The interpolation has every mark of being a buld
attempt to claim for the schismatic worship on Ger
izim the solemn sanction of fche voice on Sinai, to
place it on the same footing as the Ten great
Words of God. The guilfc of the interpolation be
longed of course only to fche firsfc conti-ivers of ifc.
The later Samaritans might' easily come to look on
their text as the fcrue one, on fchafc of the Jews as
corrupted by a fraudulent omission. It is to the
credit of fche Jewish scribes thafc they were not
tempted to retaUate, and that their reverence for
the sacred records prevented thera' from suppressing
the history which connected the rival sanctuary
with the blessings of Gerizim.
(6.) The treatment of the Ten Commandments
in the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziei is not with
out interest. There, as noticed above, the first and
second commandments are united, to make up the
second, and the words " I am the I^ord thy God,"
etc., are given as the first. More remarkable is the
addition of a distinct reason for the last five com
mandments no less than fbr the first five: '•'• Thou
shalfc corarait no murder, for because of the sins of
murderers the sword goeth forth upon the world."
So in like manner, and with the same formula,
" death goeth forth upon fche world " as the punish
ment of adultery, famine as that of theft, drought
as that of false witness, invasion, plunder, captivity
as that of covefcousness (Walton, BibL Polyglott),
(7.) The absence of any distinct reference to the
Ten Commandments as such in the Pirke Aboth
(== Maxims of the Fathers) is both strange and
significanfc. One chapter (ch. v.) is expressly given
to an enumeration of all the Scriptural facts which
may be grouped in decades, the t.ea words of Cre
ation, the ten generations from Adam to Noah, and
from Noah to Abraham, fche fcen trials of Abrahara,
fche ten plagues of Egypt, and the like, but the ten
Divine words find no place in the list. With all
fcheir ostentation of profound reverence for the Law,
" Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," enumeratea
the last five commandments, but maJces no mention ot
the fifth.'

nSlO TENDER
the teaching of the Rahhis tumed on other points
than the great laws of duty. In this way, as in
others, they made void the commandments of God
that they might keep their own traditions. — Com
pare Stanley, Jefunsh Church, Leet. vil., in illustration
of many of the points here noticed. K. H. P.
* TENDER, as a verb, is used in 2 Mace. iv. 2
(A. V.) in the sense of " to care for." For similar
examples, see Richardson's Dictionary. A.
TENT." Among the leading characteristics of
the nomad races, those two have always been num
bered, whose origin has heen ascribed to Jabal the
son of Lamech (Gen. iv. 20), namely, to be fent-
dwellers and keepers of cattle. The same may be
said of the forefathers of the Hebrew race ; nor was .
it until the return into Canaan from Kgypt that
the Hebrews became inhabitants of cities, and it
may be remarked that fhe tradition of tent-usage
survived for many years later in the Tabemacle of

TENT -
Shiloh, which consisted, as many Arab tents still
consist, of a walled inclosure covered with curtains
(Mishna, Zebacliim, xiv. 6; Stanley, S. if P. p.
233). Among tent-dwellers of the present day
must be reckoned (1) the great Mongol and Tar-
far hordes of central Asia, whose tentrdwellings are
sometimes of gigantic dimensions, and who exhibit
more contrivance both in the dwellings themselves
and in their method of transporthig them irom
place to place than is the case with the Arab races
(Marco Polo, Trav. pp." 128, 135, 211, ed. Bohn;
Hor. 3 Od. xxiv. 10 ; Gibbon, c. xxvi., vol. iii. 298,
ed. Smith). (2.) The Bedouin Arab tribes, who
inhabit tents which are probably constructed on the
same plan as those which were the dwelling-pkccs
of -Abraham and of Jacob (Heb. xi. 9). A tent or
pavilion on a magnificent scale, constructed for
Ptolemy Philadelphus at Alexandria, is described
by Athenseus, v. 196, foil.
An Arab tent is minutely described by Burck-

Arab Tent (Layard).

bardt. It is called beit, "house;" its covering
consists of stuff, about three quarters of a yard
1 road, made of black goats'-hair (Cant. i. 5 ; Shaw,
Trav. p. 220), laid parallel with the tenfs length.
This is sufiBcient to resist the heaviest rain. The
tent-poles, called amujd, or columns, are usually
nine in number, placed in three groups, but many
tents have only one pole, others two or three. The
ropes which hold the tent in its place are fastened,
not to the tent-cover itself, but to loops consisting
of a leathern thong tied to the ends of a stick,
round which is twisted a piece of old cloth, which
is itself sewed to the tent-cover. The ends of the
tent-ropes are fastened to short sticks or pins, called
wed or aoutad, which are driven into the ground

^ 1. 7rTN; oTkosjO- TjvTJ : tabernaculum, tenUirium :
often in A. T. " tabemacle."
2. |3tt?^ : (TK-rjrij : tentorium: opposed to ^^2
** house." '
8. nSp (succah), only once "tent" (2 Sam. xi.

with a mallet (Judg. iv. 21). [Pin.] Round the
back and sides of the tents rans a piece of stuff re
movable at pleasure to admit air. The tent is di
vided into two apartments, separated by a carpet
partition drawn across the middle of the tent and
fastened to the three middle posts. The men's
apartment is usually on the right side on entering,
and the women's on the left; but this usage varies
in different tribes, and in the Mesopotamian tribes
the contrary is the mle. Of the three side posts
on the men's side, the first and third are called yed
(hand); and the oue in the middle is rather higher
than the other two. Hooks are attached to these
posts for hanghig various articles (Gen. xviii. 10;
Jud. xiii. 6; Niebuhr, Voy. i. 187; Layard, A^m.
aiid Bab. p. 261). [Pillar.] Few Arabs have
more than one tent, unless the family be augmented

4. nS|7 : Kanivos : lupanar : Ara'- ILo *
whence, with art. prefixed, comes alcoba (Span.) 'and
"alcove" (Russell, Aleppo, i. 80): only once used
(Num. xxv. 81

TENT
hy the families of a son or a deceased brother, or
in case the wives disagree, when the master pitches
I tent for one of them adjoining his own. The
separate tents of Sarah, Leah, Rachel, Zilpah, and
Bilhah, may thus have been either separate tents
or apartments in the principal tent in each case
(Geu. xxiv. 67, xxxi. 33). When the pasture near
an encampment is exhausted, the tents are taken
down, packed on camels and removed (Is. xxxviii.
12; Gen. xxvi. 17, 22, 25). The beauty of an
Arab encampment is noticed by Shaw (Trav. p.
221; see Num. xxiv. 5). Those who cannot afford
more complete tents, are content to hang a cloth
from a tree by way of shelter. In choosing places
for encampment, Arabs prefer the neighborhood of
trees, for the sake of the shade and coolness which
they afford (Gen. xviii. 4, 8; Niebuhr, /. c). In
observing the directions of the Law respecting the
feast of Tabernacles, the Kabbinical writers laid
down as a distinction between the ordinary tent
and the booth, succah, that the latter must in no
case be covered by a cloth, but be restricted to
boughs of trees as its shelter (Succah, i. 3). In
hot weather the Arabs of Mesopotamia often strike
their tents and betake themselves to sheds of reeds
and grass on the bank of the river (Layard, Nine
veh, i. 123; Burckhardt, Notes on Bed. i. 37, 46;
Volney, Trav. i. 398; Layard, Nin, and Bab. pp.
171, 175; Niebuhr, Voy. i. I. c). H. W. P.
* As we might expect, the use of tents by the
Hebrews, and their familiarity with nomadic life,
became a fruitful source of illustration to the sacred
writers. The pitching of the tent at night, the
stretching out of the goat-skin roof, the driving of
the pins or stakes, and fastening the cords, furnish
the imagery of numerous passages. Isaiah, refer
ring to God aa the Creator, says : "He stretcheth
out the heavens as a curtain, and s|ireadeth them
out as " tent to dwell in" (Is. xl. 22). The
prophet, as he looks forward to a happier day for
the people of God, says ; " Thine e3'es shall see Je
msalem a quiet habitation, a tabernacle that shall
not be taken down ; not one of the stakes thereof
shall ever be removed, neither shall any of the
cords thereof be broken" (Is. xxxiii. 20). Again,
in anticipation of accessions to their number, he
exclaims : " Enlarge the place of thy tent, and
stretch forth the curtains of thy habitations ; spare
not, lengthen thy cords and strengthen thy stakes;
for thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on
the left" (Is. hv. 2). The taking down as well as
putting up of the tent suggested instructive analo
gies to the Hebrew pilgrim. The traveller in the
East erects his temporary abode for the night, takes
it down in the morning, and journeys onward. The
shepherds of the country are constantly moving
from one place to another. Tbe brook faUs on
which they had relied for water, or the grass re
quired for the support of their flocks' is consumed,
and they wander to a new station. " There is
something very melancholy," writes Lord Lindsay,
"in our morning flittings. The tent^pins are
plucked np, and in a few minutes a dozen holes, a
heap or two of ashes, and the marks of the camels'
knees in the sand, soon to be obliterated, are the
only traces left of what has been, for a while, our
home" (Letters from ihe Holy Land., p. 165).
Hence, this rapid change of situation, this removal
from one spot to another, without behig able to
foresee to-day where the wanderer will rest to-mor
row, affords a striking image of man's Ufe — so
¦»rief, fleeting, uncertain. Thus Hezekiah felt in

TERAH

3211

the near prospect of death: "Mhie age is departed,
and is removed from me as a shepherd's tent" (Is.
xxxviii. 12). Jacob calls his life a pilgrimage
(Gen. xlvii. 9), with reference to the sarae expres
sive idea. The body, as the temporary home of
the soul, is called a "tent "or "tabemacle," be
cause it is so frail and perishable. Thus Paul says,
in 2 Cor. v. 1: "For we know that if our earthly
house of this tabernacle {olKia rov aK-{]Vovs, ient-
house.) yfere dissolved" ("taken dowu" is more
correct), "we have a buUding of God, an house not
made with hands, eternal in the heavens." The
Apostle Peter employs the sarae figure: "Yea, I
think it meet, as long as I ara in this tabernacle
{a-K^vatpa), to stir you up, by putting you iu re
membrance; knowing that shortly I must pufc of!
this my fcabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ
hath showed rae " (2 Pet. i. 13).
The A. V. obscures raany of the references to the
tent-Ufe of the patriarchs. Thus in Gen. xii. 9,
where it is said, " Abraham journeyed, going on
stiU," a stricter translation would be, " He puUed
up," namely, his tent-pins, "going and pulling
up," as he advanced from one station to another.
So, in Gen. xxxiii. 12, insfcead of " Let us take our
journey and go," it is hteraUy, " Let us pull up
the pins of our tents and let us go." See, also.
Gen. xxxv. 21, xlvi. 1; Ex. xiii. 20. Eor the " tents
of Kedar," see Kedar. H.
* TENT-MAKERS {aKrivoTroiol). Accord
ing to the custom of his age and nation, that every
male child should be taught sorae trade, the Apos
tle Paul had learned thatof a tent-maker (Acts xviii.
3). It was not the weaving of the fabric of goats'-
hair, which, for the most part, was probably done
by women in his native Cilicia, bufc fche construc
tion of the tents themselves from the cloth. Yet
we need not suppose that Paul confined himself to
the use of this particular fabric ; for, in that case,
he would not have found ready occupation in all
places (see Hemsen's Der Apostel Paulus, p. 5 f.).
[Paul.] This was the occupation also of AquUa,
with whom Paul worked at Corinth, as a means ol
support (Acts xvni. 3). R. D. C. R.
TE'RAH {n~I^ : @d^^a, ®dpa in Josh. ;
Alex. @apa, exc. Gen. xi. 28 : Thare). The father
of Abrara, Nahor, and Haran, and through them
the ancestor of the great families of the IsraeUtes,
Ishmaelites, Midianites, Moabites, and Ammonites
(Gen. xi. 24:-32). The account given of him in
the 0. T. narrative is very brief. We leam from
it simply that he was an idolater (Josh. xxiv. 2),
that he dwelfc beyond fche Euphrates in Ur of the
Chaldees (Gen. xi. 28), and that in fche southwest^
erly migration, which from some unexplained cause
he underfcook in his old age, he went with his son
Abram, his daughter-in-law Sarai, and his grand
son IjOt, " to go into the land of Canaan, and they
came unto Haran, and dwelt there " (Gen. xi. 31).
And fioaUy, " the days of Terah were two hundred
and five years: and Terah died in Haran" (Gen.
xi. 32). In connectiou with this last-mentioned
event a chronological difficulty has arisen which
may be noticed here. In the speech of Stephen
(Acts vu. 4) it is said that the further migration
of Abram from Haran to the land of Canaan did
not take place tiU after his father's death. Now a^
Terah was 205 years « old when he died, and Abram

a The Sam. text and version make bun 115, and sc
avoid this difficulty.

3212

TERAH

iras 75 when he left Haran (Gen. xii. 4\ it foUows
ihat, if the speech of Stephen be correct, at Abram's
birth Terah must have been 130 years old; and
therefore thafc fche order of his sons — Abram, Na
hor, Haran — given in Gen. xi. 26, 27, is nofc their
order in point of age. [See Lot, ii. 1G85, note a.]
Lord Arthur Hervey says {Geneal. pp. 82, 83),
" The difificulty is easily got over by supposing that
Abram, fchough named firsfc on accounfc of his dig-
nifcy, was nofc the eldest son, but probably the
youngest of the three, born when his father was 130
years old — a supposition with which the raarriage
of Nahor with his elder brother Haran*s daughter,
Milcah, and the apparent nearness of age between
Abram and Lot, and the three generations from
Nahor to Kebecca corresponding to only two fi'om
Abraham fco Isaac, are in perfecfc harmony." From
the simple facfcs of Terah's life recorded in fche 0.
T. has been construcfced the entire legend of Abram
which is current in Jewish and Arabian traditions.
Terah the idolater is turned into a maker of images,
and "Ur of the Chaldees " is the original of the
" furnace " into which Abram was cast (comp. lilz.
V. 2). Kashi's note on Gen. xi. 28 is as follows :
" ' In the presence of Terah his father; ' in the life
time of his father. And the Midrash Hagada says
that he died beside his father, for Terah had com
plained of Abram his son, before Nimrod, that he
had broken his images, and he cast him into a fur
nace of fire. And Haran was sitting and sayhig
in his heart, If Abrara overcome I am on his side,
and if Nimrod overcome I am on his side. Ajid
when Abrara was saved they said to Haran, On
whose side art thou ? He said to thera, I am on
Abram's side- So they cast him into the furnace
of fire and he was burned ; and this is [what is
meant by] Ur Casdim (Ur ofthe Chaldees)." In
Bereshiih Rabba (Par. 17) the story is told of
Abram being left to seU idols in his father's stead,
which is repeated in Weil's Biblical Legends, p.
49. The whole legend depends upon the ambigu
ity of the word *T^27, which signifies " to make "
and "to serve or worship," so that Terah, who in
the Biblical narrative is only a worshipper of idols,
is in the Jewish tradition an image-maker; and
about this single point the whole story has grown.
It certainly was unknown to Josephus, who tells
nothing of Terah, except that it was grief for the
death of his son Haran that induced him to quit
Ur of the Chaldees {Ant i. 6, § 6).
In the Jewish traditions Terah is a prince and a
great man in the palace of Nimrod (JeUinek, Bet
ham-Midrash, p. 27), the captain of his army {Se-
pher Hayyashar), his son-in-law according to the
Arabs (Beer, Leben Al>rahams, p. 97). His wife
is caUed iu the Talmud {Baba Bathra, foi. 91 a)
Amtelai, or Emtelai, fche daughfcer of Carnebo. In
fche book of fche Jubilees she is called Edna, fche
daughter of Arem, or Aram ; and by the Arabs
Adca (D'Herbelot, arfc. Abraham; Beer, p. 97).
According fco D'Herbelofc, fche name of Abraham's
father was Azar in the Arabic traditions, and Te
rah was his grandfather. Elmakin, quoted by
Hottinger {Smegma Onentale, p. 281), says that,
after the death of Y''una, Abraham's mother, Terah
took another wife, who bare him Sarah. He adds
fchat in fche days of Terah fche king of Babylon made
war upon the country in which he dwelt, and that
Hazrun, the brother of Terah, went out against
him and slew him; and the kingdom of Babylon
vas transferred to Nineveh and Mosul. For aU

TERTIUS
these traditions, see the book of .lashar, and the
works of Hottinger, D'Herbelot, Weil, and Beei
above quoted. Philo {De Somniis) indulges in
some strange speculations vrith regard to Terah's
name and his raigration. W. A. W.
TER'APHIM (n'^?'^^ : eepa^iv, rh Bepa-
^eivi ra Bepa^iv, Kevordtpia, rf5wAo» yXv-nrd,
Si}\oi, aTro(l>6eyy6fj,evoi: theraphini, stntwi, idoln,
simulacra, figurce idolorum, idololatria), only in
plural, images connected with magical rites. The
sutyect of teraphim has been fully discussed in art.
Magic (iii. 1743 fi*.), and it is therefore unneces
sary here to do more fchan repeafc fche results fchere
stated. The derivation of the name is obscure. In
one case a single statue seems t.o he intended by the
plural (1 Sam. xix. 13, 16). The teraphim carried
away fi-om Laban by Rachel do not seem to have
been very smaU ; and the image • (if one be in
tended), hidden in David's bed by Michal to deceive
Saul's messengers, was probably of the size of a
man, and perhaps in fche head and shoulders, if nofc
lower, of human or like furm; bufc David's sleep
ing-room may have been a mere cell witboufc a win
dow, opening from a large apartmenfc, which would
render ifc necessary fco do no more than fiU fche bed.
Laban regarded his fceraphim as gods; and, as he
was nofc ignoranfc of fche true God, it would there
fore appear that they were used by those who added
corrupt practices to the patriarchal reUgion. Ter
aphim again are included among Micah's images,
which were idolatrous objects connected with heret
ical corruptions rather than with heathen worship
(Judg. xvii. 3-5, xviii. 17, 18, 20). Teraphiui
were consulted for oracular answers by the Israel
ite (Zech. X. 2; comp. Judg. xviii. 5, 6; 1 Sam.
XV. 22, 23, xix. 13, 16, LXX.; and 2 K. xxiii.
24), and by the Babylonians, in the case of Nebu
chadnezzar (Ez. xxi. 19-22). There is no evidence
that they were ever worshipped. Though not fi^-
quently mentioned, we find fchey were used by fche
Israelifces in fche fcime of the Judges and of Saul,
and until the reign of Josiah, who put them away
(2 K. xxiii. 24), and apparently again after the
Captivity (Zech. x. 2). R S. P.
TE'RESH (ttJ'nri [Pers. severe, austere,
Ges.] : om. in Vat. and Alex. ; FA. third hand has
@dpa^, ®dp^as'- Thares). One of fche fcwo eu-
imchs who kepfc fche door of fche palace of Ahasue
rus, and whose plot to assassinate the king was dis
covered by Mordecai (F^th. iL 21, vi. 2). He waa
hanged. Josephus calls him Theodesfces ( Ani. xi.
6, § 4), and says fchafc fche conspiracy was defcected
by Barnabazus, » servanfc of one of tbe eunuchsj
who was a Jew by birfch, and who revealed ifc fca
Mordecai. According fco Josephus, fche conspirators
were crucified.
TER'TIUS (Teprmy: Tertius) was the aman
uensis of Paul in writing the Epistle to the Romans
(Rom. xvi. 22). He was at Corinth, therefore, and
Cenchreae, the port of Corinth, at the time when
tbe Apostle wrote to the Church at Rome. It is
noticeable that Tertius interrupts the message which
Paul sends to the Roman Christians, and inserts a
greeting of his own in the first person singular
(otTTrct^o/xat iy^ Teprtos)- Both that circumstance
and the frequency of the name among tbe Romans
may indicate that Tertius was a Roman, and waa
known fco those whom Paul salutes at the close of
the letter. Secundus (Acts xx. 4) is another in
stance of the famiUar usage of the Latin ordinals

TERTULLUS
Employed as proper names. The idle pedantry
ivhich would make him and Silas the same person
because tertius and ''^^^tt? mean the same in
l^tin and Hebrew, hardly deserves to be mentioned
(see Wolf, Curai Philologiae, tom. iii. p. 295).
In regard to the ancient practice-of writing letters
from dictation, see Becker's Gallus, p. 180. [Epis
tle.] Nothing certain is known of Tertius apart
from this passage in the Komans. No credit is
due to the writers who speak of him as bishop of
Iconium (see Fabricius, Lux Evangelica, p. 117).
H. B. H.
TERTULTjUS (TiprvWos, a diminutive
form from the Roman name Tertius, analogous to
Lucullus from Lucius, Falmllus from Fabius, etc. ),
"a certain orator" (Acts xxiv. 1) who was re
tained by the high-priest and Sanhedrim to accuse
the Apostle Paul at Csesarea before the Eoman
Procurator Antonius Felix. [Paul.] He evi
dently belonged to the class of professional orators,
multitudes of whom were to be found not only in
Rome, but iu other parts of the empire, to which
they had betaken themselves in the hope of finding
occupation at the tribunals of the provincial magis
trates. Both frora his name, and from the great
probability that the proceedings were conducted in
Latin (see especially Milman, Bampton Lectures for
1827, p. 185, note), we may infer that Tertullus
was of Roman, or at all events of Italian origin.
The Sanhedrim would naturally desire to secure his
services on account of their own ignorance both of
the Latin language and of the ordinary procedure
of a Roman law-court.
The exordium of his speech is designed to con
ciliate the good will of the Procurator, and is ac
cordingly overcharged with flattery. There is a
strange contrast between the opening clause — iroK-
\ris eip'iivris Tuyxdvovres ^id troO — and the brief
summary of the Procurator's administration given
by Tacitus (Hisi. v. 9 ) : " Antonius Felix per oinnem
sasvitiatu ac libidinem, jus regiutn servili ingenio
exercuit" (comp. Tac. Ann. xii. 54). But the
commendations of Tertullus were not altogether
unfounded, as Felix had really succeeded in putting
down several seditious movements. [Felix.] It
is not very easy to determine whether St. Luke has
presei:ved the oration of Tertullus entire. On the
one hand we have the elaborate and artificial open
ing, which can hardly be other than an accurate
report of that part of the speech ; and on the other
hand we have a narrative which is so very dry and
concise, that if there were nothing more, it is not
easy to see why the orator should have been called
in at ail. The difficulty is increased if, in accord
ance with the greatly preponderating weight of ex
ternal authority, we omit the words iu vv. 6-8, Kal
Kara rhr rifierepov ¦ . . , ^pxeirBal iiA ai. On
the whole it seems most natural to conclude that
the historian, who was almost certainly an ear-wil>
ness, merely gives an abstract ofthe speech, giving
however in full the most salient points, and those
which had the most forcibly impressed themselves
upon him, such as the exordium, and the character
jscribed to St. Paul (ver. 5).
The doubtful reading in vv. 6-8, to which refer- ¦
ence haa already been made, seems likely to remain
an unsolved difficulty. Against the external evi
dence there would be nothing to urge in favor of the
disputed passage, were it not that the statement
which remains after its removal is not merely ex
tremely briel (its brevity may be accounted for in

TETKARCH

3213

the manner already suggested), but abrupt and
awkward in point of construction. It may be
added that it is easier to refer Trop' do (ver. 8) to
tbe Tribune Lysias than to Paul. For arguments
founded on the words koI Kara .... xoiveip
(ver. 6) — arguments which are dependent on the
genuineness of the disputed words — see Lardner,
Credibility of the Gospel History, b. i. ch. 2 ; Bia
coe. On, the Acts, ch. vi. § 16.
We ought not to pass over without notice a
strange etymology for the name Tertullus proposed
by Calmet, in the pla«e of which another has been
suggested by his English editor (ed. 1830). who
takes credit for having rejected " fanciful and im
probable" etymologies, and substituted improve
ments of his own. Whether the suggestion is an
improvement in thLs case the reader will judge
" Tertullus, TepruWos, liar, impostor, from repa-
ro\6yos, a teller of stories, a cheat. [Qy. was his
true appellation Ter- Tullius, * thrice TuUy,' that
is, extremely eloquent, varied by Jewish wit into
Tertullus?]" W.B.J.
* TESTAMENT. As H'^'TS. denotes not
only a covenant between two parties, but also the
promise made by the one (Gen. ix. 9), or the pre
cept to be observed by the other (Deut. lv. 13), and,
in a wider sense, a reUgious dispensation, ectmomy
(Jer. xxxi. 33); so, in the LXX. and the N. T.,
its equivalent SiaS-liK-t). In the Vulgate, although
in the 0. '^.pactum or fiBdus is more often used for
in^'^2, yet iestamenium is not unfrequentiy em
ployed, especially in the Psalms, where the word
has the looser signification of promise or dis
pensation (cf. Ps. Ixxiv. (Ixxiii.) 20, Mai. iii. 1);
while in the N. T. it uniformly stands for SioSVl.
This use of iestamenium for an authoritative, sol
emn decree or document is found also in the latei
Latin (cf. Uu Cange, Ghssarium man. ad scriptm-es
med. et inf. Laiinitalis). In the classical sense of
will, it may be understood in Heb. ix. 16, 17, as
SiaSiiKri has there apparently the same meaning (as
often in classical Greek, though not elsewhere in
the Bible). Compare, on this passage, Hofmann,
Schrifibeweis, ii. 1, p. 426 f. ; Stuart, Liinemann,
Ebrard. The use of testament for the books containing the
records of the two dispensations, arose by an easy
metonymy, suggested by 2 Cor. iii. 14, and had
become comraon as early as the time of Tertullian
[Bible]. See Guericke, Neuieslrtmenlliche Isa-
gogik, p. 4 ; Bertholdt, Einleitung in die Schrifien
des Alten u. Neuen Testaments, § 19 ; and especially
J. G. Rosenmiiller, Dissertatlo de vocabuUi Siad'fjKjj,
in Commentat.iones Tkeologicce, vol. ii. C. M. M.
TESTAMENT, NEW. [New Testa-
¦mest.] TESTAMENT, OLD. [Old Testa
ment.] TE'TA (Vat. omits; [Rom.] Alex. ArTjTa;
[Aid. T7)ToO Topa). The form under which the
name Hatha, one of the doorkeepers of the Tem
ple, appeal's in the lists of 1 Esdr. v. 28.
TETRARCH (rerpdpxv^)- Properly the
sovereign or governor of the fourth part of a coun
try. On the use of the title in Thessaly, Galatia,
and Syria, consult the Dictionary of Greek ana
Roman Anfiquiiies, " Tetrarcha," and the authori
ties there referred to. " In the later period of the

3214

TETRARCH

republic and under the empire, the Romans seem
to have used the title (as also those of ethnarch and
phylarch) to designate those tributary princes who
were not of sufficient importance to be called
kings." In the New Testament we meet with
the designation, either actually or in the form
of its derivative Terpapxeiv, applied to three per
sons: —
1. Herod Antipas (Matt. xiv. 1; Luke iii. 1, 19,
ii. 7; Acts xiii. 1), who is commonly distinguished
as " Herod the tetrarch," although the title of
"king" is also assigned to hira both by St. Mat
thew (xiv. 9) and by St. Mark (vi. 14, 22 if.). St.
Luke, as might be expected, invariably adheres to
the formal title, which would be recognized by
Gentile readers. Herod is described by the last-
named EvangeHst (ch. iii. 1) as " tetrarch of Gah
lee; " but bis dominions, which were bequeathed
to him by his father Herod the Great, embraced the
district of Persea beyond the Jordan (Joseph. Ant.
xvii. 8, § 1): this bequest was confirmed by Au
gustus (Joseph. B. J. ii. 6, § 3). After the dis
grace and banishment of Antipas, his tetrarchy
was added by Caligula to the kingdom of Herod
Agrippa I. (Ant. xviii. 7, § 2). [Hekod Anti
pas.] 2. Herod Philip (the son of Herod the Great
and Cleopatra, nol the husband of Herodias), who
is said by St. Luke (iii. 1 ) to have been " tetrarch
of Ituraea, and of the region of Trachonitis." Jo
sephus tells us that his father bequeathed to him
Gaiilonitis, Trachonitis, and Paneas (Ani. xvii. 8,
§ 1), and that his father's bequest was confirmed
by Augustus, who assigned to him Batan£ea, Trach
onitis, and Auranitis, with certain parts about
Janinia belonging to the "house of Zenodorus"
(B. J. ii. 6, § 3). Accordingly the territories of
Philip extended eastward from the Jordan to the
wilderness, and from the borders of Persea north
wards to Lebanon and the neighborhood of Da
mascus. After the death of Philip his tetrarchy
was added to the province of Syria by Tiberius
(Ant. xviii. 4, § 6), and subsequently conferred by
Caligula on Herod Agrippa I., with the title of
king (Ant. xviii. 6, § 10). [Herod Philip I. ;
Hekod Agkippa I.]
3. Lysanias, who is said (Luke iii. 1) to have
been " tetrarch of Abilene," a small district sur
rounding the town of Abila, in the fertile valley of
the Barada or Chrysorrhoas, between Damascus
and the mountain-range of Anti-Libanus. [Abi
lene.] There is some difficulty in fixing the
limits of this tetrarchy, and in identifying the
person of the tetrarch. [Lysanias.] We learn,
however, from Josephus (Ant. xviii. 6, § 10, xix.
5, § 1) that a Lysanias had been tetrarch of Abik
before tbe time of Caligula, who added this tet-
rarifhy to the dominions of Herod Agrippa I. —
an addition which was confirmed by the emperor
Claudius. It remains to inquire whether the title of te
trarch, as applied to these princes, had any refer
ence to its etymological signification. We have
seen that it was at. this time probably applied to
oetty princes without any such determinate mean-
mg. But it appears from Josephus (Ani. xvii. 11,
§ 4; B. J. ii. 6, § 3) that the tetrarchies of Anti-

a * Xa Mark iii. 18 the reading of D is Ae^^al05,
uad In Matt. x. 3, S concurs with B in reading ®aS-
Icuof. The conclufiioos given above as to the true

THANK-OFFERING
pas and Philip were regarded as constituting each
a fourth part of their father's kingdom. For we
are told that Augustus gave one half of Herod's
kingdom to his son Archelaus, with the appellation
of ethnarch, and with a promise of the regal title;
and that he divided the remainder into the two tet
rarchies. Moreover, the revenues of Archelaus,
drawn from his territory, which included Judsea,
Samaria, and Idumaea, amounted to 400 talents,
the tetrarchies of Philip and Antipas producing 200
talents each. We conclude that in tliese two cases,
at least, the title was used in its strict and Uteial
sense. W. B. J.
THADD.a;'US (0a55a7o$: Thaddceus), a
name in St. Mark's catalogue of the twelve Apos
tles (Mark iii. 18) in the great majority of MSS.
In St. Matthew's catalogue (Matt. x. 3) the cor
responding place is assigned to @aSSa7os by the
Vatican MS. (B), and to Ae$&aios by the Codex
Bezae (D). The Received Text, following the first
correction ofthe Codex Ephraemi (C) — where the
original reading is doubtful — as well as several
cursive MSS., reads Ae/Sflows <S irriKKriSeU 0o5-
Sdlos. We are probably to infer that Ae$$aios,
alone, is the original reading of Matt. x. 3, and
@a.S5aios of M-ark iii. 18." By these two Evan
gelists the tenth place among the .Apostles is given
to Lebbseus or Thaddieus, the eleventh place being
given to Simon the Canaanite. St. Luke, iu both
his catalogues (Luke vi. 15; .Acts i. 13), plac^
Simon Zelotes tenth among the Apostles, and as
signs the eleventh place to 'lovSas 'laiciiSov. As
the other names recorded by St. Luke are identical
with those which appear (though in a different
order) in the first two Gaspels, it seems scarcely
possible to doubt that the three names of Judas,
I^bbseus, and Thaddseus were borne by one and
the same person. [Jude; Lebb.eus.] W. B. J
THA'HASH (ti'nri [badger or seal]: To-
X^s: Thahas). Son of Nahor hy his concubine
Keumah (Gen. xxii. 24). He is called TaiJooi by
Josephus (Ani. i. 6, § 5).
THA'MAH (nan [Sun^AT. laughter]: &epd:
Thema). " The children of Thamah " were a fam
ily of Nethinim who returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr.
ii. 53). The name elsewhere appears in the A. V.
as Tamah.
THA'MAR (®dpap: Tliamar). Tamar 1
(Matt. i. 3).
THAM'NATHA (fi &afivaed: Thamnaia).
One of the cities of Judaea fortified by Bacchides
after he had driven the Maccabees over the Jordan
(1 Mace. ix. 50). Thamnatha no doubt represents
an ancient Timnatii, possibly the present Tib-
neh, half-way between Jerusalem and the Mediter
ranean. Whether the name should be joined to
Pharfithoni, which follows it, or whether they
should be independent, is matter of doubt. [Phab-
athoni.] THANK-OFFERING, or PEACE-OF
FERING (Cab^ n?T, or simply C^cb?\
and in Amos v. 22, D!?W : Buaia aa)Ti)plau, nor
T^piov, occasionally elptiuiK^: hoslia pacifcoi'um,

reading in both places are sustained by Tischendorf is
his eighth edition of tho Greek Neu Testament.

THARA
oacifca), the properly eucharistic offering; among
the Jews, in its theory resembUng the Meat-of-
FERIXG, and therefore indicating that the offerer
was already reconciletl to, and iu covenant with,
God. Its cereraoniai is described in Lev. iii. The
nature of tbe rictim was left to the sacrificer; it
raight be male or female, of the flock or of the
herd, prorided that it was unblemished; the hand
of the sacrificer was laid on its head, tbe fat burnt,
and the blood sprinkled, as in the burnt-offering;
of the flesh, the breast and right shoulder were
given to the priest; fche rest belonged to the sacri
ficer, to be eaten, either on the day of sacrifice, or
on the next day (l-*v. vii. 11-18, 29-34), except in
the case of the fii-stUngs, which belonged to the
priest alone (xxiii. 20). The eating of the Arab of
the raeatr-ofieriug was considered a partaking of the
'¦ table of the Lord; " and on solenm (.^casions, as
at the dedication of the Temple of Solonton, it was
conducted on an enormous scale, and became a great
national feast.
The peace-offerings, unlike other sacrifices, were
not ordained to be offered in fixed and regular
course. The meat-offering was regularly ordained
as the eucharistic sacrifice; and the only constantly
recurring peace-offering appears fco have been fchafc
of fche two firstUng lambs at Pentecost (Lev. xxiii.
19). The general principle of the peace-offering
seeras to have been, that it should be entirely spon
taneous, offered as occasion should arise, from the
feeling of the sacrificer himself " If ye offer a
sacrifice of peace-offerings to the Lord, ye shall
offer it at yonr own will" (Lev. xix. 5). On the
firsfc insfcifcufciou (Lev. vii. 11-17), peace-offerings
are divided infco " offerings of fchanksgiving," and
" vows or free-will offerings; " of which latter class
fche offering by a Nazarite, on the completion of
his vow, is the most remarkable (Num. vi. 14).
The very names of both divisions imply complete
freedom, and show thafc this sacrifice differed from
others, in being considered not a duty, but a priv
ilege. We find accordingly peace-ofiferings offered for
the people on a great scale at periods of unusual
solemnity or rejoicing ; as at the first inauguration
of the covenant (Ex. xxiv. 5), afc fche firsfc conse
cration of Aaron and of fche Tabernacle (Lev. ix.
18), afc the solemn reading of the Law in Canaan
by Joshua (Josh. viii. 31), at the accession of Saul
(1 Sam. xi. 15), at the bringing of the ark to
Mount Zion by David (2 Sara. vi. 17), afc fche con
secration of the Temple, and thrice every year
afterwards, by Solomon (1 K. viii. 63, ix. 25), and
at the greafc passover of Hezekiah (2 Chr. xxx. 22),
In fcwo cases only (Judg. xx. 26; 2 Sam. xxiv. 25)
peace-offerings are mentioned as offered with burnt-
offerings afc a fcime of nafcional sorrow and fast
ing. Here their force seems to have been prec
atory rather than eucharistic. [See Sacrifice.] A. B.
Terah the father

THEATRE

3215

THA'RA {®dpa: Thare).
of Abraham (Luke iii. 34).
THAR'RA {Thara), Esth. xu.l.
form of the name Tekesh.

THAR'SHISH (tt7*'tt;-};n [prob. fortress,
Dietr.]: [Rom. ®a.ptris\ Vat. Alex.] @apaeis'
Tharsis). 1- In this more accurate form the
{ranslafcors of fche A. V. have given in fcwo pas-
»aijes (1 K. X. 22, xxii 48) fche name elsewhere
presented as TAusiiisn. In the second passage

the name is oraitted in both ilSS- of the LXX.,
while the Vulgate has in marl.
2. ([Rom. ©apo-i; Vat.] Vapeairaf-, Alex. &ap-
aeiS' Tharsis.) A Benjamite, one of the family
of Bilhan and the house of Jediael (1 Chr. vii. 10
only). The variation in the Vatican LXX. (Mai)
is very remarkable. G.
THAS'SI {©affcrii [Sin. ©aao-et: Alex] ®aa
ats: Thasi, Hassii: Syr. t^CoH). The sur
name of Simon the son of Mattathias (1 Mace ii
3). [Maccabees, vol. ii. p. 1711.] The deri
vation of fche word is uncerfcain. Micha^s sug-
gesfcs ^tt?"!!?, Chald. "the fresh grass springs up,"
i. e. '*the spring is corae," in reference fco fche
tranquillity inrst secured during the supremacy of
Simon (Grimm, ad 1 Mace. ii. 3). This seems
very far-fetched. Winer {Realwb. " Simon ") sug
gests a connection wifch DDFI, fervere, as Grotius
{ad loc.) seems to have done befbre him. In Jose
phus {Ant xii. 6, § 1) fche surname is wrifcten
yiarOiis, wifch various readings ©oStjs, ©afl^s.
B. F. W.
THEATRE {Qiarpov- theatron). For the
general subject, see Diet of Ant pp. 995-998.
For the explanation of the Bibhcal allusions, two
or three points only require notice. The Greek
term, like the corresponding English term, denotes
the place \rhere dramatic performances are ex
hibited, and also the scene itself or spectacle which
is wifcnessed there. It occurs in the first or local
sense in Acts xix. 29, where it is said that the
multitude at Ephesus rushed to the theatre, on the
occasion of the excitement stirred up against Paul
and his associates by Demetrius, in order to con
sider what should be done in reference to the
charges against thera. It may be remarked also
(although the word does nofc occur in the original
text or in our English version ) that it was in the
theatre at Caesarea that Herod Agrippa I. gave
audience to the Tyrian deputies, and was himself
struck with death, because he heard so gladly the
impious acclamations of the people (Acts xii.
21-23). See the remarkably confirmatory account
of this event in Josephus {Ant. xix. 8, § 2). Such
a use of the theatre for pubUc assemblies and the
transaction of public business, though it was hardly
known among the Romans, was a coramon practice
among the Greeks. Thus Valer. Max. ii. 2: "Le-
gati in theatrum, ut est consuetudo Graeciae, intro-
ducti.'' Justin xxii. 2 : "Veluti reipublicae statum
forraaturus in theatrum ad contionem vocari jus-
sit." Corn. Nep. TimoL 4, § 2: " Yeniebafc in fchea-
trum, cura ibi concihum plebis haberetur."
The other sense of the terra "theatre" occurs
in 1 Cor. iv. 9, where the Coramon Vereion ren
ders: "God hath sefc forfch us fche Apostles last,
as it were appointed to death; for we are made
(rather, were made, dearpov iyevfiOrj/iev) a spec
tacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men."
Instead of "spectacle" (so also Wickliffe and the
A corrupt Rhemish translators after the Vulgate), sorae raight
prefer the more energetic Saxon, " gazing-stock,"
as in Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva version.
But the latter would be now inappropriate, if it
includes the idea of scorn or exultation, since the
angels look down upon the sufferings of the mar-
tyre with a very different interest. Whether
" theatre " denotes more here than to be an object
of earnest afcfcention {Oeafia), ir refera at the same

3216

THEBES

time to the theatre as the place where criminals
were soraetiraes brought forward for punishment,
is nofc agreed among infcerprefcere. Paul's t^
(TXVpa rod kSo-jxov in 1 Cor. vii. 31, where sorae
find an allusion to fche stage, is too doubtful to be
reckoned here. In Heb. x. 33 the A. V. renders
dearpi^6(XGV0h not inaptly, "raen raade a gazing-
stock," since Christians in that passage are held
up to view as objects of the world's scorn and
derision. In Heb. xii. 1, where the writer speaks
of our having around us " so greafc a cloud of wit
nesses" {roffovrov exovres trepiKeifiLevov rifuv
v€(bos uaprvptav), he has in mind no doubfc fche
agonisfcic scene, in which Christians are viewed as
running a race, and not the theatre or stage where
the eyes of the spectators are fixed on them. H. B. H.
* The taste for theatrical amusements was never
strongly developed among the Jews, though some
of their later rulers, especially the Herods, favored
them, and established theatres in Palestine. Herod
the Great introduced Greek actors afc his courfc in
Jerusalem, greatly to the scandal of the Jews, and
built a theatre and amphitheatre at Csesarea (see
2 Mace. iv. 14; Jos. J. B. xv. 8, §§ 1, 2; xx. 9,
§ 4). H.
THEBES {Vl»S"S^3: ©rj^ai, AiSairoMs,
uepls ^Afi^div; in Jer. Thv 'Afj-pibv rhv vlhv
avrrjs: Alexandria, Al. populorum, tumultus Alex-
andrvE, No-Ajnon : A. V., No, the multitude of
No, po/mhnis No). A chief city of ancient Egypt,
long the capital of the upper country, and the seat
of fche Diospolitan dynasties, that ruled over all
Egypt at the era of its highest splendor. Upon
the monuments this city bears three distinct names
— fchafc of fche Nome, a sacred name, and fche narae
by which ifc is commonly known in profane hisfcory.
Of the twenty Nomes or districts into which Upper
Egypt was divided, the fourth in order, proceeding
northward from Nubia, was designated in the hiero
glyphics as Za'm — the Phathyrite of the Greeks
— and Thebes appears as the " ^a'm-city," the
principal city or metropolis of the Za'm Nome.
In later times the name Za'm was applied in com
mon speech to a particular locality on the western
side of Thebes.
The sacred narae of Thebes was P-amen, " the
abode of Anion," which the Greeks reproduced in
their Diospolis {Aihs ¦jrSKis)^ especially wifch the
addition the Great (.^ fieydKy}), denoting that fchis
was fche chief seat of Jupiter- Am mon, and dis
tinguishing it from Diospolis the Less {jj piKpd)'
No-Araon is the name of Thebes in the Hebrew
Scriptures (Jer. xlvi. 25; Nah. iii. 8). Ezekiel
uses No simply to designate the Egyptian seat of
Amnion, which the Septuagint translates by Dios
polis (Ez. xxx. 14, 16). Gesenius defines this name
by the phrase "portion of Ammon," i. a. the pos
session of the god Ammon, as the chief seat of his
worship. The narae of Thebes in the hieroglyphics is ex
plained under No-Amon.
The origin of the city is lost in antiquity.
Niebuhr is of opinion that Thebes was much
older than Memphis, and that " after the centre
of Egyptian life was transferred to Lower Egypt,
Memphis acquired its greatness through the ruin
of Thebes " {Lectures on Ancient History, Leet.
rii.). Ofcher aufchorifcies assign priorifcy to Mem
phis. But both cities date from our earliest au
thentic knowledge of Egyptian history. The first

THEBES
allusion to Thebes in classical literature is the f»
miliar passage of the lUad (ix. 381-385): " f^yp-
tian Thebes, where are vast treasures laid up in
the houses; where are a hundred gates, and from
each two hundred men go forth with horses and
chariots." Homer — speaking with a poet's license,
and not with the accuracy of a statistician — no
doubt incorporated into his verse the glowing ac
counts of the Egyptian capital current in his time.
Wilkinson thinks ifc conclusive againsfc a UfcenU
undersfcanding of Homer, thafc no traces of an
ancient city-wall can be found afc Thebes, and
accepfcs as probable fche suggestion of Diodorus
Siculus that the "gates" of Homer may have
been tbe propylsea of tbe temples: "Non centum
portas habuisse urbem, sed multa et ingenfcia fcem-
plomm vesfcibula " (i. 45, 7). In ths time of
Diodorus, the city-wall, if any there was, had
already disappeared, and tbe question of its exist
ence in Homer's time was in dispute. But, on
the other hand, to regard the " gates " of Homer
as teraple porches is to make fchese the barracks of
the array, since from these gates the horeemen and
chariots issue forth to war. The almost universal
custom of walling the cities of antiquity, and the
poet's reference to the gafces as pouring forth
troops, point strongly to the supposition that the
vast area of Thebes was surrounded with a wall
having many gates.
Homer's allusion to the trea'^ures of the city, and
to the size of its standing army, numbering 20,000
chariots, shows the early repute of Thebes for
wealth and power. Its fame as a great capital had
crossed the sea when Greece was yet in its infancy
as a nation. It has been questioned whether He
rodotus visited Upper Egypt (see Diet of Greek
and Rom. Geog. art. " Thebes"), but he says, "I
went to Heliopohs and to Thebes, expressly to tiy
whether fche priesfcs of fchose places would agree
in fcheir accounts with the priests afc Memphis"
(Herod, ii. 3). Afterwards he describe the fea
tures of the Nile valley, and the chief points and
distances upon the ri^'e^, as only an eye-witness
would be Ukely to record them. He informs us
that "from HeUopohs to Thebes is nine days* sail
up the river, the distance 4,800 stadia .... and
the distance from the sea inland to Thebes 6,120
stadia " (Herod, ii. 8, 9). In chap. 29 of the same
book he states that he ascended the Nile as high
as Elephantine. Herodotus, however, gives no pw-
ticular account of fche cifcy, which in his fcime had
losfc rauch of its ancient grandeur. He alludes to
the temple of Jupiter there, with its ram-headed
image, and to the facfc that goats, never sheep,
were offered in sacrifice. In the 1st century before
Christ, Diodorus visited Thebes, and be devotes
several sections of his general work to its history
and appearance. Though he saw the city when it
had sunk to quite secondary importance, he pre
serves the tradition of its early grandeur — ifcs cir-
cuifc of 140 stadia, fche size of ifcs public edifices,
fche magnificence of ifcs temples, fclie number of its
monuments, the dimensions of its private houses,
some of them four or five stories high — ah giving
it an air of grandeur and beauty surpassing not
only all other cities of Egypt, but of the world.
Diodorus deplores the spoiling of its buildings and
monuments by Cambyses (Diod. i. 45, 46). Strabo,
who visited Egypfc a lifctle lafcer — afc aboufc the be
ginning of fche Chrisfcian era — thus describes (xvii.
816) the city under the narae Diospolis: " Vestige*
of its magnitude still exist which extend 80 stadia

THEBES
tn length. There are a greafc number of temples,
many of which Cambyses mutilated. The spofc is
afc presenfc occupied by villages. One part of ifc, in
which is the cifcy, hes in Arabia; anofcher is in the
country on the other side of the river, where is
the Memnonium." Strabo here makes the Nile
the dividing line between Libya and Arabia. The
temples of Karnak aud Luxor are on fche eastern
side of the river, where was probably the main
part of the city. Strabo gives the following de
scription of the twin colossi still standing upon the
western plain: "Here are two colossal figures near
one another, each consisting of a single stone. One
is entire ; the upper psirts of the other, from the
chair, are fallen down — the effect, ifc is said, of an
earfchquake. Ifc is beheved fchat once a day a noise,
as of a sUght blow, issues from the part of the
statue which remains in the seat, and on its base-
When I was afc fchose places, wifch ^hus G^us,
and numerous friends and soldiers aboufc him, I
heard a noise afc fche firsfc hour of fche day, bufc
whefcher proceeding from the base, or from the
colossus, or produced on purpose by some of those
standing around the base, I caimot confidently as
sert. For, frora the uncertainty of the cause, I
ara inclined fco believe anything rather than fchafc
sfcones disposed in fchafc manner could send forth
sound" (xvii. § 46). Simple, honest, skeptical
Sfcrabo! Eighfceen centuries later, the present
writer interrogated these same stones as fco the
ancient mystery of sound ; and not at sunrise, bufc
in the glaring noon, the statue emitted a sharp,
clear sound hke the ringing of a disc of brass
under a sudden concussion. This was produced
by a ragged urchin, who, for a, few piastres, clam
bered up the knees of the " vocal Memnon," and
there effectually concealing himself from observa
tion, struck wifch a hammer a sonorous sfcone in
the lap of the statue. Wilkinson, who was one
of the first to describe fchis sounding stone, con
jectures that the priests had a secret chamber in
. the body of the statue, from which they could
strike it unobserved afc fche insfcanfc of sunrise: fchus
producing in fche credulous multitude the notion
of a supernatural pfaenomenooi. It is diflBculfc fco
conceive, however, fchat such a trick, performed in
open day, oould have escaped detection, and we are
therefore left to share the mingled wonder and
skepticism of Strabo (see Wilkinson ; also Thomp
son's Photographic Views of Egypt, Past and
Present, p. 156).
Pliny speaks of Thebes in Egypfc as known to
fame as "a hanging city," i. e. built upon arches,
so thafc an army could be led forfch from beneath
the cifcy while fche inhabitants above were wholly
unconscious of ifc. He mentions also fchat the river
flows through the middle of the city. But he
questions the story of the arches, because, " if this
had really been the case, there is no doubt that
Homer would have raentioned it, seeing that he
has celebrated the hundred gates of Thebes." Do
not the fcwo sfcories possibly explain each other?
May there not have been near the river-line arched
builduigs used as barracks, from whose gateways
issued forth 20,000 chariots of war?
But, in the uncertainty of these historical allu-
lions, the monuments of Thebes are the most reha-
Me witnesses for the ancient grandeur of the cifcy.
These are found in alraost equal proportions upon
both sides of the river. The parallel ridges which
skirt the narrow Nile valley upon the east and west
irom the northern Umit of Upj^r Egypt, here sweep

THEBES 3217
outward upon either side, forming a clrcuhr plain
whose diameter is nearly ten miles. Through the
centre of this plain flows the river, usually at this
point about half a mile in width, but at the inun
dation overflowing the plain, especially upon the
western bank, for a breadth of two or more miles.
Thus the two colossal statues, which are several
hundred yards from the bed of the low Nile, have
accumulated about their bases alluvial deposit to
the depth of seven feet.
The plan of the city, as indicated by fche principal
monumenfcs, was nearly quadrangular, measuring
two miles from north fco soufch, and four from east
to west. Its four great landmarks were, Karnak
and Luxor upon the eastern or Arabian side, and
Qoomah and Medeenefc Haboo upon fche western or
Libyan side. There are indicafcions fchat each of
these temples may have been connected with those
facing it upon fcwo sides by grand dromoi, lined
wifch sphinxes and other colossal figures. Upon the
western bank there was almost a continuous luie
of temples and public edifices for a distance of two
miles, frora Qoornah to Medeenet Haboo; and Wil
kinson conjectures that from a point near the latter,
perhaps in the hne of the colossi, the " Royal
Street " ran down to the river, which was crossed
by a ferry terminating at Luxor on the eastern
side. The recent excavafcions and discoveries of
M. Mariefcte, now in course of publication (1863),
may enable us to restore the ground-plan of the
city and its principal edifices with at least proxi
mate accuracy.
It does not enter into the design, nor would ifc
fall within the limits of this article, to give a mi
nute description of these stupendous monuments.
Not only are verbal descriptions everywhere ac
cessible through the pages of Wilkinson, Kenrick,
and other standard writers upon Egypt, but the
magnificently illustrated work of Lepsius, already
completed, the companion work of M. Mariette,
just referred to, and multiplied photographs of the
principal ruins, are within easy reach of the scholar
through the munificence of pubhc libraries. A mere
outline of the groups of ruins must here suflSce.
Beginning at the northern extremity on the western
bank, the first conspicuous ruins are those of a
palace temple of the nineteenth dynasty, and there
fore belonging to the middle style of Egyptian
architecture. It bears the name Menephtheion,
suggested by Champollion because it appears to
have been founded by Menephthah (fche Osirei ol
Wilkinson), though built principally by his son,
the great Rameses. The plan of the building is
much obscured by mounds of rubbish, but sorae
of the bas-reliefs are in a fine state of preservation.
There are traces of a droraos, 128 feet in length,
wifch sphinxes, whose frs^menfcs here and there
remain. This building stands upon a slight ele
vation, nearly a mile from the river, in the now
deserted village of old Qoornah.
Nearly a mile southward from the Menephtheion
are the remains of the combined palace and teraple
known since the days of Strabo as the Memnonium.
An examination of its sculptures shows that thig
name was inaccurately applied, since the building
was clearly erecfced by Rameses II. Wilkinson
suggesfcs thafc fche title Mianiun attached to the
name of this king misled Strabo in his designation
of the building. The general form of the Mem
nonium is that of a parallelogram in three main
secfcions, fche interior areas being successively nar
rower than the firsfc court, and the whole ter*

8218

THELES

luinating in a series of sacred chambers beautifully
sculptured and ornamented. The proportions of
thia building are remarkably fine, and its remains
are in :. sufBcient state of preser\-ation to enable
one to reconstruct its plan. From the first court
or area, nearly 180 feet .square, there is an ascent
by steps to the second court, 140 feet by 170.
Upon three sides of this area is a double colonnade,
and on the south side a shigle row of Osiride
pillars, facing a row of like pillars on the north,
the other columns being circular. _ Another ascent
leads to the hall, 100 + 13-3, which originally
had 48 huge columns to support its solid roof.
lieyond the hall are the sacred chambers. The
historical sculptures upon
the walls and columns of
the Memnonium are araong
the most finished and legi
ble of the Egyptian mon
uments. But the most re
markable feature of these
ruins is the gigantic statue
of Rivmeses II., once a sin
gle block of syenite carved
to represent the king upon
his throne, but now scaf^
tered in fragments upon the
floor of the first hall. The
weight of this statue has
been computed at 887 tons,
and its height at 75 feet.
By measurement of the frag
ments, the writer found the
body 51 feet around the
shoulders, the arm 11 feet 6
inches from shoulder to el
bow, and the foot 10 feet
10 inches in length, by i feet
8 inches in breadth. This
stupendous monolith must have been transported
at least a hundred miles from the quarries of
Assouan. About a third of a mile further to the

bah
Plan of Memnonium.

Hall of Columns in the Memnonium.

south are the two colossal statues already referred
to, one of which is familiarly kno\vn as " the vocal
Memnon." The height of each figure is about 53
feet above the plain.
Proceeding i^ain toward the south for about the
same distance, we find at Medeenet Haboo ruins
upon a more stupendous scale than at any other
point upon the western bank of Thebes. These
consist of a temple founded by Thothmes I., but
which also exhibits traces of the Ptolemaic archi-
i.ecture in the shape of pyramidal towers, gate
ways, colonnades, and vestibules, inscribed with the
memorials of the Roman era in Egypt. This
temple, even witb all its additions, is compara-
irely small; but adjacent to it is tbe magnificent

THEBES
ruin known as the southern Rameseion, the palace-
temple of Rameses III. The general plan of this
building corresponds with those above described;
a series of grand courts or halls adorned with
columns, conducting to the inner pavilion of the
king or sanctuary of the god. The second court
ia one of the most remarkable in Egypt for the
massiveness of its columns, which measure 24 feet
in height by a circumference of nearly 23. Withiu
this area are the fallen columns of a Christian
church, which once established the worship of the
true God in the veiy sanctuary of idols and amid
their sculptured images a,nd symbols. This temple
presents some of the grandest eflfects of the old
Egyptian architecture, and its battle-scenes are a
valuable contribution to the history of Rameses HI.
Behind tliis long range of temples and palaces
are the Libyan hills, which, for a distance of five
miles, are excavated to the depth of several hun
dred feet for sepulchral chambers. Some of these
are of vast extent — one tomb, for instance, having
a total area of 22,217 square feet. A retired valley
in the mountains, now known as Beeban-el-Melook,
seems to have been appropriated to the sepidchres
of kings. Some of these, in the number and variety
of their chambers, the finish of their sculptures,
and the beauty and freshness of their frescoes, are
among the most remarkable monuments of Egyptian
grandeur and skill. It is from the tombs especially
that we leani the manners and customs of domestic
life, as from the temples we gather the record of
dynasties and the history of battles. Tlie preserva
tion of these sculptured and pictorial records is due
mainly to the dryness of the cUmate. The sacred
ness with which the Egyptians r^arded tbeir dead
preserved these mountain catacombs from molesta
tion during the long succession of native dynasties,
and the sealing up of the entrance to the t«mb for
the concealment of the sarcophagus from human
observation until its mummied occupant should re
sume his long-suspended life, has largely secured
the city of the dead fixim the violence of invaders
and the ravages of time. It is from the
adornments of these subterranean tombs,
often distinct and fresh as when prepared
by the hand of the artist, that we derive
our principal knowledge of the manners
and customs of the Egyptians. Herodotus
himself is not more minute and graphic
than these silent but most descriptive walls.
The illustration and confirmation which
they bring to the sacred narrative, so well
discussed by Hengstenberg, Osborn, Poole,
and . others, is capable of much ampler
treatment than it has yet received. Every
incident in the pastoral and agricultural
life of the Israehtes in Egypt aud in the

exactions of their servitude, every art employed in
the fabrication of the tabemacle in the wildemess,
every allusion to Egyptian rites, customs, laws,
finds some counterpart or illustration in this pic
ture-history of Egypt; and whenever the Theban
cemetery shall be thoroughly explored, and its sym
bols aud hieroglyphics fully interpreted by science,
we shall have a commentary of unrivaled interest
and value upon the books of Exodus and I>eviticus,
as well as the later historical books of the Hebrew
Scriptures. 1 lie art of photography is already
contributing to this result by furnishing scholars
with materials for the leisurely study of the pic
torial and ¦Jionumeiital records of Egypt.
The eastern side of the river is distinguished bj

THEBES
the remains of Luxor and Karnak, the latter being
of itself a city of temples. The main colonnade of
Luxor faces the river, bufc its principal enfcrance
looks norfchward towards Karnak, wifch which ifc
was originally ccmnected by a droraos 6,000 feet in
length, lined on either side with sphinxes. At tbis
sntrance are two gigantic statues of Raraeses 1 1., one
upon each side of the grand gatewa}'; and in front
of these formerly stood a pair of beautifully wroughfc
obelisks of red granite, one of which now graces fche
Place de la Concorde at Paris.
The approach to Karnak from the south is marked
by a series of majestic gate
ways and towers, which were
fche appendages of lafcer times
to the original structure.
The temple properly faces
the river, i. e. fcoward fche
northwest. The courts and
propylsea connected with this
structure occupy a space
nearly 1,800 feet square, and
the buildings represent al
mosfc every dynasfcy of
S^ypfc, from Sesorfcasen I.
fco Ptolemy Euergefces I.
Courfcs, pylons, obelisks,
sfcafcues, pillars, everything
pertaining to Karnak, are on
the grandest scale. Near
est the river is an area
measuring 275 feet by 329,
which once had a covered
Figure of Barneses II. corridor on either side, and
a double row of columns
through the centre, leading to the entrance of
the hypostyle hall, the most wonderful monument

THEBES

3219

Sculptured Gateway at Karnak.
of Egyptian archifcecfcure. This grand hall is a
forest of sculptured colurans; in the central avenue
are twelve, measuring each 66 feefc in heighfc by 12
in diameter, which formerly supported the most
elevated portion of fche roof, answering to the clere
story in Gothic architecture; on either side of
these are seven rows, each column nearly 42 feet
high by 9 in diameter, making a total of 134 pillars
'D an area measuring 170 feet by 330. Most of
fche pillars are 3et standing in their original site,
though in many places the roof has fallen in. A
xioonlighfc view of this hall is the mosfc weird and

impressive scene to be witnessed among all the ruins
of antiquity — the Coliseum of Rome not excepted.
With our imperfect knowledge of mechanic arts
among the Egyptians, it is impossible to conceive
how the outer wall of Karnak — forty feet in tliick-
ness afc fche base, and nearly a hundred feefc high —
was built; how single blocks weighing several hun
dred tons were lifted into their place in fche wall,
or hewn infco obehsks and statues to adorn its gates;
how the majestic columns of the Grand Hall were
quarried, sculptured, and set up in mathematical
order; and how fche whole stupendous structure
was reared as a fortress in which the most ancient
civihzation of fche world, as it were petrified or
fossilized in the very flower of its strength and
beauty, might defy the desolations of war, and the
decay of centuries. The grandeur of Egypt is here
in its architecture, and almosfc every pillar, obelisk,
and stone tells its historic l^end of her greatest
monarchs. We have alluded, in the opening of this article,
to the debated quesfcion of tbe priority of Thebes to
Memphis. As yet the data are nofc sufiicient for
its satisfactory solution, and li^yptologists are not
agreed. Upon the whole we may conclude that
before the time of Menes there was a local sove
reignty in the Thebaid, but the historical nationality
of Egypt dates fi'om the founding of Memphis.
" It is probable that the priests of Memphis and
Thebes differed in their representations of early
history, and that each sought to extol the glory of
their own city. The history of Herodotus turns
aboufc Memphis as a centre; he mentions Thebes
only incidentally, and does not describe or allude to
one of its monuments. Diodorus, on the contrary,
is full in his description of Thebes, and says httle
of Memphis. But the distinction of Upper and
Lower Egypt exists in geological structure, in lan
guage, in religion, and in historical tradition " (Ken
rick). A careful digest ofthe Egyptian and Greek
authorities, the Turin papyrus, and the monumental
tablets of Abydos and Karnak, gives this general
outhne of the early history of %ypt: That before
Memphis was builfc, fche nafcion was mainly confined
fco the valley of the Nile, and subdivided politically
into several sovereignties, of which Thebes was one;
that Menes, who was a native of This in fche The
baid, cenfcralized the government afc Memphis, and
united the upper and lower countries; that Mem
phis retained ita preeminence, even in the hereditary
succession of sovereigns, until the twelfth and thir
teenth dynasties of Manetho, when Diospolitan kings
appear in his lists, who brought Thebes into pronj-
inence as a royal city; thafc when tbe Shepherds
or Hyksos, a noraadic race from the east, invaded
Egypt and fixed their capital at Memphis, a native
Egyptian dynasty was maintained at Thelies, at
fcimra tributary to the Hyksos, and afc fcimes in
niilifcary alliance with Ethiopia against the invaders;
until at length, by a general uprising of the The
baid, the Hyksos were expelled, and Thebes became
the capital of all Egypt under the resplendent
eighteenth dynasty. This was fche golden era of
fche city as we have already described ifc frora its
monuments. The nanies and deeds of the Thothmes
and the Rameses then figure upon its temples and
palaces, representing its wealth and grandeur in
architecture, and ifcs prowess in arms. Then it waa
that Thebes extended her sceptre over Libya and
Ethiopia on the one hand, and on tbe other ov«
Syria, Media, and Persia; so thafc the wails of her
palaces and temples are crowded with ba' tie-seen*

a220

THEBES

in which all contiguous nafcions appear as ;aptives
or as supplianfcs. This supremacy continued until
the close of fche ninefceenfch dynasfcy, or for a period
of more fchan five hundred years; bufc under fche
twenfcieth dynasfcy — the Diospolitan house of Rarae
ses numbering ten kings of thafc name — fche glory
of Thebes began to decline, and after the close of
fchat djTiasty her name no more appears in the lists
of kings. Still the city was retained as the capital,
in whole or in part, and the achievements of Shi-
shonk fche Bubasfcite, of Tirhakah the Ethiopian,
and other monarchs of celebrity, are recorded upon
its walls. The invasion of Palestine by Shishonk
is graphically depicted upon the outer wall of the
grand hall of Karnak, and the names of several
towns in Palestine, as well as the general name of
*-the land of the king of Judah," have been de
ciphered from the hieroglyphics. Afc fche later in
vasion of Judasa by Sennacherib, we find Tirhakah,
the Ethiopian monarch of the Thebaid, a powerful
ally of the Jewish king. But a century later,
Ezekiel proclaims fche desfcrucfcion of Thebes by the
arm of Babylon : " I will execute judgments in
No;" "I will cut off the multitude of No: " "No
shall be rent asunder, and Noph [iMemphis] shall
have distresses daily" (Ez. xxx. 14-16); and Jere
miah, predicfcuig the same overthrow, says, " The
I^rd of Hosts, th^ God of Israel saith, Behold, I
will punish the multitude of No, and Pharaoh, and
Egypfc, wifch their gods and their kings." The Per
sian invader completed the destruction that the
Babylonian had begun; the hammer of Cambyses
leveled the proud statue of Rameses, and his torch
consumed the temples and palaces of the city of
the hundred gates. No-Ammon, the shrine of the
Egyptian Jupiter, "fchafc was sifcuate among the
rivers, and whose rampart was the sea," sank from
its nietropohtan splendor to the position of a mere
provincial town; and, notwithstanding the spas
modic efforts of the Ptolemies to revive its ancient
glory, became at last only the desolate and ruined
sepulchre of the empire it had once embodied. It
lies to-day a nest of Arab hovels amid crumbUng
columns and drifting sands.
* Three names of Thebes are made prorainent
in the hieroglyphic monuments of fche cifcy. The
first is the sacerdotal name Pi-amun — the abode
of Ammon. The expression No-amun, which cor
responds even more exactly with the Greek Amo--
TroAis, is found in the Sallier Papyrus, No. IIL,
showing fchat the Hebrew prophets used a well-
known designation of fche cifcy. Afc Thebes Ammon
was worshipped preemhiently under the type of fche
¦un. A second designation of Thebes was the city of
Apelu or Apet. Sorae have attempted to derive
the name Thebes from this title, thus: Ta-Apetu,
or more simply Ta-ape, by confcracfcion Tape, which
fche Greeks softened infco ©^jSij- Bufc this deriva
tion is hypothetical, and at best it seems plain from
the hieroglyphics that the name Apeiu was given
to bufc a single quarter of ancienfc Thebes. — a sec
tion of the eastern bank embracing the great temple
of Karnak. The name Apeiu has not been found
upon any monument of the old empire.
There is a third designation, or perhaps more
properly a re^lresentation, of the city in the hiero
glyphics, from which it is conjectured that the
Greeks derived ite name. This capital is pictured
as a martial city, thoroughly equipped, and armed
;rith divine power for dominion over all nations.
These symbols giie the nan e Obe, which with the

THEBEZ
feminine article bewmes Tobe or T(d>e, which ^
pears in the Greek form ©^jStj- Tebe and not
Apeiu was the city of Ammon, who there dwelt in
Apeiu, which was probably the greafc fcemple of
Karnak. The foregoing is fche subsfcance of a monograph
by Mons. F. Chabas, entitled Recherches sur le
nom egyptien de Thebes, and is the latest contri
bution to the literature of the subject.
The explorations of M. Mariette-Bey, M. Dii-
michen, and others, have brought to light some
curious memorials of Thebes fchafc serve to illustrate
its ancient history and renown, and to verify tbe
surviving fragments of its literature. The Abbott
papyrus relates fco fche conviction and punishment
of a band of robbers that in the reign of Rameses
IX. spoiled the necropolis of I'hebes of treasures
deposited in tombs of the priestesses of Ammon
and in the royal sepulchres. In the vicinity of
Gournah, M. Mariette has identified three of ten
royal tombs named in the papyrus. This fixes
definitely the quarter of the city referred to in the
papyrus. M. Mariette's excavations within the temple of
Karnak have restored to the eye of scholars valuable
inscriptions fchafc had long been hidden under fche
sand. In parfcicular he has restored as far as pos
sible the famous Annals of Thothmes III., fiom
the sanctuary which thafc monarch builfc in fche
cenfcre of fche greafc temple as a memorial of his
viefcories. Under the date of each year of this in-
scripfcion follows a narrafcive of fche wai'like expedi-
fcions of the year, which is followed by an enumera
tion of the spoils. The minute accuracy of these
returns may be judged by au example of the tribute
paid by Cush: gold, 154 pounds 2 ounces; slaves,
male and female, 134; beef-cattle, young, 114;
bulls, 305; total 419, &c. These arnals shed Ught
upon ancienfc geography, and upon the Biblical and
other accounts of the wars of Egypt in the E^t
From one hundred and fifteen names we instance
Arabia, Cush, Eglon, Gaza, Mageddo, Mesopotamia,
Nineveh, Taanak, in the list of bafcfcles or conquest
In one inscription it is stated that tbe king set up
a monument in Mesopotamia to mark the eastern
boundary of Egypt.
The commerce of antiquity is also illustrated
by these inscriptions. Cusb returns a tribute of
gold, silver, and cattle; the Rotennou, ivory, cattle,
horses, goats, metals, armor, precious woods; fche
Syrians, silver, iron, lapis-lazuli, and leather; an
unknown people, precious vases, dates, honey, wine,
farina, perfumes, asses, and mstruments of iron.
Mention is made also of chariots ornamented with
silver, and of shiploads of ivory, ebony, leopard-
skins, etc. All this confirms the story of Herodotus
touching the imraense wealfch and fche vasfc niilifcary
power of Thebes. Fifteen successive campaigns are
here recorded in which fche monarch himself carried
his fcriuraphanfc anns to the very heart of Asia. In
Some of these campaigns he marched through Coele-
Syria, and subdued fche region of Lebanon. The
enfcire inscripfcion of Thofchmes III. is fcranslated
in the Revue Archeologique, Nouvelle S^rie, vol. ii.
The inscription of Shishak upon the outer wall
of Karnak in the same way illustrates the power
and grandeur of Thebes, even when bordering upon
its decUne. J. P. T.
THE'BEZ (V?^ [binghiness] : 0^j8t?$,
®apaai; Alex. ®ai$ats, ©afiaaet : Thebes). A
place memorable for ihe death of the bravo Abime-

THECOE, WILDERNESS OF
lech (Judg. ix. 50 "). After suffocating a thousand
of the Shechemites in the hold of Baal-berith by
the smoke of green wood — an exploit which recalls
the notorious feat of a modern French general in
Algeria (Eccl. i. 9, 10) — he went off with his band
to Thebez. The town was soon taken, all but one
tower, into which the people of the place crowded,
and which was strong enough to hold out. To this
he forced his way, and was about to repeat the
barbarous stratagem which had succeeded so well
at Shechem, when the fragment of millstone de
scended and put an end to his turbulent career.
The story was well known in Israel, and gave the
point to a familiar maxim in the camp (2 Sam. xi.
21). Thebez is not mentioned again in the Bible. But
it was known to Eusebius and Jerome. In their
day the village still bore its old name, and was
situated " in the district of Neapolis," 13 Roman
miles therefrom, on the road to Scythopolis ( Onom.
&{l^7]s). There it still is; its name — Tubas —
hardly changed ; the village on a rising ground to
the left of the road, a thriving, compact, and strong-
looking place, surrounded by immense woods of
olives, and by perhaps the best cultivated land in
all Palestine. It was known to hap-Parchi in the
13th century (Zunz's Benjamin, ii. 426), aud is
meutioned occasionally by later travellers. But Dr.
Robinson appears to have been the first to recog
nize its identity with Thebez (Bibl. Res. iii. 305). G.
THECO'E, THE WILDERNESS OF
(tV firni""' &eKoie: deserium Tliecuos). The wild,
uncultivated pastoral tract lying around the town
of Tekoa, more especially to the east of it (1 Mace.
ix. 33). In the Old Test. (2 Chr. xx. 20) it is
mentioned by the term Midbar, which answers to
the Greek epri/ios.
Thecoe is merely the Greek form of the name
Tekoa. ' G.
THBLA'SAR O'tE'Sbri [hiU of Assyria,
Ges., Fiirst] : QaeaOev ; Alex. QaXaatrap : Thelas-
sar). Another form of the name examined under
TeLt-assae. It occurs 2 K. xix. 12. The A.. V.
is unfortunate in respect of this name, for it has
contrived to give the contracted Hebrew form in
the longest English shape, and vice versa. G.
THELER'SAS (QeKeptrds; [Alex. 0e\o-cts:]
Thelharsa), 1 Esdr. v. 36. The Greek equivalent
of tbe name Tel-hausas.
THETVIAN (@aiiidv: Tlieman), Bar. iii. 22,
23. [Teman,.]
THEOC A'NUS (&emKav6s; [Vat. ©okotos :]
Alex. @mKavo5: Thecam). Tikvah the father of
Jahaziah (1 Esdr. ix. 14).
THEOD'OTUS {@e6SoTos [siven by God] :
Theodoiius, Theodorus). An envoy sent by Nicanor
to Judas Mace. u. a. C. 162 (2 Mace. xiv. .19).
B. F. W.
THEOPHILUS (@e6<pi\os [friend of
God] ). 1. The person to whom St. Luke inscribes
lis Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles (Luke i. 3 ;
Acts i. 1). The important part played by The
ophilus, as having immediately occasioned the com-
^ition of these two books, together with the
lilence of Scripture concerning him, has at once

THEOPHILUS

o221

stimulated conjecture, and left the field clear for it
Accordingly we meet with a considerable number
and variety of theories concerning him.
(1.) Several commentators, especially among the
Fathers, have been disposed to doubt the personality
of Theophilus, regarding; the name either as that of
a fictitious person, or as applicalde to every Chris
tian reader. Thus Origen {Hom. i. in Luc.) raises
the question, but does not discuss it, his object
being merely practical. He says fchafc all who are
beloved of God are Theophili, and may fcherefore
appropriate to themselves tbe Gospel which was
addressed to Theophilus. Epiphanius ( //ceres. 11.
p. 429) speaks doubtfully: eXr odv rivl @eo(pi\'^
rdre ypdtpeov eAeyev, ^ iravrX av6p(aircj} @€hv
ayancovri. Salvianus {Epist. ix.. ad Sahnium) ap
parently assumes thafc Theophilus had no hisfcorical
existence. He justifies the composition of a work
addressed "Ad Ecclesiaui Catholicam," under fche
narae of Timotheus, by the exaraple of the E^'an-
gelist St. Luke, who addressed his Gospel nomi
nally to a particular man, but really fco "the love
of God;" "nam sicut Theophili vocabulo amor,
sic Timothei honor divinltatia exprimitur." Even
Theophylact, who beheves in tbe existence of The
ophilus, takes fche opportunifcy of moralizing upon
his name : koL iras 5e ^vOpcairos 0 € o <p i \'f} s, koI
Kpdros Kara rHv iradcttv avadei^dfievos, 0 e-
6(pi\6s ia-ri K par iar o s, hs Kal &^ios ry
ovri io'Tiv OLKOvsiV rod ^vayyeKiov {Aryum. in
Luc). Among modern commentators Hammond
and Leclerc accept the aUegorical view : Erasmus
is doubtful, but ou the whole beheves Theophilus
to have bad a real existence.
(2.) From the honorable epithet Kpdriare, ap
plied to Theophilus in Luke i. 3, compared with
the use of the same epithet as applied by Claudius
Lysias and Terfcullus severally fco Felix, and by Sfc.
Paul to Festus (Acts xxiii. 26, xxiv. 3, xxvi. 25),
it has been argued with rauch probabihty, but not
quite conclusively, that he was a person in high
oflScial position. Thus Theophylact {Argum. in
Lnc.) conjectures that he was a Roman governor.
or a person of senatorial rank, grounding his con
jecture expressly on the use of Kpariarc. CEcu-
menius {ad Act. Apost i. 1) tells us fchat he was a
governor, but gives no authority for the assertion.
The traditional connection of St. Luke with Antioch
has disposed some to look upon Antioch as the
abode of Theophilus, and possibly as the seat of his
government. Bengel believes him to have been an
inhabitant of Antioch, " ut veteres testantur." The
belief may partly have grown out of a story in the
so-called Recognitions ofSL Clement (lib. x.), i\hich
represents a certain nobleman of Antioch of that
name to have been converted by the preaching of
St. Peter, and to have dedicated his own house as
a church, in which, as we are told, fche Apostle fixed
his episcopal seat. Bengel thinks thafc fche omission
of Kpdrtare in Acts i. 1 proves that St. Luke was
on more familiar terms with Theophilus than when
he composed his Gospel.
(3.) In the Syriac lexicon extracted from the
Lexicon He/Jtaglotton of Castell, and edited by
Michaelis (p. 948), the following description of
Theophilus is quoted from Bar Bahlul, a Syrian
lexicographer of the 10th century: "Theophilus,
priraus credentium efc celeberriraus apud Alexan-

a In the Hebrew text Thebez occurs twice in the
ICTse, httt in the LXX. it stands thus, '^ And Abime

lech went out of Bethelberith (Vulg. inde) and feU
upon Thebes," etc.

3222

THEOPHILUS

¦irienses, qui cura aliis .^gyptiis Lucam rogabat,
ut eis EvangeUum scriberet." In the inacription
of the Gospel according to St. Luke in the Syriac
version we are told fchafc ifc was published at Alex
andria. Hence it is inferred by Jacob Hase {BibL
Bremensis Class, iv. Fasc. iii. Diss. 4, quoted by
Michaelis, Introd. to ihe N. T., vol. iii. ch. vi. § 4,
ed. Marsh) and by Bengel {Ordo TempoQ-um, p.
196, ed. 2), that Theophilus was, as asserted by
Bar Bahlul, a convert of Alexandria. This writer
ventures to advance fche sfcarfcling opinion fchafc The
ophilus, if an Alexandrian, was no other than the
celebrated Philo, who is said to have borne the He
brew narae of Jedidiah (H'l'T'^^^, i. e. ®e6<j>i\os)-
It hardly seems necessary to refute this theory, as
Michaelis has refuted ifc, by chronological argu
ments. (4.) Alexander Morns (Ad quosdam hca Nov.
Foid. Notce : ad Luc. i. 1) makes the rather hazard
ous conjecture that the Theophilus of St. Luke is
identical wifch fche person who is recorded by Tacifcus
(Ann. ii. 55) to have been condemned for fraud at
Athens by the court of the Areoi)agus. Grotius
also conjectures fchafc he was a magisfcrate of Achaia
bapfcized by Sfc. Luke. The conjecfcure of Grofcius
musfc rest upon fche asserfcion of Jerome (an asser
tion which, if it is received, renders fchafc of Alex.
Morus possible, though certainly most improbable),
namely, that Luke pubhshed his Gospel in the parts
of Achaia and I^otia (Jerome, Comm. in Matt
Prooem.). (5.) It is obvious to suppose that Theophilus was
a Christian. But a different view has been enter
tained. In a series of Dissertations in tbe Bib
liotheca Bremensis, of which Michaelis gives a
resume in the secfcion already referred to, the notion
that he was not a Christian is maintained hy dif
ferent wiiters, and on different grounds. Heumann,
one of the contributors, assuming fchat he was a
Roman governor, argues that he could not be a
Christian, because no Chrisfcian would be hkely to
have such a charge entrusted to him. Anofcher
writer, Theodore Hase, believes that the Theophilus
of Luke was no other than the deposed high-priest
Theophilus the son of Ananus, of whom more will
be said presently. Michaelis himself is inclined to
adopt fchis fcheory. He thinks that the use of the
word KarriX'hB'r)^ ^" Luke i. 4, proves thafc The
ophilus had an imperfecfc acquaintance with the
facts of fche Gospel (an argumenfc of which Bishop
Marsh very properly disposes in his nofce upon fche
passage of Michaelis), and further contends, from
the 4v Tjfiiv of Luke i. 1, fchat he was nofc a member
of fche Christian community. He thinks it prob
able that the Evangelist wrote his Gospel during
the imprisonment of Sfc. Paul at Csesarea, and ad
dressed it to Theophilus as one of the heads of the
Jewish nation. According to this view, it would
be regarded as a sort of historical apology for fche
Chrisfcian faith.
In surveying this series of conjectures, and of
traditions which are nothing more than conjectures,
we find it easier to determine what is to be re
jected than whafc we are to accept. In tbe first
place, we may safely reject fche Pafcrisfcic notion fchafc
Theophilus was either a fictitious person, or a mere
personification of Christian love. Such a pei-sonifi-
cation is ahen from the spirit of the New Testa
ment writei-s, and the epithet Kodriffre is a sufficienfc
evidence of the historical existence of Theophilus.
It does not, indeed, prove that he was a governor,

THESS ALONI&.NS
but ifc makes ifc mosfc probable fchafc he was a person
of high rank. His supposed connecfcion with An
tioch, Alexandria, or Achaia, rests on fcoo slender
evidence eifcher fco claim accepfcance or to need refu
tation; and the view of Theodore Hase, although
endorsed by Michaelis, appears to be inconfcestably
negatived by the Gentile complexion of the Third
Gospel. The grounds alleged by Heumann for his
hypothesis that Theophilus was nofc a Christian are
not afc all trusfcworfchy, as consisting of two very
disputable premises. For, in the first place, it is
not at all evidenfc that Theophilus was a Roman
governor; and in the second place, even if we as
sume that at fchafc fcime no Christian would be ap
pointed to such an office (an assumption which we
can scarcely venture to make), ifc docs not at all
follow fchafc no person in fchat position would become
a Christian. In fact, we have an example of such
a conversion iu the case of Sergius Paulus (Acta
xiii. 12). In the article on the Gospel of Luke
[vol. ii. p. 1697 a], reasons are given for behoving
thafc Theophilus was " nofc a native of Palestine. . . .
nofc a Macedonian, nor an Afchenian, nor a Cretan.
Bufc fchat he was a native of Italy, and perhaps an
inhabitant of Rome, is probable from similar data."
All thafc can be conjectured with any degree of
safety concerning him, comes to this, thafc he was
a Genfcile of rank and consideration, who came
under fche influence of Sfc. Luke, or (nofc improbably)
under fchafc of Sfc- Paul, at Rome, and was converted
to the Christian faith. It has been observed that
the Greek of St. Luke, which elsewhere approaches
more nearly to the classical type than that of the
other Evangelists, is purer and more elegant in the
dedication to Theophilus than in any other part of
his Gospel.
2. A Jewish high-priest, the son of Annas or
Ananus, brother-in-law fco Caiaphas [Annas; Ca
iaphas], and brother and inimediate successor of
Jonathan. The Roman Prefect ViteUius came to
Jerusalem at the Passover (a. d. 37), and deposed
Caiaphas, appointing Jonathan in his place. In
the same year, at the feast of Penfcecosfc, he came to
Jerusalem, and deprived Jonafchan of the high-
priesthood, which he gave to Theophilus (Joseph.
Ant. xviii, 4, § 3, xviii. 5, § 3). Theophilus was re
moved from his post by Herod Agrippa L, after the
accession of that prince to the^ovemment of Judasa
in A. D. 41, so that he must have continued in
office about five years (Joseph. Ant xix. 6, § 2).
Theophilus is not mentioned by narae in the New
Testament; bufc ifc is mosfc probable that he was the
high-priest who granted a commission to Saul to
proceed to Daraascus, and to take into custody any
believers whom he raight find there. W. B. J.
THE'RAS {@€pa; [in ver. 41, Vafc. omits:]
Thia ; Syr. Tharan). The equivalenfc in 1 Esdr.
viii. 41, 61, for fche Ahava of fche parallel passage in
Ezra. Kofching whatever appears to be known of it.
THER'MELETH (0€p^e\e'0: Thelmela),!
Esdr. V. 36. The Greek equivalent of fche name
Tki^melah. THESSALO'NIANS, FIRST EPISTLE
TO THE. 1. The date of fche episfcle is made
oufc appproximafcely in the following way. During
the course of his second missionar}' journey, prob
ably in the year 52, St. Paul founded the Church
of Tbessalonica. I^eaving Tbessalonica he passed
on to Beroea. Frora Bercea he went to Athens,
and frora Athens to Corinth (Acts xvii. 1-xviii. 18 J.
Wifch tbis visit to Corinth, which extends over a

THESSALONIANS, FIRST EPISTLE TO THE

322:1

period of two years or thereabouts, his second mis
sionary journey closed, for from Corinth he refcurned
to Jerusalem, paying only a brief visifc fco Ephesus
on the way (xviii. 20, 21). Now it appears thafc,
when fchis epistle was written, Silvanus and Timo
theus were in the Apostle's company (1 Thess. i. 1 ;
3omp. 2 Thess. i. 1) — a circumstance which con
fines the date to the second missionary journey, for
though Timotheus was with him on several occa
sions afterwards, the name of Silvanus appears for
the last time in connection with St. Paul during
this visit to Corinth (Acts xviii. 5; 2 Cor. i. 19).
The epistle then raust have been wrifcten in fche in-
fcerval befcween Sfc. Paul's leaving Tbessalonica and
fche close of his residence at Corinth, i. e. according
to the received chronology within the years 52-54.
The following considerations however narrow the
liraita of the possible date still more closely. (1.)
When St. Paul wrote, he had already visited, and
probably left Athens (1 Thess. iii. 1). (2.) Hav
ing made fcwo unsuccessful atfcempfcs fco revisifc
Tbessalonica, he had dispafcched Timothy to obtain
tidings of his converts there. Timothy had re
turned before the Apostle wrote (iii. 2, 6). (3)
St. Paul speaks of the Thessalonians as " ensamples
to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia," add
ing that " in every place their faith to God ward
was sprrad abroad" (i. 7, 8) — language prompted
indeed by the overflowing of a grateful heart, and
therefore nflt to be rigorously pressed, but still im
plying some lapse of time at least. (4.) There are
several traces of a growth and progress in the con
dition and circumstances of the Thessalonian
Church. Perhaps the mention of " rulerg " in the
church (v. 12) ought not to be adduced as proving
this, since some organization would be necessary
from fche very beginning. Bufc fchere is ofcher evi
dence besides. Questions had arisen relating to
the state of those who had fallen asleep in Christ,
so thafc one or more of the Thessalonian converts
musfc have died in the interval (iv. 13-18). The
storm of persecution which the Apostle had dis
cerned gathering on the horizon had already burst
upon fche Christians of Tbessalonica (iii. 4, 7). Ir
regularities had crept in and suUied the infant
purity 'of the church (iv. 4, v. 14). The lapse of
a few months however would account for these
changes, and a much longer time cannot well be al
lowed. For (5) the letter was evidently writfcen by
Sfc. Paul immediately on the return of Timothy; in
the fullness of his'grafcifcude for the joyful tidings
(iii. 6). Moreover, (6) the second epistle also was
written before he left (Toriufch, and there musfc have
been a sufficient interval between the two to allow
of fche growfch of fresh difficulties, and of such cora-
niunicafcion between the Apostle and his converts as
the case supposes. AVe shall not be far wrong
therefore in placing the writing of this epistle early
in St. Paul's resideuce afc Corinth, a few months
after he had founded the church at Tbessalonica,
at fche close of fche year 52 or the beginning of 53.
The sfcatement in the subscription appearing in sev
eral MSS. and versions, fchafc it was written "from
Athens," is a superficial inference from 1 Thess. iii.
1, to which no weight should be attached. The
views of critics who have assigned to this episfcle
•I lafcer dafce fchan fche second missionary journey are
sfcafced and refuted in the Introductions of Koch (p.
23, etc.), and Liinemann (§ 3).
2. The epistles to the Thessalonians then (for
the second followed the first after no long interval)
we the earliest of Sfc. Paul's writings — perhaps the

earUest written records of Christianity. They be-
long to that period which St. I'aul elsewhere styles
"the beginning ofthe Gospel" (Phil. iv. 15).
They present the disciples in the first flush of love
and devotion, yearning for the day of deUverance.
and straining their eyes to catch the first gUrapse
of their Lord descending amidst the clouds of
heaven, till in their feverish anxiety they forget the
sober business of life, absorbed in this one engro.ss-
ing thought. It will be remembered that a period
of about five years intervenes before the second
group of epistles — those to the Corinthians, Gala-
fcians, and Komans — were wrifcten, and about twice
that period to the date of the epistles of the Roman
captivity. It is interesting therefore to compaie
the Thessalonian Epistles with the lafcer lefcters, ani
fco nofce fche points of difference. These differences
are mainly threefold. (1.) In the general style of
these earlier letters there is greater simplicity and
less exubenince of language. The brevity of the
opening salutation is an instance of this. " Paul
. ... to the Church of the Thessalonians in God
the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, grace and
peace to you " (1 Thess. i. 1; comp. 2 Thess. i. 1).
The closing benediction is correspondingly brief: —
" The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you "
(1 Thess. v. 28; comp. 2 Thess. iii. 18). And
throughoufc the episfcles fchere is much more even
ness of sfcyle, words are not accumulated in the
same way, the syntax is less involved, parentheses
are not so frequent, the turns of thought and feel
ing are less sudden and abrupt, and altogether there
is less intensity and variety than we find in St.
Paul's later epistles. (2.) The antagonism io St.
Paul is not the sarae. The direction of the attack
has changed in the interval between the writing of
these epistles and those of the next group. Here
the opposition comes fi-om Jews. The admission
of the Gentiles to fche hopes and privileges of Mes
siah's kingdom on any condifcion is repulsive to
them. They "forbad tbe Apostle to speak to the
Gentiles that they might be saved" (ii. 16). A
period of five years changes the aspect of the con
troversy. The opponents of St. Paul are now no
longer Jews, so much as Judaizing Christians
(Ewald, Jahrb. iii. 249; Sendschr., p. 14). The
question of the admission of the Gentiles has been
solved by time, for they have " taken the kingdom
of heaven by storm." But the antagonism to the
Apostle of the Gentiles, having been driven from
its first position, entrenched itself behind a second
barrier. It was now urged that though fche Gen-
fciles may be admifcted to the Church of Christ, ths
only door of admission is fche Mosaic covenanfc-rite
of circumcision. The language of Sfc. Paul, speak
ing of the Jewish Christians iu this epistle, shows
that the opposition to his teaching had uot at thia
time assumed this second phase. He does not yet
regard them as the disturbers of the peace of the
church, fche false fceachers who by imposing a bond
age of ceremonial observances frustrate the free
grace of God. He can still point to them as ex
amples to his converts at Tbessalonica (ii. 14). The
change indeed was imminent, the signs of the gath
ering storm had already appeared (Gal. ii. 11), but
hitherto fchey were faint and indistinct, and had
scarcely darkened the horizon of the Gentile
churches. (3.) It will be no surprise that the
doctrinal teaching df fche Aposfcle does not bear
quite the same aspect in these as in the later
epistles. Many of the distinctive doctrines of
Christianity which are inseparably connected with

3224

THESSALONIANS. FIRST EPISTLE TO THE

St. Paul's name, though implicitly couta,ined in the
teaching of these earJier letters — as indeed they
follow directly from the fcrue concepfcion of the Per
son of Christ — were yet not evolved and distinctly
enunciated fcill the needs of the church drew thera
out into prominence at a later date. It has often
been observed, for instance, that there is in the
Epistles to the Thessalonians no raention of the
characteristic contrast of *• faith and works; '' that
the word "justification " does nofc once occur; thafc
the idea of dying wifch Chrisfc and living wifch Chrisfc,
BO frequent in Sfc. Paul's later writings, is absent
in these. It was in facfc fche opposition of Judaizing
Christians, insisting on a strict rituahsm, which
led fche Aposfcle somewhafc lafcer to dwell at greater
length on the true doctrine of a saving faith, and
the true conception of a godly life. But the time
had not yet come, and in the epistles to the Thessa
lonians, as has been truly observed, the Gospel
preached is that of the cominf;; of Christ, rather
than of the cross of Christ. There are many rea^
sons why the subjecfc of fche second advent should
occupy a larger space in the earhesfc stage of fche
Apostolical teaching than afterwards. It was
closely bound up with the fundamental fact of the
Gosjiel, the resurrection of Christ, and thus it
formed a natural starting-point of Christian doc
trine. Ifc afforded the true satisfaction to those
Messianic hopes which had drawn fche Jemsh con
verts to the fold of Christ. It was fche best conso
lation and support of the infant church under per
secution, which must have been most keenly felt in
the first abandonraent of worldly pleasures and in
terests. More especially, as telling of a righteous
Judge who would not overlook iniquity, it was es
sential to that call to repentance which must every
where precede the direct and positive fceaching of
the Gospel. " Now He commandefch all men every
where to repent, for He hath appointed a day in the
which He will judge fche world in rii^hteousness by
fchat man whora He hath ordained, whereof He hath
given assurance unto all men in thafc He raised hira
from the dead " (Acts xvii. 30, 31).
3. The occasion of this epistle was as follows :
St. Paul had twice attempted to revisit Tbessa
lonica, and both times had been disappointed. Thus
prevented from seeing them in person, he had sent
Timothy to inquire and report to him as to their
condition (iii. 1-5). Timothy returned wifch mosfc
favorable tidings, reporting not only their progress
in Christian faith and practice, but also their strong
atfcachmenfc to their old teacher (iii. 6-10). The
First Epistle to tbe Thessalonians is the outpouring
of the Apostle's grafcitude on receiving this welcome
news. Afc the same time the report of Timothy
was not unmixed with alloy. There were certain
features in fche condifcion of the Thessalonian Church
which called for St. Paul's interference, and to
which he addresses himself in his letter. (1.) The
very intensity of their Christian faith, dwelling too
exclusively on the day of the Lord's coraing, had
been attended with evil consequences. On the one
hand a practical inconvenience had arisen. In
their feverish expectation of this great crisis, some
had been led to neglect their ordinary business, as
though fche daily concerns of life were of no account
In the imraediate presence of so vasfc a change (iv.
11; corap. 2 Thess. ii. 1, iii. 6, 11, 12). On the
3ther hand a theoretical difficulfcy had been felfc.
Cerfcain members of fche church had died, and fchere
was greafc anxiefcy lesfc they should be excluded from
»ny share in the glories of the Lord's advent (iv.

13-18). St. Paul rebukes the irregularities of the
former, and dissipates the fears of the lafcfcer. (2.)
The flame of persecution had broken out, and the
Thessalonians needed consolation and encourage*
menfc under their sore trial (ii. 14, iii. 2-4). (3.)
An unhealthy state of feeling with regard to spuifc-
ual gifts was manifesting itself. Like fche Corin-
fchians afc a later day, they needed to be reminded
of the superior value of " proph^ying," compared
wifch ofcher gifts of fche Spirifc which fchey exalted afc
ifcs expense (vv, 19, 20). (4. ) There was the danger,
which they shared in common with mosfc Genfcile
churches, of relapsing into their old heathen profli
gacy. Againsfc fchis fche Apostle offers a word in
season (iv. 4-8). We need not suppose however
that Tbessalonica was worse in this respect than
other Greek cities.
4. Yet notwithstanding all these drawbacks, the
condition of the Thessalonian Church was highly
satisfactory, and the most cordial relations exisfced
between St. Paul and his converts there. This
honorable distinction it shares with the ofcher greafc
church of Macedonia, fchafc of Phiiippi. Afc all
times, and amidst every change of circumstance, it
is to his Macedonian churches that the Apostle
turns for sympathy and support. A period of
about ten years is interposed between the First
Epistle to the Thessalonians and the Epistle to the
Philippians, and yefc no two of his letters raore
closely resemble each other in fchis respect. In
hoth he drops his official title of Apostle in the
openhig salutation, thus appealing rather to their
afi'ection than to his owu authority; in both he
commences the body of his letter with hearty and
unqualified commendation of his converts; and in
both the same' spirit of confidence and warm affec
tion breathes throughout.
5. A comparison of the narrative in the Acts
with the allusions in this and the Second Epistle
to the Thessalonians is instructive. With some
striking coincidences, there is just that degree of
divergence which might be expected between a
writer who had borne the princi^ part in the
scenes referred to, and a narrator who derives his
information from others, between the casual half-
expressed allusions of a familiar letter and the
direct account of the professed historian.
Passing over patenfc coincidences, we may single
oufc one of a more subtle and delicate kind. It
arises out of fche form which the accusation brought
against Sfc. Paul and his companions afc Tbessa
lonica takes in fche Acfcs : " All fchese do contrary
fco the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is
another king, one Jesus" (xvii. 7). The allusions
in the Epistles to the Thessalonians enable us to
understand the ground of this accusation. Ifc ap
pears thafc fche kingdom of Christ had entered
lai'gely into his oral teaching in this city, as it
does into that of the Epistles themselves. He had
charged his new converts to await the coming of
the Son of God from heaven, as their defiverer (i.
10). He had dwelt long and eaniestly (TrpoetVa-
piv KoX BiefjLaprvpdpeda) on the terrors of the
judgment which would overtake the wicked (iv. 6).
He had even explained at length the signs which
would usher in the last day (2 Thess. ii. 5). Either
from malice or in ignorance such language had
been misrepresented, and he was accused of setting
up a rival sovereign to the Roman emperor.
On the other hand, the language of these epistles
diverges from the narrative of St. Luke ou two oi
tbree pomts in such a way as to estabUsh the hide-

THESSALONIANS, FIRST EPISTLE TO THE

3225

pendence of the fcwo accounts, and even to require
some explanafcion. (1.) The firsfc of fchese relafces
fco fche composition of fche Church of Tbessalonica.
In fche firsfc episfcle St. Paul addresses his readers
distincfcly as Gentiles, who had been converted fi'om
idolatry to the Gospel (i 9, 10). In the Acts we
are told thafc '' some (of fche Jews) believed ....
and of the devout Greeks {i. e. proselytes) a greafc
multitude, and of fche chief women not -a few"
(xvii. 4). If for ae^o/Mevcav ''EW7}vtov we read tre-
&0fi4vQ}v Kai 'EAA^T^/QJi', " proselytes and Greeks,"
Uie difficulty vanishes; but though internal prob
abilities are somewhat in favor of this reading, the
air*y of direct evidence (now reinforced by the
Cod. Sinalticus) is againsfc it- But even if we
retain the common reading, the account of St.
Luke does not exclude a number of beUevers con
verted direcfcly from heathendom — indeed, if we
may argue from the parallel case at Beroea (xvii.
12), the "wouien" were chiefly of this class: and,
if auy divergence remains, ifc is nofc greafcer than
might be expected in two independent writers, one
of whom, not beiug an eye-witness, possessed only
a partial and indirect knowledge." Bofch accounts
jdike convey the impression that fche Grospel made
bufc Utfcle progress wifch the Jews themselves. (2.)
In the epistle the persecutors of the Thessalonian
Christians are represented as their fellow-country
men, i. e. as heathens {utrh r<ov ISiwv a-vfj,(pv\erav,
ii. 14), whereas in the Acts the Jews are regarded
as the bitterest opponents of the faith (xvii. 5).
This is fairly met by Paley {Horce Paul. ix. No. 5),
who points out that the Jews were the instigators
of the persecution, which however they were pow
erless of themselves to carry out without aid fi'om
the heathen, as raay be gathered even firom the
narrative of St. Luke. We may add also, that the
expression t^ioi avp.<pv\^rai need not be restricted
to the heathen population, but might include many
HeUenist Jews who musfc have been cifcizens of the
free town of Tbessalonica. (3.) The narrative of
St. Luke appears to state that St. Paul remained
only three weeks at Tbessalonica (xvir. 2), whereas
iu the epistle, thongh there is no direct mention of
the length of his residence among them, the whole
language (i. 4, ii. 4-11) points to a much longer
period. The latter part of the assertion seems
quite correct; the former needs to be modified. In
the Acts it is stated simply that for three Sabbath
days (three weeks) St. Paul taught in the syna
gogue. The silence of the writer does nofc exclude
subsequenfc labor among fche Genfcile population,
and indeed as much seems to be implied in fche
success of his preaching, which exasperafced fche
Jews againsfc him. (4.) The notices of the move
ments of SUas and Timotheus in the two docu
ments do not accord at first sight. In fche Acts
St. Paul is conveyed away secretly firom Bercea to
escape the Jews. Arrived at Athens, he sends to
Silas and Timothy, whom he had left behind afc
Beroea, urging fchem fco join him as soon as possi
ble (xvii. 14-16). Ifc is evident fi'om the language
jf Sfc. I oke that the Apostle expects them to join

a * The difficulty may be further urged, that if
fche church at Thessalooica contained both '' a great
multitude " of proselytes and still such an overpow
ering majority of Gentiles, that fche address of the
epistle could take its tone from the latter, a much
larger total number of believers would be impUed
thafi is consistent with the other circumstances of the
case. It is obvious, however, that the Apostle, in ad-
SOS

him at Athens. Yet we hear nothing more of
them for some time, when at length, after Sfc. Pau^
had passed on to Corinth, and several incidents
had occurred since his arrival there, we are told
that Silas and Timotheus came from JIacedonia
(xvii. 5). Frora the first epistle, on fche other hand
we gather the following facts, St. Paul there tells
us that they (jj/xets, i- e. himself, and probably
Silas), no longer able to endure the suspense,
" consented to be left alone afc Afchens, and sent
Timothy their brother " fco Tbessalonica (iii. 1, 2).
Timothy returned with good news (iii. 6) (whether
to Athens or Corinth does not appear), and when
the two epistles to the Thessalonians were written,
both Timothy and Silas were with St. Paul (1
Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess. i. 1; corap. 2 Cor. L 19).
Now, though we may not be prepared with Paley
to construct an undesigned coincidence out of these
materials, yet on the other hand there is no in
soluble difficulty ; for the events may be arranged
in two different ways, either of which wiU bring
the narrative of the Acts into accordance with the
allusions of the epistle, (i.) Timotheus was de
spatched to Tbessalonica, not from Athens, but fi'om
Beroea, a supposition quite consistent with the
Apostle's expression of '* consenfcing fco be leffc alone
afc Afchens." In this case Timotheus would take
up Silas somewhere in Macedonia on his return,
and the two would join St. Paul in company; not
however at Athens, where he was expecting them,
but lafcer on afc Corinth, some delay having arisen.
This explanation however supposes that the plurals
" we consented, we sent" {cudoK-fjaafiev, iire/i^a-
pev), can refer fco Sfc. Paul alone. The alternative
raode of reconciling the accounts is as follows:
(ii. ) Timotheus and Silas did join the Apostle at
Athens, where we learn from the Acts thafc he
was expecting them. Frora Athens he despatched
Timotheus to Tbessalonica, so that he and Silaa
{7]fj.e7s) had to forego the services of their fellow-
laborer for a tirae. This mission is mentioned in
the episfcle, but not in the Acts. Subsequently he
sends Silas on some other mission, not recorded
either in the hisfcory or fche episfcle; probably to
anofcher Macedonian church, PhiUppi for insfcance,
from which he is known fco have received confcribu-
tions about this tirae, and with which therefore he
was in communication (2 Cor. xi. 9; corap. PhU.
iv. 14-16; see Koch, p. 15). Silas and Tiraotheus
returned together from Macedonia and joined the
Apostle at Coriuth. This latter solution, if it
assumes more than the former, has the advantage
that it preserves the proper sense of the plural
" we consented, we sent," for it is afc leasfc doubtful
whether St. Paul ever uses the plural of hiraself
alone. The silence of Sfc. Luke may in this case
be explained either by his possessing only a partial
knowledge of the circumstances, or by his passing
over incidents of which he was aware, as unim
portant, 6. This epistle is rather practical than doctrinal.
Ifc was suggesfced rafcher by personal feeling, fchan
by any ui^ent need, which might have formed a

dressing proselytes converted to the Christian faith,
would naturaUy regard them as having been originally
heathen, rather than Jews. Their Judaism had been
bufc a temporary and transitional stage; and thus the
address in the episfcle is altogether consistent with tb.e
fact that they had been prepared for Christianity by
a previous reception of Judaism. f- ft-

^226

THESSALONIANS, FIRST EPISTLE TO THE

centre of unity, and impressed a distinct character
on fche whole. Under fchese circumsfcances we need
not expect to trace unity of purpose, or a contin
uous ai'guraent, and- any analysis must be raore or
less artificial. The body of the epistle, however,
may convenienfcly be divided into two parts, the
former of which, extending over the firsfc three
chapters, is chiefly taken up with a retrospect of
the Apostle's relation fco his Thessalonian converfcs,
and an explanafcion of his presenfc circumsfcances
and feeUngs, while fche latter, comprising the 4th
and 5th chapters, contains sorae seasonable exhor
tations. At the close of each of these divisions is
a prayer, commencing with the same words, "May
(iod hiraself," etc., and expressed in somewhat
g'luilar language.
The following is a table of contents: —
Salutation (i. 1).
1. Narrative portion (i- 2-iii. 13).
(1.) 1. 2-10. The Apostle gratefully records
their conversion fco fche Gospel aud prog
ress in the faifch.
(2.) ii. 1-12. He reminds thera how pure and
blameless his life and ministry araong
them had been.
(3.) ii. 13-16. He repeats his thanksgiving
for their conversion, dweUing especially
on the persecutions which they had en
dured.
(4.) ii. 17-iii. 10. He describes his own sus
pense and anxiety, the consequent mis
sion of Timothy to Tbessalonica, and
the encouraging report which he brought
back.
(5.) in. 11-13. The Apostle's prayer for the
Thessalonians.
2. Hortatory portion (iv. 1-v. 24).
(1.) iv. 1-8. M^'arning againsfc impurifcy.
(2.) iv. 9-12. Exhorfcation to brotherly love
and sobriety of conduct.
(3.) iv. 13-v. 11. Touching fche advenfc of
the Lord.
(a.) The dead shall have fcheir place in fche
resurrecfcion, iv. 13-18.
(b.) The fcime however is uncerfcain, v. 1-3.
(c.) Therefore aU must be watchful, v.
4-11.
(4.) V. 12-15. Exhortation to orderly Uving
and the due performance of social duties.
(5.) V. 16-22. Injunctions relating to prayer
and spiritual matters generally.
(6.) v. 23, 24. The Apostle's prayer for the
Thessalonians.
The epistle closes with personal injunctions and
a benediction (v. 25-28).
7. The external evidence in favor of the genuine
ness of the First Epistle to the Thessalonians is
chiefly negative, but this is important enough.
There is no trace that it was ever disputed at any
age or in any secfcion of the Church, or even by
any individual, till the present century. On the
other hand, the aUusions to it in writers before the
close of the 2d century are confessedly faint and
uncertain — a circumstance easily explained, when
we remember the character of the epistle itself, its
comparatively siraple diction, its silence on the raost
important doctrinal questions, and, generally speak
ing, the absence of any salient points fco arresfc the
afctenfcion and provoke reference. In Cleraenfc of
Kome there are some slighfc coincidences of lan-
puage, perhaps nofc purely accidental (c. 38, Ka.rh,

Tcdvra evxapicreiv avr^, comp. 1 Thess. v. 18;
ibid. aw^4(rQw oSv rjfuv ii\ov rh trafxa 4v X, I..
comp. 1 Thess. v. 23). Ignatius in two passages
{Polyc. c. 1, and Ephes. c. 10) seems to be reminded
of Sfc. Paul's expression ciSiaKelTrreas Trpocevxeffde
(1 Thess. V. 17), bufc in bofch passages of Ignafcius
the word adtaKeiirras, in which the similarity
mainly consists, is absent in fche Syriac, and is
fcherefore probably spurious. The supposed refer
ences in Polycarp (c. iv. to 1 Thess. v. 17, and c.
ii. to 1 Thess. v. 22) are also unsatisfactory. It is
more important to observe that the epistle was in
cluded in the Old Latin and Syriac Versions, that
it is found in the Canon of the Muratorian frag
ment, and that it was also contained in that of
Marcion. Towards the close of the 2d century
from Irenaeus downwards, we find this epistle di ¦
rectly quoted and ascribed to St. Paid.
The evidence derived frora the character of the
epistle itself is so strong that it may fairly be caUed
irresistible. Ifc would be irapossible to enter into
the question of style here, bufc fche reader may be
referred to the Infcroducfcion of Jowefct, who has
handled this subject very fully and satisfactorily.
An equaUy strong argument may be drawn also
from the matter contained in the epistle. Two in
stances of this musfc suffice. In fche firsfc place, fche
fineness and delicacy of touch with which the
Apostle's relations towards his Thessalonian con
verts are drawn — his yearning to see them, his
anxiety in the absence of Timothy, and his heart
felt rejoicing at the good news — are quite beyond
the reach of the clumsy forgeries of the early Church.
In the second place, the writer nses language which,
however it may be explained, is certainly colored
by the anticipation of fche speedy advent of the
Lord — language natural enough on the Apostle's
own Ups, but quifce inconceivable in a forgery
wrifcfcen affcer bis deafch, when fcime had disappoinfced
fchese anticipations, and when fche revival or men
fcion of fchem would serve no purpose, and might
seem to discredit the Apostle. Such a position
would be an anachronism in a writer of the 2d
century. The genuineness of this epistle was first ques
tioned by Schrader {Apostel Paulus), who was fol
lowed by Baur(Pff«/M5, p. 480). The latter writer
has elaborated and systematized the afcfcack. The
arguments which he alleges in favor of his view
have already been anfcicipafced to a great extent.
They are briefly controverted by Lunemann, and
more at length and with great fairness by Jowett.
The following is a summary of Baur's arguments:
(i.) He attributes great weight to the general char
acter of the epistle, the difference of style, and
especiaUy the absence of distinctive Pauline ioc'
trines — a peculiarity which has already been re
marked upon and explained, § 2. (ii.) In the men
fcion of fche "wi-afch" overfcaking fche Jewish people
(ii. 16), Baur sees an aUusion fco the destruction of
Jerusalem, and therefore a proof of the later date of
the epistle. The real significance of these words
wiU be considered below in discussing the apocalyp
tic passage in fche second epistle, (iii.) He urges
the contradictions to the account in the Acts — a
strange argument surely to be brought forward by
Baur, who postdates and discredits the authority t)f
that narrative. The real extent and bearing of
these divergences has been already considered, (iv.)
He discovers references to the Acfcs, which show
that the epistle was written later. It has been
seen however that the coincidences are subtle and

THESSALONIANS, SECOND EPISTLE TO THE

32ii7

Incidental, and the pointe of divergence and prima
facie contradictions, which Baur himself aUows,
and indeed insists upon, are so numerous as to pre
clude the supposition of copying. Schleiermacher
(ElnL ins N. T. p. 150) rightly infers the inde
pendence of the epistle on these grounds, (v.)
He supposes passages in this epistle to have been
borrowed from tbe acknowledged letters of Sfc.
Paul. The resemblances however which he poinfcs
out are not greater than, or indeed so great as,
thoue in ofcher episfcles, and bear no fcraces of imi
tation. 8. A list of the Patristic commentaries compris
ing the whole of St. Paul's epistles, wUl be found
in fche article on the Epistle to the Romans.
To this Ust should be added the work of Theodore
of Mopsuestia, a portion of which containing the
shorter epistles frora Galatians onward is preserved
in a Latin translation. The part relating to the
Thessalonians is at present only accessible in the
compilafcion of Rabanus Maurus (where ifc is quofced
under the name of Ambrose), which ought to be
read with the corrections and additions given by
Dom Pitra {SpiciL Sulesm. i. p. 133). This com
mentary is attributed by Pitra to HUary of Poi
tiers, bufc ifcs true authorship was pointed out hy
Hort {Jouimal of Class, and Sacr. PhiL iv. p.
302). The portion of Cramer's Catena relating to
this epistle seeras to be made up of extracts from
Chrysostom, Severianus, and Theodore of Mop
suestia. For the more iraportant recent works on the
whole of St. Paul's epistles the reader raay again
be referred to the article on the Epistle to the Ro
mans. The notes on the Thessalonians in Meyer's
Comraentary are executed by Lunemann [3d ed.,
1867]. Of special annotators on the Thessalonian
epistlra, the chief are, in Germany, Klatfc (1829),
Pelfc (1830), Schofct (1834), and Koch (2d ed. 1855,
fche Firsfc Episfcle alone), and in England, Jowett
(2d ed. 1859) and Ellicott (2d ed. 1862). J. B. L.
* On the critical questions relating to this epistle
the foUowing writers deserve mention: W. Grimra,
Die Echtheit d. Briefe an d. Thess. (against Baur),
in the TheoL Stud. u. Krit, 1850, pp. 753-816;
R. A. Lipsius, Ueber Zweck u. Vtranlassung des
ersten Thessahnicherbriefs, ibid. 1854, pp. 905-
934 (comp. Lunemann's criticisms, in Meyer's
Komm., Abth. x. p. 5 ff"., 3« Aufl.); F. C Baur,
Die beiden Briefe an d. Thess., ihre Aechihelt u.
Bedeuiung f d. Lehre von d. Parusie Christi, in
Baur and ZeUer's TheoL Jahrb. 1855, xiv. 141-169,
reprinted in the 2d ed. of his Paulus (1867), ii.
341 ff.; Hilgenfeld, Die beiden Biiefe an d. Thess.,
nach Inhalt u. tfrsprung, in his ZeitschHftf.
wiss. TheoL, 1862, v. 225-264; J. C Laurent,
Niuiest Studien, Gofcha, 1866 (several shorfc arfci-
cles); Holfczmann in Bunsen's Bibelwerk, yiii. 429-
434 (1866); and Reuss, Bleek, and Davidson, in
fcheir respective Introductions. The so-called "Sec
ond Epistle to the Thessalonians" is regarded by
Baur, HUgenfeld, Ewald. Laurent and Davidson as
the firsfc wiifcfcen. Araong the recent Comraenfca-
ries we may name J. C K. Hofmann, Die heU.
Schnft N. T. zusammenhangend untersucht,
Thed i. (1862); and C. A. Auberlen and C. J.
Riggenbach, Die beiden Briefe an die Thess.,
TheU JL. of Lange's Bibelwerk (1864), translafced
ffith large additions by Dr. John LilUe, in vol. viii.
jf fche Amer. ed. of Lange's Commentary (N. Y.

1868), to which the reader is referred for a fuUex
view of the literature pertaining to this epistle. A.
THESSALONIANS, SECOND EPIS
TLE TO THE. (1.) This epistle appears to
have been writfcen frora Corinfch not very long after
the first, for SUvanus and Timotheus were stiU with
St. Paul (i. 1). In the forraer letter we saw chiefly
the outpouring of strong personal affection, occa
sioned by fche renewal of the Apostle's intercourse
with the Thessalonians, and the doctrinal and hor
tatory portions are there subordinate. In the sec
ond epistle, on the other hand, his leading motive
seems to have been the desire of correcting errors
in the Church of Tbessalonica. We notice two
points especiaUy which call forth his rebuke. First,
it seems that the anxious expectation of the Lord's
advent, instead of subsiding, had gained ground
since the wrifcing of the first epistle. They now
looked upon this great crisis as imminent, and their
daUy avocations were neglected in consequence.
There were expressions in the firsfc episfcle which,
taken by themselves, might seem to favor this
view; and afc aU events such was falsely repre
sented to be the Apostle's doctrhie. He now
writes to soothe this restless spirit and quell their
apprehensions by showing that many things musfc
happen first, and that the end was not yet, refer
ring to his oral teachuig at Tbessalonica in confir
mation of fchis sfcatement (u. 1-12, in. 6-12). Sec
ondly, fche Apostle had also a j^^'^sonal ground of
complaint. His authority was nofc denied by any,
bufc it was tampered with, and an unauthorized use
was raade of his name. It is difficult to ascertain
the exact circumstances of the case from casual and
indirect aUusions, and indeed we may perhaps hifer
from the vagueness of the Apostle's own language
thafc he himself was not in possession of definite in
formation ; bufc afc aU events his suspicions were
aroused. Designing men might misrepresent his
teaching in two ways, either by suppressing what
he actuaUy had written or said, or by forging letters
and in other ways representing him as teaching
what he had not taught. Sfc. Paul's language
hinfcs in different places at both these modps of
false dealing. He seems to have entertained
suspicions of this dishonesty even when he "wrote
the first epistle. At the close of that epistle he
binds the Thessalonians by a soleran oafch, '^' in
the name of the Lord," to see that the epistle is
read " to aU the holy brethren " (v. 27) — a charge
unintelligible in itself, and only to be explained by
supposing some misgivings in the Apostle's mind.
Before fche second episfcle is wrifcten, his suspicions
seem to have been confirmed, for there are two pas
sages which aUude fco fchese misr^resenfcafcions ol
his teaching. In the firsfc of these he tells them
in vague language, which may refer equaUy well to
a false interpretation put upon his own words in
the firsfc episfcle, or fco a supplemental letter forged
in his name, " not to be troubled either by spirit
or by word or by letter, as coming from us, as il
the day of the Lord were at hand." They are nofc
fco be deceived, he adds, by any one, whatever means
he employs {Kara iitj^eva rp6nov, U- 2, 3-). In
the second passage at the close of the epistle be
says, *' the salutation of Paul with mine own hand,
which is tk token in every episfcle: so I write'*
(iu. 17) — evidently a, precaution againsfc foi-gery.
With these two passages should be combined the
expression in iii. 14, from which we infer fchafc hs
now enterfcained a fear of direct opposition: "Il

3228

THESSALONIANS, SECOND EPISTLE TO THE

any man obey not our word conveyed by our
episfcle, note that man."
It wiU be seen then that the fceaching of fche
second episfcle is correcfcive of, or rather supple
mental fco, fchat of the first, and therefore presup
poses it. Moreover, the firsfc epistle bears on its
face evidence thafc ifc is fche first outpouring of his
affectionate yearnings towards his converts after his
departure from Tliessalonica; while on the other
hand the second epistle contains a direcfc allusion
to a previous letter, which may suitably be referred
to the first: "Hold fast the fcradifcion which ye
were taught either by word or by letter from us "
(ii. 15). We can scarcely be wrong therefore in
maintaining fche received order of the two episfcles.
Ifc is due however to the great names of Grotius
and of Ewald (Jah-b. ui. p. 250; Sendschr. p.
16) to menfcion fchat they reverse the order, placing
the second epistle before the first in point of time
— on difl'erent grounds indeed, but both equaUy
insufficient fco disturb the traditional order, sup
ported as it is by the considerations already al-

(2.) This epistle, in fche range of subject as well
as in sfcyle and general cbaracfcer, closely resembles
the firsfc; and fche remarks made on fchafc epistle
apply for fche mosfc parfc equally weU fco this. The
structure also is somewhat similar, the main body
of the epistle being divided into two parts in the
same way, and each part closing with a prayer
(ii. 16, 17, iii. 16; both commencing with avrhs
Se 6 Kvpios)- The foUowing is a. table of con
tents: —
The opening salutation (i. 1, 2).
1. A general expression of thankfulness and in
terest, leading up to fche difficulfcy aboufc fche Lord's
ftdvenfc (i. 3-ii. 17).
(1.) The Aposfcle pours forfch his fchanksgiving
for fcheir progress in fche faith; he en
courages them to be patient under per
secution, reminding them of the judg
ment to corae, and prays that fchey
may be prepared to meet ifc (i. 3-12).
(2.) He is fchus led to correct the erroneous
idea that the judgraent is imralnent,
pointing out that rauch must happen
first (n. 1-12).
(3.) He repeats his thanksgiving and exhorta
tion, and concludes this portion with
A prayer (ii. 13-17).
2. Direct exhortation (iii. 1-16).
(1.) He urges them to pray for hira, and con
fidently anticipates their progress in
fche faifch (in. 1-5).
(2.) He reproves fche idle, disorderly, and dis-
obedienfc, and charges fche faifchful to
withdraw from such (iii. 6-15).
This portion again closes with a prayer (iii.
16).
The epistle ends with a special direction and
benediction (iii. 17, 18).
(3.) The external evidence in favor of the sec
ond episfcle is somewhafc more definite fchan fchafc
which can be broughfc in favor of the firsfc. Ifc
seems to he referred to in one or two passages of
Polycarp (iii, 15, in Polyc. c. 11, and possibly i. 4
in fche same chapter; cf. Polyc. c. 3, and see Lard
ner, pt. ii. e. 6); and fche language in which Justin
Martyr {DiaL p. 336 D) speaks of fche Man of Sin
b so similar fchat it can scarcely be independent of

this epistle. The second epistle, like tbe firsi, Ib
found in the canons of the Syriac and Old Latin
Versions, and in those of the Muratorian fragment
and of the heretic Marcion ; is quoted expressly
and by name by Irenseus and others at the close
of the second century, and was universally received
by tbe Church. The internal character of the
epistle too, as in the former case, bears the strong
est testimony to its Pauline origin. (See Jowett,
i. 143.) Its genuineness in facfc was never quesfcioned
untU fche beginning of fche presenfc cenfcury. Ob-
jecfcions were firsfc sfcarfced by Chrisfc. Schmidt (Einl.
ins N. T. 1804). He has been followed by Schra
der {Apostel Paulus), Kern {Tubing. Zeitschr. f,
TheoL 1839, ii. p. 145), and Baur {Paulus der
Apostel). De Wette at first condemned fchis epistle,
but afterward withdrew his condemnation and
frankly accepted it as genuine.
Ifc wiU fchus be seen fchafc fchis episfcle has been re
jected by some modem critics who acknowledge the
first to be genuine. Such critics of course attrib
ute no weight to ailments brought against the
first, such as we have considered already. The apoc
alyptic passage (ii. 1-12), is the great stumbUng-
block to thera. It has been objected to, either as
alluding to events subsequenfc to Sfc. Paul's deafch,
fche Neronian persecution, for instance; or as be
traying religious views derived from the Montanism
of the second century; or lastly, as contradicting
St. Paul's anticipations expressed elsewhere, rape-
ciaUy in the first epistle, of the near approach of
the Lord's advent. That there is no reference to
Nero, we shall endeavor to show presently. That
the doctrine of an Antichrist did not start into
being with Montanism, is shown from the allusions
of Jewish writers even before the Christian era
(see Bertholdt, Christ p 69 ; Gfrorer, Jahrb. des
Beils, pt. ii. p. 257); and appears stUl more clearly
from fche passage of Jusfcin Marfcyr referred to in a
former paragraph. Thafc the language used of the
Lord's coming in the second epistle does not con
tradict, but rather supplement the teaching of the
first — postponing the day indeed, but still antici
pating its approach as probable within the Apostle's
Ufetime — may be gathered both from expressions
in the passage itself (e. g. ver. 7, " is already
working"), and from other parts of the epistle
(i. 7, 8). Other special oly'ections to the epistle
wiU scarcely command a hearing, and must neces
sarily be passed over here.
(4.) The most striking feature in fche epistle is
this apocalyptic passage, announcing the revelation
of the " Man of Sui " (ii. 1-12); and it wiU not be
irrelevant to invesfcigate ifcs meaning, bearing as ifc
does on fche circumsfcances under which the epistle
was written, and iUustrating this aspect of the
Apostle's teaching. He had dwelt much on the
subjecfc ; for he appeals to fche Thessalonians as know
ing fchis truth, and reminds them that he had told
them fchese things when he was yet with fchem.
(I.) The passage speaks of a greafc apostasy which
is fco usher in fche advenfc of Chrisfc, the great judg
ment. There are fchree prominenfc figures in the
picture, Christ, Antichrist, and the Restrainer.
Antichrist is described as the Man of Sin, the Son
of Perdition, as the Adversary who exalteth himself
above aU that is called God, as making himself out
to be God. Later on (for apparently fche reference
is fche same) he is sfcyled the " mysteiy of lawless
ness," " fche lawless one." The Restr^ner is in
one place spoken of in fche masculine as a person

THESSALONIANS, SECOND EPISTLE TO THB

3229

{6 Kar4xt»y)* io another in fche neuter as a power,
in influence (rh Karexov)- The " raystery of law-
^assness" is already at work. At present ifc is
shecked by the Restrainer; bufc fche check wiU be re
moved, and fchen ifc will break oufc in aU ifcs violence.
Then Christ wiU appear, and fche enemy shaU be
consumed by the breath of his mouth, shah be
brought to naught by the splendor of his presence.
(it.) Many different explanations have been
offered of this passage. By one class of interpreters
ifc has been referred to circumsfcances which passed
wifchin the circle of the Apostle's own experience,
the events of his own lifetime, or the period im
mediately following. Ofchers again have seen in ifc
the predicfcion of a crisis yefc to be realized, fche end
of aU fchings. The former of these, the Praeterisfcs,
have idenfcified fche " Man of Sin " with divers his
torical characters — with CaUgula, Nero, Titus,
Simon Magus, Simon son of Giora, the high-priest
Ananias, eto., and have sought for a historical coun
terpart to the Restrainer in like manner. The lat^
ter, the Futurists, have also given various accounts
of the Antichrist, fche mysterious power of evil which
is already working. To Protestants, for instance,
it is the Papacy; to the Greek Church, Moham
medanism. And in the same way each generation
and each section in the Church has regarded it as
a prophecy of that particular power which seemed
to them and in their own time to be most fraught
with evil to the true faith. A good account of
these manifold interpretations wUl be found in
Lunemann's Commentary on tbe Epistle, p. 204;
Schlussbem. zu u. 1-12. See also Alford, Proleg.
(HI.) Now in arbitrating between the Prseterists
and the Futurists, we are led by the analogy of
other prophetic aimouncements, as weU as by the
language of fche passage itself, to take a middle
course. Neither is whoUy right, and yet both are
to a certain extent right. Ifc is fche special charac
teristic of prophecy to speak of the disfcant future
through fche presenfc and immediate. The persons
and evenfcs falling within fche horizon of the proph
et's own view, are the types and representatives of
greater figures and crises far off, and as yet but
dimly discecned. Thus the older prophets, while
speaking of a deUvery from the temporary oppres
sion of E^ypt or Babylon, spoke also of Messiah's
kingdom. Thus our Lord hiraself, foretelling the
doom which was even then hanging over the holy
city, glances at the future judgraent of fche world
as typified and porfcrayed in fchis; and fche two are
so interwoven that it is irapossible to disentangle
them. Following this analogy, we may agree with
the Prasterists that St. Paul is referring to events
which fell under his own cognizance; for indeed
the Restrainer is said to be restraining now, and
the mystery of iniquity to be aheady working : whUe
afc the same time we may accept fche Futurist view,
fchafc the Apostle is describing the end of aU things,
and that therefore the prophecy has not yet received
Its mosfc striking and complete fulfiUment. This
commingling of the immediate and partial with the
final and universal manifestation of God's judg
ments, characteristic of all prophecy, is rendered
raore easy in St. Paul's case, because he seems to
have contemphited the end of aU things as possibly,
3r even probably, near afc hand ; and fcherefore fche
parfcicular manifesfcation of Antichrist, which he
witnessed with his own eyes, would naturaUy be
merged in and idenfcified with the final Antichrist,
hi which the opposition to the Gospel will cul-
ninate.

(IV. ) If this view be correct, it remains to in
quire what particular adversary of the Gospel, and
what particular restraining influence, Sfc. Paul may
have had in view. Bufc, before afcfcerapting to ap
proximate fco an explanafcion, we may clear the way
by laying down two rules. First. The im^ery of
fche passage raust be interpreted mainly by itself,
and by the circumstances of the time. The symbols
may be borrowed in some cases from the Old Tes
tament; they may reappear iu other parts of the
New. But we cannot be sure that the same imacje
denotes exactly the same thing iu bofch cases. The
language describing the Man of Sin is boiTowed to
some extent from fche represenfcafcion of Antiochus
Epiphanes in fche book of Daniel, bufc Antiochus
cannot be meant there. The great adversary in the
Revelation seems to be the Roman power; but it
raay be widely different here. There- were even in
the Apostolic age "many Antichrists;'' and wc
cannofc be sure fchafc fche Anfcichrisfc presenfc to the
mind of St. Paul was the same with the Antichrist
contemplated by St. John. Secondly. In aU figu
rative passages it is arbitrary to assume that a
person is denoted where we find a personification.
Thus fche " Man of Sin " here need nofc be an in
dividual man ; ifc raay be a body of men, or a power,
a spirifcual influence. In fche case of fche Restrainer
we seem to have positive ground for so intei-preting
it, since in one passage the neuter gender is used,
'* the thing which restrainefch " (rh Karexov)^ a^
if synonymous. (See Jowefct's Essay on ihe Man
of Sin, i. 178, rafcher for suggesfcions as to fche
mode of interpretation, than for the conclusion he
arrives at.)
(V.) When we inquire then, whafc Sfc. Paul had
in view when he spoke of fche " Man of Sin " and
fche Restrainer, we can only hope to gefc even an
approximafce answer by investigating the circum
stances of the Apostle's life at this epoch. Now
we find that the chief opposition to the Gospel, and
especially to St. Paul's preaching at this time,arose
frora the Jews. The Jews had conspired against
the Aposfcle and his corapanions afc Tbessalonica,
and he only saved himself by secrefc flighfc. Thence
they followed him to Beroea, which he hurriedly
leffc in the sarae way. Afc Corinth, whence the let
ters to the Thessalonians were written, fchey perse
cuted him still further, raising a cry of treason
against him, and bringing him before the Roman
proconsul. These incidents explain fche sfcrong ex
pressions he uses of fchem in these epistles : '* They
slew the Lord Jesus and the prophefcs, and perse
cuted fche Apostles ; they are hateful to God ; they
are the comraon enemies of mankind, whom the
Divine wrath (^ opyf]) at leugth overtakes" (1
Thess. u. 15, 16). With these facts in view, il
seems on the whole probable that the Antichrist is
represented especially by Judaism. With a pro
phetic insight fche Apostle foresaw, as he contem
plated the moral and political condition of the race,
the approach of a great and overwhelming catastro
phe. And it is not improbable fchat our Lord's
predictions of the vengeance which threatened Jeru
salem blended wifch fche Aposfcle's \'ision, aud gave
a color to this passage. If it seem strange that
"lawlessness" should, be mentioned as the distin
guishing feature of those whose very zeal for " the
Law" stimulated fcheir opposifcion to the Gospel, we
may appeal to our Lord's own words (Matt, xxiii..
28), describing the Jewish teachers: " within they
are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness {avofj.ias)-^^
Corresponding to this view of the Antichrist, w€

3230

THESSALONICA

snail probably be correct in regarding the Roman
Empire as the restraining power, for so it was taken
by mauy of the Fathers, though without altogether
understanding its bearing. It was to Roman justice
and Roman magistrates that the Apostle had re-
eourse at this time to shield him from the enmity
of the Jews, and to check their violence. At
Phiiippi, his Roman citizenship extorted an ample
apology for ill-treatment. At Tbessalonica, Roman
law secured him fair play. At Corinth, a Roman
proconsul acquitted him of frivolous charges brought
by the Jews. It was only at a later date under
Nero, tbat Rome became the antagonist of Chris
tendom, and then she also in turn was fitly por
trayed by St. John as the type of Antichrist.
Whether the Jewish opposition to the Gospel entirely
exhausted St. Paul's conception of the "mystery
of lawlessness*' as he saw it " already working "
in his own day, or whether other elements did not
also combine with this to complete the idea, it is
impossible to say. Moreover at tbis distance of
time and witb our imperfect information, we cannot
hope to explain the exact bearing of all the details
in the picture. But following the guidance of bis
tory, we seem justified in adopting this as a prob
able, though only a partial, explanation of a very
difficult passage. [Antichrist.]
5. A list of commentaries has been given in tbe
article on the First Epistle. J. B. L.
THESSALONI'CA (@eiraa\orUv)- The
original name of this city was Therma; and tbat
part of the Macedonian shore on which it was
situated (" Medio flexu litoris sinus Thermaici,"
Plin. H. N. iv. 10) retained through the Roman
period the designation of the Thermaic Gulf. The
history of the city under its earlier name was of no
great note (see Herod, vii. 128 fi'. ; Thucyd. i. 61,
ii. 29; .^sch. De fais. Leg. p. 31). It rose into
importance with the decay of Greek nationality.
Cassander the son of Antipater rebuilt and enlarged
it, and named it after his wife Tbessalonica, the
sister of Alexander the Great. The first author
in which the new appellation occnrs is Polybius
(xxiii. 4). The name ever since, under various
slight modifications, has been continuous, and tbe
city itself has never ceased to be eminent. Salomki
(though Adrianople may possibly be larger) is still
tbe most important town of European Turkey, next
after Constantinople.
Under tbe Romans, when Macedonia was di
vided into four governments, Tbessalonica was made
the capital ofthe second (Liv. xiv. 29); afterwards,
when the whole was consolidated into one province,
this city became practically the metropolis. Notices
of the place now become frequent. Cicero was here
in bis exile (jrro Plane. 41), and some of his letters
were written from hence during his journeys to and
frum bis own province of Cilicia. During the first
Civil AVar it was the headquarters of the Pompeian
party and the Senate (Dion Cass. xii. 20). During
the second it took the side of Octavius (Plut. Bi-ul.
46; Appian, B. C. iv. 118), whence apparently it
reaped the honor and advantage of being made a
"free city" (libera civit-as, Plin. I. c), a privilege
which is commemorated on some of its coins.
Strabo in tbe first century speaks of Tbessalonica

a Timothy is not mentioned in any part of the
iirect narrative of what happened iit Tbessalonica,
liough he appears as St. Paul's companion before at
Phiiippi (Acts xvi. 1-13), and afterwards at Beroea
ixrii. 1 i, 15) ; but from bis subBeq.uent mission to

THESSALONICA
as the most populous city in Macedonia (pAXiara
Tau &\\ai> eiavSpe?), similar language to which
is used by Lucian in the second century (Atin.
46). Thus we are brought to St. Paul's visit (witl
Silas and Timothy) <= during his second missionary
journey, and to the introduction of Christianity
into Tbessalonica. Three circumstances must here
be mentioned, which illustrate in an important
manner this visit and this journey, as well as the
two Epistles to the Thessalonians, whieh the Apostle
wrote from Corinth very soon after his departure
from his new Macedonian converts. (1.) This waa
the chief station on the great Roman Road, called
the Via Egnrriia, which connected Rome with the
whole region to the north of the Mgean Sea. St.
Paul was on this road at Neapolis (Acts xvi. 11)
and Philippi (xvi. 12-40), and his route from the
latter place (xvii. 1) had brought him through two
of the well-known minor stations mentioned in the
Itineraries. [Amphipolis ; Apollosia.] (2.)
Placed as it was on tbis great road, and in con
nection witb other important Roman waj-s ("posita
in gremio imperii Romani," to use Cicero's words),
Tbessalonica was an invaluable centre for the spread
of the Gospel. And it must be remembered that,
besides its inland communication with the rich
plains of Macedonia and with far more remote re
gions, its maritime position made it a great em
porium of trade by sea. In fact it was nearly, if
not quite, on a level with Orinth and Ephesus in
its share of the commerce of the levant. Thus we
see the force of what St. Paul says in his first
epistle, shortly after leaving Tbessalonica — i^'
itpMU i^-iix'nrai b \6yos too Kvpiov ou pAvov ip
Tp MaiceSoviii Kal ev rp 'Axdiif, dW' iv rravTl
Tdirtp (i. 8). (3.) The cii-cumstance noted in Acta
xvii. 1, that here was the synagogue of the Jews
in this part of Macedonia, had evidently much to
do with the Apostle's plans, and also doubtless with
his success. Trade would inevitably bring Jews to
Tbessalonica : and it is remarkable that, ever since,
they have had a prominent place in the annals of
the city. Tbey are mentioned in the seventh cen
tury during the Sclavonic wars; and again in the
twelfth by Eustathius and Benjamin of Tudela. In
the fifteenth century there was a great influx of
Spanish Jews. At the present day the numbers
of residents in tbe Jewish quarter (in the south
east part of the town) are estimated at 10,000 or
20,000, out of an aggregate population of 60,000
or 70,000.
The first scene of the Apostle's work at Tbessa
lonica was the Synagogue. According to bis custom
be began there, arguing ftijm tbe Ancient Scrip
tures (Acts xvii. 2, 3) : and tbe same general results
followed, as in other places. Some believed, both
Jews and proselytes, and it is particularly added,
tbat among these were many influential women
(ver. 4); on which the general body of the Jews,
stirred up with jealousy, excited the Gentile popu
lation to persecute Paul and Silas (vv. 6-10). It
is stated tbat the ministrations among the Jews
continued for three weeks (ver. 2). Not that we
are obliged to limit to tbis time the whole stay of
the Apostles at Tbessalonica. A flourishing church
Tbessalonica (1 Thess. iii. 1-7 ; see Acts xviii. 5), and
the mention of his name in the opening salutation ft
botli epistles to the Thessalonians, we can hanliy
doubt that he had heeu with the Apostle thro'Ugb-
out.

THESSALONICA
was certainly formed there: and the epistles show
that its elements were much more Gentile than
Jewish. St. Paul speaks of the Thessalonians as
having tumed " from idols; " and he does not here,
as in other epistles, quote the Jewish Scriptures.
In all respects it is important to compare these two
letters with the narrative in the Acts; and such
references have tbe greater freshness from the short
interval which elapsed between visiting tbe Thessa
lonians and writing to tbem. Such expressions as
iv B\l\f/ei iroWp (1 Thess. i. 6), and iv rroWtp
dyavi (ii. 2), sum up the suffering and conflict
which Paul and Silas and their converts went
through at Tbessalonica. (See also 1 Thess. ii. 14,
15, iii. 3, 4; 2 Thess. i. 4-7.) The persecution took
place through tbe instrumentality of worthless idlers
(rav dyopaluv dvSpas Tivds novrjpovs. Acts xvii.
5), who, mstigated bythe Jews, raised a tumult.
The bouse of Jason, with whom the Apostles seem

THESSALONICA

3231

to have been residing, was attacked ; tbey themselves
were not found, but Jason was brought before the
authorities on the accusation that the Christians
were trying to set up a new King in opposition to
the Emperor; a guarantee (ri Uaviv) was taken
from Jason and others for the maintenance of tbe
peace, and Paul and Silas were sent away by night
southwards to Bercea (Acts xvii. 5-10). 'The
particular charge brought against the Apostles re
ceives an illustration from the epistles, where the
kingdom of Christ is prominently mentioned (1
Thess- ii. 12; 2 Thess. i. 5). So again, the doctrine
of the Resurrection is conspicuous both in St. Luke's
narrative (xvii. 3), and in the first letter (i. 10, iv. 14,
16). If we pass from these points to such as are per
sonal, we are enabled from the epistles to complete
tbe picture of St. Paul's conduct and attitude at
Tbessalonica, as regards bis love, tenderness, and
zeal, his care of individual souls, and bis disinterest-

\kA.

edness (see 1 Thess. i. 5, ii. 1-10). As to tbis last
point, St. Paul was partly supported here by con
tributions from Philippi (Phil. iv. 15, 16), partly by
the labor of his own hands, which he diligently
practiced for the sake of the better success of tbe
Gospel, and that he might set an example to the
idle and selfish. (Ee refers very expressly to what
he had said and done at Tbessalonica in regard to
this point. See 1 Thess. ii. 9, iv. 11; comparing
2 Thess. iii. 8-12. ) [Thessalonians, Epistles
TO.] To complete the account of St. Paul's con
nection with Ihessalonica, it must be noticed that
he was certainly there again, though the name of
tbe city is not specified, on bis third missionary
journey, both in going and returning (Acts xx.
1-3). Possibly he was also there again, after his
liberation from his first imprisonment. See Phil. i.
25, 26, ii. 24, for the hope of revisiting Macedonia,
entertained by the Apostle at Rome, and 1 Tim. i.
3 ; 2 Tim. iv. 13 ; Tit. iii. 12, for subsequent jour
neys in the neighborhood of Tbessalonica.

Of the first Christians of Tbessalonica, we aie
able to specify by name the above-mentioned Jason
(who may be the same as the .-Apostle's own kins
man mentioned in Rom. xvi 21), Demas (at least
conjecturally; see 2 Tim. iv. 10), Gaius, who shared
some of St. Paul's perils at Ephesus (Acts xix. 29),
Secundus (who accompanied bim from Macedonia
to Asia on tbe eastward route of his third missionary
journey, and was probably concerned in the business
of the- collection; see Acts xx. 4), and especially
Aristarchus (who, besides being mentioned here
with Secundus, accompanied St. Paul on his voyage
to Rome, and had therefore probably been with him
during the whole interval, and is also specially re
ferred to in two of the epistles written during the
first Roman imprisonment. See Acts xxvii. 2;
Col. iv. 10 ; Philem. 24 ; also Acts xix. 29, for hia
association with the Apostle at Ephesus in the ear
lier part of the third journey).
We must recur, bowever, to the narrative in the
Acts, for the purpose of ncticing a singularly accu-

3232

THESSALONICA

rate iUustration which it affords of the poUtical
constifcufcion of Tbessalonica. Nofc only is fche dcTnus
menfcioned {rhv ^rfpov. Acts xvii. 5) hi harmony
with whafc has been above said of ifcs being a "free
cifcy," bufc fche peculiar title, ^o/iiarcAs {iroKirdpxO'S.
ib. 6), of the chief magistrates. This term occurs
in no other writuig; but ifc may be read to fchis
day conspicuously on an arch of fche early imperial
fcimes, which spans fche main streefc of the city.
Frora this inscription it would appear that the
number of polifcarchs was seven. The whole may
be seen in Boeckh, Corp. Insc. No. 1967,
This seeras the right place for noticing the other
remains afc Tbessalonica. The arch first mentioned
(called fche Forrfdr gate) is at the western extremity
of the town. At its eastern extremity is another
Roman arch of later date, and probably commerao-
rating some victory of Constanfcine. The main
sfcreefc, which both thrae arches cross, and which
intersects the city frora east to west, is undoubtedly
the line of the Via Eynatia. Near the course of
this sfcreefc, and befcween fche two arches, are four
Corinthian colurans supporting an architrave, and
believed by some to have belonged to the Hippo
drome, which is so famous in connection with the
history of Theodosius. Two of the mosques have
been anciently heathen temples. The city walls are
of late Greek construction, bufc resfcing on a much
older foundafcion, wifch hewn stones of immense

Coin of Tbessalonica.
fchickness. The castle contains the fragments of a
shattered triumphal arch, erected in the reign of
Marcus Aurelius.
A word must be said, in conclusion, on the later
ecclesiastical history of Tbessalonica. For during
several centuries this city was the bulwark, not
simply of the later Greek Emphre, but of oriental
Christendora, and was largely instrumental in the
conversion of the Slavonians and Bulgarians. Thus
it received the designation of "the Orthodox City;*'
and its struggles are very prorainent in the writings
of the Byzantine historians. Three conspicuous
passages are, its capture by the Saracens, A. D. 904
(Jo. Cameniata, De Excidio Thessalonicensi, with
Theophanes Continuatus, 1838); by the Crusaders
in 1185 (Nicefcas Choniates, De Andron. Comneno,
1835; also Eustath. De Thessalonicd d Laiinis
captd, in the same vol. with Leo Granimaticus,
1842); and finally by the Turks under Aumrafcb
II. in 1430 (Jo. Anagnosfces, De Thessalonicensi
Excidio Nan-aiio\ with Phrantzes and Cananus,
1838). The references are to the Bonn editions.
A very large part of fche population afc the present
day is Greek; and Tbessalonica may stiU be destined
to take a prominenfc parfc in struggles connected
wifch nationalifcy and religion.

a * The Notes upon tlie (Geography of MacerJonia,
by Rov. E. M. Dodd, BibL Sacra, xi. 830 ff., include
rhessalonica. They describe step by step Paul's route
^m that city to Beroea (Acts xvii. 10). The Jews are
said to couBtifcute oue half of tbe eutire population. H.

THETJDAS
The fcraveUers to whom ifc is mosfc important to
refer, as having given full accounts of thia plaoe,
are Clarke ( Travels in Europe, etc., 1810-1823),
Sir H. HoUand ( Travels in the Ionian Isles, ete.,
1815), Cousin^ry ( Voyage dans la Macedoine^
1831), and Leake {Northern Greece, 1835). An
antiquarian essay on the subjecfc by fche Abb^ SeUey
wiU be found in fche Memoires de I' Academic des
Inscriptions, tom. xxxviii. Sect. Hist. pp. 121-146.
But the mosfc elaborate work is that of Tafel, the
firsfc parfc of which was pubUshed afc Tubingen in
1835. This was afterwards reprinted as " Prole
gomena " to the Dissertaiio de Thessalonicd ejusqut
Agro geographico, Berlin, 1839. With this should
be compared his work on the Via Egnatia.(^ The
Coraraentaries on the Epistles to the Thessalonians
of course contain useful corapUations on the subject.
Among these, two of the raost copious are those of
Koch (Berlin, 1849) and Liinemann (Gottingen,
1850). J. S. H.
THEU'DAS {®eudds: Theodns: and probably
= min), the name of an insurgent mentioned in
Gamaliel's speech before the Jewish councU (Acts
v. 35-39) at the time of the arraignment of the
Apostles. He appeared, according to Luke's ac
count, at the head of about four hundred men; he
sought not merely to lead the people astray by false
doctrine, but to accomplish his designs by riolence
he entertained a high conceit cf himself {\4ya9
elvai nva eouT(iz/); was slain at last {avrjpedy}),
and his party was dispersed and brought to nothing
{die\v$r)a-av Kal iyevovro els ovBev). Josephus
{Ant. XX. 5, § 1) speaks ofa Theudaswho played a
similar part in the time of Claudius, about a. d. 44,
/. e. some ten or twelve years at leasfc later fchan
the delivery of GamaUel's speech ; and since Luke
places his Theudas, in the order of time, before
Judas the Galilean, who raade his appearance soon
after the defchronemeufc of Archelaus,- i. e. a. d. 6 or
7 (Jos. B. J. U. 8, § 1; Ant xviii. 1, § 6, xx. 5,
§ 2), ifc has been charged fchafc fche writer of fche Acta
eifcher fabricated the speech put into the mouth of
Gamaliel, or has wrought into it a transaction
which took place thirty years or morg after the
tirae when it is said to have occurred (see ZeUer,
Die Aposielgescfiichte, pp. 132 ff.). Here we may
protest at the outset against the injustice of
hastily imputing to Luke so gross an error; for
having established 'his character m so many deci
sive instances in which he has alluded, in the
course of the Acts, to persons, places, customs, and
events in sacred and profane history, he has a right
to the pi'esuraption thafc he was weU informed also
as fco the facts in this particular passage.'' Every
principle of just criticism demands that, instead of
distrusting him as soon as he goes beyond our
raeans of verification, we should avail ourselves of
any supposition for the purpose of upholding his
credibility which the conditions of the case wiU
allow. Various solutions of the difficulty have been
offered. The two following have been suggested ai»
especiaUy commending themselves by their fulfiU
ment of every reasonable requisition, and as ap

b It may not be amiss to remind the reader of some
fine remarks, in illustration of Luke's historical accu
racy, in Tholuck's Glaubwiirr/igknt der Evang. Gt
schidue, pp. 161-177. 375-389. See also El rard, J
^elische Kritik, pp. 678 ff. ; and Lechler, Das t
lische Zeitalter, pp. 9 £f.

THEtJDAS
proved by learned and judicious men: (1.) Since
Luke represents Theudas as having preceded Judas
the GaUlean [see vol. iL p. 1495], it is certain that
he could not have appeared later, at all events^
than the latter parfc ofthe reign of Herod the Greafc.
The very year, now, of that monarch's death was
remarkably turbulent; the land was overrun with
belUgerent parties, under the direction of insurrec
tionary chiefs or fanatics. Josephus mentions but
three of these disturbers by rutvie ; he passes over
the others with a general aUusion. Among those
whom the Jewish historian has omitted to name,
may have been the Theudas whom Gamaliel cites
as an example of unsuccessful innovation and in
subordination. The name was not an uncommon
one (Winer, Realwb. ii. 609); and it can excite
no surprise fchat one Theudas, who was an insur
gent, should have appeared in the time of Augus
tus, and another, fifty years later, in the time of
Claudius. As analogous to this supposition is the
fact that Josephus gives an account of four men
named Simon, who followed each other within forty
years, and of three named Judas, within ten years,
who were all instigators of rebeUion. This mode of
reconciling Luke with Josephus is affirmed by
Lardner {Credibility, vol. i. p. 429), Bengel, Kui-
noel, Olshausen, Anger {de Tempp. in Act Apost.
Ralione, p. 185), Winer., and ofchers.
(2.) Another explanation (essentiaUy different
only as proposing to identify the person) is, thafc
Luke's Theudas may have been one of the three in
surgents whose names are mentioned by Josephus
in connection wifch thedisfcurbances which took place
about fche time of Herod's death. Sonntag ( TheoL
Stud. u. Kritik. 1837, p. 622, &c.) has advanced
this view, and supported it with much learning and
altiUty. He argues that the Theudas referred to by
Gamaliel is the individual who occurs in Josephus
under the name of Simon (B. J. ii. 4, § 2; Ant
xvu. 10, § 6), a slave of Herod, who attempted fco
make himself king, amid fche confusion which afc-
tended fche vacancy of the fchrone when fchafc mon
arch died. He urges fche foUowing reasons for that
opinion : first, this Simon, as he was the most noted
among those who disturbed the pubUc peace afc
that time, would be apt fco occur to Gamaliel as an
Ulustration of his point; secondly, he is described
as a man of the same lofty pretensions {eJvai &^ios
iKiriffas irap' bvrivovv ^ ^.eytav elvai rtva eoy-
r6v) ; thirdly, he died a violent deafch, which Jose
phus does nofc menfcion as true of the other two in
surgents ; fourthly, he appears to have had compar
atively few adherents, in conformity with Luke's
oiffel rerpaKotriuiV, and, lastly, his having been
originaUy a slave accounts for the twofold appella
tion, since it was very common among the Jews to
assume a different name on changing fcheir occupa
tion or mode of life. It is very possible, therefore,
J.hat (jramaliel speaks of him as Theudas, because,
having borne that name so long afc Jerusalem, he
vas best known by ifc fco fche members of fche San
hedrim; and fchafc Josephus, on the contrary, who
wrote for Romans and Greeks, speaks of him as
Simon, because it was under that name that he set
himself up as king, and in that way acquired his
breign notoriety (see Tacit. Hist v. 9).
There can be no vaUd objection to either of the
foregoing suppositions: both are reasonable, and
both must be disproved before Luke can be justly
charged with having committed an anachronism in
ihe passage under consideration. So hnpartial a
witness as Jost, the historian of the Jews {Ge-

THIEVES, THE TWO 8233
schichte der Israeliien, ii. Anh. p. 76), admits the
reasonableness of such combinations, and holds in
fchis case fco fche credibility of Luke, as weU as that
of Josephus. The considerate Lardner ( Credibilily,
vol. i. p. 433), therefore, could weU say here, " In
deed, I ara surprised that any learned man should
find ifc hard to believe that there were two impos
tors of the name of Theudas in the compass of forty
years." It is hardly necessary to advert to other
modes of explanation. Josephus was by no means
infallible, as Strauss and critics of his school may
almost be said to take for granted ; aud it is possi
ble, certainly (this is the position of some), fchat Jo
sephus himself raay have misplaced the time of
Theudas, instead of Luke, who is charged with that
oversight. Calvin's view that Judas the Galilean
appeared nofc after bufc before Theudas {perct toD-
Tov = insuper vel prceterea), and thafc the exam
ination of the Apostles before the Sanhedrim oc
curred in the time of Claudius (contrary to fche
manifesfc chronological order of the Acts), desen^es
mention only as a waymark of the progress which
has been made in Biblical exegesis since his tirae.
Among ofcher writers, in addition to those already
mentioned, who have discussed this question or
touched upon it, are the following : A\''ieseler, Chi'o-
nologie der Apost. ZelUdters, p. 138: Neander,
Geschichte der Pflanzung, i. 75, 76; Guerike,
Beitrdge zur Einleit ins N. Test. p. 90; A.
Kohler, Herzog's Real^Encyk. xvi. 39-41; Baum-
garten, Aposielgeschichie, i. 114; Lightfoot, Hor.
Hebr. ii. 704; Biscoe, History ofthe Acts, p. 428;
and Wordsworth's Commentary, u. 26. H. B. H.
THIEVES, THE TWO. The men who
under fchis name appear in fche history of fche Cruci
fixion were robbers (At/o-toO rather fchan thieves
(/cAcTTTaO, belonging to the lawless bands by which
Palestine was at that time and afterwards infested
(Jos. Ant xvii. 10, § 8, xx. 8, § 10). Againsfc
these brigands every Koman procurator had to
wage contiimal war (Jos. B. J. ii. 13, § 2). Tbe
parable of the Good Samaritan shows how common
ifc was for them to attack and plunder fcraveUers
even on fche high-road fhira Jerusalera to Jericho
(Luke X. 30). Ifc was necessary to use an armed
police to encounter thera (Luke xxii. 52). Often,
as in the case of Barabbas, the wUd robber life was
connected with a fanafcic zeal for freedom, which
turned the marauding attack into a popular insur
rection (Mark xv. 7). For crimes such as these
the Romans had but one sentence. Crucifixion was
the penalty at once of the robber and the rebel
(Jos. B. J. U. 13, § 2).
Of the previous history of the two who suffered
on Golgotha we know nothing. They had been
tried and condemned, and were waiting their execu
tion before our Lord was accused. It is probable
enough, as the death of Barabbas was clearly ex
pected at the same time, that they were araong the
avffracnaa'rai who had been imprisoned with him,
and had taken part in fche insurrection in whieh
zeal, and hate, and patriotism, and lust of plunder
were mingled in wild confusion.
They had expected to die wifch Jesus Barabbas.
[Comp. Barabbas.] They find themselves with
one who bore the same name, but who was described
in fche superscripfcion on his cross as Jesus of Naza-
refch. They could hardly fail to have heard some
thing of his fame as a prophet, of his triumphal
entry as a king. They low find Him sharing tha

8234 THIEVES, THE TWO
same fate as themselves, condemned on much the
vime charge (Luke xxiii. 5). Tbey too would bear
their crosses to thg appointed place, while He fainted
by the way. Tbeir garments would be parted
among the soldiers. For them also there would be
the drugged wine, whicb He refused, to dull the
sharp pain of the first hours on the cross. They
cateh at first the prevailing tone of scorn. A king
of the Jews who conld neither save himseilf nor
help them, whose followers had not even fought for
him (John xviii. 36), was strangely unlike the
many chieftains whom tbey had probably known
claiming the same title (Jos. Ant. xvii. 10, § 8),
strangely unlike the " notable prisoner" for whom
they bad not hesitated, it would seem, to incur the
risk of bloodshed. But over one of tbem there
came a change. Tbe darkness wbich, at noon, was
beginning to steal over the sky awed him, and tbe
Divine patience and silence and meekness of the
fiuflferer touched him. He looked back upon bis
past life, and saw an infinite evil. He looked to
the man dying on the cross beside him, and saw an
infinite compassion. There indeed was one, unlike
all other " kings of tbe Jews " whom the robber
had ever known. Such a one must be all that He
had claimed to be. To be forgotten by tbat king
seems to hira now the most terrible of all punish
ments; to take part in the triumph of his return,
the most blessed of all hopes. The yearning prajer
was answered, not in the letter, but in the spirit.
To him alone, of all the myriads who had listened
to Him, did tbe Lord speak of Paradise [comp.
Paradise], waking with that word the thoughts
of a purer past and the hopes of an immediate rest.
But its joy was to be more than that of fair gi"0ve5
and pleasant streams. " Thou sbalt be with me."
He should be remembered there.
We cannot wonder that a history of such won
derful interest should at all times have fixed itself
on men's minds, and led tbem to speculate and ask
questions which we have no data to answer. The
simplest and truest way of looking at it has been
that of those who, from the great Alexandrian
thinker (Origen, in Hom. iii.) to the writer of the
most popular hymn of our own times, have seen in
the "dying thief" the first great typical instance
that ''a man is justified by faith without the deeds
of the law." Even those whose thoughts were less
deep and wide acknowledged that in this and other
like cases the baptism of blood supphed the place
of the outward sign of regeneration (Hilar. De
Trinit. ex.; Jerome, Ep. xiii. ). The logical spec-
olationa of tbe Pelagian controversy overclouded,
in this as in other instances, the clear judgment of
Augustine. Maintaining the absolute necessity of
baptism tc salvation, he had to discuss the question
whether the penitent thief had been baptized or
nofc, and he oscillates, witb melancholy indecision,
between tbe two answers. At times he is disposed
to rest contented with the solution which had satis
fied others. Then again he ventures on the con
jecture tbat the water whicb sprang forth from the
pierced side had sprinkled him, and so bad been a
BulScient baptism. Finally, yielding to the inex
orable logic of a sacramental theory, he rests in the
assumption that he probably had been baptized be
fore, either in his prison or before be entered on his
(obber-life (comp. De Animd, i. 11, iii. 12; Serm.
ie Temp. 130; Retract, i. 26, iii. 18, 55).
Other conjectures turn more on the circum-
rtances of tbe history. Bengel, usually acute, here
oveisboots the mark, and finds in tbe Lord's words

THIMNATHAH
to him, dropping all mention of tbe Messianic king
dom, an indication that the penitent thief was a
Gentile, the unpeniteat a Jew, and that thus the
scene on Calvary was typical of the position of the
two Churches (Gnomon N. T. in Luke xxiiL).
Stier ( Words of ihe Lord Jesus, in loc.) reads in
tbe words of reproof (oiSe <po$fi trv Thv 6e6v) the
language of one wbo had all along listened with
grief and horror to the reviluigs of the multitude,
the burst of an indignation previously suppressed.
Tbe Apocryphal Gospels, as usual, do theu- best to
lower the Divine history to tbe level of a legend.
They follow tbe repentant robber into the unseen
world. He is tbe first to enter Paradise of all
mankind. Adam and Seth and the patriarchs find
him already there bearing his cross. Michael the
archangel had led bim to the gate, and the fiery
sword had turned aside to let him pass (Evang.
Xicoil. ii. 10). Names were given to the two rob
bers. Demas or Dismas was tbe penitent thief,
hanging on the right, Gestas the impenitent on the
left (Evang. Nicod. i. 10; Xai-ral. Joseph, c. 3).
Tbe cry of entreaty is expanded into a long wordy
prayer (Ntn-r. Jos. 1. c), and tbe promise sufi%rs
the same treatment. The bistory of the In&ncy is
made prophetic of that of tbe Crucifixion. The
boly family, on their flight to Egypt, come upon a
band of robbers. One of them, "titaa (the names
are different here), has compassion, purchases the
silence of his companion, Dumachus, and the infant
Christ prophesies that after thirty years Titus shall
be crucified witb bim, and shall go before him into
Paradise (Evang. Infant, c. 2.3). As in other
instances [comp. Magi], so in this, the fancy of
inventors seems to have been fertile in nanies.
Bede ( Colleclan. ) gives Matha and Joca as those
which prevailed in his time. The name given in
the Gospel of Nicodemus bas, however, kept its
ground, and St. Dismas takes his place in the ha-
giology of tbe Syrian, the Greek, and the I^tin
Churches. All tbis is, of course, puerile enough. The cap
tious objections to tbe narrative of St. Luke as
inconsistent with tbat of St. Matthew and St. Mark,
and the inference drawn from them that both are
more or less legendary, are hardly less puerile
(Strauss, Leben Jesu, ii. 519 ; Ewald, Christus,
Gesch. V. 438). The obvious answer to this ia
that which has been given by Origen (Hom. 3b in
Moll.), Chrysostom (Hom. 88 in Mall.), and
others (comp. Suicer, s. i: \pa-T.-fis). Both began
by reviling. One was subsequently touched with
sympathy and awe. The other explanation, given
by Cyprian (De Passiojie Domini), Augustine (De
Cons. Evang. iii. 16), and others, which forces the
statement of St. Matthew and St. Mark into agree
ment with that of St. Luke by assuming a synec.
doche, or syllepsis, or enallage, is, it is believed,
far less satisfactory. The technical word does but
thinly veil tbe contradiction wbich this bypothesis
admits but does not explain. E. H. P.
THIMNA'THAH (nri:j?ri : QaiwoBi;
Alex. @afivu: Themnallia). A "town in the allot
ment of Dan (Josh. xix. 43 only). It is named
between Elon and Ekron. The name is the same
as tbat of the residence of Samson's wife (inaccu
rately given in A. V. Timxah); but the position
of that place, which seems to agree with the mod
em Tilmeh below Zareah, is not so suitable, being
fully ten milos from Akir, the representative ol
Ekron. Timiah appears to have been almost a

THISBE
Eommon a name as Gibeah, and it is possible that
fchere may have been another in the allotment of
Dan besides that represented by Tibneh. G.
THIS'BE (©/o-jSt?; [Alex.] ®iPn). A name
found only in Tob. i. 2, as that of a city of Naph
taU from which Tobit's ancestor had been carried
captive by the Assyrians. The real interest of the
name r^ides in the fact that it is maintained by
some interpreters (HUler, Onom. pp. 236, 947 ; Re
land, Pal. p. 1035) fco be the place which had the
glory of giving birfch to Elijah the Tishbitk,
This, however, is, at fche best, very questionable, and
derives its main support from the fact that the word

THOMAS 3235
employed in 1 K. xvii. 1 to denote the relation of
Elijah to Gilead, if pointed as ifc now stands in the
Received Hebrew Text, signifies thafc he was nofc a
native of Gilead but raerely a resident fchere, ana
came originally from a diffei'enfc and foreign disfcrict
But it is also possible to point the word so thafc fche
sentence sball mean "from Tishbi of GUead,"-in
which case all relafcion between the gi-eafc Prophet
and Thisbe of Naphtali at once falls to fche ground.
[See TiSHEiTB.]
There is, however, a truly singular variation in the
texts of the passage in Tobit, a glance afc which will
show how hazardous ifc is to base any definifce topo
graphical conclusions upon ifc: —

A.V.

Out of Thisbe wbich
16 at the right hand
of that city which is
called properly Neph-
thali in Galilee above
Aser.* [Marg. or
Kedesh of Nephthali
in Galilee, Judg iv.
60 
*i. e. probably,
Hazor.

Vulgate.

l.XX,

Out of the tribe Out of Thisbe
and city of Neph- which is afc the
thali which is in 'right band of

the upper parts
of Galilee above
Naasson, behind
the road which
leads to the west,
having on the left
hand the cifcy of
Sephet.

Kudios of Nepb-
thalelm in Gall
lee above Aser.

Reviskd Greek Text.

Out of Thibe which
is at the right hand of
Kudion of Nephthaleim
in Upper Galilee above
Asser, behind the setting
Buu on the right of Pho-
gor (Peor).

Vetus Latim.*..

Out of the city of Bihil
which is on the right
hand of Edisse, a city of
Nephthalim in Upper
GaUlee over gainst Naa-
son, behind the road
which leads to the west
of the left of llaphain.
[Another MS. reads Ge-
briel, Cydiscus, and Ka-
phaim, for Bihil, Edisse,
and Raphain.]

Assuming thafc Thisbe, and not Thibe, is the cor
rect reading of fche name, ifc has been conjecfcured
(apparently for the first time by Keil, Comm, idjer
[KeZfini^e,p.247) that it originated in an erroneous
rendering of the Hebrew word "^DlZ^nD, which
word in fact occurs in the Hebrew version of the
passage, and may be pointed in two ways, so as to
mean either "from the inhabitants of," or "from
Tishbi," i. e. Thisbe. The reverse suggestion, in
respecfc of fche same word in 1 K. xvii. 1 , has been
abeady aUuded to. [Ttshbite.] But this, though
very ingenious, and quite within the bounds of pos-
sibUity, is afc presenfc a mere conjecture, since none
of fche texts support it, and there is no other evi
dence in its favor.
No name resembling Thisbe or Thibe has been
yet encountered in the neighborhood of Kedes or
Safed, but it seems impossible to suppose that the
minute definition of the Latin and Revised Greek
Texts — equaled in the sacred books only by the
weU-known description of fche posifcion of Shiloh in
Judg. xxi. 19 — can be mere invenfcion. G.
THISTLE. [Thorns and Thistles.]
THOM'AS {®Q}/j.as- Thomas), one of fche
Apostles. According to Eusebius {H. E. i. 13) his
real name was Judas. This may have been a mere
confusion with Thaddseus, who is raentioned in the
extract. But it may also be that Thomas was a
surname. The word KOSH, Thoma,** raeans " a
twin; " and so it is translafced in John xi. 16, xxi.
2, 6 ^iBvpos- Out of this name has grown the
^radition fchafc he had a fcwin-sister, Lydia {Patres
Apost p. 272), or fchat he was » twin-brother of
our Lord (Thilo, Acta Thomce, p. 94); which last.

a In Cant. vii. 4 [A. V. 3], it is sunply DSP, ex-
itidy Dur "Iobt." The firequeucy of the name in

again, would confirm his identification with Judas
(comp. Matt. xin. 55).
He is said to have been born at Antioch (Patres
Apost pp. 272, 512).
In the catalogue of the Apostles he is coupled
with Matthew in Matt. x. 3, Mark iu. 18, Luke vi.
15, and with Philip in Acts i. 13.
AU thafc we know of him is derived from the
Gospel of St. John; and this amounts to three
traits, which, however, so exactly agree together,
that, slight as they are, they place his character
before us with a precision which belong to no other
of the twelve Apostles, except Peter, John, and
Judas Iscariot. This character is that of a man
slow to believe, seeing all the difficulties of a cas<i,
subject to despondency, viewing things on the
darker side, and yet full of ardent love for his Mas
ter. The firsfc traifc is his speech when our Lord defcer-
mined to face the dangers thafc awaited Him in
Judaea on his journey to Bethany. Thomas said
to his fellow-disciples, " Let us also go (nal ^jaely)
that we may die with Him" (John xi. 16). Hs
entertained no hope of His escape — he looked oa
the journey as leading to total ruin; but he deter
mined to share the peril. " Though He slay me,
yet wUl I trust in Him."
The second was his speech during the Last Sup
per. " Thomas saith unto Him, Loi-d, we know
not whither thou goest, and how can we know the
way" (xiv. 5)? It was the prosaic, incredulous
doubt as to moving a sfcep in the unseen future, and
yet an eager inquiry to know how this step was tc
be taken.
The third was after fche Resurrection. He waa
absent — possibly by accident, perhaps characteria-
England is derived not from the Ajostle, but trom St
Thomas of Canterbury.

3236

THOMAS

tically — from the first assembly when Jesus had
appeared. The others told him what they had seen.
He broke forth into an exclamation, the terms of
which convey to us at once the vehemence of his
doubt, and at the same time the vivid picture thafc
his mind retained of his Master's form as he bad
last seen Him Ufeless on fche cross. " Excepfc I see
in his hands the print of the nails, and pufc my
finger into fche prinfc of tlie nails, and fchrusfc my
hand into his side, I wiU not, I cannot believe "
(ou (j.^1 Triffrevaco), John xx. 25.
On the eighth day he was wifch fchem afc their
gathering, perhaps iu expectation of a recurrence
of the visit of the previous week ; and Jesus stood
amongst them. He uttered the same salutafcion,
** Peace be unto you ; *' and fchen turning to Thomas,
as if fchis had been fche special object of his appear
ance, uttered fche words which convey as sfcrongly
the sense of condemnation and tender reproof, as
those of Thomas had shown the sense of hesitation
and doubt. " Bring thy finger hither [SSe — as
if Himself pointing to his wounds] and see ray
hands; and bring thy hand and thrust it in my
side; and do not become (^^ yivov) unbelieving
(Sttmt-tos), but Ijelieving {¦Ki(Tr6s)" '' He answers
to the words tbat Thomas had spoken to the ears
of his feUow-discipIes only; but it is to the thought
of his heart rather than to the words of his Ups that
the Searcher of hearts answers. . . . Eye, ear,
and touch, afc once appealed to, aud afc once safcisfied
— fche form, the look, the voice, the solid and acfcual
body: and not the senses only, but the raind satis
fied too ; fche knowledge that searches the very reins
and the hearts; the love that loveth to the end, in
finite and eternal " (Arnold's Serm. vi. 238).
The effect « on Thomas is immediate. The con
viction produced by fche removal of his doubfc be
came deeper and stronger than that of any of the
other Apostles. The words in which he expressed
his belief contain a far higher assertion of his Mas-
tor's Divine nature than is contained in any other
expression used by Apostolic lips, " My Lord, and
my God." Some have supposed fchafc Kvpios refers
to the human, 6e6s to the Divine nature. This is
too artificial. It is more to fche point to observe
the exact terms of the sentence, uttered (as it were)
in astonished awe. " It is then my Lord aud my
God ! " f* And the word " my " gives it a personal
apphcation to himself. Addifcional emphasis is
given to fchis declaration from ite being ¦ the lasfc
incident narrated in fche direcfc narrafcive of fche
Gospel (before fche supplement of ch. xxi.), thus
corresponding to the opening words of the prologue.
" Thus Christ was acknowledged on earth to be
what St. John had in fche beginning of his Gospel
declared him to be from all eternifcy ; and fche words
»f Thomas afc fche end of fche 20th chapter do but
repeat fche truth which St. John had stated before in
his own words afc fche beginning of the first " (Ar
bold's Serm. vi. 401).
The answer of our Ix)rd sums up the moral of
fche whole narrative; " Because « thou hast seen me.

THOMOI
tHou bast beUeved : blessed are they thafc have not
seen me, and yet have beUeved " (xx. 29). By tlm
incident, therefore, Thomas, " the Doubting Apos
tle," is raised at once to the Theologian m the
original sense of the word. " Ab eo dubitatun
est," says Augustine, "ne a nobis dubitarefcur.'"
Ifc is this feature of his character which has been
caught in later ages, when for the first time ifcs
pecuUar lesson became apparent. In the famous
statue of him by Thorwaldsen in the chiu'ch at
Copenhagen, he stands, the thoughtful, meditative
skeptic, with the rule in his hand for the due
measuring of evidence and argument. This scene
was one of the favorite passages of the English
theologian who in this century gave so great an
impulse to the progress of free inquiry combiued
with fervent belief, of which Thomas is so remark
able an example. Two discourses on this subject
occur in Dr. Arnold's published volumes of Ser
mons (v. 312, vi. 233). Amongst the last words
which he repeated before his own sudden death
(Life and Coi^espondence, 7th ed. p. 617) was the
blessing of Christ on the faith of Thomas.
In the N. T. we hear of Thomas only twice ^eud,
once on the Sea of Galilee with the seven disciples,
where he is ranked nexfc aiter Peter (John xxi. 2),
and again in fche assemblage of the Apostles aftei
the Ascension (Acts i. 13).
The close of his Ufe is fiUed with fcradifcions oi
legends; which, as nofc resfcing on BibUcal grounds,
may be briefly dispatehed.
The earUer traditions, as believed in fche 4th cen
tury (Eus. H. E. i. 13, iii. 1; Socrat. H. E. i. 19),
represenfc him as preaching in Parfchia or Persia,
and as finaUy buried at Edessa (Socr. H. E. iv. 18).
Chrysostom mentions his grave afc Edessa, as being
one of the four genuine tombs of Apostles; the
other three being Peter, Paul, aud John (Hom. in
Heb, 26). With his burial at Edessa agrees fche
story of his sending Thaddseus to Abgiffus wifch our
Lord's lefcter (Ens. H. E, i. 13).
The later traditions carry him further Easfc, and
ascribe to him the foundation of the Christian
church in Malabar, which stiU goes by the name
of " the Christians of St. Thomas; " and his tomb
is shown in the neighborhood. This, however, is
now usuaUy regarded as arising from a confusion
with a later Thomas, a missionaiy from fche Nesto-
rians. His martyrdom (whether in Persia or India) is
said to have been occasioned by a lance ; and is
commemorated by the Latin Church on December
21, by the Greek Church on October 6, and by the
Indians on July 1.
For these traditions and their authorities, sec
Butler's Lives of ihe Saints, December 21. An
apocryphal "Gospel of Thomas" (chiefly relafcing
, to fche Infancy) published in Tischendorf 's Evan-'
gelia Apocrypha. The Apocryphal " Acts of
Thomas " by ThUo (Codex Apocryphus).^ A.P.S.
THOM'OI {®op.oi', [Vat. 0o^06i:] Coe»).
Thamah or Tajiah (1 Esdr. v. 32).

a Ifc is useless to speculafce whether he obeyed our
Lord's invitation to examine the wounds. The im
pression Is that he did nofc.
6 It is obviously of no dogmatic importance whether
the words are au address or a description. That they
are the latter, appears from the use of the nominative
h Kupio?. The form 6 0e6s proves nothing, as this is
ased for the vocative. At the same time it should be
observed that the passage is said to Christ, direv avrv.

c " Thomas " (©w/ia) is omitted in the best MSS.
d * The apocryphal " Acts of Thomas " have been
separately pubUshed by Thilo (Acta S. Thorme Apos-
toli, etc. Lips. 1823), but they are Twt contained in his
Codex Apocryphus (1832), which is confined to the
Apocryphal Gospels. The text is best given in Tisch
endorf 's Acta Apostolorum Apocnjp'i i, Lips. 1861.

THORN IN THE FLESH

[Paul, iii.

• THORN IN THE FLESH.
£383.] THORNS AND THISTLES. There appear
to be eighteen or twenty Hebrew words which point
tc different kinds of prickly or thorny shrubs, but
the aintext of the passages where the several terms
xau affords, for the most part, scarcely a single
clew whereby it is possible to come to anything
like a satisfactory conclusion with regard to their
respective identifications. These words are vari
ously rendered in the A. V. by " thorns," " briers,"
" thistles," etc. It were a hopeless ta.sk to enter
into a discussion of these numerous Hebrew terms ;
we shall not therelore attempt it, but confine our
renmrks to some of the most important names, and
those which seem to afford some slight indications
as to the plants they denote.
L Aidd ("Tl^N : rj pdfivos : rhamnus) occurs as
the name of some spinous plant in Judg. ix. 14, 15,
where the A. V. renders it by " bramble " (Marg.
•' thistle "\ and in Ps. Iviii. 9 (A. V. " thorns ").
i'he plant in question is supposed to be Lycium Eu-
rutpteum, or //. afrum (box-thorn), both of which
species occur iu Palestine (see Strand, Flor. Pakest.
Nos. 12i. 125). Dioscorides (i. 119) thus speaks
of thePauKos: "The rhamnus, whicb some call
perseplionion, others leucacantha, tbe Komans
white-tborn, or Cerbalis, and the Carthaginians
uladm. is a shrub which grows around hedges ; it
has erect branches with sharp spines, like the oxy-
ncaniha (hawthorn?), but witb small, oblong, thick
soft leaves." Dioscorides mentions three lunds of
rnamnus, two of whicb are identified by Sprengel,
iii nis Commentary, with the two species of Lyrium
mentioned above." See Belon, Obseinjations tie Plus.
Smg. etc., ii. ch. 78 ; Kauwolff, Trav. bk. iii. ch.
8 Prosper Alpinus, De Plant. Mgypi. p. 21;
Celsius, Hierob. i. 199. Tbe Arabic name of this
plant (tXlfll, didd) is identical with tbe Hebrew;
Uit it was also known by the name of 'Ausej

^f^y^

Lycium Europceum is a native of the south of
burope and the north of Africa: in the Grecian
islanas it is common in hedges (English Cyclop.
- Lycium "). See also the passages in Belon and
Kauwolff cited above.
2. Chedek (p^H : SKoveo, <t^s iicrpiiyav:
spina, paliurus) occurs in Prov. xv. 19, " The way
of the slothful is as an hedge of Chedek" (A. V.
- thorns "), and in Mic. vii. 4, where the A. V. has
•* brier." The Alexaud. LXX., in tbe former pas
sage, interprets tbe meaning thus, " The ways of
the slotbful are strewed with thorns." Celsius
(Hierob. ii. 35), referring the Heb. term to the
Arabic Chadak (. W*{J^^), is of opinion that some
spinous species of the Solanum is intended. The
Arabic term clearly denotes some kind of Solanum;
either the S. melongela, var. esculentum, or the
S. Sodomeum ("apple of Sodom"). Both these
kinds are beset with prickles ; it is hai-dly probable,
nowever, that tbey are intended by tbe Heb. word.

« In hie Hist. Rei Herb., however, bfl refers the
lauroc to the Zizyphus vulgaris

THORNS AND THISTLES 3237
Several varieties of tbe egg-plant are found in
Palestine, and some have supposed that the famed
Dead Sea apples are tbe fruit of the S. Sodomeum
when suffering from the attacks of some insect;
but see on this subject Vise of Sodom. The
Heb. term may be generic, and intended to denote
any thorny plant suitable for hedges.
3. Choach (nSn: Uav, dnavBa, aKxoix,
KvlSr): paliurus, lappa, spina, tribulus), a word of
very uncertain nieaning which occurs in the sense
of some thorny plant in Is. xxxiv. 13 ; Hos. ix. 6 ;
Prov. xxvi. 9 ; Cant. ii. 2; 2 K. xiv. 9, " the choach
of Lebanon sent to tbe cedar of Lebanon," eto. See
also Job xxxi. 40: "Let chbach (A. T. 'thistles ')

Lycium Europxum.

grow instead of wheat." Celsius (Hierob. i. 477)
believes the black-thorn (Prunus sylvestris) ig
denoted, but tbis would not suit the passage in
Job just quoted, from which it is probable that
some thorny weed of a quick growth is intended.
Perhaps the term is used in a wide sense to signify
any thorny plant; this opinion may, perhaps, re
ceive sorae shght confirmation from the various
renderings of the Hebrew word as given by the
LXX. and Vulgate.
4. Dardar 0?11: Tpl0o\os: tribulus) is
mentioned twice in connection with the Heb. kdts
(VP); namely, in Gen. iii. 18, " thorns and this
tles " (A. v. ), and in Hos. i. 8, " tbe thorn and
the thistle shall come up on their altars." The
Greek rplffoKos occurs in Matt. vii. 16, " Do men
gather figs of thistles?" See also Heb. vi. 8,
where it is rendered " briers " by the A. V. There
is some difference of opinion as to the plant oi

3238 THORNS AND THISTLES
plants indicated by the Greek TptPo\os and the
Latin tribulus. Of the two kinds of land tribuli
mentioned by tbe Greeks (Dioscorides, iv. 15;
Theophrastus, Hist. Plant, vi. 7, § 5), one is sup
posed by Sprengel, Stackhouse, lioyle, and others,
to refer fo the Tribulus tsrresiris, Linn., the other
to tbe Fagonia Cretica ; but see Schneider's Com
ment, on Theophrastus I. c, and Du Molin (Fhre
Poetigue Ancienne, p. 305), who identifies tbe trib
ulus of Virgil witb the Centnurea calcilrapii, Linn.
("star-thistle"). Celsius (flierob. ii. 128) ar-
ETues in favor of the Fagonia Arabica, of which
a figure is giren in Shaw's Travels (Catal. Plant.
No. 229); see also Forskal, Floi: Arab. p. 88. It
is probable that either the Tribulus iei-resiris,
which, bowever, is not a spiny or thorny plant,
but has spines on the fruit, or else tbe C. calcilrapa,
is the plant which is more particularly intended by
the word tlardatr.

THORNS AND THISTLES
5. Shamir ("T^D^), almost always found in con
nection with the word shalih (rTjC?), occurs in sev
eral places of the Hebrew text; it is variously ren
dered by the LXX., xepiros, x^pros, Se^^is, &y
paa-Tis, iripd. According to Ahn'lfadl, cited by
Celsius (Hierob. ii. 188), "the Samur (.. ^ ,„) of
the Arabs is a thorny tree; it is a species of Sidra
which does not produce fruit." No thorny plants
are more conspicuous in Palestine and the Bible
lands than different kinds of Rhamnacew such as
Paliurus aculeaius (Christ's Thorn), arid Zizyphus
Spina Christi ; this latter plant is the nebk of the
Arabs, whicb grows abundantly in Syria and Pal
estine, both in wet and dry places; Dr. Hooker
noticed a specimen nearly 40 feet high, spreading
as widely as a good Quercus ilex in England. The

Tribulus Terrestris.

nebk fringes tbe banks of the Jordan, and flourishes
on the marshy banks of the Lake of Tiberias; it
forms either a sbmb or a tree, and, indeed, is quite
common all over tbe country. The Arabs have the
terms Salam, Sidra, Dhdl, Nabca, which appear to
denote either varieties or different species of Paliu
rus and Zizyphus, or different states perhaps of
the sarae tree; but it is a difficult matter to assign
to each its particular signification. The Nadisots
(V"1^373) of Is. vii. 19, lv. 13, probably denotes
some species of Zizyphus. The " crown of thorns "
which was put in derision upon our Lord's head just
before his crucifixion, was probably composed of
the thorny twigs of tbe nebk (Zizyphus Spina
Christi) mentioned above; being common every
where, they could readily be procured. "This
piant," says Hasselquist (Trav. p. 288), was very
suitable for the purpose, as it has many sharp
thorns, and its flexible, pliant, and round branches
might easily be plaited in the form of a crown ; and
what, in my opinion, seems to be tbe greatest proof
is, tnat the leaves much resemble those of ivy, as
they are a very deep green." Perhaps tbe enemies
of Christ would have a plant somewhat resembling
that with wbich emperors and generals were used
to be crowned, that there might be calumny even
ra the punishment." Still, as Kosenmiiller (Bib.

Bot. p. 201) remarks, " there being so many kinds
of thorny plants in Palestine, all conjectures must
remain uncertain, and can never lead to any satis
factory result." Although it is not possible tq fix
upon any one definite Hebrew word as the repre
sentative of any kind of " thistle," yet there can be
no doubt this plant must be occasionally alluded to.
Hasselquist (Trav. p. 280), noticed six species of
Cardia and Cnici on the road between Jerusalem
and Kama; and Miss Beaufort speaks of giant
thistles of tbe height of a man on borsehaek, which
she saw near tbe ruins of Fellbam (Egyptian Sep.
and Syrian Shrines, ii. 45, 50). We must also
notice another thorny plant and very troublesome
weed, tbe rest - harrow ( Ononis sjjinosa), which
covers entire fields and plains both in Egypt and
Palestine, and wbich, as Hasselquist says (p. 289),
is no doubt referred to in some parts of the Holy
Scripture. Dr. Thomson (Land and Book, p. 59) illus
trates [s. xxxiii. 12, " the people shall be as tbe
burning of lime, as thorns cut up shall they be
burned in the fire," by tbe following observation,
" Those people yonder are cutting up thorns with
their mattocks and pruuing-hooks, and gathering
them into bundles to be' burned in these burnings
of lime. It is a curious fidelity to real life that
when the thorns are merely to be destroyed, they

o Hasselquist must have intended to restrict the leaves, for the plants do not in the slightest iegw
flmiiarlty hero spoken of entirely to the color of the resemble each other in the/o^m of the leaves.

THOROW
are never cut up, but set on fire where they grow.
rhey are cut up only for the lime-kiln." See also
p. 342 for other Scriptural allusions." W. H.
» THOROW, Ex. xiv. 16 (A. V.), in the ed.
of 1611, the old form for " through." H.
* THOROWOUT, originally in Num. xxviii.
29, but superseded by "throughout." H.
* THOUGHT. Tbe phrase '-to take /AoujAi"
is used in the A. V. (1 Sam. ix. 5 ; Matt. vi. 25, 27,
28, 31, 34, X. 19, and the parallel passages) in the
sense of "to be :inxious " (Gr. p,epi/ivdai). So
offen in the older English writers. A.
THRA'CIA (epaxia, rj). A Thracian horse
man is incidentally mentioued in 2 Mace. xii. 35,
apparently one of the body-guard of Gorgias, gover
nor of Idumsea under Antiochus Epiphanes. Thrace
at this period included the whole of the country
withiii the boundary of the Strymon, the Danube,
and the coasts of the Mgeaa, Propontis, and Eux
ine — all the region, in fact, now comprehended in
Bulgaria and Rounielia. In the early times it was
inhabited by a number of tribes, e.ich under its
own chief, having a name of its own and preserving
its own customs, although the same general charaC'
ter of ferocity and addiction to plunder prevailed
throughout. Thucydides describes tbe limits of
the country at the period of the Peloponnesiau war,
when Sitalces king of the Odrys:e, who inhabited
the valley of the Hebrus (.1/iritea), had acquired
a predominant power in the country, and derived
what waa for those days a large revenue from it
This revenue, however, seems to have arisen mainly
out of his relations with the Greek trading commu
nities established on different points of his seaboard.
Some of the clans, even within tbe limits of his do
minion, still retauied theur independence ; but after
the establishment of a Macedonian dynasty under
Lysimachus, the central authority becanie more pow
erful; and the wars on a large scale wbich followed
the death of .Alexander furnished employment for
the martial tendencies of the Thracians, who
found a demand for their services as mercenaries
everywhere. Cavalry was tbe arm which they
chiefly furnished, the rich pastures of Roumelia
abounding in horses. From that region came the
greater part of Sitalces' cavalry, amounting to
nearly 50,000.
The only other passage, if any, containing an
allusion to Thrace, to be found in the Bible, is
Gen. X. 2, where — on the hypothesis that tbe sons
of Japhet, who are enumerated, raay be regarded as
the eponymous representatives of different branches
of the Japhetian family of nations — Tiras has by
some been supposed to mean Thrace; but the only
ground for this identification is a fancied similarity
between the two nanies. A stronger likeness, how
ever, might be urged between tbe name Tiras and
that of the Tyrsi or Tyrseni, the ancestors of the
Italian Etruscans, whom, on the strength of a
bcal tradition, Herodotus places in Lydia in tbe
ante-historical times. Strabo brings forward sev
eral faets to show tbat, in the eai'ly ages, Thra
cians existed on the Asiatic as well aa the Euro
pean shore; but this circumstance furnishes very
Uttle help towards the identification referred to.

THRESHOLDS, THE 3239
(Herodotus, i. 94, v. 3 ff.; Thucydides, ii. 97-
Tacitus, Annal. iv. 35; Herat. Sat. i. 6.)
J. W. B.
THRASE'AS (&pa<ra7os: Tharsceas). Fa
ther of ApoUonius (1). 2 JIacc. iii. 5. [Apot.-
LOXIUS.] * THREAD. [Handichaft, 6 ; Lace.]
THREE TAVERNS (TpehTa^epvai: Tres
Taberruc), a station on the .\ppian Road, along
which St. Paul travelled from Puteoli to Rorae
(Acts xxviii. 15). Tbe distances, reckoning south
ward from Rome, are given as follows in the Anto
nine Itinerary, " to Aricia, 16 miles ; to Three
Taverns, 17 miles ; to Appii Forum, 10 mUes ; "
and, comparing this with what is obser\'ed still
along tbe line of road, we have no difficulty ia
coming to the conclusion tliat " Tbree Taverns "
was near the modern Cisterna. For details see
the Did. of Greek and Rom. Geog. ii. 1226 b,
1291 b.
Just at tbis point a road carae in from Antium
on tbe coast. This we learn frora wbat Cicero says
of a journey from that place to bis viUa at Formiae
(Alt. ii. 12). There is no doubt that " Three Tav
erns " was a frequent meeting-place of travellers.
The point of interest as regards St. Paul is that he
met here a group of Christians wbo (hke a previous
group whom he bad met at Appii Forum) came
from Rome to raeet bim in consequence of having
beard of bis arrival at Puteoli. A good illustra
tion of tbis kind of intercourse along the Appian
Way is supplied by Josephus (Ant. xvii. 12, § 1) in
bis account of tbe journey of the pretender Herod-
Alexander. He landed at Puteoli (Dicsearchia) to
r^ain over the Jews that were there; and "when
the report went about bim that he was coming to
Rome, the whole multitude of the .lews that were
there went out to meet him, ascriliing it to Divine
Pro\idence that he had so unexpectedly escaped."
J. S. H.
THRESHING. [Ageiculturk, i. 43 f.]
* THRESHING-FLOOR. [Agkicui,-
TURK ; Ruth, Book of.]
THRESHOLD. 1. (See Gate.) 2. Of
tbe two words so rendered in A. V., one, miph-
tdn,^ seems to mean sometimes, as tbe Targuca
explauis it, a projecting beam or coi-bel, at a higher
point than the threshold properly so caUed (Ez.
ix. 3, i. 4, 18).
THRESHOLDS, THE (^?^Sn : iv tS
auvayayeiv : vestibula). This word, lia-Asuppi,
appears to be inaccurately rendered in Neh. xii.
25, though its real force has perhaps not yet beeu
discovered. The " house of the Asuppim " (IT'S
D^QpSn), or simply "the Asuppim," is men
tioned in 1 Chr. xxvi. 15, 17, as a part, probably a
gate, of the inclosure of the '¦ House of Jehovah,"
;. e. the Tabernacle, as established by David — ap
parently at its S. W. corner. The aUusion in Neh.
xii. 25 is undoubtedly to the same place, as is
shown not only by the identity of the name, but
by the reference to David (ver. 24; compare 1 Chr.
xxv. 1). Asuppim is derived from a root signifyint;

u * On the Biblical names of tbom and thistle,
Bee Dietrich's Mhandlun^tn fur Semitisdu Worlfor-
tciiuTig, pp. 35-95 (Leipz. 18-14). H.

a inSQ : tUBpiov: limen (see Qes p. 1141|

3240

THRONE

" to gather " (Gesenius, Thes. p. 131), and in the
absence of any indication of what the " house of
the Asuppim " was, it is variously explained by tbe
lexicographers as a store-chamber (Gesenius), or a
place of assembly (Fiii-st, Bertheau). The LXX.
in 1 Chr. xxvi. have oXicos 'Eo'etpeiv : Vulg. dtrnius
seniorum concilium. On tbe other hand tbe Tar
gum renders the word by-^lIpE?, " a lintel,'' as if
deriving it from f^D. G.
THRONE (SD3). The Hebrew term cisse
appUes to any elevated seat occupied by a person
in authority, whether a high-priest (1 Sam. i. 9), a
judge (Ps. cxxii. 5), or a miUtary chief (Jer. i. 15).
The use of a chair in a country where the usual
postures were squatting and reclining, wasat aU times
regarded as a symbol of dignity (2 K. iv. 10 ; Prov.
ix. 14). In order to specify a throne in our sense
of the term, it was necessary to add to cisse the
notion of royalty : hence the frequent occurrence of
such expressions as " the throne of the kingdom "

Assyrian throne or chair of state (Layard, Nineveh, ii.
301).
(Deut. xvii. 18; 1 K. i. 46; 2 Chr. vu. 18). The
characteristic feature in the royal throne was its
elevation : Solomon's throne was approached by six
steps (1 K. X. 19; 2 Cbr. ix. 18); and Jehovah's
thi'one is described as " high and lifted up " (Is. vi.
1). The materials and workmanship were costly:
that of Solomon is described as a " throne of ivory ' '
(;'. e. inlaid with ivory), and overlaid with pure
gold in aU parts except where the ivory was appar
ent. It was furnished with arms or " stays," after
the manner of the Assyrian chair of state depicted
above. The steps were also lined with pairs of
lions, the number of them being perhaps designed
fo correspond with tbat of tbe tribes of Israel.
As to the form of the chair, we are only informed
in 1 K. X. 19, that "tbe top was round behind"
(apparently meaning either that the back wa«
tounded off at the top, or that there was a cir-
3ular canopy over it): in lieu of this particular we
are told in 2 Chr. ix. 18 that "there was a footstool
of gold, fastened to the throne," but the verbal
agreement of the descriptions in other respects leads
fo tbe presumption that this variation arises out of
a corrupted text (Thenius, Comm. in 1 K. I. c), a
presumption which is favored by tbe fact that the

THUNDER
terras ttJnS and the Hophal form Q"'TnS^
occur nowhere else. The king sat on his throne on
state occasions, as when granting audiences (1 K.
ii. 19, xxii. 10; Esth. v. 1), receiving homage (2
K. xi. 19), or administering justice (Prov. xx. 8).
At such times he appeared in bis royal robes (1 K.
xxii. 10; Jon. ui. 6; Acts xii. 21). The throne
was the symbol of supreme power and dignity (Gen.
xii. 40), and hence was attributed to Jehovah both
in respect to his heavenly abode (Ps. xi. 4, ciU. 19 ;
Is. Ixvi. 1 ; Acts vu. 49 ; Rev. iv. 2), or to his earthly
abode at Jerusalem (Jer. iii. 17), and more particu
larly in the Temple (Jer. xvii. 12; liz. xUii. 7).
Similarly " to sit upon tbe throne " implied the ex
ercise of regal power (Deut. xvii. 18 ; 1 K. xvi. 11 ;
2 K. X. 30 ; Esth. i. 2;, and " to sit upon the throne
of another person," succession to the royal dignity
(1 K. i. 13). In Neh. iii. 7, tbe term cisse is applied
to the official residence of the governor, which ap
pears to have been either on or near to ^ tbe city
wall. W. L. B.
THUMMIM. [Ukim akd Thommim.]
THUNDER (npil). In a physical point of
view, the most noticeable feature in connection with
thunder is tbe extreme rarity of its occurrence dur
ing tbe summer months in Palestine and the adja
cent countries. From the middle of AprU to the
middle of September it is hardly ever heard. Rob
inson, indeed, mentions an instance of thunder in
the early part of May (Researches, i. 430), and
RusseU in July (Aleppo, ii. 289), but in each case
it is stated to be a most unusual event. Hence it
was selected by Samuel as a striking expression of
the Divine displeasure towards the IsraeUtes : " Is
it not wheat harvest to-day ? I wiU caU upon the
Lord, and he sball send thunder and rain " (1 Sam.
xii. 17). Rain in harvest was deemed as extraor
dinary as snow in summer (Prov. xxvL 1), and Je
rome asserts that be had never witnessed it in the
latter part of June or in July ( Comm. on Am. iv.
7): the same observations apply equally to thunder
which is rarely unaccompanied with rain (Russell,
i. 72, ii. 285). In the imaginative phUosophy of
the Hebrews, thunder was regarded as the voice of
Jehovah (Job xxxvii. 2, 4, 5, xl. 9; Ps. xviii. 13,
xxix. 3-9; Is. xxx. 30, 31), who dwelt behind the
thunder-cloud (Ps. Ixxxi. 7). Hence thunder is
occasionally described in the Hebrew by the term
" voices " (Ex. ix. 23, 28 ; 1 Sam. xii. 17). Hence
the people in the Gospel supposed tbat the voice of
the Lord was the sound of thunder (John xii. 29).
Thunder was, to tbe mind of the Jew, the symbol
of Divine power (Ps. xxix. 3, &c.), and vengeance
(1 Sam. ii. 10; 2 Sam. xxu. 14; Ps. Ixxvii. 18; Is.
xxix. 6 ; Rev. viii. 5). It was either the sign or
the instrument of his wrath on numerous occasions,
as during the plague of bail in Egypt (Ex. ix. 23,
28), at the promulgation of tbe Law (Ex. xix. 16),
at tbe discomfiture of the Philistines (1 Sam. vii.
10), and when tbe IsraeUtes demanded a king (1
Sam. xii. 17). The term thunder was transferred
to the war-shout of a military leader (Job xxxix.
25), and hence Jehovah is described as "causing
bis voice to be heard " in the battle (Is. xxx. 30).
It is also used as a superlative expression in Job
xxvi. 14, where the " thunder of his power " is con
trasted with the " little portion," or rather \he gen
tle whisper that can be beard. In Job xxxix. 19
' thunder 'isamistranslation for " a flowing mane."
W. L. B.

THYATIRA
THYATl'RA (®udreipa, ra: civitas Tliyaii-
renorum). A city on the Lycus, founded by Seleu
cus Nicator. It was one of the many JIacedonian
colonies established in Asia Minor, in tbe sequel of
the destruction of the Persian empire by Alexan
der. It lay to the left of tbe road frora Pergamus
to Sardis, on the southern incline of the water-shed
which separates tbe valley of the Caius (Bak.,rl-
chai) from tbat of the Hermus, on the very con
fines of Mysia and Ionia, so as to be sometimes
reckoned within the one. and sometimes within the
other. In earlier times it had borne the names of
Pelopia, Semiramis, and Euhippia. At tbe com
mencement of the Christian era, tbe Macedonian
element so preponderated as to give a distinctive
character to the population ; and Strabo simply calls
it a Macedonian colony. The original inhabitants
had probably been distributed in hamlets round

THYATIRA

3241

about, when Thyatira was founded. Two of these,
tbe inhabitants of which are termed .irirni and
Nagdetni, are noticed in an inscription of the Ro
man times. The resources of the neigblioring re
gion may be inferred, botb from the name Euhippia
and from the magnitude of the booty which was
carried off in a foray conducted jointly by Euraenes
of Pergamus and a force detached by the Roman
admiral from Cause, during the war against Anti
ochus. During the campaign of b. c. 190, Iby-
atira formed the base of the king's operations ; and
after bis defeat, which took place only a few
miles to the south of tbe city, it submitted, at the
same time witb its neighbor Magnesia-on-Sipylus,
to the Romans, and was included in tbe territory
made over by tbem to their ally the Pergaraene
sovereign. During the continuance of tbe Attalic dynastv

Thyatira

Thyatira, scarcely appears in history; and of the
various inscriptions which have been found on tbe
site, now called Ak Hissnr, not one unequivocally
belongs to earlier tiraes than those of the Roman
erapire. The prosperity of the city seeras to have
received a new impulse under Vespasian, whose ac
quaintance with the East, previously to mounting
the imperial throne, may have directed his atten
tion to the development of the resources of the
Asiatic cities. A bilingual inscription, in Greek
and Latin, belonging to the latter part of his reign,
shows bim to have restored the roads in the domain
of Thyatira. From others, between tbis time and
that of CaracaUa, there is evidence of the existence
of many corporate guilds in the city. Bakers, pot
ters, tanners, weavers, robemakers, and dyers (ot
^a^eis) are speciaUy mentioned. Of these last
there Ls a notice in no less than tbree inscriptions,
so that dyeing apparently formed an important part
of the industrial activity of Thyatira, as it did of
that of Colossoe and Laodicea. With this guUd
tbere can be no doubt that Lydia, the seller of pur-
204

pie stuffs (TrDp^op6ira>Kii),S'i:om whom .St- Paul
met with so favorable a reception at Philippi (Acts
xvi 14), was coimected.
The pruicipal deity of the city was ApoUo, wor
shipped as tbe sun-god under the surname Tyrim-
nas. He was no doubt introduced by the Mace
donian colonists, for the name is Macedonian. One
of the three mythical kings of Macedonia, whora the
genealogists placed before Perdiccas — the first of
the Temenidffi tbat Herodotus and Thucydides rec
ognize — is so called; the other two being Carnnus
and Canus, manifestly impersonations of the chif
and tbe iiibe. Tbe inscriptions of Thyatira give
Tyrimnas tbe titles of Trp6iro\is and irp«.rdTtop
Beds ; and a special priesthood was attached to his
service. A priestess of Artemis is also mentioned,
probably the administratrix of a cult derived from
the earUer times of the city, and similar in its
nature to that of the Ephesian Artemis. Another
superstition, of an extremely curious nature, which
existed at Thyatira, seems to have been brought
thither by some of the corrupted Jews o' the di»

3242

THYINE WOOD

persed tribes. A fane stood out-side the walla,
dedicated fco Sambaiha — fche name of the sibyl
who is somefcimes called Chaldgean, somefcimes Jew
ish, somefcimes Persian — in fche midsfc of an in
closure designated "fche Chaldsean's courfc" (tou
ILaXhaiov iTGpi&oKos)' This seems to lend an
illustration to fche obscure passage in Kev. ii. 20,
21, which Grotius interprets of the wife of the
bishop. The drawback against the commendation
bestowed upon the angel of the Thyafciran church
is fchafc he fcolerates " thafc woman, fchafc Jezebel,
who, professing herself to be a prophetess, teaches
and deludes my servants into committing fomica-
lion and eating things offered to idols." Time,
however, is given her to repent; and this seems to
im[)ly a form of religion which had become con-
demnable from the admixture of foreign alloy,
rather than one idolatrous ab initio. Now tbere
is evidence to show that in Thyatira there was a
gi'eat amalgamation of races. Latin inscriptions
are frequent, indicating a considerable influx of
Italian immigrants; aud in some Greek inscriptions
many Latin words are introduced. Latin and
Greek names, too, are found accumulated on the
same individuals, — such as Titus Antonius Alfenus
Arignotus, and Juha Severina Stratonicis. But
amalgamation of different races, in pagan nations,
always went together with a syncretism of different
rehgions, every relation of life having its religious
sanction. If the sibyl Sambatha was really a
Jewess, lending her aid to this proceeding, and not
discountenanced by the authorities of the Judso-
Christian church at Thyatira, bofch fche censure and
ifcs qualificafcion become easy of explanafcion.
Ifc seeras also nofc improbable fchafc fche iraagery
of the description in Rev. ii. 18, 5 ^x**"* '''ovs
6(f>6a\fJiohs avrov ws ^AJ^a Trvp6s, Kal ol -TriJSey
avrov Sfioiot x°-^^°^*-^^^V-> "^^^ h2.ye been sug
gested by the current pagan representations of the
tutelary deity of the city. See a parallel case at
Smyrna. [Smyrna.]
Besides the cults which have been mentioned,
there is evidence of a deification of Rome, of Ha
drian, and of the imperial family. Games were
celebrated in honor of Tyrimnas, of Hercules, and
of the reigning emperor. On the coins before the
imperial times, the heads of Bacchus, of Athen^,
and of Cybele, are also found : but the inscriptions
only indicate a cult of the last of these.
(Strabo, xiii. c. 4; Pliny, H. N. v. 31; Liv.
xxxvii. 8, 21, 44; Polybius, xvi. 1, xxxii. 25; Steph
anus Byzant. sub v. @vdreipa'i Boeckh, Inscript.
Grcec. Thyatir., especially Nos. 3484-3499 ; Suidas,
V. 'S,ap^4\B'n' -iEIian, Var. Hist. xii. 35; Clinton,
F. H ii. 221; Hoflbaann, Griechenland, ii. 1714.)
J. VV. B.
THYINE WOOD (^vhov e6ivov: lignum
ihyinum) occurs once only, namely, in Rev. xviii.
12, where the margin has " sweet " (wood). It is
mentioned as one of the valuable articles of com
merce that shotdd be found no more in Babylon
(Rome), whose fall is here predicted by Sfc. John.
There can be htfcle doubt that the wood here spoken
of is that of the Thuya articulata, Desfont., the
CaUitris guadrivalvis of present botanists. This
tree was much prized by the ancient Greeks and
Romans, on accounfc of fche beauty of its wood for
various ornamental purposes. It is the Qveia. of
Theophrastus (Hist Plant iii. 4, §§ 2, 6); the
Biilvov ^v\ov of Dioscorides (i. 21). By fche Ro
mans the tree was called ciiitis, the wood citrum.
[t is a native of Barbary, and grows fco the heighfc

TIBERIAS
of 15 to 25 feet. PHny (H. N. xiii. 15/ says that
fche citrus is found abundantly in Mauritania. He
speaks of a mania amongst his countrymen for
tables made of its wood; and tells us fchafc when
fche Roman ladies were upbraided by fcheir husbands
for fcheir extravagance in pearls, they retorted upon
fchem fcheir excessive fondness for tables made of
this wood. Fabulous prices were given for tables
and other ornamental furniture made of citrus wood
(see Phny, /. c. ). The Greek and Roman writera
frequently allude to this wood. See a number of
references in Celsius, Bierob. ii. 25. Thr roof oi

Thuya articulala.
the mosque at Cordova, built in the 9th cent., is
of " thyine wood '* (Loudon's Arboi'etum,, iv. 2463).
Lady Callcott says the wood is dark nut-brown,
close grained, and' very fragrant." The resin
known by the name of Sandarach is the produce
of fchis tree, which belongs fco the cypress tribe
( Cupi-essinece), of the nat. order Conifera. W. H.
TIBE'RIAS (Ti^epids'. Tiberias), a cifcy in
the fcune of Chrisfc, on fche Sea of Galilee; first
menfcioned in the New Testament (John vi. 1, 2'i.
xxi. 1), and then by Josephus (Ani. xviii., hiL
Jud, ii. 9, § 1), who states that it was built by
Herod Antipas, and was named by him in hono^
of the emperor Tiberius. It was probably a new
town, and not a restored or enlarged one merely;
for "Rakkath" (Josh. xix. 35), which is said in
the Talmud to have occupied the same position,
lay in the fcribe of NaphtaU (if we insist on the
boundaries as indicafced by the clearest passages),
whereas Tiberias appears to have been within fche
Umits of Zebulun (Matt. iv. 13). See Winer
Realw. ii. 619. The same remark may be made
respecting Jerome's sfcafcemenfc, thafc Tiberias suc
ceeded fco the place of the earlier Chinnereth ( Ofto-
masticon, sub voce); for this latter town, as may

a " It is highly balsamic and odoriferous, the reilii.
DO doubt, preventing the ravages of insects as well tl
the influence of the air " (Loudon's Arb. 1. o.).

TIBERIAS
be argued from the name itself, must have been
further north than the site of Tiberias. The
tenacity with which its Koman name has adhered
to the spot (see infra) indicates tbe same fiict; for,
generaUy speaking, foreign naraes in the East ap
plied to towns previously known under names de
rived fi-om the native dialect, as e. g. Epiphania for
Hamniath (Josh. xix. 35), Palmyra for Tadmor
(2 Chr. viu. 4), Ptolemais for Akko (Acts xxi. 7),
lost their foothold as soon as the foreign power
passed away which bad imposed them, and gave
place again to tbe original appellations. Tiberias
was the capital of Gahlee from the time of its
origin untU the reign of Herod Agrippa II., who
changed the seat of power back again to Sepphoris,
where it had been before tbe founding of the new
city. Many of the inhabitants were Greeks and
Bonians, and foreign customs prevailed there to
such an extent as to give offense to the stricter
Jews. [Hekodiass.] Herod, the founder of

TIBERIAS

3243

Tiberias, had passed most of his early life in Italy
and had brought with him thence a taste for the
amusements and magnificent buildings, with which
he had been famiUar in thafc country. He built a
stadium there, hke thafc in which the Roman youth
fcrained fchemselves for feats of ri\'alry and war.
He erected a palace, which he adorned with figures
of animals, '¦ contrary," as Josephus says ( Vit §§
12, 13, 64), *' to the law of our countrymen."
The place was so rauch the less attractive to the
Jews, because, as the same authority states (Ant.
xviii. 2, § 3), ifc sfcood on fche sifce of an ancient
burial-ground, and was viewed, therefore, by the
more scrupulous among thera almost as a polluted
and forbidden locality. Coins of the city of Tibe
rias are stiU extant, which are referred to the times
of Tiberius, Trajan, and Hadrian.
The ancient name has survived in that of the
modern Tubarieh, which occupies unquestionably
the original site, except that it is confined to nar

-U. 'sl-fr.* -'^*;,,.^^v»jiS*. .

i^^^M^K

?jt**

Town and Lake of Tiberias from the Southwest.

rower limits than those of the original city. Near
TAb-.trieh, about a mile further south along the
shore are the celebrated warm baths, which the
Roman naturalists (Plin. Hist. Nat v. 15) reck
oned among the greatest known curiosities of fche
world. [Hammath.] The intermediate space be
tween these baths and fche fcown abounds with the
traces of ruins, such as the foundations of walls,
heaps of stone, blocks of granite, and the Uke;
and ifc cannofc be doubfced, therefore, that the an
cient Tiberias occupied also this ground, and was
niuch more extensive than its moderu successor.
From such indications, and from the explicit testi
mony of Josephus, who says (Ant. xviii. 2, § 3)
that Tiberias was near Ammaus {'A^/iaous), or the
Warm Baths, there can be no uncertainty respect
ing the identification of the site of this important
city. It stood anciently as now, on the western
shore, about t\vo thirds of the way between the

a * Mr. MacGregor, who was ten days in his boat
on the lake of Galilee, reports an interesting discovery
tn the seaside of the town of Tiberias. He observed
i long wall of stones, just above the surface of the
nater, 300 or 400 yards in exfcent, three courses of them
9Ut of the water at one end, and ouly two of them afc

northern and southern end of the Sea of Galilee.
There is a margin or strip of land there between
fche wafcer and the steep hills (which elsewhere in
that quarter come down so boldly to the edge ot
the lake), about fcwo miles long and a quarfcer of a
mile broad. The tracfc in quesfcion is somewhat
undulating, but approximates to the character of a
plain. Tid)ar'ieh, the modem town, occupies the
northern end of this parallelogram, and the Warm
Baths the southern extremity; so thafc the more
extended cifcy of fche Roman a^e must have covered
all, or nearly all of the pecaliar ground whose
hmits are thus clearly defined. (See Kobinsoii's
BibL Res. ii. 380; and Porter's Pamlbook, ii. 421.)
The present Tubarieh has n rectangular form, is
guarded by a strong waU on the land side, but is
left entirely open towards the sea.« A few palm-
trees still remain as witnesses of the luxuriant
vegetation which once adorned this garden of the

the other. It was evident that it had " all bodily
supk ; the whole town of Tiberias had lowered to
wards the south." He ascribes this sinking fco the
great earthquake which took place in 1837 (see the
art. above). See Report of the Palestine Exploralion
Fand, ch.iW. p. 101 f. H

3244

TIBERIAS

Promised Land, but they are greatly inferior in
size and beauty to those seen in Egypt. The
oleander grows here profusely, almost rivahng that
flower so much admired as found on the neighbor
ing plam of Gennesaret. The people, as of old,
draw fcheir subsistence in part from the adjacent
lake. The spectator from his position here com
mands a view of almost fche entire expanse of the
sea, except the southern part, which is cut oflf by
a shght projection of the coast. The precipices
on the oJ)posite side appear almost to overhang the
water, but on being approached are found to stand
back afc some distance, so as to allow travellers to
pass between them and the water. The lofty Her
mon, the modern Jebel esh-Sheikh, with its gUsten-
ing snow-heaps, forras -a conspicuous object of the
landscape in the northeast. Many rock-tombs ex
ist in the sides of the hills, behind fche fco\^^l, some
of fchem no doubfc of greafc anfciquifcy, and con
structed in the best style of such monuments. The
cUmate here in the warm season is very hot and
unhealthy; bufc mosfc of fche tropical fruits, as in
other parts of the vaUey of the Jordan, become
ripe very early, and, with industry, might be culti
vated in great abundance and perfection. '1'he
article on Gen2?esakkt [vol. i. p. 895] should be
read in this connection, since it is the relation of
Tiberias to the surrounding region and the lake,
which gave to it its chief importance in the first
Christian age. The place is four and a half houi-s
from Nazareth, oue hour from Mejdel, probably
the ancient Magdala, and thirteen hours, by the
shortest route, from Banias or Ca;sarea Philippi.
It is remarkable that the Gospels give us no
information that the Saviour, who spent so much
of his public life in Galilee, ever visited Tiberias.
The surer meaning of the expression, " He went
away beyond the sea of Galilee of Tiberias" in
John vi. 1 {-nepav rris BaXdatnis rris TaKiXalas
rrjs Ti$epid5os),^& not that Jesus embarked from
Tiberias, but, as Meyer remarks, that Ue crossed
from the west side of fche Galilean sea of' Tibei'i'is
to the opposite side. A reason has been assigned
for this singular fact, which mayor may not ac
count for it. As Herod, the murderer of John the
Baptist, resided most of the time in this city, fche
Saviour may have kepfc purposely away from ifc, on
accounfc of fche sanguinary and artful (Luke xiii.
32) character of that ruler. It is certain, from
Luke xxiii. 8, that though Herod had heard of the
fame of Christ, he never saw Him in person untU
they met at Jerusalen), and never witnessed any of
his miracles. It is possible tbat the chai-acter of
the place, so much like that of a Roman colony,
may have been a reason why He who was seut to
the lost sheep of tbe house of Israel, performed so
little labor in its vicinity. The head of the lake,
and especially the plain of Gennesaret, where the
population was more dense and so thoroughly Jew
ish, formed the cenfcral poinfc of his GaUlean min
istry. The feast of Herod and his courtiers, before
whom the daughter of Herodias danced, and in
fiilfiUraent of the tetrarch's rash oath demanded
the head of the dauntless reformer, was held in all
probabiUty at Tiberias, the capital of the province.
If, as Josephus mentions (Ant. xviii. 5, § 2), the
Baptist was imprisoned at the time in the castle
of Machaerus beyond the Jordan, the order for his
execution could have been sent fchither, and fche

TIBERIAS
bloody trophy forwarded to the implacable Herodiai
afc the palace where she usuaUy resided. Garni
(Johannes der Taufer im Gefdngniss, p. 47, Ac.)
suggests fchat John, instead of being kept all the
time in tbe same castle, may have been confined in
diflferent places, afc differenfc fcimes. [Math-ekus,
Amer. ed.] The three passs^es already referred
fco are the only ones in the New T^tament which
menfcion Tiberias by name, namely, John vi. 1,
and xxi. 1 (in bofch instances designafcing fche lake
on which the fcown was situated), and John \i.
23, where boats are said to have come from
Tiberias near to the place at which Jesus had
supplied miraculously the wants of the multitude.
Thus the lake in fche fcime of Christ, araong its
other appellations, bore also that of the principal
city in the neighborhood; and in Uke manner,
at the present day, Bahr TObarteh, " Sea of Tii-
barieh," is almost the only name under which it
is known araong the inhabitants of the country.
Tiberias has an interesting liistory, apart from its
sfcrictly BibUcal associations. It bore a conspicu
ous parfc in fche wars between the Jews and the Ro
mans. The Sanhedrim, subsequently to the fall of
Jerusalem, after a temporary sojourn at Jamnia and
Sepphoris, became fixed fchere aboufc fche middle of
the 2d century. Celebrated schools of Jewish leam
ing flourished there through a succession of several
centuries. The Mishna was compiled at this place
by the great Kabbi Judah Hakkodesh (A. d. 190).
TTie Masorah, or body of traditions, which trans
mitted the readings of the Hebrew text of the Old
Testaraent, and presented by means of the vowel
system the pronunciation of the Hebrew, originated
in a great measure at Tiberias. The place passed,
under Constantine, into the power of the Christians;
and during the period of the Crusades was lost and
won repeatedly by the difierent combatants. Since
fchafc time ifc has been possessed successively by Per
sians, Arabs, and Turks ; and confcains now, under
fche Turkish rule, a mixed populafcion of Moham
medans, Jews, and Christians, variously esfcimafced
at from two to four thousand. 'I'be Jews consti
tute, perhaps, one fourth of the entire number.
They regard Tiberias as one of the four holy places
(Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed, are the others), hi
which, as they say, prayer must be oflfered without
ceasing, or the world would fall back instantly into
chaos. Ore of their singular opinions is that the
Messiah when Ilti appears will emerge from the
waters of the lake, and, landing at Tiberias, proceed
to Safed, and there establish his throne on the
highest summit ui Galilee. In addition to the
language of the particular country, as Poland, Ger
many, Spain, from which they or their famUies em
igrated, most of the Jews here speak also the Rab
binic Hebrew, and modern Arabic." They occupy
a quarter in the middle of the town, adjacent to the
lake; just north of which, near the shore, is a
Latin convent and church, occupied by a sofitary
ItaUan monk. Tiberias suffered terribly fi«m the
great earthquake in 1837, and has not yet recovered
by any means from the effects of that disaster. In
1852, the writer of this article (later travellers
report but little improvement) rode into the city
over the dilapidated walls; in other parts of them
not overthrown, rents were visible from top to
bottom, and some of the towers looked as if they
had been shattered by battering-rams. It is sup-

a * Probably in no place in the world is the He- tent as afc Tiberias.
Qrow spoken as a vernacular language fco such an ez- ' satem, p 284.)

(See Tobler, Denkbldtter aus Jem
H.

TIBEKIAS
posed that at least seven hundred of the inhabit
ants were destroyed at tbat time. This earthquake
was severe and destructive in other parts of Galilee.
It was a similar calamity no doubt, such as had
left a strong impression on the minds of the people,
to which Amos refere, at the beginning of his
prophecy, as forming a well-known epoch from
which other events were reckoned. There is a
place of interment near Tiberias, in which a distin
guished Rabbi is said to be buried with 14,000 of
his disciples around him. Tbe grave of the Ara
bian philosopher Lokman, as Burckhardt states,
was pointed out here in the 14th century. Rau
mer's Palastina (p. 125) mentions some of the
foregoing facts, and others of a kindred nature.
The later fortunes of the place are sketched some
what at length in Dr. Robinson's Biblical Re
searches, iii. 267-274 (ed. 1841). It is unnecessary
to specify other works, as Tiberias lies in the ordi
nary route of travellers in the East, and will be
found noticed more or less fully in most of tbe
books of any completeness in this department of
authorship. Professor Stanley, in bis Notices of some Local
ities, ete. (p. 193), bas added a few charming
touches to the admirable description already given
in bis Sin. and Pal. (368-82). H. B. H.
TIBE'RIAS, THE SBA OF (i, Bd\aaaa
rris TiPepiddos : mare Tiber-iadis). This term is
fomid only in John xxi. 1, the other passage in
which it occurs in the X. V. (ibid. vi. 1) being, if
the original is accurately rendered, " the sea of
Galilee, of Tiberias." St. John probably uses the
name as more familiar to non-residents in Palestine
than the indigenous name of the " sea of Galilee,"
or " sea of Gennesaret," actuated no doubt by the
same motive which has induced him so constantly
to translate the Helu'ew names and terms which
he uses (such as Kabbi, Rabboni, Messias, Cephas,
Siloam, etc.) into the huiguage of the Gentiles.
[GliSNESAKET, SlSA OF.] G.
TIBE'RIUS (Ti/Sepios: in full, Tiberius Clau
dius Nero), the second Roman emperor, successor
of Augustus, wbo began to reign a. i». 14, and
reigned until A. D. 37. He was the son of Tibe
rius Claudius Nero and Livia, and hence a stepson
of Augustus. He was born at Rome on the 16th
of November, B. c. 45. He became emperor in his
fifty-fifth year, after having distinguished himself as
a commander in v.arious wars, and having evinced
talents of a high order as an orator, and an admin
istrator of civil affairs. His military exploits and
those of Drusus, his brother, were sung by Horaoe
( Cai'm. iv. 4, 14). He even gained the reputation
of possessing the sterner virtues of the Roni;in char
acter, and was regarded as entirely worthy of the
imperial honors- to which his birth and supposed
personal merits at length opened the wa}'. Yet on
being raised to the supreme power, be suddenly
becanie, or showed himself to be, a very different
man. His subsequent life was one of inaotivity,
sloth, and self-indulgence. He was 'despotic in his
government, cruel and vindictive in his disposition.
He gave up the affairs of tbe state to the vilest
favorites, while he himself wallowed in the very
kennel of all that was low and debasing. The only
palliation of his monstrous crimes and vices which
2an be ofiered is, that his disgust of lifle, occasioned
by bis early domestic troubles, may have driven him
It last to despair and insanity. Tiberius died at
;he age of seventy-eight, after a reign of twenty-

TIBHATH

3245

Coin of Tiberius.

three years. The ancienfc wrifcers who supply most
of our knowledge respecfcing him are Suetonius
Tacitus (who describes his charaeter as one u.
studied dissimulation and hypoc
risy from the beginning), Annal.
i.-vi.; Yell Paterc. L. n. 94,
&c. ; and Dion Cass, xlvi.-xlviii,
The article in the Diet of'Gr.
and Rom. Biog. (vol. iii. pp.
1117-1127) furnishes a copious
outline of fche principal events in
his life, and holds him up in his
true Ught as deserving the scorn and abhorrenca
ofmen. For an extended sketch of the character
and administration of Tiberius, the reader is referred
to Merivale's History of ihe Romans, iv. 170 tf., and
V. 1 ff. (N. Y., 1865). It is claimed for Tiberius
that the Jews in Palestine suffered much less during
his reign from the violence and rapacity of the Ro
man governors', than during the reign of other em
perors. He changed the rulers there only twice,
alleging that " the governor who anticipates bufc a
shorfc harvesfc, makes the most of his term, and ex
torts as much as he is able in the shortest possible
period " (Milman's Hist of the Jeirs, ii. 126).
The city of Tiberias took ifcs name from this
emperor. Ifc will be seen thafc fche Saviour's public
life, and some of fche infcroductory events of the
apostohc age, niusfc have fallen wifchin the limits of
his administration. The memorable passage in
Tacitus (AnnaL xv. 44) respecting fche origin of
fche Chrisfcian secfc, places the crucifixion of fche Re
deemer under Tiberius : " Ergo abolendo rumori
(fchat of his having set fire fco Rome) Nero subdidit
reos, et qu£esitissimis posnis affecit, quos per flagitia
invisos vulgus Chrisfcianos appellabafc. Aucfcor nora-
inis ejus Christus Tiberio imperitante per procura-
torem Pentium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat."
The martyrdom of Stephen belongs in all probsr
bility to fche last year, or last but one of this reign.
In Luke iii. 1, he is termed Tiberius Caesar; John
the Baptist, it is there said, began his ministry in
the fifteenth year of his reign (i^yefjiovia)- This
chronological notation is an important one in deter
mining the year of Christ's birth and entrance on
his public work [Jesus Christ, vol. ii. p. 1383],
Augustus admitted Tiberius to a share in the em
pire two or three years before his own death; and
it is a question, therefore, whether the fifteenth
yearoi which Luke speaks, should be reckoned from
the time of the copartnership, or from that when
Tiberius began to reign alone. The former is the
computation raore generaUy adopted; bufc the data
which relate to this point in the chronology of the
Saviour's Ufe, may be reconciled easily with the one
view or fche other. Sorae discussion, more or less
extended, in reference to fchis inquiry will be found
in Krafft's Chronologie,Tp.Q6; Sepp* s Leben Christi,,
i. 1, &c. ; Friedlieb's Leben .lesu Christi, p. 47, &c. ;
Ebrard's Kriiik, p. 184; Tiscbendorfs Synopsis,
xvi.; GresweU's Dissertations, i. 334; Robinson's
Harnumy ofthe Gospels, p. 181; EUicotfc's Life
of Chiist, p. 106, nofce, Amer. ed. ; Andrews's
Life of our Lord, p. 24 ff. ; and Wieseler's Bei-
trdqe zur richtigen Wiirdigung der Erangelien
(1869), p. 177 ff. H. B. H.
TIB'HATH(nnilTp [extensive, ^eue^, Fiirst] :
MaTojBefl; Vat. FA lVl6Taj8?7xasi A'^^- Mare-
^efl:] Thebnth), a city of tiadadezer, king of Zo
bah (1 Cbr. xviii. 8), which in 2 Sam. vni. 8 is
caUed Betah, probably by an accidental fcranspoai-

8246

TIBNI

tion of the first two letters. Its exact position is
unknown, but if Arara-Zobab is tbe country be
tween the Euphrates and Coelesyria [see Syria],
we must look for Tibhath on the eastern skirts of
the Anti-Libanus, or of its continuation, the Jebel
Shahshabu and the Jebel Rieha. 0. R.
TIB'NI C'Snn [intelligent, Furst]: @ap.vl
[Vat. -vei] : Thebni). After Zimri bad burnt
hiraself in his palace, tbere was a division in the
northern kingdom, half of tbe people following
Tibni the son of Ginath, and half following Omri
(1 K. xvi. 21, 22). Omri was the choice of tbe
army. Tibni was probably put forward by tbe
people of Tirzah, which was then besieged by Omri
and his host. The struggle between the contend
ing factions lasted four years (comp. 1 IC. xvi. 15,
23); but the only record of it is given in the few
words of the historian : " The people tbat followed
Omri prevailed against the people tbat followed
Tibni tbe son of Ginath ; so Tibni died, and Omri
reigned." Tbe LXX. add that Tibni was bravely
seconded by his brother Joram, for they tell us, in
a clause which Ewald pronounces to be undoubt
edly genuine, " and Tbamni and Joram his brother
died at tbat time; and Ambri reigned after Thani
ni." W. A. W.
TI'DAL (^5"Tri [splendor, renmim, Fiirst] :
@apydK\ [Alex. @a\ya, @aXya\(] Tlindal) is
mentioned only in Gen. xiv. 1, 9. He tbere ap
pears among the kings confederated with, and sub
ordinate to, Cbedorlaomer, the sovereign of Elam,
who leads two expeditions from the country about
the mouth of the Tigris into Syria. The name.
Tidal, is certainly an incorrect representation' of the
original. If the present Hebrew text is accepted,
the king was called Thid'al; while, if the Septua
gint more nearly represents tbe original," bis name
was Tbargal, or perhaps Thurgal. This last ren
dering is probably to be prefeiTed, as the name is
then a significant one in the early Hamitic dialect
of tbe lower Tigris and Kuphrates country — Thur
gal being " the grent chief" — ^aa-i\evs 6 fifyas
(naqa wazarkit) of the Persians. Tbargal is
called " king of nations" (D'^'IS TJIPp), by which
it is reasonable to understand that he was a chief
over various nomadic tribes to whom no special
tract of country could be assigned, since at differ
ent times of the year they inhabited different portions
of Lower Mesopotamia. This is the case with the
Arabs of these parts at the present day. Tbargal,
however, should from his name have been a Tura
nian. G. R.
TIG'LATH-PILE'SER ("IDt;i!b5-nb3ri
[seebelow]: @a\yae<jie\\aa-dp; [Vat. also AA^aS-
^eWaaap, &aKya\(f>e?i\aiTap', Alex A7A.a6 4»a\-
\aaap:] Theglalh-J'halasar). In 1 Chr. v. 26,
and again in 2 Chr. xxviii. 20, the name of this
king is written "Ipabp-nabri, " Tilgath-pilne
ser; " but in tbis form there is a double corruption.
The native word reads as Tigulti-pab-ts'ira, for

a The LXX. evidently read bl^lD for bSlD,
and therefore wrote ®o.py6.k, representing the ^ by a
y. ¦ The Alex. Codex, however, bas ©AArA, which
originally was doubtless ©AArA, agreeing so far with
the present Hebrew text.
6 * A more accurate translation of Is. ix. 1, and
toOTB in harmony with the context is : " He lightly

TIGLATH-PILESER
which the Tiglath-pil-eser of 2 Kings is a fill
equivalent. The signification of the name is sonn
what doubtful. M. Oppert renders it, " Adoratir
[sit] filio Zodiaci," and explains " the son of th»
Zodiac " as Nin, or Hercules (Expedition Sden-
tif que en Mesopotamie, ii. 352).
Tiglath-Pileser is the second Assyrian king men
tioned hi Scripture as having come iuto contact
with tbe Israelites. He attacked Samaria in tbe
reign of Pekah, on what ground we are not told,
but probably because Pekah withheld his tribute
and, having entered his territories, " took Ijon, and
.\bel.beth-maachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, aud
Hazor, and Gilead, and GaUlee, and all the land of
Naphtali, and carried them captive to Assyria"
(2 K. XV. 29): thus "lightly afflicting the land
of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali'* (Is. ix. 1)6
the most northern, and so the most exposed portion
of the country. The date of this invasion cannot
at present be fixed ; but it was, apparently, many
years afterwards that Tiglath-Pileser made a second
expedition into these parts, which had more im
portant results than his former one. It appeara
that, after the date of his first expedition, a close
league was formed between Eezin, king of Syria.
and Pekah, having for its special object the humil
iation of .ludsea, and intended to further generally
the uiterests of the two allies. At first great suc
cesses were gained by I'ekab and his confederate
(2 K. XV. 37; 2 Chr. xxviii. 6-8); but, on thew
proceeding to attack Jerusalem itself, and to threaten
Ahaz, who was then king, with deposition from his
throne, which they were about to give to a pre
tender, " the son of Tabeal " ( Is. vii. 6 ), the Jewish
monarch applied to Assyria for assistance, and Tig-
latli-Pileser, consenting to aid him, again appeared
at the bead of an army in these regions. He fii-st
marched, naturally, against Damascus, which he
took (2 K. xvi. 9 ), razing it (according to his own
statement) to the ground, and killing Eezin, the
Damascene monarch. After this, probably, he pro
ceeded to chastise Pekah, whose country he entered
on the northeast, where it bordered upon " Syria
of Damascus." Here he overran the whole district
to the east of Jordan, no longer " lightly afflicting "
Samaria, but injuring her far "more grievously,
by the way of the sea, in Galilee of the Gentiles "
(Is. ix. 1), carrying uito captivity "the Reubenites,
the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh " (1 Chr.
V. 26), wbo had previously held this country, and
placing them in Upper Mesopotamia from Harran
to about Nisibis (ibid.) Thus the result of this
expedition was the absorption of the kingdom of
Damascus, and of an important portion of Samaria,
into the Assyrian empire; and it further brought
the kingdom of Judah into the condition of a mere
tributary and vassal of the Assyrian monai-ch.
Before returning into bis own land, Tiglath-
Pileser had an interview witb Ahaz at Damascus
(2 K. xvi. 10). Here doubtless was settled the
amount of tribute which Judtea was to pay an
nually; and it may be suspected that here too it
was explained to Ahaz by his suzerain that a cer-

GSteemed the land of Zebulon and the land of Naphtali,
but aflorward will signally honor," eto. In this form
it is especially appropriate as understood of the resi
dence and public ministry of Christ in that despised
region. Interpreters generally (see Michaelis, Vitringa,
Hengstenberg, aud Alexander on Is. viii 2f " recogni»
this as the primary reference. F. Q.

TIGLATH-PILESER
tain deference to the Assyrian gods was due on the
part of all tributaries, who were usually required to
set up in their capilial " the Laws of Asshur," or
"altars to the Great Gods" [see vol. i. p. 190 a].
The "altar" which Ahaz "saw at Damascus,"
and of which he sent the pattern to Urij,ah the
priest (2 K. xvi. 10, 11), was probably such a badge
of subjection.This is all that Scripture tells us of Tiglath-
Pileser. He appears to have succeeded Pul, and to
have been succeeded by Shalmaneser; to have been
contemporary with Rezin, Pekah, and Ahaz; and
therefore to have ruled Assyria during the latter
half of the eighth century before our era. From
his own inscriptions we learn that his reign lasted
at least seventeen years ; that, besides warring in
Syria and Samaria, he attacked Babylonia, Media,
Armenia, and the independent tribes in the upper
regions of Mesopotamia, thus, like the other great
Assyrian monarchs, warring along tbe whole fron
tier of the empire; and finally, that he was (prob
ably) not a legitimate prince, but an usurper and
the founder of a dynasty. This last fact is gathered
from the circumstance that, whereas the Assyrian
kings generally glory in their ancestry, Tiglath-
Pileser omits all mention of his, not even recording
his father's name upon his monuments. It accords
remarkably with the statements of Berosus (in
Euseb. Chron. Can. i. 4) and Herodotus (i. 95),
that about this time, i. e. in the latter half of the
eighth century b. c, tbere was a change of dynasty
in Assyria, the old faraily, which had ruled for 520
(526) years, being superseded by another not long
before the accession of Sennacherib. The authority
of these two writers, combined with the monumental
indications, justifies us in concluding that the
founder of the I.ower Dynasty or Empire, the first
monarch of the New Kingdom, was tbe Tiglath-
Pileser of Scripture, whose date must certainly be
about this time, and whose monuments show him
to have been a self-raised sovereign. The exact
date of tbe change cannot be positively fixed ; but
it is probably marked by the era of Nabonassar in
Babylon, wbich synchronizes with B. 0. 747. Ac
cording to this view, Tiglath-Pileser reigned cer
tainly from B. c. 747 to B. c. 730, and possibly a
few years longer, being succeeded by Shalmaneser
at least as early as B. c. 725." [Shalmaneser.]
Tbe circumstances under wbich Tiglath-Pileser
obtained the crown have not come down to us from
any good authority; but there is a tradition on the
subject which seems to deserve mention. Alexander
Polyhistor, the friend of Sylla, who had access to
the writings of Berosus, related that the first As
syrian dynasty continued from Ninus, its founder,
to a certain BeleQs (Pul), and that he was suc
ceeded by Beldtaras, a m.an of low rank, a mere
vine-dresser (tpvTOvpy^s), who had the charge of
the gardens attached to the royal palaee. BelStaras,
he said, having acquired the sovereignty in an ex
traordinary way, fixed it in his own family, in which
it continued to the time of the destruction of Nin
eveh (Fr. Hist. Gr. iii. 210). It can scarcely be
doubted that BelStaras here is intended to represent
Tiglath-Pileser, Beletar being in fact another mode
of expressing the native PaUisira or Palli-isir
(Oppert), which the Hebrews represented by Pileser.
Whether there is any truth in the tradition may

TIGRIS

3247

a In the Assyrian Chronological Canon, of which
there are four copies in the British Museum, all more
jr less fragmentary, the reign of Tiglath-Pileser seems

perhaps be doubted. It bears too near a resem
blance to the oriental stories of Cyrus, Gyges
Amasis, and others, to have in itself much claim
to our acceptance. On the other hand, it bar-
moniEes with tbe remarkable fact — unparalleled in
the rest of the Assyrian records — that Tiglath-
Pileser is absolutely silent on the subject of hie
ancestry, neither mentioning bis father's name, nor
making any allusion whatever to his birth, descent,
or parentage.
Tiglath-Pileser's wars do not, generally, appear
to have been of much importance. In Babylonia
he took Sippara (Sepharvaim), and •several places
of less note in the northern portion of tbe country ;
but he does not seem to have penetrated far, or
to have corae into contact with Nabonassar, wbo
reigned from a. c. 747 to b. c. 733 at Babylon.
In Media, Arraenia, and Upper Mesopotamia, he
obtained certain successes, but made no permanent
conquests. It was on his western frontier only that
his victories advanced the limits of the empire.
The destruction of Damascus, tbe absorption of
Syria, and the extension of Assyrian influence over
Judaea, are the chief events of Tiglath-Pileser's
reign, which seems to have had fewer external
triumphs than those of most Assyrian monarchs.
Probably his usurpation was not endured quite
patiently, and domestic troubles or dangers acted
as a check upon bis expeditions against foreign
countries. No palace or great building can be ascribed to
this king. His slabs, which are tolerably numerous,
show that he must have built or adorned a residence
.at Calah (Nimrud), where they were found; but,
as tbey were not discovered in situ, we cannot say
anything of the edifice to which they originally be
longed. They bear marks of wanlion defacement;
and it is plain that the later kings pui-posely injured
them ; for not only is the writing often erased, but
the slabs have been torn down, broken, and used
as building materials by Esar-haddon in the great
palace which be erected at Calah, the southern
capital [see vol. i. p. 761 o]. The dynasty of Sargon
was hostile to the first two princes of the Lower
ICingdora, and the result of tbeir hostility is that
we have far less monumental' knowledge of Shal
maneser and Tiglath-Pileser than of various kings
of the Upper Empire. G. E.
TI'GRIS (Tlypis [see below] : Tygris, Tigris)
is used by the LXX. as the Greek equivalent of the
Hebrew Hiddekel (7p'^n) ; and occurs also in
several of the apocryphal books, as in Tobit (vi. 1),
Judith (i. 6), and Ecclesiasticus (xxiv. 25). The
meaning, and various forms, of the word have been
considered under Hiddekel. It only remains,
therefore, in the present article, to describe the
course and character of the stream.
The Tigris, like the Euphrates, rises from two
principal sources. The most distant, and therefore
the true, source is the westorn one, which is in lat.
38° 10', long. 39° 20' nearly, a little to the south
of the high mountain lake called USljik or GSlenjik,
in the peninsula formed by tbe Euphrates where
it sweeps round between Palou and Telek. The
Tigris' source is near the southwestern angle of the
lake, and cannot be more than two or tbree milei
from the channel of the Euphrates. The course ot

to be reckoned at either 16 or 17 years. (See Atkeruttim
No. 1812, p. 84.)

3248

TIGEIS

fche Tigris is afc first somewhat north of east, but
after pursuing fchis direcfclon for aboufc 25 miles ifc
makes a sweep round fco the south, and descends
by Arghani Maden upon Diarbekr. Here it is
already a river of considerable size, and is crossed
.by a bridge of ten arches a little below that city
(Niebuhr, Voyage en Arable, p. 326). It then
turns suddenly to the easfc, and flows in fchis direc
tion, pasfc Osman Kieui fco Til, where it once more
alters its course and takes that southeasterly direc
tion, which ifc pursues, with certain slight variations,
to its final junction with the Euphrates. At Osman
Kitui it receives the second - or Eastern Tigris,
which descends from Niphates (the modern Alar-
Tngh) with a course almost due soufch, and, col
lecting on its way the waters of a large number of
streams, unites wifch fche Tigris hiilf-way befcween
Diarbekr and Til, in long. 41° nearly. The courses
of fche two streams to the point of junction are re
spectively 150 and 100 miles. A little below the
junction, and before any other tributary^ of im
portance is received, the Tigris is 150 yards wide
and from three to four feet deep. Near Ti} a large
stream flows into it from the northeast, bringing
almost as much water as the main channel ordinarily
holds (Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 49). This
branch rises near BUU, in northern Kurdistan, and
runs at firsfc to the northeast, but presently sweeps
round to the north, and proceeds through the dis
tricts of Shditak and Boktan with a general west
erly course, crossing and recrossing the line of the
38th parallel, nearly to Sert, whence it flows south
west nnd south to Til. From Til the Tigris runs
southward tor 20 miles through a long, narrow, and
deep gorge, at the end of which ifc emerges upon
the comparatively low but still hilly country of
Mesopotamia, near Jezlreh. Through this it flows
with a course whieh is south-southeast to Mosul,
thence nearly south to KUeh-Sherghat, and again
south-southeast to Samara, where the hills end
aud the river enters on the greafc alluvium. The
course is now more irregular. Between Samara
and Baghdad a considerable bend is made fco fche
easfc; and, after the Sliai-el-Hie is thrown off in
lat. 32° 30', a second bend is made fco the uorth,
the regular southeasterly course being only resumed
a little above the 32d parallel, from which point the
Tigris runs in a tolerably direct line to its junction
with the Euphrates at Kurnah. The lengfch of fche
whole stream, exclusive of meanders, is reckoned at
1146 miles. It can be descended on rafts during
the flood season from Diarbekr, which is only 150
miles from its source; and it has been navigated
by steamers of small draught nearly up to Mosul.
irom Diarbekr to Samara the navigation is much
impeded by rapids, rocks, and shallows, as well as
by artificial bunds or dams, which in ancient times
were thrown across the stream, probably for pur
poses of irrigation. Below Samara there are no
obstructions; the river is deep, with a bottom of
soft mud; the stream moderate; and the course
very meandering. The average width of the Tigris
in this part of its course is 200 yards, while its
depth is very considerable.
Besides the three head-streams of fche Tigris,
which have been already described, fche river re
ceives, along ifcs middle and lower course, no fewer
fchan five important tributaries. These are the river
of Zakko or Eastern Khabour, the Great Zab (Zab
Ala), the Lesser Zab {Zab Asfal), the Adhem, aud
the Diyaleh or ancienfc Gyndes- All these rivers
Aow from the high range of Zagros, which shuts

TIGRIS
in the Mesopotamian valley on the. easfc, and is able
fco sustain so large a number of great streams from
its inexhaustible spnngs and abundant snows
From the wesfc fche Tigris obfcains no tributary of
the slightest importance, for the Tharthar, which
is said to have once reached it, now ends in a salt
lake, a little below Tekrit. Its volume, however,
is continually increasing as it descends, in conse
quence of the greafc bulk of wafcer broughfc into it
from fche easfc, parfcicularly by fche Great Zab and
the Diyaleh; and in its lower course it is said to
be a larger stream and to carry a greater body than
fche Euphrafces (Chesney, Euphrates Jilxpediiion, \.
62). The Tigris, like the Euphrafces, has a flood season.
Early in the raonth of March, in consequence of the
melting of the snows on the southern flank of Ni
phates, the river rises rapidly. Its breadth grad
ually increases at Diarbekr from 100 or 120 to 250
yards. The stream is swift and turbid. The rise
continues through March and April, reaching its
full heighfc generally in fche firafc or second week of
May. Afc fchis fcime the country aboufc Baghdad is
often extensively flooded, not, however, so much
from the Tigris 'as from the overflow of the Eu
phrates, which is here poured into the eastern
stream through a canal. Further down the river,
in fche territory of the Beni-Lam Arabs, between
the 32d and 31sfc parallels, fchere is a greafc annual
inundafcion on bofch banks. Aboufc the middle of
May the Tifiris begins fco fall, and by midsummer it
has reached ifcs nafcural level. In October and No
vember fchere is anofcher rise and fall in consequence
of the autumnal rains; but compared with the
spring flood fchafc of autumn is hisignificant.
The Tigris is at present better fitted for purposes
of traffic than the Euphrates (I^ayard, Ninevi-h and
Babylon, p. 475); but in ancient times it does not
seem to have been much used as a hne of trade.
The Assyrians probably floated down it the timber
which they were in the habit of cufcfcing in Amanus
and Lebanon, to be used for building purposes in
their capital ; but the general line of communica
tion between the Mediterranean and the Persian
Gulf was by fche Euphrafces. [See vol. i. p. 784.]
According fco fche historians of Alexander (Arrian,
hJxp. AL vii. 7; comp. Strab- xv. 3, § 4), the
Persians purposely obstructed the navigation of the
lower Tigris by a series of dams which they threw
across from bank to bank befcween the embouchure
and the city of Opis, and such trade as there was
along its course proceeded hy land (Strab. ibid.).
It is probable that fche dams were in reality made
for another purpose, namely, to raise the level of the
waters for the sake of irrigation ; but they would
undoubtedly have also fche efffecfc ascribed fco fchem,
unless in the spring flood time, when they might
have been shot by boats descending the river. Thus
there may always have been a certain amount of
tratfic down the stream; bufc up ifc trade would
scarcely ha^'e been practicable afc any fcime furtlier
than Samara or Tekrit, on account of the natural
obstructions, and of fche greafc force of fche stream.
The lower part of the course was opened by Alex
ander (Arrian, vii. 7 ) ; and Opis, near the mouth of
fche Diyaleh, became fchenceforfch known as a mart
(ipTrSpiov), from which the neighboring districts
drew fche merchandise of India and Arabia (Sfcrab.
xvi. 1, § 9). Seleucia, too, wbich grew up soon
affcer Alexander, derived no doubfc a portion of ita
prosperity from the facilities for tjade offered by thii
great stream.

TIKVAH
We find but little mention of the Tigris in
Scripture It appears indeed under the name of
Hiddekel, araong the rivers of Eden (Gen. ii. 14),
and is there correctly described as " running east
ward to Assyria," But after this we hear no raore
of it, if we except one doubtful allusion in Nahum
(ii. 6), until the Captivity, when it becomes well
known to the prophet Daniel, who had to cross it
in his journeys to and from Susa (Shushan). With
Daniel it is '* the Great River " — VTTSn "Ilian
— an expression commonly applied to fche Eu'
phrafces; and by its side he sees sorae of his most
iraportant visions (Dan.x. to xii.}. No other men
fcion of fche Tigris seems fco occur excepfc in the apoc
ryphal books ; and fchere ifc is unconnected witb
any real history.
The Tigris, in its upper course, anciently mn
through Armenia and Assyria. Ix>wer down, from
about the point where it enters on the alluvial plain,
it separated Babylonia from Susiana. In the wars
between the Romans and the I'arthians, we find it
constituting, for a short fcime (from A. r>. 114 fco
A. D. 117), fche boundary line befcween theso two
empires. Otherwise it has scarcely been of any
political importance. The great chain of Zagros is
the main nafcural boundary befcween Western and
Central Asia; and beyond this, the next defensible
line is the Euphrat^. Historically it is found that
either the central power pushes itself westward to
that river; or the power ruling the west advances
eastward to the mountain barrier.
The water of the Tigris, in its lower course, is
yellowish, and is regarded as unwholesome. The
stream abounds with fish of many kinds, which are
o^n of a large size (see Tobit vi. 2, and compare
Strab. xi. 14, § 8). Abundant water-ibwl float on
the waters. The banks are fringed with palm-trees
and pomegranates, or clothed with jungle and reeds,
the haunfc of fche wild boar and fche lion
(The mosfc imporfcanfc notices of the Tigris to be
found in the classical writers are the following:
Strabo, xi. 14, § 8, and xvi. 1, §§ 9-13; Arrian,
Exped. Alex. vii. 7; and Plin. II. N. vi. 27. The
best modern accounts are those, of Col. Chesney.
Euphrates Expediilim, i. 16, etc., and Winer, Real-
ivorierbuch, ii. 622, 623; with which may be com
pared Layard, Nineveh arul BabyUm, 49-51, and
464-476 ; Loftus, Chaldiea and Susiana, 3-8 ;
Jones in Transactions of the Geographical Soriety
of Birmbay, vol. ix ; Lynch in Jourmd of Geo
graphical Societyj vol. ix.; and Rawlinson's Herod
otus, i, 552, 553 ) G. K.
TIK'VAH (rnf?^ [cm-d, expect itlon']: ®e-
Kovdv; [Vat. ©e/cKouav; Alex. ®€kkov€'. Thecua).
1. The father of Shallum the husband of the
prophetess Huldah (2 K. xxii. 14). He is called
TiKVATH in the A. V. of 2 Chr. xxxiv. 22.
2. {®€Kco4; [Vat. FA. Eak^iu ;] Alex, ©e-
Kove: Thecue.) The father of Jahaziah (Ezr. x.
15). In 1 Esdr. ix. 14 he is called Theoca.nus
TIK'VATH (nni7iri [obedience]-, Keri,
"^C^PV'' properly TokShath or Tokhnih : ®€K(o4;
'Vafc. Koflouo^.;] Alex. ®aKovad: Thecunth). Tik-
VAH the fiifcher of Shallum (2 Chr. xxxiv. 22).
TILE. For general informafcion on fche subject,

TIMBREL

3249

b ^E^opv^avres (Mark ii. 4).
c • The ba is Aramiean, = son, and Uark's vHk Tt-

see the articles Brick, Pottery, Seal. ¦ The ex
pression in the A. V. rendering of Luke v. 19
" through « the tiling," has giveji much trouble tr
expositors, from the fact thafc Syrian houses are in
general covered, nofc with tiles, but with plaster
terraces. Some suggestions toward the solution ol
this difficulty have been already given. [House,
vol- ii. p. 1104.] An additional one may here be
offered. 1. Terrace-roofs, if constructed improperly,
ur at the wrong season of the year, are apt to crack
aud to become so saturated with rain as fco be easily
penetrable. May not the roof of the house in which
our Lord performed his miracle, have been in thig
condition, and been pierced, or, to use St. Mark's''
word, '* broken up," by the bearers of the paralytic ?
(Arundell, Trav. in Asia Minm; i. 171; Russell,
Aleppo, i. 35.)
2. Or may the phrase " through the tihng " be
accounted for thus? Greek houses were often, if
nofc always, roofed wifch fciles (Pollux, vii. 161;
Vifcruvius, iii. 3). Did nofc Sfc. Luke, a nafcive,
probably, of Greek Anfcioch, use the expression
" tiles," as the form of roof which was most familiar
to himself and to his Gi-eek readere without reference
to the particular material of the roof in question ?
(Euseb. //. E. iii. 4; Jerome, Prol. to Comm. on
St. Maith. vol. vii. 4; Conybeare and Howson,
St. Paul, i. 367.) Ifc may perhaps be worth re
marking that houses in modem Anfcioch, afc least
many of thera, have tiled roofs (Fisher, Vieios in
Syria, i. 19, vi. 56). [See House, note b, i. 1104,
Amer. ed.] H. W. P.
TIL'GATH-PILNE'SER (TO^n
¦np^D^s; 'q nabri ; "ip^bs n|bn : [Rom.
®ay\a^aWa(rap, ®a\ya<peWaa'dp\ Vafc.] ®aX-
ya^avacap, ®ayva<l>afj.aaap, ®a\ya<f>€\\adap ',
Alex. @ayXa6 <pa\vaaap' Thelgaihphalnasar). A
variafcion, and probably a corruption, of fciie name
Tiglath-pilesek. Ifc is peculiar fco fche books of
Chronicles, being found in 1 Chr. v. 6, 26; 2 Chr.
xxviii. 20. G.
* TILLAGE. [Agriculture.]
TIXON (VlVm ; Keri, I'lb'^ri [perh. gift]:
'Ivdtv'y Alex. @i\(vv'. Thilfm). One of the four
sons of Shimon, whose family is reckoned in the
genealogies of Judah (1 Chr. iv. 20).
TIM^'US (TipaTos'- Timcms). The father
of fche blind man, Bar-timseus, who was restored to
sighfc by Jesus as he leffc Jericho (Mark x. 46).*^
TIMBREL, TABRET. By fchese words the
A. V. fcranslafces fche Heb. ^^, toph, which is de
rived from an imitative root occurring in raany
languages nofc immediately connected with each
other. It is the same as the Arabic aud Persian
\^3, duff, which in Spanish becora^ adufe, a
tambourine. The root, which signifies to heat or
strike, is found in the Greek rinravov or rvfiiravov,
Lat. tympanum. It. tamburo, Sp. iambor, Fr. tani'
bour, Prov. tabor, Eng. tabor, tabouret, timbrel,
tambourine, A.-S. duhb'in, to strike, Eng. tap, and
many others.^ In Old Enghsh tabm' was used for

jLtaiov is the Greek translation. On fche clrcumstancei
of the miracle, see BAHTiiLffiOS [Amer. ed.]. H.
d It is usual for etymologists to quote tlie Arab.

3250

TIMBREL

any drun^ Thus Roh. of Gloucester, p. 396 { -d.
Eleame, 1810) : —
^ Vor of trompes and of tabors the Saracens made there
So gret noise, that Cristenmen al dLstourbed were."
In Shakespeare's time it seems to have become an
instrument of peace, and is thus contrasted with the
drum: "Ihave known when there was no music
with him but the drum and fife; and now had he
rather hear the taboi' and the pipe " (Much Ado, ii.
3). Tabouret and tabourine are diminutives of
tabor, and denote the instrument now known as the
tambourine: —
" Or Mimoe's whistling to his tabouret,
Selling a laughter for a cold meal's meat."
Hall, Sat. iv. 1, 78.
Tabret is a confcracfcion of tabouret. The word is
retained in the A. V. from Coverdale's translation
iu all passages except Is. xxx. 32, where it is
omitted in Coverdale, and Ez. xxviii. 13, where it
is rendered "beauty."
The Heb. toph is undoubtedly the instniment
described by fcravellers as fche duff or diff of fche
Arabs. Ifc was used in very early fcimes by fche
Syrians of Padan-aram afc their merry-makings
(Gen. xxxi. 27). It was played principally by
women (Ex. xv. 20; Judg. xi. 34; 1 Sara, xviii. 6;
Ps. Ixviii. 25 [26] ) as an accompaniment to the
song and dance (comp. Jud. iii. 7), and appears to
have been worn by them as an ornament (Jer. xxxi.
4). The toph was one of the instruments played
by the young prophets whora Saul met on his re
turn from Samuel (1 Sam. x. 5), and by the Le
vites in the Temple-band (2 Sam. vi. 5; 1 Chr.
xiii. 8). It accompanied the merriment of feasts
(Is. V. 12, xxiv. 8), and the joy of triumphal pro
cessions (Judg. xi. 34; 1 Sam. xviii. 6), when the
women came out to meet the warriors returning
from victory, and is everywhere a sign of happiness
and peace (Job xxi. 12; Is. xxx. 32; Jer. xxxi. 4).
So in the grand triumphal entry of God into his
Temple described in strong figures in Ps. Ixviii.,
the procession is made up by the singers who
marched in front, and the players on stringed in
struments who brought up the rear, while round
fchem all danced the young maidens wifch fcheir fcim-
Lrels (Ps. Ixviii. 25 [26]).
The diff of fche Arabs is described by Russell
(Aleppo, p. 94, Isfc ed.) as " a hoop (somefcimes wifch
pieces of brass fixed in ifc to make a jingling) over
which a piece of parchment is distended. It is beat
wifch the fingers, and is the true tympaimm of the
ancients, as appears from its figure in several re
lievos, representing the orgies of Bacchus and rites
of Cybele." The same instrument was used by the
Egyptian dancing-women whom Hasselquist saw
(Trav. p. 59, ed. 1766). In Barbary it is called
tar, and " is made hke a sieve, consisting (as Isi
dore" describes the tympanum) of a rim or thin
hoop of wood wifch a skin of parchmenfc sfcretched
over the top of it. This serves for the bass in all
their concerts, which they accordingly touch very
artfully with their fingers, or with the knuckles or
palms of their hands, as the time and measure re
quire, or as force and softness are to be communi
cated to the several parts of the performance"
(Shaw, Trav. p. 202).

tunbUr as the original of tambour and tabor ; but un-
%)rtunately fche tunbUr is a guitar, and nofc a drum
.Bussell's Aleppo, \. 152, 2d ed.). The paraUel Arabic
fford is tabl, which denotes 8 kind of drum, aud is the

TIMNAH
The tympanum was used in the feasts of Cybeli
(Her. iv. 76), and is said to have been the inven
tion of Dionysus and Rhea (V.wv. B irch. 59). It

Tar. (Lane's Modern Egyptians, 366, 5th ed.)
was played by women, who beat it with the palms
of their hands (Ovid, Met. iv. 29), and Juvenal
(Sat. iii. 64) attributes to ifc a Syrian origin: —
"Jam pridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxifc Orontes
Et linguam, efc mores et cum tibicine chordas
Obliquas, necnon gentilia tympana secum
Vexit.'
In the same way the tabor is said to have been
introduced into Europe by the Crusaders, who
adopted it from the Saracens, to whom it was
pecuhar (see Du Cange's nofce on De Joinville's
Hist, du Roy Saint Loids, p. 61 ).
The author of Shilte Haggibboiim (c. 2) gives
the Greek Kvfi^aKov as the equivalent of teph, and
says it was a hollow basin of metal, beaten with a
stick of brass or iron.
The passage of Ezekiel (xxviii. 13 ) is obscure, and
appears to have been early cornjpted. Instead of
tJ"^QJJ1, " thy fcabrets," the Vulg. and Targum read
^T^D"*, "thy beauty," which is the rendering
adopted in Coverdale's and Cranmer's Bibles.
The LXX. seem to have read tJ^IJ^, as ui ver.
16. If the ordinary text be adopted, there is no
reason for taking toph, as Jerome suggests, in the
sense of fche sefcfcing of a gem, "pala qua gemma
confcinetur." W. A. W.
TIM'NA, TIM'NAH (3?3ari [perh. re
strained or inaccessibW] : ©afxvd'-, [in 1 Chr. i. 39,
Vat. corrupt:] Thamna). 1. A concubine of Eh
phaz son of Esau, and mother of Amalek (Gen.
xxxvi. 12; in 1 Chr. i. 36 named as a son of FJi-
phaz): it may be presumed that she was the same
as Tirana, sister of Lotan, and daughter of Seir
the Horite ([Gen. xxxvi.] ver. 22, and 1 Chr. i.
39). 2. [In 1 Chr., Vat. ®aifj.av\ Alex. 0o/«ivo.]
A duke, or phylarch, of Edom in the last fist in
Gen. xxxvi. 40-45 (1 Chr. i. 51-54), where the
dukes are named '' according to their famihes, after
their places, by tlieir names .... according to
their habitations; " whence we may conclude, as in
the case of Teman, that Timnah was also the name
of a place or a district. E. S. P.
TIM'NAH (roniyi [lot,poi^iion'\). A name
which occurs, simple and compounded, and with
slight variations of forra, several fcimes, in the topog- ,
raphy of the Holy Land. The name is derived by
the lexicographers (Gesenius, Simonis, Fiirst*) from

same with the Rabb. Heb. tabid., and Span, atabal, i
kettle-dnun The instrument and the word may han
come to us thybugb the Saracens.
a Orig. Ui. 81.

TIMNATH
a root signifying to " portion out, or divide <*; " bufc
its frequent occurrence, and the analogy of the to
pographical names of ofcher counfcries, would rafcher
imply fchat it referred fco some nafcural feature of the
country. 1. (\i$a, @ap.vd\ [in 2 Chr. Vat. omits;] Alex.
vorov, 0a;i(/a; Joseph, ©apvd'. Thamna, Tham-
nin.) A place which formed one of the landmarks
nn the north boundary of the allotment of Judah
(Josh. XV. 10). Ifc was obviously near the western
end of the boundary, being between Beth-shemesh
and the " shoulder of Ekron." It is probably iden
tical with the Thima'athah of Josh. xix. 43, one
of the towns of Dan, also named in connection with
Ekron, and that again with the Timnath, or more
accurately Timnathah, of Samson, and the Tham
natha of the Maccabees. Its belonghigat that
¦ time to Dan would explain its absence from the
list of the towns of Judah (Josh. xv. ), though men
tioned in describing the course of the boundary.
The modern representative of all these various forms
of the same name is probably Tibneh, a village
about two miles west of Ain Shems (Beth-shemesh),
araong the broken undulating counfcry by which
the cenfcral mountains of fchis part of Palestine de
scend to the maritime plain. It has been shown in
several other cases [Keilah, etc.] that this district
contained towns which in the lisU are enumerated
as belonging to the plain. Timnah is probably an
other instance of the same thing, for in 2 Chr. xxviii.
18 a place of the sarae name is mentioued as among
the cities of the Shefelah, which from its occurrence
with Beth-shemesh, Gideroth, Gimzo, all more or
less in the neighborhood of Ekron, is probably the
same as that just described as in the hills. After
the Danites had deserted their original allotment
for the north, their towns would naturally fall into
the hands of Judah, or of the Phihstines, as the con
tinual struggle between thera might happen to fluc
tuate. In the later history of the Jews Timnah must
have been a conspicuous place. It was fortified by
Bacchides as one of the most important military
posts of Judeea (1 Mace. ix. 50), and it became
the head of a disfcrict or toparchy, which was called
after its name, and was reckoned the fourth in
order of importance among the fourteen into wbich
the whole c^ountry was divided at the tirae of Ves
pasian's invasion (Joseph. B. J. Iii. 3, § 5; and see
Pliny, V. 14).
Tibneh is now spoken of as " a deserted site "
(Rob. ii. 16), and nofc a single wesfcern fcraveller
appears fco have visifced it, or even to have seen it,
though its position is indicated with tolerable cer
tainty. [Timnath.]
2. (®apLva8d'-, AXen. ®ayi.va'. Thamna.) A town
in the mountain district of Judah (Josh. xv. 57).
Ifc is named in fche same group wifch Maon, Ziph,
and Carmel, which are known to have been soufch
of Hebron. Ifc is, fcherefore, undoubfcedly a disfcincfc
place from that just examined. G.
TIM'NATH. The form in which the fcrans-
lafcors of the A. V. inaccurately present two names
which are certainly distinct, though ifc is possible
fchafc they refer to the same place.
1. Timnah (nODlJl, i. e. Timnah [lot, pm'-
(ionj: @afxvd'- Thamnatha). The scene of the ad-
renture of Judah wifch his daughfcer-in-law Tamar

TIMNATH-SERAH

3251

a The JiXX., ttff above^ derived it from teman, the
Sooth.

(Gen. xxxviii. 19, 13, 14). There is nothing her*
to indicate its position. The expression " went up
to Timnah " {ver. 12) indicates that it was on
higher ground than the spot from which Judah
started. But as we are ignorant where that was,
the indication is of no service. It seems to have
heen the place where Judah's floclis were kept
There was a road to it (A. V. " way "). It may
be identified either with the Timnah in the moun
tains of Judah, which was in the neighborhood of
Carmel where Nahal kept his huge flocks of sheep;
or with the Timnathah so familiar in the story of
Samson's conflicts. In favor of the latter is the
doubtful suggestion named under Enam and Tap
puah, that in the words translated "an open
place " there rs a reference to those two towns. In
favor of the former is the possibility of the name in
Gen. xxxviii. being not Timnah but Timnathah (as
in the Vulgatfi), whieh is certainly the name of the
Philistine place connected with Samson. More
than this cannot be said.
The place is named in the specification of the
allotment of the tribe of Dan, where the A. V. ex
hibits it accurately as T^niNATHAH, and its name
doubtless survives in the modern Tibneh which is
said to lie below Zareah, about three miles to the
S. \V. of it, where the great Wady es-SUrdr issues
upon the plain.
2. Timnathah (nnSOri : ©ajuj/aBa; Joseph.
®af.Lvd: Thamnatha). The residence of Samson's
wife (Judg. xiv. 1, 2, 5). It was then in the occu
pation of the Philistines. It contained vineyards,
haunted however by such savage animals as indi
cate that the population was but sparse. It was on
higher ground than Ashkelon (xiv. 19), but lower
than Zorah, which we may presume was Sanisou's
starting-point (xiii. 25). G.
TIM'NATH-HE'KES (D^O ri3pri [por-
iion ofthe sun, Ges.] : Qa/ivaBapis; Alex. Sn/ivo-
dap ec»is: Thamnatsare). The name under which
the city and burial-place of Joshua, previously called
TiMNATH-SEBAH, is mentioned in Judg. ii. 9. The
constituent consonants of the word are the same,
but their order is reversed. The authorities diflfer
considerably in theh" explanations. The Jews adopt
Heres as the real name; interpret it to mean the
sun; and see in it a reference to the act of making
the sun stand still, which is to them the greatest
exploit of Joshua's life. Others (as Furst, i. 442).
while accepting Heres as the original form, in
terpret that woi-d as " day," and as originating in
the character of -the soil. Others again, like
Ewald (Gesch. ii. 347, 348), and Bertheau (On
Judges), take Serah to be the original form, and
Heres an ancient but unintentional error. G.
TIM'NATH-SB'EAH (nnDTiaipn [pm--
tion of abundance']: [Rom. Qa/jivaa'apdx', Vat.]
@afiapxapvs, tdapivaBaaaxapa; Alex. Bajnyafi
irapa, Qapivaaaxap; Josep5>. Bapivd: Thamnath
Saraa, Thamnath Sare). -The name oi the city
which at his request was presented to Joshua after
the partition of the country was completed (Josh.
xix. 50); and in "the border" of which he was
buried (xxiv. 30). It is specified as " in Mount
Ephraim on the north side of Mount Gaash." In
Judg. ii. 9, the name is altered to Timnath-heres.
The latter form is that adopted by the Jewish writers,
who interpret Heres as meaning the sun, and account
for the name by stating that the figure of the sun
(femimalh ha citeres) was carved upon the seput

3252

TIMNITE

chre, to indicate that it was the torab of i he man
who had caused the sun to stand still (Rashi, 6'oMi-
ment. on l)oth passages). Accordingly, they iden
tify the place with Kefar cheres, whieh is said by
Rabbi Jacob (Carmoly, Rineraires, etc., p. 186),
hap-Parchi (Asher's Benj. p. 434), and other Jew
ish travellers dosvn to Schwarz in our own day (p.
151), to be about 5 miles S. of Shechem (Ndblus).
No place with that name appears on the maps, tbe
closest approach to it being Kefr-Baril. which is
raore nearly double that distance S. S- W. of Nd
blus. Wherever it be, the place is said by the Jews
still to contain the tombs of Joshua, of Nun, and of
Caleb (Schwarz, p. 151).
Another and more promising identification has,
however, been suggested in our own day by Dr. Eli
Smith (Bibl. Saa-a, 1843). In his journey from
Jifna to Mejdel-Yiiba , about six miles from the
former, he discovered the ruins of a considerable
town on a gentle hill on the left (south) of the
road. Opposite the town (apparently to the south)
was a much higher hill, in the north side of which
are several excavated sepulchres, which in size and
in the richness and character of their decorations
resemble the so-called " Tombs of the Kings " at
Jerusalem. The whole bears the narae of Tibneh,
and although without further examination it can
hardly be afiii'med to be the Timnah of Joshua,
yet the identification appears probable. [Gaash,
Amer. ed.]
Timnath-Serah and the tomb of its illustrious
owner were shown in the time of Jerome, who
mentions them in the Epitnphiuni PauhB (§ 13).
Beyond its being south of Shechem, he gives no
indication of its position, but he dismisses it with
the following characteristic remark, a fitting tribute
to the simple self-denial of the great soldier of Israel :
" Satisque mirata est, quod distributor possessionum
eibi montana et aspera delegisset." G.
TIM'NITB, THE 03!priri [patr.]: toD
eiafivi [Vat. -ye J; Alex, o ®a/iva6atos: Thanir-
nalhceus), that is, the Timnathite (as in the Alex.
LXX., and Vulg.). Samson's father-in-law (Judg.
XV. 6).
TI'MON (TiV'jjj/: Timon). One of the seven,
comraonly called " deacons " [Deacon], who were
appointed to act as almoners on the occasion of
complaints of partiality being raised by the Hellen
istic Jews at Jerusalem (Acts vi. 1-6). Like his
colleagues, Timon bears a Greek name, from which,
taken together with the occasion of their appoint
ment, it has beeu inferred with much probability
that the seven were themselves Hellenists. The
name of Timon stands fifth in the catalogue.
Nothing further is known of hira with certainty;
but in the "Synopsis de Vita et Mortc Prophetarura
Apostolorum et Discipulorum Domini," ascribed to
Dorotheus of Tyre (BiJbl. Pattern, iii. 149), we are
informed that he was one of the " seventy-two "
disciples (the catalogue of whom is a mere conge
ries of New Testament names), and that he after
wards became bishop of Bostra ( ? " Bostra Ara-
bum " ), where he suffered martyrdom by fire.
W. B. J.
TIMO'THBtrS (TiM<(flEos [honoring God]).
a The children of these marriages were known as
Uamzerim (bastards), and stood just above the Ne
thinim. This was, however, ctr.teris paribus. A bas
tard who was a wi'^e student of the Law was, in theory,
ttiove an ignorant high-priest (Gem. Bieros. Horajoth,

TIMOTHY
1. A " captain of tbe Ammonites " (1 Mace. v. 6)
who was defeated on several occasions by Judas
Maccabseus, B. c. 184 (1 Mace. v. 6, II, 34-44).
He was probably a Greek adventurer (comp. Jos.
Ani. xii. 8, § 1), who had gained the leadership ol
the tribe. Thus Josephus (Ant. xiii. 8, § 1, quoted
by Grimm, on 1 Mace. v. 6) mentions one '• Zeno,
surnamed Cotylas, who was despot of Rabbah " in
the time of Johannes Hyrcanus.
2. In 2 Mace, a leader named Timotheus is
mentioned as having ta.ken part in the invasion of
Nicanor (b. c. 166 : 2 Mace. viii. 30, ix. 3). At
a later tune he made great preparations for a second
attack on Judas, but was driven to a stronghold,
Gazara, which was stormed by .Judas, and there
Timotheus was taken and slain (2 Mace, x 24-37).
It has been supposed that the events recorded iu
this latter narrative are identical with those in 1
Mace. v. 6-8, an idea rendered more plausible by '
the similarity of the names Jazer and Gazara (in
Lat. Gazer, Jazare, Gazara). But the name Timo
theus was very common, and it is evident that
Timotheus the Ammonite leader was not slain at
Jazer (1 Mace. v. 34) ; and Jazer was on the east
side of Jordan, while Gazara was almost certainly
the same as Gezer. [.Jaazer; Gazara.] It
may be urged further, in support of the substantial
accuracy of 2 Mace, that the second campaign of
Judas against Timotheus (1 ) (1 Maoc. v. 27-44) is
given in 2 Mace. xii. 2-24, after the account of the
capture of Gazara and the death of Timotheus (2)
there. Wenisdorf assumes that all the dififerences
in the narratives are blunders iu 2 Mace. (Defde
LVrr. Mace. § Ixx.), and in this he is foUowed by
Grimra (on 2 Mace. x. 24, 32). But, if any reli
ance is to be placed on 2 Mace, the differences of
place and circurastances are rightly taken by Patri-
tius to mark difierent events (De Libr. Mace
§ xxxii. p. 259).
3. The Greek name of Timothy (Acts xvi. I,
xvii. 14, &e.). He is called by this name in the
A. V. in every case except 2 Cor. i. 1, PhUem. 1,
Heb. xiii. 23, and the epistles addressed to him.
B. F. W.
TIM'OTHY (TiiidBeos [honoring God] ; Tim
otheus). The disciple thus named was the son of
one of those mixed marriages which, though con
demned by stricter Jewish opinion, and placing
their offspring on all but the lowest step in the
.Jewish scale of precedence," were yet not uncom
mon in the later periods of Jewish history. The
father's name is unknown : he was a Greek, i. e. a
Gentile by descent (Acts xvi. 1, 3). If in any
sense a proselyte, the fact that the issue of the
marriage did not receive the sign of the covenant
would render it probable that he belonged to the
class of half-converts, the so-called Proselytes of the
Gate, not those of Righteousness [comp. Prose
lytes]. The absence of any personal allusion to
the father in the Acts or Epistles suggests the infer
ence that he must have died or disappeared during
his son's infancy. The care of the boy thus de
volved upon his mother Eunice and her mother
Lois (2 'Tim. i. 5). Under their training his edu
cation was emphatically Jewish. " From a child "
he learnt (probably in the LXX. version) to "know

foi. 84, in Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. in Matt, xxiii. 14) ; and
the education ot Timotlieus (2 Tim. iii. If \ may there
fore haye helped to overcome the prejudice which
the Jews would naturally have against him on thif
ground.

TIMOTHY
the Holy Scriptures" daily. The language of the
Acts leaves it uncertain whether Lystra or Oerbe
were the residence of the devout family. The latter
has been inferred, but without much likelihood,
from a possible construction of Acts xx. 4, the
former from Acts xvi. 1, 2 (comp, Neander, Pfl.
und Leit i. 288; Alford and Huther, in loc). In
either case the absence of any indication of the
existence of a ayn^ogue makes this devout con
sistency more noticeable. We may think here,
as at Philippi, of the few devout woraen going
forth to their daily worship at some river-side ora
tory (Conybeare and Howson, i. 211). The read
ing -Kapa rivwv, in 2 Tim. iii. li, adopted by
Lachmann and Tischendorf, indicates fchafc ifc was
from them as well as from the Aposfcle thafc fche
young disciple received his firsfc impression of
Chrisfcian fcruth. Ifc would be natural fchafc a
character thus fashioned should retain throughout
somefchiug of a feminine piefcy. A consfcifcufcion far
6x»m robusfc (1 Tim. v. 23), a morbid shrinking
from opposifcion and responsibilifcy (1 Tira. iv. 12-
16, v. 20, 21, vi. 11-14; 2 Tim. ii. 1-7), a sen-
sifciveness even fco fcears (2 Tim. i. 4), a, fcendency
fco an ascetic rigor which he had nofc strength to
bear (1 Tim. v. 23), united, as it often is, with a
temperament exposed to some risk irom " youthful
lusts"'* (2 Tira. ii. 22) and the softer emotions
(1 Tim. v. 2) — these we may well think of as
characterizing the youth as they afterwards char
acterized the man.
The arrival of Paul and Barnabas in Lycaonia
(Acts xiv. 6) brought the message of glad-tidings
to Timotheus and his mother, and they received it
with "unfeigned faith" (2 Tim. i. 5). If at Lys
tra, as seems probable from 2 Tim. iii. 11, he may
have wifcnessed fche half-compiefced sacrifice, fche
half finished marfcyrdom, of Acts xiv. 19. The
preaching of fche Aposfcle on his refcurn from his
short circuit prepared him for a hfe of sufifering
(Acts xiv. 22). from thafc fcime his life and edu
cation must have been under the direcfc superin-
fcendence of the body of elders (Ibid. 23). During
the interval of seven years between the Apostle's
first and second journeys, the boy grew up to
manhood. His zeal, probably his asceticism, be
came known both at Lystra and Iconium. The
mention of the two churches as united in testify
ing to his character (Acts xvi. 2}, leads us to be
Ueve thafc fche early work was prophefcic of the latei
that he had been already employed in what was
afterwards to be the great labor of his life, as "the
messenger of fche churches," and fchat it was his
tried fitness for thafc office which defcermined Sfc.
Paul's choice. Those who had the deepest insight
into character, and spoke with a prophetic utter
ance, pointed to him (1 Tim. i. 18, iv. l-i), as
ofchers had poinfced before fco Paul and Barnabas
(Acts xiii. 2), as specially fit for fche mLssioiiary work
in which fche Apostle was engaged. Personal feel
ing led St. Paul to the same conclusion (Acts xvi.
3), and he was solemnly set apart (fche whole as
sembly of fche elders laying their hands on him, as
did the Apostle himself) to do the work and possi
bly to bear the title of Evangelist (1 Tim. iv. 14;
2 Tim. i. 6, iv. 5).^ A fijeat obstacle, however,

TIMOTHY

3253

a Comp. the elaborate dissertation, De veforepiKaU
cTTtdv/xiais, by Bosius, in Uase's Thesauncs, vol. ii.
& iQonium has been suggRsted by Conybeare and
9owson (i. 289) as the probable scene of the ordiua-
dOD

pioatnted itself Timotheus, though inheriting, as
ifc were, from the nobler side (Wetstein, in he),
and therefore reckoned as one of the seed of Abra-
ham, had been allowed to grow up to the age of
manhood without the sign of circumcision, and in
this point he might seem to be disclaiming the
Jewish blood that was in him, and choosing to
take up his position as a heathen. Had that been
his real position, it would have Ijeen utterly incon
sistent with St. Paul's principle of action to urge
on him the necessity of circumcision (1 Cor. vii.
18; Gal. ii. 3, v. 2). As it was his condition
was that of a negligent, almost of an aposfcafce
Israelifce; and, though circumcision was nothing,
and un circumcision was nothing, it was a. serious
question whether the scandal of such a position
should be allowed to frustrate all his efforts as an
Evangelist. The fact that no offense seeras fco
have beeu felfc hifcherfco is explained by fche pre
dominance of fche Gentile elemenfc in fche churches
of Lycaonia (Acts xiv. 27). But his wider work
would bring bim into contact with the Jews, who
had already shown themselves so ready to attack,
and then the scandal would come out. They
might tolerate a heathen, as ^ch, in the syna
gogue or the church, bufc an uncircumcised Israel
ifce would be fco them a horror and a |X)rtent.
With a special view to their feelings, making no
sacrifice of principle, the Aposfcle, who had refused
fco permifc fche circumcision of Titus, " took and
circumcised" Timotheus (Acts xvi. 3); and then,
as conscious of no inconsistency, went on his way
distributhig the decrees of the council of Jeru
salem, the great charter of the freedom of the.
Gentiles {ibid. 4). Henceforth Timotheus was one
of his most constant companions. Not since he
parted from Barnabas had he found one whose
heart so answered to his own. If Barnabas had
been as the brother and friend of early days, he
had now found one whom he could claim as his
own true son by a spiritual parentage (1 Cor. iv-
17; 1 Tim. i. 2; 2 Tira. i. 2). They and Sil
vanus, and probably Luke also, journeyed to Phi
lippi (Acts xvi. 12), and there already the young
Evangelist was conspicuous at once for his filial
devotion and his zeal (Phil. ii. 22). His name
does not appear in the account of St. Paul's work
at Tbessalonica, and it is possible fchafc he remained
some fcime afc Philippi, and then acted as the mes
senger by whom the members of that church sent
what they were able to give for the Apostle's wants
(Phil. iv. 15). He appears, however, at Bercea,
and remains there when Paul and Sihis are obhged
to leave (Acts xvii. 14), going on afterwards to
joui his master at Athens (1 Thess. iii. 2). From
Athens he is sent back to Tbessalonica {ibid.), as
having special gifts for comforting and teaching.
He returns from Tbessalonica, not to Athens bui
to Corinth,^ and his name appears united with
Sfc. Paul's in fche opening words of both the lettera
written from that city to the Thessalonians (1
Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess. i. 1). Here also he was
apparently active as an Evanselist (2 Cor. i. 19),
and on him, probably, with some exceptions, de
volved the duty of baptizing the new converfcs (1
Cor. i. 14). Of fche next five years of his life we

c Dr. Wordsworth infers from 2 Cor. ix. 11, and
Acts xviii. 5, that he brought contributiona to the
support of the Apostle from the Macedonian churches,
and thus released him from his continuous labor as i
tent-maker.

3254

TIMOTHY

have no record, and can infer nothing beyond a
continuance of his active service as St. Paul's com
panion. When we next meet wifch him it is as
being senfc on in advance when the Apostle was
contemplating the long journey which was to in
clude Macedonia, Achaia, Jerusalera, and Rome
(Acts xix. 22). He was sent to "bring" the
churches *= into remembrance of the ways " of the
AposUe (1 Cor. iv. 17). We trace in the words
of the " father" an anxious desire fco guard the son
from fche perils which, fco his eager bufc sensifcive
temperaraenfc, would be ain«t fcrying (1 Cor. xvi,
10). His route would fcake him through the
churches which he had been instrumental in found
ing, and this would give him scope for exercising
the gifts which were afterwards to be displayed in
a still raore responsible office. It is probable, from
the passages already referred to, that, after accom
plishing fche special work assigned fco him, be
refcurned by the same route, and met St. Paul ac
cording to a previous arrangement (1 Cor. xvi. 11),
and was thus with him when the second epistle
was writfcen fco fche Church of Corinfch (2 Cor. i. 1).
He returns with the Aposfcle to fchafc cifcy, and joins
in messages of greeting fco fche disciples whom he
had known personally at Corinth, and who had
since found their way to Rome (Rom. xvi. 21).
He forms one of the company of friends who go
with St. Paul fco Philippi and fchen sail by them
selves, waiting for his arrival by a different ship
(Acts XX. 3-6). Whether he continued his jour
ney to Jerusalem, and what became of him during
St. Paul's two years' imprisonment, are points on
which we must remain uncertain. The language
of St. Paul's addi-ess to the elders of Ephesus
(Acts XX. 17-35) renders it unlikely that he was
then left there with authority. The absence of
his name from Acts xxvii. in like manner leads to
the conclusion that he did not share in tbe perilous
voyage to Italy. He must have joined him, how
ever, apparently soon after his arrival in Rorae,
and was with hira when fche epistles to the Phi
lippians, to the Colossians, and to Philemon were
written (Phil. i. 1, ii. 19; Col. i. 1; Philem. 1).
All fche indicafcions of fchis period point to incessant
missionary activity. As before, so now, he Is to
precede the personal coming of tbe Apostle, in
specting, advising, reporting (Phil. ii. 19-23), car
ing especially for the Macedonian churches as no
one else could care. The special messages of greet
ing senfc to him at a later date (2 Tim. iv. 21), show
thafc afc Rome also, as elsewhere, he had gained
the warm affection of those among whora he min
istered. Among those most eager to be thus
remembered to him, we find, according to a fairly
supported hypothesis, the names of a Roman noble
[PuoKNs], of a future bishop of Rome [Linus],
and of the daughter of a British king [Claudia]
(Williams, Claudia and Piulens; Conybeare and

a The writer has to thank Prof. Lightfoot for call
ing hia attention to au article (" They of Caesar's
Houpehold ") in Journ. of Ctass. and Sacred Philology,
No. X., in which the hypotbesis is questioned, on the
ground that the Epigrams are later than the Episfcles,
and that they connect the name of Pudens with
heathen customs and vices. On the other hand it
may be urged that the bantering tone of the Epigrams
forbids us to take them as evidences of character.
Pudeas tells Martial that he does not *< like his
poems." " Oh, that is because you read too many at
a time " (iv. 29). Ue begs him to correct their blem-
jhes. " Yoa want an autograph copy fchen, do you ? ''

TIMOTHY
Howson, ii. 501; Alford, Excursus in Greek 3Vrf
iii. 104). Ifc is interesting to think of the young
Evangelist as having been the instrument by which
one who was surrounded by the fathomless impu-
rity of the Roman world waa called to a highei
Ufe, and the names which would otherwise have
appeared only in the foul epigrams of Martial (i.
32, iv. 13, V. 48, xi. 53) raised to a perpetual
honor in the salutations of an aposfcoUc episfcle."
To this period of his life (the exact fcime and place
being uncerfcain) we may probably refer fche im
prisonment of Heb. xiii. 23, and the trial at which
he " witnessed the good confession " nofc unworthy
fco be likened to fchat of the Great Confessor before
Pilate (1 Tim. vi. 13).
Assuming the genuineness and the later dafce of
fche fcwo epistles addressed to him [comp. the fol
lowing article], we are able to put together a few
notices as to his later life- It follows from 1 Tim.
i. 3 that he and his master, affcer fche release of fche
lafcfcer from his imprisonment, revisited the pro
consular Asia, fchafc fche Aposfcle fchen confcinued his
journey to Macedonia,* while the disciple remained,
half-reluctanfcly, even weeping at the separation
(2 Tim. i. 4), at Ephesus, to check, if possible,
the outgrowth of heresy and Ucentiousness which
had sprung up fchere. The time during which he
was fhus to exercise authority as the delegate of an
Apostle — a near apostohc rather than a bishop —
was of uncertain duration (1 Tim. iii. 14). The
position in which he found himself might well
make him anxious. He had to rule presbj-ters,
raost of whora were older than himself (1 Tim.
iv. 12), to assign to each a stipend in proportion
to his work {ibid. v. 17), to receive and decide on
charges that might be brought against them (ilmL
v. 1, 19, 20), fco regulate the almsgiving aud the
sisterhoods ofthe Church (ibid. v. 3-10), to ordain
presbyters and deacons (ibid. iii. 1-13). There was
the risk of being entangled in fche disputes, prej
udices, covetousness, sensuality of a great city.
There was the risk of injuring health and strength
by an overstrained asceticism (ibid. iv. 4, v. 23).
Leaders of rival sects were fchere — Hymen^us,
Philetus. Alexander — to oppose and thwart hira
(1 Tim.' i. 20; 2 Tim. ii. 17, iv. 14, 15). The
name of his beloved teacher was no longer hon
ored as ifc had been ; the strong affection of former
d'lys had vanished, and " Paul the aged " hatl be
came unpopular, the object of suspicion and dis
like (corap. Acts XX. 37 and 2 lim. i. 15). Only
in the narrowed circle of the faithful few, Aquila,
Priscilla, Mark, and others, who were still with
him, was he Ukely to find sympathy or support (2
Tim. iv. 19). We cannot wonder thafc the Apo»-
tle, knowii^g these trials, and, with his marvelous
power of bearing another's burdens, making them
his own, should be full of anxiety and fear for his
disciple's steadfastness; that admonitions, appeals,

(vii. 11). The slave En- or Eucolpos (the name ifl
possibly a willful distortion of Eubulus) does what
might be the fulfillment of a Christian vow (Acts sviii.
18), and this is the occasion of the suggestaon which
seems most damnatory (v. 48). With this there min
gles however, aa in iv. 13, vi. 58, the language of a
more real esteem than is common in Martial (comp
some good remarks in Rev. W. B. Galloway, A Ctergy-
man\<i Holidays, pp. 35-49).
6 Dr. Wordsworth, in an interesting note on 2 Tim.
i. 15, supposes the parting to have been in conse
quence of St. Paul's second arrest, and sees hi thii
the explanation of fche tears of Timotheus

TIMOTHY
ffarmiigs, should follow each other in rapid and
vehement succession (1 Tim. i. 18, iii. 15, iv. 14,
V. 21, vi. 11). In the second epistle to him this
deep personal feeling utters itself yet more fuUy.
The friendship of fifteen years was drawing to a
close, and all memories connected with it throng
upon the mind of the old man, now ready to be
offered, the blameless youth (2 Tim. iii. 15), the
holy household (ibid. i. 5), the solemn ordination
(ibid. i. 6), fche fcears at parting (ibid. i. 4). The
last recorded words of the Apostle express the
earnest hope, repeated yet more earnestly, thafc he
might see him once again (ibid. iv. 9, 21). Timo
theus is lo oome before winfcer, to bring with him
the cloak for which In that winter there would be
need (2 Tira. iv. 13). We may hazard the con
jecture that he reached him in time, and that the
last hours of the teacher were soothed by the
presence of the disciple whom he loved so truly.
Sorae writers have even seen in Heb. xiii. 23 an
indication that he shared St. Paul's iraprisonraent
and was released from ifc by fche death of Nero
(Conybeare and Howson, ii. 502; Neander, Pfi.
vmd Leit i. 552). Beyond fchis aU is apocryphal
and uncerfcain. He confchiues, according fco fche
old fcradifcions, fco act as bishop of Ephesus (Euseb.
H. E. iu. 14), and dies a marfcyr's deafch under
Domifcian or Nerva (Niceph. //. E. iu. 11). The
great festival of Ai'temia (the Karaywyiov of that
goddess) led hira to protest against the Ucense and
frenzy which accompanied ifc. The mob were roused
fco fury, and put hira to death with clubs (comp.
Polycrates and Simeon Metaphr. in Henschen's
Acta Sanctorum, Jan. 24). Some later critics —
Schleiermacher, Mayerhoff — have seen in him the
author of the whole or part of the Acts (Olshau
sen, Commentar. ii. 612).
A somewhat startling theory as to tbe inter
vening period of his life has found favor with
Calraet (s. v. Timothee), TiUeinont (ii. 147), and
others. If he continued, according to the received
tradition, to be bishop of Ephesus, then he, and no
3fcher, must have been the " angel " of that church
to whom the message of Rev. ii. 1-7 was ad
dressed. It may be urged, as in some degree
confirming this view, that both the praise and the
blame of fchafc message are such as harmonize with
the impressions as fco the character of Timotheus
derived from the Acfcs and fche Epistles. The
refusal fco acknowledge fche self-styled apostles,
fche abhorrence of the deeds of the Nicolaitans, the
unwearied labor, all this belongs to " the man of
God " of the Pastoral Epistles. And the fault is
no less characteristic. The strong language of Sfc.
Paul's enfcreafcy would lead us to expect that the
temptation of such a man would be to fall away
from the glow of his "first love," the zeal of his
firet faith. The promise of the Lord of the
Churches is in substance the same as that implied
in the language of the Apostle (2 Tira. u. 4-6).
The conjecfcure, ifc should be added, has been
passed over unnoticed by mosfc of the recent com
mentators on the Apocalypse (comp, Alford and
Wordsworth, m loc). Trench (Seven Churches of
Asia, p. 64), contrasts the "angel" of Rev. ii.
with Timotheus as an ''earlier angel" who, with
fche generation to which he belonged, had passed
away when the Apocalypse w:is written. It must
be remembered, however, that at fche time of
St. Paul's death, Timotheus was stiU "young,"
probably not more than thirty-five, thafc he raight,
therefore, well be Uving, even on the assumption of

TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO 3255
the later date of the Apocalypse, and thafc fche
traditions (vaUmU quantum) place his deafch after
fchafc dafce. Bengel admifcs this, but urges the
objection that he was nofc fche bishop of any single
diocese, bufc the superintendent of many churche.5.
This however may, in its turn, be traversed, by
fche answer that the death of St. Paul may have
made a great difiference in the work of one who had
hitherto been eraployed in travelUng as his repre
sentative. The special charge committed to hini
in the Pastoral Epistles might not unnaturally
give fixity to a life which had previously been
wandering. An additional fact connected with the name of
Timothy is fchafc fcwo of fche treatises of the Pseudo-
Dionysius the Areopagite are addressed to him ( Z)e
Hierarch. Ccel. i. 1; comp. Le Nourry, Dissert
c. ix., and HaUoix, Qutest. iv. in Migne's edition).
E. H. P.
TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO. Authm-ship-
The question whether these epistles were written
by St. Paul was one to which, tiU within the last
half-century, hardly auy answer but an affirmative
one was fchought possible. They are reckoned among
the Pauline Epistles in the Muratorian Canon and
the Peshito version. Eusebius (.ff. E. ui. 25,
places them among the 6fj.o?^oyovfM€va of the N. T.,
and, while recording the doubts which affected the
Second Epistle of St. Peter and the other avrtXe-
y6fi€va, knows of none which affect these. They
are cited as aufchorifcative by Tertullian {De Pi'cescr.
c. 25; ad Uxorem, i. 7), Clement of Alexandria
(Strom, ii. 11), Irenteus (Adv. Hcer. iv. 16, § 3,
ii. 14, § 8). ParaUelisms, implying quotation, in
some cases with close verbal agreement, are found
in Clem. Rora. 1 Cor. c. 29 (comp. 1 Tim. ii. 8);
Ignat. ad Magn. c. 8 (1 Tim. i. 4) ; Polycarp, c. 4
(corap. 1 Tim. vi. 7, 8); Theophilus of Antioch
ad AuioL iii. 126 (comp. 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2). There
were indeed some notable excepfcions to this con-
sensus. The fchree Pastoral Epistles were aU re
jected by Marcion (Tertull. adv. Marc. v. 21;
Iren. i. 29), Basilides, and ofcher Gnosfcic teachers
(Hieron. Prcef, in Tlium). Tatian, while strongly
maintaining the genuineness of fche Kpistle to Titus,
denied thafc of fche other two (Hieron. ih.). In
these instances we are able to discern a dogmatic
reason for the rejection. The sects which thesa
leaders repr^ented could not but feel thafc they
were condemned by the teaching of the Pastoral
Epistles. Oiigen mentions some who excluded
2 Tim. frora the Canon for a very different reason.
The names of Jannes and Jambres belonged to
an apocryphal history, and frora such a history
Sfc. Paul never would have quofced (Origen, Comm.
in Matt 117).
The Pastoral Epistles have, however, been sub
jected to a more elaborate scrutiny by the criticism
of Germany. The first doubts were uttered by
J. C. Schmidt. These were followed by the Send
schreiben of Schleiermacher, who, assuming the
genuineness of 2 Tira. and Titus, undertook, on
that hypothesis, fco prove the spuriousness of 1 Tim,
Bolder critics saw that the position fchus fcaken waa
unfcenable, fchafc fche fchree episfcles must stand or
fall together. Eichhorn {EinL iii.) and De Wette
(Einleit,) denied the PauUne authorship of aU three.
There was still, however, an attempt to maintain
their authority as embodying the substance of tha
Apostle's teaching, or of letters written by him,
on the hypothesis that they had been sent forth
after his death by some over-zealous disciple, who

3256 TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO
wished, under the shadow of his name, to attack
the prevaiUng errors of fche fcirae (Kichhorn, ib.).
One writer (Schott, Isayoge Hist. Ciit p. 324)
ventures on the hypothesis thafc Luke was fche
writer. Baur (Die sogenannten Pastoral^Briefe),
here as elsevi'here more daring than others, assigns
them to no earlier period than the latter haff of
the second century, affcer fche death of Polycarp in
A. D. 167 (p. 138). On this hypothesis 2 Tim. was
the earhesfc, 1 Tim. fche latesfc of the three, each
probably by a different writer (pp. 72-76). They
grew out of the state of parties in the Church of
Rome, and, like the Gospel of Sfc. Luke and fche
Acfcs, were intended to mediate between fche extreme
PauUne and the extreme Petrine sections of the
Church (p. 58). Sfcarfcing from fche dafca supplied
by fche Epistle to the Philippians, the writers, first
of 2 Tim., then of Titus, and lastly of 1 Tim.,
aimed, by the insertion of personal incidenfcs, mes
sages, and fche like, afc giving fco their compilations
an air of verisimilitude (p. 70).
It will be seen, from the above statement ^hat
the question of authorship is here more than usually
important. There can be no solution as regards
these epistles like that of an obviously dramatic
and therefore legitimate personation of character,
such as is possible in relation to the authorship
of Ecclesiastes. If fche Pastoral Epistles are not
Pauline, the writer cleariy meant them to pass
as such, and tbe animus decipiendi would be there
in ifcs mosfc flagruiifc form. They would have fco
fcake fcheir place with the PseudS- Clementine Hom
ilies, or the Pseudo-Ignatian Epistles. Where we
now see the traces, full of life and interest, of the
character of " Paul fche aged," firm, fcender, zealous,
loviiiir, we should have to recognize only fche tricks,
sometimes skillful, somefcimes clumsy, of some un
known and di.shoiicst confcroversialisfc.
Consequences such as these oughfc nofc, ifc is true,
to lead us to suppress or disfcorfc one iofca of evi
dence. They may well make us cautious, in ex
amining the evidence, not to admit conclusions that
are wider than fche preunses, nor to take the prem
ises themselves for granfced. The task of exam
ining is rendered in some measure easier by the
facfc thafc, Ul fche judgmenfc of most critics, hostile as
well as friendly, the three Pastoral Episfcles stand
on the same ground. The intermediate hypotheses
of Schleiermacher (supra) and Credner (Einl, ins
N. T.), who looks on Titus as genuine, 2 Tim. as
made up out of two genuine letters, and 1 Tim. as
altogether spurious, may be dismissed as individual
eccentricities, hardly requiring a separate notice.
In deaUng with objections which take a wider range,
we are meeting those also which are confined to
one or two out of the three epistles.
The chief elements of the alleged evidence of
spuriousness raay be arranged as follows : —
I. Language. — The style, it is urged, is different
from thafc of fche acknowledged Pauline Episfcles.
There is less logical confcinuity, a waufc of order
and plan, subjects broughfc up, one after the other,
abruptly (Schleierniacber). Not less than fifty
words, raost of them striking and characteristic,
are found in these epistles wbich are not found in
St. Paul's writings (see the list in Conybeare and
Howson, App. I., and Huther's Einleit). The
formula of salutation (;^cipts, eAeos, clpiivT))', half-
technical words and phrases, like ^htre^eia. and its
cognates (1 Tim. 2, iii. 16, vi. 6, et aL), irapa-
KaraBriK-f} (1 Tim. i. 18, vi. 20; 2 Tim. i. 12, 14,
u. 2), the frequently recurring iriarhs & \6yos

TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO
(1 Tim. i. 15, iii. 1, iv. 9; 2 Tim. ii. 11), the use
of vyiaivouaa as fche dlsfcinctive epifchefc of a true
teaching, these and others like fchem appear here
for the firsfc fcime (Schleierm. and Baur). Some of
fchese words, ifc is urged, <pavGpovv, iirt<pdv€ia,
ffcjriip, (pas airpSffirov, belong fco the Gnostic ter-
rainology of the 2d century.
On the other side it may be said, (1) that there
is no test so uncertain as tbat of language and style
thus applied ; how uncertain we may judge fixim
the fact fchat Schleiermacher and Neander find no
stumbUng-blocks in 2 Tim. and Titus, while they
detect an un-PauUne character in 1 Tim. A de
ference Uke that which marks the speech of men
divided from each other by a century may be con-
clusi^'e against the identity of authorship, but short
of that fchere is hardly any conceivable divergency.
which may not coexist with it. The style of one
man Is stereotyped, formed easXy, and enduring long.
The sentences move after an unvarying rhythm; the
same words recur. That of another changes, more
or less, from yeai" to year. As his thoughte expand
they call for a new vocabulary. Tbe last works
of such a writer, as those of Bacon and of Burke,
may be florid, redundant, figurative, while the
earUer were almost meagre in their simplicity. In
proportion as the man is a solitary thinker, or a
strong asserter of his own will, will he tend to tbe
former state. In proportion to his power of re
ceiving impressions from without, of sympathizing
with others, will le his fcendency to the latter.
Apart from all knowledge of St. Paul's character,
the alleged peculiarities are but of little weight in
the adverse scale. With that knowledge we may
see in them the natural result of the intercourse
with men in many lands, of that readiness to be
come all things to aU men, which could hardly foil
to show itseh' in speech as weU as in action. Each
group of his epistles has, in like manner, its char
acteristic words and phrases. (2.) If this is true
generally, it is .=iO yet more en)phaticaUy when the
circumstances of authoi"sliip are different. The
language of a bishop's charge is not that of his
lefcters to his private friends. The epistles which
St. Paul wrote to the churches as societies, might
weU differ from those which he wrote, in the
full freedom of opeu speech, to a familiar friend,
to his own "true son." Ifc is not strange that we
should find in the latter a Luther-like vehemence
of expression {e. g. KeKavarripiaa-fievav, 1 Tun. iv.
2, bianaparpi$al Si€(t>6apfx4vol)v a.vQpd)Trtav rhv
vovv, 1 Tim. vi. 5, aeaoipevpeva a/xaprlais, 2 Tim.
iii. 6), mixed sometimes with words that imply tbat
which lew great men have been without, a keen
sense of humor, and the capacity, at least, for satire
(e. g. ypaiaSeis fj.v6ovs, 1 Tira. iv. 7; <p\vapoi
Ka\ TTepUpyoi, 1 Tira. v. 13; rirv(pojrai, 1 Ti'"*
vi. 4; yaarcpes apyai, Tit. i. 12). (3.) Other
letters, again, were dictated to an amanuensis. These
have every appearance of having been written with
his own hand, and this can hardly have been with
out its influence on their style, rendering it less
ditfuse, the transitions more abrupt, the treatment
of each subject more concise. In fchis resjiecfc ifc
may be compared wifch the other two autograph
episfcles, fchose fco fche Galatians and Philemon. A
Ust of words given by Alford (iU. Proleg. c. vii.)
shows a considerable resemblance between tlie fornier
ofthe two and the Pastoral Epistles. (4.) It may
be added, that to whatever extent a forger of spu
rious epistles would be hkely to form his sfcyle
after the pafcfceru of fche recognized ones, so fchat

TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO
men might not be able to distinguish the counterfeit
from the true, to that extent the diversity which
has heen dwelt on is, withiu the limits that have
Iteen above stated, not against, hut for the genuine
ness of these epistles. (5.) Lastly, tbere is the
positive argument that there is a large common
element, botb of thoughts and words, shared by
these epistles and the others. The grounds of faith,
the law of life, the tendency to digress and go off
at a word, the personal, individualizing affection,
the free reference to his own sufferings for the
truth, all these are in hoth, and by them we
recognize the identity of the writer. The evidence
can hardly be given within the hmits of this article,
but its weight will be felt hy any careful student.
The coincidences are precisely those, in most in
stances, which the forger of a, document would
have heen unlikely to think of, and give hut scanty
support to the perverse ingenuity which sees in
theae resemblances a proof of compilation, and
therefore of spuriousness.
II. It has been urged (chiefly by Eichhom, Eiid.
p. 315) against the reception of the Pastoral Epistles
that they cannot be fitted in to the records of St.
Paul's life in the .lets. To this there is a threefold
inswer. (1. ) The difficulty has been enormously
exaggerated. If the dates assigned to them must,
to some extent, be conjectural, there are at least
Iwo hypotheses in each case (infra) which rest on
i-easonably good grounds. (2.) If the difficulty were
as great as it is said to be, the mere fax:t that we
cannot fix the precise date of three letters in the
life of one of whose ceaseless labors and journeyings
we have, after all, but fragmentary records, ought
not to he a stumbling-block. The hypothesis of a
release fi^m the imprisonment with which the his
tory of the Acts ends removes all difficulties ; and
if this be rejected (Baur, p. 07), as itself not rest
ing on sufficient evidence, there is, in any case, a
wide gap of which we know nothing. It may at
least claim to he a theory which explains phenomena.
(3.) Here, as before, the reply is obvious, that a
man composing counterfeit epistles would have been
likely to make them square with the acknowledged
records of the life.
III. The three epistles present, it is said, a more
developed state of church organization and doctrine
than that belonging to the lifetime of St. Paul.
(1. ) The rule that the bishop is to be " the husband
of one wife" (1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i. 6) indicates
the strong opposition to second marriages whioh
characterized the 2d century (Baur, pp. 113-120).
(2.) The " younger widows " of 1 Tim. v. 11 can
not possibly be literally widows. If they were, St.
Paul, in advismg them to marry, would he exclud
ing them, accordina; to the rule of 1 Tim. v. 9, from
»!l chance of sharing in the church's bounty. It
Jullows therefore that the word p^^poi is used, as it
was in the 2d century, in a wider sense, as denoting
a consecrated life (Baur, pp. 42-49). (3.) The rules
affecting the relation of the bishops and elders in
dicate a hierarchic development characteristic of
the Petrine element, which became dominant in
the Church of Rome in the post-Apostolic period,
but foreign altogether to tbe genuine epistles of
St. Paul (Baur, pp. 80-89). (4.) The term alpeTMds
is used in its later sense, and a formal procedure
against the heretic is recognized, which belongs to
the 2d century rather than the 1st. (5.) The up
ward progress from the office of deacon to that of
presbyter, implied in 1 Tim. iii. 13, belongs to a
later period (Baur, I. c).
205

TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO 325V
ft is not difficult to meet objections which con
tain RO large an element of mere arbitrary assump
tion. (1.) Admitting Baur's interpretation of 1
Tim. iii. 2 to be the right one, the rule whicb
makes monogamy a condition of the episcopal office
is very far removed from the harsh, sweeping cen
sures of all second marriages which we find in
Athenagoras and TertuUian. (2.) There is not a
shadow of proof that the " younger widows " were
not literally such. The xvpai of the Pastoral
Epistles are, like those of Acts vi. 1, ix. 39, women
dependent on the ahns of the church, not neces
sarily deaconesses, or engaged in active labors. The
rule fixing the age of sixty for admission is all but
conclusive against Baur's hypothesis. (3. ) The use
of iiria-Kotroi and 7rpea$VTepoi in the Pastoral
Epistles as equivalent (Tit. i. 5, 7), and the absence
of any intermediate order between the bishops and
deacons (1 Tim. iii. 1-8), are quite unlike what we
find in the Ignatian Epistles and other writings of
the 2d century. They are in entire agreement with
the language of St. Paul (Acts xx. 17, 28; Phil.
i. 1). Few features of these epistles are more
striking than the absence of any high hierarchic
system, (i.) The word aiperucds has its counter
part in the aipetreis of 1 Cor. xi. 19. The sentence
upon Hymenseus and Alexander (1 Tim. i. 20) has
a precedent in that of 1 Cor. v. 5. (5.) The best
interpreters do not see in 1 Tim. iii. 13 the transi
tion from one office to another (comp. Ellicott, in
loc, and Deacon). If it is there, the assumption
that such a change is foreign to the Apostolic .age
is entirely an arbitrary one.
IV. Still greater stress is laid on the indications
of a later date in the descriptions of the false
teachers noticed in the Pastoral Epistles. These
point, it is said, unmistakably to Marcion and his
followers. In the dvTiOecreis ttis ^evSaivifiou
yviitreas (1 Tim. vi. 20) there is a direct reference
to the treatise which he wrote under the title of
^AvTideaets, setting forth the contradiction between
the Old and New Testament (Baur, p. 26). The
¦' genealogies " of 1 Tim. i. 4, Tit. iii. 9, in like
manner, point to the iEons of the Valentinians and
Ophites (ibid. p. 12). The "forbidding to marry,
and commanding to abstain from meats,"' fits iu
to JIarcion's system, not to that of the Judaizing
teachers of St. Paul's time (ibid. p. 24). The as
sertion that "the law is good" (1 Tim. i. 8) im
plies a denial, like that of Marcion, of its Divine
authority. The doctrine that the " Resurrection
was past already" (2 Tim. ii. 18) was thoroughly
Gnostic in its character. In his eagerness to find
tokens of a later date everywhere, Baur sees in the
writer of these epistles not merely an opponent of
Gnosticism, but one in part infected with their
teaching, and appeals to the doxologies of 1 Tim.
i. 17, vi. 15, and their Christology throughout, as
having a Gnostic stamp on them (pp. 28-33).
Carefully elaborated as this part of Baur's attack
has been, it is perhaps the weakest and raost ca
pricious of all. The false teachers of the Pastoral
Epistles are predominantly Jewish, vofioSiSdirKa\oi
(1 Tim. i. 7), belonging altogether to a different
school from that of Marcion, giving heed to " Jewish
fables " (Tit. i. 14) and " disputes connected with
the Law " (Tit. iii. 9). Of all monstrosities of
exegesis few are more willful and fantastic than
that ,which finds in vofioSiSdcrKoKoi Antinomian
teachers and m fiaxal voptxai Antinomian doctrine
(Baur. p. 17). 'The natural suggestion that in Acts
XX. 30, 31, St. Paul contemplates the rise and

3258 TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO
progi'ess of a like perverse teaching, that in Col. ii.
8-23 we have the same combination of Judaism and
a self-styled yvaia-is (1 Tim. vi. 20) or {pi\oa-o<l>ia
(Col. ii. 8), leading to a Uke false asceticism, is set
aside summarily by the rejection both of the speech
and the epistle as spurious. Even tbe denial of
tbe Resurrection, we may remark, belongs as nat
uraUy fco fche mingling of a Sadducsean elemenfc wifch
an easfcem mysticism as to the teaching of Marcion.
The self-contradictory hypothesis thafc fche wrifcer
of 1 Tim. is afc once fche sfcrongesfc opponenfc of fche
Gnostics, and that he adopts their language, need
hardly be refuted. The whole line of argument,
indeed, first misrepresents the language of St. Paul
in these epistles and elsewhere, and then assumes
the entire absence from the first century of even
the germs of the teaching which characterized the
second (comp. Neander, Pf. und Leit i. p. 401;
Heydenreich, p. 64).
Date. — Assuming the two epistles to Timothy
to have been writfcen by Sfc. Paul, to what period
ofhis Ufe are they to be referred? The quesfcion
as it affects each epistle may be discussed sep
arately. Eirst Epistle to Timothy. — The direct data in
this instance are very few. (1.) i. 3, impUes a
journey of Sfc. Paul from Ephesus fco Macedonia,
Timofchy reraaining behind. (2.) The age of Tira-
ofchy is described as veirris (iv. 12). (3.) The
general resemblance between fche fcwo epistles in
dicates fchafc they were written at or about the same
tirae. Three hypotheses have been raainfcained as
fulfiUing fchese condifcions.
(A.) The journey in quesfcion has been looked
on as an imrecorded episode in fche fcwo years'
work afc Ephesus of Acfcs xix. 10.
(B.) Ifc has been identified with the journey of
Acts XX. 1, affcer fche fcumulfc afc Ephesus.
On either of these suppositions fche dafce of the
epistle has been fixed at various periods after St.
Paul's arrival afc Ephesus, before the conclusion of
his first imprisonment at Rome.
(C.) It has been placed in the interval between
St. Paul's firsfc and second imprisonmenfcs afc
Rorae.
Of fchese conjecfcures, A and B have the merit of
bringing the epistle within the limit of the authen
tic records of St. Paul's Ufe, but they have scarcely
any other. Against A, it may be urged that a
journey fco Macedonia would hardly have been
passed over in silence either by St. Luke in the
Acts, or by Sfc. Paul hiraself in writing to the
0)rinthians. Against B, that Timothy, instead of
reraaining at Ephesus when the Apostle left, had
E;one on into Macedonia before him (Acts xix. 22).
The hypothesis of a possible return is traversed by
the fact fchafc he is wifch Sfc. Paul in Macedonia at
the fcirae when 2 Cor. was writfcen and senfc off. In
favor of C as corapared with A or B, is the internal
evidence of the contents of the epistle. The errors
against which Timothy is warned are present, dan
gerous, portentous. At fche time of St. Paul's visit
to Miletus in Acts xx., L e., according to those
hypotheses, subsequent fco the epistle, fchey are sfcill
only looming in fche distance (ver. 30). AU the
circumstances referred to, moreover, imply the pro
longed absence of tbe Apostle. Discipline had be
come lax, heresies rife, the econoray of the church
disordered. It was necessary to check the chief
offenders by fche sharp sentence of excommunication
(1 'Hra. i. 20). Ofcher churches called for his coun
sel and directions, or a sharp necessifcy fcook him

TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO
away, and he hastens on, leaving behind him, with
fuU delegated aufchorifcy, fche disciple in whom he
raost confided. The language of the epistle also
has a bearing on the dafce. According to the hy
potheses A and B, it belongs to the same periods
as 1 and 2 Cor. and the Ep. fco fche Romans, or, afc
fche latest, to the same group as Philippians and
Ephesians; and, in this case, the differences of
sfcyle and language are somewhafc difficult to ex
plain. Assume a lafcer date, and then there is room
for the changes in fchought and expression which
in a character Uke Sfc. Paul's, were fco be expected
as the years wenfc by. The only objections to the
position thus assigned are — (1) the doubtfulness
of the second imprisonmcnfc alfcogether, which ban
been discussed in another place [Paul]; and (2),
the "youth" of Timothy at the time when the
letter was wrifcten (iv. 12). In regard to the hitter,
it is suihcienfc fco say fchafc, on fche assumpfcion of the
later dafce, fche disciple was probably nofc more fchan
34 or 35, and that this was young enough for one
wbo was to exercise authority over a whole body of
Bishop-presbyters, many of them older than him
self (v. 1).
Second Epistle to Timnihy. — The number of
special names and incidents in fche 2d episfcle make
fche chronological data more numerous. Ifc will be
besfc fco bring them, as far as possible, together,
noticing briefly with what other facts each connects
itself, and to what conclusion it leads. Here also
there are the conflicting theories of an earlier and
later date, (A) during the iraprisonraent of Act^
xxviii. 30, and (B) during the second imprisonment
already spoken of.
(1.) A parting apparently recent, under circum
stances of special sorrow (i. 4). Not decisive. The
scene at Miletus (Acts xx. 37) suggests itself, if we
assume A. The parting referred to in 1 Tim. i. 3
mighfc meefc B.
(2.) A general desertion of the Apostle even by
the disciples of Asia (i. 15). Nothing in the Acta
indicates anything like this before the imprison
ment of Acta xxviii. 30. EvervthiPg in Acts xix.
and XX., and not less the language of the Epistle
to the Ephesians, speaks of general and strong
affection. This, therefore, so far as it goes, must
be placed on the side of B.
(3.) The position of St. Paul aa suffering (i. 12),
in bonds (ii. 9), expecting "the tirae of his de
parture " (iv. 6), forsaken by almost aU (iv. 16).
Not quite decisive, but tending to B rather than A.
The language of the epistles belonging to the first
imprisonment imply, it is true, bonds (Phil. i. 13,
16; Eph. iii. 1, vi. 20), but in aU of them the
Apostle is surrounded by raany friends, and is
hopeful, and confident of release (Phil. i. 25;
Philera. 22).
(4.) The mention of Onesiphorus, and of senices
rendered by him both afc Rome and Ephesus (i. 16-
18). Nofc decisive again, bufc fche tone is rather
thafc of a raan looking back on a past period of hie
life, and the order of the naraes sug(;ests the thought
of the ministrations at Ephesus being subsequent to
fchose afc Rome. Possibly fcoo the menfcion of " the
household," instead of Onesiphorus hiraself, may
imply his death in the interval. This therefore
tends to B rafcher fchan A.
(5.) The abandonmenfc of Sfc. Paul by Demas (iv.
10). Sfcrongly in favor of B. Uemas was wifch fche
Aposfcle when the Epistles to the Colossians (iv. 14)
and Philemon (24) were written. 2 Tira. must
therefore, in aU probabiUty, have been written aftci

TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO
them ; but, if we place it anywhere in the firsfc im
prisonment, we are aU but compelled " by the men
tion of Mark, for whose coming the Apostle asks in
2 Tim. iv. 11, and who is with him in Col. iv. 10,
to place ifc afc an earlier age.
(6.) The presence of Luke (iv. 11). Agrees well
enough wifch A (Col. iv. 14), but is perfectly com
patible with B.
(7.) The request thafc Timothy would bring Mark
(iv. 11). Seems at firsfc, compared as above, with
(Jol. iv. 14, to support A, bufc, in connecfcion wifch
fche mention of Demas, tends decidedly to B.
(8.) Mention of Tychicus as sent to Ephesus (iv.
12). Appears, as counected with Eph. vi. 21, 22,
Col. iv. 7, in favor of A, yet, as Tychicus was con
tinually eraployed on special missions of this kind,
may just as weU fit in with B.
(9.) The request thafc Timothy would bring the
cloak and books left at Troas (iv. 13). On the as
sumpfcion of A, fche last visifc of Sfc. Paul to Troas
would have been at least four or five years before,
during which there would probably have been op
portunities enough for his regaining what he had
left. In that case, too, the circumstances of the
journey present no trace of the haste and sudden
ness which fche requesfc more than half implies. On
the whole, then, fchis musfc be reckoned as in favor
of B.
(10.) "Alexander fche coppersmith did me rauch
evil," "greatly withstood our words " (iv. 14, 15).
The parfc taken by a Jew of this name in the uproar
of Acts xix., and the natural connection of the x^A.-
Kevs with the artisans represented by Demetrius,
suggest a reference to thafc event as something re
cent and so far support A. On the other hand,
the name Alexander was too common to make us
certain as to the identity, and if it were the same,
the hypothesis of a later date only requires us to
assume what was probable enough, a renewed hos
tUity. (11.) The abandonment of the Apostle in his first
defense (airohoyia), and his deliverance " from the
mouth of the Uon " (iv. 16, 17). Fits in as a pos
sible contingency with either hypothesis, but, like
the mention of Demas in (5), must belong, at any
rate, to a tirae much later than any of fche other
epistles written from Rome.
(12.) " Erastus abode at Corinth, but Trophiraus
I leffc afc Milefcus sick" (iv. 20). Language, as in
(9), implying a comparafcively recenfc visifc to both
places. If, however, the letter were written during
the first imprisonment, theu Trophiraus had not
been left at Miletus but had gone on with St. Paul
to Jerusalera (Acts xxi. 29),^ and the mention of
Erastus as remaining at Corinth would have been
superfluous to one who had left that city at the
same fcirae as the Aposfcle (Acfcs xx. 4).
(13.) " Hasten fco come before winter." Assum
ing A, the presence of Timothy in PhU. i. 1 ; Col. L
1; PhUera. 1, raight be regarded as fche consequence
of fchis; but then, as shown in (5) and (7), there
xre almost insuperable difficulties in supposing this
epistle to have been written before those three.
(14.) The salutations from Eubulus, Pudens,
Linus, and Claudia. Without laying much stress
on fchis, ifc raay be said fchafc fche absence of fchese
lames from all the epistles, which, according to A

a The qualifying words might have been omitted,
bat for the fact that it has been suggested thafc Demas,
baring forsaken St. Paul, repented and refcurned (Lard-
«er, Ti. 368).

TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO 3259
belong fco fche same period, would be difficulfc fco ex
plain. B leaves ifc open fco coryecture fchat they
were converts of more recenfc dafce. They are men
tioned too as knowing Timothy, and this impUes,
as at least probable, that he had already been at
Kome, and that this lefcfcer fco him was consequently
lafcer than those to the PhiUppians and Colossians.
On the whole, it is believed that the evidence
preponderates strongly in favor of the later date,
and that the epistle, if we admit its genuineness, is
therefore a strong argument for believhig that the
imprisonment of Acts xxviii. was followed by a
period first of renewed activity and then of suffer
ing. Places. — In fchis respect as in regard to time
1 Tim. leaves much to conjecture. Tbe absence of
any local reference but that in i. 3, suggests Mace
donia or some neighboring district. In A aud
other MSS. in the Peshito, Ethiopic, and other
versions, Laodicea is named in the inscription as
the place whence ifc was sent, bufc this appears to
have grown out of a fcradifcioual belief resfcing on
very insufficienfc grounds, and incompafcible wifch
fche conclusion which has been above adopted, that
this is the epistle referred to in Col. iv. 16 as that
from Laodicea (Theophyl. in loc). The Coptic
version with as Uttle Ukelihood states that it waa
written from Athens (Huther, Einleit).
The second epistle is free from this conflict of
conjectures. Wifch fche soUfcary excepfcion of Bofct-
ger, who suggests Caesarea, there is a consensus in
favor of Rome, and everything in the circumstances
and names of the epistle leads to the same conclu
sion (ibid.).
Sirticlure and Characteristics. — The peculiar
ities of language, so far as fchey attecfc fche quesfcion
of authorship, have been already noticed. Assum
ing fche genuineness of the epistles, some character
istic features reraain to be noticed.
(1.) The ever-deepening sense hi St. Paul's heart
of fche Divine Mercy, of which he was the object,
as shown in the insertion of eAeos in fche salufcations
of both epistles, and in the ^A.e^07?i/of 1 Tim. i. 13.
(2.) The greater abruptness of the second epistle.
Frora first to last there is no plan, no treafcmenfc of
subjecfcs carefully fchoughfc oufc. AU speaks of strong
overflowing emotion, memories of the past, anxieties
about the future.
(3.) The absence, as compared with St. Paul's
other epistles, of Old Testament references. This
may connect itself with the fact just noticed, that
these epistles are not argumentative, possibly also
with the request for the '' books and parchments "
which had been left behind (2 Tira. iv. 13). He
may have been separated for a time from fche
Upk ypdij.fj.ara, which were conmiouly his com
panions. (4.) The conspicuous position of the "faithful
sayings ' ' as taking the place occupied in other
epistles by the 0. T. Scriptures. The way in
which these are cited as aufchorifcafcive, the variety
of subjects which they cover, suggest the thought
that iu them we have specimens of the prophecies
of the Apostohc Church which had most impressed
themselves on the mind of fche Aposfcle, and of the
disciples generaUy. 1 Cor. xiv. shows how deep
a reverence he was Ukely to feel for such spiritual

6 The conjecture thafc the " leaving " referred to
took place during the voyage of Acfcs xxvii. is purely
arbitrary, and at variance with vers. 5 and 6 cf thai
chapter.

8260

TIN

ufcterances. In 1 Tim. iv. 1, we have a distinct
reference to them.
(5.) The tendency of the Apostle's mind to dweU
more on the universality of the redemptive work of
Chrisfc (1 Tim. ii. 3-6, iv. 10), his sfcrong desire thafc
all the teaching of his disciples should be " sound "
(vyiaivovaa), commending itself to minds in a
healthy state, his fear of fche corruption of that
teaching by morbid subtleties.
(6.) The importance attached by him to the
practical defcails of administration. The gathered
experience of a long life had taught him that the
life and well-being of fche Church required fchese for
ifcs safeguards.
(7.) The recurrence of doxologies (1 Tim. i. 17,
vi. 15, 16; 2 Tim. iv. 18) as from one Uving per-
pefcually in the presence of God, to whom the lan
guage of adoration was as his natural speech.
Ifc has been fchought desirable, in fche above dis
cussion of conflicting theories, fco sfcafce tbem simply
as fchey sfcand, wifch fche evidence on which fchey resfc,
wifchout encumbering the page with constant ref
erence to authorities. The names of writers on
the N. T. in such a case, where the grounds of
reasoning are open to aU, add Utfcle or nofching fco
fche weighfc of the conclusions drawn from them.
FuU parfciculars wUl, however, be found iu the in
troductions of Alford, Wordsworth, Huther, David
son, Wiesinger, Hug. Conybeare and Howson
(App. i.) give a good tabular summary both of the
objections to fche genuineness of fche epistles and of
the answers to them, and a clear statement in favor
of fche lafcer date. The mosfc elaborate argument in
favor of fche earlier is to be found in N. Lardner,
History of Apost. and Evany. ( Works, vi. pp. 315-
375). K. H. P.
* For the literature relating to these epistles, see
under Titus, Epistle to. A.
TIN (7^*72' Koo-o-lrepos'- stftnnum). Among
the various metals found among the spoils of the
Midianites, fcin is enumerafced (Num. xxxi. 22). Ifc
was known to the Hebrew metal-workers as an
alloy of other metals (Is. i. 25; Kz. xxii. 18, 20).
The markets of Tyre were supplied with it by the
ships of Tarshish (Ez. xxvii. 12). It was used for
plummets (Zech. iv. 10), and was so plentiful as to
furnish the writer of Ecclesiasticus (xlvii. 18) with
a figure by which fco express the wealth of Solomon,
whom he apostrophizes thus: '* Thou didst gather
gold as tin, and didst multiply silver as lead." In
the Homeric times fche Greeks were familiar with it.
Twenty layers of tin were in Agamemnon's cuirass
given him by Kinyres {IL xi. 25), and twenty bosses
of tin were upon his shield {IL xi. 34). Copper,
tin, and gold were used by Hephsestus in welding
fche famous shield of AchiUes (//. xviU. 474). The
fence round the vineyard in the device upon ifc was
of fcin (IL xviii. 564), and fche oxen were wroughfc
of fcin and gold (ibid. 574). The greaves of AchiUea,
made by Hephsesfcus, were of fcin beafcen fine, close
fifcting to the limb (//. xviii. 612, xxi. 592). His
shield had fcwo folds or layers of fcin between two
outer layers of bronze and an inner layer of gold
(IL XX. 271). Tin was used in ornamenting chariots
(//. xxiu. 503), and a cuirass of bronze overlaid
with fcin is mentioned in II. xxiu. 561. No aUu
sion to it is found in the Odyssey. The melting
9f fcin in a sraelfcing-pot is mentioned by Hesiod
(Theog.m2). Tin is not found in Palestine. Whence, then, did
the ancient Hebrews obtain their supply ? " Only

TIN
three countries are known fco contain auy consider
able quantity of ifc: Spain and Portugal, Cornwal]
and the adjacent parts of Devonshire, and the
islands of Junk, Ceylon, and Banca, in the Straits
of Malacca " (Kenrick, Phcenieia, p. 212). Ac
cording to Diodorus Siculus (v. 46) fchere were tin-
mines in the island of Panchaia, off the east coast
of Arabia, but the metal was nofc exported. There
can be Uttle doubt that the mines of Britain were
the chief source of supply to fche ancienfc world.
Mr. Cooley, indeed, wrifc^ very posifcively (MaHtime
and Inland Discovery, i. 131): " There can be no
difficulty in determining the country from which
tin firsfc arrived in E^ypt. That metal has been in
all ages a principal export of India: ifc is enumer
afced as such by Arrian, who found it abundant in
the ports of Arabia, at a fcime when fche suppUes of
Rome flowed chiefly fchrough fchat channel. The
tin-mines of Banca are probably the richest in the
world ; but tin was unquestionably brought from
the Wesfc afc a later period," But it has been
shown conclusively by Dr. George Smith ( The Cas
siterides, Lond. 1863) thafc, so far from such a
statement being justified by the authorifcy of Arrian,
the facts are aU the other way After examuiing
the commerce of the ports of Abyssraia, Arabia, and
India, ifc is abundanfcly evidenfc fchafc, " instead of its
coming from fche Easfc fco Egypfc, ifc has been invari
ably exported from Egypfc to the East " (p. 23).
With regard to fche tin obtained from Spam, al
though the metal was found there, it dora nofc ap
pear to have been produced in sufficient quantities
to supply fche Phcenician markets. Posidonius (in
Strab. ui. 147) relates fchafc in the country of the
Artabri, in the extreme N. W. of the peninsula,
the ground was bright wifch silvei*, tin, and white
gold (mixed with silver), which were brought down
by the rivers; but the quantity thus obtain^ could
nofc have heen adequafce to the demaud. Afc fche
presenfc day fche whole surface bored for mining in
Spain is Utfcle more fchan a square mile (Smith,
Cassiterides, p. 46). We are therefore driven to
conclude that it was from the Cassiterides, or tin
districts of Britain, than the Phoenicians obtained
the great bulk of fchis commodifcy (Sir G. C Lewis,
Hist. Survey ofthe Astr. of ihe Anc. p. 451), and
fchafc this was done by the direct voyage from Gades.
It is true fchafc afc a later period (Strabo, iii. 147) tin
was conveyed overland to Marseilles by a thirty
days' journey (Diod. Sic. v. 2); but Strabo (iu.
175) tells us fchat the Phoenicians alone carried on
this traffic iu former times from Gades, conceafing
fche passage from every one ; and fchafc on one occa
sion, when fche Romans followed one of fcheir vessels
iu order fco discover the source of supply, the master
of fche ship ran upon a shoal, leading those who
followed him to destruction. In course of time,
however, the Romans discovered the passage. In
Ezekiel, " the fcrade in tin is attributed to Tarshish,
as ' the merchant ' for the commodity, without any
mention of the place whence it was procured "
(Cassiterides, p. 74); and it is after the time of
JuUus Caesar that we first hear of the overland
traffic by MarseiUes.
PUny (vi, 36) identifies the cassiteros of the
Greeks with the plumbum album or candidum of
the Romans, which is our tin. Stannum, he says,
is obtamed from an ore containing lead and silver
and is the first to becorae melted in the fiunace.
It is the same which the Germans caU Werk, and
is apparently the meaning of the Hebr. be<Ul in I*
i. 25. The etymology of cassiteros is uncertwn-

TIPHSAH
Fiom the fact that in Sanskrit kaslira signifies
* tin," an argument has been derived in favor of
India being the source of the ancient supply of this
metal, but too much stress must not be laid upon
it. [Lead.] W. A. W.
TIPH'SAH (nppri [ford] : [in 1 K., Rom.
Vat. omit; in 2 K.] @epad; [Alex. @aia., 0aipo:]
Thaphsa, Thapsa) is mentioned in 1 K. iv. 24 as
the limit of Solomon's empu:e towards the Euphra^
tes, and in 2 K. xv. 16 it is said to have been at
tacked by Menahen:, king of Israel, who " smote
Tiphsah and all that were therein, and all the
coasts thereof." It is generally admitted that the
town intended, at any rate in the former passage, is
that which the Greeks and Romans knew under the
name of Thapsacus (0o\(/okos), situated in North
ern Syria, at the point where it was usual to cross
tlie Euphrates (Strab. xvi. 1, § 21). The name is
therefore, reasonably enough, connected with HOQ,
"to pass over" (Winer, Renlwiyrierbuch, ii. 613),
and is believed to correspond in meaning to the
Greek irdpos, the German /!»•<, and our " ford."
Thapsacus was a town of considerable imports
ance in the ancient world. Xenophon, who saw it
in the time of Cyrus the younger, calls it " great
and prosperous " (lieydXri xaX euSalpiaiv, Anab. i.
4, § 11). It must have been a plaee of considera^
ble trade, the land-traffic between East and West
passing through it, first on account of its fordway
(which was the lowest upon the Euphrates), and
then on account of its bridge (Strab. xvi. 1, § 23),
while it was likewise the point where goods were
both embarked for transport down the stream (Q.
Curt. X. 1), and also disembarked frora boats which
had come up to it, to be conveyed ou to their final
destination by land (Strab. xvi. 3, § 4). It is a
fair conjecture that Solomon's occupation of the
place was connected with his efforts to establish a
line of trade with Central Asia directly across the
continent, and that Tadmor was intended as a
resting-plaee on the journey to Thapsacus.
Thapsaeus was the place at which armies march
ing ea«t or west usually crossed the " Great River."
It was there that the Ten Thousand first learned
the real Intentions of C^yrus, and, consenting to aid
bim in his enterprise, passed the stream (Xen.
Anai. i. 4, § 11). There too Darius Codomannus
crossed on his flight from Issus (Arr. Exp. Al. ii.
13); and -Alexander, following at his leisure, made
his passage at the same point (&id. iii. 7). A
bridge of boats was usually maintained at the place
by the Persian kings, which was of couree broken
up when danger threatened. Even then,, however,
the stream could in general be forded, unless in the
flood -season. «
It has been generally supposed that the site of
Thapsacus was the modern Deir (D'Anville, Een-
nell, Vaux, etc.). But the Euphrates expedition
proved that there is no ford at De'ir, and indeed
showed that the only ford in this part of the course
Df the Euphrates is at Suriyeh, 45 miles below Ba
lis, and 165 above Deir (Ainsworth, Travels in the
Track of Ihe Ten Thousand, p. 70). This then
piust have been the position of Thapsacus. Here
Jhe river is exactly of the width mentioned by Xen
ophon (4 stades or 800 yards), and here for four

TIRAS

3261

a This is clear from the very name of the place,
and is jonftrmed by modern researches. Wheu fche
natives told Cyrus fchat fcbe stream had acknowledged
tiim as Its king, having never been forded until his

months in the winter of 1841-1842 the river had
but 20 inches of water (ibid. p. 72;.
" The Euphrates is afc fchis spofc full of beaufcy
and majesfcy. Ifcs stream is wide, and its waters
genei-ally clear and blue. Ifcs banks are ow and
level fco the left, bufc undulate gently to the right.
Previous to arrivhig at this point the course of the
river is southerly, but here ifc fcurns fco the east, ex
panding more like an inland lake than a river, and
quitting (as PUny has described it) the Palmyrean
soUtudes for the fertile M\gdonia" (Ibid.). A
paved causeway is visible on eitlier side of the Eu
phrates at Suriyeh, and a long Une of mounds may
be traced, disposed, something Uke those of Nine
veh, in the forra of an irregular parallelogram.
These mounds probably mark the site of the ancient
city. G. R.
TI'RAS {O'y^r) [perh. longing, desire] : ®ei'
pas; [Rom. in 1 Chr. ®ipas'] Thiras). The
youngest son of Japhefch (Gen. x. 2). As the name
occurs only in the ethnological table, we have no
clew, as far as the Bible is concerned, to guide ua
as to the identification of it with any particular
people. Ancient authorities generaUy fixed on the
Thracians, as presenting the closest verbal approx
imation to the name (Joseph. Ani. i. 6, § 1; Je
rome, in Gen. x. 2; Targuras Pseudoj. and Jerus.
on Gen. 1. c. ; Targ. on 1 Chr. i. 5 ) : the occasional
rendering Persia probably originated in a corrup-
fcion of the original text. The correspondence be
tween Thrace and Tiras is nofc so complete as to be
convincing; the gentile form ®p§,^ brings them
nearer together, but the total absence of the i in
the Greek name is observable. Granfced, however,
fche verbal identity, uo objection would arise on
ethnological grounds to placing fche Thracians
among fche Japbefclc races. Their precise efchnic
posifcion is indeed involved in greafc uncerfcainty;
but all authorities agree in their general Indo-Eu
ropean character. The evidence of this is circum
stantial rather than direct. The language has dis
appeared, with the exception of the ancient names
and the single word b?'ia, which forms the termina
tion of Mesembria, Selymbria, etc., and is said to
signify « town " (Strab. vu. p. 319). The Thra
cian stock was represented in later tiraes by the
Gefc^, and fchese again, sfcill lafcer, by the Daci,
each of whora inherited the old Thracian tongue
(Strab. vii. p. 303). But this circumstance throws
little light on fche subjecfc; for the Dacian language
has also disappeared, though fragments of its vo
cabulary may possibly exist either in WaUachiai'
dialects or perhaps in the Albanian language (Die
fenbach. Or. Eur. p. 68). If Grimm's identifica-
fcion of fche Gefcaj wifch fche Gofchs were estabUshed,
fche Teufconic affinifcies of fche Thracians would be
placed beyond question (Gesch. Deuts. Spr. i. ]78j;
but this view does nofc meefc with general accept
ance. The Thracians are associated in ancienfc his
tory with the Pelasgians (Strab. ix. 401), and tbe
Trojans, wifch whom fchey had many names in com
raon (Strab. xiu. 590); in Asia Minor they were
represented by the Bithynians (Herod, i. 28, vii.
75). These circumstances lea4 fco fche conclusion
that they belonged fco the Indo-European family,
but do not warrant us m assigning them to any

army waded through ifc, they calculated on his igno
rauce, or' thoughfc he would not examine too stricfclj
infco the groundwork of a compfiment. (See Xe a. Anab
i. 4, § 11).

3262

TIRATHITES, THE

particular branch of it. Other explanations have
been offered of the name Tiras, of which we may
notice the Agathyrsi, the first part of the name
(Ago) behig treated as a prefix (Knobel, Volkert.
p. 129); Taurus and the various tribes occupying
that range (Kalisch, Comm. p. 246); the river Ty-
ras, Dniester, with its cognominous inhabitants,
the Tyritae (Havernick, Einleit. ii. 231; Schul
thess, Parad. p. 194); and, lastly, the maritime
Tyrrheni (Tuch, in Gen. I. c). W. L. B.
TI'RATHITES, THE (D''n^"?ri [from a
pbice^" gate," Ges.]; [Rom. &apyaBii/i; Vat.]
Taeieipt; Alex. ApyaSieiu.: Canentes). One of
the three families of Scribes residing at Jahez (1
(Jhr. ii. 55), the others being the Shimeathites and
Suchathites. The passage is hopelessly obscure,
and it is perhaps impossible to discover whence
these three families derived their nanies. The
Jewish commentators, playing with the names in
true Shemitic fashion, interpret them thus ; " They
called them Tirathim, because their voices when
they sung resounded loud (S^^iTI) \ and Shimeath
ites because they made themselves heard (5?QB^)
in reading the Law."
The Shimeathites having been inadvertently
omitted in their proper place, it may be as well to
give here the equivalents of the name (C'inVQtt? ;
^apjidteifj.: Resonantes). G.
TIRE ("1N9). An ornamental head-dress worn
on festive occasions (Ez. xxiv. 17, 23). The term
peer is elsewhere rendered "goodly" (Ex. xxxix.
28); "bonnet" (Is. iii. 20; Ez. xliv. 18); and
"ornament" (Is. Ixi. 10). For the character of
the article, see Head-dress. W. L. B.
TIR'HAKAH (ni^nijjl [perh. bi-oughi
forth, exalted, Sim.]: @apaKd; [Vat. in 2 K.,
eapo; Sin. Alex, inls., OapaSoO Tharaca). King
of Ethiopia, Cush ($aai\evs AiBidrrav, LXX.),
the opponent of Sennacherib (2 K. xix. 9 ; Is. xxx\ii.
9). While the king of Assyria was "warring
against Libnah," in the south of Palestine, he heard
of Tirhakah's advance to fight him, and sent a
second time to demand the surrender of Jerusalem.
This was B. c. cir. 713, unless we suppose that the
expedition took place in the 24th instead of the
14th year of Hezekiah, which would bring it to
B. c. cir. 703. If it were an expedition later than
that of which the date is mentioned, it must have
been before B. c. cir. 698, Hezekiah's last jear.
But if the reign of Manasseh is reduced to 35 years,
these dates would be respectively B. c. cir. 693,
683, and 678, and these numbers might have to be
shghtly modified, the fixed date of the capture of
Samaria, B. 0. 721, being abandoned.
According to Manetho's epitomists, Tarkos or
Tarakos was the third and last king of the XXVth
dynasty, which was of Ethiopians, and reigned 18
(Afr.) or 20 (Eus.) years. [So.] From one of the
Apis-tablets we learn that a bull Apis was bom in
his 26th year, and died at the end of the 20th of
Psammetichus I. of the XXVIth dynasty. Its Ufe
exceeded 20 years, and no Apis is stated to have
hved longer than 26. Taking that sum as the
most probable, we should date Tirhakah's accession
B. c. cir. 695, and assign him a reign of 26 years.
In this case we should he obliged to take the later
reckoning of the Bibhcal events, were it not for the
possibihty that Tirhakah ruled over Ethiopia before

TIRSHATHA
becoming king of Egypt. In connection with tbis
theory it must be observed, that an earlier Ethi
opian of the same (lynasty is called in the Bible
" So, king of Egypt," while this ruler is calli^
" Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia," and that a Pharaoh
is spoken of in Scripture at the period of the latter,
and also that Herodotus represents the Egyptian
opponent of Sennacherib as Sethos, a native king,
who may however have heen a vassal under the
Ethiopian. The name of Tirhakah is vrritten in hieroglyph
ics TEHARKA. Sculptures at Thebes commem
orate his rule, and at Gebel-Berkel, or Napata, he
constructed one temple and part of another. Of
the events of his reign little else is known, and the
account of Megasthenes (ap. Strabo, xv. p. 686),
that he rivaled Sesostris as a warrior and reached
the Pillars of Hercules, is not supported by other
evidence. It is probable that at the close of his
reign he found the Assyrians too powerful, and re
tired to his Ethiopian dominions. R. S. P.
TIR'HANAH (nannri [inclination or fa-
vor, Ge^., Fiirst]: @apdp.; Alex. 0apxva: Tha-
rana). Son of Caleb ben-Hezron by his concubine
Maachah (1 Chr. ii. 48).
TIR'IA (S;";''ri [fear, Ges.]: &tpid; [Vat.
Zaiflo;] Alex, ©rjpia: Thiria). Son of Jehaleleel
of the tribe of Judah (1 Chr. iv. 16).
TIRSHA'THA (always written with the ar
ticle, SritSl.nn [see below] : hence the LXX.
give the word' 'AeepiraaBd [Alex. FA. ABepaaia,
Vat. other forms] (F.zr. ii. 63; Neh. vii. 65), and
'ApToxratrBd [Vat. Alex. FA. omit] (Neh. x. 1):
Vulg. Athersntha). The title of the governor of
Judsea under the Persians, derived by Gesenius
from a Persian root signifying "steni," "severe."
He compares the title Gestrenger Herr, formerly
given to the magistrates of the free and imperial
cit es of Germany. Compare also our expression,
" most drend sovereign." It is added as a title
after the name of Nehemiah (Neh. viii. 9, x. 1 [Heb.
2] ) ; and occurs also in three other places, Ezr. ii.
(ver. 63), and the repetition of that account in Neh.
vii. (w. 65-70), where probably it is intended to
denote Zerubbabel, who had held the oflSce before
Nehemiah. In the margin of tbe A. V. (Ezr. ii.
63; Neh. vii. 65, x. 1) it is rendered "governor;"
an explanation justified by Neh. xii. 26, where
"Nehemiah the governor," nnSr? (Pecha, po»
sibly from the same root as the word we write Pa
cha, or Pasha), occurs instead of the more usual
expression, " Nehemiah the Tii-shatba." This word,
nns, is one of very common occurrence. It is
twice appUed by Nehemiah to himself (vv. 14, 18),
and by the prophet Haggai (i. 1, ii. 2, 21) to Ze
rubbabel. According to Gesenius, It denotes the
prefect or governor ,of a province of less extent than
a satrapy. The word is used of officers and gov
ernors under the Assyrian (2 K. xviii. 24 ; Is. xxxvi.
9), Babylonian (Jer. li. 57; Ez. xxiii. 6,23; see
also Ezr. /. 3, 14, vi. 7; Dan. iii. 2, 3, 27, vi. 7
[Heb. 8]), Median (Jer. 11.28), and Persian (Esth.
viii. 9, ix. 3) monarchies. And under this last we
find it applied to the rulers of the provinces bor
dered by the Euphrates (Ezr. viii. 36; Neh. ii. 7,
9, iii. 7), and to the governors of Judsea, Zerubba
bel and Nehemiah (compare Mai. i. 8). It is
found also at an earUer period in the times of Solo-

TIRZAH
mon (1 K. X. 15, 2 Chr. ix. 14) and Benhadad king
of Syria (1 K. xx. 24): from which last place, com
pared with others (2 K. xviii. 24, Is. xxxvi. 9), we
find that miUtajy commands were often held by
these governors; the word indeed is often rendered
by the A. V., either in the text or the margin,
" captain." By thus briefly examioing the sense of Pecha,
which (though of course a much more general and
less distinctive word) is given as an equivalent tx>
Tirshatha, we have no difficulty in forming an
opinion as to the general notion implied in it. We
have, however, no suificient information to enable
us to explain in detaU in what consisted the special
peculiarities in honor or functions which distin
guished the Tirshatha from others of the same class,
governors, captains, princes, rulers of provinces. E. P. E.
TIR'ZAH (nS^ri, i. e. Thirza [delight] :
Bepffd: Thers'i). T'he youngest of the five daugh
ters of Zelophehad, whose case originated the kw
that in the event of a man dying without male
issue his property should pass to his daughters
(Num. xxvi. 33, xxvu. 1, xxxvi." 11; Josh. xvii. 3).
[Zelophehad.] G.
TIR'ZAH (n2"!ri [delight] : [Rom. Qeptrd,
@ep(n\d; Vat.] &apa-a, Qeoaa, &apirei\ai Alex.
0epiM, @epaa, QepaiKa: Thersa). An .ancient
Cauaanite city, whose king is enumerated amongst
the twenty-one overthrown in the conquest of the
country (Josh. xii. 24). From that time nothing
is heard of it tiU after the disruption of Israel and
Judah. It then reappears as a royal city — the
residence of Jeroboam (1 K. xiv. ^H) and of his
successors, Baasha (xv. 21, 33), IClah (xvi. 8, 9), and
Zimri {ib'iil. 15). It contained the royal sepulchres
of one (xvi. 6), and probably all the first four kings
of the northern kingdom. Zimri was besieged tbere
by Omri, and perished iu the flames of his palace
(ibid. 18). The new king continued to reside there
at first, but after six years he removed to a new
city which he built and named Shomron (Samaria),
and which continued to be the capital of the north
ern kingdom tiU its faU. Once, and only once,
does Tirzah reappear, as the seat of the conspiracy
of Menahem ben-Gaddi against the wretched Shal
lum (2 K. XV. 14, 16); but as soon as his revolt
had proved successful, Menahem removed the seat
ot his government to Samaria, and Tirzah was
again left in obscurity.
Its reputation for beauty throughout the country
must have been wide-spread. It is in this sense
that it is mentioned in the ^Song of Solomon,
where the juxtaposition of Jerusalem is sufficient
proof of the estimation in which it was held —
" Beautiful as Tirzah, comely as Jerusalem " (Cant.
vi. 4). The LXX. (euSoKia.) and Vulg. (smavis)

TISHBITE, THE

C263

a In this passage the order of fche names U altered
in the Hebrew text from that preserved in the other
passages — and still more so in tbe LXX.
t> The LXX. version of the narrative of which this
verse forms part, amongst other remarkable variations
from the Hebrew text, substitutes Sarira [Saptpo,], that
is, Zereda, for Tirzah. In this they are supported by
ao other version.
c Its occurrence here on a level with Jerusalem has
been held to indicate that the Song of Songs was the
vvork of a writer belonging to the northern kingdom.
But surely a poet, aad so ardent a poet as the author

do not, however, take tirisdh as a proper name in
this passage.
Eusebius (Oiumiasi. QapaiXd^) mentioui* it in
connection with Menahem, and identifies it with a
" viUage of Samaritans in Batansea.'' There is,
however, nothing in the Bible to lead to the in
ference that the Tirzah of the Israelite monarchs
was on the easfc of Jordan. Ifc does nofc appear fco
be menfcioned by fche Jewish topographers, or any
of the Christian traveUers of the Middle Ages, ex
cept Brocardus, who places " Thersa on a high
mountain, three leagues (leucce) from Samaria to
the ^east '" (Descriptio, cap. vii.). This is exactly
the direction, and very nearly the distance, of Ttl-
luzah, a place in the mountains north of Ndblus,
which was visited by Dr. Kobinson and Mr. Van
de Velde in 1852 {BibL Rts. iii. 302; Stjr. and PaL
iii. 334). The towu is on an eminence, which to
wards the east is exceedingly lofty, fchough, being
afc fche edge of the cenfcral highlands, ifc is more
approachable fi'om fche wesfc. The place is large
and thriving, but without any obvious marks of
antiquity. The name raay very probably be a cor
ruption of Tirzah; but beyond that similarity, and
the general agreement of the site witb the require
ments of the narrative, there is nothing at present
to establish the identification with certainty. G.
TISH'BITE, THE C'^tprin [patr.] : [Vafc.j
0 eea^eirvs: [Kom.] Alex, feeo^irris- Thesbiies).
The well-known designafcion of Elijah (1 K. xvu. 1,
xxi. 17, 28; 2 K. i. 3, 8, ix. 36).
(1.) The name nafcurally poinfcs to a place caUed
Tishbeh (Fiirst), Tishbi, or rather perhaps Tesheb,
as the residence of the prophet. And indeed tbe
word "^l^li^n^, which foUows ifc in 1 K. xvii. 1,
and which in the received Hebrew text is so pointed
as to mean " from the residents," may, without
violence or grammatical impropriety, be pointed io
read "from Tishbi." This latter reading appears
to have been foUowed by the LXX. (t ©eafieirr}^
6 €K ®€a^u)v), Josephus (Ant viii. 13, § 2, ttS-
Ae&js ®ea$ti>v7}s), and the Targum (Dti?^nD'^,
"ft-om out of Toshab "); and it has the support
of Ewald {Gesch. ni. 468, note). It is also sup
ported by the fact, which seems to have escaped
notice, that the word does not in fchis passage con
tain the 1 which is present in each one of the places
where 21271/^ is used as a mere appeUative noun.
Had the 1 been present in 1 K. xvii. 1, the inter
pretation "fi:om Tishbi" could never have been

Assuming, however, that a town is aUuded to
as Elijah's native place, it is not necessary to infei
thafc ifc was ifcself in Gil^, as Epiphanius, Adricho-

of the Song of Songs, may have been sufficiently in
dependent of political considerations to go out of his
own country  if Tirzah can be said to be out of the
country of a native of Judah — for a metaphor.
d It will be observed that the name stood iu the
LXX. of 2 K. XV. 14 in Eusebius' time virtually in tha
same strange un-Hebrew form that it now does.
e Schwarz (150) seems merely to repeat this passage.
/ The Alex. MS. omits the word in 1 K. xvu. 1, and
both MSS. omit it in xxi. 28, which they cast, with
the whole pass^ige, in a different form from the Hebrew
text.

3264 TITA^s^S
mius, «CasfceU, and others have imagined; for the
word DK?'in, which ui fche A. V. is rendered by
ihe general term * inhabifcanfc," has reaUy the
ipeeiS force of "resident" or even^ "stranger."
This, and the facfc that a place with a similar name
is not elsewhere mentioued, has induced the com
mentators '^ aud lexicographere, with few exceptions,
to adopt the name " Tishbite" as referring to the
place Thisbe in NaphtaU, which is found iu the
LXX. text of Tobit i. 2. The difficulfcy in fche way
of fchis is the great uncertainty in which the text
of fchat passage is involved, as has already heen
shown mider the head of Thisbe; an uncertaiuty
quite sufficienfc to destroy any dependence on it as
a topographical record, although it bears the traces
of having originaUy been extremely minute. Bunsen
{Bibelwerk, note to 1 K. xvii. 1) suggests in sup
port of the reading " the Tishbite from Tishbi of
GUead " (which however he does not adopt in his
text), that the place may have been purposely so
described, in order to distinguish it from the town
of the same name iu GaUlee.
(2.) But ''Siynn has not always been read as
a proper name, referring to a place. Like "^Dtt7inQ,
though exactly in reverse, it has been pointed so as
to make it mean " the stranger." This is done by
MichaeUs in the text of his interesting Bibel fur
Ungelehrien — " der EremdUng Elia, einer von den
Fremden, die in Gilead wohnhaft waren; " and it
throws a new and impressive air romid the prophet,
who was so emphatically the chanipion of the God
of Israel. But this suggestion does not appear to
have beep adopted by any other interpreter, ancient
or modem.
The numerical value of the letters **Dli?n is 712,
on which account, aud also doubtless with a view
to its correspondence with his own name, EUas
Levita entitled his work, in which 712 words are
explained, Sepher Tishbi (Bartolocci, i. 140 b). G.
TITAIiTS (Tiraves, of uncertain derivation).
These chUdi-en of Uranus (Heaven) and Gaia
(Earth) were, according to the earliest Greek le
gends, the vanquished predecessors of the Olympian
gods, condemned by Zeus to dwell in Tartarus, yet
not without retaining many reUcs of their ancient
dignity (^Esch. Prom. Vinct. passim). By later
(I^tin) poets they were confounded with the kindred
Gigantes (Hor. Od. iu. 4, 42, &c.), as the traditions
of the primitive Greek faith died away; and both
terms svere fcransferi'etl by fche Seventy to the Re
phaim of ancienfc Palesfcine. [Gl.\jxt.] The usual
Greek rendering of Rephaim is indeed rlyavres
(Gen. xiv. 5; Josh. xii. 4, &c.), or, with a yet
clearer reference to Greek mythology, •yij7€i'ers
(Prov, u. 18, ix. 18), and Oeofidxoi (Symmach

TITHE
Prov. ix. 18, xxi. 16 ; Job xxvi. 5). But in 2 Sam
V. 18, 22, " the vaUey of Rephaim " is repreawited
by rj KotKas roji Tirdvwv instead of fi KoiXks raw
yiydvrcav, 1 Chr. xi. 15, xiv. 9, 13 : and the same
rendering occurs in a Hexapl. fcexfc in 3 Sam. xxiii.
13. Thus Ambrose defends his use of a classical
aUusion by a reference to the Old Latin version of
2 Sam. v., which presored the LXX. rendering
(Defde, iii. 1, 4, Nam et gigantes et vallem Ti~
tanum prophefcici sermonis series non refugifc. £t
Esaias Sirenas . dixit). It can therefore oc
casion no surprise that in the Greek version of ^e
triumphal hymn of Judith. " fche sous ofthe Titans '
(viol Tirdvav- Vulg. ^"/iV Titan: Old Latin, /&*
Dathan ; f. Tela ; f, bellntormn) stands parallel
wifch " high giants," tn^Kol Tiyavres, where the
original texfc probably had D'^WQ"} and D^'n*l23.
The word has yefc anofcher interesting point of con
nection with the Bible ; for it may have been from
some vague sense of the struggle of the infernal and
celestial powers, dimly shadowed forfch in fche clas
sical myth of the Titans, thafc several Chrisfcian
fathers incUned to the beUef thafc Teirdv was the
mysfcic name of '* fche beasfc " indicated in Rev. xiu.
18 (Iren. v. 30, 3 . . "divinum putatur apud
mulfcos esse hoc nomen . . . et ostentationem quan-
dam continet ultionis . . . et aUas autem et anti
quum, et fide diguum, et r^ale, magis autem et
tyrannicum nomen . . . ut ex multis coUigamua
ne forte Titan vocetur qui veniet "). B. F. W.
TITHE. '^ Without inquiring jito the reason
for which the number ten « has been so frequmtly
preferred as a numl>er of selection in fche cases of
tribute-offerings, both sacred and secular, voluntary
and compulsory, we may remark, fchat numerous
instance of its use are found both iu profane and
also in BibUcal history, prior to or independently
of the appohitmeut of the levitical fcithes under fche
Law. In BibUcal hisfcory the two promment in
stances are — 1. Abram presenting the tenth of all
his property, according to the Syriac and Arabic
versions of Heb. vii. and S. Jarchi iu his Com., hut
as the passages themselves appear fco show, of the
spoUs of his vicfcory, to Melchizedek (Geo. xiv. 20;
Heb. TU. 2, 6; Joseph. AnL i. 10, § 2; Selden Ob
Tithes, u. 1). 2. Jacob, after his vision afc Luz,
devoting a tenth of aU his property to God iu case
he should refcurn home in safety (Geu. xxviu. 22).
These insfcances bear witn^s to the antiquity of
tithes, in some shape or ofcher, previous to fche
Mosaic fcitlie-sysfcem. Bufc numerous instances are
to be found of the practice of heathen nations,
Greeks, Romans, Carthaginians. Arabians^ of apply
ing fcenfchs derived from property in genoT*!, fi»ni
spoil, from confiscated goods, or from commercial
profits, to sacred, and quasi-sacred, and also fco fiscal
purposes, namely, as consecrated to a deifcy, pre-

a This lexicographer pretends to have been iu pos
session of some special information as to the situation
of the place. He says {Lex. Hebr. ed. Michaelis),
" Urbs in tribu Gad, Jebaa inter et Saron." Jebaa
should be Jecbaa (t. e. Jogbehah) and this strange bit
of confident topography is probably taken from the
map of Adricbomius, made on the principle of insert
ing every name mentioned in the Bible, known or un
known. b Tbere is no doubt that this is fche meaning of
iU?in. See Gen. xxiii. 4 C' sqjounjer "), Ex. xii. 45
(« fQTelgner ' ), Lev. xxv. 6 (" stranger "), Ps. xxxix. 12

(" sqiourner "). It often occurs in connection with
")2, « an ahen,'- as in Lev. xxv. 23, 35, 40, 47 6, 1 Chr.
xxix. 15. Besides the above passages, fujAA/) is found
in Lev. xxii. 10, xxv. 45, 47 a.
c Reland, Pal. p. 1035 ; Gesenius, Jhes. p. 1862 b,
&c., &c.
<* "ITO^ : BtKarn: decima: and pi. rfTltPS?:
ai fie'icarai: deeima ; from ^tt?^, "ten.''
e Philo derives Uko. from 6€x«^« (D« X. One iL
1S4).

TITHE
sented as a reward to a successful general, set apart
as a tribute to a sovereign, or as a permanent
source of revenue. Among other passages, the fol
lowing may be cited; 1 Maec. xi. 35; Herod, i. 89,
iv. 152, V. 77, vii. 132, ix. 81; Diod. Sic. v. 42, xi.
33, XX. 14; Paus. v. 10, § 2, x. 10, § 1; Dionys.
Hal. i. 19, 23; Justin, xviii. 7, xx. 3; Arist. CEcon.
ii. 2; Liv. v. 21; Polyb. ix. 39; Cic. Verr. ii. 3, 6,
and 7 (where titlies of wine, oil, and " minutse
frxiges," are mentioned). Pro Leg. ManU. 6; Plut.
Ages. c. 19, p. 389; Pliny, N. H. xii. 14; Macrob.
Sat. iii. 6; Xen. Hell. i. 7, 10, iv. 3, 21; Kose,
Inscr. Gr. p. 215; Gibbou, vol. iii. p. 301, ed.
Smith ; and a remarkable instance of fruits tithed
and offered to a deity, and a fe^ist made, of which
the people of the district partook, in Xen. Exp.
Cyr. V. 3, 9, answering thus to the Hebrew poor
man's tithe-feast to be mentioned below.
The first enactment of the Law in respect of
tithe is the declaration that the tenth of all prod
uce, as well as of flocks and cattle, belongs to
Jehovah, and must be ofi'ered to Him. 2. That the
tithe was to be paid in kind, or, if redeemed, with
an addition of one fifth to its value (Lev. xxvii.
30-33). This tenth, called Terumoth, is ordered to
be assigned to the Levites, as the reward of their
service, and it is ordered further, that they are
themselves to dedicate to the Lord a tenth of these
receipts, which is to be devoted to the maintenance
of the high-priest (Num. xviii. 21-28).
This legislation is modified or extended in the
book of Deuteronomy, i. e. from thirty-eight to
forty years later. Commands are given to the peo
ple, — 1, to bring their tithes, together with their
votive and other offerings and first-fruits, to the
chosen centre of worship, the metropolis, there to
be eaten in festive celebration in company with their
children, their servants, and the l^evites (Deut. xii.
5-18). 2. After warnings against idolatrous or
virtually idolatrous practices, and the definition
of clean as distinguished from unclean animals,
among which latter class the swine is of obvious
importance in reference to the subject of tithes, the
legislator proceeds to direct that all the produce of
the soil shall be tithed every year (ver. 17 seems to
show that corn, wine, and oil alone are intended),
and that these tithes with the firstlings of the fiock
and herd are to be eaten in the metropolis. 3. But
in case of distance, permission is giveii to convert
the produce into money, which is to be taken to the
appointed place, and there laid out in the purchase
of food for a festal celebration, in which the Levite
is, by special command, to be included (Deut. xiv.
22-27). 4. Then follows the direction, that at
the end of three years, i. e. in the course of the
:hird and sixth years of the Sabbatical period, all
the tithe of that year is to be gathered and laid up
" within the gates," i. e. probably in some central
place in each district, not at the metropolis; and
fchat a festival is to be held, in which the stranger,
the fatherless, and the widow, together with the
Levite, are to partake (ibiA vv. 28, 29). 5. Lastly,
It is ordered that after taking the tithe in each third
year," which is the year of, tithing," a an exculpa-
Scry declaration is to be made by every Israelite,
jbat he has done his best to fulfill tbe Dinne com-
naiid (Deut. xxvi. 12-14).*
From all this we gather, 1. That one tenth of

!> The LXX. has here ia.v wvreKitr^ airoSeKaraia-a

TITHE

3265

the whole produce of the soil was to be assigned foi
the maintenance of the Levites. 2. That out of thie
the Invites were to dedicate a tenth fco God, for
the use of the high-priest. 3. Thafc a fcifche, iu aU
probabiUfcy a second fcifche, was to be applied to
festival purposes. 4. Thafc in every third year,
either this festival tithe or a third tenth was to be
eaten in company with the poor and the Levites.
The question arises, were there three tithes taken
in this fchird year; or is fche fchird tithe only the
second under a different description? That there
were two yearly tithes seems clear, both from the
general tenor of the directions and from the LXX.
rendering of Deut. xxvi. 12. But ifc musfc be allowed
that the third tithe is not without supporfc. 1. Jo
sephus distinctly says that one tenth was to be given
to the priests and Levites, one tenth was fco be ap
plied fco feasfcs in fche mefcropolis, and that a tenth
besides these (rpirriv irphs avraTs) was every third
year to be given to the poor {Ant iv. 8, § 8, and
22). 2. Tobit says, he gave one tenth to fche priesfcs,
one tenth he sold and spent at Jerusalem, i. e. com
muted according to Deut. xiv. 24, 25, and another
tenth he gave away (Tob. i. 7, 8). 3. St. Jerome
says one tenth was given to the Levites, out of
which they gave one tenth to fche priests (Seure-
poSe/cc^TTj); a second tithe was appUed to festival
purposes, and a third was given to the poor (irrar-
XoBeKarj}) (Com. on Ezek. xiv. vol. i. p. 565).
Spencer thinks there were three tithes. Jennings,
with Mede, thinks there were only two complete
tithes, bufc that in the third year an addition of
some sort was made (Spencer, De Leg. Hebr. p.
727; Jennings, Jew. Ant p. 183).
On the other hand, Maimonides says the fchird and
sixfch years' second tithe was shared between fche
poor and fche Levifces, i. e. fchat there was no third
tithe (De Jur. Paup. vi. 4). Selden and MichaeUs
reraark thafc fche burden of three tithes, besides the
first-fruits, would be excessive. Selden thinks that
the third year's tithe denotes only a differenfc appli
cafcion of the second or festival tithe, and MichaeUs,
that it meant a surplus after the consumption of
the festival tithe (Selden, On Tithes, c. 2, p. 13 ;
MichaeUs, Laws of' Moses, § 192, vol. iii. p. 143,
ed. Smith). Against a third tithe may be added
Reland, Ant Hebr. p. 359; Jahn, Ant § 389;
Godwyn, Moses a/nd Aaron, p. 136, and Carpzov,
pp. 621, 622; KeU, BibL Arch. § 71, i. 337; Saal
schutz, Hebr. Arch. i. 70; Winer, Realwb. s. v.
Zehnie. Knobel thinks the fcifche was never fcaken
in fuU, and fchafc fche third year's tithe only meant
the portion contributed in that year ( Com. on Deut
xiv. 29, in Kurzgef Exeg. HaTidbuch). Ewald
thinks that for two years the tithe was left in great
measure to free-will, and that the third year's tithp
only was compulsory (Alierthiim. p. 346).
Of these opinions, fchafc which maintains three
separate and complete tithings seems improbable, aa
imposing an excessive burden on the land, and not
easily reconcilable with the other directions; yet
there seems no reason for rejecting the notion of
two yearly tithes, when we recollect the especial
promise of fertility to the soil, conditional on ob
servance of the. commands of the Law (Deut. xxviii).
There would fchus be, 1, a yearly tithe for the
Levites; 2, a second fcifche for fche fesfcivals, which
last would every third year be sh&rad by the Levites

irav TO eiriSeKaTOU rSiV yewrffiaTUiv t^s y>]5 trov ey -'^
cTfi TiS TpiTw TO Sevrepov cTrtfieKaioy Qicrvtt
ry Aevt'rn, «. t. \.

S266 TITTLE
with the poor. It is this poor man's tithe which
Michaelis thinks is spoken of as Ukely to be con
verted to the king's use under the regal dynasty
(1 Sam. viii. 15, 17; Mich. Laws of Moses, vol i.
p. 299). Ewald thinks that under the kings the
ecclesiastical tithe-system reverted to what he sup
poses to have been its original free-will character.
It is plain that during that period the tithe-system
partook of the general neglect into which the ob
servance of the Law declined, and that Hezekiah,
among his other reforms, took effectual means to
revive its use (2 Chr. xxxi. 5, 12, 19). Similar
measures were taken after the Captivity by Nehe
miah (Neh. xii. 44), and in both these cases special
officers were appointed to take charge of the stores
and storehouses for the purpose. 'I'he practice of
tithing especially for relief of the poor appears to
have subsisted even in Israel, for the prophet Amos
speaks of it, though in an ironical tone, as existing
in his day (Am. iv. 4). But as any degeneracy in
the national faith would be likely to have an effect
on the tithe-system, we find complaint of neglect in
this respect made by the prophet Malachi (iii. 8,
10). Yet, notwithstanding partial evasion or omis
sion, the system itself was continued to a late period
in Jewish history, and was even carried to excess
by those who, Uke the Pharisees, afi"ected peculiar
exactness in observance of the Law (Heb. vii. 5-8;
Matt. xxiu. 23; Luke xviii. 12; Josephus, Ani. xx.
9, § 2; Vii. 0. 15).
Among details relating to tbe tithe payments
mentioned by Ka.bbinical writers may be noticed:
(1.) That in reference to the permission given in
case of distance (Deut. xiv. 24), Jews dweUing in
Babylonia, Ammon, Moab, and Egypt, were consid
ered as sulyect to tlie law of tithe in kind (Reland,
iii. 9, 2, p. 355). (2.) In tithing sheep the custom
was to inclose them in a pen, and as the sheep
went out at the opening, every tenth animal was
marked with a rod dipped in vermilion. This was
the "passing under the rod." The Law ordered
that no inquiry should be made whether the animal
were good or bad, and that if the owner changed it,
both the original and the changeUng were to be re
garded as devoted (Lev. xxvii. 32, 33; Jer. xxxiii.
13; Becoroth, ix. 7; Godwyn, M. and A. p. 136,
vi. 7). (3.) Cattle were tithed in and after Au
gust, corn in and after September, fruits of trees
in and after January (Godwyn, p. 137, § 9);
Buxtorf, Syn. Jud. c. xu. pp. 282, 283. (4.)
" Corners " were exempt from tithe (Peah, i. 6).
(5.) The general rule was that aU edible articles
uot purchased, were tithable, but that products
not specified in Deut. xiv. 23, were regarded as
doubtful. Tithe of them was not forbidden, but
waa not required (Maaserolh, i. 1; Demai, i. 1;
Carpzov, App. Bibl. pp. 619, 620). H. W. P.
* TITTLE is the diminutive of tit, hence =
minimum, the very least of a thing. It stands for
the Greek Kepaia (Matt. v. 18; Luke xvi. 17),
a litlle horn, denoting the slightly curved hooks at
tached to some of the Hebrew letters, especially
Lamed, more noticeable in Hebrew manuscripts than
in the ordinary printed Hebrew. It vitiated a letter
or an entire copy to omit this appendage where it
belonged. The jot in the same connection was the
G-reek iota or Hebrew yodli, the smaUest letter

a Uig birthplace may have been here ; but this is
]uite uncertain. The name, which is Roman, proves
DOthing

TITUS
of the Greek and Hebrew alphabets. It will be
seen how strong, therefore, was the Saviour's assev
eration: *' one jot or one tittle shaU iu no wise pass
from the law tiU aU be fulfilled " (Matt. y. 18). H.
TI'TUS MAN'LiaS. [Manuus.]
TI'TUS (Titos: Titus). Our materials forthe
biography of this companion of St. Paul must be
drawn entirely from the notices of him in the Second
Epistle to the Corinthians, the Galatians, and to
Titus himself, combined with the Second Epistle to
Timothy. He is not mentioned in the Acts at all,
The reading TiVou 'loiarov in Acts xviu. 7 is too
precarious for any inference to be drawn from iL
Wieseler indeed lays some sUght stress upon it
(Chronol. des Apost. Zeit. Gctt. 1848, p. 204),
but this is in connection with a theory which needs
every help. As to a recent hypothesis, that Titui
and Timothy were the same person (K. King, Whf
was Si. Titus ? Dublin, 1853), it is certainly in
genious, but quite untenable.
Taking the passages in the epistles in the chrono
logical order of the events referred to, we turn fiist
to Gal. ii. 1, 3. We conceive the journey men
tioned here to be identical with that (recorded m
Acts XV.) in which Paul and Barnabas went from
Ajotioch to Jerusalem to the conference which was
to decide the question of the necessity of circum
cision to the Gentiles. Here we see Titus in close
association with Paul and Barnabas at Antioch.** He
goes with them to Jerusalera. He is in fact one of
the Ttves dWoi of Acts xv. 2, wlio were deputed to
accompany them from Antioch. His circumcision
was either not insisted on at Jerusalem, or, if de
manded, was firmly resisted (ouk T]vayKdaBi{
irepiTinjSrtvai). He is very emphatically spoken oi
as a Gentile ("EWriv), by which is most probably
meant that both his parents were Gentiles. Here
is a double contrast from Timothy, who was cuuum-
cised by St. Paul's own directions, and oue cf whose
parents was Jewish (Acts xvi. 1, 3; 2 Tim. i. 6, iii
15). Titus would seem, on the occasion of the
council, to have been specially a representative of
the church of the uncircumcision.
It is to our purpose to remark that, in the pa.',-
sage cited above, Titus is so mentioned as apparently
to imply that he had become personally known to
the Galatian Christians. This, again, we combine
with two other circumstances, namely, that the
Epistle to the Galatians and tbe Second Epistle to
the Corinthians were probably written within a few
months of each other [Galatiaks, Epistle to],
and both during the same journey. From the latter
of these two epistles we obtain fuUer notices of
Titus in connection with St. Paul.
After leaving Galatia (Acts xviii. 23), and spend
ing a long time at Ephesus (Acts xix. 1-xx. 1),
the Apostle proceeded to Macedonia by way of Troas.
Here he expected to meet Titus (2 Cor. ii. 13), who
had heen sent on a mission to Corinth. In thia hope
he was disappointed [TuOAs], but in Macedonia
Titus joined him (2 Cor. vii. 6, 7, 13-15). Here
we begin to see not only the above-mentioned fact
of the mission of this disciple to Orinth, and the
strong personal affectiou which subsisted between
him and St. Paul (ev rp irapovtrltf o6toS, ']'¦ J)i
but also some part of the purport of the mission
itself. It had reference to the immoralities at
Corinth rebuked in the first epistle, and tu tlie
effect of that first epistle on the offending church.
We learn further that the mission was so far suo

TITUS
liessful and safcisfEictory : ^vayy4?0i.(i)v r^v \>uS>v
iirLTr60T]o'iv (vii. 7), iKvTrii67]re eis fierdvotav (vn.
9), tV irdvrtcv bij.av biraKO'i]V (vii. 15); and we
are enabled also to draw from the chapter a sfcrong
conclusion regarding the warm zeal and sympathy
of Titus, his grief for what was evil, his rejoicing
over what was good: ry irapaKh^ffei ^ irapeKX-fjdj]
e^* vjxtv (vii. 7); ava-Treiravrai rh -rrvevpa avrov
avh Trdvrav v^dtv (vii. 13); to, (nrxdyxva. avrov
¦n-epio'O'orepajs els u/xas ^o'rtv (vU. 15). But if we
proceed further, we discern another part of the
mission with which he was entrusted. This had
reference to the collection, at that time in progress,
for the poor Christians of Judsea (Kadd^s irpo-
evfjp^aro, viii. 6), a phrase which shows that he
had been active and zealous in the matter, while
the Corinthians themselves seem fco have been rather
remiss. This connection of his mission with the
gathering of these charitable funds is also proved by
another passage, which contains moreo\er an im
plied assertion of his integrity in the business (^^
ri 4w\eov€Kr7]0'ev vfxas Tiros'-, xii. 18), and a
statement that St. Paul himself had sent him on
the errand (jrapendXeoa Tirov, ibid.). * Thus we
are prepared for what the Apostle now proceeds to
do after his encouraging conversations with Titus
regardhig the Corinthian Church. He sends him
back from Macedonia to Corinth, in company with
two other trusfcworfchy Chrlsfcians [Trophimus,
Tychici;s], bearing the second episfcle, and with
an earnest request (irapaKaKeaai, viii. 6, r^v
irapdKhrjo'tv, viii. 17) that he would see to the
completion of the collection, which he had zealously
promoted on his lafce visifc {'Iva KaOihs irpoevfjp^aro,
ofircos Kal ewireKear}, viii. 6), Tifcus himself being
in nowise backward in underfcaking fche commission.
On a review of all fchese passages, elucidafcing as fchey
do fche characfcerisfcics of fche man, fche dufcies he dis
charged, and his close and faifchful cooperafcion with
St. Paul, we see how much meaning there is in
the Apostle's short and forcible descripfcion of him
(eire {iirep Tirov, Koivaviis i/xhs Kal eis v/mus
<rvvepy6^, viii. 23).
All fchafc has preceded is drawn from direcfc sfcate-
ments in the epistles ; but by indirect fchough fair
inference we can arrive afc somefching further, which
gives coherence fco the rest, with addifcional elucida
tions of the close connection of Tifcus with St. Paul
and the Corinthian Church. It has generaUy been
considered doubtful who fche dSeAq^of were (1 Cor.
xvi. 11, 12) fchat took the first epistle to Corinth.
Timothy, who had been recently sent thither from
Ephesus (Acts xix. 22), could nofc have been one of
fchem (4av eA.07? TifA. 1 Cor. xvi. 10), and Apollos
declined fche commission (1 Cor. xvi. 12). There
can be lifctle doubt thafc fche messengers who fcook
thafc firsfc lefcfcer were Titus and his companion, who
ever that might be, who is mentioued with him in
fche second letter (irapeKdXeffa Tirov, Kal (Twaire-
ffreiKa rhv ade\<}>6v, 2 Cor. xii. 18). This view
was held by Macknight, and very clearly set forth
by him ( Transl. of ihe Apostolical Epistles, vnth
Comm. Edinb. 1829, vol. i. pp. 451, 674, vol. n.
pp. 2, 7, 124). It has been more recently given
Dy Professor Sfcanley ( Corinthians, 2d ed. pp. 348,
492),'' bufc ifc has been worked oufc by no one so elab-
srafcely as by Professor Lighfcfoofc ( Camb. Journal
if Cictssical and Sacred Philology, ii. 201, 202).

TITUS

3267

As fco fche connection befcween fche fcwo contempora
neous missions of Titug and Timolheus, this obser
vation may be made here, that the difference of the
two errands may have had some connection with a
difference in the characters of the two agents. If
Titus was the firmer and more enei^etic of the fcwo
men, it was natural to give him the task of enfor
cing the Apostle's rebukes, and urging on the flag
ging business of the collection.
A considerable interval now elapses before we
come upon the next notices of this disciple. St.
Paul's first imprisonment is concluded, and his last
trial is impending. In the interval befcween the
two, he and Titus were together in Crete {kire\i-
it6v ae iv Kp-^rr), Tit. i. 5). We see Titus re
maining in the island when St. Paul leffc it, and
receiving there a letter written to him by the
Apostle. From this letter we gather the following
biographical defcails : In fche firsfc place we learn that
he was originally converted through St. Paul's in
strumentality : this must be the meaning of the
phrase yvi\<riov reKvov, which occurs so emphat
icaUy in the opening of the epistle (i. 4). Nexfc
we learn the various particulars of the responsible
duties which he had to discharge in Crete. He is
to complete what St. Paul had been obliged to leave
unfinished {'Iva rh Kenrovra iiridiop6d>(rr} , i- 5)>
and he is to oiganize fche church throughout the
island by appoinfcing presbyters in every city [GoR-
TYNA; Las^ea]. Insfcrucfcions are given as to the
suitable character of such presbyters (vv. 6-9); and
we learn further that we have here the repetition of
instructions previously furnished by word of mouth
(<tis iyd) a-oi 8tera^dfA.riv, ver. 5). Next he is to
control and bridle {i-jrio-rofxi^eiv, ver. 11) the rest
less and mischievous Judaizers, and he is to be per
emptory in so doing (e\eyx^ avrohs airor6pws,
ver. 13). Injunctions in the same spirifc are reiter
ated (ii. 1, 15, in. 8). He is fco urge fche dufcies of
a decorous and Chrisfcian Ufe upon fche women (ii.
3-5), some of whom (irpeff^vn^as, U. 3) possibly
had something of an official cbaracfcer (KaXo^idaa--
KaKovs, Iva <T<a<PpoviC<^a-i ras veas, vv. 3, 4). He
is fco be watchful over his own conduct (ver. 7); he
is to impress upon the slaves the peculiar duties of
their position (ii. 9, 10) ; he is to check aU social
and poUtical turbulence (iii. 1), and also aU wild
theological speculations (iii. 9); and to exercise dis
cipUne on the herefcical (iii. 10). When we con
sider aU fchese parfciculars of his duties, we see nofc
only the confidence reposed in him by the Aposfcle,
bufc fche need there was of determination and strength
of purpose, and therefore the probabiUty that this
was his character; and all this is enhanced if we
bear in mind his isolated and unsupported position
in Crete, and fche lawless and immoral character of
the Cretans themselves, as testified by their own
writers (i. 12, 13). [Crete.]
The notices which remain are more strictly per
sonal. Titus is to look for the arrival in Crete of
Artemas and Tychicus (iii. 12), and then he is to
hasten (a'TrovBaaov) to join St. Paul at Nicopolis,
where fche Apostle is proposing to pass the winter
(ibid.). Zenas and Apollos are in Crete, or expected
there; for Tifcus is fco send fchem on their journey,
and supply fchem with whatever they need for it
(in. 13). It is observable that Titus aud Apollos
are brought into juxtaposition here, as they were

o There is some danger of confusing Titv^ and the
Wither (2 Cor. xii. 18), i. e. the brethren of 1 Cor. xvi
U, 12, wlio (according to this view) took the first let

ter, witb Titus and the brethren (2 Cor. viii. 16-24) who
took the second letter.

8268

TITUS

before in the discussion of the mission from Ephe
sus to Corinth.
The movements of Sfc. Paul, wifch which these
later instructions to Titus are connected, are con
sidered elsewhere. [Paul; Timothy.] We need
only observe here thafc there would be great diffi
culty in inserfcing fche visifcs to Crete and NicopoUs
in any of the journeys recorded in the Acts, to say
nothing- of the other objections to giving the episfcle
iny date anterior to the vOyage to Rome. [Titus,
Epistle to.] On the other hand, there is no dif
ficulty in arranging fchese circumstances, if we sup
pose St. Paul to have travelled and written after
being Uberated from Rome, while thus we gain fche
further advantage of an explanation of what Paley
has weU called the affinity of this epistle and the
first fco Timothy. Whether Titus did join the
Apostle afc Nicopolis we cannofc tell. But we nat
urally connect the menfcion of fchis place wifch whafc
Sfc. Paul wrofce at no great interval of time after
wards, in the last of the pastoral epistles (tItos eis
AaXfiariav, 2 Tim. iv. 10); for Dalmatia lay to
the north of NicopoUs, at no great disfcance from it.
[Nicopolis.] From the form of the whole sen
tence, it seems probable that this disciple had been
wifch St. Paul in Rome during his final imprison
ment; but this cannot be asserted confidently. 'I'he
touchhig words of the Apostle in fchis passage mighfc
seem to imply some reproach, and we mighfc draw
from fchem fche conclusion that Titus became a sec
ond Demas: but on the whole this seems a harsh
and unnecessary judgmenfc.
Whatever else remains is l^endary, though ifc
may contain elemenfcs of fcrufch. Tifcus is connected
by tradition with Dalmatia, and he is said to have
been an object of much reverence in that region.
This, however, may simply be a result of the pas
sage quoted immediately above : and ifc is observ
able fchafc of all fche churches in modern Dalmafcia
CNeale's Ecclesiological Notes on Dalm. p. 175)
nofc one is dedicated to him. The fcradifcional con
necfcion of Titus with Crete is much more specific
and constant, though here again we cannot be cer
tain of the facts. He is said to have been perma
nent bishop iu the island, and fco have died there at
an advanced age. The modern capital, Candia, ap
pears to claim the honor of being his burial-place
(Cave's Apostolici, 1716, p. 42). In the fragment.
De VOd ei Actis Tiii, by the lawyer Zenas (Fabric.
Cod. Apoc. N. T. ii. 831, 832), Titus is called
Bishop of Gortyna: and on the old site of Gortyna
is a ruined church, of ancient and solid masonry,
wbich bears the name of Sfc. Tifcus, and where ser
vice is occasionally celebrafced by priests from fche
neighboring hamlet of Metropolis (E. Falkener,
Remains in Crete, from a MS. History of Can
dia by Onorio Belli, p. 23). The cathedral of Afe-
gah-Castron, in fche north of fche island, is also
dedicated to this saint. Lastly, the name of Titus
was the watchword of fche Crefcans when they were
invaded bythe Venetians: and the Venetians thera-
Belves, after their conquest of the island, adopted him
to some of the honors of a patron saint; for, as the
response after the prayer for the Doge of Venice
was *' Sancte Marce, tu nosadjuva," so the response
after thafc for fche Duke of Candia was " Sancte Tite,
tu nos adjuva" (Pashley*s Travels in Crete, i. 6,
175).o

a The day on which Titus is commemorated Is
Tanuary 4 iu the Latin Calendai-, and Aufpisfc 26 in
the Greek.

TITUS, EPISTLE TO
We must nofc leave unnofciced the striking, thotigh
extravagant, panegyric of Titus by his successor in
fche see of Crete, Andreas Cretensis (published, with
Amphilochius and Methodius, by Combefis, Paris,
1644). This panegyric has many exceUent points:
e. g. it incorporates well the more important pas
sages from the Second Episfcle to fche Corinthiaiie.
The foUowing are stated as facts. Titus is related
to the Proconsul of the island : araong his ancestors
are Minos and Rhadamanthus (ol 4k At6s)' Early
in Ufe he obtains a copy of the Jewish Scriptures,
and learns Hebrew in a short time. He goes to
Judaea, and is present on the occasion mentioned
in Acts i. 15. His conversion takes place before
that of St. Paul himself, but afterwards he attache.^
himself closely to the Apostle. Whatever the value
of these statements may be, the foUowing descrip
tion of Titus (p. 156) is worthy of quotation: &
wparos rrjs Kpijrtav iKKKTjffias BefiiKios' t's
a\7}Beias 6 crvKos' rh rrjs irirrews epetat/a-
rwv evayye\iK&v KT}pvyfj.drQ)v 7} aaiyT}ros aaX-
TTcyl" rh inb7}\hv rrjs HavXov y\d^rrT}s a7r^Y7;/ia.
TOO
TITtrS, EPISTLE TO. There are 'no
specialties in this epistle which require any very
elaborate treatment distinct from the other Pastoral
Letters of St. Paul. [Timothy, Epistles to.]
If those two were not genuine, it would be diffi
cult confidently to maintain the genuineness of this.
On the other hand, if the epistles to Timothy are
received as St. Paul's, there is not the slightest
reason for doubting the authorship of that to Titus.
Amidst the various combinations which are found
among those who have been skeptical on the sub
ject of the pastoral epistles, there is no instance of
the rejection of that before us on the part of those
who have accepted the other two. So far indeed
as these doubts are worth considering at all. tbe
argument is more in favor of this than of either
of those. Tatian accepted the Epistle to Titus,
and rejected the other two. Origen mentions BOine
who excluded 2 Tim., but kept 1 Tim. with Titus.
Schleiermacher and Neander invert this process of
doubt in regard to the letters addressed to Timothy,
hut believe that St. Paul wrote the present letter
to Titus. Credner too believes it to be genume,
though he pronounces 1 Tim. to be a forgery, and
2 Tim. a compound of two epistles.
To turn now from opinions to direct external
evidence, this epistle stands on quite as firm a
ground as the others of the pastoral group, if not
a firmer ground. Nothing can well be more ex
plicit than the quotations in Irenseus, C. ffteres. i.
16, 3 (see Tit. iii. 10), Qem. Alex. Strom, i. 350
(see i. 12), Tertull. De Pressor. Seer. e. 6 (see iii.
10, 11), and the reference, also Adv. Marc. v.
21; to say nothing of earlier allusions in Justin
Martyr, Dial. c. Trtgth. 47 (see iii. i), which can
hardly be doubted, Theoph. Ad Autol. ii. p. 96
(see iii. 5), iii. 126 (see iii. 1), which are probable,
and Clem. Kom. 1 Cor. 2 (see iii. 1), which ia
possible. As to internal features, we may notice, in the
first place, that the Epistle to Titus has all the char
acteristics of the other pastoral epistles. See, for
instance, iriarhs 6 \dyos('iii. S),uyiaivoutra SiSatr
Kahia (i. 9, ii. 1, comparing i. 13, ii. 8), aatpptr
veiv, fft^tppcov, tranppdvats (i- 8, ii. 5, 6, 12), ffurif
pios, ainTiip, iTi6ftD (i. 3, 4, ii. 10, 11, 13, iii. 4, I'l
6), 'louSaiKol /xCfloi (i- 14, comparing iii. 9), hir
ipdveta (ii. 13), eutrefieia (i. 1), e\e s (iii. 6; ini
4 the word is doubtful). All this tends to aho*

TITUS, EPISTLE TO
that this letter was written about the same time
md under similar circumstances with the other two.
But, on the other hand, this epistle has marks in
its phraseology and style which assimilate it to the
general body of the epistles of St. Paul. Such may
fairly be reckoned fche following: Ktjpvypart h
iirta-re^dTjv iy<^ (i. 3); the quotafcion from a
heafchen poefc (i. 12); fche use of &,d6Kifj.os (i- 16);
the *' going oflf at a word " (awr^pos .... ^ttc-
(jtdvy] yap .... aar-fiptos . . . . U- 10, 11);
and the modes in which the docfcrines of fche Atone
ment (ii. 13) and of Free Justification (ui. 5-7)
corae to fche surface. As to any difficulty arising
from supposed indications of advanced hierarchical
arrangements, it is to be observed that in this epis
tle TTpea-p^repos and ewla-KOTros are used as synon
ymous {'Iva Karaor-fiarjs trpetr^vrepovs .... Set
yhp rhv eiria-Koirov. . . , i- 5, 7), jusfc as they are
in fche address afc Miletus about the year 58 A. d.
(Acts XX. 17, 28). At the same time this epistle
has features of its own, especiaUy a certain tone of
abruptness and severity, which probably arises
partly out of the circumstances of the Cretan popu
lation [Crete], partly oufc of fche cbaracfcer of Ti
fcus himself. If all these things are put together,
the phenomena are seen to be very unlike what
would be presented by a forgery, to say nothing of
the general overwhelming difficulty of imagining
who could have been the writer of the pastoral
episfcles, if it were nofc Sfc. Paul himself.
CJoncerning fche confcenfcs of fchis episfcle, some
thing has already been said in the article on Titus.
No very exact subdivision is either necessary or
possible. After fche infcroducfcory salufcation, which
_ has marked pecuUarifcies (i. 1-4), Tifcus is enjoined
fco appoint suitable presbyters in the Cretan Church,
and specially such as shaU be sound in doctrine and
able to refute error (5-9). The Apostle then passes
to a description of the coarse character of the Cre
tans, as testified by their own writers, and the mis
chief caused by Judaizing error among the Chris
tians of the island (10-16). In opposition to this,
Titus is to urge sound and practical Christianifcy
on aU classes (ii. 1-10), on fche older men (ii. 2), on
fche older womem, and especiaUy in regard to their
influence over the younger woraen (3-5), on the
younger men (6-8), on slaves (9, 10), taking heed
meanwhile that he himself is a pattern of good
works (ver. 7). The grounds of all this are given
in the free grace which trains the Christian to self-
denying and active piety (11, 12), in the glorious
hope of Chrisfc's second advent (ver. 13), and in the
atonement by which He has purchased us fco be his
people (ver. 14). All which lessons Titus is to urge
with fearless decision (ver. 15). Next, obedience
to rulers is enjoined, with gentleness and forbear
ance towards all men (iii. 1, 2), these duties being
again rested on our sense of pasfc sin (ver. 3), and
ou fche giffc of new spirifcual Ufe and free justification
(4-7). With these practical dufcies are confcrasfced
those idle speculations which are to be carefuUy
avoided (8, 9); and wifch regard fco fchose men who
are posifcively herefcical, a perempfcory charge is
given (10, 11). Some personal aUusions then fol
low: Artemas or Tychicus may be expected at
Crete, and on the arrival of either of them Titus is
to hasten fco join the Apostle at Nicopolis, where
\e intends to winfcer; Zenas the lawyer also, and
ApoUos, are to be provided with aU that is necessary
for a journey in prospect (12, 13). FinaUy, before
the concludhig messages of salutation, an adraoni-
^on is given to the Cretan Christians, that thdy

TITUS, EPISTLE TO 3269
give heed to the duties of practical, useful piety '
(1-i. 15)-
As to the time and place and other circumstances
of the writing of this epistle, the following scheme
of filling up St. Paul's movements after his first
imprisonment wUl satisfy all the conditions of the
case: We may suppose him (possibly after accom
pUshing his long-projected visit to Spain) to have
gone to Ephesus, and taken voyages from thence,
first to Macedonia and then to Crete, during the
former to have written the First Epistle to Tim
othy, and after returning from the latter to ha^-e
written the Epistle to Titus, being at the time of
despatching it on the point of starting for Nicop
olis, t* which place he went, taking Miletus and
Corinth on fche way. At NicopoUs we may con
ceive him to have been finaUy apprehended aud
taken to Rome, whence he wrote the Second Epis
tle to Timothy. Other p<Ksible combmatious may
be seen in Birks (Horce Aposiollcce, at the end of
his edition of the Horce Paulinm, pp. 299-301),
and in Wordsworth (Greek Testameni-, Pt. iii. pp.
418, 421). It is an undoubted mistake to en
deavor to insert this epistle in any period of thafc
parfc of St. Paul's life which is recorded in the
Acts of the Apostles. There is in this writing
that unmistakable diUerence of style (as compared
with the earUer epistles) which associates the Pas
toral Letters wifch one anofcher, and with the latesfc
period of Sfc. Paul's Ufe; and it seems strange that
this should have been so sUghtly observed by good
scholars and exact chron ologists, e. g. Archdn.
Evans (Script. Biog. iii. 327-333), and Wieseler
{Chronol. des Apost Zeitali. pp. 329-355), who,
approaching the suliject in very different ways, agree
in thinking that fchis letter was written at Ephesus
(befcween 1 and 2 Cor.), when the Apostle was in
the early part of his third missionary journey
(Acts xix.).
The foUowing Ust of commentaries on the Pas
toral Epistles may be useful for 1 and 2 Tim., as
well as for Titus. Besides the general Patristic
commentaries on aU St. Paul's epistles (Chrysos
tom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Jerome, Bede, Al-
cuin), the Medieval (GEcumenius, Euthymius,
Aquinas), those of the Reformation period (Luther,
Melancthon, Calvin), fche earlier Roman Cafcholic
(Jusfciniani, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius), the Prot
estanfc commentaries of the 17th century (Cocceius,
Grotius, etc.), and the recent annotations on the
whole Greek Testament (Rosenmiiller, De Wette,
Alford, Wordsworth, etc.), fche foUowing on the
Pastoral Epistles may be specified : DaiU^, Exposi
tion (1 Tim. Genev. 1661, 2 Tim. Genev. 1659,
Tit Par. 1655); Heydenreich, Die Pastor alhrieft
Pauli erldwteH (Hadam. 1826, 1828); Flatt, Var-
lesungen iiber die Br. P. an Tim. u. Tit (Tiib.
1831); Mack (Roman CathoUc), Comm. iiber die
PasioraWriefe (Tub. 1836); Matthies, Erkldrung
der Pasiorcdbriefe (Greifew. 1840); Huther (part
[xi.] of Meyer's Commentary, Gott. 1850 [3e Aufl.
1866]); Wiesinger (in continuation of Olshausen,
Koenigsb. 1850), translated (with the exception of
2 Tim.) in Clark's Foreign Theolog. Lib. (Edinb,
1851 [the whole is translated in vol. vi. of the
Amer. ed. of Olshausen, N. Y. 1858]), and espe
ciaUy ElUcott (Pastoral Epistles, 2d ed., London,
1861), who mentions in his preface a Danish com
mentary by Bp. MoUer, and one in modem Greek,
^vveK^vfios 'UpariK6s, by Coray (Pan 1831).
Besides these, there are commentaries on 1 Tim.
and 2 Tim. by Mosheim (Hamb. 1755 ;, and Lee

3270

TIZITE, THE

(Lips. 1837, 1850), on 1 Tim. by Fleischmann
(Tiib. 1791), and Wegscheider (Giitt. 1810), on 2
Tim. by J. Barlow and T. Hall (Lond. 1632 and
1658), and by Brcchner (Hafn. 1829), on Tit. by
T. Taylor (London, 1668), Tan Haven (Hal. 1742),
and Kuinoel (Comment. Theol. ed. Telthusen,
Ruperti et Kuinoel [i. p. 292 flF.] ). To these must
be added what is found io the Critici Sacri, Supp.
ii., v., vii., and a stiil fuller list is given in Dar
ling's Cyclopoedia Bibliographica ; Pt. ii. Subjects,
pp. 1535, 1555, 1574. J. S. H.
* The earlier literature of the controversy on
the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles is referred
to in the art. Timothy, Epistles to. Among
the more recent essays on the subject we may
name the following : C. E. Scharling, Die neuesten
Untersuchungen Ub. die sogenannten Pastorai-
briefe, aus dem Ddnischen, Jena, 1846 (unde
cided). Th. Rudow, De Argumentis Iiisloricis,
quibus recenfer Episiolarum Past. Origo Paulina
impugnata esi, a prize essay. Getting. 1852 (rejects
1 Tim., with Liicke and Bleek, but defends 2 Tim.
and Titus). W. Mangold, Die Irrhitrer der Pas-
ttrralbriefe, Marb. 1856. C. W. Otto, Die ge^
schichtUchen Verhdllnisse der Pastoralbr'tefe aufs
Neue untersucht, Xjevpz. 1860, pp. xvi., 408 (de
fends the genuineness of the epistles, but weakens
the argument by denying the Apostle's release
from his first imprisonment); comp. the review by
Weiss, Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1861, pp 575-597,
and Huther's criticisms in the 3d ed. of his Krit.
exeg. Handbuch (1866). L. Ruffet, Saint Paul,
sa double captiviie a Rcrme, Paris, 1860. Reuss,
Gesch. d. heil. Schrifien N. T. (4e Ausg. 1864 ), pp.
76 fir., 112 flF. (defends the genuineness). Wieseler,
art. Timotheus u. Titus, die Briefe Pauli an, in
Herzog's Real-Encykl. xxi. 276-342 (1866 ). Holtz
mann, in Bunsen's Bibehnerk, viii. 486-512 (1866),
reviewing the recent literature. Laurent, Neutest.
Studien (1866), p. 104 ff., chiefly on the point of
Paul's release from his first imprisonment, which
he maintains; so Ewald, Geschichte, vi. 620 f.,
3*^ Ausg. It may be noted here that recent ex
aminations of the Alexandrine MS. show that the
reading iirX rb reppia ttjs ZiaetDS in the Epist.
of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (c. 5) is
unquestionable. See on the passage Lightfoot's
note, in his excellent edition of the epistle (1869).
L. Moller, in the 3d ed. of the part of De Wette's
Kurzgef. exeg. Handbuch (Bd. ii. Theil v.) whioh
contains the Pastoral Epistles, observes that, though
formerly holding a pretty firm conviction of their
spuriousness, renewed study has satisfied him of
the untenableness or altogether too subjective char
acter of many of the objections to them, though
he cannot yet feel that confidence in tbeir genuine
ness which the recent commentators (Wiesinger,
Huther, Oosterzee) express (Pref, p. x.). Gwer-
icke, .iVeatesi. Isagogik, 3" Aufl. (1868), pp. 350-
390, defends the genuineness of these epistles, as in
his earher works. Davidson, Introd. io the Study
ofthe N. T. (Lond. 1808), ii. 144-195, repeats the
arguments of the Tiibingen school against them.
To the Hst of commentaries on the Pa.<itoral
Epistles given above, we may add that of J. J.
van Oosterzee, Theil xi. of Lange's Bibelwerk (2^
Aufl. 1864), translated with additions by Dr. E.
A. Washburn and Dr. E. Harwood, in vol. viii. of
the Amer. ed. of Lange (N. Y. 1868). A,
Tl'ZITE, THE (''Vrin [patr.]: Vat. and
FA. 0 leairei; [Rom. Qieaah] Alex. Qceaaei:

TOBIAH
Thosaites). The designation of Joha, the brothei
of Jediael and son of Shimri, one cf the heroes of
David's army named in the supplementary list of 1
Chr. xi. 45. It occurs nowhere else, and nothuig
is known of the place or family which it denotes. G.
TO' AH (n'l;^ [inclined, htioly, Ges:]: eiooi;
[Vat. 0Eie;] Alex, ©ooue: Thohu). A Kohathite
Levite, ancestor of Samuel and Heman (1 Chr. vi.
34 [19] ). The name as it now stands may be a
fragment of " Nahath " (comp. w. 26, 34).
TOB-ADONI'JAH (n>3'n^? 2113 [^aod
is A.]: Ta>PaSovias; [Vat. Ta>0dSi.iPiia; Alex.l
Tto/SaSwciac, 2. m. -m:] Thobadonias). One of
the Levites sent by Jehoshaphat through the cities
of Judah to teach the Law to the people (2 Chr
ii. 8).
TOB, THE LAND OF (2ia V!;!^ [bmd
of goodness, fruitful] : yq TdS3 : terra Tob). Tho
place in which Jephthah took refuge when expelled
from home by his half-brother (Judg. xi. 3); and
where he remained, at the head of a band of free-
hooters, till he was brought back by the sheikhs"
of Gilead (ver. 5).
The narrative implies that the land of Tob waa
not far distant from Gilead: at the same time,
Irom the nature of the case, it must have lain out
towards the eastern deserts. It is undoubtedly
mentioned again in 2 Sam. x. 6, 8, as one of the
petty Aramite kingdoms or states which supported
the Ammonites in their great conflict with David.
In the Authorized Version the name is presented
Itteralim as Ishtob, i. e. Man of Tob, meaning,
according to a common Hebrew idiom, the "men
of Tob." After an immense interval it appears
again in the Maccabsean history (1 Mace. v. 13).
Tob or Tobie was then the abode of a considerable
colony of Jews, numbering at least a thousand
males. In 2 Mace. xii. 17 its position is defined
very exactly as at or near Charax, 750 stadia fi-om
the strong town Caspis, though, as the position of
neither of these places is known, we are not there
by assisted in the recovery of Tob. [Tobie;
TUBIENI.] Ptolemy (Geogr. v. 19) mentions a place called
©aD^a as lying to the S. W. of Zobah, and there
fore possibly to the E. or N. E. of the country of
Ammon proper. In Stephanus of Byzantium and
in Eckhel (Doctr. Numm. iii. 352), the names
Tubal and Tabeni occur.
No identification of this ancient district with
any modern one has yet beeu attempted. The
name TeU Dobbe (Burckhardt, Syria, April 25),
as it is given by the latest explorer of those
regions, TeU Dibbe (Wetzstein, Map), attached to
a ruined site at the south end of the Leja, a few
miles N. W. of Kendwai, and also that of ed-Dab,
some twelve hours east of the mountain el-Kuleib,
are both suggestive of Tob. But nothing can bf
said, at present, as to their connection with it. G.
TOBI'AH (n»21t3 [goodness of Jehomh]:
Ta$ias [Vat. Twgili'a], Ta^io: ToHa). 1. "The
children of Tobiah " were a family who returned
with Zerubbabel, but were unable to prove theii
connection with Israel (l<ir. ii. 60; Neh. vii. 62).

a The word is ''3|?^, which exactly answen U
sheikhs.

TOBIAS
2. ([Neh, ii. 19, FA. TwiSeio; iv. 3, FA.l tw-
fljs:] Tobias.) "Tobiah the slave, the Ammon
ite," played a conspicuous part in the rancorous
opposition made by Sanballat the Moabite and his
adherents to the rebuilduig of Jerusalem. The
two raeea of Moab and Amnion found in these
men fit representatives of that hereditary hatred
to the Israelites which began before the entrance
into Canaan, and was not extinct when the lie-
brews had ceased to exist as a nation. The hor
rible story of the origin of the Moabites and Am
monites, as it was told by the Hebrews, is an index
of the feeling of repulsion which must have existed
between these hostile families of men. In the
dignified rebuke of Nehemiah it received its high
est expression: "ye have no portion, nor right,
nor memorial in Jerusalem " (Neh. ii. 20). But
Tobiah, though a slave (Neh. ii. 10, 19), unless
this is M. title of opprobrium, and an Ammonite,
found means to ally himself with a priestly family,
and his son Johanan married the daughter of
Meshullam the son of Berechiah (Neh. vi. 18).
He himself was the son-in-law of Shechaniah the
son of Arab (Neh. vi. 17), and these family re
lations created for him a strong faction among
the Jews, and may have had something to do with
the stern measures which Ezra found it necessary
to take to repress the intermarriages with foreigners.
Even a grandson of the high-priest EUashib had
married a daughter of Sanballat (Neh. xiii. 28). In
xiii. 4 EUashib is said to have been allied to Tobiah,
which would imply a relationship of some kind
between Tobiah and Sanballat, though its nature
is not mentioned. The evil had spread so far that
the leaders of the people were compelled to rouse
their reUgious antipathies by reading frora the Law
of Moses the strong prohibition that the Ammon
ite and the Moabite should not come into the con
gregation of God for ever (Neh. xiii. 1). Ewald
(Gesch. iv. 173) conjectures that Tobiah had been
a page ("slave ") at the Persian court, and, being
in favor there, had been promoted to be satrap of
the Ammonites. But it almost seems that against
Tobiah there was a stronger feeling of animosity
than against Sanballat, and that this animosity
found expression in tbe epithet " the slave," which
is attached to his name. It was Tobiah who gave
venom to the pitying scorn of SanbaUat (Neh. iv.
3), and provoked the bitter cry of Nehemiah (Neh.
iv. 4, 5); it was Tobiah who kept up communica
tions with the factious Jews, and who sent letters
to put their leader in fear (Neh. vi. 17, 19): but
his crowning act of insult was to take up his resi
dence in the Temple in the chamber which Eliashib
had prepared for him in defiance of the Mosaic
statute. Nehemiah's patience could no longer con
tain itself, " therefore," he says, " I cast forth all
the household stuff of Tobiah out of the cham
ber," and with this summary act Tobiah disappears
from history (Neh. xiii. 7, 8). W. A. W.
TOBI'AS. The Greek form of the name To
biah or Tobijah. 1. (TtoPtas: T/wbias, Tobias.)
The son of Tobit, and central character in the book
of that name. [Tobit, Book of.]
2. The father of Hyrcanus, apparently a man of
{real wealth and reputation at Jerusalem in the
time of Seleucus Philopator (cir. b. o. 187). In
the high-priestly schism which happened afterwards
[Menelaus], "the sons of Tobias" took a con-
ipicuous part (Joseph. Ant. xii. 5, § 1). One of
Uiese, Joseph, who raised himself by intrigue to

TOBIT, BOOK OE

3271

high favor with the Egyptian court, had a son
named Hyrcanus (Joseph. Ant. xii. 4, § 2). It
has been supposed that this is the Hyrcanus re
feiTed to in 2 Mace. iii. 11 ; and it is not impossi
ble that, for some unknown rea.son (as in the case
of the Maccabees), the whole family were called
after their grandfather, to the exclusion of the
father's name. On the other hand, the natural
recurrence of names in successive generations makes
it more probable that the Hyrcanus mentioned in
Josephus was a nephew of the Hyrcanus in 2 Mace.
(Comp. Ewald, Gesch. d. V. I. iv. 309; Grimm,
ad Mace. 1. c). B. F. W.
TO'BIB, THB PLACES OP (iv rois
TovPiov [Rom. TmjS'ou] • in locis Tuhin : Syr.
TuiAn). A district which in the time of the
Maccabees was the seat of an extensive colony of
Jews (1 Mace. v. 13). It is in all probability
identical with the Laud of Tob mentioned in the
history of Jephthah. [See also Tubieni.] G.
TO'BIEL (bN^aia, Ae goodness of God:
Ta$fll\: Thobiel, Tobiei), the father of Tobit and
grandfather of Tobias (1), Tob. i. 1. The name
may be compared with Tabael (Ta^e^A). [Ta
bael.] B. F. W.
TOBI'JAH (^n*3SlO [goodness of Jeho
vah]: Taifiias; [Vat.'Alex. omit:] Thobias). 1.
One of the Levites sent by Jehoshaphat to teach
the Law in the cities of Judah (2 Chr. xvii. 8).
2. (ol xp'^a'.^i avrris: Ttiblis.) One of the
Captivity in the time of Zechariah, in whose pres
ence the prophet was commanded to take crowns
of silver and gold and put them on the head of
Joshua the high-priest (Zech. vi. 10). In ver. 14
his name appears in the shortened form n*31t3.
Rosenmiiller conjectures that he was one of a
deputation who came up to Jerusnlem, from the
Jews who still remained in Babylon, with contri
butions of gold and silver for the Temple. But
Maurer considers tbat the offerings were presented
by Tobijah and his companions, because the crowns
were commanded to be placed in the Temple as a
memorial of their visit and generosity. W. A. W.
TO'BIT (Ta$ei6, TmySeiV, Tai/SiV: Vulg. To
bias; Vat. Lat. Tobi, Thobi, T'oi/.'i). the son of To
biei (Tm;8i^\: Thobiel, Tobiei) and father of Tobias
(Tob. i. 1, etc.). [Tobit, Book of.] The name
appeal's to answer to ^^ItD, which occurs frequently
iu later times (Fritzsche, ad. Tob. i. 1), and not (aa
Welte, Einl. 65) to njalKi; yet in that casa
Tafits, according to the analogy of Aeuis (""T^)!
would have been the more natural form. Th?
etymology of the word is obscure, llgen translates
it simply "my goodness; " Fritzsche, with greatei
probability, regards it as an abbreviation of n*31tS
comparing Me\xi (Luke iii. 24, 28), T^THi ^t"-
(ac? Tob. 1. c). The form in the Vulgate is of no
weight against the Old Latin, except so far as it
shows the reading of the Chaldaic text which Jeroine
used, in which the identity of the names of the
father and son is directly affirmed (i. 9, Vulg.).
B !•'. W.
TO'BIT, BOOK OF. The book is called
simply Tobit (Tcoffir, TcoBelr) in the old MSS.
At a later time the opening words of tlie book, Bij8-
\os \6yav TrnPir, were taken as » title. In

B272

TOBIT, BOOK OP

Latin MSS. it is styled Tobis, Liber Thobis, Liber
Tvbiie (Sabatier, p. 706), Tobit et Tobias, Liber
utriusque Tdbice (Fritzsche, Eird. § 1).
1. Text. — The book exists at present in Greek
Latin, Syriac, and Hebrew texts, whioh differ more
or less from one another in detail, but yet ou the
whole are so far alike that it is reasonable to sup
pose that ajl were derived fmni one written original,
which was modified m the course of translation or
transcription. The Greek text is found in two
distinct recensions. The one is followed by the
mass of the MSS. of the LXX., and gives the oldest
text which remains. The other is only fragmen
tary, and manifestly a revision of the former. Of
this, one piece (i. l-ii. 2) is contained in the Cod.
Sinalticus ( = Cod. Frid. Augustanus), and another
in three later MSS. (44, 106, 107, Holmes aud
Parsons; vi. 9-xiii. ; Fritzsche, Exeg. Handb. 71-
110). The Latin texts are also of two kinds.
The common (Vulgate) text is due to Jerome, who
formed it b}' a very hasty revision of the old Latin
version with the help of a Chaldee copy, which was
translated into Hebrew for him by an assistant who
was master of both languages. The treatment of
the text in this recension is very arbitrary, as might
be expected from the description which Jerome
gives of the mode in which it was made (comp.
Prcef. in Tob. § 4) ; and it is of very little critical
value, for it is impossible to distinguish accurately
the different elements which are incorporated in it.
The ante-Hieronymian (Vetus Latina) texts are far
more valuable, though these present considerable
variations among themselves, as generaUy happens,
and represent the revised and not the original Greek
text. Sabatier has given one text from these MSS.
of the eighth century and also abided various read
iugs from another MS., formerly in the possession
of Christina of Sweden, which contains a distinct
version of a considerable part of the book, i.-vi. 12
(Bibl. ImI. ii. 706). A third text is found in the
quotations of the Speculum, published by Mai, Spi-
cileg. Rom. ix. 21-23. The f/ebrew versions are
of no great weight. One, which was pubhshed by
1*. Fagius (1542), after a Constantinopohtan edition
of 1517, is closely moulded on the common Greek
text without being a servile translation (Fritzsche,
§ 4). Another, published by S. Miinster (1542,
etc.), is based upon the revised text, but is extremely
free, and is rather an adaptation than a version.
Both these versions, with the Syriac, are reprinted
in Walton's Polyglot, and are late Jewish works of
uncertain date (Fritzsche, I. c. llgen, ch. xvu. ff. ).
The Syriac version is of a composite character. As
far as ch. vii. 9 it is a close rendering of the com
mon Greek text of the LXX., but from this point
to the end it foUowa the revised text, a fact which
is noticed in the margin of one of the MSS.
2. Contents. — The, outline of the book is as fol
lows. ,Tobit, a Jew of the tribe of NaphtaU, who
strictly observed the Law and remained faithful to
the Temple-service at Jerusalem (i. 4-8), w.is carried
captive iio Assyria by Shalmaneser. While in cap
tivity he exerted himself to reUeve his countrymen,
which his favorable position at court (dyopaoriis,
i. 13, "purveyor") enabled him to do, and at this
time he was rich enough to lend ten talents of silver
to a countryman, Gabael of Rages in Media. But
when Sennacherib succeeded his father Salmaneser,
the fortune of Tobit was changed. He was accused
if burying the Jews whom the king had put to
leath, and was only able to save himself, his wife
Anna, and his son Tobias, by flight. Ou the ac-

TOBIT, BOOK Olr
cession of Esarhaddon he was allowed to letum to
Nineveh, at the intercession of hia nephe«, Achi-
acharus, who occupied a high place in the king's
household (i. 22); but his zeal for his countrymen
brought him into a strange misfortune. As he lay
one night in the court of his house, being unclean
from having buried a Jew whom his son had found
strangled hi the market-place, sparrows "muted
warm dung into his eyes," and he became blind.
Being thus disabled, he was for a time supported by
Achiacharus, and after his departure (read iropei-
Bn, ii. 10), by the labor of his wife. On one oc
casion he falsely accused her of stealing a kid which
had been added to her wages, and in return she re
proached him with the miserable issue of aU his
righteous deeds. Grieved by her taunts he prayed
to' God for help; and it happened that on the same
day Sara, his kinswoman (vi. 10, 11), the only
daughter of Raguel, also sought help from God
against the reproaches of her father's household.
For seven young men wedded to her had perished
on their marriage night by the power of the evU
spirit Asmodeus [Asmodeus] ; and she thought
that she should " bring her father's old age witli
sorrow unto the grave" (iu. 10). So Raphael was
sent to deliver both from their sorrow. In the
mean time Tobit called to mind the money which
he had lent to Gabael, and despatched Tobias, with
many wise counsels, to reclaim it (iv.). On this
Raphael (under the form of a kinsman, Azarias)
offered himself as a guide to Tobias on his journey
to Media, and they " went forth both, and tl,e
young man's dog wiih them," and Anna was com
forted for the absence of her son (v.). When they
reached the Tigris, Tobias was commanded by Ba-
phael to take " the heart, and liver, and gaU " of " a
fish which leaped out of the river and would have
devoured him," and instructed how to use the first
two against Asmodeus, for Sara, Raphael said, was
appointed to be his wife (vi.). So when' they
reached Ecbatana they were entertained by Raguel,
and in accordance with the words c f the angel, Sara
waa given to Tobias in marriage that night, and
Asmodeus was " driven to the utmost parts of
Egypt," where " the angel bound him" (vu.,viu.).
After this Raphael recovered the loan from Gabael
(ix.), and Tobias then returned with Sara and half
her father's goods to Nineve (x.). Tobit, informed
by Anna of their son's approach, hastened to meet
him. Tobias by the command of the angel applied
the fish's gaU to his father's eyes and restored his
sight (x.). After this Raphael, addressing to both
words of good counsel, revealed himseK, and " they
saw him no more " (xii.). On this Tobit expressed
his gratitude in a fine psalm (xiii.); and he Uved to
see the long prosperity of his son (xiv. 1, 2). After
his death Tobias, according to his instruction, re
turned to Ecbatana, and " before he died he heard
of the destruction of Nineve," of which " Jonas th'
prophet spake " (xiv. 15, 4).
3. Historical Character. — The narrative which
has been just sketched, seems to have been received
without inquiry or" dispute as historically true tiU-
the rise of free criticism at the Reformation. Luther,
while warmly praising the general teaehing of the
book (comp. § 6), yet expressed doubts as to its
literal trutb, and these doubts graduaUy gained a
wide currency among Protestant writers. Bertholdt
(Einl. § 579 ) has given a summary of alleged errors
in detail (e. g. 1. 1, 2, of Naphthali, compared with
2 K. XV. 29 ; vi. 9, Rages, said to have been founded
by Sel. Nicator), but the question turns rather upot

TOBIT, BOOK OF
ths general complexion of the history than upon
minute objections, which are often captious and
rarely satisfactory (comp. Welte, Einl. pp. 84-94).
This, however, is fatal to the supposition that the
book could have been corapleted shortly after the faU
of Nineveh (b. c. 606; Tob. xiv. 15), and written
in the main some time before (Tob. xii. 20). The
whole tone of the narrative bespeaks a later age ; and
above aU, the doctrine of good and evU spirits is
elaborated in a form which belongs to a period con
siderably posterior to, the Babylonian Captivity
(Asmodeus, iii. 8, vi. 14, vui. 3; Raphael, xii. 15).
¦The incidents, again, are completely isolated, and
there is no reference to them in any part of Scrip
ture (the supposed paraUels, Tob. iv. 15 (16) ||
Matt. vii. 12; Tob. xiii. 16-18 || Rev. xxi. 18, are
mere general ideas), nor in Josephus or Philo.
.A.ud though the extraordinary character of the de
tails, as such, is no objection against tbe reaUty of
the occurrences, yet it may be fairly urged that the
character of the alleged miraculous events, wheu
taken together, is aUeu from the general character
ot such events in the historical books of Scripture,
while there is nothing exceptional in the circum
stances of the persons as in the case of Daniel
[Daniel, vol. i. 543], which might serve to explain
this difference. On all these grounds it may cer
tainly be concluded that the narrative is not simply
history, and it is superfluous to inquire how far it
is based upon facts. It is quite possible that some
real occurrences, preserved by tradition, furnished
the basis of the narrative, but it does not follow by
any means thatthe eUmination of the extraordinary
details wiU leave behind pure history (so llgen),
As the book stands it is a distinctly didactic narra
tive. Its point lies in the moral lesson which it
conveys, and not in the incidents. The incidents
furnish lively pictures of the truth which the author
wished to inculcate, but the lessons themselves are
independent of them. Nor can any weight be laid
on the minute exactness \yith which apparently
unimportant details are described (e. g. the geneal
ogy and dweUing-place of Tobit, i. 1, 2 ; the mar
riage festival, viii. 20, xi. 18, 19, quoted by llgen
and Welte), as proving the reaUty of the events,
for such particularity is characteristic of Eastern
romance, and appears again in the book of Judith.
The writer in composing his story necessaiily ob
served the ordinary form of a historical narrative.
4. Original Language and Revisions. — In the
absence of aU direct evidence, considerable doubt
has been felt as to the original language of the book.
The superior clearness, simpUcity, and accuracy of
the LXX. text prove conclusively that this is nearei-
the original than any other text which is known, if
it be not, as some have supposed (Jahn and Fritzsche
doubtfully), the original itself. Indeed, the argu
ments which have been brought forward to show
that it is a translation are far from conclusive. The
supposed contradictions between different parts of
the book, especiaUy tbe change from the first (i.-iii.
6) to the third person (iu. 7-xiv.), from which llgen
endeavored to prove that the narrative was made
up of distinct Hebrew documents, carelessly put
together, and afterwards rendered by one Greek
translator, are easily explicable on other grounds ;
and the alleged mistranslations (iu. 6 ; iv. 19, etc. )
depend rather on errors in interpreting the Greek
text, than on errors in the text itself. The style,
again, though harsh in parts, and far from the
classical standard, is not more so than some books
which were undoubtedly written in Greek (e. g. the
206

TOBIT, BOOK OF

3273

Apocalypse) ; aud there is little, if anythinp;, in it
which points certainly to the immediate iuHiience
of an jlramaic text. (i. 4, els irdaas ras yeveas
rod aicovos, comp. Eph. iii. 21; i. 22, 4k Bevrepas;
iii. 15, \ya ri poi ^v] v. 15, Tiva aoi eaopat
fiiadhv 8iS6vat', xiv. 3,TrpQa4dero (po0e7a6ai, etc.)
To this it may be added that Origen was not ac
quainted with any Hebrew original (Iif). ad Afiic.
13); and the Chaldee copy which Jerome used, as
far as its character can be ascertained, was evi
dently a later version of the story. On the other
hand, there is no internal evidence against the sup
position that the Greek text is a translation. Some
difficulties appear to be removed by this supposition
(e. g. ix. 6); and if the consideration of the date
and place of the composition of the book favor this
view, it may rightly be admitted. The Greek offers
some peculiarities in vocabulary: i. 6, irpwro'
Kovpia, i. e. j] airapxh Twy Kovpcov, Deut. xviii. 4;
i- 7, atroirpari^opat; i- 21, iKKoyiorla\ ii. 3,
arpayya\6co, etc.: and in construction, xiii. 7,
ayaWLaaOatrrjv fj.eyahcoo'vvTiv; xii. 4, SiKaiovaOai
rivi; vi. 19, irpoaiiyeiv rivi (intrans-); vi. 6, ey-
yi^eiv ev, etc. But these furnish no argument on
either side.
The various texts which remain have already
been enumerated. Of these, three varieties may be
distinguished: (1) the LXX.; (2) the revised Greek
text, followed by the Old Latin in the main, and by
the Syriac in part; and (3) the Vulgate Latin.
The Hebrew versions have no critical value. (1.)
The LXX. is followed by A. V., and has been al
ready characterized as the standard to which the
others are to be referred. (2.) The revised text,
first brought distinctly into notice by Fritzsche
(Einl. § 5), is based on the LXX. Greek, which is
at one time extended, and then compressed, with a
view to greater fullness and clearness. A few of
the variations in tbe first chapter will indicate its
character: Ver. 2, ©ia^rjs, add. 0Tviau> BvCfiafV
7}\iov e| apiorepwv ^oycapl ver. 8, dts KaO-ljKei,
given at length toTs 6p(pavo7s Ka\ rats XTjpats,
K. r. A. ; ver. 18, eK rrjs 'lovSaias, add. ev 7]/j.4pais
r^s Kpia-etas 7}s eiroirjo'ev i^ aifroii 6 $ao-i?\.evs
rod ovpavov wepl rdiv ^Kaa-<pT)p.iiov wv efiXaff-
<t>r}p7}oev\ ver. 22, oivox<ios, apxioivox^ios' (3-)
The Vulgate text was derived in part from a
Chaldee copy which was translated by word of
mouth into Hebrew for Jerome, who in turn die
tated a Latm rendering to a secretary. (Prcef In
Tob. : . . . . Exigitis ut hbrum Chaldaeo sermone
conscriptum ad Latiimm stylum trahara ....
Feci satis desiderio vestro, non tamen meo studio
. . . . Et quia vicina est Chaldasorura Ungua ser-
moui Hebraico, utriusque linguse peritisslmum lo-
quacem reperiens unius diei laborem arripui, et
quidquid ille mihi Hebraicis verbis expressit, hoc
ego, accito notario, sermonibus Latinis exposui.) It
is evidenfc that in this process Jerome made some use
of the Old Latin version, which he follows almost
verbally in a few places : iii. 3-6 ; iv. 6, 7, 11 , 23, etc. ;
but the greater part of the version seems to be an
independent work. On the whole, it is more concise
than the Old Latin ; but it contains interpolations
and changes, many of which mark the asceticism of
a late age: ii. 12-14 (parallel with Job); iii. 17-23
(expansion of iii. 14); vi. 17 ff. (expansion of vi.
18); ix. 11,12; xii. 13 (et quia acceptus eras Deo,
necesse fuit ut tentatio probaret te).
5. Date and Place of Composition. — The data
for determining the age of the book and the place
where it was compiled are scanty iud consequently

3274

TOBIT, BOOK OF

very different opinions have been entertained on
these points. Eichhorn (Einl. pp. 408 ff.) places
the author after the tirae of Darius Hystaspis with
out fixing any further Umit of age or country.
Bertholdt, insisting (wrongly) on the supposed date
of the foundation of Rages [Rages], brings the
book considerably later than Seleucus Nicator (cir.
B. c. 250-200), and supposes that it was written
by a Galilffian or Babylonian Jew, from the prom
inence given to those districts in the narrative
(Eiitl. pp. 2499, 2500). De Wette leaves the date
undetermined, but argues that the author was a
native of Palestine (Einl. § 311). 'K^sXd (Geschichte,
iv. 233-238) fixes the composition in the far East,
towards the close of the Persian period icir. 350
B. c). This last opinion is almost certainly cor
rect. The superior and inferior limits of the date
of the book seem to be defined with fair distinct
ness. On the one hand the detailed doctrine of
evil spirits pohits clearly to some time after the
Babylonian Captivity; and this date is definitely
marked by the reference to a new Temple at Jeru
salem, "not Uke the first" (Tob. xiv. 5; comp.
Ezr. iii. 12). On the other hand, there is nothing
to show that the Jews were threatened with any
special danger when the narrative was written (as'
in Judith), and the manner in which Media is men
tioned (xiv. 4) implies that the Persian monarchy
was StiU strong. Thus its date wiU fall somewhere
within the period between the close of the work of
Nehemiah and the invasion of Alexander (cir. B. c.
430-334). The contents of the book furnish also
some clew to the place where it was written. Not
only is there an accurate knowledge of the scenes
described (Ewald. p. 233), but the incidents have a
local coloring. The continual reference to alms
giving and the burial of the dead, and the stress
whioh is laid upon the right performance of worship
at Jerusalem by those who are afar off (i. 4), can
scarcely be due to an effort of imagination, but
must rather have been occasioned by the immediate
experience of the writer. This would suggest that
he was living out of Palestine, in some Persian city,
perhaps Babylon, where -his countrymen were ex
posed to the capricious cruelty of heathen governors,
and in danger of neglecting the Temple-service.
GUmpses are also given of the presence of the Jews
at court, not only in the history (Tob. i. 22 ), but
also in direct counsel (xii. 7, p.uiTT'hpiov ^atriXeas
ica\bv Kpii\f/ai), which better suit such a position
than any other (comp. xiu. 3). If these conjectures
as to the date and place of writing be correct, it
foUows that we raust assume the existence of a He
brew or Chaldee original. And even if the date
of the hook be brought much lower, to the begin
ning of the second century B. c, which seems to
be the latest possible limit, it is equally certain that
it must have been written in some Aramaic dialect,
as the Greek literature of Palestine belongs to a
much later time; and the references to Jerusalem
seem to show that the book could not have been
composed in Egypt (i. 4, xiv. 5), an inference, in
deed, which may he deduced from its general con
tents. As long aa the book was held to be strict
history it was supposed that it was written hy the
immediate actors, in accordance with the direction
of the angel (xu. 20). The passages where Tobit
a This is expressed still more distinctly in the
Speculum (p. 1127, C, ed. Par. 1836): "Non sunt
omitteudi et hi [libri] quos quidem ante Salvatoris ad-
fentum constat esse conscriptos, sed eoS non receptee

TOBIT, BOOK OF
speaks iu the first person (i.-iii. 6, xiu.) were as
signed to his authorship. The intervening chapten
to Tobit or Tobias. The description of the close
of the Ufe of.Tohit to Tobias (xiv. 1-11); and the
concluding verses (xiv. 12-15) to one of his friends
who survived him. If, however, the historical
character of the narrative is set aside, there is no
trace of the person of the author.
6. History. — The history of the book is m the
main that of the LXX. version. While the con
tents of the LXX., as a whole, were received as
canonical, the book of Tobit was necessarily included
without further inquiry among the books of Holy
Scripture. [Canon.] The peculiar merits of the
hook contributed also in no smaU degree to gain
for it a wide and hearty reception. There appears
to be a clear reference to it in the Latin version of
the Epistle of Pofycarp (c. 10, eleemosyna de morte
liberal, Tob. iv. 10, xii. 9). In a scheme of the
Ophites, if there be no corruption in the text, Tobias
appears among the prophets (Iren. i. 30, H).
Clement of Alexandria (Strom, ii. 23, § 139, tovto
fipax^ais TJ ypafp^ SedijAccKev cipTjKvTa, Tob. iv. 16)
and Origen practically use the book as canonical;
but Origen distinctly notices that neither Tobit nor
Judith were received by the Jews, and rests the
authority of Tobit on the usage of the churches
(Ep. ad Afric. 13, 'ZSpdioi tm Tw^la oh xpuvToi
.... oAV, inel xpi^vrat Tip TwjSiot ai 4kk\t)-
fftai . . . , De Oral. 1, § 14, tj toC Tiii/3))t
&t^\cp dvTiXeyovatv ot eK TrepiTOfirts o>s fi^) iv-
iia6i]ictp ....). Even Athanasius when writing
without any critical regard to the Canon quotes
Tobit as Scripture (Apol. c. Arian. § 11, Sis ye-
yparrrai, Tob. xii. 7); but when he gives a formal
list of the sacred books, he definitely excludes it
from the Canon, and places it with other apocryphal
books among the writings which were " to be read
by those who were but just entering on Christian
teaching, and desirous to be instructed in the rules
of piety" (Ep. Fest. p. 1177, ed. Migne). In the
Latin Church Tobit found a much more decided
acceptance. Cyprian, Hilary, and Lucifer quote it
as authoritative (Cypr. Dt Oral. Dtrni. 32; HU
Piet. In Psalm, cxxix. 7 ; yet comp. Prol. in Ps
XV.; Lucif. Pro Aihan. i. p. 871). Augustine in
cludes it with the other apocrypha of the LXX.
among " the books which the Christian Church
received " (De Doctr. Chiist. ii. 8),'' and in this
he was followed by the mass of the later Latin
fathers [comp. Canon, vol. i. p. 364, &c.]. Am
brose in especial wrote an essay on Tobias, treating
of the evils of usury, in which he speaks of .the bock
as " prophetic " in the strongest terms (De TobiA,
i. 1; comp. Hexaem. vi. 4). Jerome however, fcl-
lowed by Ruffinus, maintained the purity of the
Hebrew Canon of the 0. T., and, as has heen seen,
treated it very summarily (for later authorities see
Canon). In modern times the moral exceUence
of the book has been rated highly, except in the
heat of controversy. Luther pronounced it, if only
a fiction, yet " a truly beautiful, wholesome, and
profitable fiction, the work of a gifted poet. . . .
A book useful for Christian reading " (ap. Fritzsche,
Einl. § 11). The same view is held also in the
EngUsh Church. A passage from Tobit is quoted
in the Second Book of Homilies as the teaching

a Judseis recipit tamen ejusdem Salvatoris ecclesia."
The preface from which these words are taken is fol
lowed by quotations IVom Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and
Tobit!

TOBIT, BOOK OP
¦' of the Holy Ghost in Scripture " (Of Almsdeeds, [
ii. p. 391, ed. Corrie); and the Prayer-book offers
several indications of the same feeling of respect for
the book. Three verses are retained among the
sentences used at the Offertory (Tob. iv. 7-9); and
the Preface to the Marriage Service contains a plain
adaptation of Jerome's version of Tob. vi. 17 (Hi
namque qui conjugium ita suscipiunt ut Deum a
Be et a sua mente excludant, et su£ Ubidini ita
vacent, sicut equus et mulus quibus non est intel-
lectus, habet potestatem dsemonium super eos). In
the First Book of Edward VL a reference to the
blessing of Tobias and Sara by Raphael was re
tained iu the same service from the old office in
plaoe of the present reference to Abraham and
Sarah ; and one of the opening clauses of the Litany,
introduced from the Sarum Breviary, is a repro
duction of the Vulgate version of Tob. iii. 3 (Ne
vindictam sumas de peccatis meis, neque reminis-
caris delicta mea vel parentum nieorum).
7. Religious Character. — Few probably can read
the book in the LXX. text without assenting
heartily lo the iiivorable judgment of Luther on its
merits. Nowhere else is there preserved so cora
plete and beautiful a picture of the domestic life of
the Jews after the Return. There may be symptoms
of a tendency to formal righteousness of works, but
as yet the works are painted as springing from a
Uving faith. The devotion due to Jerusalem is
united with definite acts of charity (i. 6-8) and
with the prospect of wider blessings (xiii. 11). The
giving of alms is not a mere scattering of wealth,
but a real service of lo*e (i. 16, 17, ii. 1-7, iv. 7-11,
16), though at tiraes the emphasis which is laid
upon the duty is exaggerated (as it seems) from
the special circumstances in which the writer was
placed (xii. 9, xiv. 10). Of the special precepts one
(iv. 15, 6 fiitreis ^r\bevi rroiTjaris) contains the
negative side of the golden rule of conduct (Matt.
vii. 12), which in this partial form- is found among
the maxims of Confucius. But it is chiefly in the
exquisite tenderness of the portraiture of domestic
Me that the book excels. The parting of Tobias
and his mother, the consolation of Tobit (v. 17-22),
the affection of Raguel (vii. 4-8), the anxious wait
ing of the parents (x. 1-7), the son's return (ix. 4,
xi.), and even the unjust suspiciousness of the sor
row of Tobit and Anna (ii. 11-14) are painted with
a simpUcity worthy of the best times of the patri
archs." Almost every family relation is touched
upon with natural grace and affection : husband and
wife, parent and child, kinsmen, near or distant,
master and servant, are presented in the most varied
action, and always with life-like power (ii. 13, 14,
V. 17-22, vii. 16, viii. 4-8, i. 1-7, xi. 1-13, i. 22,
ii. 10, vn. 3-8, v. 14, 15, xii. 1-5, &c.). Prayer
hallows the whole conduct of Ufe (iv. '19, vi. 17,
vni. 5-8, &c ); and even in distress there is con
fidence that in the end aU will be weU (iv. 6, 14,
19), though there is no clear anticipation of a future
personal existence (iii. 6). The most remarkable
doctrinsi fe»tture in the book is the prominence
given to the action of spirits, who, while they are
conceived to be subject to the passions of men and
material influences (Asmodeus), are yet not affected
by bodUy wants, and manifested only oy their own
will (Raphael, xu. 19). Powers of evU (Saifudviov.

TOBIT, BOOK OF

3275

o In this connection may be noticed the incident,
vhich is without a parallel in Scripture, aud seems
more natural to the West than to the East, the -com-
paaionsbip of the dog with Tobias (v. 16, xi. 4 : comp. I

TTvevfia irov7}p6v, hi. 8, 17, vi. 7, 14, 17) are rep
resented as gaining the means of iiyuring men by
sin [Asmodeus], while they are driven away and
bound by the exercise of faith and prayer (nii. 2, 3).
On the other hand Raphael comes among men as
the healer " (comp. Dillmann, Das Buch Henoch,
c. 20), and by the mission of God (iii. 17, xii. 18),
re-stores those whose good actions he has secretly
watched (xii. 12, 13), and "the remembrance of
whose prayers he has brought before the Holy One "
(xii. 12). This ministry of intercession is elsewhere
expressly recognized. Seven holy angels, of whom
Raphael is one, are specially described as those
'* which present the prayers of the saints, and wbich
go in and out before the glory of God " (xii. 15).
It is characteristic of the same sense of the need
of some being to interpose between God and raan
that singular prominence is given to the idea of
" the glory of God," before which these archangels
appear as priests in the holiest place (viii. 15, xii.
15); and in one passage "the angel of God" (v.
16, 21) occupies a position closely resembUng that
of the Wovd in the Targums and Philo (De mut.
nom. § 13, &c.). Elsewhere blessing is rendered
to "aU the holy angels" (xi. 14, ev\oy7}pevoi as
contrasted with ev\oy7ir6s- comp. Luke i. 42),
who are themselves united with " the elect '' in the
duty of praising God forever (viii. 15). This men
tion of *' the elect" points to a second doctrinal
feature of the book, which it shares with Baruch
alone of the apocryphal writings, the firm belief in
a glorious restoration of the Jewish people (xiv. 5,
xiii. 9-18). But the restoration contemplated is
national, and not the work of ^ universal Saviour.
The Temple is described as " consecrated and buUt
for all ages " (i. 4), the feasts are "an everlasting
decree " (i. 6), and when it is restored " the streets
of Jerusalem shall say . . . Blessed be God which
hath extolled it for ever" (xiii. 18). In all there
is not the shghtest trace of the belief in a personal
Messiah. 8. Comparisons have often been made between
the book of Tobit and Job, but from the outhne
which has been given it is obvious that the resem
blance is only superficial, though Tob. ii. 14 was
probably suggested by Job ii. 9, 10, while the dif
ferences are such as to mark distinct periods. In
Tobit the sorrows of those who are afflicted are
laid at once in prayer before God, in perfect reh
ance on his final judgment, and then immediately
reheved by Divine interposition. In Job the real
conflict is in the soul of the sufferer, and his relief
comes at length with humiliation and repentano**
(xiii. 6). The one book teaches by great thoughts;
the other by clear maxims translated into touching
incidents. The contrast of Tobit and Judith is
still more instructive. These books present two
pictures of Jewish Ufe and feehng, broadly dis
tinguished in all their details, and yet mutually
illustrative. The one represents the exile prosper
ous and even powerful in a strange land, exposed
to sudden dangers, cherishing his nafcional ties,
and looking with unshaken love to the Holy City,
but still mainly occupied by the common duties of
social life; the other portrays a time of reproach
and peril, when national independence was threat
ened, and a righteous cause seemed to justify un-

Ambr. Hexa'dm. vi- 4, 17 : " Mutas specie beatiae sanctuc
Raphael, angelus Tobia juvenis .... ad relatlonem
gratiae erudiebat affectum ").

3276

TOCHEN

Bcrupulous valor. The one gives the popular ideal
of holiness of Uving, the other of courage in daring.
The one reflects the cun-ent feeling at the close of
the Persian rule, the other during the struggles for
freedom. 9. The first complete edition of the book was by
K. D. llgen (Die Gesch. Tobi's . ... mit ... .
einer Einleiiung versehen, Jen. 1800), which, in
spite of serious defects dne to the period at which
it was published, contains the most fuU discussion
of the contents. The edition of Fritzsche (Exeget.
Handb. ii., Leipzig, 1853) is concise and scholar
like, but leaves some points without iUustration.
In England the book, Uke the rest of the Apocry
pha, seems to have faUen into most undeserved
neglect. B. F. W.
* Additional Literature. — Among the more
recent works we may mention F. H. Reusch, Das
Buch Tobias iibers. u. erklarl, Freib. im Br.,
1857; H. Sengelmann, Das Buch Tobit erklarl,
Hamb. 1857; Hitzig, Zur Krit. d. apokr. Biicher
des A. Test, in HUgenfeld's Zeilschrift f. wiss.
Theol., 1860, pp. 250-261; Hilgenfeld, in his Zeit^
schrift, 1862, pp. 181-198 ; VaUiinger, art. Tobias,
Buch des, in Herzog's Real-Encykl. xvi. 180 ff.
(1862); Ewald, Geseh. d. Volkes Israel (ie Ausg.
1864), iv. 269-274; Noldeke, Aittest. Lit. (1868),
pp. 101-109; and the Introductions to the 0. T.
by KeU (1859), p. 708 ff., De Wette (8= Ausg.,
bearb. von Schrader, 1869), p. 580 ff., and David
son (Lond. 1863), iii. 366 ff. A.
TO'CHBN (l^h [task, measure]: @oKKd;
Alex, eoxx""' Thochen). A place mentioned (1
Chr. iv. 32 only) amongst the towns of Simeon.
In the parallel list of Josh. (xix. 7) there is noth
ing corresponding to Tochen. The LXX., how
ever, adds the name Thalcha between Remmon
and Ether in the latter passage; and it is not
hnpossible that this may be the remnant of a
Tochen anciently existing in the Hebrew text,
though it has been considered as an indication of
Telem. G.
TOGARTWAH (nS'n.^ri: @opyap.d; [Alex.
Bepyapia; in 1 Chr. i. 6, @oppa/j.; Vat. in Ez.,
@aiypapa, ©epya/ict:] Thogorma). A son of
Gomer, and brother of Ashkenaz and Riphath
(Gen. X. 3). It has been already shown that To
garmah, as a geographical term, is connected with
Armenia," and that the subsequent notices of the
name (Ez. xxvii. 14, xxxviii. 6) accord with this view.
[Armenia.] It remains for us to examine into
the ethnology of the Armenians with a view to
the position assigned to them in the Mosaic table.
The most decisive statement respecting them in
ancient literature is furnished by Herodotus, who
says that they were Phrygian colonists, that they
were armed in the Phrygian fashion, and were as
sociated with the Phrygians under the same com
mander (Herod, vii. 73). The remark of Eudoxus
(Steph. Byz. s. v. 'Appievla) that the Armenians
resemble the Phrygians in raany respects in lan
guage (T-fi (pQiv^ TToWd (ppvyl^oviri) tends in
'he same direction. It is hardly necessary to un
derstand the statement of Herodotus as implying
more than a common origin of the two peoples;
for, looking at the general westward progress of the
Japhetic races, and on the central position which

a The name itself may possibly have reference to
ftrmenia, for, according to Grimm ( Gesch. Deutsch
9pr. 11. 825), Togarmah comes from the Sanskrit lo/m,

TOLA
Armenia held in regard to their movements, wfl
should rather infer that Phrygia was colonized from
Armenia, than vice versd. The Phrygians were
indeed reputed to have had their first settlements
in Europe, and thence to have crossed into Asia
(Herod, vii. 73), but this must be regarded as sim
ply a retrograde moveraent of a section of the great
Phrygian race in tbe direction of tbeir original
home. The period of this movement is fixed sub
sequently to the Trojan war (Strab. xiv. p. 680 ),
whereas the Phrygians appear as an important
race in Asia Minor at a far earlier period (Strab.
vu. p. 321; Herod, vu. 8, 11). There can be Uttle
doubt but that they were once the dominant race
in the peninsula, and that they spread westward
from the confines of Armenia to the shores of the
.£gaean. The Phrygian language is undoubtedly
to be classed with the Indo-European faraily. The
resemblance between words in the Phrygian and
Greek tongues was noticed by the Greeks them
selves (Plat. Cratyl. p. 410), and the inscriptions
stiU existing in the former are decidedly Indo-
European (RawUnson's Herod, i. 666). The Ar
menian language presents many peculiarities which
distinguish it from other branches of the Indo-
European family; but these raay be accounted for
partly by the physical character of the country,
and partly by tiie large amount of foreign admix
ture that it has experienced. In spite of this,
however, no hesitation is felt by philologists in
placing Armenian among the Indo-European lan
guages (Pott, Etym. Forsch. Introd. p. 32; Die-
fenbach, Orig. Europ. p. 43). ^Vith regard to the
ancient inscriptions at Wan,* some doubt exists;
some of them, but apparently not the most an
cient, are thought to bear a Turanian character
(Layard's N'ln. and Bab. p. 402; Rawlinson's
Herod, i. 652) ; but, even were this fully estab
lished, it fails to prove the Turanian character of
the population, inasrauch as they may have been
set up by foreign conquerors. The Armenians
themselves have associated the name of Togarmah
with their early history in that they represent the
founder of their race, Haik, as a son of Thorgom
(Moses Choren. i. 4, §§ 9-11). W. L. B.
TO'HU pinn [perh. inclined, lowly] : ©oke';
Alex. t&oQu : Thohu). An ancestor of Saniuel the
prophet, perhaps the same as Toah (1 Sam. i. 1;
comp. 1 Cbr. vi. 34).
TO'i ("^"SP, [erroi-]: Qoov; [Vat. once 0oi;ou;]
Alex. 0a£i: Thoii). King of Hamath on the
Orontes, who, after the defeat of his powerful
enemy the Syrian king Hadadezer by the army of
David, sent his sou Joram, or Hadoram, to con
gratulate the victor and do him homage with
presents of fold and silver and brass (2 Sam. viu.
9, 10). " For Hadadezer had wars with Toi," and
Ewald (Gescli. iii. 199) conjectures that he may
have even reduced him to a state of vassalage.
There was probaldy some policy in the conduct of
Toi, and his object may have been, as Josephus
says it was (Ant. vii. 5, § 4), to buy off the con
queror with the " vessels of ancient workmanship "
((TKeuij T^y dpxaias KaTaaKevrjs) which be pre
sented. TO'LA (JyVin [auim-m]i 0a,Kd; [Vat. 00)
" trihe," and Arma — Armenia, which he further cod
nects with Uermino the son of Maunufi.

TOLAD
KaeK, 00 *.«, ©aXaei :] Thola). 1. The first-
tiorn of Issachar, and ancestor of the Tolaites
(Gen. xlvi. 13; Num. xxvi. 23; 1 Chr. vu. 1, 2),
who in the time of David numbered 22,600 men
of valor.
2. Judge of Israel after Abimelech (Judg. i. 1,
2). He is described as "the son of Puah, the son
of Dodo, a raan of Issachar." In the LXX. and
Vulg. he is made the son of Abimelech's uncle.
Dodo (m^) being considered an appellative.
But Gideon, Abimelech's father, was a Manassite.
Tola judged Israel for twenty-three years at Sha
mir in Mount Ephraim, where he died and was
buried. TO'LAD (lyW [Krth, generation] : [Vat.]
BouKae/i.; [Rom.] Alex. QuKaS: Tholad). One
of the towns of Simeon (1 Chr. iv. 29), which was
in the possession of the tribe up to David's reign,
probably to the time of the census taken by Joab.
In the lists of Joshua the name is given in the
fiiUer form of El-tolad. G.
TOXAITES, THE C'lyVinn [from Tola]
i @<e\ai [Vat. -ei] : Tholaiire). The descendants
of Tola the son of Issachar (Num. xxvi. 23).
TOL'BANBS (To\$dvris: Tolbanes). Te
lem, one of the porters hi the days of Ezra (1
Esdr. ix. 25).
* TOLL. [Taxes; Tribute.]
TOMB. Although the sepulchral arrange
ments of the Jews have necessarily many points of
contact with those of the surrounding nations, they
are stiU on the whole — like everything else that
people did — so essentially different, that it is most
unsafe to attempt to elucidate them by appealing
to the practice of other races.
It has been hitherto too much the fashion to
look to Egypt for the prototype of every form of
Jewish art; but if there is one thing in the Old
Testament more clear than another, it is the abso
lute antagonism between the two peoples, and the
abhorrence of everything Egyptian that prevailed
from first to last among the Jewish people. From
the burial of Sarah in the cave of Machpelah (Gen.
xxiu. 19) to the funeral rites prepared for Dorcas
(Acts ix. 37), there is no mention of any sarcoph
agus, or even coffin, in any Jewish burial. No
pyramid was raised — no separate hypogeum of any
individual king, and what is most to be regretted
by modern investigators, no inscription or painting
which either recorded the name of the deceased,
or symbolized the religious feeling of the Jews
towards the dead. It is true of course that Jacob,
dying in Egypt, was embalmed (Gen. 1. 2), but it
was only in order that he might be brought to
be entombed hi the cave at Hebron, and Joseph,
as a naturalized Egyptian and a ruler in the land,
was embalmed; and it is also mentioned as some
thing exceptional that he was put into a coflSn, and
was so brought by the IsraeUtes out of the land,
and laid with his forefathers. But these, Uke the
burning of the hody of Saul [see Bukial], were
clearly exceptional cases.
StiU less were the rites of the Jews Uke those of
the Pelasgi or Etruscans. With that people the
graves of the dead were, or were intended to be, in
ivery respect similar to the homes of the living.
The lucuuio lay iu his robes, the warrior in his
armor, on the bed on which he had reposed in life,
surrounded hy the furniture, the vessels, and the

TOMB

3277

ornaments which had adorned his dw coxing when
alive, as if he were to live again in a new world,
with the same wants and feehngs as before. Be
sides this, no tall stel^, and no sepulchral mound,
has yet been found in the hills or plains of Judaea,
nor have we any hint either in the Bible or Jose
phus of any such having existed which could be
traced to a strictly Jewish origin.
In very distinct contrast to all this, the sepul
chral rites of tbe Jews were marked with the same
simplicity that characterized all their religious oli-
servances. The body was washed and anointed
(Mark xiv. 8, xvi. 1; John xix. 39, &c.), wrapped
in a clean linen cloth, and borne without any
funeral pomp to the grave, where it was laid with
out any ceremonial or form of prayer. In addition
to this, with kings and great persons, fchere seems
to have been a "great burning" (2 Chr. xvi. 14,
xxi. 19; Jer. xxxiv. 5): all these being measures
more suggested by sanitary exigencies than by any
hankering after ceremonial pomp.
This simplicity of rite led to what may be
called the 'distinguishing characteristic of Jewish
sepulchres — the deep loculus — which, so far aa ia
now known, is universal in all purely Jewish rock-
cut tombs, but hardly known elsewhere. Its form
will be understood by referring to the annexed dia
gram, representing the fornis of Jewish sepulture.

No. 1. — Diagram of Jewish Sepulchre.
In the apartment marked A, there are twelve
such loculi, about 2 feet in width by 3 feet high.
On the ground-floor these generally open on the
level of the floor ; when in the upper story, as at
C, on a ledge or platform, on which the body
might be laid to be anointed, and on which the
stones might rest which closed the outer end of
each loculus.
The shallow loculus is shown in chamber B, but
was apparently only used when sarcophagi were
employed, and therefore, so far as we know, only
during the Gr£eco-Roraan period, when foreign cus
toms came to be adopted. The shallow loculus
wojld have been singularly inappropriate and in
convenient, where an unembalraed body was laif
out to decay — as there would evidently be no
means of shutting it off from the rest of the
catacomb. The deep locidus on the other hand
was as strictly conformable with Jewish customs,
and could easily be closed by a stone fitted to the
end and luted into the groove which usually exists
there. This fact is especially interesting as it affords a
key to much that is otherwise hard to be under
stood in certain passages in the New Testament.
Thus in John xi. 39, Jesus says, " Take away the

3278

TOMB

stone," and (ver. 41) "they fcook away the stone"
wifchout difficulty, apparently; which could hardly
have been the case had it been such a. rock as
would be required to close the entrance of a cave.
And ch. XX. 1, the same expression is used, " the
stone is taken away; " and though the Greek word
in the other three Evangelists certainly imphes that
it was rolled away, this would equally apply to the
stone at the mouth of the loculus, into which the
Maries nmst have then stooped down to look in*
In fact the whole narrative is infinitely more clear
and intelhgible if we assume that it was u stone
slosuig the end of a rock-cut grave, than if we sup
pose it to have been a, stone closing the entrance
or door of a hypogeum. In the latter case the
stone to close a door — say 6 feet by 3 feet, could
hardly have weighed less than 3 or 4 tons, and
could not have been moved without machinery.
There is one catacomb — that known as the
" Tombs of the Kings " — which is closed by a
•tone rolhng across its entrance; but it is the only
one, and the immense amount of contrivance and
fitting which it has required is suflScient proof that
Buch an arrangement was not applied to any other
of the numerous rock-tombs around Jerusalem, nor
could the traces of it have been obliterated had it
anywhere existed. From the nature of the open
ings where they are natural caverns, and the orna
mental form of their doorways where they are ar
chitecturally adorned, it is evident, except in this
one instance, that they could not have been closed
by stones rolled across their entrances; and conse
quently it seeras only to be to the closing of the
iocuh that these expressions can refer. But until
a more careful and more scientific exploration of
these tombs is made than has hitherto been given
to the public, it is difficult to feel quite certain on
this point.
Although, therefore, the Jews were singularly free
from the pomps and vanities of funereal magnifi
cence, they were afc all stages of their iudependenfc
existence an eminently burying people.
From fche time of their entrance into the Holy
Land till their expulsion by the Komans, they seem
to have attached the greatest importance to the
possession of an undisturbed resting-place for the
bodies of their dead, and in all ages seem to have
shown tbe greatest respect, if not veneration, for
the sepulclires of their ancestors. Few, however,
eould enjoy the luxury of a rock-cut tomb. Taking
all that are known, and all that are hkely to be
discovered, there are not probably 500, certainly not
1000, rock-cut loculi in or about Jerusalem, and
as that city must in the days of its prosperity have
possessed a population of from 30,000 to 40,000
souls, it is evidenfc that the bulk of the people
nmst then, as I'ow, have been content with graves
dug in the earto; but situated as near the Holy
Places as their means would allow their obtaining
a place. The bodies of the kings were buried close
to the Temple walls (Ez. xliii. 7-9), and however
Uttle they may have done in their life, the place of
their burial is carefully recorded in the Chronicles
of the Kings, and the cause why that place was
chosen is generaUy pointed out, as if that record
was not only the mosfc iniporfcant event, but the
final judgment on the life of the king.
Tombs of ihe Patnarchs. — Turning from these
considerations to the more strictly historical part of
the sulyect, we find that one of the most striking
events iji the life of Abraham is the purchase of
fche fid i of Ephron the Hittite at Hebron, in which

TOMB
was the cave of Machpelah, in ordtr that he miirhi
therein bury Sarah his wife, and that it might be
a sepulchre for himself and his children. His re-
fusing to accept the privilege of burying there as
a gift when ofifered to him. shows the importance
Abraham afctached to the transaction, and his insist
ing on purchasing and paying for it (Gen. xxiii.
20), in order that it might be "made sure unto
him for the possession ofa burying-place." There
he and his immediate descendants were laid 3,700
years ago, and there they are believed to rest now;
bufc no one in modem times bas seen their re
mains, or been allowed to enter into the cave where
they rest.
A few years ago, Signor Pierotti says, he waa
allowed, in company with the Pasha of Jerusalera.
to descend the steps to the iron grating that closes
the entrance, and to look into the cave. What he
seems to have ,seen was — that it was a natural
cavern, untouched by the chisel and unaltered by
art in any way. Those who accompanied the
Prince of Wales in his visit to the Mosque were
not permitted to see even this entrance. All they
saw was the round hole in the floor of tbe Mosque
which admits light and air to the cave below. The
same round opening exists at Neby Samwil in the
roof of the reputed sepulchre of the Prophet Sam
uel, and at Jerusalem tbere is a similar opening
into the tomb under the Dome of the rock. In
the fornier it is used by the pious votaries to drop
petitions and prayers into the tdmbs of patriarchs
and prophets. The latter having lost the tradi
tion of its having been a bui^ing-place, the open
ing only now serves to admit light into the cave
below. Unfortunately none of those who have visited
Hebron have had sufficient architectural knowledge
to be able to say when the church or mosque which
now stands above the cave was erected ; but there
seems no great reason for doubting that it is a
Byzantine church erected there between the age of
Constantine and that of Justinian. From such in
dications as can be gathered, it seems of the later
period. On its floor are sarcophagi purporting to
be those of the patriarchs; but, as is usual in east
ern tombs, they are only cenotaphs representing
those that stand below, and wbich are esteemed too
sacred for the vulgar to approach.
Though it is much more easy of access, it ia
almost as difficult to ascertain the age of the wall
that incloses the sacred precincts of these tombs.
From the account of Josephus (B. J. iv. 7), it does
not seem to have existed in his day, or he surely
would have mentioned it; and such a citadel could
hardly fail to have been of warlike importance in
those troublous times. Besides tbis, we do not
know of any such inclosure encircUng any tombs
or sacred place in Jewish times, nor can we con
ceive any motive for so secluding these graves.
There are not any architectural mouldings about
this wall whieh would enable an archfeologist to
approximate its date; and if the beveling is as
sumed to be a Jewish arrangement (which is very
far from being exclusi^'ely the case), on the other
hand it may be contended that no buttressed wall
of Jewish masonry exists anywhere. Tbere is in
fact nothing known with sufficient exactness to
decide the question, but the pi-obabilifcies certainly
tend towards a Christian or Saracenic origin forthe
whole structure both internally and externally.
Aaron died on the summit of Mount Hor (Num.
XX. 28, xxxiii. 39), and we arc led to infer he wag

TOMB
buried there, though it is not so stated; and we
have no details of his tomb which would lead us to
Buppose that anything existed there earlier than the
Mohammedan Kubr that uow crowns fche hill over
looking Pefcra, and it is afc the sarae time extremely
doubtful whether that is the Mount Hor where the
high-priest died.
Moses died in the plains of Moab (Deut. xxxiv.
6), and was buried there, "but no man knoweth his
sepulchre to this day," which is a singular utter
ance, as being the only instance in the Old Testa
ment of a sepulchre being concealed, or of one being
admifcted to be unknown.
Joshua was buried in his own inheritance in
Timnath-Serah (Josh. xxiv. 30), and Samuel in his
owu house at Eamah (1 Sam. xxv. 1), an expression
which we may probably interpret as meaning in
the garden attached to his house, as it is scarcely
probable ifc would be the dwelling itself. We know,
however, so httle of the feelings of the Jews of that
age on the subject that it is by no means improb.
able but thafc ifc may have beeu in a chamber or
loculus attached to the dwelling, and which, if
closed by a stone cai'efuUy cemented into its place,
would have prevented any annoyance from the cir
cumstance. Joab (1 K. ii. 34) was also buried " in
his own house in the wilderness." In fact it appears
that from the time when Abraham established the
burying-place of his family at Hebron till the time
when David fixed tbat of his family in the city
which bore his name, tbe Jewish rulers had no fixed
or favorite place of sepulture. Each was buried on
his own property, or where be died, without much
caring either for the sanctit} or convenience of the
place chusen.
Tomb of the Kings. — Of the twenty-two kings
of Judah who reigned at Jerusalem from 1048 to
590 B. c, eleven, or exactly one half, were buried
in one hypogeum m the " city of David." The
names of the kings so lying together were David.
Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jeshoshaphat,
Ahaziah, Amaziah, Jotham, Hezekiah, and Josiah,
together with fche good priesfc Jehoiada. Of all
fchese it is merely said that they were buried in
"the sepulchres of their fathers " or "of the kings"
in the city of David, except of two — Asa and Hez
ekiah. Of the firsfc it is said (2 Chr. xvi. 14),
" they buried him in his own sepulchres which he
bad made for himself in the city of David, and laid
him in fche bed [loculus?], which was filled with
sweet odors and divers spices prepared by the
apothecaries' art, and they made a very great burn
ing for him." It is nofc quite clear, however, frora
this, whether this applies to a new chamber at
tached to the older sepulchre, or to one enth-ely
ilistincfc, though in the same neighborhood. Of
Hezekiah it is said (2 Chr. xxxii. 33), fchey buried
him in " the chiefest [or highest] of the sepulchres
of the sons of David," as if there were several apart
ments in the hypogeum, though it may raerely be
jhat they excavated for him a chamber above the
others, as we find frequently done in Jewish sep
ulchres. Two more of these kings (Jehoram and Joash)
rere buried also in the city of David, *' but nofc in
fche sepulchres of fche kings." The fo-sfc because of
tbe sore diseases of which he died (2 Chr. xxi. 20);
the second apparently in consequence of his disas
trous end (2 Chr. xxiv. 25); and one king, Uzziah
(2 Chr. xxvi. 23), was buried with his fathers in
the '* field of the burial of the kings," because he
Was a leper. All this evinces the extrerae care the

TOMB

3279

Jews took in the selection of the buijing-places of
their kings, and the importance they attached to
the record. It should also be borne in mind that
the -highest honor which could be bestowed on the
good priest Jehoiada (2 Chr. xxiv. 16) was that
"they buried him in the city of David among the
kings, because he had done good in Israel, both to
ward God and toward his House."
The passage in Neh. iii. 16, and in Ez. xliii. 7,
9, together with the reiterated assertion of the
books of Kings and Chronicles that fchese sepul
chres were situated in the city of David, leave no
doubt but that they were on Zion [see Jerusa
lem], or the Eastern Hill, and in the immediate
proximity ofthe Temple. They were in fact cer
tainly within that inclosure now known as the " Ha
ram Area"; but if it is asked on what exact si30t,
we musfc pause for further information before a re
ply can be given.''=
This area has been so altered by Roman, Chris
tian, and Moslem, during the last eighfceen centu
ries, that, till we can explore freely below the sur
face, much that is interesting must be hidden from
us. It is quite clear, however, tbat the spot was
well known during the whole of the Jewish period,
inasmuch as the sepulchres were again and again
opened as each king died ; and from the tradition
that Hyrcanus and Herod opened these sepulchres
(Ant. xiii. 8, § 4; xvi. 7, § 1). The accounts of
these last openings are, it must be confessed, some
what apocryphal, resting only on the authority of
Josephus; but they prove at leasfc tbat he consid
ered there could be no difficulfcy in finding the
place. It is very improbable, however, from what
we know of the extreme simplicity of tbe Jewish
sepulchral rites, that any large sum should have
been buried in David's tomb, and have escaped not
only the Persian invaders, but their own necessitous
rulers In the time of their extremest need. It is
much more probable that Hyrcanus borrowed the
treasure of the Temple, and invented this excuse;
whereas the story of Herod's descent is so like that
told more than 1,000 years afterward, by Benjamin
of Tudela, that both may be classed in the same
category. It was a secret transaction, If ifc took
place, regarding which rumor mighfc fashion what
wondrous tales ifc pleased, and no one could confcra-
diet them; but his having built a marble stele
(Ant xvi. 7, § 1) in front of the tomb may have
been a fact within the cognizance of Josephus, and
would at all events serve to indicate that the sepul
chre was rock-cut, and its site well known.
So far as we can judge from this and other indi
cations, ifc seems probable there was originally a nat
ural cavern in the rock in tbis locality, which may
afterward have been improved by art, and in the
sides of which loculi were sunk, in which the bodies
of the eleven kings and of the good high-priest were
laid, without sarcophagi or coffin, but " wound in
linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the
Jews is to bury" (John xix. 40).
Besides the kings above enumerated, Manasseh
was, according to the book of Chronicles (2 Chr.
xxxiii. 20) buried in his own house, which the book
of Kings (2 K. xxi. 18) explains as the " garden of
his own house, the garden of Uzza," where his son
Amon was buried, also, it is said, in his own sepul
chre (ver. 26), but we have nothing that would en
able us to indicate where this was ; and Ahaz, the
a * See note at the end of this article, Amor, ©o
S. W.

3280

TOMB

wicked king, was, according to the book of Chron
icles (2 Chr. xxviii. 27) " buried in the city, even
in Jerusalem, and they brought him not into the
sepulchres of the kings of Israel." The fact of
these three last kings having been idolaters, though
one reformed, and their having all three beeu buried
apparently in the city, proves what importance the
Jews attached to the locality of the sepulchre, but
also tends to show that burial within the city, or
the inclosure of a dwelling, was not so repulsive to
their feelings as is generally supposed. Ifc is jusfc
possible that the rock-cut sepulchre under the west
ern wall of the present Church of the Holy Sepul
chre may be the remains of such a cemetery as that
m which the wicked kings were buried.

TOMB
This, with many other cognate questions, lausi
be relegated for further information; for up to tho
present time we have not been able to identify ona
single sepulchral excavation about Jerusalem which
can be said with certainty to belong to a period
anterior to that of the Maccabees, or, more cor
rectly, to have been used for burial before the fame
of the Romans.
The only important hypogeum which is wholly
Jewish in its arrangements, and may consequently
belong to an earlier or to any epoch, is that known
as the Tombs of the Prophets in the western flank
of the Mount of Olives. It has every appearance of
ha\'ing originally been a natural cavern improved liy
art, and with an external gallery some 140 feet in

_.Jj

IJ

V

I I

p^^_f^_^

No. 2. — Plan of the " Tombs ot the Prophets.'- From De Saulcy.

extent, into which twenty-seven deep or Jewish loculi
open. Other chanlbers and locuU have been com
menced in other parts, and in the passages there are
spaces where many other graves could have been
located, aU which would tend to show that it had
been disused before completed, and consequently was
'very modern; but be this as it may, it has no
architectural mouldings — no sarcophagi or shaUow
locuU, nothing to indicate a foreign origin, and
may therefore be considered, if not an early, at
least as the most essentially Jewish of the sepul
chral excavations in this locality — eva-y other im
portant sepulchral excavation being adorned with
architectural features and detaUs betraying most
unmistakably their Greek or Roman origin, and
fixing their date consequently as subsequent to that
jf the Maccabees; or in other words, Uke every
other detail of pre-Christian architecture in Jeru
salem, they belong to the 140 years that elapsed
from the advent of Pompey tiU the destruction of
the city by Titus.
GriBco-Roman Tombs. — Besides the tombs above
inumerated, there are around Jerusalem, in the

vaUeys of Hinnom and Jehoshaphat, and on the
plateau to the north, a number of remarkable rock-
cut sepulchres, with more or less architectural deco
ration, sufBcient to enable us to ascertain that they
are all of nearly the same age, aud to assert with
very tolerable confidence that the epoch to which
they belong must be between the introduction of
Romau influence and the destruction of the city by
Titus. The proof of this would be easy 'li it were
not that, like everything Jewish, there is a remark
able absence of inscriptions wbich can be assumed
to be integral. The excavations in the Valley of
Hinnom with Greek inscriptions are comparatively
modern, the inscriptions being all of Christian im
port and of such a nature as to render it extremely
doubtful whether the cbimbei-s were sepulchral at
all, and not rather the dwellings of ascetics, and
originaUy intended to be used for this purpose.
These, however, are neither the most important not
the most architectural — indeed none of those in tliat
valley are so remarkable as those in the other locali
ties just enumerated. The most important of those
in the Valley ot Hinnom is that known as Ihe

TOMB
Retreat-place of the Apostles." It is an unfinished
«cavation of extremely late date, and many of the
Dthers look much more Uke ithe dweUings for the
Uving than the resting-places of the dead.
In the village of Siloam there is a monolithic ceU
of singularly Egyptian aspect, which De Saulcy
( Voyage autour de In Mer Morte, ii. 306) assumes
to be a chapel of Solomon's Egyptian wife. It is
probably of very much more modern date, and is
more Assyrian than Egyptian in character; hut as
he is probably quite correct in stating that it is not
sepulchral, it is only necessary to mention it here
in order that it may not be confounded with those
that are so. It is the more worthy of remark as
one of the great difficulties of the subject arises
from travellers too readily assuming that every
cutting in the rock must be sepulchral. It may
be so in Egypt, but it certainly was not so at
Cyrene or Petra, where many of the excavations

No. 3. — So-called " Tomb of Zechariah,

were either temples or monastic estabUshments, and
it certainly was not universally the case at Jeru.
salem, though our information is frequently too
scanty to enable us always to discriminate exactly
to which class the cutting in the rock may belong.
The principal remaining architectural sepulchres
may be divided into three groups.
First, those existing in the Valley of Jehoshaphat,
and known popularly as the Tombs of Zechariah,
-of St. James, and of Absalom.
Second, those known as the Tombs of the Judges,
and the so-caUed Jewish tomb about a mile north
of the city.
Third, that known as the Tombs of the Kings,
about half a mile north of the Damascus Gate.
Of the three hrst-named tombs the most southern
Is known as that of Zechariah, a popular name
which there is not even a, shadow of tradition
to justify. It consists of a square solid basement,
measuring 18 feet 6 inches eaeh way, and 20 feet
iJigh to the top of the cornice. On each face are
four engaged Ionic columns between antse, and
hese are surmounted, not by an Egyptian cornice,
M is usually asserted, but by one of purely As-

TOMB 3281
Syrian type, such as is found at Khorsabad (wood
cut No. 4). As the Ionic or voluted order came
also from Assyria, this ex
ample is in fact a more
pure specimen of the Ionic
order than any found in
Europe, where it was always
used by the Greeks with a
quasi-Doric cornice. Not^
withstanding this, in the
form of the volutes — the
egg-and-dart moulding be- >_
neath, and every detaU— No. 4.— SecHon of Styi
it is so distinctly Roman obate at Khorsabad.
that it is impossible to as
sume that it belongs to an earlier age than that of
their influence.
Above the cornice is a pyramid rising at rather a
sharp angle, and hewn Uke aU the rest out of the
soUd rook. It may further be remarked that only
the outward face, or that fronting Jerusalem, is
completely finished, the other three being only
blocked out (De Saulcy, ii. 303), a circumstance
that would lead us to suspect that the works may
have been interrupted by the faU of Jerusalem, or
some such catastrophe, and this may possibly also
account for there being, no sepulchre on its rear, if
such be really the case.
To call this building a tomb is evidently a mis
nomer, as it is absolutely solid — hewn out of the
living rock by cutting a passage round it. It has
no internal chambers, nor even the semblance of a
doorway. From what is known of the explorations
carried on by M. Renan about Byblus, we should
expect that the fomb, properly so caUed, would be
an excavation in the passage behind the monolith —
but none such has been found, probably it was
never looked for — and that this monoUth is the
stel6 or indicator of that fact. If it is so, it is very
singular, though very Jewish, that any one should
take the trouble to carve out such a monument
without putting an inscription or symbol on it to
mark its destination or to teU in whose honor it
was erected.
The other, or so-called Tomb of Absalom, figured
m vol. i. p. 17, is somewhat larger, the base being
about 21 feet square in plan, and probably 23 or 24
to the top of the cornice. Like the other, it is of
the Roman Ionic order, surmounted by a cornice of
Ionic type; but between the piUars and the cornice
a frieze, unmistakably of the Roman Doric order,
is introduced, so Roman as to be in itself quite
sufficient to fix its epoch. It is by no means clear
whether it had originally a pyraraidical top like its
neighbor. The existence of a square blocking above
the cornice would lead us to suspect it had not ; at
all events, either at the 'time of its excavation or
subsequently, this was removed, and the presenfc
very peculiar termination erected, raising its height
to over 60 feet. At the time this was done a
chamber was excavated in the base, we must
assume for sepulchral purposes, though how a body
could be introduced through the narrow hole above
the cornice is by no means clear, nor, if inserted,
how disposed of in the two very narrow locuU that
exist. The great interest of this excavation is that im
mediately in rear of the monolith we do find just
such a sepulchral cavern as we should expect. It
is called the Tomb of Jehoshaphat, with about tha
sarae amount of discrimination as governed tint
nomenclature of the others, but is now closed bj .

3282

TOMB

the nibbish and stones thrown by the pious at the
Tomb of the undutiful Son, and consequently its
internal arrangements are unknown ; but exteirnally
it is crowned by a pediment of considerable beauty,
and in the same identical style as that of the Tombs
of the Judges, mentioned further on —showing that

No. 5. — Angle of Tomb of Absalom. From De Saulcy.
these fcwo at least are of the same age, and this one
afc least must have been subsequent to fche excava
tion of the monolith ; so that we may feel perfectly
certain that fche fcwo groups are of one age, even if
ifc should not be thought quite cleai" what thafc age
may be.

SOFT

No. 6. —Plan of Tomb of St. James.
The third tomb of fchis group, called fchat of Sfc.
Tames, is situated between the other two, and is
it a very difiFerent character. It consists (see Plan)

a Pierotti, in his published Plan of Jerusalem, adds
1 sarcophagus chamber with shaUow loculi, but as
loth Scoles and De Saulcy omit this, it is probable the

TOMB
of a verandah with two Doric piUars in aiitls, whicli
may be characterized as belonging to a very late
Greek order rafcher than a Roman example. Be
hind this screen are several apartments, which in
another locaUty we might be justified in caUing a
rock-cut monastery appropriated to sepulchral pnr.
poses, but in Jerusalem we know so Uttle that it ii
necessary to pause before applying any such desig
nation. In the rear of all is an apartment, ap
parently unfinished, with fchree shallow locuU meant
for the reception of sarcophagi, and so indicatuig a
post^Jewish date for the whole or at least for that
part of the excavation.
The hypogeum known as fche Tombs of the
Judges is one of the most remarkable of the cata
combs around Jerusalem, containing about sixty
deep loculi, arranged in fchree stories; the upper
stories with ledges ui front fco give convenienfc access,
and fco support fche stones fchafc closed fchem; the
lower flush with fche ground : a the whole, conse
quently, so essentially Jewish that it might be of
any age if it were not for its distance from the
town, and its architectural character. The latter,
as before stated, is idenfcical wifch fchafc of fche Tomb
of Jehoshaphat, and has nofching Jewish aboufc it.
It might of course be difficult to prove this, as we
know so Uttle of whafc Jewish archifcecfcure reaUy is;
but we do know fchafc the pediment is more essen
tially a Greek invention than any other part of theh"
architecture, and was introduced at least not previ
ously to the age of the Oypselidse, and this peculiar
form not tiU long afterwards, and this particular
example not till after an age when the debased
Roman of the Tomb of Absalom had become pos
.sible.

No. 7. — Fapade of the Tombs of the Judgea.
The same remarks apply to the tomb without a
name, and merely called " a Jewish Tomb," iu thia
neighborhood, with beveled facets over its ^^ade,
but with late Roman Doric details at its angles,
sufficient to indicate its epoch ; but there is nothhig
else about these tombs requuing especial meutiou.
Tombs of Herod. — The last of fche great groups
enumerated above is that known as the Tombs of
the Kings — Kebiir es - Sultan — or the Koyal
Caverns, so called because of their magnificence,
and also because that name is applied to them by
Josephus, who in describhig the fchird waU men
tions them (B. J. v. 4, § 2). He states that "the
wall reached as far as the Tower Psephmus, and
then extended tiU it came opposite the IVIonumenti
(liVTi/jietav) of Helena. It then extended further to
a great length tiU it passed by fche Sepulchral

Italian Is mislakeu. Wood-cut No. 1 is taken from hil
plan, but used as a diagram rathic than as repnsmt
ing the exact facts of the case

TOMB
Caverns of the Kings," efcc. We have fchus first
the Tower Psephinus, the site of which is very
tolerably ascertained on the ridge above the Pool
Sirket MamiUa ; then the Monument of Helena,
and fchen at some distance eastward these Royal
Caverns. They are twice again mentioned under the title
of 'HpniSou fivrjfJielav. First, when Titus, ap-
proacning from the north, ordered fche ground to
be cleared from Scopus — which is tolerably well
linown — up to those Monuments of Herod (B. J.
v. 3, § 2); and lastly in the description of tbe cir-
cunivallation (B. J. v. 12, § 2), where they are
mentioned affcer passing the Monument of Ananus
and Pompey's Camp, evidently on the ridge where
Psephinus afterwards stood, and on the north of
the city.
These three passages refer so evidently to one
and the same place, that no one would probably
ever have doubted — especially when taken in con
junction with the architecture — but that these
caverns were the tombs of Herod and his family,
were it not for a curious contradiction of himself
in the works of Josephus, which has led to consid
erable confusion. Herod died afc Jericho, and the
most probable account (Ani. xvii. 8, § 3) would lead
us to suppose (it is not so stated) that his body
was brought to Jerusalem, where the funeral pro
cession was formed on a scale and with a magnifi
cence which would have heen impossible at such a
place as Jericho wifchoufc long previous preparation ;
and it then goes on to say, " and so they went
eight stadia to [the] Herodium, for there, by his
own command, he was to be buried " — eight stadia,
or one mile, being fche exact distance Iietween the
royal palace and these tombs.
The other account (B. J. i. 33, § 9) repeats the
details of the procession, and nearly in the same
words, but substitutes 200 for 8, which has led to
the belief that he was buried at Jebel Fureidis,
where he had erected a palace 60 stadia south of
lerusalem, and 170 from Jericho. Even then the
procession musfc have passed through Jerusalem,
and this hardly would have been the case without
its being mentioned ; bufc the great difficulty is that
there is no hint anywhere else of Herod's intention
to be buried there, and the most extreme improb
abiUty that he should wish to be interred so far
from the city where all his predecessors were laid.
Though it would be unpardonable to alter the text
in order to meet any particular view, still when an
author makes two statements in direct contradic
tion the one to the other, it is allowable to choose
the most conformable with probability ; and this,
added to his assertion that Herod's Tombs were in
tbis neighborhood, seems to settle the question.
The architecture (wood-cut No. 8) exhibits the
same ill-understood Roman Doric arrangements as
are found m all these tombs, mixed vrith bunches
of grapes, which first appear on Maccabean coins,
and foliage which is local and pecuUar, and, so far
as anything is known elsewhere, might be of any
age. Its connection, however, with thafc of the
Tombs of Jehoshaphat and fche Judges fixes it fco
the same epoch.
The entrance doorway of this tomb is below the
level of the ground, and concealed, as far as any
thing can be said to be so which is so architecturally
idomed ; and ifc is remarkable as fche only instance
»f this quasi-concealmenfc afc Jerusalem. Ifc is closed
jy a very curious and elaborate contrivance of a
toWng stone, often described, but very clumsUy

TOMB

3283

answering its purpose. This also :a characteristic
of its age, as we know from Pausanias that the
structural marble monument of Queen Helena of
Adiabene was remarkable for a similar piece of mis
placed ingenuity. AVithin, the tomb consists of a
vestibule or entrance-hall about 20 feet square, from
which three other square .apartments open, each
surrounded by deep loculi. These again possess a
peculiarity not known in any other tomb about
Jerusalem, of having a square apartment either
beyond the head of the loculus or on one side: xs,
for instance (wood-cut No. 9 ), A ,v have their inner
chambers A' A' within, but B and B, at n' b', od
one side. What the purpose of these was it is dif
ficult to guess, but at all events it was not Jewish.
But perhaps the most remarkable pecuUarity of
the hypogeum is the sarcophagus chamber D, in
which two sarcophagi were found, one of which was
brought home by De Saulcy, and is now in the
Louvre. It is of course quite natural that a Roman
king who was buried with such Roman pomp should
have adopted the Roman mode of sepulture; and
if this and that of St. James are the only sarcophagi
chambers at Jerusalem, this alone should settle the
controversy ; and aU certainly tends to make it

No. 8. — Fapade of lleroiVs Tombs, from a Photograph.
more and more probable that this was really the
sepulchre of Herod.
If the sarcophagus now in the Louvre, which
came from tbis chamber, is tliat of Herod, it is thp
most practical illustration that has yet come to
hght of a theory which ,has recently been forcing
itself on the attention of antiquarians. According
to this new view, it is not necessary thai furniture,
or articles which can be considered as such, must
always follow the style of the architecture of the
day. They must have done so always in Egypt, in
Greece, or in the Middle Ages; but might have
deviated from it at Kome, and may probably have
done so at Jerusalem, among a people who bad no
art of their own, as was the case with the Jews.
The discord in fact may not have been more offen
sive to them than the Louis Quatorze furniture is
to us, with which we adorn our Classical and Gothic
buildings with such cosmopolite impartiality. If
this is so, the sarcophagus may have been made for
Herod. If this hypothesis is not tenable, it may
belong to any age from the time of the Maccabeea
to that of Justinian, most probably the latter, for
it certainly is not Roman, and has no connectiou
with the architecture of these tombs.
Be this afi it may, there seems no reason to?

3284

TOMB

doubting but that all the architectural tombs of
Jerusalenj belong to the age of the Romans, like
everything that his yet been found either at Petra,
Baalbec, Palmyra, or Damascus, or even among the
stone cities of the Hauran. Throughout Syria, in

TOMB
fact, there is no important architectural example
which is anterior to their day; and all the speci
mens which can be called Classical are strongly
marked with the impress of the pecuhar forms of
Roman art.

No. 9. — Plan of Tombs of Uerod. From De Saulcy.

Tomb of Helena of Adiahene. — There was one
3ther very famous tomb at Jerusalera, which can
not be passed over in silence, though not one ves
tige of it exists — for the simple reason that though
Queen Helena of Adiabene was converted to the
Jewish faith, she had not so fiilly adopted Jewish
feeUngs as to think it necessary she should be
buried under ground. On the contrary, we are
told that '• she with her brother were buried iu the
pyramids which she had ordered to be constructed
at a distance of three stadia from Jerusalem " (Ani.
XX. 4, § 3). This is confirmed by Pausanias (viii.
16), who, besides mentioning the marble door of
very apocryphal mechanism which closed its en
trance, speaks of it as a Tct^os in the sarae sense
in which he understands the mausoleum at Hali
carnassus to have been a structured torab, which
he could not have done if this were a cave, as some
have supposed.
The specification of the locality by Josephus is so
minute that we have no difficulty in ascertaining
whereabouts the monument stood. It was situated
outside the third wall, near a gate between the
Tower Psephinus and the Royal Caverns (B. J. v.
22, and v. 4, § 2). These last are perfectly known,
and the tower with very tolerable approximate cer
tainty, for it was placed on the highest point of the
ridge between the hollow in which the Birket Ma^
milla is situated and the upper valley of the Kedron ;
they were consequently either exactly where marked
on the plan in vol. ii. p. 1312, or it may be a httle
more to the eastward .
They remained sufficiently entire in the 4th cen
tury to form a conspicuous object iu the landscape,
to be mentioned by Eusebius, and. to be remarked
by those who accorapanied Sta. Paula (Euseb. ii.
12; Hieron. Epitaph. Paidce) on her journey to
Jerusalem.

There is no difficulty in forming a tolerably dis
tinct idea of what the appearance of this remark
able monument must have been, if we compare
the words descriptive of it in the various authors
who have mentioned it with the contemporary
monuments in the Valley of Jehoshaphat. If
we place together in a row three such monu
ments as the Tomb of Zechariah, or rather two
such, with the monument of Absalom between
them, we have such an edifice as will answer to
the Pyramid of Josephus, the Taphos of Pausa
nias, the Steles of Eusebius, or the Mausoleum of
Jerome. But it need hardly be added, that not
one of these expressions applies to an underground
excavation. According to this view of the mat
ter, the entrance would be under the Central Cip-
pus, which would thus form the ante-room to the
two lateral pyramids, in one of which Helena her
self reposed, and in the other the remains of her
brother. Since the destruction of the city by Titus, none
of the native inhabitants of Jerusalera have been in
a position to indulge in much sepulchral magnifi
cence, or perhaps had any taste for this class of dis
play ; and we iu consequence find no rock-cut hy-
pogea, and no structural monuments that arrest
attention in modern times. The people, however,
still cling to their ancient cemeteries in the Valley
of Jehoshaphat with a tenacity singularly charac
teristic of the East. The only difTerence being,
that the erection of the Wall of Agrippa, wbich
now forms the eastern boundary of the Haram
Area, has pushed the cemetery further toward thf
Kedron, or at least cut off the upper and nobler
part of it. And the contraction of the city ou
the north has enabled the tombs to approach
nearer the Umits of the modem town than wm
the case m the days when Herod the Great aod

TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
Helena of Adiabene were buried " on the sides of
the north."
The only remarkable exception to this assertion
is that splendid Mausoleum which Constantine
erected over what he believed to be the tomb of
Christ, and which stiU exists at Jerusalem, known
to Moslems as the Dome of the Rock ; to Christians
as the Mosque of Omar.
The arguments for its authenticity have already
been sufficiently insisted upon in the article Jeru
salem, in the second volume, and its general form
and position shown in the wood-cut, p. 1316. It
will not, therefore, be necessary to go over this
ground again. Externally its appearance was very
much altered by the repairs of Suleiman the Mag
nificent, when the city had returned to the posses-
iion of the Moslems after the retreat of the Cru
saders, and it has consequently lost much of its
orighial Byzantine character; but internally it re
mains much as it was left by its founder; and is
now — with the exception of a few Indian tombs
— the most magnificent sepulchral monument in
Asia, and is, as it ought to be, the most splendid
Christian sepulchre in the world." J. F.
* On this subject one may see also Ordnance
Survey of Jerusalem, pp. 61-70 (Ex)nd. 1865);
Remains of Tombs in Palestine, by (japtain C. W.
Wilson, in Quarterly Statement of ihe Palestine
Exphr* Fund, accompanied by drawings (Lond.
1869); Tobler, Denkbldtter aus Jerus. pp. 609-
635, and Dntte Wanderung nach Paldstina, pp.
344-352; Sepp, Jerusalem u. das heil. Land, i.
217 ff.; Rev. George WiUiams, Holy Ciiy, more es
pecially in regard to tombs in and around Jerusa
lem, iii, 129 ff. ; and in this Dictionary, Jerusa
lem, ancient and modern. H.
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF. The
unity of the human race is most clearly imphed, if
not positively asserted, in the Mosaic writings. The
general declaration, " So God created raan in his
own image, .... male and female created He
them " (Gen. i. 27), is limited as to the mode in
which the act was carried out, by the subsequent
narrative of the creation of the protoplast Adam,
who stood alone on the earth amidst the beasts of
the field, until it pleased Jehovah to creiite " an
help-meet for him " out of the very substance of
his body (Gen. ii. 22). From this original pair
sprang the whole antediluvian population of the
world, and hence the author of the book of Genesis
conceived the unity of the human race to be of the
most rigid nature — not simply a generic unity, nor
again simply a specific unity (for unity of species
may nofc be inconsistent with a plurality of original
centres), but a specific based upon a numerical
unity, the species being nothing else than the en
largement of tbe individual. Such appears to be

a * The author of this article has introduced into
It two points of a fiivorite theory which is original
with hun, namely, that the Dome of the Rock, or the
Mosque of Omar, and Constautine's Church of the
Holy Sepulchre are identical ; and that Mount Moriah,
or the Eastern Hill, aod Mount Zion, are identical :
and, consequently, that the royal sepulchres of Judah
were somewhere within the present Haram Area. The
grounds of utter dissent from these views have been
given by the writer of this in the article Jerusalem,
* IV. p. 1330 flf., Amer. ed. The assertion above,
which haa no historical support, that « the Wall of
Agrippa now forms the eastern boundary of the Ha-
:am Area," contracting the ancient cemetery, is dia-
troved by Capt. Wairen's explorations, who finds no

TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 323o
the natural meaning of the fii'st chapters of Gene
sis, when taken by themselves — much more so
when read under the reflected light of the New
Testament; for not only do we meet with refer
ences to the historical fact of such an origin of the
human race — e. g. in St. Paul's declaration that
God " hath made of one blood every nation of men
to dwell on all the face of the earth '** (Acts xvii.
26) — but the same is evidently implied in the nu
merous passages which represent Jesus Christ as the
counterpart of Adam in regard to the universality
of his connection wifch the human race. Attempts
have indeed been made to show that the idea of a
plurality of original pairs is not inconsistent with
fche Mosaic writings ; but there is a wide distinction
between a view not inconsistent with, and a view
drawn from, the words of the author: the latter is
founded upon the facts he relates, as weU as hia
mode of relating them ; the former takes advantage
of the weaknesses arising out of a concise or un
methodical style of composition. Even if such a
view could be sustained in reference to the narra
tive of the original creation of man, it must inevi
tably fail in reference to the history of the repopu-
lation of the world in the postdUuvian age; for
whatever objections may be made to the historical
accuracy of the history of the Flood, it is at all
events clear that the historian believed in the uni
versal destruction of the huraan race with the ex
ception of Noah and his family, and consequenfcly
thafc the unity of the human race was once more
reduced to one of a numerical character. To Noah
the historian traces up the whole postdiluvian pop
ulation of the world : " These are the three sons oi
Noah : and of them was the whole earth overspread '*
(Gen. ix. 19).
Unity of language is assuraed by the sacred histo
rian apparently as a corollary of the unity of race.
No explanation is given of the origin of speech, bufc
its exercise is evidently regarded as coeval with the
creation of man. No support can be obtained in
behalf of any theory on this subject from the first
recorded instance of its exercise (''Adara gave
names to all cattle") for the simple reason that
this notice is introductory to what follows : " but
for Adam there was not found an help-meet for
him " (Gen. ii. 20). It was not so much the inten
tion of the writer to state the fact of man's power of
speech, as the fact of the inferiority of all other ani
mals to him, and the consequent necessity for the
creation of woman. The proof of thafc inferiority is
indeed raost appropriately raade to consist in the
authoritative assignment of nanies, implying an act
of reflection on their several natures and capacities,
and a recognition of the office which they were de
signed to fiU in the economy of the world. The
exercise of speech is thus most happily connected
substructions in Jerusalem more ancient and massive
than portions of the Eastern WaU, layers of which
remain in situ.
The Quarterly Statement No. V. of the Pal. Expl.
Fund (pp. 245-251) contains an account, by Dr. Ch
Sandreczki, of the rock-tombs of el-Medyeh, a village
near Lydda, and his reasons for identifying this site
with Blodin, and these tombs, known as KubUr et- Ya-
hiid, with the Maccabaean mausoleum. Tbe sugges
tion appears quite plausible. [Modin, iii. 19d9.J S. \V.
& The force of the Apostle's statement is inade
quately given in the A. V., which gives "for to
dwell " as the result, instead of the direct object ol
the vrinclDal verb.

8286 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
with the exercise of reflection, and the relationship
between the inner act of the mind {\6yos evSidde-
ros) and the outward expression {\6yos trpoipopi-
k6s) is fully recognized. Speech being thus inhe
rent in man as a reflecting being, was regarded as
handed down from fiither to son by the same process
of imitation by which it is still perpetuated. What
ever divergences may have arisen in the antedilu
vian period, no notice is taken of them, inasmuch
as fcheir effects were obUterated by the univereal catas
trophe of the Flood. The original unity of speech
was restored in Noah, and would naturally be re
tained by his descendants as long as they were held
together by social and local bonds. Accordingly
we are informed that for some time " the whole
earth was of one Up and the sarae words '' (Gen. xi.
1), i. e. both the vocal sounds and the vocables
were identical — an exhaustive, but nofc, as in the
A. v., a tautologous description of con}plete unity.
Disturbing causes were, however, early at work to
dissolve this twofold uniou of comraunitj' and speech.
The human faraily <^ endeavored to check the ten
dency to separation by the establishment of a great
central edifice, and a city which should serve as the
metropolis ofthe whole world. They attempted to
carry out this project in the wide plain of Haby-
lonia, a locality admirably suited to such an oliject
from the physical and geographical peculiarities of
the country. The project was defeated by tbe in
terposition of Jehovah, who determined to " con
found their language, so thafc they might not under
stand one another's speech." Contemporaneously
with, and perhaps as the result of, this confusion
of tongues, the people were scattered abroad from
thence upon the face of all the earth, and the
memory of the great event was preserved in the
name Babel (= confusion). The ruins of the tower
are identified by M. Oppert, the highest authority
on Babylonian antiquities, with the basement of
the great mound of Birs-Nimrud, the ancient Bor-
sippa.^ Two points demand our attention in reference to
this narrative, namely, the degree to which the con
fusion of tongues may be supposed to have extended,
and the connection between the confusion of tongues
and the dispersion of nations. (1.) It is unneces
sary to assume that the judgment inflicted on the
builders of Babel amounted to a loss, or even a sus
pension, of articulate speech. The desired object
would be equally attained by a miraculous^ fore-
Btalment of fchose dialectical differences of language
which are constantly in process of production, but
which, under ordinary circumstances, require time
and variations of place and habits to reach such a
point of maturity that people are unable to under
stand one another's speech. The elements of the
one original language may have remained, but so
disguised by variations of pronunciation, and by the
introduction of new combinations, as to be practi
cally obliterdted. Each section of the human fara
ily may have spoken a tongue unintelligible to the
remainder, and yet containing a substratum which
was coramon to aU. Our own experience suffices
fco show how completely even dialectical differences
render strangers uninteUigible to one another; and
if we further take into consideration the differences

o The project has been restricted by certain critics
*o the Hamites, or, at all events, to a mere section of
jhe human race. This and various other questions
ciriBing oufc of the narrative are discussed by Vitringa
(n his Obstrv. Sacr. i. 1, §§ 2-8 ; 6, §§ 1-4, Although
;he reatriotion above noticed is not irreconcilable with

TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
of habits and associations, of which dialecliral dif
ferences are the exponents, we shall have no diffl.
culty in accounting for the result described by tha
sacred historian. (2.) The confusion of tongues
and the dispersion of nations are spolcen of in the
Bible as contemporaneous events. " So the I.ord
scattered them abroad " is stated as the execution
of the Divine counsel, " Let us confound their lan
guage." The divergence of the various families
into distinct tribes and nations ran parallel with
the divergence of speech iuto dialects and languages,
and thus the 10th chapter of Genesis is posterior iu
historical sequence to the events recorded in the
11 th chapter. Both passages must be taken into
consideration in any disquisition on the early for
tunes of the human race. We propose therefore to
inquire, in the &st pla«e, how far niodern re
searches into the phenomena of language favor the
idea that there was once a time when " the whole
earth was of one speech and language; " aud, in
the secoud place, whether the ethnological views
exhibited in the Mosaic table accord with the evi
dence furnished by history and language, both in
regard to the special facts recorded in it, and iu the
general Scriptural view of a historical or more
properly a gentilic unity of the human race. Theso
questions, though independent, yet exercise a re
flexive influence on each other's results. ITnity of
speech does not necessarily involve unity of race,
nor yet vice versd ; but each enhances the proba
bility of the other, and therefore the arguments
derived from language, physiology, and history,
may ultimately furnish a cumulative amount of
probability which will fall but little below demon
stration. (A.) The advocate of the historical unity of lan
guage has to encounter two classes of opposing
arguments; one apsing out of the differences, the
other out of the resemblances of existing languages.
On the one band, it is urged that the differences
are of so decisive and specific a character as to place
the possibility of a common origin wholly out of
the question ; on tbe other hand that the resem
blances do not necessitate the theory of a historical
unity, but may be satisfactorily accounted for on
psychological principles. It will be our object to
discuss the amount, tbe value, and the probable
origin of the varieties exhibited by languages, with
a view to meet the first class of objections. But
before proceeding to this, we will make a few re
marks on the second class, inasmuch as these, if
established, would nullify any conclusion that might
be drawn from the other.
A psychological unity is not necessarily opposed
to a gentilic unity. It is perfectly open to any
theorist to combine the two by assuming that tiif
language of tbe one protoplast was founded on
strictly psychological principles. But, on the other
hand, a psychological unity does not necessitate a
gentilic unity. It permits of the theory of a plu
rality of protoplasts, who under the influence of
the same psychological laws arrived at similar inde
pendent results. Whether the phenomena of lan
guage are consistent with such a theory, we think
extremely doubtful ; certainly they cannot furnish
the basis of it. The whole question of the origin

the text, it interferes with the ulterior object for which
the nariiitive was probably iuserted, namely, t© recon
cile the manifest diversity of language with the i(l» ^
an original unity.
6 See the Appendix to this article.

TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
oi language Ues beyond the pale of historical proof,
and any theory connected with it admits neither
of being proved nor disproved. We kuow, as a
matter of fact, thai language is communicated from
one generation to another solely by force of imita
tion, and that there is no play whatever for the in
ventive faculty in reference to it. But in what
manner the substance of language was originally
produced, we do not know. No argument can be
derived againsfc the comraon origin from analogies
drawn from the animal world, aud when Professor
Agassiz compares similarities of language with
those of the cries of aniraals (v. Bohlen's Introd. to
Gen. u. 278), he leaves out of consideration the
important facfc fchat language is not identical wi|;h
sound, and that the words of a rational being, how
ever originaUy produced, are perpetuated in a man
ner wholly distinct from that whereby animals learn
fco utter their cries. Nor does the internal evidence
of language itself reveal the mystery of its urigiii ;
for though a very large number of words may be
reterred either directly or mediately to the prin
ciple of onomatopoeia, there are ofchers, as, for in
stance, the first and second personal pronouns, which
do not admit of such au explanation. In short,
this and other similar theories cannot be reconciled
with the intimate connection evidently existing be
tween reason and speech, and wliich is so weU ex
pressed in the Greek language by the application
of the term \6yos to each, reason being nofching
else than inward speech, and speech nofchhig else
than outward reason, neither of them possessing an
independent existence without the other. As we
conceive that the psychological, as opposed to the
gentUic, unity hivolves questions connected wifch the
origin of language, we can only say that in this re
spect it falls outside the range of our inquiry.
Keverting to the other class of objections, we
proceed to review fche extent of the diflerences ob
servable in the languages of the world, in order to
ascertain whefcher fcbey are such as to preclude the
possibility of a common origin. ESuch a review
must necessarily be imperfect, both from the mag
nitude of the subject, and also frora the position of
the Unguistic science itself, which as yet has hardly
advanced beyoud the stage of infancy. On the
latter point we would observe thafc the mosfc impor
tant links between the various language famiUes
may yet be discovered in languages that are either
unexplored, or, at aU events, unplaced. Mean
while, no one can doubt that the tendency of aU
Unguistic research is in the direction of uuity.
Already it has brought withiii the bonds of a well-
established relationship languages so remote from
each other in external guise, in age, and in geo
graphical position as Sanskrit and English, Celtic
and Greek. It has done the same for other groups
of languages equally widely extended, but present
ing less opportunities of investigation. It has
recognized affinities befcween languages which the
ancient Greek ethnologist would have classed under
the head of " barbarian " in reference to each other,
and even in many instances where the modem phi
lologist has anticipated no relationship. The Unes
of discovery therefore point in oue direction, and
avor the expectation that the various families may
be combined by the discovery of connecting Unks
mto a single family, comprehending in ifcs capacious.
bosom aU the languages of the world. But should
BUch a result n^ver be attained, the probabiUty of
ft common origin would stiU remain unshaken; for
Jie faUure would nrobably be due to the absence.

TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 3287
in many classes and famiUes, of fchat chain of his
torical evidence, which in the case of the Indo-
European and Shemitic families enables us to trace
their progress for above 3,000 years. In many lan
guages no Uterature at all, in many others no ancient
literature exists, to supply the philologist with
materials for compai-ative study: in these cases it
can only be by laborious research into existing
dialects that the original fornis of words can be
detected, amidst the incrustations and transmuta
tions with which time has obscured them.
In deaUng with the phenomena of language, we
should duly consider the plastic nature of the mate
rial out of which ifc is formed, and the numerous in
fluences to which it is subject. Variety in unifcy
is a general law of nature, to wbich even fche most
stubborn physical substances yield a ready obe
dience. In the case of language it would be diffi
cult to lay any bounds to the variety which we
might d pi'loiH, expect it to assume. For in the
first place it is brought into close contact with the
spirit of man, and reflects with amazing fidelity its
endless variations, adapting itself to the expression
of each feeUng, the designation of each object, the
working of each cast of thought or stage of reason
ing power. Secondly, its sounds are subject, to
external influences, such as peculiarities of the
organ of speech, the result either of natural con-
tbrmation, of geographical position, or of habits of
Ufe and associations of an accidental character. In
the third place, it is gen eraUy aflected by the state
of inteUectual aud social culture of a people, as
manifested more especiaUy in the presence or ab
sence of a standard hterary dialecfc, aud in the pro
cesses of verbal and syntactical structure, which
again react on the very core of the word, and pro
duce a variety of sound-mutations. Lastly, ifc is
subjected to the wear and tear of time and use, ob
literating, as iu an old coin, fclie original impress of
the word, reducing it in bulk, producuig new com
binations, and occasionally leading to singular in
terchanges of sound and idea. The varieties, re
sulting fi-om the modifying influences above enu
merated, may be reduced to two classes, according as
they afi'ect the formal or the radical elements of lan
guage. On each of these subjects we propose to
make a few remarks.
I. Widely as languages now difier from each
other in external form, the raw material (if we may
use the expression) out of which they have sprung
appears to have been in aU cases the same. A sub
stratum of significanfc raonosyUabic roots underlies
the whole structure, supplying the materials neces
sary not only for orduiai'y predication, but also for
what is usuaJly termed the "growth" of language
out of ifcs primary into its more complicated forms.
It is necessary to point this out clearly in ordei'
that we may not be led to suppose that the ele
ments of one language are m themselves endued
with any greater vifcalifcy than those of another.
Such a distinction, if it existed, would go far to
prove a specific difference between languages,
which could hardly be reconciled with the idea of
their coramon origin. The appearance of vitality
arises out of the manipulation of the roots by the
huraan rauid, and is not inherent in the roots
theraselves. The proofs of this original equaUty are fm'nished
by the languages themselves. Adopting for the
present the threefold morphologituil classification
into isolating, agglutinative, and inflecting lan
guages, we shaU find that nc origiaal element exists

3288 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
ill the one which does nofc also exist in the other.
With regard to the isolating class, the terms *' mon
osyllabic" and "radical," by which it is other
wise described, are decisive as to its character.
Languages of this class are wholly unsusceptible of
grammatical mutations: there is no formal distinc
tion between verb and noun, substantive and ad
jective, preposition and conjunction i there are no
inflections, no case or person terminations of any
kind : the bare root forms the sole and whole sub
stance of the language. In regard to the other two
classes, it is necessary to estabUsh the two distinct
points, (1) that fche formal elements represent roots,
and (2) that the roots both of the formal and the
radical elements of the word are monosyllabic.
Now, it may be satis'factorily proved by analysis
that ail the component parts of both inflecting and
agglutinative languages are reducible fco two kinds
of roots, predicable and pronominal; tbe former
supplying the material elemenfc of verbs, substan
tives, and adjectives, the latter that of conjunctions,
prepositions, and particles; whUe each kind, but
more particularly the pronominal, supply the formal
element, or, in other words, the terminations of
verbs, substantives, and adjectives. The fuU proofs
of these assertions would involve nothing less than
a treatise on comparative grammar : we can do no
more than adduce in the accompanying note a few
illustrations of the various points to which we have
adverted." Whether the two classes of roots, pred
icable and pronomhial, are further reducible to
one class, is a point thafc has been discussed, bufc
has not as yet been estabUshed (Bopp's Compar.
Gram. § 105; Max Miiller's Lectures, p. 269).
We have further to show that the roots of agglu
tinative and inflecting languages are monosyllabic.
This is an acknowledged characteristic of the Indo-
European family; monosyllabism is indeed the only
a 1. That prepositions are reducible to pronominal
roots may be illustrated by the following instances.
The Greek ino, with ita cognates the German ab and
our qf, is derived from the demoustrative base a,
whence also the Sanskrit dpa (Bopp, § lOOOj ; trpo and
TTuipa are akin to the Sansk. pro. and pira, secondary
formations of the above-mentioned dpa (Bopp, § 1009j.
The only preposition which appears to spBcing from a
predicable base ia trans, with its cognates durch and
through, which are referred to the verbal root tar (Bopp.
1018). 2. That conjunctions are similarly reducible may be
illustrated by the tamiliar instances of on, quod, and
'f thafc," indifferently used us pronouns or conjunctions.
The Latin si is connected with the pronoun si-bi ; and
et together with the Sansk. yhdi, with the relative base
ya (Bopp, §994).
3. That the sufiixes forming the iuflections of verbs
and nouns are nothing else than the relics of either
predicable or pronominal roots, will appear from the fol
lowing instances, drawn (1) from the Indo-European
languages, and (2) from the Dral-Altaian languages. (1.)
Th< -ut in SiStMifLi is connected with the I'oot whence
spring the oblique cases of the personal pronoun eyu ;
tbe -(T in Si&ios is the remains of a-v ; and the t in earC
(for which an q- is substituted in Bt'Swo-t) represents
the Sanskrit ta, which reappears in avro? auj in the ob
lique cases of the article (Bopp, §§ 434, 443, 456). So
again, the -a- in the nominative \6yos represents the
Sanskrit pronominal root sa, and the -d of the neuter
quid the Sanskrit la (Schleicher's Compend. §246);
the genitive terminations -os, -oio (originally -oo-oio),
and hence -ov = the Sanskrit sya, another form of 5a
(Schleicher, § 252) ; the dative (or more properly the
locative) -u or -ot is referable to the demonstrative
root i (Schleicher, § 254) ; and the accusative ~v (orig-

TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
feafcure vvhich ifcs roots have in common; in othei
respects they exhibit every kind of vai-iation from a
uniUteral root, such as i (i7'e), up to corabinations
of five letters, such as scand (scandere), the total
number of admissible forms of root amounting to
no less than eight (Schleicher, § 206). In the
Shemitic family raonosyUabism is not a. prima facie
characteristic of the root ; on the contrary, the ver
bal & stems exhibit bisyUabism with such remark
able uniforraity, that it would lead to the impres
sion thafc the roots also musfc have been bisyllabic.
The bisyUabism, however, of the Shemitic stem is
in reality fcriconsonantallsm, the vowels not forming
any part of the essence of the root, but beiut;
wholly subordinate to the consonants. Ifc is ai
once apparent that a tri consonantal and even a
quadriconsonantal root may be in certain combina
tions unisyllabic. But further, ifc is more than
probable that the triconsonantal has been evolved
out of a biconsonantal root, which must necessarily
be unisyUabic if the consonants stand, as they in
variably do in <^ Shemitic roots, at the beginning
and end of the word. With regard to the agglu
tinative class, it may be assumed that the same law
which we have seen to prevail iu the isolating and
inflecting classes, prevails also in this, holding as it
does an "iiitermediate place between those opposite
poles in the world of language.
Frora the consideration of the crude materials of
language, we pass on to the varieties exhibited m
its structure, with a view to ascertain whether hi
these there exists any bar to the idea of an original
unity. (1.) Eeverting to the classification aheady
noticed, we have to observe, in the first place, that
the principle on which it is based is tbe nature of
the connection existing befcween the predicable and
the relational or inflectional elements of a word. In
the isolating class these two are kept wholly die-

inally -ft.) to a pronominal base, probably am, which
no longer appears in iUt simple form (Schleicher, § 249).
(2.) In the Ural-Altaian languages, we find that the
terminations of the verbs, gerunds, and participles are
referable to significant roots ; as in Turkish the activB
affix t OT d to a root signifying " to do " (Ewald,
Sprachw. Abh. ii. 27), and in Hungarian the fectitive
affix / to te, " to do," the passive affix I to le, "to be
come ; " the affix of possibility hac to hat, " to work,'*
etc. (Pulszky, in PhiloL Tran.<;. 1859, p. 115).
& Monosyllabic substantives are not unusual in He
brew, as instanced in ^S, 12, etc. It is unneccBSary
to regard these as truncated forms from bisyllabic
roots. c That the Shemitic languages ever actually existed
iu a state of monosyllabism is questioned by Renan,
partly because the surviving monosyllabic languages
have never emerged from their primitive condiHon,
and partly because he conceives synthesis and com
plexity to be anterior in the history of language to
analysis and simplicity {Hist. Ijdn, i. 98-100). The
first of these objections is based upon the assumption
that languages are developed only in the direction o'
syntheticism; but this, as we shall hereafter show,
is not the only possible form of development, and it is
just because the monosyllabic languages have adopted
another method of perfecting themselves, that they
have remained in their original stage. The second
objection seems to involve a violation of the natural
order of things, and to be inconsistent with the eri
dence afi'oi'ded by language itself; for, though there is
undoubtedly a tendency in language to pass from the
synthetical to tbe analytical stafe, it la no less clear
from the elements of synthetic forms that they muflt
have originaUy existed in au analytical state.

TONGUEa, CONFUSION OP
tinct: rektional ideas are expressed by juxtapo
sition or by syntactical arrangement, and not by
any combination of the roots. In the agglutinative
class the relational elements are attached to the
principal or predicable theme by a mechanical kind
of junction, the individuality of each being pre
served even in the combined state. In the inflecting
class the junction is of a more perfect character,
and may be compared to a chemical combinatiou,
the predicable aud relational elements being so fused
tocether as to present the appearance of a single
and indivisible word. It is clear that there exists
no insuperable barrier to original unity in these
differences, from the simple fact that every inflect
ing language must once have been agglutinative,
and every agglutinative language once isolating.
If the predicable and relational elements of an iso
lating language be linked together, either to the
eye or the £ar, it is rendered agglutinative; if the
material and formal pai'ts are pronounced as one
word, eliminating, if necessary, the sounds that
resist incorporation, the language becomes inflecting.
(2.) In the second place, it should be noted that
these three classes are not separated from each
other by any sharp line of demarcation. Not only
does each possess in a measure the quality pre
dominant iu each other, but moreover each grad
uates into its neighbor through its bordering
members. The isolating languages are not wholly
isolating; they avail themselves of certain words as
relational particles, though these still retain else
where their independent character: they also use
composite, though not strictly compound words.
The agglutinative are not wholly agglutinative : the
Finnish and Turkish classes of the Ural-Altaian
family are in certain instances inflectional, the rela
tional adjunct being fully incorporated with the
predicable stem, and having undergone a large
amount of attrition for that purpose. Nor again
are the inflectional languages wholly inflectional:
Hebrew, for instance, abounds with agglutinative
forms, and also avails itself largely of separate
particles for the expression of relational ideas : our
own language, though classed as inflectioual, retains
nothing more than the vestiges of inflection, and is
in many respects as isolating and juxtapositional as
any lauguage of that class. While, tlierefore, the
classification holds good with regard to tbe pre
dominant characters of the classes, it does not imply
differences of a speciflc nature. (3.) But further,
the morphological varieties of language are not con
fined to the exhibition of the single principle hitherto
described. A comparison between the westerly
branches of the Ural-Altaian on the one hand, and
the Indo-European on the other, belonging respec
tively to the agglutinative and inflectional classes,
will show that the quantitative amount of syn
thesis is fully as prominent a point of contrast as
Ihe qualitative. The combination of primary and
subordinate terms may be more perfect in the
ludo-European, but it is more extensively employed
in the Ural-Altaian family. The former, for in
stance, appends to its verbal stems the notions of
time, number, person, and occasionally of interro
gation; the latter further adds suffixes indicative
of negation, hypothesis, causativeness, reflexiveness,
and other similar ideas, whereby the word is built
up tier on tier to a marvelous extent. The former
appends to its substantival stems suffixes of case
and number; the latter adds governing particles,
rendering them post-positional instead of pre-posi-
(ional, and combining them synthetically with the
207

TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 3289
predicable stem. If, again, we compare the Shemitio
with the Indo-European- languages, we shall tiud a
morphological distinction of an equally diverse
character. In tlie former the grammatical category
is expressed by internal vowel-changes, in the latter
by external suffixes. So marked a distinction has
not unnaturally been constituted tbe basis of a
classification, wherein the languages that adopt this
system of internal flection stand by themselves as a
separate class, in contradistinction to those which
either use terminational additions for the same pur
pose, or which dispense wholly with inflectional
forms (Bopp's Comp. Gr. i. 102). The singular
use of pretbrmatives in the Coptic language is.
again, a morphological peculiarity of a very decided
character. And even within the sarae family, say
the Indo-European, each language exhibits an idio
syncrasy in its morphological character, whereby it
stands out apart from the other members with a
decided impress of individuality. The inference to
be drawn from the number and character of the
differences we have noticed is favorable, rather than
otherwise, to the theory'of an original unity. Start
ing from the same common ground of nionosyllabio
roots, each language-family has cai'ried out its own
special line of development, following an original im
pulse, the causes and nature of which must remain
probably forever a matter of conjecture. We can
perceive, indeed, iu a jreneral way, tbe adaptation of
certain forms of speech to certain states of society.
The agglutinative languages, for instance, seem to be
specially adapted to tbe nomadic state by the prom
inence and distinctness with which they enunciate
the leading idea in each word, an arrangement
whereby communication would be facilitated be
tween tribes or families that associate only at inter
vals. We might almost imagine that these languages
derived their impress of uniformity and sohdity
from the monotonous steppes of Central Asia, which
have in all ages formed their proper habitat. So,
again, the inflectional class reflects cultivated
thought and social organization, and its languages
have hence been teruied " state " or "political."
JMonosyllabism, on the other hand, is pronounced to
be suited to the most primitive stage of thought and
soeiety, wherein the family or the individual is the
standard by which things are regulated (Max Miil
ler, in Ph'tlos. of Hist.\ 285). We should hesi
tate, however, to press this theory as furnishing an
adequate explanation of the differences observable in
language-families. The Indo-European languages at
tained their high organization amid the same scenes
and in the same nomad state as those wherein the
agglutinative languages were nurtured, and we
should be rather disposed to regard both the language
and the higher social status of the former as the
concurrent results of a higher mental organization.
If from words we pass on to the varieties of syn
tactical arrangement, the same degree of analogy
win be found to exist between class and class, or
between family and family in the same class; in
other words, no peculiarity exists in one which does
not admit of exphmation by a comparison with
othere. The absence of all grammatical forms in
an isolating language necessitates a rigid collocation
of the words in a sentence according to logical prin
ciples. The same law prevails to a very great extent
in our own language, wherein the subject, verb, and
object, or the subject, copula, and predicate, gener
ally hold their relative positions in the order ex
hibited, the exceptions to such an arrangement being
easily brought into harmony with that general law.

3290 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
In the agglutinative languages the law of arrange
ment is that the principal word should come last
in the sentence, every qualifying clause or word
preceding it, and being as it were sustained by it.
The syntactical is thus the reverse of the verbal
structure, the principal notion taking the prece'dence
in the latter (Ewald, Sprachw. Abh. ii. 29). There
is in this nofching peculiar to 'this class of languages,
beyond the greater uniformity with which the ar
rangement is adhered to : it is the general rule in
the classical, and the occasional rule in certain of the
Teutonic languages. In the Shemitic family the
reverse arrangement prevails: the qualifying adjec
tives follow the noun to which they belong, and
the verb generally stands first : short sentences are
necessitated by such a collocation, and hence more
room is allowed for the influence of emphasis in
deciding the order of the sentence. In illustration
of grammatical peculiarities, we may notice that
in the agglutinative class adjectives qualifying
substantives, or substantives placed in apposition
with substantives, remain undeclined : in this case
the process may be compared with the formation
of compound words in the Indo-European languages,
where the final member alone is inflected. So again
the omission of a plural terraination in nouns fol
lowing a numeral may be paralleled with a similar
usage hi our own language, where tbe terms
"pound" or "head" are used collectively after a
numeral. We may again cite the peculiar manner
of expressing the genitive in Hebrew. This is
eflfected by one of the two following methods —
placing fche governing noun in the status con-
strucius, or using the relative pronoun " with a
preposition before the governed case. The fixst of
these processes appears a strange inversion of the
laws of language; but an examination into the
origin of the adjuncts, whether prefixes or affixes,
used in other languages for the indication of the
genitive, will show that they have a more intimate
connection with the governing than with the
governed word, and that they are generally re
solvable into either relative or personal pronouns,
which serve the simple purpose of connecting the
two words together (Garnett's Essays,-pp. 214^227).
Tb** same end may be gained by connecting the
w ' as in pronunciation, which would lead to a rapid
ULicrance of the firet, and consequently to the changes
which are witnessed in the status consii"Uctus, The
second or periphrastic process is in accordance with
the general raethod of expressing the genitive; for
the expression " the Song which is to Solomon "
strictly answers to "Solomon's Song," the s repre
senting (according to Bopp's explana;tion ) a com
bination of the demonstrative sa and the relative ya.
It is thus that the varieties of construction may be
shown to be consistent with unity of law, and that
they therefore furnish no argument against a com
mon origin.
Lastly, it may be sho\vn that the varieties of
language do not arise from any constitutional in
equality of vital energy. Nothing is more remark-

" ^ -^m..

b Tbe action of this law is as foUows : The vowels
are divided into tbree classes, which we may term
snarp, medial, and flat : the first aod the last cannot
be combined in any fully formed word, but all the
vowels must be either of the two first, or of the two
last classes. The suffixes must always accord with
the root in regard to the quaUty of its vowel-sounds^
ftnd hence the necessity of having double forma for all

TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
able than the compensating powei' apparently in
berent in all language, whereby it finds the niftin«
of reaching the level of the human spirit through a
faithful adherence to its own guiding principle.
The isolating languages, being shut out from the
manifold advantages of verbal composition, attain
their object by multiplied combinations of radical
sounds, assisted by an elaborate system of accentua
tion and intonation. In this manner the Chinese
language has framed a vocabulary fully equal to
the demands made upon it ; and though this mode
of development may not commend itself to our
notions as the most effective that can he devisnl.
yet it plainly evinces a high susceptibility on tlie
part of the linguistic faculty, and a keen perception
of the coiTespondence between sound and sense.
Nor does the absence of inflection interfere with
the expression even of the most delicate shades of
meaning in a sentence ; a compensating resource is
found partly in a multiplicity of subsidiary terms
expressive of plurality, motion, action, etc., and
partly in strict attention to syntactical arrangement.
The agglutinative languages, again, are deficient
in compound words, and in this respect lack the
elasticity and expansiveness of the Indo-European
family ; but tbey are eminently synthetic, and no
one can fail to admire ^the regularity and solidity
with which its words are built up, suffix on sufiis,
and, when built up, are sufRased with an uniformity
of tint by tbe law of vowel-harmony.* The Shemitic
languages have worked out a different pruiciple of
growth, evolved, not improbably, in the midst of a
conflict between the systems of prefix and suffix,
whereby the stem, being as it were inclosed at l)Oth
extremities, was precluded from all external incre
ment, and was forced back into such changes as
could be effected by a modification of its vowel
sounds. But whatever may be the origin of the
system of internal inflection, it must be conceded
that the results are very effective, as regards both
economy of material, and simplicity and dignity of
style. The result of the foregoing observations is to
show that the formal varieties of language present
no obstacle to tbe theory of a common origin.
Amid these varieties there may lie discerned mani
fest tokens of unity in the original material out of
which language was formed, in the stages of forma
tion through which it has passed, in the general
principle of grammatical expression, and, lastly, in
the spirit and power displayed in the development
of these various formations. Such a result, though
it does not prove the unity of language in respect
to its radibal elements, nevertheless tends to estab
lish the a prion probability ot this unity; for if all
connected with the forms of language may be re
ferred to certain general laws, if nothing in that
department owes its origin to chance or arbitrary
appointment, it surely favors the presumption that
the same principle would extend to the formation
of the roots, which are the very core and kernel of
language. Here too we might expect to find tho

the suflixes to meet the sharp or the flat character of
the root. The practice is probably referable to the
same principle which assigned so remarkable a prom
inence to the root. As the root sustains the series ot
suffixes, its vowel-sound becomes not unnaturally tbe
key-note of the whole strain, faciUtaSng the procesw"
of utterance to the speaker, and of perception to the
hearer, and communicating to the word the umformitj
which is so characteristic of the whole stiuctureof
these lant^uaves.

TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
aperafcion of fixed laws of sorae kind or other, pro
ducing results of an uniforra character; here too
actual variety may nofc be inconsistent with original
unity. II. Before entering on the subjecfc of fche radical
identity of languages, we must express our convic
tion that the time has not yet arrived for a decisive
opinion as to the possibility of establishing it by
proof. Let us briefly review the difficulties that
beset the question. Kvery word as it appears in
an organic language, whether written or spoken,
is resolvable into two distinct elements, which we
have termed predicable and formal, the firet being
what is commonly called the root, the second the
grammatical termination. In point of facfc both of
these elements consist of independent roots; and in
order to prove the radical identity of two languages,
it must be shown that they agree in both respects,
that is, in regard both to the predicable and the
formal roots. As a matter of experience it is found
that the fonnal elements, consisting for the most
parfc of pronominal bases, exhibifc a greater tenacity
of life than the others; and hence agreement of in
flectional forms is justly regarded as furnishing a
strong presumption of general radical identity.
Even foreign elements are forcetl into the formal
mould of the language into which they are adopted,
and thus bear testimony to the original character
of that language. But though such a formal agree
ment supplies the philologist with a most valuable
instrument of investigation, it cannofc be accepted
as a substitute for complete radical agreement: this
would still remain to be proved by an independent
examination of the predicable elements. The diffi
culties connected with these latter are raany and
varied. Assuming that two languages or language-
families are under comparison, the phonological
laws of each must be investigated in order to arrive,
in the first place, afc fche primary forms of words in
the language in which they occur, and, in the sec
ond place, at the corresponding forms in the lan
guage which constitutes the "other member of
comparison, as done by (irimm for the Teutonic as
compared with the Sanskrit and the classical lan
guages. The genealogy of sound, as we may term
it, raust be followed up by a genealogy of significa
tion, a mere outward accordance of sound and sense
in two terras being of no value whatever, unless a
radical aflBnity be proved by an independent ex-

a Grimm waa the first to discover a regular system
of displacement of sounds {tautversc/uebung) pervading
the Gothic and Low German languages as compared
with Greek and Latin. According to this system, the
Gothic substitutes aspirates for tenues (h for Gr. k or
Lat. c, th for (, and / for p) ; tenues for medials {t for
d, p for b, and k for g) ; and medials for aspirates
(g for Qr. ch or Lat. h, d for Gr. th, and b for Lafc. / or
iir. ph) {Gesch. Deuts. Spr. i. 393). We may illustrate
the changes by comparing heart with cor or KapSCa ;
thou with tu ; Jive with Tre^Tre {irevre), or father with
pater ; two with duo ; knee with yon/ ; goose with, v^v ;
dare with Bapa-dto ; bear with fero or 0e'pu». What has
thus been done for the Teutonic languages, has been
carried out by Schleicher in his Compendium for each
class of the Indo-European family.
b It is a delicate question to decide whether in any
given language the onomatopoetic words that may
occiu* are original or derived. Numerous coincidences
of sound and sense occur in different languages to
which little or no value is attiched by etymologists
on the ground thafc they are onomatopoetic. Bufc
evidently these may have been handed down from
i^eneration to generation, and fr^m language to lan-

TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 3291
amination of tbe cognate words in each case. II
still remains to be inquired how far the ultimate
accordance of sense and sound may be the result oi
onomatopceia,^ of mere borrowing, or of a possible
mixture of languages on equal terms. The final
stage in etymological hiquiry is to decide the limit
to which coraparison may be carried in the prim
itive strata of language — in other words, how far
roots, as ascertained from groups of words, may be
compared with roots, and reduced to yet simpler
elementary forms. Any flaw in the processes above
described will of course invalidate the whole result.
Even where the philologist is prodded with ample
materials for inquiry in stores of hterature ranging
over long periods of time, much difficulty is ex
perienced in makpg good each link in the chain
of agi-eement; and yet in such cases the dialectic
varieties have been kept within some degree of re
straint by the existence of a literary language,
which, by impressing its authoritative stamp on
certain terms, has secured both their general use
and their external integrity. Where no literature
exists, as is the case with the general mass of lan
guages in the world, the difficulties are infinitely
increased by the combined efiects of a prolific growth
of dialectic forms, and an absence of all means of
tracing out their progress. Whether under these
circumstances we may reasonably expect to establish
a radical unity of language, is a question which
each person must decide for himself. Much may
yet be done by a larger induction and a scientific
analysis of languages that are yet comparatively
unknown. The tendency hitherto has been to en
large the limits of a "family" according as the
elements of affinity have been recognized in out
lying membere. These limits may perchance be
still more enlarged by the discovery of connecting
links , between the lan guage -families, whereby the
criteria of relationship will be modified, and new
elements of internal unity be discovered amid the
manifold appearances of external diversity.
Meanwhile we must content ourselves with stathig
the present position of the linguistic science in ref
erence to this important topic. In the firet place
the Indo-European languages have been reduced to
an acknowledged and well-defined relationship: they
forra one of the two farailies included under the
head of " inflectional " in the morphological classi
fication. "The other family in this class is the (so-

guage, and may have as true a genealogy as any other
terms not bearing that character, for instance, the
Hebrew Itt'a (V-V^) expresses in its very sound tbe
notion of sioallotving or gulping, tbe word consisting,
as Rennn has remarked {H. G. i. 460), of a lingual
and a guttural, representing respectively the tongue
and the throat, which are chiefly engaged in che
operation of swallowing. In the Indo-Europeau lan
guages we meet with a large class of words containing
the same elements and conveying, more or less, tho
same meaning, such, as \etxW) A.txJiAato, ligurio, lingim,
guia, " lick," and others. These words may have had
a common source, but, because they are onomatopoetic
in their character, they are excluded as evidence of
radical affinity. This exclusion may be carried too
for, though it is difficult to point out where it should
stop. But even onomatopoetic words bear a specific
character, and the names given in imitation of the
notes of birds differ materially in different languages,
apparently from the perception of some subtle analogy
with previously existing sounds or ideas. Tbe subject
is one of great interest, and may yet play an important
part in the history of language.

3292 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
called) Shemitic, the limits of which are not equally
well defined, inasmuch as it may be extended over
what are termed the sub-Shemitic languages, in-
eluding the Egyptian or Coptic. The criteria of
the proper Shemitic family (i. e. the Aramaean,
Hebrew, Arabic, and Ethiopic languages) are dis
tinctive enough; but the connection between the
Shemitic and the Egyptian is not definitely estab
lished. Sorae philologists are inchned to claim for
the latter an independent position, intermediate
between the Indo-European and Shemitic families
(Bunsen's Phil, of Hist i. 185 ff.). The aggluti
native languages of Europe and Asia are combined
by Prof. M. Miiller, in one family named " Tu
ranian." It is conceded that the faraily bond in
this case is a loose one, and that the agreement in
roots is very partial (Lectures, pp. 290-292). Many
philologists of high standing, and more particularly
Pott (Ungleich. Mensch, Rassen, p. 232), deny the
family relationship altogether, and break up the
agglutinative languages Into a greafc number of
families. Certain it is that within the Turanian
circle there are languages, such, for instance, as the
Ural-Alfcaian, which show so close an affinifcy to
each other as to be entitled to form a separate
division, either as a family or a subdivision of a
family: and this being the case, we should hesitate
to put them on -a. parity of footing with the re
mainder of the Turanian languages. The Caucasian
group again differe so widely from the other mem
bera of the family as to make the relationship very
dubious. The monosyllabic languages of south
eastern Asia are not included in the Turanian
family by Prof. M. Miiller (Leet pp. 290, 326),
apparently on the ground thafc they are not ag
glutinative; but as the Chinese appears to be con
nected radically with the Burmese (Humboldt's
Verschied. p. 368), with the Tibetan (Ph. of Hist
i. 393-395), and with the Ural-Altaian languages
(Schofct in Abh. Ab. Beri 1861, p. 172), it seems
to have a good title to be placed in the Turanian
family. With regard to the American and the
bulk of the African languages, we are unable to say
whether they can be brought under any of the
heads already mentioned, or whether they stand by
theraselves as distinct families. The former are
referred by writers of high eminence to an Asiatic
or Turanian origin (Bunsen, Phil, of Hist ii. Ill;
Latham's Man and his Af/gi-at p. 186); the latter
to the Shemitic family (Latham, p. 148).

a Several of the terms compared by him are ono
matopoetic, aa parak (/rac-ture), pdtasli {ira-TdtTtreLv),
and k&tap, and in each of these cases the initial letter
forms part of the onomatopoeia. In others the initial
letter in the Greek is radical, as in ^acrtXeveii' (Pott's
El. Forsch. ii. 272), SpvineLv (i. 229), and vroXi^eiv
(i. 197). In others again it is euphonic, as in jSSaA-
KeLv. Lastly, we are unable to see how tarap and tdrep
admit of close comparison with Bpvi^etv and rpe^eiv.
It shows the uncertainty of such analogies that Gese
nius compares t&rap with Spvirreiv, and kdlap (F|^3)
with yAu0eic, which Delitzsch compares with khdiap
(P]^n). An attempt to estabUsh a large amount
of radical identity by means of a resolution of the
Hebrew word into its component and significant ele
ments may be seen in the Philolog. Trans, for 1858,
ffhere, for instance, the ba in the Hebrew bakasli, is
compared with the Teutonic prefix be ; the dar in dar-
kash with the Welsh dar in dar-paru; and the chaph
In chaphask with the "Welsh cyf in cvfam.t
b These groups are sufficiently common in Hebrew.

TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
The problem that awaits solution is, whether tht
several families above specified can be reduced o a
single faraily by demonstrating their radical iden
tity. It would be unreasonable to expect that this
identity should be coextensive with the vocabula
ries of the various languages; it would naturally
be confined to such ideas and objects as are cora
mon to mankind generally. Even within this circle
the difficulty of proving the identity may be in
finitely* enhanced by tbe absence of materials.
There are indeed but two farailies in which these
materials are found in anything like sufficiency,
namely, the Indo-European and the Shemitic, and
even these furnish us w;ith no historical evidence
as to the earUer stages of their growth. We find
each, at the most remote literary period, already
exhibiting its distinctive character of stem- and
word-formation, leaving us to infer, as we best
may, from these phenomena the processes by which
they had reached that point. Hence there arises
abundance of room for difierence of opinion, and
the extent of the radical identity will depend very
much on the view adopted as to these earlier pro
cesses. If we could accept in its entirety the sys
tem of etymology propounded by the analytical
school of Hebrew scholars, it would not be difficult
to establish a very large amount of radical identity;
but we cannot regard as established the preposi
tional force of the initial letters, as stated by
¦Dehtzsch in his Jeshurun (pp. 166, 173, note),
still less the correspondence between these and the
initial letters of Greek and Latin words" (pp.
170-172). The striking uniformity of bi-syllabism
in the verbal stems is explicable only on the as
sumption that a single principle imderflra the
whole; and the existence of groups '^ of words dif
fering slightly in form, and having the same radi
cal sense, leads to the presumption thafc this princi
ple was one not of composition, but of euphonism
and practical convenience. This presumption ia
still further favored by an analysis of the letters
forming the stems, showing that the third letter ia
in many instances a reduplication, and in others a
liquid, a nasal, or a sibilant, introduced either as
the initial, the medial, or the final letter. The
Hebrew alphabet admits of a classification ^ based
on the radical character of the letter according to
its position in the stem. The efiect of composi
tion would have been to produce, in the firet place,
a greater inequality in the length of the words,

We will take as an instance the following one: tt?'ltO,
ty^*l, tt?^b, tt?^3, and tt?QQ, all conveying the
idea of " dash " or " strike.'.' Or, again, the follow
ing group, with the radical sense of slipperiness :
nb, nnb, nab, nnb, nbn, nbn, f\hv,
PjT'ty, etc. A classtficatory lexicon of such groups
would assist the etymological inquiry.
c Such a classification is attempted by Boetticher,
in Bunsen, Phitos. of Hist. ii. 357. Aiter stating what
letters may be inserted either at the beginning, mid
dle, or end of the root, he enumerates those which
are always radical in the several positions ; 3, for
instance, in the beginning and middle, but not at the
end ; v and ^ in the beginning only ; D and W
in the middle and at the end, but not iu the begin-
ning. We are nofc prepared to accept this clasflififl**
tion as wholly correct, but we adduce it in illustration
of fche point above noticed.

TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
and, in the second place, a greater equality in the
use of the various organic sounds.
After deducting largely from the araount of ety-
raological correspondence based on the analytical
tenets, there still remains a considerable amount of
radical identity which appeare to be above sus
picion. Ifc is impossible to produce in tbis place a
complete list of che terras in which that identity is
manifested. In the subjoined note" we cite some
instances of agreement, which cannot possibly be
explained on the principle of direct onomatopceia,
and which would therefore seem to be the common
inheritance of the Indo-European and Shemitic
families. Whether this agreement is, as Renan
suggests, the resulfc of a keen susceptibility of the
onoraatopoetic faculty in the original framers of
the words (Hist Gen. i. 465), is a point that can
neither be proved nor disproved. But even if it
were so, it does not follow that the words were nofc
framed before fche separation of the families. Our
Ust of comparative words might be much enlarged,
if we were to include comparisons based on the
reduction of Shemitic roots to a bisyllabic form.
A list of such words may be found in Dehtzsch's
Jeshurun, pp. 177-180. In regard to pronouns
and numerals, the identity is bufc partial. We
may detect the t sound, which forras the distinc
tive sound of the second personal pronoun in the
Indo-European languages, in the Hebrew attdli,
and in the personal terminations of the perfect
tense ; b\it the m, which is the prevaiUng sound of
the first personal pronoun in the former, is sup
planted by an n in the latter. The numerals
shesh and sheba, for "six" and "seven," accord
with the Indo-European fornis: those representing
the numbere from "one " to " five " are possibly,
though not evidently, identical.* With regard to
the other language-families, ifc will not be expected,
after the observations already made, thafc we should
attempt the proof of their radical identity. The
Ural- Altaian languages have been extensively stud
ied, bufc are hardly ripe for comparison. Occa
sional resemblances have been detected in gram
matical forms *? and in the vocabularies ; ^ but the
value of these remains to be proved, and we must
await the results of a more extended research infco
this and other regions of the world of language.
(B.) We pass on to the second point proposed
for consideration, namely, the ethnological views
in the Bible, and raore parfcicularly in

TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 3293
the lOfch chapter of Genesis, which records the dis
persion of nations consequent on the Confusion of
Tongues. I. The Mosaic table does not profess to describe
the process of the dispersion; but assuming that
dispersion as a fait accompli, it records the ethnic
relations existing between the various nafcions af
fected by 'it. These relations are expressed under
tbe guise of a genealogy; the ethnological char
acter of the document is, however, clear both from
the names, some of which are gentilic in form, as
Ludim, Jebusite, etc., others geographical or local,
as Mizraim, Sidon, etc. ; and again from the form
ulary, which concludes each section of the subject
"after their families, after their tongues, in their
countries, and in their nations" (vv. 5, 20, 31)
Incidentally, fche table is geographical as well as
ethnological; but this arises out of fche practice of
designating nations by the countries tbey occupy.
It has indeed been frequently surmised thatthe ar
rangement of the table is purely geographical, and
this idea is to a certain extent favored by the pos
sibility of explauiing the names Shem, Hara, and
Japheth on this principle; fche firsfc signifyuig the
"high" lands, the second the "hot" or "low"
lands, and the third the "broad." undefined regions
of the north. The three families may have been
so located, and such a circumstance could not have
been unknown to the writer of the table. Bufc
neither internal nor external evidence satisfactorily
prove such to have been the leading idea or prin^
ciple embodied in it; for the Japhetites are mainly
assigned to the "isles" or maritime districts of
the wesfc and northwest, while the Shemites press
down into the plain of Mesopotamia, and the
Hamites, on the other hand, occupy the high
lands of Canaan and I.^banon. We hold, there
fore, the geographical as subordinate to the ethno
graphical element, and avail ourselves of the former
only as an instrument for the discovery of the
latter. The general arrangement of the table is as fol
lows: The whole human race is referred back to
Noah's three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The
Shemites are described last, apparently thafc the
continuity of the narrative may uot be further
disturbed; and the Hamites stand next to the
Shemites, in order to show that these were more
closely related to each other than to fche Japhetites.
The comparative degrees of affinifcy are expressedi,

" 7"^^.? '^°'^^i hom.
TIDD, fJLiaybi, misceo, mix.
tj'13, circa, circle.*
^^M, Germ, erde, earth.
p^Tl, gl<^er, glisco, Germ. gUut, glide.
D^3, C|, D^, cwm, avv, Koii/d?.
M7D, nKios, plenus. Germ. voU. full.
^21, purus, pure.
M"13, mS, vorare, fiopd.
n"lQ, i^epctfj^opus, /cro, bear.
HDM, ei//(i), epula.
HJ3j amarus.

im3, curtus.
3?"1T, serere.
-t'
in^D, Sansk. m&th, mitth, mith (Fiirst, Lex. a
v.), whence by the introduction of r the Latin m.ors.
b See Rddiger's note in Gesen. Gramm. p. 165-
The identity eveu of s/iesh and " six " has beeu ques
tioned, on the ground that the original form of the
Hebrew word was shet and of the Aryan ksvaks {Philol-
Trans. 1860, p. 131).
c Several such, resemblances are pointed oufc by
Ewald in his Sprachw. Abhand., ii. 18, 34, note.
d The following verbal resemblances in Hungarian
and Sanskrit have been noticed : egy and eka, " one ; "
hat and shash, " six ; " hit and saptan, " seven ; " tiz,
and dasan, " ten ; " ezer and sahasra, " thousand ; "
beka and bheka, " frog ; " warty and hiranja, " gold ; "
{PhiloL Trans, for 1858, p. 25). Prooffe of a more in
timate relationship befcween the Finnish and Indo
European languages are adduced in a paper on tin
subjecfc in the PhitoL Trans, for 1860, p. 281 ff.

3294 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
partly by coupling the names together, as in the
cases of Elishah aud Tarshish, Kittim and Doda
nim (ver. 4), and partly by representing a genea
logical descent, as, when the nations just mentioned
are said to be "sons of Javan." An inequality
may be observed in the lengfch of the genealogical
lines, which in the case of Japheth extends only
to one, in Ham to two, in Shera to three, and even
four degrees. This inequality cleariy arises out
of the varying interesfc taken in the several lines
by the author of the table, and by those for whose
use it was designed. We may lastly observe, that
the occurrence of the same name in two of the lists,
as m the case of Lud (vv. 13, 22), and Sheba
(vv. 7, 28), possibly indicates a fusion of the
races. The identification of the Biblical with the his
torical or classical names of nations, is by no means
an easy task, particularly where the names are not
Bubsequently noticed in the Bible. In these cases
comparisons with ancient or modern designations
are the only resource, and where the designation is
one of a purely geographical character, as in the
case of Riphath compared with Ripcei monies, or
Mash compared with Masius mons, great doubt
musfc exisfc as to the ethnic force of the title, inas
much as several nations may have successively
occupied the same district. Equal doubt arises
where names adrait of being treated as appeUa-
tives, and so of being transferred frora one district
to another. Kecent research into Assyrian and
Egyptian records bas in many instances thrown
Ught on the Biblical titles. In the former we find
Meshech and Tubal noticed under the forras Mus-
kai and Tuplai, while Javan appeare as the appel
lation of Cyprus, where the Assyrians first met
with Greek civilization. In the latter the name
Phut appears under the form of Pount, Hittite
as Khita, Cush as Keesh, Canaan as Kanana,
ete. 1. The Japhetite list contains fourteen names,
of which seven represent independent, and the re
mainder affiUated nations, as foUows: (i.) Gomer,
connected ethnically with the Cimmerii, Cimbi-iCi),
and Cymry ; and geographically with Crimea, As
sociated with Gomer are the three following: (a.)
Ashkenaz, generally corapared with lake Ascanius
in Bithynia, but by Knobel with tbe tribe Ascei,
As, or Osseies in the Caucasian district. On the
whole we prefer Hasse's suggestion of a connection
between this name and that of the Axenus, later
the Euxinus Pontus. (b.) Riphath, tbe Ripcei
Montes, which Knobel connects etymologically and
geographically with Carpates Mons. (c.) Togar
mah, undoubtedly Ai'menia, or a portion of it.
(ii.) Magog, the Scythians, (iii.) Madai, Media.
(iv.) Javan, the lonians, as a general appeUation
for the HeUenic race, with whom are associated
the four foUowing: (a.) EUshah, the JEolians, less
probably identified with the district Elis. (b.)
Tarahish, at a later period of Biblical history cer
tainly identical with Tartessus iu Spain, to which,
however, there are objections as regards the table,
partly frora tbe too extended area thus given to the
Mosaic world, and partly because Tartessus was a
Phcenician, and consequently not a Japhetic settle
ment. Knobel compares the Tyrseni, Tyrrheni,
and Tusci of Italy; but this is precarious, (c.)
Kittim, the town Citium iu Cyprus, (d.) Doda
nim, the Dardani of lUyria and Mysia: Dodona
is sometimes compared, (v.) Tubal, the Tibareni
in Pontus. (vi.} Meshech, the Moschi in the

TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
northwestern part of Armenia, (vii.} Tiras, per
haps Thracia.
2. The Hamitic list contains thirty names, ol
which four represent independent, and the remain
der affiliated nations, as follows: (i.) Cush, in two
branches, the western or African representing
Ethiopia, the Keesh of the old Egyptiau, and the
eastern or Asiatic being connected with the names
of the tribe Cosscei, the district Cissia, and the
province Susiana or Khuziston. With Cush are
associated: (a.) Seba, the Sab(^ of Yemen in
south Arabia, (b.) Havilah, the district Khawlan
iu the same part of the peninsula, (c.) Sabtah,
the town Sabatha in Hadramaut. (rf.) Kaamah,
the town Rhegma on the southeastern coast of
Arabia, with whom are associated: (dK) Sheba, a
tribe probably connected ethnicaUy or commercially
with the one of the same name already mentioned,
but located on the west coast of the Pereian Gulf.
(6-.) Dedan, also on the west coast of the Peraian
Gulf, where the name perhaps stiU survives in the _,
island Dadan. (e.) Sabtechah, perhaps the town
Samydace on the coast of the Indian Ocean east
ward of the Pereian Gulf, (f.) Nimrod, a per
sonal and not a geographical name, the representa
tive of the eastern Cushites. (ii.) Mizraim, the
two Misrs, i. e. Upper and Lower Egypt, with
whom the following seven are connected: (a,)
Ludim, according to Knobel a tribe alhed to the
Shemitic Lud, but settled in Egypt; othere com
pare the river La%id (Plin. v. 2), and the Lewatah,
a Berber tribe on the Syrtes. (b.) Anamim, ac
cording to Knobel the inhabitants of the Delta,
which would be described in Egyptian by the term
sanemhit or isanemhit, " northern district," con
verted by the Hebrews into Anamim. (c.) Naphtu-
hira, variously explained as fche people of N^hihys,
i. 6. the northern coast disfcricfc (Bochart), aud as
the worshippers of Phthah, meaning the uihabit
ants of Memphis, (d.) Pathrusira, Upper Egypt,
the narae being explained as meaning in the I^yp-
tian " the south " (Knobel). (e.) Casluhun, Ca
sius inons, Cassiotis, and Cassium, eastward of the
Delta (Knobel): the Colchians, according to Bo
chart, but this is unlikely, {f) Caphtorim, most
probably the district about Copios in Upper Egypt
[Caphtor] ; fche island of Crete according to many
modern critics, Cappadocia according to the older
interpreters, (g.) Phut, the Punt of the Egyptian
inscriptions, meaning the Libyans, (ui.) Canaan,
the geographical position of which calls for no re
mark in this place. The name has been variously
explained as meaning tlie " low " Ijmd of the coast
district, or fche "subjection " threatened to Canaan
personally (Gen. ix. 25). To Canaan belong the
following eleven : (n.) Sidon, the well-known town
of that name in Phoenicia. (6.) Heth, or the Hit
tites of Biblical history, (c.) The Jebusite, of de
bus or Jerusalera. (d.) The Amorite frequently
mentioned in Biblical history, (e.) The Giigasite,
the sarae as the Girgashites. (/.) The Hivite, va
riously explained to mean the occupants of the
"interior" (Ewald), or the dweUers in "villages"
(Gesen.). (g.) The Arkite, of Area, north of Trip-
oUs, at the foot of Lebanon, (h.) The Sinite, of
Sin or Sinna, places in the l^ebanon district. (»•)
The Arvadite of Aradus on the coast of Phoenicia.
(j.) The Zemarite, of Simyra on the Eleutherus.
(A;.) The Hamathite, of Hamath, the classical Epi
phania, on the Orontes.
3. The Shemitic list contains twenty-five names,
of which five refer to independent, and the remam-

TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
der to affiliated tribes, as follows: (i.) Elam, the
tribe Elymeei and the district Elymais in Susiana.
(ii.) Asshur, Assyria between the Tigris and the
range of Zagrus. (iii.) Arphaxad, Arrapachitis in
northern Assyria, with whom are associated: (a.)
Salah, a personal and not a geographical title, in
dicating a migration of the people represented by
hira; Salah's son (a^) Eber, representing geograph
ically the district aa-oss \,i. e. eastward of) the Eu
phrates ; and Eber's two sons (#) Peleg, a personal
name indicating a " division " of this branch of the
Shemitic family, and (6') Joktan, representing gen
eraUy the inhabitants of Arabia, with the following
thirteen sons of Joktan, namely: (a*.) Almodad,
probably representing the tribe of Jurlium near
Mecca, whose leader was named Mudad. (i*.)
Sheleph, the Salapeni in Yemen, (c*. ) Hazarma
veth, Hadramaut, in southern Arabia. (#.) Je-
rah. (e*.) Hadoram, the Adramiice on the south
ern coast, in a district of Hadramaut (/"*.) Uzal,
supposed to represent the town Szanaa in south
Arabia, as having been founded by Asal. (g^.)
Diklah. (A*.) Obal, or, as in 1 Chr. i. 22, Ebal,
which latter is identified by Knobel with the Ge-
banitce in the southwest, (i*.) Abimael, doubtfully
connected with the district Mahra, eastward of
Hadramaut, and with the towns Mara and Mali.
(j*.) Sheba, the Saboei of southwestern Arabia,
about Mariaba. (k*.) Ophir, probably Adane on
the southern coast, but see article, (h.) Havilah,
the district Khdtoldn in the northwest of Yemen
(mK) Jobab, possibly the Jobaritce of Ptolemy (vi.
7, § 24), for which Jobabitse may originally have
stood, (iv.) Lud generally corapared with Jjydia,
but explained by Knobel as referring to the various
aboriginal tribes i[i and about Palestine, such as
the Amalekites, Eephaites, Emim, etc. VVe can
not consider either of these views as well established.
Lydia itself lay beyond the horizon of the Mosaic
table: as to the Shemitic origin of its population,
conflicting opinions are entertained, to wbich we
shall have occasion to advert hereafter. Knobel's
view has iu its favor the probability that the tribes
referred to would be represented in the table; it is,
however, wholly devoid of historical confirmation,
with the exception of an Arabian tradition that
Amlik was one of the sons of Laud or Lawad, the
son of. Shem." (v.) Aram, the general name for
Syria and northern Mesopotamia, with whom the
following are associated: (a.) Uz, probably the
yEsite of Ptolemy, (b.) Hul, doubtful, but best
connected with the name Huleh, attaching to a dis
trict north of Lake Merom. (c.) Gether, not iden
tified, (d.) Mash, Masius Mons, in the north of
Mesopotamia. There is yet one name noticed in the table,
namely, Philistim, which occurs in the Hamitic
dinsion, but without any direct assertion of Ham
itic descent. The terms used in the A. V. " out
of whom (Casluhim) came Philistim" (ver. 14),
would naturally imply descent; but the Hebrew
text only warrants the conclusion that the Philis
tines sojourned in the land of the Casluhim. Not
withstanding this, we believe the intention of the
author of the table to have been to afiSrm the
Hamitic origin of the Philistines, leaving uude-
cided the particular branch, whether Casluhim or

a This tradition probably originated in the desire to
form a connecting link between the Mosaic table and
the rarious elements of the Arabian population. The
•Dly conclusion to be drawn from it is that, in the

TONGUES, CONFCrSlON OF 3295
Caphtorim, with which it was more immediately
connected. The total number of names noticed in the table
including Philistim, would thus araount to 70,
which was raised by patristic writers to 72.
These totals afforded scope for numerical compari
sons, and also for an estiraate of the nuraber of
nations and languages to be found on the earth's
surface. It is needless to say that the Bible itself
furnishes no ground for such calculations, inasmuch
as it does not in any case specify the numbers.
Before proceeding further, it would be well tc
discuss a question materially affecting the historical
value of the Mosaic table, namely, the period to
which it refers. On this point very various opin
ions are entertained. Knobel, conceiving it to rep
resent the commercial geography of the Phoenicians
assigns it to about 1200 B. c. ( Volkert. pp. 4-9',
and Renan supports this view (Hist. Gen. i. 40)!
while others allow it no higher an antiquity than
the period of the Babylonish Captivity (v. Bohlen's
Gen. ii. 207; Winer, Rmb. ii. 6t)5). Internal
evidence leads us to refer it back to the age uf
Abraham on the following grounds: (1.) The Ca
naanites were as yet in undisputed possession- of
Palestine. (2.) The Philistines bad not concluded
their migration. (3.) Tyre is wholly unnoticed, an
omission which cannot be satisfactorily accounted
for on the ground that it is included under the
name either of Heth (Knobel, p. 323), or of Sidon
(v. Bohien, ii. 241). (4.) Various places such as
Simyra, Sinna, and Area, are noticed, which had
fallen into insignificance in later times. (5.) Kit
tim, which in the age of Solomon was under Phce
nician dominion, is assigned to Japheth, and the
same may be said of Tarshish, which in that age
undoubtedly referred to the Phoenician emporium
of Tartessus, whatever may have been its earlier
significance. The chief olijection to so early a date
as we have ventured to propose, is the notice of the
Medes under the name Madai. The Aryan nation,
which bears this narae in history, appears not to
have reached its final settlement until about 900
B. c. (Rawlinson's Herod, i. 404). But on the other
hand, the name Media may well have belonged to
the district before the arrival of the Aryan Medes,
whether it were occupied by a tribe of kindred ori
gin to them or by Turanians ; and tbis probabiUty
is to a certain extent confirmed by the notice of a
Median dynasty in Babylon, as reported by Berosus,
so early as the 25th century B. c. (Rawlmson, i.
434). Little difficulty would be found iu assigning
so earl^ a date to the Medes, if the Aryan origin
of the allied kings mentioned in Gen. xiv. 1 were
thoroughly established, in accordance with Renan's
view (H. G. i. 61): on this point, however, we have
our doubts.
The Mosaic table is supplemented by ethnolog
ical notices relating to the various divisions of the
Terachite family. These belonged to the Shemitic
division, being descended from Arphaxad through
Peleg, with whom the line terminates in the table.
Reu, Serug, and Nahor form the intermediate links
between Peleg and Terah (Gen. xi. 18-25), with
whom began the movement that terminated in the
occupation of Canaan and tbe adjacent districts by
certain branches of the family. The original seat

opinion of its originator, there was an element which
was neither Ishmaelite nor Joktanid (Ewald, Gesch. L
339, note).

3296 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
Df Terah a was Ur of the Chaldees ((Jen. xi. 28):
thence he migrated to Haran (Gen. xi. 31), where
a section of his descendants, the representatives of
Nahor, remained (Gen. xxiv. 10, xxvii. 43, xxix.
4 ff.), while the two branches, represented by Abra
ham and Lot, the son of Haran, crossed the Euphra
tes and settled in Canaan and the adjacent districts
(Gen. xii. 5). From Lot sprang the Moabites and
Ammonites (Gen. xix. 30-38): from Abraham the
Ishmaelites through his son Ishmael (Gen. xxv. 12),
the Israelites through Isaac and Jacob, the Edom
ites through Isaac and Esau (Gen. xxxvi.), and cer
tain Arab tribes, of whom the Midianites are the
most conspicuous, through the sons of his concubine
Keturah (Gen. xxv. 1-4).
The most iraportant geographical question in
connection with the Teracbites concerns their orig
inal settlement. The presence of the Chaldees in
Babylonia at a subsequent period of Scriptural his
tory has led to a supposition that they were a Ham
itic people, originally belonging to Babylonia, and
thence transplanted in the 7fch and Sth centuries to
northern Assyria (liawlinson's Herod, i. 319). We
do not think this view supported by BibUcal notices.
It is more consistent wifch the general direction of
tbe Terachite movement to look for Ur in northern
Mesopotamia, to the east of Haran. That the Chal
dees, or, according to the Hebrew nomenclature.
the Kasdira, were found in that neighborhood, is
indicated by the name Chesed as one of the sons of
Nahor (Gen. xxii. 22), and possibly by the name
Arphaxad itself, which, according to Ewald ( Gesch.
i. 378), means "fortress of the Chaldees." In
classical times we tind the Kasdim still occupying
the mountains adjacent to Arrapachitis, the BibU
cal Arpachsad, under the nanies Chaldcei (Xen.
Anab. iv. 3, §§ 1-4) and Gordycei or Carduchi
(Strab. xvi. p. 747), and here the name sfcill has a
vital existence under the form of Kui d. The name
Kasdim is explained by Oppert as meaning " two
rivers," and thus as equivalent to the Hebrew
Naharalm and the classical Mesopotamia (Zeit
Morg. Ges. xi. 137). We receive this explanation
with reserve; but, as far as it goes, it favors the
northern locality. The evidence for the antiquity
of the southern settlement appears to be but small,
if the term Kaldai does not occur in the Assyrian
injoriptions until the 9th century b. c. (RawUnson,
i. 449). We therefore conceive the original seat
of the Chaldees to have been in the north, whence
they moved southward along the course of the Tigris
until they reached Babylon, where we find them
dominant in the 7th century b. c. Wheth^er they
first entered this country as mercenaries, and then
conquered their employers, as suggested by Benan
{H. G. i. 68), raust reraain uncertain; but we think
the suggestion supported by the circumstance tbat
tbe name was afterwards transferred to the whole
Babylonian population. The sacerdotal character
of the Chaldees is certainly difEcult to reconcile
with this or any other hypothesis on the subject.
Returning to the Teracbites, we find it impossible
to define the geographical limits of their settlements
with precision. They intermingled with the pre
viously existing inhabitants of the countries inter
vening between the Eed Sea and the Euphrates,
and hence we find an Aram, an Uz, and a Chesed
iraong the descendants of Nahor (Gen. xxii. 21, 22),
1 Dedan and a Sheba among those of Abraham by

• TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
Keturah (Gen. xxv. 3), and an Amalek among the
descendants of Esau (Glen, xxxvi. 12). Few of tha
numerous tribes which sprang from this stock at
tained historical celebrity. The Israelitea must of
course be excepted from this description; so also
the Nabateans, if they are to be regarded as repre
sented by the Nebaioth of the Bible, as to which there
is some doubt (Quatremfere, Melanges, p. 59). Of
the rest, the Moabites, Ammonites, Midianites, and
Edomites are chiefly known for their hostilities with
the IsraeUtes, to whom they were close neighbors.
The meraory of the westerly migraticn of the Israel
ites was perpetuated in the name Hebrew, as refer
ring to their residence beyond the river Euphrates
(Josh. xxiv. 3).
Besides the nations whose origin is accounted for
in the Bible, we find other early populations men
tioned in the course of the history without any
notice of their ethnology. In this category we may
place the Horims, who occupied Edom before the
descendants of Esau (Deut. ii. 12, 22); the Ama
lekites of the Sinaitic peninsula; the Zuzims and
Zarazumraims of Persea (Gen. xiv. 5; Deut. ii,
20); the Eephaims of Bashan and of the valley
near Jerusalem named after them (Gen. xiv. 5;
2 Sam. V. 18); the Emiras eastward of the Dead
Sea (Gen. xiv. 5); the Avims of the southern Phi
listine plain (Deut. ii. 23); and tbe Anakims of
southern Palestine (Josh. xi. 21). The question
arises whether these tribes were Hamites, or whether
they represented an earlier population which pre
ceded the entrance of the Hamites. Tbe latter
view is supported by Knobel, who regai-ds the
majority of these tribes as Shemites, who preceded
the Canaanites, and communicated to them the
Shemitic tongue ( Volkert. pp. 204, 315). No
evidence can be adduced in support of this theory,
which was probably suggested by the double diffi
culty of accounting for the name of Lud, and of
explaining the apparent anomaly of the Hamites
and Teracbites speaking the same language. Stall
less evidence is there in favor of the Turanian
origin, which would, we presume, be assigned to
these fcribes in common with the Canaanites proper,
in accordance with a current theory that the first
wave of population which overspread western Asia
belonged to that branch of the human race (Raw
linson's Herod, i. 645, note). To this theoiy wa
shaU presently advert: meanwhile we can only
observe, in reference to these fragmentary, popu
lations, thafc, as they intermingled with the Canaan
ites, they probably belonged to the same stock (comp.
Nura. xin. 22; Judg. i. 10). They may perchance
have belonged to an earlier migration than the
Canaanitish, and may have been subdued by the ¦
later comers; but this would not necessitate a dif
ferent origin. The names of these tribes and of
their abodes, as instanced in Gen. xiv. 5; Deufc. ii.
23 ; Num. xiii. 22, bear a Shemitic character (Ewald^
Gesch. i. 311), and the only objection to their Ca
naanitish origin arising out of these names would
be in connection with Zamzummim, which, according
to Renan (H. G. p. 35, note), is formed, on the
same principle as tbe Greek ^dp$apo5, and in thia
case implies at all events a dialectical difference^
Having thus surveyed the ethnological statementa
contained in the Bible, ifc remains for us to inquire
how far they are based on, or accord with, physio
logical or Unguistic principles. Knobel maintwni

« A connection between tho names Terah and Tracb-
kniCis, Haran and Hauran, is suggested by Benan

{Hist. Gin. i. 29). This, however, is incoBilfltenI
with the position generally assigned to Qaran.

TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
that the threefold division of the Mosaic table is
founded on the physiological principle of color,
Shem, Ham, and Japheth representing respectively
the red, black, and white complexions prevalent in
the difierent regions of tbe then known world ( Vdl~
kert pp. 11-13). He cUims etymological support
for this view in respecfc to Ham (="dark") and
Japheth (="fair"), bufc not in respect to Shem,
and he adduces testimony to the fact that such
differences of color were noted in ancient times.
The etymological argument weakens rather than
sustains his view; for ifc is difficult to conceive that
the principle of classification would be embodied in
two of the names and not also in the third : the
force of such evidence is whoUy dependent upon its
uniforraity. With regard to the actual prevalence
of the hues, it is quite consistent with the physical
character of the districts thafc the Hamites of the
south should be dark, and the Japhetites of the
norfch fair, and furfcher that the Shemites should
hold an intermediate place in color as in geograph
ical position. But we have no evidence that this
distinction was strongly marked. The " redness "
expressed in the name Edom probably referred to
the soU (Stanley, S. ^ P. ip. 87): the Eryth/rosum
Mare was so called from a pecuUarity in its own
tint, arising frora the presence of some vegetable
substance, and not because the red Shemites bordered
on it, the black Cushites being equally numerous
on its shores : the name Adam, as applied to the
Shemitic man, is ambiguous, frora its reference to
soil as weU as color. On the other hand, the
Phoenicians (assuming fchem to have reached the
Mediterranean seaboard before the ' table was com
piled) were so called from their red hue, and yet
are placed in the table araong the Hamites. The
arguraenfc drawn from the red hue of the Egyptian
deity Typhon is of Uttle value until it can be
decisively proved that the deity in question repre
sented the Shemites. This is asserted by Kenan
(H. G. I. 38), who endorses Ivnobel's view as far
as the Shemites are concerned, though he does not
accept his general theory.
The Unguistic difficulties connected with the
Mosaic table are very considerable, and we cannot
pretend to unravel the tangled skein of conflicting
opinions on the subject. The primary difficulty
arises out of the Biblical narrative itself, and is
consequently of old standing — the difficulty, namely,
of accounting for the evidenfc identity of language
spoken by the Shemitic Teracbites and the Hamitic
Canaanites. Modern Unguistic research has rather
enhanced than removed this difficulty. The alter
natives hitherto offered as satisfactory solutions,
namely, that the Teracbites adopted the language
of fche Canaanites, or the Canaanites that of the
Teracbites, are bofch inconsistent with the enlarged
area which the language is found to cover on each
side. Setting aside the question of the high im
probabiUty that a wandering nomadic tribe, such
as the Teracbites, would be able to impose its lan
guage on a settled and powerful nation like the
(janaanites, ifc would still remain to be explained
how the (Cushites and other Hamitic tribes, who
did not corae into contact with the Teracbites,
acquired the same general type of language. And
VI the other hand, assuming that what are caUed
Shemitic languages were reaUy Haraitic, we have to
explain fche extension of the Hamitic area over
Mesopotamia and Assyria, which, according to the
'..able and the ge.ieral ophiion of ethnologists, be-
onged whoUy to a non-Hamitic population. A

TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 3297
further question, moreover, arises out of this ex
planation, namely, what waa the language of the Te
racbites before they assumed this Hamitic tongue?
This question is answered by J. G- MuUer, in
Herzog's R. E. xiv. 238, to the effect that the
Shemites originaUy spoke an Indo-European lan
guage, — a view which we do not expect to see
generally adopted.
Restricting ourselves, for the presenfc, to the Un
guistic question, we must draw attention to the fact
that there is a well-defined Hamitic as weU as a
Shemitic class of languages, and that any theory
which obliterates this distinction must fall to the
ground. Tbe Haraitic type is most highly devel
oped, as we might expect, in the country which
was,^m' exceUence, the land of Ham, namely, Egypt;
and whatever elements of original unity with the
Shemitic type may be detected by phUologists,
practically the two were as distinct from each other
in historical tinges, as any two languages could
possibly be. We are nofc therefore prepared at once
to throw overboard the linguistic elemenfc of the
Mosaic table. At the same time we recognize the
extrerae difficulty of explaining the anomaly of
Haraitic tribes speaking a Shemitic tongue. It will
not suffice to say, in answer to this, that these
tribes were. Shemites ; for again the correctness of
the Mosaic table is vindicated by the differences
of social and artistic culture which distinguish the
Shemites proper frora the Phcenicians and Cushites
using a Shemitic tongue. The forraer are charac
terized by habits of simplicity, isolation, and ad
herence to patriarchal ways of living and thinking;
the Phoenicians, on the other hand, were emi
nently a commercial people; and the Cushites are
identified with the massive architectural erections
of Babylonia and South Arabia, and with equally
extended ideas of empire and social progress.
The real question at issue concerns the language,
not of the whole Hamitic family, but of the Ca
naanites and Cushites. With regard to the former,
various explanations ha\'e been offered — such as
Knobel's, that they acquired a Shemitic language
from a prior population, represented by the Re&ites,
Zuzira, Zamzummim, etc. ( Volkert, p. 315); or
Bunsen's, that they were a Shemitic race who had
long sojourned in Egypt {Phil, of Hist. i. 191) —
neither of which are satisfactory. With regard to
the latter, the only explanation to be ofiered is that
a Joktanid immigration supervened on the original
Hamitic population, the result being a combination
of Cushitic civUizatioii with a Sheraitic language
(Renan, i. 322). Noris it unimportant to men
tion thafc peculiarities have been discovered in tbe
Cushite Shemitic of Southern Arabia which suggest
a close affinity with the Phoenician forms (Renan,
i. 318). We are not, however, without expecta
tion that time and research wiU clear up much of
the mystery thafc now enwraps the subject. There
are two directions to which we may hopefully turn
for light, namely, Egypfc and Babylonia, with re
gard to each of which we raake a few remarks.
Thafc the Egyptian language exhibits many
striking points of resemblance to the Sheraitic type
is acknowledged on aU sides. It is also aUowed
thafc the resemblances are of a valuable character,
being observable in the pronouns, numerals, in
agglutinative forms, in the treatment of vowels,
and ofcher auch points (Renan, i. 84, 85). There
is not, however, an equal degree of agreement
among scholars as to the deductions to be drawa
from these resemblances. WhUe many recognize in

3298 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
tbem tbe proofs of a substantial identity, and hence
regard Hamitism as an early stage of Shemitism,
others deny, either on general or on special grounds,
the probabiUty of such aconnection. When we find
such high authorities as Bunsen on the former side
(PhiL of Hist I 186-189, ii. 3) aud Renan (i. 86)
on the other, not to mention a long array of scholars
who have adopted each view, 'It would be presump
tion dogmatically to assert the correctness or in
correctness of either. We can only point to the
possibility of the identity being established, and to
the further possibiUty that connecting links may be
discovered between the two extremes, which may
serve to bridge over the gulf, and to render the
use of a Shemitic language by a Hamitic race less
of an anomaly than it at present appears to be.
Turning eastward to the banks of the Tigris and
Euphrates, and the adjacent countries, we find
imple materials for research in the inscriptions re
cently discovered, the examination of which has
not yefc yielded undisputed results. The Mosaic
table places a Shemitic population in Assyria and
Elam, and a Cushitic one ui Btibylon. The proba
biUty of this being ethnicaUy (as opposed to geo-
graphicaUy) true depends partly on the age assigned
io the table. There can be no question that at a
late period Assyria and Elam were held by non-
Shemitic, probably Aryan conquerors. Bufc if we
carry the table back to the age of Abraham, the
case may have been different; for though Elam
is regarded as etymologicaUy identical with Iran
(Renan, i. 41), tbis is not conclusive as to the
Iranian character of the language in early times.
Sufficient evidence is afforded by language that the
basis of the population in Assyria was Shemitic
(Renan, i. 70; Knobel, pp. 154-156); and it is
by no means iraprobable that the inscriptions be
longing more especiaUy to fche neighborhood of
Susa may ultimately establish the fact of a Shemitic
population in Elam. The presence of a Cushitic
population in Babylon is an opinion very generaUy
held on linguistic grounds; and a close identity is
said to exist between the old Babylonian and the
MahH language, a Shemitic tongue of an ancient
type stiU living in a district of Hadramaut, in
Southern Arabia (Renan, H. G. i, 60). In addition
to the Cushitic and Shemitic elements in the popu
lation of Babylonia and the adjacent districts, the
presence of a Turanian element has been inferred
from the Unguistic character of the early inscrip
tions. We must here express our conviction that
the ethnology of the countries in question is con
siderably clouded by the undefined use of the terms
Turanian, Scythic, and the like. It is frequently
difficult to decide whether these terms are used in a
Unguistic sense, as equivalent to agglutinative, or
in an ethnic sense. The presence of a certain amount
of Turanianism in the fornier does not involve its
presence in the latter sense. The old Babylonian and
Susianian inscriptions raay be more agglutinative
than the later ones, but tbis is only a proof of
their belonging to an earUer stage of the language,
and does not of itself indicate a foreign population ;
and if these early Babylonian inscriptions graduate
into the Shemitic, as is asserted even by the advo
cates of the Turanian theory (Rawlinson's Herod, i.
442, 445), the presence of an efchnic Turanianism
cannot possibly be inferred. Added to this, it is
inexpUcable how the presence of a large Scythic
population in the Achsemenian period, to which
many of the Susianian inscriptions belong, could
iscape the notice of historians. The only Scythic

TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
tribes noticed by Herodotus in his review of tha
Persian empire are the Partbians and the Sac«, the
forraer of whom are known to have Uved in the
north, while the latter probably lived in the extreme
east, where a memorial of them is stiU supposed to
exist in the name Seistan, representing the ancient
Sacastene. Even with regard to these, Scythic
may not mean Turanian; for they may have be
longed to the Scythians of history (the Skolots), for
whom an Indo-European origin is claimed (Rawlm-
sou's Herod, iu. 197). The impression conveyed
by the supposed detection of so niany heterogeneous
elements in the old Babylonian tongue (RawUnson
i. 442, 444, 646, notes) is not favorable to the gen
eral results of the researches.
With regard to Arabia, it may safely be asserted
that the Mosaic table is confirmed by modem re
search. The Cushitic element has left memorials
of its presence in the south in the vast ruins of
March and Sana (Renan, i. 318), as weU as in the
influence it has exercised on the Himyantic and
MahH languages, as compared with the Hebrew.
The Joktanid element forms the basis of the Arabian
population, the Shemitic character of whose lan
guage needs no proof. With regard to the Ish-
maeUte element in the north, we are not aware of
any Unguistic proof of its existence, but it is con
firmed by the traditions of the Arabians themselves.
It remains to be inquired how far the Japhetic
stock represents the Unguistic characteristics of the
Indo-European and .Turanian famiUes. Adopting
the twofold division of the former, suggested by tbe
name itself, into the eastern and western ; and sub
dividing the eastern into the Indian and Iranian,
and the western into the Celtic, Hellenic, Illj-rian,
ItaUan, Teutonic, Slavonian, and Lithuanian classes,
we are able to assign Madai (Media) and Togarmah
(Ai'menia) to the Iranian class; Javan (Ionian)
and Elishah (/Eolian) to the Hellenic; Gomer con-
jecturaUy to the Celtic; and Dodanim, also con
jecturally, to the Illyrian. According to the old
interpreters, Ashkenaz represents the Teutonic class,
while, according to Knobel, the Italian would be
represented by Tarshish, whom he identifies with
fche Etruscans ; the Slavoniau by Magog; and tbe
Lithuanian possibly by Tiras (pp. 90, 68, 130).
The same writer also identifies Riphath with the
Gauls, as distinct from the Cymry or Gomer (p. 45);
while Kittim is referred by him not improbably to
the Carians, who at one period were predominant
on the islands adjacent to Asia Minor (p. 98). I'he
evidence for fchese identifications varies in streugti,
but in no instance approaches to demonstration.
Beyond the general probabiUty that the mam
branches of the human family would be represented
in the Mosaic table, we regard much that has been
advanced on this subject as highly precarious. At
the same time it must be conceded that the suhject
is an open one, and that as there is no possibility
of proving, so also none of disproving, the correct
ness of these conjectures. Whether the Turanian
famUy is fairly represented in the Mosaic table may
be doubted. Those who advocate the Mongolian
origin of the Scythians would naturally r^ard
Magog as the representative of this family; and
eveu those who dissent from the Mongolian theory
may stiU not unreasonably conceive that the title
Magog appUed broadly to aU the nomad tribes of
Northern Asia, whether Indo-European or Tu
ranian. Tubal and Meschech remain to be consid
ered : Knobel identifies thesf respectively with ths
Iberians and the Ligurians (pp. Ill, 119); and if

TONGUES, CONFUSION OP
the Finnish character of the Basque language were
established, he would regard the Iberians as cer-
tauily, and the Ligurians as probably Turanians,
the relics of the first wave of population which is
supposed to have once overspread the whole of the
European continent, and of which the Finns in the
norfch, and the Basques in the south, are the sole
surviving representatives. The Tui-anian character
of the two Biblical races above mentioned has been
otherwise maintained ou the ground of the identity
of the names Meschech and Muscovite (Rawlinson's
Herod, i. 652).
II. Having thus reviewed the ethnic relations of
tbe nafcions who fell within the circle of the Mosaic
table, we propose to cast a glance beyond its limits,
and inquire how far the present results of ethno
logical science support the general idea of the unity
of the huraan i-ace, which underlies the Mosaic sys
tem. The chief and in many instances the only
instrument at our command for ascertaining the
relationship of nations is language. In its general
results this instrument is thoroughly trustworthy,
and in each individual case to which ifc is applied it
furnishes a strong prima fade evidence; but its evi
dence, if unsupported by collateral proofs, is not unim
peachable, in consequence of the numerous instances
of adopted languages which have occurred wifchin
historical times. This drawback to the value of
fche evidence of language will not materially affect
our present inquiry, inasmuch as we shall confine
ourselves as much as possible to the general results.
The nomenclature of modern ethnology is not
identical with that of the Bible, partly from the
enlargement of the area, and partly frora the gen
eral adoption of language as the basis of classifica
tion. The terra Shemitic is indeed retained, not,
however, to indicate a descent from Shera, bufc the
use of languages aUied to that which was current
among the Israelites in historical tiraes. Hamitic
also finds a place in modem ethnology, but as sub
ordinate to, or coordinate with, Shemitic. Japhetic
is superseded mainly by Indo-European or Aryan.
The various nations, or families of nations, which
find no place under the Biblical titles are classed
by certain ethnologists under the broad title' of
Turanian, while by others they are broken up into
divisions more or less nuraerous.
The firsfc branch of our subject will be to trace
the extension of the Shemitic family beyond the
Umits assigned to it in the Bible. The most marked
characteristic of tbis family, as compared with the
Indo-European or Turanian, is its inelasticity.
Hemmed in both by natural barriei's and by the
superior energy and expansiveness of the Aryan
and Turanian races, it retains to the present day
the status quo of early times. « The only '' direction
in whieh ifc has exhibifced any tendency to expand
has been about the shores of the Mediterranean,
and even here its activity was of a sporadic charac
ter, limited to a single branch of the family, namely,
the Phoenicians, and to a single phase of expansion,
namely, commercial colonies. In Asia Minor we
find tokens of Shemitic presence in Cilicia, which

a The total amount of tbe Shemitic populafcion at
present is computed to be only 30 millions, while the
Indo-European is computed at 400 millions (Renan, 1.
48, note).
^ Eastward of the Tigp:is a Shemitic population has
Veen supposed to exist iu Afghanistan, where the
Puslitu language has beeu regarded as boarlnp: a
^mitio character. A theory consequently has been

TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 3299
was connected with Phcenieia both by tradition
(Herod, vii. 91), and by language, as attested by
existing coins (GJesen. Mon. Phcen. iii. 2): in Pam-
phylia, Pisidia, and Lycia, parts of which were oc
cupied by the Solymi (Plin. v. 24; Herod, i. 173),
whose name beai-s a Shemitic charncter, and who
are reported to have spoken a Shemitic tongue
(Euseb. Proep. Ev. ix. 9), a- staten)ent confirmed
by the occurrence of other Shemitic names, such
as Phoenix and CabaUa, though the subsequent pre
dominance of an Aryan population in these same
districts is attested by the existing Lycian inscrip
tions : again in Caria, though tbe evidence arising
out of the supposed identity of the names of the
goda Osogo and Chrysaoi-eus with the Oiiawos and
Xpvffd)p of Sanchuniathon is called in question
(Renan, H. G. i. 49) : and, lastly, in Lydia, where
the descendants of Lud are located by many au
thorities, and where the prevalence of a Shemitic
language is asserted by scholars of the highest
standing, among whora we may specify Bunsen and
Lassen, in spite of tokens of the contemporaneous
presence of the Aryan element, as instanced in the
name Sardis, and in spite also of fche historical
notices of an ethnical ccunection wifch Mysia (Herod.
i. 171).* Whefcher the Shemites ever occupied any
portion of the plateau of Asia Minor may be
doubted. In the opinion of the ancients the later
occupants of Cappadocia were Syrians, distinguished
from the mass of their race by a lighter hue, and
hence termed iewcos^/n (Strab. xii. p. 542); but
this statement is traversed by the evidences of
Aryanism afforded by the names of the kings and
deities, as well as by the Persian character of the
reUgion (Strab. xv. p. 733). If therefore the
Shemites ever occupied this disfcrict, they must soon
have been broughfc under the dominion of Aryan
conquerors (Dieienbach, Orig. Europ. p. 44). The
Phoenicians were ubiquitous on the islands and
shores ofthe Meditermnean: in Cyprus, where thej
have left tokens of their presence at Citium and
other places ; in Crete ; in Malta, where they were
the original sefcfclers (Diod. Sic. v. 12) ; on the
mainland of Greece, where their presence is be
tokened by the name Cadmus; in Samos, Sarae, and
Samothrace, which bear Shemitic names: in los
and Tenedos, once known by the name of Phrenice;
in SicUy, where Panormus,Motya, and Soloeie were
Shemitic settlements; in Sardinia (Diod. Sic. v
35); on the eastern and southern coasts of Spain;
and on the north coast of Africa, which was lined
with Phcenician colonies from the Syrtis Major to
the Pillars of Hercules. They must also have pene
trated deeply into the interior, to judge from
Strabo's statement of the destruction of three hun
dred towns by the Pharusians and Nigritians (Strab.
xvii. p. 826). Still in none of the countries we
have mentioned did they supplant the original pop
ulation : they were conquerors and settlers, but no
more than this.
The bulk of the North African languages, both
in ancient and modem times, though not Shemitic
in the proper sense of the terra, so far resemble

started that the people speaking it represent the ten
tribes of Israel (Porster's Prim. Lang. iii. 241). We
beUeve the supposed Shemitic resemblances to be un
founded, and that the Pushtu language holds an inter
mediate place between the Iranian and Indian classes,
with the latter of which ifc possesses in common the
lingual or cerebral sounds (Diefenbach, Ch. Eu/r p

I 500 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
that type as to have obtained the title of sub-
SL;mitic. In the north the old Numidian language
appears, from the prevalence of the syUable Mas in
the name MassyUi, etc., fco be allied to the modern
Berber ; and the sarae conclusion has been drawn
with regard to the Libyan tongue. The Berber,
in turn, together with the Touarick and the great
body of the North African dialects, is closely allied
fco the Coptic of Egypt, and therefore falls under
the title of Haraitic, or, according to the more usual
nomenclature, sub-Shemitic (Renan, H. G, i. 201,
202). Southwards of Egypt the Shemitic type is
reproduced in the majority of the Abyssinian lan
guages, particularly in the Gheez, and in a Iffls
marked degree in the Avihai'ic, the Saho, and the
GaUa ; and Sheraitic influence may be traced along
the whole easfc coast of Africa as far as Mozambique
(Renan, i. 336-340). As to the languages of the
interior and of the south there appears to be a con
flict of opinions, the writer from whora we have
just quoted denying any trace of reserablance to
the Shemitic type, while Dr. Latham asserts very
confidently that connecting links exist between the
sub-Shemitic languages of the north, the Negro
languages in the cenfcre, and the Caffi-e languages
of the south; and that even the Hottentot language
is not so isolated as has been generally supposed
{Man and his Migr. pp. 134-148). Bunsen sup
ports this view as far as the languages north of the
equator are concerned, but regards the southern as
rather Approximating to the Turanian type (Phil.
of Hist. i. 178, ii. 20). It is impossible as yet to
form a decided opinion on this large subject.
A question of considerable interest remains jet
to be noticed, namely, whefcher we can trace the
Shemitic family back to its original cradle. In the
ease of the Indo-European family this can be done
wifch a high degree of probability; and if an origmal
unity existed between these stocks, the domicile of
the one would necessarily be thafc of the other. A
certain community of ideas and traditions favors
this assumption, and possibly the frequent allusions
to the east in the early chapters of Genesis maj
contain a reminiscence of the direction in which
the primeval abode laj (Renan, H. G. i. 476). The
position of this abode we shaU describe presently.
The Indo-European family of languages, as at
present " constituted, consists of the following nine
classes: Indian,^ Iranian, Celtic, Italian, Albanian,
Greek, Teufconic, Lithuanian, and Slavonian. Geo
graphically, these classes may be grouped together
in two divisions — Eastern and Western — the former
comprising the two firsfc, the latter the seven re
maining classes. Schleicher divides what we have
termed the Western into two — the southwest
European, ajad the north European — in the former
of which he places the Greek, Albanian, ItaUan,
and Celtic, in the latter the Slavonian, Lithuanian,
and Teutouic (Compend. i. 5). Prof. M. MiiUer
combines the Slavonian and Lithuanian classes in
the Windic, thus reducing the number fco eight.
These classes exhibifc various degrees of affinity to
each other, which are described bj Schleicher in the
foUowing manner: The earUest deviation from the

a We use the qualifying expression " at present,"
partly because it is not improbable that new classes
may be hereafter added, as, for instance, an AnatoUan,
XI describe the languages of Asia Minor, and partly
because there may have beeu other classes once in
existence, which h^ve entirely disappeaied from the
bee of the earth.

TONGUES, CONF L SION OP
common language of the familj was efi^ted tl
the Slavono-Teu tonic branch. After another in
terval a second bifurcation occurred, which separated
what we maj term the Grseco-Italo-Celtic branch
from the Aryan. The former held together for a
whUe, and then threw off the Greek (including
probably the Albanian), leaving the Celtic and
ItaUan still connected: the final division ofthe two
latter took place after another considerable interval.
The first-mentioned branch — the Slavono-Teutonic
— remained intact for a period somewhat longer
than that which witnessed the second bifurcation
of the original stock, and then divided into the
Teutonic and Slavono- Lithuanian, which latter
finaUy broke up infco ifcs two component elements.
The Aryan branch similarly held togefcher for a
lengthened period, and then bifrircated into the
Indian and Iranian. The conclusion Schleicher
draws from these linguistic aflinities is that the
more easterly of the European nations, the Slar
vonians and Teutons, were the first to leave the
comraon home of the Indo-European race; that they
were foUowed by the Celts, Italians, and Greeks;
and that the Indian and Iranian branches were the
last to commence their migrations. We feel unable
to accept this conclusion, which appears to us to
be based on the assumption that the antiquity of a
language is to be measured by its approximation
to Sanskrit. Looking at the geographical position
of the representatives of the different language-
classes, we should infer that the mosfc westerly were
the earUest immigrants into Europe, and therefore
probably the earliest emigrants from the primeval
seat of the race; and we beUeve this to be con
firmed by linguistic proofs of the high antiquity of
fche Celtic as compared with the other branches
of the Indo-European family (Bunsen, Phil, of
Hist i. 168).
The original seat of the Indo-European race was
on the plateau of Central Asia, probably to the
wesfcward of the Boloi' and Mustagh, ranges. The
Indian branch can be traced back to the slopes of
Himalaya by the geographical aUusions in the Vedic
hymns (M. MiiUer's Zecf. p. 201); in confirmation
of which we raay adduce the circumstance that the
only tree for which the Indians have ,an appellation
in common with tbe western nations, is one which
in India is found only on the southern slope of that
range (Pott, Etym. Forsch. i. 110). The westward
progress of the Iranian tribes is a matter of history,
and though we cannofc trace this progress back to ita
fountain-head, the locaUfcy above mentioned best
accords with the traditional belief of the Asiatic
Aryans, and with the physical and geographical
requirements of the case (Renan, H. G. i. 481).
The routes by which the various western branches
reached their respective localities, can only be con
jectured. We may suppose them to have succes
sively crossed the plateau of Iran until they reached
Armenia, whence they might foUow either a north
erly course across Caucasus, and by the shore of*he
Black Sea, or a direct westerly one along the plateau,
of Asia Minor, which seems destined by nature to
be the bridge between the two continents of Europe

b Professor M. MiiUer adopts the termination ~i>, in
order to show that classes are intended. This appears
unnecessary, when it is specified thafc fche arrangement
is oue of classes, and not of single languages. More
over, in common usage, the termination does nol
necessarily carry the idea of a class.

TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
and Asia. A third route has been surmised for a
portion of the Celtic stock, namely, along the north
coast of Africa, and across the Straits of Gibraltar
hito Spain (Bunsen, Ph. of H. i, 148), but we see
Uttle conturmation of this opinion beyond the fact of
the early presence of the Celtfe in that peninsula,
which is certainly difficult to account for.
The eras of the several migrations are again very
much a matter of coryecture. The original raove-
raents belong for the raost part to the ante-histor
ical 9^e, and we can do no raore than note the
period afc which we first encounter the several na
tions. That the Indian Aryans had reached the
mouth of the Indus at aU events before 1000 b. c,
appears from the Sanskrit naraes of the articles
which Solomon imported from that country [In
dia]. The presence of Aryans on the Shemitic
frontier is as old as the composition of the Mosaic
table; and, according to some authorities, is proved
by the names of the confederate kings in the age
of Abraham (Gen. xiv. 1; Renan, //. G. i. 61).
The Aryan Medes are mentioned in the Assyrian
annals about 900 B. c. The Greeks were settled on
the peninsula named after thera, as well as on the
islands of the ^giean, long before tbe dawn of
history, and the ItaUans had reached their quarters
at a yet earlier period. The Celtse had reached the
west of Europe at all events before, probably Very
long before, the age of Hecatseus (500 b. c); the
latest branch of this stock arrived there about that
period according to Bunsen's conjecture (Ph. of H.
i. 152). The Teutonic migration foUowed at a long
interval after the Celtic : Pytheas found them al
ready seated on the shores of the Baltic in the age
of Alexander the Great (Plin. xxxvii. 11), and the
terra glesum itself, by which araber was described
in that district, belongs to them (Diefenbach, Or.
Eur. p. 359). The earliest historical notice of
thera depends on fche view taken of the nationaUty
of the Teutones, who accompanied fche Cimbri on
fcheir southern expedition in 113-102 b. c. If
these were Celtic, as is not uncommonly thought,
then we must look to Csesar and Tacitus for the
sariiesfc definite notices ofthe Teutonic fcribes. The
Slavonian immigration was nearly contemporaneous
with the Teutonic (Bunsen, Ph. of H. i. 72): fchis
stock can be traced back to the Venetl or Ve.nedce
of Northern Germany, firsfc menfcioned by Tacitus
(Germ. 46), frora whom the name Wend is probably
descended. The designation of Slavior Schvi is of
comparatively late date, and appUed specially to the
western branch of the Slavonian stock. The Li
thuanians ai'e probably represented by the G.dindce
and Sudeni of Ptolemy (iii. 5, § 21), the names of
which tribes have been preserved in all ages in the
Lithuanian disfcrict (Diefenbach, p. 202). They are
frequently identified with the lEsiui, and it is not
impossible that they niaj have adopted the title,
which was a geographical one (=the east raeu);
the ^stui of Tacitus, however, were Germans. In
the above statements we have omitted the problem
atical identifications of the northern stocks wifch
the earlier nafcions of history: we may here mention
that the Slavonians are not unfrequentiy regarded
as the representatives of the Scyfchians (Skolots)
and the Sarraatiaus (Knobel, Volkert. p. 69). The
writer whom we have just cited, also endeavors to
eonnecfc the Lithuanians with the Agathyrsi (p.
130). So again Grimra traced the Teutonic stock

a We must be understood as speaking of linguistic
Uld ethnological proo£i furnished by populations ex-

TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 3801
to the Getse, whom he identified with tho (ioths
(Gesch. Deut Spr. i. 178).
It may be asked whether tbe Aryan race were
the first comers in the lands which they occupied
in historical tiraes, or whether they superseded an
earlier population. With regard to the Indian
branch this question can be answered decisively.
fche vestiges of an aboriginal population, which once
covered the plains of Hindostan, still exist in the
southern extremity of tbe peninsula, as well as in
isolated localities elsewhere, as instanced in the casu
of the Brahus of the north. Not' only this, but
the Indian class of languages possesses a peculiarity
of sound (the lingual or cerebral consonants) which
is supposed to have been derived frora tbis popu
lation, and to betoken a fusion of the conquerors
and the conquered (Schleicher, Compend. i. 141).
The languages of this early population are classed
as Turanian (M. Muller, Ltct p. 399). We are
unable to find decided traces of Turanians on the
plateau of Iran. The Sac£e, of whom we have
alreatly spoken, were Scythians, and so were the
Partbians, both by reputed descent (Justin, xii. 1;
and by habits of life (Strab. xi. 515); but we can
not positively assert that they were Turanians, inae-
niuch as the term Scythian was also applied, as in
the case of the Skolots, to Indo- Europeans. In
the Caucasian disfcrict the Iberians and others may
have been Turanian in early as in later tinies; bufc
it is difficult to unravel the entanglement of races
and languages in that district. In Europe there
exists in the present day an undoubted Turanian
population eastward of the Baltic, namely, the
Finns, who have been located there cerfcainly since
the time of Tacitus (Germ. 46), and who probablj
at an earlier period had spread more to the south
wards, but had been graduaUy tlu'ust back by the
advance of the Teutonic and yiavonian nations
(Diefenbach, 0. E. p. 209). There exists again in
the soufch a population whose language (the Basque,
or, as ifc is entitled in its own land, tbe Emkara)
presents numerous points of affinity to the Kinnish
in grammar, though its vocabulary is wholly dis
tinct. We cannot consider the Turanian character
of this language as fully established, and we are
therefore unable to divine fche ethnic affinities of
the early Iberians, who are generally regarded as
the progenitors of the Basques. We have already
adverted to the fcheory that the Finns in the norfch
and the Basques in the south are the surviving
monuments of a Turanian population which over
spread the whole of Europe before the arrival of the
Indo-Europeans. This is a mere theory which can
neither be proved nor disproved."
It would be difficult, if not impossible, to assign
to the various subdivisions of the Indo-European
stock their respective areas, or, where admixture
has taken place, their relative proportions. Lan
guage and race are, as already observed, by no
means coextensive. The Celtic race, for instance,
which occupied Gaul, Northern Italy, large por
tions of Spain and Germany, and even penetrated
across the Hellespont into Asia Minor, where it
gave name to the province of Galatia, is now rep
resented linguistically by the insignificant popula
tions among whom the Welsh and the Gaelic oi
Erse languages retain a lingering existence. The
Italian race, on the other band, which musfc have
been weU-nigh annihilated by or absorbed in the
isting within historical times, without reference to tht
(Eetdogical questions relating to fche antiquity of man

3302 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
overwhelming masses of the northern hordes, has
imposed its language outside the bounds oi Italy
over the peninsula of Spain, France, and Wallachia.
But, while the races have so intermingled as in
many instances to lose aU trace of their original
uttdividuaUty, the broad fact of their descent from
one or other of the branches of the Indo-Euro
pean famUy remains unaffected. It is, indeed, im
possible to affiliate all the nations whose names ap
pear on the roll of history, to the existing divisions
of that family, in consequence of the absence or the
obscurity of ethnological criteria. Where, for in
stance, shall we place the languages of Asia Minor
and the adjacent districts ? The Phrjgian approx
imates perhaps to the Greek, and yet it differs from
it materially both in form and vocabulary (Rawlin
son's Herod, i. 666): stiU raore is this the case
with the Lycian, which appears to possess a vocab
ulary whoUy distinct from its kindred languages
(ibid. i. 669, 677-679). The Armenian is ranged
under the Iranian division : yet this, as weU as the
language of the Caucasian Ossets, whose indigenous
name of Jr or Iron seems to vindicate for them the
same relationship, are so distinctive in their features
as to render the connection dubious. The lan
guages prevalent in fche mountainous district, an
swering to the ancient Pontus, are equally pecuhar
(Diefenbach, 0. E. p. 51). Passing to the west
ward we encounter the Thracians, reputed by Herod
otus (v. 3) the most powerful nation in tbe world,
the Indians excepted ; yefc bufc one word of their lan
guage (67*m = " town " ) has survived, and aU his
torical traces of the people have been obUterated.
It is true thafc they are represented in later times
by the Getae, and these in turn by the Daci, but
neither of these can be tracked either by history or
language, unless we accept Grimm's more than
doubtful identification which would connect them
with the Teutonic branch. The remains of the
Scythian language are sufficient to establish the
Indo-European affinities of that nation (Rawlinson's
Herod, iii. 196-203), bufc insufficient to assign to
it a definite place in the family. The Scythians,
as weU as most of the nomad tribes associated with
thera, are lost to fche eye of the ethnologist, having
been either absorbed into other nationalities or
swept away by the ravages of war. The Sarmatse
can be traced Aovm to the lazyges of Hungary and
Podlachia, in which latter district they survived
until the 10th century of our era (Diet of Geog.
ii. 8), and then tbey also vanish. The Albanian
language presents a problem of a different kind:
materials for research are not wanting in this case,
but no definite conclusions have as yet been drawn
from them: the people who use this tongue, the
Skipetares as they call themselves, are generally re
garded as the representatives of the old lUyrians,
wbo in turn appear to have been closely connected
with the Thracians (Strab. vii. 315; Jusfcin, xi. 1),
the name Dardani being found both in lUyria and
on the shores of the HeUespont : it is not, therefore,
improbable that the Albanian may contain what
ever vestiges of the old Thracian tongue still survive
(Diefeftbach, 0. E. p. 68). In tbe Italic peninsula
the Etruscan tongue remains as great an enigma as
ever: its Indo-European character is supposed to
be established, together with the probability of its
being a mixed language (Bunsen's Ph. of H. i. 85-
88). The resulfc of researches into the Umbrian
language, as represented in the Eugubine tablets, the
Barliest of which date from aboufc 400 b. c. ; into the
SabeUian, as represented in the tablets of Velleiri

TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
and Amino ; and into the Oscan, of which the re
mains are numerous, have decided their position aa
merabers of the ItaUc class (ibid. i. 90-94). The
same cannot be asserted of the Messapian or lapygiar.
language, which stands apart from all neighboring
dialects. Its Indo-European character is affirmed
but no ethnological conclusion can as yet be drawn
from the scanty inforraation afforded us (ih. i. 94).
Lastly, within the Celtic area there are ethnological
problems which we cannot pretend to solve. TLe
Ligurians, for instance, presenfc one of these prob
lems : were they Celts, but belonging to an earlier
migration than the Celts of history ? Their name
has been referred to a Welsh original, but on this
no great reliance can be placed, as it would be in
this case a local {=coastmen) and not an ethnical
title, and mighfc have been imposed on them by the
Celts. They evidently hold a posterior place to the
Iberians, inasrauch as they are said to have driven
a section of this people across the Alps into Italy.
Thafc they were distinct from the Celts is asserted
by Strabo (ii. 128), but the distinction may have
been no greater than exists between the British
and the Gaelic branches of that race. The admix
ture of the Celts and Iberians in the Spanish pen
insula is again a somewhat intricate question, which
Dr. Latham attempts to explain on the ground that
the terra Celt (KeXrai) reaUy meant Iberian
(Ethn. of Eur. p. 35). That such questions as
these should arise on a subject which can-ies us
back to times of hoar antiquitj, forms no ground
for doubting the general conclusion that we can ac
count etbnologicaUy for the population of the Euro
pean continent.
The Shemitic and Indo-European famihes cover
after aU but an insignificant portion of the earth's
surface: the large areas of northern and eastern
Asia, the numerous groups of islands that line its
coast and stud the Pacific in the direction of South
America, and again the immense continent of
America itself, stretching weU-nigh from pole to
pole, remain to be accounted for. Historical aid
is almost whoUy denied to the ethnologist in his
researches in these quarters; physiology and lan
guage are his only guides. It can hardly, there
fore, be matter of surprise, if we are unable to
obtain certainty, or even a reasonable degree of
probabiUty, on this parfc of our subjecfc. Much has
been done; but far raore remains to be done before
the data for forming a conclusive opinion can be
obtained. In Asia, the languages fall into two
large classes — the raonosyUabic, and the aggluti
native. The former are represented ethnologically
by the Chinese, the latter by the various nations
classed together by Prof. M. Miiller under Uie
common head of Turanian. Ifc is unnecessary fur
us to discuss the correctness of his view in re
garding all these nations as members of one and
the sarae family. Whether we accept or reject
his theory, the fact of a gradation of hnguistic
types and of connecting links between the vaiions
branches remains unaffected, and for our present
purpose the question is of comparatively little mo
ment. The monosyllabic type apparently betokens
the earliest movement from the common home of
the huraan race, and we should therefore assign
a chronological priority to the settlement of the
Chinese in the east and southeast of the continent.
The agglutinative languages fall geographically into
two divisions, a northern and southern. The north
ern consists of a well-defined group, or family, desig
nated by German ethnologists -the Ural- AHaiaD

TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
[t consists of the following five brunches: (1.) The
Tungusian, covering a large area, east of the river
fenisei, between lake Baikal, and the Tunguska.
(2.) The Mongolian, which prevails over the Great
Desert of Gobi, and among the Kalmucks, wher
ever their nomad habits lead them on the steppes
either of Asia or Europe, in the latter of which
they are found about the lower course of the
Volga. (3.) The Turkish, covering an immense
area from the Mediterranean in the southwest to
the river Lena in the northeast ; in Europe spoken
by the Osmanli, who form the governing class in
Turkey; by the Nogai, between the Caspian and
the Sea of Azov ; and by various Caucasian tribes.
(4.) The Samoiedic, on the coast of the Arctic
Ocean, between the White Sea in the west and the
river Anabara in the east. (o.) The Finnish,
which is spoken by the Finns and Lapps ; by the
inhabitants of Esthonia and Livonia to the south
of the Gulf of Finland; by various tribes about
the Volga (the Tcheremissians and Mordvinians),
and the Kama (the Votiakes and Permians); .and,
lastly, by the Magyars of Hungary. The southern
branch is subdivided into the following four classes :
(1.) The Tamulian, of the south of Hindostan.
(2.) The Bhotiya, of Tibet, the sub-Himalayan
district (Nepaul and Bhotan), and the Lohitic lan
guages east of the Brahmapootra. (3. ) The Tai,
in Siam, Laos, Anam, and Pegu. (4.) The Malay,
of the Malay peninsula, and the adjacent islands;
the latter being the original settlement of the Ma
lay race, whence they spread in comparatively mod
ern times to the mainland.
The early movements of the races representin£
these several divisions can only be divined by lia
guistic tokens. Prof. M. Miiller assigns to the
northern tribes the following chronological order
Tungusian, MongoUan, Turkish, and Finnish; and
wO the southern division the following : Tai, Malay,
Bhottya, and Tamulian (Ph. of FT. i. 481). Geo
graphically it appears more likely that the Malay
preceded the Tai, inasmuch as they occupied a
more southerly district. The later movements of
the European branches of the northern division
can be traced historically. The Turkish race com
menced their westerly migration from the neigh
borhood of the Altai range in the 1st century of
our era; in the Gth they had reached the Caspian
and the Volga; in the llth aud 12th the Turc
omans took possession of their present quarters
south of Caucasus: in the 13th the Osmanli made
their first appearance in Western Asia; about the
middle of the 14th they crossed from Asia Minor
into Europe; and in the middle of the 15th they
had established themselves at Constantinople. The
Finnish race is supposed to have been originally
settled about the Ural range, and thence to have
migrated westward to the shores of the Baltic,
which they had reached at a period anterior to the
Christian era; in the "tb century a branch pressed
southwards to the Danube, and founded the king
dom of Bulgaria, where, .however, they have long
ceased to have any national existence. The Ugrian
tribes, who are the early representatives of the
Hungarian Magyars, approached Europe irom Asia
in the Sth and settled in Hungary in the 9th cen-
tray of our era. The central point from which
the various branches of the Turanian family radi
ated would appear to be about lake Baikal. With
regard to the ethnology of Oceania and America we
3an say but little. The languages of the former
we generally supposed to be connected with the

TONGUES, ETC. (APPENDIX) 3303
Malay class (Bunsen, Ph. of H. ii. 114), but the
relations, both linguistic and ethnological, existing
between the Malay and tbe black, or Negrito pop
ulation, which is found on many of the groups' oi
islands, are not well defined. The approximation
in language is far greater than in physiology
(Latham's Essays, pp. 213, 218; Garnett's Essays,
p. 310), and in certain cases amounts to identity
(Kennedy's Essays, p. 85); but the whole subject
is at present involved in obscurity. The polysyn-
thetic languages of North America are regarded
as emanating from the Mongolian stock (Bunsen,
Ph. of H. ii. Ill), and a close affinity is said to
exist between the North American and the Kams-
kadale and Korean languages on the opposit* coast
of Asia (Latham, Man and his M'tgr. p. 185).
The conclusion drawn from this would be that
the population of America entered by way of
Behring's Straits. Other theories have, however,
been broached on this subject. It has been con
jectured that the chain of islands which stretches
across the Pacific may have conducted a Malay
population to South America ; and, again, an
African origin has been claimed for the Caribs
of Central America (Kennedy's Essays, pp. 100-
123). In conclusion, we may safely assert that the ten
dency of all ethnological and linguistic research is
to discover the elements of unity amidst the most
striking external varieties. Already the myriads
of the human race are massed together into a few
large groups. Whether it will ever be possible to
go beyond this, and to show the historical unity
of these groups, is more than we can undertake to
say. But we entertain the firm persuasion that in
their broad results these sciences will yield an in
creasing testimony to the truth of the Bible.
(The authorities referred to in the foregoing
article are: M. Miiller, Lectures on the Science of
Language, 1862 [and 2d Series, 1864; both re
printed, N. Y. 1862-65] ; Bunsen, Philosophy of
History, 2 vols., 1854 [vols, iii , iv. of his Chris
tianity ami Mankind] ;. Renan, Histoire Generale
des Langues Semiiigues, 3d ed., 1863 [4th ed.,
1864]; Knobel, Volkertafel der Genesis, 1850; W.
von Humboldt, Ueber die Verschiedenheii des
menschl'ichen Sprachbaues, 1836; Delitzsch, Jesh
urun, , ^-^S; Transactions of the Pliilological So
ciety ; Rawlinson, Herodotus, 4 vols., 1858: Pott,
Eiyinologische Forschungen, 1833 [-36; new ed.,
Bd. i.-ii. Abth. 1-3, 1859-69] : Garnett, Essays,
1859 ; Schleicher, Compendium der vergleichenden
Grammatik, 1861 [2e Aufl., 1866]; Diefenbach,
Origines Europew, 1861; Ewald, Spi'achunssen-
schaftliche Abiiandlungen, 1862. ) [To these should
be added the excellent work of Prof. W. D. Whit
ney, Language and ihe Study of Language, N. Y.
1867. — A.] W. L. B.
Appehdix. — TOWEK OF Babel.
The Tower of Babel forms the subject of a pre
vious article [Babel, Tower of] ; but in conse
quence of the discovery of a cuneiform inscription,
in which the tower is mentioned in connection with
the Confusion of Tongues, the eminent cuneiform
scholar Dr. Oppert has kindly sent the following
addition to the present article.
The history of the confusion of languages was
preserved at Babylon, as we learn by the testimo
nies of classical and Babylonian authorities (Aby
denus, Fragm. Hist. Grcec., ed. Didot. vol. iv.).
Only the Chaldeans themselves did not admit the

3304 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF (APPENDIX — TOWER OP BABEL)

Hebrew etymology of the name of their metrop
olis; they derived it from Bab-el, the door of El
(Kronos or Saturnus), whom Diodorus Siculus
states to have been the planet most adored by the
Babylonians. The Talmudists say that the true site of the
Tower of Babel was at Borsif, the Greek Borsippa,
the Birs Nimrud, seven miles and a half from
Hillah, S. W., and nearly eleven miles from the
noi"thern ruins of Babylon. Several passages state
that the air of Borsippa makes forgetful ("T'lS
nDC£?Q, avir mashhakh) ; and one Rabbi says that
Borsif is Bulsif the Confusion of Tongues (Bere-
shit Rabba, f. 42, 1). The Babylonian name of
this locality is Barsip or Barzipa, which we ex
plain by Tower of Tongues. The French expedi
tion to Mesopotamia found at the B'lrs Nimrud a
clay cake, dated from Barsip the 30th day of the
6th month of the 16th year of Nabonid, and the
discovery confirmed the hypothesis of several trav
ellers, who had supposed the Birs Nimrud to con
tain the remains of Borsippa.
Borsippa (the Tongue Tower) was formerly a
suburb of Babylon, when the old Babel was merely
restricted to the northern ruins, before the great
extension of the city, which, according to ancient
writers, was the greatest that the sun ever warmed
with its beams. Nebuchadnezzar included it in
the great circumvallation of 480 stades, but left it
out of the second wall of 360 stades; and when
the exterior wall was destroyed by Darius, Bor
sippa became independent of Babylon. The his
torical writers respecting Alexander state that Bor
sippa had a great sanctuary dedicated to Apollo
and Artemis (Strab. xvi. 739 ; Stephanus Byz.
s. V. B6pa'nrKa), and the former is the building
elevated in modern times on the very basement of
the old Tower of Babel.
This building, erected by Nebuchadnezzar, is
the same that Herodotus describes as the Tower
of Jupiter Belus. In our Expedition to Mesopo-
tamia" we have given a description of this ruin,
and proved our assertion of the identity. This
tower of Herodotus has nothing to do with the
pyramid described by Strabo, and which is cer
tainly to be seen in the remains called now Bdbil
(the Mujellibeh of Eich). The temple ot Borsippa
is written with an ideogram,'' composed of the signs
for house and spirit (anima), the real pronuncia^
tion of which was probably Sarakh, tower.
The temple consisted of a large substructure, a
stade (600 Babylonian feet) m breadth, and 75
feet in height, over which were built Seven other
stages of 25 feet each. Nebuchadnezzar gives
notice of this building in the Borsippa inscription.
He named it the temple of the Sei>«! Lights of
the Earth, i. e. the planets. The top was the
temple of Nebo, and in the substructure (igar)
was a temple consecrated to the god Sin, god of
the month. This building, mentioned in the East
India House inscription (col. iv. 1. 61), is spoken
of by Herodotus- (i. 181, &c.).
Here follows the Borsippa inscription : " Nabu-
chodonosor, king of Babylon, shepherd of peoples,
who attests the immutable affection of Merodach,
vhe mighty ruler-exalting Nebo; the saviour, the

a Expedition en Mhopotamie, I. 208. Compare
also the trigonometrical survey of the river in the
blates. t> PIT.ZI.DA in syllable characters.

wise man who lends his ears to the orders of the
highest god; the lieutenant without reproach, the
repairer of the Pyramid and the Tower, eldest Bon
of Nabopallassar, king of Babylon.
" We say : Merodach, the great master, has cre
ated me : he has imposed on me to reconstruct his
building. Nebo, the guardian over the legions of
the heaven and the earth, has charged my hands
with the sceptre of justice.
" The Pyramid is the temple of the heaven and
the earth, the seat of Merodach, the chief of the
gods ; the place of the oracles, the spot of his rest
I have adorned in the form of a cupola, with
shining gold.,
" The Tower, the etfimal house, which I foundeil
and built, I have completed its magnificence with
silver, gold, other metals, stone, enameled bricks,
fir, and pine.
"The first, which is the house of the earth's
base, the most ancient monument of Babylon, I
built and finished it; I have highly exalted its head
with bricks covered with copper."
" We say for the other, that is, this edifice, the
house of the Seven Lights of the Earth, the most
ancient monument of Borsippa: A former king
built it (they reckon 42 ages), but he did not com
plete its head. S'mce a renwte time people had
abandoned ii, without order expressing their woi-ds.
Since that time, the earthquake and the thunder
had dispei-sed its sun-dried clay ; the bricks of the
casing had been split, and the earth of the interior
had been scattered in heaps. Merodach, the great
lord, excited my mind to repair this building. I
did not change the site, nor did I take away the
foundation-stoue. In a fortunate month, an aus
picious day, I undertook to build porticoes around
the crude brick masses, and the casing of burnt
bricks. I adapted the circuits. I put the inscrip
tion of my name in the Kitir of the porticoes.
" 1 set my hand to finish it, and to exalt its head.
As it had been in former times, so I founded, I
made it; as it had been in ancient days, so I exalted
its summit.
" Nebo, son of himself, ruler who exaltest Mero
dach, be propitious to my works to maintain ray
authority. Grant me a-life until the remotest tune,
a sevenfold progeny, the stabiUty of my throne, the
victory of my sword, the pacification of foes, the
triumph over the lands ! In the columns of thy
eternal table, that fixes the destinies of the heaven
and of the etirth, bless the course of my days, in
scribe the fecundity of my race.
" Imitate, 0 Merodach, king of heaven and earth,
the father who begot thee; bless my buildings,
strengthen my authority. May Nebuchadnezzar,
the king-repairer, remain before thy face! "
This allusion to the Tower ofthe Tongues is .the
only one that has as yet been discovered in the
cuneiform inscriptions.'' The story is a Shemitic
and not only a Hebrew one, and we have no reason
whatever to doubt of the existence of the same
story at Babylon.
The ruins of the building elevated on the spot
where the story placed the tower of the dispersion
of tongues, have therefore a more modem origin,
but interest nevertheless by their stupendous ap
pearance. Oppert.
c This manner of building is expressly mentioned
by Philoatratus {Apoll. Tyan. i. 25) as Babylonian.
ti See Expedition en Mesopotamie, tom. i. p. 200.

TONGUES, GIFT OF
TONGUES, GIFT OF. — I. The history of
a word which has been used to express some spe
cial, wonderful facfc in the spiritual Ufe of man is
itself fuU of interest. It raay be a necessary prep
aration for the study of the facfc which that word
represents. TKarra, or y\coao'a, the word employed through
out the N. T. for the giffc now under consideration,
is used — (1.) for the bodily organ of speech; (2.)
for a foreign word, imported and half naturalized in
Greek (Arist. Rhet. iii. 2, § 14), a nieaning which
the words "gloss" and " glossary " preserve for
us; (3.) in Hellenistic Greek, after the pattern of
the corresponding Hebrew word (] ^W v), for
" speech '¦ or "language" (Gen. x. 5; Dan. i. 4,
&c., &c.).
Each ot these meanings raight be the starting-
point for the application of the word to the giffc of
tongues, and each accordingly has found those who
have maintained that it is so. (A.) Eichhorn and
UardiU (cited by Bleek, Stud. u. Kiit 1829, p. 8 f.),
and to some extent Bunsen {Hippolyi^is, i. 9), start
ing from the first, see in the so-caUed gift an inar
ticulate utterance, the cry as of a brute creature, in
which the tongue moves while the Ups refuse their
office in making the sounds definite and distinct.
(B.) Bleek himself (ui supr. p. 33) adopts the sec
ond meaning, and gives an interesting collection of
parages fco prove that it was, in the time of the
N. T., the received sense. He infers from this that
to speak in tongues was to use unusual, poetic lan
guage — that the speakers were in a high-wrought
excitement which showed itself in mystic, figurative
terms. In this view he had beeu preceded by Er-
nesti (Opusc. Theolog. j see Morning Watch, iv.
101) and llerder {Die Gabe der Sprache, pp. 47,
70), the latter of whom extends tbe meaning to
special mystical interpretations of the O. T. (C)
The received traditional view starts from the third
meaning, and sees in the gift of tongues a distinctly
(iiiguistie power.
We have to see which of these views has most to
commend it. (A.), it is beUeved, does not meet
he condition of answering any of the facts of fcbe
N". T., and errs in ignoring the more prominent
meaning of the word in later Greek. (B.), though
true in some of its conclusions, and able, as far as
they are concerned, to support ifcself by the au
thority of Augustine (corap. De Gen. ad lit xii. 8,
" linguam esse cum quis loquatur obscuras et rays-
Hcas significationes"), appears faulty, as failing
(1) to recognize the fact that the sense of the word
in the N. T. y,dts more likely to be deterrained by
that which it bore in the LXX. than by its raean
ing in Greek historians or rhetoricians, and (2) to
iieet the phenomena of Acts n. (C.) therefore
commends itself, as in this respect starting at least
from the right point, and likely to lead us to the
truth (corap. Olshausen, Stud. u. Krit 1829, p.
538 ).«
n. The chief passages from which we have to
draw our conclusion as to the nature and purpose
of the gift in question, are — (1.) Mark xvi. 17;
(2.) Acts ii. 1-13, X. 46, xix. 6 ; (3.) 1 Cor. xu., xiv.
It desen*es notice that the chronological sequence of
these passages, as determined by the date of their

« Several scholars, we know, do not agree with us.
We gave our reasons five years ago, and our antago-
Dists have not yet refuted tbem.
208

TONGUES, GIFT OF 3305
composition, is probably jusfc the opposite of that
of tbe periods to which they severally refer. The
first group is later than the second, the second
than the third. It will be expedient, however,
whatever modifications this facfc may suggest after
ward, to deal with the passages in their commonly
received order.
III. The promise of a new power coming from
the Divine Spirit, giving not only comfort and m-
sight into truth, but fresh powers of utterance of
some kind, appears once and again in our Lord's
teaching. The disciples are to take no thought
what they shall speak, for the Spirit of their Father
shaU speak in them (Matt. i. 19, 20; Mark xiu. 11).
The lips of Galilean peasants are to speak freely
and boldly before kmgs. The only condition is that
they are "not to premeditate" — to yield them
selves altogether to the power that works on thera.
Thus they shall have given to tbem " a mouth and
wisdom" which no adversary shaU be able "to
gainsay or resist." In Mark xvi. 17 we have a
more definite tenn employed: " They shaU speak
with new tongues (Katvats yKdia'aais)-'" Starting,
as above, from (C), it can hardly be questioned
that the obvious meaning of the promise is that the
disciples should speak in new languages which they
had not learned as other men learn them. It must
be remembered, however, that the critical questions
connected with Mark xvi. 9-20 (comp. Meyer
Tischendorf, Alford, in he.) make it doubtful
whether we have here the language of tbe Evan
gelist — doubtful therefore whether we have the
ipsissima verba of the Lord himself, or the nearest
approximation of some early transcriber to the con
tents of the section, no longer extant, with which
tbe Gospel had originally ended. In tbis case it be
comes possible that the later phenomena, or later
thoughts respecting them, may have determined the
language in which the promise is recorded. On
either hypothesis, the promise determines nothing
as to the nature of the gill, or the purpose for which
it was to be employed. It was to be "a sign." It
was not to belong to a chosen few only — to Apos
tles and Evangelists. It was to "foUow them thafc
beUeved" — to be among the fruits of the living
intense faith which raised nien above the common
level of their lives, and brought thera within the
kingdom of God.
IV. The wonder of the day of Pentecost is, in its
broad features, faraiUar enough to us. The days
since the Ascension had been spent as in a ceaseless
ecstasy of worship (Luke xxiv. 53). The 120 dis
ciples were gathered together, waiting with eager
expectation for the coming of power from on high
— of the Spirit that was to give them new gifts of
utterance. The day of Pentecost was corae, which
tbey, Uke aU other Israelites, looked on as the wit
ness of the revelation of the Divine WiU given ou
Sinai. Suddenly there swept over them " the
sound as of a rushing mighty wind," such as
Ezekiel had heard in the visions of God by Chebar
(i. 24, xlui. 2) at aU times the recognized symbol
of a spiritual creative power (comp. Ez. xxxvii.
1-14; Gen. i. 2; 1 K. xix. 11; 2 Chr. v. 14; Ps.
civ. 3, 4). With this there was another sign as
sociated even more closely with their thoughts of
the day of Pentecost. TTiere appeared unto them
"tongues Uke as of fire." Of old the brightness
had been seen gleaming through the " thick
cloud" (Ex. xix. 16), or "enfolding" the Divine
glory (Elz. i. 4). Now the tongues were distrib
uted (Sic6ueo-t(^^uevcti), Ughting upon each of

3806 TONGUES, GIFT OF
them.*' The outward symbol was accompanied by
an inward change. They were " filled with the Holy
Spirit," as the Baptist and their Lord had been
(Luke i. 15, iv. 1), though they themselves had as
yet no experience of a like kind. " They began to
Bpeak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them
utterance." The narrative that follows leaves
hardly any room for doubt that the writer meant
to convey the impression that the disciples were
heard to speak in languages of which they had no
colloquial knowledge previously. The direct state
ment, " They heard them speaking, each man in
his own dialect," the long list of nations, the words
put into the Ups of the hearers — these can scarcely
be reconciled with the theories of Bleek, Herder,
and Bunsen, without a willful distortion ofthe evi
dence.^ What view are we to take of a phenom
enon so marvelous and exceptional? What views
have men actually taken V (1.) The prevalent belief
of the Church has been, that in the Pentecostal
gift the disciples received a supernatural knowledge
of aU such languages as they needed for their work
as EvangeUsts. The knowledge was permanent,
and could be used at their own wiU, as though it
had been acquired in the common order of things.
With this they went forth to preach fco the nations.
Differences of opinion are found as to special points.
Augustine thought thafc each disciple spoke in all
hmguages (De Verb. Apost clxxv. 3); Chrysostom
that each had a special language assigned fco him,
and that this was the indication of the country
which he was called to evangelize (fiom. in Act.
ii.)- Some thought that the number of languages
spoken was 70 or 75, after the number of the sons
of Noah (Gen. x.) or the sons of Jacob (Gen. xlvi.),
or 120, after that of the disciples (comp. Baronius,
AnnaL i. 197). Most were agreed in seeing in the
Pentecostal giffc the antithesis to the confusion of
tongues at Babel, the wifcness of a restored unity.
"Poena linguarum dispersit homines, donum lin
guarum dispei-sos m unum populum collegit"
(Grotius, in loc).
Widely diffused as this belief has been, it must
be remembered thafc ifc goes beyond the data with
which the N. T. suppUes us. Each instance of the
gift recorded in the Acts connects it, not with the
work of teaching, but with that of praise and
adoration ; nofc with the normal order of men's
Uves, but with exceptional epochs in them. It
came and went as the Spirit gave men the power of
utterance — in this respect analogous to the other
gift of prophecy with which it was so often associ
ated (Acts ii. 16, 17, xix. 6) — and was not pos-

a The sign in tbis case had its starting-point ia the
traditional belief of Israelites. There had been, it was
aiid, tongues of fire on the original Pentecost (Schneck-
enburger,. Beitrdge, p. 8, referring to Buxtoi-f, De
Synag., and Philo, De Decal.). The later Rabbis
were not without their legends of a like " baptism of
fire." Nicodemus ben Gorion and Jochanan ben Zac-
eai, men of great holiness and wisdom, went into an
upper chamber to expound the Law, and the house
began to be full of fire (Lightfoot, Harm. iii. 14 ;
Schoettgen, Hor. Heb. in Acts ii.).
b It deserves notice thafc here also there are analo
gies in Jewish belief. Every word that went forth
fi:om fche mouth of tied on Sinai was said to have been
divided into the seventy languages of the sons of men
(Wetstein, on Acts ii.) ; and the bath-kol, the echo of
the voice of God, was heard by every man in his own
tongue (Schnecken burger, Beitrdge). So, as regards
.he power of spealdng, there was a tradition that the

TONGUES, GIFT OP
aessed by them as a thing to be used this way oi
that, according as they chose. « The speech of St
Peter which foUows, like mosfc other speeches ad
dressed to a Jerusalem audience, waa spoken appw-
ently in Aramaic.*^ When St. Paul, who " spake
with tongues more than aU," was at Lystra, thew
is no mention made of his using the language of
Lycaonia. It is almost irapUed that he did not
understand ifc (Acts xiv. H). Not one word m
the discussion of spiritual gifts in 1 Cor. xii.-xiv.
implies that the gift was of this nature, or given
for this purpose. If it had been, the Apostle would
surely have told those who possessed ifc fco go and
preach to the outlying nations of the heathen world,
instead of disturbing the church by what, on this
hypothesis, would have been a needless and offen
sive ostentation (comp. Stanley, Coi-inihians, p. 261.
2d ed.). Without laying rauch stress on the tn-
dition that St. Peter was foUowed in his work by
Mark as an interpreter (epfirfvevrris) (Papias, in
Kuseb. H. E. iu. 30), that even St. Paul was ac
companied by Titus in the same character — " quia
non potuit divinorum sensuum majestatem digno
Graeci eloquii sermone expUcare" (Hieron. quoted
by Estius in 2 Cor. ii. ) — they must at least be
received as testimonies that the age which was
nearest to the phenomena did nofc take the same
view of them as those have done who lived at a
greater distance. The testimony of Irenseus (Adv.
HcBi: vi. 6), sometimes ui^ed in support of the
common view, in reaUty decides nothing, and, aa
far as it goes, tends againsfc ifc (infra). Nur. it
may be added, within the limits assigned by the .
providence of God to the working of the Apostolic
Church, was such a gift necessary. Aramaic,
Greek, Latin, the three languages of the inscription
on the cross, were media of intercourse throughout'
the empire. Greek alone suflnced, aa the N. T.
shows us, for the Churches of the West, for Mace
donia and Achaia, for Pontus, Asia, Phrygia. The
conquests of .^Uexander and of Rome had made
men diglottic to an extent which has no paraUel in
history. (2.) Some interpreters, influenced in part
by these facts, have seen their way to another 'ajlu-
tion of the difficulty by changing the character of
the rairacle. It lay not in any new power bestowed
on the speakers, but in the irapression produced on
the hearers. Words which the Galilean disciples
uttered in their own tongue were heard by those
who Ustened as in their native speech. This view
we find adopted by Gregory of Nyssa (De Spir.
Sanct), discussed, but not accepted, by (iregory of

great Rabbis of the Sanhedrim could speak all th«
seventy languages of the world.
c The first discussion whether the gift of tonguH
was bestowed " per modum habitus " with which I am
acquainted is found iu Salmasius, De Ling. Hrbr.
(quoted by Thilo, De Ling. Ignit in Menthen's IV-
.saurus, ii. 497), whose conclusion is in the n^tiw.
Even Calmet admits that it was not permanent ( Gwnm.
iu loc). Compare also Wetstein, in loc. ; and Olshau
sen, Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 546.
d Dr. Stanley suggests Greek, as addressed to ths
HeUenistic Jews who were present in such lar^ num
bers (Excurs. on Gift of Tongues, Corinthians, p. ^,
2d ed.). That St. Peter and the Apostles could speak
a provincial Greek is probable enough ; but iu this
instance the speech is addressed chiefly to the perma
nent dwellers at Jerusalem (Acts ii. 22, 36), and waa
Ukely, like that of St. Paul (Acts xxi. 40), to be apoken
in their tongue. To mo<«t of the Hellenistic hearen
this would be iDtelliirible enoutcfa.

TONGUES, GIFT OF
N'azianzus (Orat xliv.), and reproduced by Eras
mus (m loc). A modification of the same theory
is presented by Schneckenburger (Beitrdge), and
in parfc adopted by Olshausen (I. c) and Neander
(Pjlanz. u. Leit. i. 15). The phenomena of som
nambulism, of the so-called mesmeric state, are re
ferred to as analogous. The speaker was en rapport
with his hearers; the latter shared the thoughts of
the forraer, and so heard tbem, or seemed to hear
them, in their own tongues.
There are, ifc is believed, weighty reasons against
both the earlier and later forms of this hypothesis.
(1.) It is at variance with the distinct statement
of Acts ii. 4, "They began to speak with other
tongues." (2.) It at once raultiplies fche miracle,
and degrades its character. Not the 120 disciples,
but fche whole multitude of many thousands, are in
this case the subjects of it. The gift no longer
connects itself with the work of the Divine Spirit,
foUowing on intense faifch and earnest prayer, but
is a mere physical prodigy wrought upon men who
are altogether wanting in the conditions of capacity
for such a supernatural power (Mark xvi. 17). (3.)
It involves an element of falsehood. The miracle,
on this view, was wrought fo make meu believe
what waa not actually the fact. (4. ) It is altogether
inapplicable to the phenomena of 1 Cor. xiv.
(3.) Critics of a negative school have, as might
be expected, adopted the easier course of rejecting
the narrative either altogefcher or in parfc. The
statements do not come frora an eye- witness, and
raay be an exaggerated report of whafc acfcually took
place — a legend with or without a historical foun
dation. Those who recognize such a groundwork
see in "the rushing mighty wind," the hurricane
of a thunderstorra, tbe fresh breeze of morning; in
the "tongues Uke as of fire," the flashings ofthe
electric fluid; in fche "speaking with tongues," the
loud screams of men, not aJl Galileans, but coming
from many lands, overpowered by strong excite
ment, speaking in mystical, figurative, abrupfc ex
clamations. They see in ibis " the cry of the new
born Christendora." (Bunsen, Hippolytus, ii. 12;
Ewald, Gesch. Isr. vi. 110; Bleek, I. c ; Herder, /. c.)
Frora the position occupied by these writers, such
a view was perhaps natural enough. It does not
fall within the scope of this article fco discuss in
detaU A theory which postulates the incredibiUty
of any fact beyond the phenomenal laws of nature,
and the falsehood of St. Luke as a narrator.
V. Whafc, then, are the facts actually brought
before us ? What inferences may be legitimately
drawn from them V
(1.) The utterance of words by the disciples, in
other languages than their own Galilean Aramaic,
is, as has been said, distinctly asserted.
(2.) The words spoken appear to have been de
termined, not by the wiU of the speakers, but by
the spirit which "gave them utterance." The ont-
waid tongue of flame was the symbol of fche " burn
ing fire " within, which, as in the case of the older
prophets, could not be repressed (Jer. xx. 9).
(3.) The word used, aitotpBeyyetrOai, not merely
\a\etv, has in the LXX. a special though not an
exclusive association with the oracular speech of
true or false prophets, and appears to imply some
pecuUar, perhaps musical, solemn intonation (corap.
1 Chr. xxv. 1; Ez. xiii. 9; Trommii Concwdani.
1. v.; Grotius and Wetstein, in loc; Andrewes,
Whitsunday Sermons, i.).
(4.) The " tongues" were used as an instrument,
}ot of teaching but of praise. At first, Indeed, there

TONGUES, GIFT OF 3307
were none present to be taught. The disciples wer«
by themselves, aU sharing equally in the Snirit'g
gifts. When they were heard by others, ifc was as
proclaiming fche praise, fche niighfcy and great works,
of God (fxeyaheTa), What they uttered was not a
warning, or reproof, or exhortation, but a doxology
(Stanley, I. c ; Bauragarten, Apostelgesch. § 3).
When the work of teaching began, it was in the
language of fche Jews, and the utterance of tongues

(5.) Those who spoke fchem seemed to others to
be under the influence of some strong excitement,
" fuU of new wine." They were not as other meu,
or as they themselves had been before. Some rec
ognized, indeed, that they were in a higher state,
but it was one which, in some of its outward
features, had a counterfeit Ukeness in the lower.
When St. Paul uses — in Eph. v. 18, 19 (irKTjpodtrds
TTve^fjLaros) — the all but self-same word which St.
Luke uses here to describe the state of the disciples
(eTr\4](TQri(Tav irve^paros aylov), it is to contrast
it with "being drunk with wine," to associate it
with " psalms and hymns, and spiritual songs."
(6.) Questions as fco .the raode of operation ofa
power above the comraon laws of bodily or mental
life lead us to a region where our words should be
" wary and few." There is the risk of seeraing to
reduce to the known order of nature that which ia
by confession above and beyond it. In this and
in ofcher cases, however, it may be possible, with
out irreverence or doubt — following the guidance
which Scripture itself gives us — to trace in what
way the new power did its work, and broughfc about
such wonderful results. Ifc must be remembered,
then, that in all likelihood such words as they then
uttered had been heard by tbe disciples before. At
every feast which tbey had ever attended from
their youth up, they musfc have been brought into
contact with a crowd as varied as that which was
present on the day of Pentecost, tbe pilgrims of
each nation uttering their praises and doxologies.
The difference was, that, before, the Galilean peas
ants had stood in that crowd, neither heeding, nor
understanding, nor reraerabering what they heard,
still less able to reproduce it; now they had the
power of speaking ifc clearly and freely. The Divine
work would in this case fcake the form of a super
natural exaltation of the meraory, not of imparting
a miraculous knowledge of words never heard be
fore. We have the authority of John xiv. 26 for
seeing in such an exaltation one of the special
works of the Divine Comforter.
(7.) The gift of tongues, the ecstatic burst of
praise, is definitely asserted to be a fulfillment of the
predicfcion of Joel ii. 28. The twice-repeated burden
of that prediction is, " I will pour out my Spirit,"
and the effect on those who receive it is that " they
shall prophesy." We may see therefore In thi«
special gift that which is analogous to one element
at leasfc of the ¦Kpo<p'nrela of fche 0. T. ; but the
element of teaching is, as we have seen, excluded.
In 1 Cor. xiv. the giffc of tongues and Trpo^TjTeia
(in this, the N. T. sense of the word) are placed in
direct contrast. We are led, therefore, to look for
that which answers to the Gift of Tongues in the
ofcher elemenfc of prophecy which is included in
the 0. T. use of fche word ; and this is found in the
ecstatic praise, the burst of song, which appears
under that name in the two histories of Saul
(1 Sam. X. 5-13, xix. 20-24), and hi the eervicea
ofthe Temple (1 Chr. xxv. 3).
(8.) The other instances in the Acts offer esaen-

3308 TONGUES, GIFT OF
tiaUy the same phenomena. By implication in xiv.
15-19, by express statement in x. 47, xi. 15, 17,
xix. 6, it belongs to special critical epochs, afc which
faith is at its highest, alid the imposition of the
Apostles' hands brought men into the same state,
imparted to them the same gift, as they had them
selves experienced. In this case, too, the exercise
of the gift is at once connected with and distin
guished frora "prophecy" in its N. T. sense.
VI. The First Epistle to the Corinthians supplies
fuUer data: Tlie spiritual gifts are classified and
'sompared, arranged, apparently, according to their
worth, placed imdcr regulation. This fact is in
itself significant. Though recognized as coming
from the one Divine Spirit, they are not therefore
exempted frora the control of man's reason and
conscience. The Spirit acts through the calm
judgment of the Apostle or the Church, not less
but more authoritatively than in the most rapturous
and wonderful utterances. The facts which may
be gathered are briefly these ; —
(1.) The phenomena of the gift of tongues were
not confined to one church or section of a church.
If we find them at Jerusalem, Ephesus, Corinth, by
imphcation at Tbessalonica also (1 Thess. v. 19),
we may weU beUeve that they were frequently re
curring wherever the spirits of raen were passing
through the same stages of experience.
(2.) The comparison of gifts, in both the lists
given by St. Paul (1 Cor. xii. 8-10, 28-30), places
that of tongues, and the interpretation of tongues,
lowest in the scale. They are not among the
greater gifts which men are to " covet earnestly "
(1 Cor. xu. 31, xiv. 5). As signs of a life quick
ened infco expression where before it had been dead '
ind dumb, the Apostle could wish that "they all
spake with tongues " (1 Cor. xiv. 5), could rejoice
that he himself " spake with tongues more than
they all" (1 Cor. xiv. 18). Ifc was good to have
known the working of a power raising them above
the common level of their consciousness. They be
longed, however, to the childhood of the Christian
Ufe, not to its maturity (1 Cor. xiv. 20). They
broughfc with thera the risk of disturbance (ibid.
23). The only safe rule for the Church was not to
" forbid thera " (ibid. 39), not to " quench " them
(1 Thess. V. 19), lest in so doing the spiritual Ufe
of which this was the first utterance should be
crushed and extinguished too, but not in any way
to covet or excifce fchem. This language, as has
been sfcated, leaves ifc hardly possible to look on the
gift as that of a Unguistic knowledge bestowed for
the purpose of evangelizing.
(3.) The main characteristic of the " tongue "
(now used, as it were, technically, without the
epithet "new "or "other")" is that it is unin
teUigible. The man " spealcs mysteries," prays,
blesses, gives thanks, in the tongue (eV irvG^paTi
as equivalent to iv yXdjoa-ri, 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 16),
but no one understands him (aKovei)- He can
hardly be said, indeed, to understand himself. The
TTvevpa i» hira is acting without the cooperation
' of the vovs (1 Cor. xiv. 14). He speaks not to
men, bufc to hiraself and to God (comp. Chrysost.
Hom. 35, in 1 Cor.). In spite of this, however,
the gift mighfc and did contribute to the building
up of a man's own Ufe (1 Cor. xiv. 4). This might
be the ouly way in which some natures could be
roused out of the apathy of a sensual Ufe, or the

a The reader will hardly need to be reminded that
anknown " is an interpolation of the A. V.

TONGUES, GIFT OF
dullness of a formal ritual. The ecstasy of adora.
tion which seemed to men madness, might be a
refreshment unspeakable to one who was wear)' with
the subtle questionings of the intellect, to whom all
famiUar and inteUigible words Mere fraught witli
recoUecfcions of controversial bitterness or the wan
derings of doubt (comp. a passage of wonderful
power as to this use of the gift by Edw. Irving,
Moiming Watch, v. p. 78).
(4.) The peculiar nature of the gift leads the
Aposfcle into what appears, at first, a contradiction.
" Tongues are for a sign," not to beUevers, but to
those who do not believe; yet the effecfc on unbe
lievers is not that of attracting but repelfing. A
meeting in which the gift of tongues was exercised
without restraint, would seem to a heathen visitor,
or even to the plain common-sense Christian (the
*5t(«JT7js, the man without a ^dpitrfia), to be an
assembly of madmen. The history of the day of
Pentecost may help us to explain the paradox
The tongues are a sign. They witness that the
daily experience of men is not the limit of their
spiritual powers. They disturb, startle, awaken,
are given els rh ^KirXiimedai (Chrysost. Hom.
^6, in 1 Co7-.), but they are not, and cannot be, the
grounds of conviction and belief (so Comt Apost
viii.). They involve of necessity a disturbance of
the equilibrium between the understanding and the
feeUngs. Therefore it is that, for those who beUeve
already, prophecy is the greater gift. Five clear
words spoken from the mind of one man to the
raind and conscience of another, ai*e better than
ten thousand of these more startling and wonderful
phenomena. (5.) There remains the question whether theae
also were " tongues " in the sense of being lan
guages, of which tbe speakers had Uttle or no
previous knowledge, or whether we are to admit
here, though not in Acts ii., the theories which see
in them only unusual forms of speech (Bleek), or
inarticulate cries (Bunsen), or all but inaudible
whisperings (Wieseler, in Olshausen, in loc). The
question is not one for a dogmatic assertion, but
it is believed that there is a preponderance of evi
dence leading us to look on the phenomena of
Pentecost as representative. Ifc must have been
from them that the word tongue derived its new
and special meaning. The companion of St. Paul,
and St. Paul himself, were Ukely to use the same
word in the same sense. In the absence of a dis
tinct notice fco the contrary, it is probable thatthe
gift would raanifest itself in the same form at
Corinth as at Jerusalera. The " divers kinds of
tongues" (1 Cor. xii. 28), the '^tongues of men"
(1 Cor. xiii. 1), point to differences of sorae kind,
and it is at least easier to conceive of these an
differences of language than as belonging to utter
ances aU equaUy wild and inarticulate. The posi
tion maintained by Lightfoot {Harm, of Gosp. cm
Acts n.), tbat the gift of tongues consisted in the
power of speaking and understanding the tnie He
brew of the 0. T., may seera somewhat extrav
agant, but there seems ground for believing that
Hebrew and Aramaic words had over the minda
of Greek converts at Corinth a power which they
faUed to exercise when translated, and that there
tbe utterances of the tongues were probably in
whole, or in part, in that language. Thus, the
"Maranatha" of 1 Cor. xvi. 22, compared with
xii. 3, leads to the inference that that word had
been spoken under a real or counterfeit inspiration.
It was the Spirit that led men to cry Abba, as tbeir

TONGUES, GIFT OF
recognition of the fatherhood of God (Rem. viii.
15; Gal. iv. 6). If we are to attach any definite
meaning to the "tongues of angels " in 1 Cor. xiii.
1, it must be by connecting it with the words sur
passing human utterance, which St. Paul heard as
in Paradise (2 Cor. xii. 4), and these again with
the great Hallelujah hymns of which we read in
the Apocalypse (Kev. xix. 1-6; Stanley, I. c;
Ewald, Gesch. Jsr. vi. 117). The retention of
other words like Hosanna and Sabaoth in the wor
ship of the Church, of the Greek formula of the
Kjrie Eleison in that of the nations of the West,
is an exemplification of the same feeling operat-
mg in other ways after the special power had
ceased. (6.) Here, also, as in Acts ii-, we have to think
of some peculiar intonation as frequently charac
terizing the exercise of the " tongues." The anal
ogies which suggest themselves to St. Paul's mind
are those ot tbe pipe, the harp, the trumpet (1 Cor.
xiv. 7, 8). In the case of one " singing in the
spirit" (1 Cor. xiv. 15), but not with the under
standing also, the strain of ecstatic melody must
have been all that the listeners could perceive.
To "sing and make melody " is specially charac
teristic of those who are filled with the Spirit
(Eph. V. 19). Other forms of utterance less dis
tinctly musical, yet not less mighty to stir the
minds of men, we may trace in the " cry " (Rom.
viii. 15; Gal. iv. 6) and the "ineffable groanings "
(Rom. viii. 26) which are distinctly ascribed to the
work of the Divine Spirit. To those who know
the wonderful power of man's voice, as the organ
of his spirit, the strange, unearthly charm which
belongs to some of its less normal states, the in
fluence even of individual words thus uttered, es
pecially of words belonging to a language which is
not that of our common life (comp. Hilar. Uiac.
Comm. in 1 Cor. xiv.), it will not seem strange
that, even in the absence of a distinct intellectual
consciousness, the gift should take its place among
the means by which a man " built up " his own
life, and might contribute, if one were present to
expound his utterances, to " edify " others also."
(7.) Connected with the "tongues," there was,
as the words just used remind us, the correspond
ing power of interpretation. It might belong to
any listener (1 Cor. xiv. 27). It might belong to
the speaker himself when he returned to the ordi
nary level of conscious thought (1 Cor. xiv. 13).
Its function, according to the view that has been
here taken, must have been twofold. The inter
preter had first to catch the foreign words, Ara
maic or others, which had mingled more or less
largely with what was uttered, and then to find a
meanuig' and an order in what seemed at first to
be without either, to follow the loftiest flights and
most intricate windings of the enraptured spirit,
to trace the subtle associations which linked to
gether words and thoughts that seemed at first to
have no point of contact. Under the action of
one with this insight the wild utterances of the
"tongues" might become a treasure-house of deep
truths. Sometimes, it would appear, not even this
vsa possible. The power might be simply that of
lOund. As the pipe or harp, played boldly, the

" Neander (Pflanz. u. Leit. i. 15) refers to the efifect
produced by the preaching of St. Bernard upon hear-
iTB who did not understand one word of the Latin in
ivhich he preached (0pp. ii. 119, ed. Mabillon) as an
instance of this Like pheoomeDa are related of St.

TONGUES, GIFT OF 3306
hand struck at random over the strings, but with
no SiaffToK-f}, no musical interval, wanted the con
dition of distinguishable melody, so the " tongues,"
in their extremest form, passed beyond the limits
of interpretation. There might be a strange awful-
ness, or a sfcrange sweetness as of " the tongues of
angels," but what it meant was known only to
God (ICor. xiv. 7-11).
VII. (1.) Traces of the giffc are found, as has
been said, in the epistles to the Romans, the Gabi-
tians, the Ephesians. From the Pastoral ICpistles,
from those of St. Peter and St. John, they are
altogether absent, and this is in itself significant.
The Ufe of the Aposfcle and of fche Church has
passed into a calmer, more normal state. Wide
truths, abiding graces, these are what he himself
Uves in and exhorts others to rest on, rather than
exceptional ¦xapia-pa.ra, however marvelous. Tbe
"tongues" are already "ceasing" (1 Cor. xiii. 8),
as a thing belonging to the pasfc. Love, which
even when "tongues" were raightiest, he had seen
to be above all gifts, has become more and more,
aU in aU, to him.
(2.) It is probable, however, that the disappear
ance of the " tongues " was gradual. As it would
have been impossible to draw the precise Une of
demarcation when the 'jrpo<pT}TeLa of the Apostolic
age passed into the SiSa(rKa\ia that remained per
manently in the Church, so there raust have been
a time when "tongues " were stiU heard, though
less frequently, and with less striking results. The
testimony of Irenaeus (Adv. Hcer. v. 6) that fchere
were brethren in his fcime "who had prophefcic
gifts, and spoke fchrough the Spirit in all kinds of
tongues," though it does not prove, what it has
sometimes been aUeged to prove, the permanence
of the gift in the individual, or its use in the work -
of evangelizing (Wordsworth on Ads ii.), must be
admitted as evidence of the existence of phenomena
Uke those which we have met with in the church
of Corinth. For the most part, however, the part
which they had filled in the worship of the Church
was supphed by the " hymns and spiritual songs "
of the succeeding age. In the earliest of these,
distinct iu character from either fche Hebrew psalms
or the, later hymns of the Church, marked by a
strange mixture of mystic names, and half-coherent
thoughts (such, e. g., as the hymn with which
Clement of Alexandria ends his HaiBayoiySs, and
the earUest Sibylline verses), some have seen the
influence of the ecstatic utterances in which the
strong feelings of adoration had origin; lUy shown
themselves (Nitzsch, Christi. Lehre, ii. p. 268).
After this, within the Church we lose nearly aU
traces of them. The mention of them by Euse
bius (Comm. in Ps. xlvi.) is vague and uncertain.
The tone in which Chrysostom speaks of them
(Comm. in 1 Coi\ xiv.)' is that of one who feels
the whole subject to be obscure, because there are
no phenomena wifchin his own experience at aU
answering to it. The whole tendency of the Church
was to maintain reverence and order, and to repress
all approaches to tbe ecstatic state. Those who
yielded to ifc took refuge, as in the case of Tertul
lian (infra), in sets outside the Church. Syrap-»
toms of what was then looked on as an evil, showed

Antony of Padua and St, Vincent Ferrer (Acta Sanc
torum, June 24 and April 5), of which this is prob
ably the explanation. (Comp. also Wolf, Cures Phil>
olog. in N. T. Acts ii.)

3310 TONGUES, GIFT OF
'Jiemselves in the 4th century at Constantinople —
ffild, inarticulate cries, words passionafce but of
ittle meaning, almosfc convulsive gestures — and
were met by Chrysostom with the sternest possi
ble reproof (Horn, in Is. vi. 2, ed. Migne, vi,
100). VIII. (1.) A wider question of deep interest
presents itself. Can we find iu the religious his
tory of mankind any facts analogous to the man
ifestation of the " tongues? " Recognizing, as we
do, the great gap which separates the work of the
Spirit on the day of Pentecost from aU others,
both in its origin and its fruits, there is, it is be
Ueved, no reason for rejecting the thought that
there might be Uke phenomena standing fco it in
the relation of foreshadowings, approximations,
counterfeits. Other ^apiffpara of tbe Spirifc, wis
dom, prophecy, helps, governraents, had or ha\'e
analogies, in special states of men's spirifcual life,
at other times and under other conditions, and so
may these. The three characteristic phenomena
are, as has been seen, (1) an ecstatic state of par
tial or entire unconsciousness, the huraan wiU
being, as it were, swayed by a power above itself;
(2) the utterance of words in tones startling and
irapressive, but often conveying no distinct mean
ing; (3) the use of languages which the speaker at
other times was unable to converse in.
(2.) The history of the 0. T. presents us with
some instances in which the gift of prophecy has
accompaniments of this nature. The word in
cludes something more than the utterance of a
distinct message of God. Saul and his messengers
come under the power of the Spirit, and he lies on
the ground aU uight, stripped of his kingly armor,
and joining in the wild chant of the company of
prophets, or pouring out his own utterances to the
sound of their music (1 Sam. xix. 2-4; comp. Stan
ley, t c).
(3.) We cannot Exclude the false prophets and
diviners of Israel from the range of our inquiry.
As they, in their work, dress, pretensions, were
counterfeits of those who truly bore the name, so
we may venture to trace in other things thafc which
resembled, more or less closely, what had accom
panied the exercise of the Divine gift. And here
we have distinct records of strange, mysterious in
tonations. The ventriloquist wizards (ot iyyaa-
TpipuBoi, oi e/c TTJs KOiKlas fpiovovffiv) "peepi^
and mutter" (Is. viii. 19). The "voice ofone
who has a familiar spirit," comes low out of the
ground (Is. xxix. 4). The false prophets simulate
with their tongues (iK^dKhovras 'irpo(}>7}Telas
y\d}(T(T7is, LXX.) the low voice with which the
true prophets announced that the Lord had spoken
(Jer. xxiii. 31; comp. Gesen. Thes. s. v. CW2),
(4.) The quotation by St. Paul (1 Cor. xiv. 21)
from Is. xxviii. 11 (" With men of other tongues
(iv erepoyKdia'a-ois) and other Ups wiU I speak
unto this people"), has a significance of which we
ought not to lose sight. The common interpreta
tion sees in tbat passage only a declaration that
those who had refused to listen to the prophets
should be taught a sharp lesson by the lips of alien

o Peep. The word, omitted iu its place, deserves a
^parate notice. It is usud iu the A. V. of Is. viii. 19,
X. 14, as the equivalent of ?]^p^, " to chirp " or
" cry." The Liitin pipto, from which it comes, is,
like the Hebrew, ouomatopoetic, and is uped to express
tbe wailing cry of yoimg chickens or infant children.

TONGUES, GIFT OP
conquerors. Ewald (Prophet, hi loc), dissatisfied
with this, sees in the new teaching the voice of
thunder striking terror into men's minds. St
Paul, with the phenomena of the *' tongues '* pres
ent to his mind, saw in them the fulfiUment of the
prophet's words. Those who turned aside from
the true prophetic message should be left to the
darker, "stammering," more mysterious utterances
which were in the older, what the *' tongues " were
in the later Ecclesia. A remarkable parallel to
the text thus interpreted is found in Hos. ix. 7.
There also the people are threatened with the with
drawal of the true prophetic insight, and in ita
stead there is to be the wild deUrium, the ecstatic
madness of the counterfeit (comp. especially the
LXX., d TTpo^-fiTTjs & irapea-T7}Kdis, hvdpaiTros 6
irv€VfxarofJ}opos). (5.) The history of heathen oracles presents, it
need hardly be said, examples of the orgiastic state,
the condition of the fidvTis as distinct from the
irpo<l>'^T7}s, in which the wisest of Greek thinkers
recognized the lower type of inspiration (Plato,
Tijnaeus, 72 b; Bleek, I. c). The Pythoness and
the Sibyl are as if possessed by a power which they
cannot resist. They labor under the affiaius of
the god. The wild, unearthly sounds (" nee mor-
tale sonans"), often hardly coherent, burst from
their Ups. It remains for hiterpreters to collect the
scattered utterances, and to give them shape and
meaning (Virg. jEn. vi. 45, 98 ff.).
(6.) More distinct paraUels are found iu the ac
counts of the wilder, more excited sects which have,
from time to time, appeared iu the history of Chris
tendom. TertuUian (de Anim. c. 9), as a Montanist,
claims the " revelationura charismata " as given to
a sister of that sect. They came to her "inter
dominica solemnia; " she was, "per ecstasin, iu
spiritu," conversing with angels, and with the
Lord himself, seeing and hearing mysteries (" sacra-
menta"), reading the hearts of men, prescribing
remedies for those who needed them. Th6 move
ment of the Mendicant orders of the 13th century,
the prophesyings of the 16th in England, the early
history of the disciples of George Fox, that of the
Jansenists in France, the revivals under Wesley and
Whitefield, those of a later date in Sweden, Amer
ica, and Ireland have, in Uke manner, been fruitfid
in ecstatic phenomena more or less closely resem
bUng those which we are now considering.
(7.) The history of the French prophets at the
commencement of the 18th century presents some
facts of special interest. The terrible sufferings
caused by the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes
were pressing with intolerable severity on the Hu
guenots of the Cevennes. The persecuted flocks met
together with every feeling of faith and hope strimg
to its highest pitch. The accustomed order of
worship was broken, and laboring men, children,
and female servants, spoke with rapturous eloquence
as the messengers of God. B^inning in 1686, then
crushed for a time, bursting forth with fresh vio
lence in 1700, it soon became a matter of almost
European celebrity. Refugees arrived in London
in 1706, claiming the character of prophets (Ucj.
Cry from the Desert ; N. Peyrat, Paslois in thi

In this sense it is used in the first of these passagea
for the low cry of the false soothsayers, iu the second
for that of birds whom the hand of the spoiler snatchea
from their nests. In la. xxxviii. 14. where the same
word is used in the Hebrew, the A. V. gives, "Life**
crane or a swallow, so did 1 chatter.''

TONGUES, GIFT OF
Wildemess). An FjigUshraan, John Lacy, became
first a converfc and then a leader. The convulsive
ecstatic utterances of the sect drew down the ridicule
of Shaftesbury ( On Enthusiasm). Calaray thought
it necessary to enter the lists against their preten
sions (CVa-cai against the New Prophets). They
gained a distuiguished proselyte in Sir K. Bulkley,
a pupU of Bishop Fell's, with no inconsiderable
learning, who occupied iu their proceedings a position
which reminds us of that of Henry Drummond
araong the followers of Irving (Bulkley's Defense
of the Prophets). Here also there was a strong
contagious excitement. Nicholson, the Baxter of
the sect, pubUshed a confession that he had found
himself unable to resist it (Ealsehood of the New
Prophets), though he afterwards carae to look upon,
his companions as "enfchusiasfcick impostors." What
is SpeciaUy noticeable is, that the gift of tongues
was claimed by tbem. Sir R. Bulkley declares
that he had heard Lacy repeat long sentences in
Latin, and another speak Hebrew, though, when not
in the Spirit, they were quite incapable of it (Nar
rative, p. 92). The characteristic thought of aU
the revelations was, that they were the true chil
dren of God. Almost every oracle began with
" My child! " as its characteristic word (Peyrat, i.
235-313). It is remarkable that a strange Revi
valist moveraent was spreading, nearly at the same
fcime, through SUesia, the chief feature of which was
that boys and girls of tender age were almost the
only subjects of it, and that they too spoke and
prayed with a wonderful power (Lacy, Rdaiion,
etc., p. 31; Bulkley, Nan-alire, p. 46).
(8.) The so-called Unknown Tongues, which
manifested themselves first in the west of Scotland,
and afterwards in the Caledonian Church iu Regent
Square, present a more striking phenoraenon, and
fche data for judging of its nature are more copious-
Here, raore than in most other cases, there were
the conditions of long, eager expectation, fixed
brooding over one central thought, the raind strained
to a preternatural tension. Suddenly, now from
one, now from another, chiefly from women, devout
but iUiterate, mysfcerious sounds were heard.
Voices, which afc other times were harsh and uu-
pleasing, becarae, wheu "singing in the Spirifc,"
perfectly harraonious " (Cardale, Narrative, in
Morning Watch, U. 871, 872). Those who spoke,
men of known devotion and acuteness, bore witness
to their inabiUty to control themselves (Baxter,
Nari'ative, pp. 5. 9, 12), to their being led, they
knew not how, to speak in a " triumphant chant "
{ibid. pp. 46, 81). The raan over whom they
exercised so strange a power, has left on record his
testimony, that fco hira they seemed to embody a
more than earthly music, leading to the belief that
fche " tongues " of the Apostolic age had been as the
¦archetypal melody of which aU the Church's chants
and hymns were bufc faint, poor echoes (Oliphant's
lAfe of Irving, ii. 208). To those who were
without, on the other baud, they seemed but an
unintelligible gibberish, the yells and groans of
madmen (Newspapers of 1831, passim). Some-
titties it was asserted that fragments of known
languages, Spanish, Italian, Greek, Hebrew, were
iiingled together in tlie utterances of those who
Bpokein the power (Baxter, Narrative, pp. 133, 134).
Sometimes it was but a jargon of mere sounds

TONGUES, GIFT OF B311
(ibid.). The speaker was coramonly unable fco in
terpret what he uttered. Sometimes the office was
undertaken by another. A clear and interesting
sumraary of the history of the whole movement is
given in Mrs. OUphant's Life of Irving, vol. ii
Those who wish to trace it through all its stages
must be referred to the seven volumes of the
Morning Watch, and especially to Irving's series
of papers on the Gifts of the Spirit, in vols, iii ,
iv., and v. Whatever other explanation may be
given of the facts, there exists no ground for im
puting a deUberate imposture to any of the person?
who were raost conspicuous in the movement,
(9.) In certain exceptional states of mind and
body the powers of memory are known to receive a
wonderful and abnormal strength. In the delirium
of fever, in the ecstasy of a trance, men speak in
their old age languages which fchey have never heard
or spoken since their earliest youth. The accent of
their common speech is altered. Women, ignorant
and untaught, repeat long sentences in Greek, Latin,
Hebrew, which they bad once heard, without in
any degree, understanding or intending to remember
them. In aU such cases the marvelous power is
the accompaniment of disease, and passes away
when the patient returns to his usual state, to the
healthy equilibrium and interdependence of the life of
sensation and of thought (Abercrombie, Intellectual
Powers, pp. 140-143 ; Winslow, Obscure Diseases
of the Brain, pp. 337, 360, 374; Watson,
Principles dnd Practice of Physic, i. 128). The
medifeval beUef that this power of speaking in
tongues belonged to those who were possessed by
evU spirits rests, obviously, upon like psychological
phenomena (Peter Martyr, Loci Communes, 1. c. 10;
Bayle, Hictionn. s. v. " Grandier ").
IX. These phenomena have been brought to
gether in order that we may see how far they re
semble, how far they difter from, those which we
have seen reason to believe constituted tbe outward
signs of fche Giffc of Tongues. It need nofc startle or
" offend " us if we tind the likeness between the true
and the ' counterfeit greater, at first sight, than we
expected. So ifc was at the churches of Corinth and
of Asia. There also the two existed in the closest
approximation ; and it was to no outward sign, to nc
speaking with languages, or prediction of the future,
that St. Paul and St. John pointed as the crucial
test by which men were to distinguish between
them, but to the confession on the one side, the
denial on the ofcher, thafc Jesus was the Lord
(1 Cor. xu. 3; 1 John iv. 2, 3). What raay be
legitiraately inferred from such facts is the existence,
in the mysfcerious consfcifcufcion of man's nature, of
powers which are, for the most part, latent, but
which, under given conditions, may be roused into
activity. Memory, imagination, speech, may aU be
intensified, transfigured, as ifc were, with a new
glory, acting independently of any conscious or
deliberate voUtion. The exciting causes may be
disease, or the fixed concentration of the senses or
of thought on one object, or the power of sympathy
with those who have already passed into the
abnormal state. The life thus produced is afc the
furthest pole frora the common Ufe of sensation
habit, forethought. Ifc sees what others do nofc see,
hears what they do not hear. If there be a spiritual
power acting upon man, we might expect this phase

a Comp the independent tuatlmoay of Archdeacon
^topford. He had hatened to '¦ha " unknown tongue,"
tnd had fc und t " a sound such as I never heard be

fore, unearthly and unaccountable." He recognized
precisely the same sounds in the Irish Revivals of 1^
( Work and Counter-work, p. 11).

3312 TONGUES, GIFT OF
af the Ufe of the huraan soul to manifest its opera
tions most clearly. Precisely because we beUeve
bl the reality of the Divine work on the day of
Pentecost, we may conceive of it as using this state
as its instrument, not as introducing phenomena,
in all respects without parallel, bufc as carrying to
its highest point, what, if good, had been a fore
shadowing of it, presenting the reality of what, if
evil, had been the mimicry and counterfeit of good.
And whatever resemblances there may be, the points
of difference are yet greater. The phenomena
which have been described are, with hardly an ex
ception, morbid ; the pi'ecursors or the consequences
of clearly recognizable disease. The Gift of Tongues
was bestowed on men in full vigor and activity,
preceded by no frenzy, followed by no exhaustion.
The Apostles went on with their daily work of
teaching and organizing the Church. The form
which the new power assumed was determined
partly, ifc may be, by deep-lying conditions of man's
mental and spiritual being, within which, as self-
imposed limits, the Spirit poured from on high was
pleased to work, partly by the character of the
people for whom this special manifestation was
given as a sign. New powel's of knowledge,
memory, utterance, for which education and habit
could not at aU account, served to waken men to
the sense of a power which they could not measure,
a Kingdom of God into which they were called to
enter. Lastly, let us remember the old rule holds
good, "-By their fruits ye shall know thera." Other
phenoraena, presenting approximate resemblances,
have ended in a sick man's dreams, in a fevered
frenzy, in the narrowness of a sect. They grew
out of a passionate brooding over a single thought,
often over a single word; " and the end has shown
that it was npt well to seek to turn back God's
order and to revive the long-buried past. The
gift of the day of Pentecost was the starting-point
of the long history of the Church of Christ, the
witness, in its very form, of a universal family
gathered out of all nations.
But it was the starting-point only. The new
ness of the truth then presented to the world, the
power of the first experience of a higher life, the
longing expectation in men's minds of the Divine
kingdom, may have made this special manifesfcation,
at the time, at once inevitable and fitting. It
belonged, bowever, to a critical epoch, nofc to the
continuous Ufe of the Church. It impUed a dis
turbance of the equilibrium of man's normal state.
The high-wrought ecstasy could not continue, might
be glorious and blessed fbr him who had it, a sign,
as has been said, for fchose who had it not; but ifc
was not the instrument for building up the church.
That was the work of another gift, the prophecy
which carae frora God, yet was addressed from the
mind and heart of one raan to the minds and hearts
of his brethren. When the overflowing fullness of
lite had passed away, when " tongues " had " ceased,"
and prophecy ifcself, in its irresistible power, had
" failed," they left behind thera the lesson they
were meant to teach. They had borne their wit
ness, and had done their work. They had taught
raen to beUeve in one Divine Spirit, the giver of aU
good gifts, " dividing to every man severally as He
wiU; " to recognize his inspiration, not only in tbe
marvel of the " tongues," or in the burning words
of prophets, but in all good thoughts, in the right

a It can hardly be doubted that the Interpolated
vord " unknown," in the' A. V. of 1 Cor. xiv., was the

TOPAZ
judgment in ail things, in the exceUent gift ol
Charity. E. H. P.
TOPARCHY (Tonapxia). A terra applied in
one passage of the Septuagint (1 Mace, xi. 28) to
indicate fchree districts to which elsewhere (x. 30
xi. 34) the name vo/j.6s is given. In aU these
passages the English Version employs the term
"governments." The three "toparchies" in ques
tion were Apherema {'A<paipefM), Lydda, and
Ramath. They had been detached from Samaria,
Persea, and Galilee respectively, some time befort
the war between Demetriuii Soter and Alexander
Bala. Each of fche two beUigerents endeavored (o
win over Jonathan, the Jewish High-Priest, to their
side, by aUowing hira, among other privileges, tbe
sovereign power over these districts without any
payment of land-tax. The situation of Lydda is
doubtful; for the toparchy Lydda, of which Pliny
speaks (v. 14), is situated not in Persea, but on the
western side of the Jordan. Apherema is con
sidered by Grotius to denote the region about
Bethel, captured by Abijah from Jeroboam (2 Chr.
xiu. 19). Ramath is probably the famous strong
hold, the desire of obtaining which led to the un
fortunate expedition of the allied sovereigns, Ahab
and' Jehoshaphat (1 K. xxii.).
The "toparchies" seem to have been of the
nature of agaliks, and the passages in which the
word Towdpxvs occurs, all harmonize with the
view of that functionary as the agn, whose duty
would be to coUecfc the taxes and administer justice
in all cases affecting the revenue, and who, forthe
purpose of enforcing payment, would have the com
mand of a smaU military force He would thus be
the lowest in the hierarchy uf a despotic aduiinistrar
tion to whom troops would be entrusted ; and hence
the taunt in 2 K. xviii. 24, and Is. xxxvi. 9 : vas
a^^oa^Tpe^l/els rh irp6ffcoTTov roirdpxov €v6s, rav
^ovKu>v TOV Kvplov /J.OV Twv ^\axiorojy: "How
wilt thou resist a single toparch, one of the very
least of my lord's slaves V " But the essential charac
ter of the topiirch is that of a fiscal officer, and bis
miUtary character is altogether subordinate to his
civil. Hence the word is employed in Gen. xii. 34,
for the " officers over the land," who were instructed
to buy up the fifth part of the produce of the soil
during the seven years of abundance. In Dan. iii.
3, Theodotion uses the word in a much more exten
sive sense, making it equivalent to " satraps," and
the Eng. Version rendere the original by " princes ;"
bufc the original word here is not the same as in Dan.
iii. 2, 27, and vi. 7, in every one of which cases a
subordinate functionary is contemplated. J. W. B.
TOPAZ (ni^S), piiddh: roTrdCioV. topa^im).
The topaz of the ancient Greeks and Romans ia
generally aUowed to be our chrysolite, while their
chrysolite is our topaz. [Chkysolite.] Beller
mann, however, (Die Urim und Thummim, -p. ^9),
contends that the topaz and the chrysolite of the
ancients are identical with the stones denoted by
these terms at the presenfc day. The account which
Pliny (H. N. xxxvii. 8) gives of the Coiyazos evi
dently leads to the conclusion tbat that stone is our
chrysolite; " the topazes." he says, "is stiUheld in
high estimation for its green tints." According tc
the authority of Juba, cited by Pliny, the topaz is
derived from an island in the Ked Sea called
starting-point ofthe peculiarly unintelligible caaracW
of most of the Trvingite utterances.

TOPHBL
'Topazoa; " it is said that this island, where these
precious stones were procured, was surrounded by
fogs, and was, in consequence, often sought for by
navigators, and that hence it received its name, the
term "topazin" signifying, in the Troglodyte
tongue, " to seek " ( ?). The piiddh, which, as
has already been stated, probably denotes the mod
ern chrysolite, was the second stone in the first
row of the high-priest's breast-plate (Ex. xxviii. 17,
xxxix. 10); it was one of the jewels that adorned
the apparel ofthe king of Tyre (Ez. xxviii. 13); it
was the bright stone that garnished the ninth
foundation of the heavenly Jerusalera (Rev. xxi.
20); in Job xxviii. 19, where wisdom is contrasted
with precious articles, it is said that " the pii
ddh of Ethiopia shall not equal it." Chrysolite,
which is also known by the name of olivine and
peridot, is a sihcate of magnesia and iron; it is so
soft as to lose its polish unless worn with care
(Mineralogy and Crystallography, by Mitchell and
Tennant, p. 512). The identity of the TOtrii^tov
with the niElQ of the Heb. Bible is sufficiently
established by the combined authorities of the
LXX., the Vulg., and Josephus, while that of the
TOtrdQiov with our chrysolite is, it appears to us,
proved beyond a doubt by those writers who have
paid most attention to this question. See Braun,
De Vest. Sac. Heb. p. 641, ed. 1680. W. H.
TO'PHBL (bshl \lime]: ToiJ)((A: Thophel).
A place mentioned Ueut. i. 1, which has been prob
ably identified with TajUeh on a wady of the same
name "running north of Bozra towards the N. W.
into the Ghor and S. E. corner of the Dead Sea
(Robinson, ii. 570). This latter is a most fertile
region, having many springs and rivulets fiowing
into the Ghor, and large plantations of fruit-trees,
whence figs are exported. The bird Icatta, a kind
of partridge, is found there in great numbers, and
the stehibock pastures in herds of forty or fifty
together (Burckhardt, Holy Land, 405, 406).
H.H.
TOTHETH, and once TO'PHBT (nghl
[perh. abomination, a place abhorred, Dietr.]).
Generally with the article (2 K. xxiii. 10 ; Jer. vii.
31, 32, xix. 6, 13, 14). Three times without it
(Jer. vii. 32, xix. 11, 12). Once not only without
it, but with an affix, HWDri, Tophieh (Is. xxx.
33). In Greek, [Rom. aiid^Vat. 2 K. and Jer.
™.] To<f>e'8, [Comp. in Jer. xix. 11] TaupeB, and
[Alex, in 2 K.] Qotpeci (Steph. Lex. Voc. Pere
grin.; Bidl, Thes.); [for the LXX. in Is. xxx. 33
and Jer. xix. see below.] In the Yulgate, [Tophet,]
Topheth. In Jerome, Tophet. It is not mentioned
by Josephns.
It lay somewhere east or southeast of Jerusalem,
for Jeremiah went out by the Sun Gate, or East
Gate, to go to it (Jer. xix. 2). It was in " the
Valley of the Son of Hinnom " (vii. 31), which is
" by the entry of the east gate " (xix. 2). Thus it
was not identical with Hinnom, as some have writ
ten, except in the sense in which Paradise is iden
tical with Eden, the one being part of the other. It
waa in Hinnom, and was perhaps one of ifs chief
groves or gardens. It seems also to have been part
»f the king's gardens, and watered by Siloam, per
haps a little to the south of the present Birket el-

TOPHETH

3313

a Of the literal Tophet it is said, " They shall bury
n Tophet, till there be no place " (Jer. vii. 32). Of the

Hamra. The name Tophet occurs only in the Old
Testament (2 K. xxiii. 10; Is. xxx. 33; Jer. vii.
31, 32, xix. 6, 11, 12, 13, 14). The New does not
refer to it, nor the Apocrypha. Jerome is the first
who notices it; but we can see thafc by his fcime the
name had disappeared, for he discusses it very much
as a modern coramentator would do, only mention
ing a green and fruitful spot in Hinnora, watered
by SUoam, where he assumes it was : " Delubrum
Baal, nemus ac lucus, Siloe fontibus irrigatus " (In
Jer. vii.). If this be the case, we must conclude
that the valley or gorge south of Jerusalem, whicb
usually goes by the name of Hinnom, is not the Ge
Ben^Hinnom ofthe Bible. Indeed, until compara
tively raodern times, that southern ravine was never
so named. Hinnom by old writers, western and
eastern, is always placed east of the city, and cor
responds to what we call the " Mouth of the Ty
ropoeon," along the southern bed and banks ofthe
Kedron (Jerome, De Locis Hebr. and Comm. in
Matt. X. 28; Ibn Batutah, Travels; Jalal Addin's
History of the Temple ; FeUx Fabri), and was
reckoned to be somewhere between the Potter'n
Field and the FuUer's Pool.
Tophet has been variously translated. Jerome
says latitude ; others garden ; others di'um ; others
place of burning or burying; others abomination
(Jerome, Noldius, Gesenius, Bochart, Siraonie,
Onom.). The raost natural seems that suggested
by the occurrence of the word in two consecutive
verses, in the one of which it is a tabret, and in the
other Tophet (Is. xxx. 32, 33). The Hebrew words
are nearly identical ; and Tophet was probably the
king's "music-grove" or garden, denoting origi
nally nothing evil or hateful. Certainly there ia
no proof that it took its name from the drums
beaten to drown the cries of the burning victims
that passed through the fire to Moloch. As Chin
nereth is the harp-sea, so Tophet is the tabret-grove
or vaUey. This might be afc first part of the royal
garden, a spot of special beauty, with a royal villa
ill the midsfc, like the Pasha's palace at Shubra,
near Cairo. Afterwards it was defiled by idols,
and polluted by th'e sacrifices of Baal and the fires
of Moloch. Then it became the place of abomina
tion, the very gate or pit of hell. The pious kings
defiled it, and threw down its altars and high
places, pouring into it all the filth of the city, tiU
it becarae the " abhorrence " of Jerusalem; for to
it priraarily, though not exhaustively, the prophet
refera : —
They shall go forth and gaze
On. the carcases of the transgressors against me :
For their worm, shall not die,
And their fire shall not be quenched,
And they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.
(Is. Ixri. 24.)
In Kings and Jeremiah the name is " the To
phet," but in Isaiah (xxx. 33) it is Tophieh; yet
the places are probably the same so far, only in
Isaiah's time the grove raight be changing its name
somewhat, and with that change taking on thfi
symbolic meaning which ifc manifestly possesses in
the prophet's prediction : —
Set in order in days paft has been Tophteh ;
Surely for the king it has been made ready.
He hath deepened, he hath widened it ; "
The pile thereof, fire and wood, he hath multipUed.

symbolical Tophet it is said above, " He hath deepened
and widened ii."

3314

TOPHETH

The breath of Jehovah, like a stream of brimbtone,
Doth set it on fire.
It Ui to be noticed that the LXX. translate the
above passage in a peculiar way; Trph riiiepSiv
aTrairTj6-i]a7), " thou shalt be required from of
old," or perhaps "before thy time; " but Jerome
translates the LXX. as if their word had been
e|aTraTcwu (or a^ereoi, as Procopius reads it), and
not aircuTeoj, " tu ante dies decipieiis,*^ adding
this comment : " Dicitur ad ilium quod ab initio
seipse deceperit, regnum suum arbitrans sempiter-
Dum, cum preparata sint Gehenna et jeterna sup-
plicia." In that case the Alexandrian translators
perhaps took Hi^Di^ for the second person sin
gular masculine of the future Piel of nDS, to
persuade or deceive. It may be noticed that
Michaelis renders it thus: "-Tophet ejus, q. d.
rogus ejus." In Jer. xix. 6, 13, the LXX. trans
late Tophet by SiiirToiins, Sia-irl-irTioy, which is not
easily explained, except on the supposition of a
marginal gloss having crept into the text instead
of the proper name (see Jerome; and also Spohn
on the Greek version of Jer. Pref. p. 18, aud Notes
on chaps, xix., xiii.).
In Jer. (vii. 32, xix. 6) there is an intimation
that both Tophet and Gehinnom were to lose their
names, and to be called " tbe valley of slaughter "
(^^rnn ^''3i Ge-ha-Haregaha). Without ven
turing on the conjecture that the modern Deroj
, can be a relic of Hdregah, we may yet say that
this lower part of the Kedron is " the valley of
slaughter," whether it ever actually bore this iiatne
or not. It was not here, as some have thought,
that the Assyrian waa slain by tbe sword of the
destroying angel. That slaughter seems to have
taken place to the west of the city, probably on the
spot afterwards called irom the event, " the VHlley
of the dead bodies " (Jer. xxxi. 40). The slaughter
from which Tophet waa to get its new name was
not till afterwards. In all succeeduig ages, blood
has flowed there in streams; corpses, buried and
unburied, have filled up the hollows; and it may
be that underneath the modem gardens and ter
races there Ue not only the debris of the city, Iml
the bones and dust of millions, — Romans, Persians.
Jews, Greeks, Crusaders, Moslems. What future
days and events may bring is not for us to say.
Perhaps the prophet's words are not yet exhausted. I
Strange contrast between Tophet's first and last I I
Once the choice grove of Jerusalem's choicest val
ley; then the place of defilement and death and
fire; theu the "valley of slaughter"! Once the
royal music-grove, where Solomon's singers, with
voice and instrument, regaled the king, the court,
and the city; then the temple of Baal, the high
place of Moloch, resounding with the cries of burn
ing infants; then (in symbol) the place where is
the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Once prepared
for Israel's king, as one of his choicest villas ; then
degraded and defiled, till it becomes the place pre
pared for " tbe King " at the sound of whose fall
the nations are to shake (Ez. xxxi. 16); and as
Paradise and Eden passed into Babylon, so Tophet
md Ben Hinnom pass into Gehenna and the lake
Df fire. These scenes seem to have taken hold of
Milton's mind; for three tinies over, within fifty
fines, he refers to " the opprobrious hill," the " hill

TOU
of scandal," the '' offinsive aiuntain," and giieib
of Solomon making his grove in
" The pleasant valley of Hinnom, Tophet thence
And black Gehenna called, the type of hell."
Many of the old travellera (see Felix Fabri, voL i.
p. 391) refer to Tophet, or Toph as they call it, but
they give no information as to the locality. Every
vestige of Tophet — name and grove — is gone, and
we can only guess at the spot; yet the references
of Scripture and the present features of the locality
enable us to make the guess with the same tolerable
nearness as we do in the case of Gethsemane or
Scopus. g. ]j
* TORCH. [Lamp; Lantekh; Steel.]
TOK'MAH (nnin [fraud, deceit]: i,
Kputpri; Alex, fiera Bapav^ clam) occurs only in
the margin of Judg. ix. 31, as the alternative ren
dering of the Hebrew word which in the text i>
given as " privily." By a few commentators it haa
been conjectured that the word was origmally the
same with Akumah in ver. 41, — one or the other
having been corrupted by the copyists. This ap
pears to have been first started by Kimchi. It is
adopted by Junius and TremeUius ; but there is
Uttle to be said either for or against it, and it will
probably always remain a mere conjecture. G.
TOETOISE (2S, (sdi: i KpoK6ietKos 6 x^p-
a-dios • crocodilus). The isab occurs only in Lev. xi.
29, as the name of some unclean animal. Bochart
(Hieroz. ii. 463) with much reason refers the Heb.
term to the kindred Arabic djiab (v^jl^), a "large
kind of lizard," which, from the description of it
as given by Damir, appears to be the Psanmo-
siiuius Scincus, or Monitor terrestris of Cuvier (R.

a Can the Eroge of Josephus (j4nMx. 10, § 4) have
my connection with the HirSgiih of Jeremiah ?

Psammosaurus Scincus.

A. ii. 26). This Uzard is the icncan eUiard oi6x
Arabs, i. e. the land-waran, in contradistinction to
the waran eUbahr, i. e. the water-lizard (Momior
Nihticus). It is coramon enough in the deserts of
Palestine and N. Africa. It is no doubt the Kptxi-
SeiXos xepa-a'ios of Herodotus (iv. 192). See aluo
Dioscorides (ii. 71), who mentions it, or perhaps
the Scineus o^cinaUs, under the name of tTKiyKos-
Gesenius derives the Heb. word from 33^i "'"
move slowly." W. H.
TO'tJ (wh : eud; Alex. 0ao«: Thou). Toi,
king of Hamath (1 Chr. xviii. 9, 10).

TOW
• TOW. [Linen; Flax.]
TOWER." For towers as parts of city-walls,
ov as strongholds of refuge for villages, see Fenced
Cities, Jerusalem, ii. 1315-1322, and Hana-
NEEL. Watch-towers or fortified posts in frontier
or exposed situations are mentioned in Scripture,
as the tower of Eda-r, etc. (Gen. xxxv. 21; Mic
Lv. 8; Is. xxi. 5, 8, 11; Hab. ii. 1; Jer. \i. 27;
Cant. vii. 4); the tower of Lebanon, perhaps .)ne
of David's '* garrisons," nits^ (2 Sam. viii 0 ;
Uaumer, Pal. p. 29). Such towers or outposts for
the defense of wells, and the protection of flocks
and of commerce, were built by Uzziah in the
pasture-grounds (Midbar) [DeseUt], and by his
son Jotham in the forests (Choreshim) of Judah
(2 Chr. xxvi. 10, xxvii. 4j. Remains of such forti
fications may still be seen, which, though not
perhaps themselves of remote antiquity, yet very
probably have succeeded fco more ancienfc structures
builfc in the same places for like purposes (Robinson,
11. 81, 85, 180; Roberts, Sketches, pi. 93). Besides
these military structures, we read in Scripture of
towers built in vineyards as an almost necessary
appendage to them (Is. v. 2; Matt. xxi. 33; Mark
xii. 1). Such towers are still in use in Palestine
in vineyards, especially near Hebron, and are used
as lodges for the keepers of the vineyards.'' During
the vintage fchey are filled with the persons em
ployed in the work of gathering the grapes (Robin
son, i. 213, ii. 81; Martineau, East. Life, p. 434;
De Saulcy, Trav. i. 546). H. W. P.
* TOWER OF BABEL. [Tongues, Con
fusion OF.]
TOWN-CLERK (ypa^paT^vs: sonba). The
fcifcle ascribed in our Version to the magistrate at
Ephesus who appeased the mob in tho theatre at
the time of the tumult excited by Demetrius and
his fellow-craftsmen (Acts xix. 35). The other
primary English versions translate in the same
way, except those from the Vulgate (WycUflfe, the
Rhemish), which render "scribe." A digest of
Boeckh's views, in his Staatshaushaltung, respecting
the functions of this officer at Athens (there were
three grades of the oi-der there), will be found in
Diet of Ant p. 459 fF. The ypa/jifiare^/s or " town-
clerk" afc Ephesus was no doubt a more important
person In that city thiin any of the public officers
designated by that term in Greece (see Greswell's
Dissertations, iv. 152). The title is preserved on
various ancient coins (Wetstein, Nov. Test. ii. 586 ;
Akermann's Numismatic Illustraiions, p. 53),
which illustrate fully the rank and dignity of the
office. It would appear that what may have been
the original service of this class of men, namely,
to record the laws and decrees of the state, and to
"ead them in public, embraced at length, especially

TRACHONITIS

3315

under the ascendency of the Romans in Asia Minor^
a much wider sphere of duty, so as to make tbem,
in some instances, in efiTect the heads or chiefs of
the municipal government (Winer, Realw. i. G49).
They were authorized to preside over the popular
assemblies and submit votes to tfiem, and are men
tioned on marbles as acting in that capacity. In
cases where they were associated with a superior
magistrate, they succeeded to bis place and dis
charged, his functions when tbe latter was absent
or had died. " On th^ subjugation of Asia by the
•Romans," says Baumstark (Pauly's Encyclopddie,
iii. 949), '¦'• ypafXfjLaT^Xs were appointed there in the
character of governors of single cifcies and districts,
who even placed their names on the coins of their
cities, caused the year to be named from them, and
sometimes were allowed to assume the dignity, or
at least fche name, of ^Kpx^^p^vs." This writer
refers as his authorities to Schwartz, Dissertaiio de
ypapfiarevtri, Magisiratu Civitatum Asice Procon-
sulaHs (Altorf, 1735); Van Dale, Dlsseriat v. 425;
Spanheim, De Usu et Prcesi. Numm. i. 704. A
good note on this topic will be found in the New
Englander (U. S. A.), a. 144.
It is evident, therefore, from Ltike's account, as
illustrated by ancient records, that the Ephesian
town-clerk acted a parfc entirely appropriate to the
character in which he appears. The speech deliv
ered by him, it may be remarked, is the model of
a popular harangue. He argues that such excite
ment as the Ephesians evinced was undignified,
inasmuch as they stood above all suspicion in re
ligious matters (Acts xix. 35, 36) ; that it waa
unjustifiable, since they could establish nothing
againsfc the men whom they accused (ver. 37 ) ; that
ifc was unnecessiiry, since other means of redress
were open to them (vv. 38, 39); and, -finally, if
neither pride nor a sense of justice availed any
thing, fear of the Roman power should restrain
them from such illegal proceedings (ver. 40).
H. B. H.
TRACHONITIS (TpaxwviTis: Trachoni
tis). This place is mentioned only once in the
Bible. In Luke iii. 1 we read that PhiUp " was
tetrarch of Ituraea, Kal TpaxwuiTi5os X'^P"^''*
and ifc appears fchafc this " Trachonite region," in
addition to the httle provmce of Trachonitis, in
cluded parts of Auranitis, Gaulanitis, and Batanaea
(Joseph. Ant xvii. 8, § 1, and 11, § 4).
Trachonitis is, in all probabihty, tbe Greek equiv
alent for the Aramaic Argob. The Taignmists ren
der the word HSlH, in Deut. iii. 14, by H31D"IU.
According to Gesenius, ^"IS signifies "a heap
of stones," from the root ^^j " to pile up stones.'*
So TpaxoovTris or Tpax<*>P ^s a « rugged or stony

« 1. ^nS, l^nS, and ]=in? : en-oA^s: from
|ri2, "search," "explore," a searcher or watcher ;
lad hence tbe notion of a watch-tower. In Is. xxxii.
14, the tower of Ophel is probably meant (Neh. iii. 26 ;
3es. 198).
2. b'iT5)2, and V^^tt or V"l"^?^ : TnJpyos: tur-
¦is ; from /13, " become great " (Ges. 265), used
wmetimes as a proper name. [Miqdol.]
3. "11^X3: Trerpa . munitio ; only onc^ "tower,"
aab. ii. 1. ^

4. 7QV : oTkos : dormts ; only in 2 K. v. 24
[Ophel.1* 5. nSQ, usually " corner," twice only " towur,'-
Zeph. i. 16, iii. 6 : yutvia. ; angulus.
6. n5^D : o-KOTTia : specula ; " watch-tower.*'
[Mizpah.] 7. ^tt?p: oxvpt^^a: rdbur; ouly in poetry
[filisaAB.] '
6 ¦* Such towers are numerous also afc Bethlehem^
and form a striking feature of the landscape (tiackett'i
Illustrations of Scripture, p. 171 f-)- ^

3316

TKACHONITIS

tract.' ' William of Tjtc gives a curious etymology
of the word Trachonitis : " Videtur autem nobis a
tracon^ms dicta. Tracones enim dicuntur occulti
et subterranei meatus, quibus ista regio abundat '*
(Gesl. Dei per Francos, p. 895). Be this as it
may, there can be no doubt that the whole region
abounds in caverns, some of which are of vast ex
tent. Strabo refers to the caves in the mountains
beyond Trachon (Geog. xvi.), and he affirms that
one of them is so large that it would contain 4000
men. The writer has visited some sp.ocious caves
in Jebel Hauran, and in the interior of the Lejah.
The situation and boundaries of Trachonitis can
be defined with tolerable accuracy from the notices
in Josephus, Strabo, and other writers. From
Josephus we gather tbat it lay south of Damascus,
and east of Gaulanitis, and that it bordered on
Auranitis and Batanaea (B. J. iv. 1, § 1, i. 20, § i,
iii. 10, § 7). Strabo says there were 5i5o Tpax^ves
( Geog. xvi. ). From Ptolemy we learn that it bor
dered on Batansea, near the town of Saccjea ( Geog.
XV.). In tbe Jerusalem Gemara it is made to ex
tend as far south as Bostra (Lightfoot, Ojip. ii.
473). Eusebius and Jerome, though they err in
confounding it with Ituraea, yet the latter rightly
defines its position, as lying between Bostra and
Damascus (Onom. s. v.). Jerome also states that
Kenath was one of its chief towns (Onom. s. v.
"Canath"). From these data we have no difficulty in fixing
the position of Trachonitis. It included the whole
ofthe modern province called el-Lejali (sLsxXII),
with a section of the plain southward, and also a
part of the western declivities of Jebel Hauran.
This may explain Strabo's two Trachons. The
identity of the Lejah and Trachonitis does not rest
merely on presumptive evidence. On the northerp
border of the province are the extensive ruins of
Musmeih, where, on the door of a beautiful temple,
Burckhardt discovered an inscription, from which
it appears that this is tbe old city of Phocus, and
the capital of Trachonitis (/i7iTpaKa/j.la Tpax&uos,
Trav. in Syr. 117). The Lejtch is bounded on the
east by the mountains of Batansea (now Jebel
Haurdn), on whose slopes are the ruins of Sacceea
and Kenath ; on the south by Auranitis (now
Haurdn), in which are the extensive ruins of Bostra ;
on the west by Gaulanitis (now JauJdn) ; and on
the north by Ituraea (now jed&r) and Damascus.
If all other proofs were wanting, a comparison of
tbe features of the Lejah with the graphic de
scription Josephus gives of Trachonitis would be
sufficient to establish the identity. The inhabitants,
he says, " had neither towns nor fields, but dwelt
in caves that served as a refuge both for themselves,
and their Socks. They had, besides, cisterns of
nater and well-stored granaries, and were thus able
to reraain long in obscurity and to defy their
enemies. The doors of their caves are so narrow
that but one man can enter at a time, while within
they are incredibly large. The ground above is
almost a plain, but it is covered with rugged rocks,
and is difficult of access, except where a guide
points out tlij paths. These paths do not run in
a straight course, but have many windings and
turns" (.Int. xv. 10, § 1). A description of the
Lejah has been given above [Akgob], with which
this may be compared.
The notices of Trachonitis in history are few and
irief. Josephus affirms that it was cojonized by

TblADITION
reference to it is when it was held by Zenodorus
the bandiUchief. Then its inhabitants made fre
quent raids, as their successors do still, upon the
territories of Damascus (Ani. xv. 10, § 1). Augustus
took it from Zenodorus, and gave it to Herod the
Great, on condition that he should repress the rob
bers (Ani. xvi. 9, § 1). Herod bequeathed it to
his son Philip, and his will was confirmed by Csesar
(S. J. ii. 6, § 3). This is the Philip refeired to
in Luke iii. 1. At a later period it passed into the
hands of Herod Agrippa (B. J. iii. 3, § 5). After
the conquest of this part of Syria by Cornelius
Palma, in the beguining of the second century, we
hear no more of Trachonitis (Burckhardt, Trav. in
Syr. 110 ff. ; Porter, Damascus, ii. 240-276 ; Jowv.
Geog. Soc. xxviii. 250-252). [Also, Porter, Giinit
Cities of Bashan, pp. 15, 93 j and J. G. Wetzstein,
Reiseberickt lib. Hauran u. die Trachonen- p
36ff. -H.] J. L. P.
* TRADITIOlf (wapiSoa-ts, rendered once,
in 1 Cor. xi. 2, "ordinances"). Primarily it de
notes the act of delivering or transmitting, theu the
thing delivered ; in the N. T. it has only the latter
sense. It refers generally, if not always, to pre
ceptive ratlier than to historical matters. Tradi
tions may be either written or oral (2 Thess. ii. 15);
and the term is perhaps used in Gal. i. 14, so as to
include even precepts of the canonical Scriptures.
But the traditions alluded to by Christ in Matt. xv.
and Hark vii. were probably for the most part oral;
Josephus (Ani. xiii. 10, § 6) seems to imply this,
and he furthermore distinguishes them from the
Scriptures as being additions to, or explanations of
them, handed down from the fathers. These were
afterwards written m tbe Talmud. On the chai-
acter of them, cf. Wetstein, Lightfoot and Schottgen
on Matt. vi. 2, 5, xv. 2. [Washing the Hands
AND Feet; Pharisees; Sckibes.]
Tbe autboritativeness of traditions, according "to
the N. T., depends on their source. If they orig
inated strictly with uninspired men, they were not
authoritative, and might even be directly opposed
to Divine commandments (Matt. xv. 6, Col. ii. 8).
On the other hand irapaSSa-fis which were derived
from Christ or his apostles, were authoritative
(1 Cor. xi. 2; 2 Thess. ii. 15). Here we may note
also the frequent use of irapdSiSa/u, said of injunc
tions or important communications delivered to the
Christians (1 Cor. xi. 23, xv. 3; Acts xvi. 4; Rom.
vi. 17; 2 Pet. ii. 21). In some of these cases the
whole substance of the Gospel is spoken of as thus
delivered. And oral transmission is probably meant
in most cases.
This suggests the inquiry, what traditional ele
ments there are in the Bible itseE As regards the
0. T., since tbe names of the authors of the his
torical books are not given and many of the histories
cover a long period of time, there is room for un
bounded license in conjecturing how far the nar
ratives are traditions reduced to writing a greater
or Jess time after the occurrence of the events re
corded. But the mention of histories now lost,
made as early as Num. xxi. 14 ("the book of the
wars of the Lord"); and especially in the hooka
of Kings and Chronicles [Kings] of annals of the
several reigns, diminishes very much tbe probability
of extensive resort to old traditions in the compilar
tion of the histories. Where reference is made in
one part of the 0. T. to former events m the his
tory of the people, we can generally find the events
recorded in the earlier books. Cf. e. g. Jephthah'i

Vz the son of Aram (Ani. i. 6, § 4). His next ' message to the Ammonites (Judg. xi.) with th«

TRADITION
narrative in Num. xx. and xxi., or Ps. Ixxviii. with
the history of the Exodus. It is more than doubt
ful whether we are to understand Mic. vi. 5-8 as
contauiing a dialogue between Balak and Balaam,
preserved by tradition. Tbis new, though advanced
by Bishop Butler (Sermon on Balaam), and adopted
in the article on Moab and by Stanley (Jewish
Church, i. 212), is not generally accepted, and
hardly seems to be suggested by the passage in
Micah. The time embraced in the N. T. histories does
not allow much scope to tradition in the ordinary
sense of tbe term. But if we take TraptiSoais in
the narrower sense in which the N. T. uses it, then
it may be said that a considerable part of the his
torical books of the N. T. may be composed of tra
ditions. The Gospel was at first preached, not
written. What tbe apostles thus handed down
was afterwards recorded by tbem or others. See
Gospels ; Westcott, Introduction, p. 212 ; and
especially Luke i. 1 ff. Accordingly, the familiar
passage Acts xx. 35, where Paul quotes a saying of
Christ not elsewhere recorded, is strictly speaking
no more a tradition than the other sayings of Christ
vvhich are found in the Gospels; for at the time
when Paul used tbis language perhaps none, or not
more than one, of tbe Gospels was written. See
Hackett, Acts, p. 343, and Introduction to Acts,
p. 29. Tbe sarae may be said of John viii. 1-11.
This narrative, though belonging originally to none
of the Gospels, was probably preserved in the recol
lection of the disciples and eariy incorporated into
the text of John. See Meyer on this passage.
Somewhat different is the case with the interpola
tion in John v. 3 b, 4, which seems to be a tradition
reflecting a popular belief, but for which John can
not be regarded as vouching. Still different is the
tradition (John xxi. 23) respecting John's death,
which is mentioned, only to be pronounced false.
There are however a few instances of what seem
to be traditions of longer standing. On 2 Tim.
iii. 8 see Jamnes and Jambkes, and Wetstein
in be. The phrase "sawn asunder" in Heb. xi.
37 is doubtless founded on the tradition that Isaiah
was thus put to death. On the dispute between
Michael and the Devil, Jude 9. see Michael; also
De Wette and Huther in loc. Of a similar charac
ter is the quotation, in Jude 14, 15, from " Enoch,
the seventh from Adam." On this see Enoch,
Book of. The allusion in Jude 6 to the angels
who kept not their first estate may also have been
derived from the book of Enoch (xii. 4), though
this again is probably derived from Gen. vi. 1-4
(on which see, besides the commentaries, especially
Kurtz, Die Ehen der Sbhne Goties, etc., in his
Geschichte des Alien Bundes). 2 Pet. ii. 4 prob
ably refers to the same thing. According to some,
the expression in 1 Cor. x. 4 is derived from a
Jewish tradition that the rock from which water
sprang forth did actually follow the Israelites in
their wanderings. But this, though a re.il Jewish
tradition, cannot be proved to have existed before
the time of Paul; and if it did, Paul does not in-
dorae it, — at the most he only alludes to it. Cf.
Neander and Meyer in loc. A more important in
stance of tradition is that respecting the mediation
of. angels in the giving of the Law. This is men-

TRANCE

3317

a In Mark v. 42 and xvi. 8 it is used simply for
utonishment mingled with awe, not for the trance
state. b The distinction drawn by Hippocrates and Galen

tioned as something generally understood, in Acts
vii. 53, Gal. iii. 19, and Heb. ii. 2. The repre
sentation cannot be derived directly from the (). T. ;
but the LXX. in its translation of Deut. xxxiii. 2
suggests it, and Josephus indorses it (Ant., xv. 5,
§3). On the subject of tradition in the ecclesiastical
sense, see especially Holtzmann, Kanon und Tra
dition, and Jacobi, Klrchliche Lehre von der Tra
dition. C. M. M.
* TRAFFICKERS. [Commerce ; Mar
ket.]
TRANCE (eKO-Taa-Lsi excessus). (1.) In the
only passage (Num. xxiv. 4, 16) in which this word
occurs in the English of fche 0. T. fchere is, as tha
itahcs show, no corresponding word in Hebrew,
simply vDD, "falling," for which the LXX. gives
iv vTTvtp, and the Vulg. more literally qui cadii.
The Greek ^Karatris is, however, used as the equiv
alent for many Hebrew words, signifying dread,
fear, astonishment (Trommii Concordant.). In the
N. T. we meet with the word three times (Acts x.
10, xi. 5, xxii. 17), the Vulgate giving " excessus "
in the two former, "stupor mentis " in the latter.
Luther uses " entziickt " in all three cases. The
meaning of the Greek and Latin words is obvious
enough. The eKO'Taots is the state in which a
man has passed out of the usual order of his hfe,
beyond tbe usual limits of consciousness and voli
tion. *' Excessus," in like manner, fchough in clas
sical Latin chiefly used as an euphemism for deafch,
became, in ecclesiastical writei"s, a synonym for
the condition of seeming death to the outer world,
which we speak of as a trance. " Hanc vim ecstasin
diciraus, excessum sensus, et amentias instar"
(Tertull. de An. c. 45). The history of the Eng
lish word presents an interesting parallel. The
Latin " transitus " took its place also among the
euphemisms for death. In early Italian " esaere in
transito," was to be as at the point of death, the
passage to another world. Passing into French, it
also, abbreviated into "transe," was applied, not
to death itself, but to that which more or less
resembled ifc (Diez, Eoman, Worterbuch, s. v.
" transifco ").
(2.) Used as the word is by Luke,« " fche physi
cian," and, in this special sense, by him only, in
the N". T., it would be interesting to inquire what
precise meaning it had in the medical terminology
of the time. From the time of Hippocrates, who
uses it to describe the loss of conscious perception,''
ifc had probably borne the connotation which it has
had, with shades of meaning for good or evil, ever
since. Thus, Hesychius gives as the account of a
man in an ecstasy, that he is 6 eiy kavrhv fi^ &v.
Apuleius (Apologia) speaks of it as "a change from
the earthly mind (aTrh tov yq'ivov tppoviifMaros) to
a divine and spiritual condition both of character
and hfe." Tertullian (/. c.) compares ifc to the dream-
state in which the soul acts, bufc nofc through its
usual instruments. Augustine {Confess, ix. 11)
describes his mother in this state as " abstracta a
prsesentibus," and gives a desLTiption of like phe
nomena in the case of a certain Restitntus (de Civ
Dei, xiv. 2-1).
(3.) We may compare with these stateraents the

between eKoratrcis triyuo-at and ckot. tiekayxokiKoa
answers obviously to that of later writers between pura
and ecstatic catalepsy (comp. Foesius, Q^xonom. Hip
pocrat. B. y. eKoTatris)-

3318

TRANCE

more precise definitions of modem medical science.
There the ecstatic state appears as one form of cat
alepsy. In catalepsy pure and simple, there is " a
sudden suspension of thought, of sensibiUty, of vol
untary motion." " The body continues in any
attitude in which it may be placed; " there are no
signs of any process of thoughfc; the patient con
tinues silent. In the ecstatic form of catalepsy, on
the other hand, "the patient is lost to all external
impressions, but wrapped and absorbed in some
object of the imagination."' The man is "as if
out of the body." " Nervous and susceptible per
sons are apt to be thrown into these trances under
the influence of what is called mesmerism. There
is, for the most part, a high degree of mental ex
citement. The patient utters the most enthusiastic
and fervid expressions or the most earnest warn
ings. The character of the whole frame is that of
intense contemplative excitement. He believes
fchat he has seen wonderful visions and heard sui-
gular revelations" (Watson, Principles and Prac
tice, I.£ct. xxxix. ; Copland, Diet of Medicine, s.
V. " Catalepsy "). The causes of this state are to
be traced coramonly to strong religious impressions;
but some, though, for the most part, not tbe ec-
Btafcic, phenomena of catalepsy are producible by the
concentration of thought on one object, or of the
vision upon one fixed point ( Quart. Rev. xciii. pp.
510-522, by Dr. AV. B. Carpenter; comp. Ukim
AND Thummim), and, in some more exceptional
cases, Uke that mentioned by Augustine (there,
however, under the influence of sound, " ad imita-
tas quasi lamentantis cujuslibet hominis voces"),
and thafc of Jerome Cardan (Var. Rer. viii. 43),
men have been able to throw themselves into a cat
aleptic state at will. [See Dr. TV". A. Hammond
on the Physics a/nd Physiology of Spiritualism,
in the N. A. Bev. for April 18*70; ex. 233-260.—
A.] (4.) Whatever explanation may be given of it, it
is true of many, if not of most, of those who have
left the stamp of their own character on the relig
ious history of mankind, tbat they have been lia
ble to pass at times into this abnormal state. The
union of intense feeling, strong volition, long-con
tinued thought (the conditions of all wide and last
ing influence), aided in many cases by the with
drawal from the lower life of tbe support which is
needed to maintain a healthy equilibrium, appears
to have been more than the " earthen vessel " will
bear. The words which speak of " an ecstasy of
idoration " are often literally true. The many
risions, the journey through the heavens, the so-
called epilepsy of Mohammed, were phenomena of
this nature. Of three great mediseval teachers, St.
Francis of Assisi, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Joan
nes Scotus, it is recorded that they would fall into
the ecstatic state, remain motionless, seem as if
dead, sometimes for a whole day, and then, return
ing to consciousness, speak as if they had drunk
deep of divine mysteries (Gualtperius, Crit. Sac. on
Acts X. 10). The old traditions of Aristeas and
Epimenides, the conflicts of Dunstan and Luther
with tbe powers of darkness, the visions of Savona
rola, and George Fox, and Swedenborg, and Boh-
men, are generically analogous. Where there has
been no extraordinary power to influence others.

a Analogous to thia is the statement of Aristotle
[Prol. c. 30) that the ueKayxoKiKoC speak often in wild
Bursts of poetry, and as the Sibyls and others who are
inspired (evdeotj

TRANCE
other conditions remaining the same, the phenom.
ena have appeared among whole cla.sses of men and
women in proportion as the circumstances of their
lives tended to produce an excessive susceptibility
to religious or imaginative emotion. The history
of monastic orders, of American and Irish revivals
gives countless examples. Still more noticeable is
the fact that many of the iniprovisaioi'i of Italy
ai-e " only able to exercise their gift when they are
in a state of ecstatic trance, and speak of the gift
itself as something morbid"" (Copland, I. c.)'
while in strange contrast with their earlier history
and pointing perhaps to a national character that
has become harder and less emotional, there is the
testimony of a German physician (Frank), who bad
made catalepsy a special study, that he had never
met with a single case of it among the Jews (Cop
land, I. c.).l>
(5.) We are now able to take a true estimate of
the trances of Biblical history. As in other things,
so also here, the phenomena are common to higher
and lower, to true and false systems. The nature
of man continuing the same, it could hardly be
that the awfulness of the Divine presence, the ter
rors of Divine judgment, should leave it in the
calm equilibrium of its normal state. Whatever
made the impress of a truth more indelible, what
ever gave him to whom it was revealed more power
over the hearts of others, might well take its place
in the Divine education of nations and individual
men. We may not point to trances and ecstasies
as proofs of a true Eevelation, but still less may we
think of tbem as at all inconsistent with it. Thus,
though we have not the word, we have the thing
in the " deep sleep " (iKa-Toais, LXX.), the "hor
ror of great darkness," that fell on Abraham (Gen.
XV. 12). Balaam, as if overcome by the constrain
ing power of a Spirit mightier than his own, " sees
the vision of God, falling, but with opened eyes "
(Num. xxiv. 4). Saul, iu Hke manner, when the
wild chant of the prophets stirred the old depths
of feeling, himself also " prophesied " and '' fel]
down " (most, if not all, of his kingly clothing be
ing thrown off in the ecstasy of the moment), " all
that day and all that night " (1 Sam. xix. 24).
Something tbere was in Jeremiah that made men
say of him that he was as one that " is mad and
maketh himself a prophet " (Jer. xxix. 26). In
Ezekiel tbe phenomena appear in more wonderful
and awful forms. He sits motionless for seven
days in the stupor of astonishment, till the word
of the Lord comes to him (Ez. iii. 15). The " hand
of the Lord " falls on hini, and he too sees the
visions of God," and hears the voice of the Al
mighty, is " lifted up between the earth and heaven,"
and passes from the river of Chebar to the Lord's
house in Jerusalem (Ez. viii. 3).
(6.) As other elements and forms of the pro
phetic work were revived in " the Apostles and
Prophets " of the N. T., so also was this. More
distinctly even than in the 0. T. it becomes the
medium through which men rise to see clearly
what before was dim and doubtful, in which tbe
mingled hopes and fears and perplexities of the
waking state are dissipated at once. Though dif
ferent in form, it belongs to the same class of phe
nomena as the Gift of Tongues, and is connected

6 A fuller treatment of tho whole subject than can
be entered on here may be found in tho chapter 00
Les Mystiques in Maury, La Magie et i^Astrologit

TRANSFIGURATION
mth " visions and revelations of the Lord." In
some cases, indeed, it is the chosen ch5.nnel for such
revelations. To the " trance " of Peter in the city,
where all outward cu:cumstances tended to bring
the thought, of an expansion of the Divine kingdom
more distinctly before him than it had ever been
brought before, we owe the indelible truth stamped
upon the heart of Christendom, that God " is no
rtepecter of persons," that we may not call any
man " common or unclean " (Acts x., xi.). To the
" trance " of Paul, when his work for his own peo
ple seemed utterly fruitless, we owe the mission
which wa3 the starting-point of the history of the
Universal Church, the command which bade him
" depart .... far hence unto the Gentiles "
(Acts xxii. 17-21). Wisely for the most part did
that Apostle draw a veil over these more mysterl
ous experiences. He would not sacrifice to them,
as others have often sacrificed, the higher life of
activity, love, prudence. He could not explain
them to himself. " In the body or out of the
body " he could not tell, bufc the outer world of
perception had passed away, and he had passed
in spirit into '' paradise," into " the third heaven,'
and had heard " unspeakable words " (2 Cor. xii,
1-4), Those trances too, we may believe, were
not without their share in fashioning his character
and life, though no special truth came distinctly
oufc of them. United as tbey then were, but as
they have seldom been since, with clear perceptions
of the truth of God, with love wonderful in its
depth and tenderness, with energy unresting, and
subtle" tact almost passing into "guile," they
made hira what he was, the leader of the Apostolic
band, emphatically the " master builder " of the
Church of God (comp. Jowett, Fragment cn ihe
Character of St Paul). E. H. P.
* TRANSFIGURATION. The event in
fche earthly hfe of Christ which marks the culmi
nating point in his public ministry, and stands mid
way befcween fche temptation in the wilderness and
the agony in Gethsemane. It is recorded, with very
slight variations, by the Synoptists (Matt. xvii. 1-
13; Mark ix. 2-13 ; Luke ix. 28-36), but is omitted
by John, like many ofcher evenfcs and miracles, as
being already known from fche gospel tradition.
1. The place mentioned by the Evangelists is
"an high mountain," probably in Galilee, where
the synoptical Gospels mainly move, and where the
events immediately preceding and succeeding oc
curred. ' The Lord was wont to withdraw to a
mountain for prayer (Matt. xiv. 23; Luke xxi. 37;
John vi. 15), and several of the greatest events in
fche hisfcory of revelation, from fche legislation on
Mount Sinai to the ascension from Mount Olivet,
fcook place oa mounfcains- An ancient tradition,
first mentioned by Cyril of Jerusalem ( Catech. xii.
16) about the middle of the fourth century, locafces
the Transfiguration ou Mount Tabor, the highest
in Gahlee, which rises, like a truncated cone, 1310
Paris feefc from the plain of Esdraelon, two hours
and a quarter south of Nazareth, with an unbroken
view to the surrounding country, and is often men
tioned in the Old Testament (Judges iv. 6, 14, viii.
18; Ps. Ixxxix. 12; Jer. xlvi. 18), though nowhere
in the New. This tradition gained soon almost
Bniversal accepfcance, while an earlier tradition,
vrhich places the event on fche Mount of Ohves near
Jerusalem, stands isolated. It gave rise to the
buUding of churches and monasteries ou the sum
mit of Tabor ("to correspond to the three taberna-

TRANSFIGURATION 3319
cles which Peter was not permitted to build"),
and to tbe designation of the festival of the Trans
figuration in the Greek Church, as Th ®a0d>piov.
There is no evidence in favor of this tradition, but
strong and decisive evidence against it ; for the
sumrait of Tabor was employed without intermis
sion befcween the times of Antioclius the Great, 218
B. c, to the destruction of Jerusalem, A. d. 70, as
a fortification, and hence unfit for quiet seclusion
and meditation (Polybius v. 70, 6 ; Josephus, Ant.
xiv. 6, 3; B. J. i. 8, 7, ii. 20, 6, iv. 18; comp.
Ritter, Comparative Geography of Palestine, ii.
313, Eng. trans.; Robinson, Bibl. Res. iii. 220-
225; Herzog, Encykl. art. Thabor; Trench, Stud
ies in the Gospels, p. 192). Modern commentators
and critics favor Mount Hermon, tho highest
mountain-top in GaulonitLs, or one of the spurs of
the Anti-Libanus. Hermon is the highest of all the
. Lebanon mountains, and is called Jebel es-Sheikh,
or the Sheikh's mountain.
2. As to the time, the Transfiguration probably
took place in the night, because it could be seen
to better advantage fchan in dayhghfc, and Jesus
usually wenfc to mountains to spend there the night
in prayer (Luke vi. 12, xxi. 37, xxii. 39; Matt.
xiv. 23, 24). The apostles M-ere asleep, and are
described as having kepi themselves awake through
the act of Tramfiguratlon {^layp-nyop^aavTes,
Luke ix. 32), and they did nofc descend till the
next day (Luke ix. 37).
3. The acto7-s and witnesses. Christ was the
central figure, the subject of the Transfiguration.
Moses and Elijah appeared from the heavenly
world, as the representatives of the Old Testament,
the one of the Law, the other of Prophecy, to do
homage to Him who was the fulfillment of bofch.
They were the fittest persons to witness this an
ticipation of the heavenly glory, not only on account
of fcheir representative character, but also on ac
count of their mysterious departure from this world ;
Moses having died on the mountain, as the rabbin
ical tradition has it, "ofthe kisses of t'ehovah," in
sight of the Holy Land, and out of sight of the
world; Elyah having been translated alive from
earth to heaven on chariots of fii-e. Both had en
dured, like Chrisfc, a forty days' fast, both had been
on the holy mount in the visions of God, and now
they reappeared on earth with glorified bodies
" solenanly to consign into his hands, once and for
all, in a symbolical and glorious representation,
their delegated and expiring power " (Alford).
The recognition of the heavenly visitors by the dis
ciples was probably by immediate intuition, and
nofc by subsequent information.
Araong the apostles, the three favorite disciples,
Peter, James, and John, were the sole witnesses of
the scene, as they were also of the raising of Jairus*
daughfcer aud of fche agony in Gethsemane. Peter
alludes to the event, in his second epistle (i. 16-18),
where he speaks of having been an eye-witness oi
the majesty of the Lord Jesus when he was with
Him on the holy mount aud heard the heavenly
voice of the Father declaring Him to be his beloved
Son. John, the bosom friend of Jesus, probably
had in new this among other manifestations of hia
glory when he testified : " We beheld his glory, the
glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of
grace and truth " (John i. 1-4). And his brother
Jaraes, as the protomartyr among the apostles, was
the first to follow Him infco fchafc glory, of which the
Transfiguration was a foretaste and a sure pledge.
4. The eve'ii itself. The TransfgurcUion ot

S320

TRANSFIGURATION

transformation, or, as the German divines call it,
the glorification ( Verkldrung) cousistfid in a visi
ble manifestation and effulgence of the hiner glory
of Christ's person, accompanied by an audible voice
from heaven declaring Him to be the Son of God
in whom the Father is well pleased. The expres
sion used by Matthew and Mark, is that tbe Lord
was melainmphosed (fierefioptptiBn)- Luke, who
wrote for Gentile readers, avoids this expression,
perhaps (a^ Trench suggests), on account of the
possible associations of the heathen mythology
which would so easily attach themselves to it in
fche imagination of the Greeks, and he simply tells
us "that the fashion ofhis countenance was altered
as He prayed " (iyei/ero rh eJSos roU irpoo'ibTrov
avTOv erepov). But it was not only his counte
nance which shone in supernatural splendor, even
"his raiment was white and glistering," or as
Mark, with his characteristic fondness for pictur
esque details, and borrowing one image from na
ture, and another from man's art, says, it '' became
shining, exceeding white as snow, such as no fuller
on earth can whiten them." We have analogies
in Scripture whieh may be used as illustrations.
When Moses returned from the presence of Jeho
vah on Mount Sinai, the skin of his face shone (Ex.
xxxiv. 29-35), which circumstance Hilary calls a
figure of the Transfiguration. Stephen's face in
view of his martyrdom shone like the face of an
angel (Acts vi. 15). The human countenance is
often lit up by joy, and the peace and blessedness
of the soul, in moments of festive elevation, shine
through it as through a mirror. In the case of
Christ, the Transfiguration was the revelation and
anticipation of his future state of glory which was
concealed under the veil of his humanity in the
state of humiliation. The cloud which overshad
owed them was bright, or light-like, luminous (<^c<j-
Tein'li), of the same kind as the cloud at the ascen
sion, or the clouds of heaven at the second advent
of Christ (Matt. xxiv. 30; Mark xiii. 26; Luke
xxi. 27), and symbolized the presence of God (Ex.
liv. 19, xix. 16; Is. xix. 1; Dan. vii. 13).
5. Dijf'crent Explanai'ions. — The event is de
scribed as a vision (Upafjta, Matt. xvii. 9). But this
does not exclude its objective reality. It only
places it above the sphere of sense and ordinary
consciousness. It was partly an objective appear
ance, partly a spiritual vision. The apostles saw
the scene "in spirit" (comp. Acts x. 10; 1 Cor.
xiv. 15; Rev. i. 10). They were in an ecstatic
'* state of supernatural clairvoyance," so to speak,
"heavy with sleep," yet "keeping themselves
awake throughout;" and Peter did "not know
what be said," being only half conscious, overawed
jrith fear and wonder, delighted so as to desire to
hold fast this goodly state, yet " sore afraid." (a.)
The older orthodox writers describe it as a visible
manifestation ; some suppose that Moses and Elijah
appeared in their own bodies; others that Moses,
not yet having risen, assumed a foreign body re
sembling liis former body (so Thomas Aquinas).
(b.) The rationalists resohe the transfiguration into
a dream, or a meeting of Jesus with two secret dis
ciples, (c.) Strauss represents it as a pure myth,
a poetic imitation of the transfiguration of Moses,
Ex. xxiv. 1, xxxiv. 29 ff. .(Eenan, in his Vie de
Jesus, ignores the Transfiguration.) (d.) Ewald

- Gregory 1. (Moral, xxxii. 6): "In trausflgura-
tione quid aliud ouaiu rusurrectiouis ultima gloria
Dunciatur '''

TRANSFIGURATION
regards it as a rare occurrence, but with mj thical
embellishments. But the circumstantial agi-ee-
ment of the three Evangelists who naiTate tha
event, its definite chronblogical date, its coimection
with what follows, and the reference to it by Peter
one of its witnesses (2 Pet. i. 16-18), as well aa
the many peculiar traits to which no parallel can
be found in the transfiguration of Moses, refute the
mythical bypothesis, and confirm the historical
character of the scene.
6. The significance of the Transfiguration. It
was, as ah-eady remarked, a visible revelation of the
hidden glory of the person of Christ in anticipation
of his future state of exaltation, and at the sanie
time a prophecy of the future glory of his people
after the resurrection, when our mortal bodies shall
be conformed to his glorious body (Phil. iii. 21)."
It served as a solemn inauguration of the history of
the passion and final consummation of his work on
earth. For, according to Luke's account, the e|ii-
5os, the excessus of Christ, i. e. especially his death,
the great mystery of the atonement for the sins of
the world, and the following resurrection and re
turn to the Father, was the topic of conversation
between the two visitors from the other world aad
Jesus. The event bears a relation to the history
of Christ's suffering, like tbat of his baptism in
the river Jordan to his active ministry. On both
occasions he was brought into contact with repre
sentatives of tbe Old Testament, and strengthened
for his course by the solemn approval of the voice
from heaven declaring him to be the well-beloved
Son of tbe F'ather. The Transfiguration no doubt
confirmed the faith of the three favorite disciples,
and prepared them for the great trial which was ap
proaching. It took away from them, as Leo the
Great says (Serm. xciv. ), the scandal of the cross.
It furnishes also, to us all, a striking proof for
the unity of the Old and New Testaments, for per
sonal immortality, and tbe mysterious intercom
munion of the visible and invisible worlds. Both
meet in Jesus Christ; he is the connecting Unk be
tween the 0. and N T., between heaven and earth,
between the kingdom of grace and the kingdom of
glory. It is very significant that, at the end of the
scene, the disciples saw no man save Jesus alone.
Moses and Elyah, the law and the promise, types
and shadows pass away ; the gospel, the fulfillment,
the substance, Christ remains, the only one who
can relieve the misery of earth and glorify our na
ture, Christ all in all.
The Transfiguration has given rise to one of the
greatest works of art ever conceived by the genius
of man, which is the best comment on this super
natural event. The picture under that name was
the last work of Raphael, and was earned to his
grave at his burial. He died of the Ti'ansfiguration
ui his early manhood. The original is in St. Pe
ter's at Rome, and has been multiplied in innumer
able copies. It represents Christ soaring above the
earth and swimming in glory, Moses with the tables
of the Law on one hand, Elijah on the other, the
three disciples with their characteristic features at
their feet, gazing in a half-dreamy state at the
dazzling light; and beneath this scene of celestial
peace, the painter represents in startling contrast
the scene of the lunatic whose healing follows in
the gospel narrative. So in our Christian experi
ence we must ever descend from the heights of fes
tive joy, and the foretaste of heaven which is granted
us from time to time, to the hard work and misery
of daily life, until we attain to final rest and to that

TRAJP
glory ofthe resurrection of which the Transfigura^ |
tion is a sure pledge.
Literature. — Comp. the Commentaries on Matt.
x\ii. 1-13, and the parallel passages, especially
Lange, and an article on the Transfiguration in
Archbishop Trench's Studies in the Gospels, 1867.
The Transfiguration is the subject of three of Bishop
Hall's Contemplations, bk. iv. 12, 13, 14. P. S.
* TRAP. [Hunting.]
* TREASURE-CITIES. [Stoke^cities,
Amer. ed.]
* TREASURY. In Mark xii. 41 (comp.
Luke xxi. 1) it is related that, as Jesus " sat over
against the ireasw?'^ " (Karevavri tov ya^o^vKa-
Kiov) he saw a certain poor widow who came and
threw in two mites; and in John viii. 20 we read,
" These words spake Jesus iu the treasury (iy T(p
ya(o(f)v\aKiq)) as he taught in the Temple." Ac
cording to the Mishna (Shekalim, vi. 1 § 5) tbere
were in the Temple 13 treasure-chests for the re
ception of gifts of money to be devoted to so many
special purposes, de.signated by the inscriptions
upon them. These were called '* trumpets "
(mnQItt?) either from their shape or from the
shape of the opening into which the contributions
were dropped. They are generally identified with
the ya^o^vKaKia mentioned by Josephus (5. ./. v.
5, § 2), 'who speaks of the cloisters which sur
rounded the Court of the Woraen [Temple, p.
3205 6], on the inside of its wall, as placed be
fore them (al ffTocd Se p^TaQ) twv irvXcov awh tov
reixovs evBov ioTpappivat irph twv ya^o<pu\a-
Kicav), and they may perhaps have been collectively
called "the treasury" in the passages of Slark
and Luke above referred to. In John viii. 20 it
would seem probable that the Court of the Women
is itself called *' the treasury " because it contained
these repositories. Some, however (as Meyer,
Ewald, Holtzmann, Grimm, Lex.), understand 4y
in this passage to mean simply ai, near. Jose
phus uses ya(o<pv\dKLOp in the singular, in refer
ence to a treasury in the Temple, Ant xix. 6, § 1.
The whole subject presents various questions which
we cannot here discuss. See especially Lightfoot,
Prospect of ihe Temple, ch. xix., and Chorog.
Decad, ch. iii. §§ 1-4 (Works, Pitman's ed., ix.
313 ff., X. 208 fir.); Keland, Antiq. i. 8, §§ 14-16;
Winer, Realworterb. arfc. Tempel, ii. 583; Ebrard,
Wiss. Krit, d. ev. Gesch. p. 600 f. (3^ Aufl., 1868) ;
with fche nofces of De Wette on Luke xxi. 1, and
Liicke and Godet on John viii. 20. A.
* TREE, hke treow in Anglo-Saxon, was often
Uiied in eaily English in fche sense of " wood " in
general, as " vessells of ire " (Chaucer), '* cuppe of
ire ; " and also specifically to denote something
made of wood, particularly a bar or beam, a mean
ing still preserved in the compounds axle-tree,
(yj-jss-iree, whipple-tree. It has the latter meaning,
with a special application, in several passages of the
A. v., e. g. Acts v. 30, "whom ye slew and hanged
on a iree,^^ rather, " whora ye slew by hanging him
on a cross," literally, " on a beam of wood " (eVl ^6-
Aou); so Acts X. 39, xiii. 29; Gal. iii. 13. (See Dr.
Noyes's note on Acts v. 30 in his Translation of
the N. T.) In like manner the Genevan version
reads, in reference fco fche proposed hanging of Mor
decai, " Let them make a tree of fifty cubits high "
(Esth. V. li, comp. vi. 4, vii. 9, 10); and the cross
m early English poetry is often called " Cristes
tre " ((Chaucer), " Godys tre," " the holy rode tre,"
209

TRIAL

3321

or simply " the tree," as in the A. V., 1 Pet. ii.
24. Noah's ark is called in Wycliffe's version of
Wisd. X. 4, "a dispisable iree," where the A. V.
reads " a piece of wood of sraall value " (LXX. eu-
T6A.es ^{}Kov)' A.
TRESPASS-OFFERING. [Sin - offer
ing.] TRIAL. Information on the subject of trials
under the Jewish law will be found in fche arfcicles
on Judges and Sanhedkim, and also in Jesus
Chkist. A few remarks, however, may here be
added on judicial proceedings mentioned in Scrip
ture, especially such as were conducted before for
eigners. 1. The trial of our Lord before Pilate was, in a
legal sense, a trial for the offense lces(B majestatis ;
one which, under the Julian Law, following out
thafc of the Twelve Tables, would be punishable
with death (Luke xxiii. 2, 38; John xix. 12, 15;
Dig. iv. 1, 3).
2. The trials of the Apostles, of St. Stephen,
and of St. Paul before the high-priest, were con
ducted according to Jewish rules (Acts iv,, v. 27,
vi. 12, xxii. 30, xxiii. 1).
3. The trial, if it may be so called, of St. Paul
and Silas at Philippi, was held before the duumviri,
or, as they are called, oTparriyol, praetors, on the
charge of innovation in religion — a crime punish
able with banishment or death (Acts xvi. 19, 22;
Diet of Antiq. " Colonia," p. 318; Conybeare and
Howson, i. 34:5, 355, 356).
4. The interrupted trial of St. Paul before the
proconsul Gallic, was an attempt made by the Jews
to estabhsh a charge of the same kind (Acts xviii.
12-17; Conybeare and Howson, i. 492-496).
5. The trials of St. Paul at Caesarea (Acfcs xxiv.,
xxv., xxvi.) were conducted according fco Roman
rules of judicature, of which the procurators Felix
and Festus were the recognized administrators.
(a.) In the first of these, before Fehx, we observe
the employment, by the plaintiffe, of a Roman
advocate to plead in Latin. [Okator.] (b.) The
postponement (ampliaiiu) of the trial after St
Paul's reply (Diet of Antiq. "Judex," p. 647/
(c.) The free custody in which the accused was
kept, pending the decision of the judge (Acts xxiv.
23-26). The second formal trial, before Festus,
was, probably, conducted in the same manner as fche
former one before Felix (Acts xxv. 7, 8), but it pre
sents two new features: (a.) the appeal, m/jpe/Zaiio
or provocatio, to Csesar, by St. Paul as a Roman
citizen. The right of appeal ad populum, or to fche
tribunes, became, under the Empire, transferred
to the emperor, and, as a citizen, St. Paul availed
himself of the right fco which he was entitled, even
in the case of a provincial governor. The effect
of the appeal was to remove the case at once to the
jurisdiction of the emperor (Conybeare and How
son, ii. 360; Diet of Antiq. " Appellatio," p. 107;
Dig. xlix. 1, 4). (b.) The conference of the proc
urator with ," the council " (Acts xxv. 12). This
council is usually explained to have consisted of the
assessors, who sat on the bench with the prastor as
consiliarii (Suet. r/6. 33; Diet of Antiq. "Asses
sor," p. 143 ; Grotius, On Acts xxv.; Conybeare
and Howson, ii. 358, 361). But besides the ab
sence of any previous mention of any assessors (see
below), the mode of expression wWaA-fia-as pcTo.
TOV avp^ovXiov seems to admit the explanation of
conference with the deputies from the Sanhedrim
(ri (Tu/xjS-)* St. Paul's appeal would probably b»

3322

TRIBUTE

in the Latin language, and would require explana
tion on the part of the judge to the deputation of
accusers, before he carried into eflfect the inevitable
result of the appeal, namely, the dismissal of the
case so far as they were concerned. [Appeal,
Amer. ed.]
6. We have, lastly, the mention (Acts xix. 38)
of a judicial assembly which held its session at Eph
esus, in which occur the terms ayopaiot (i. e. rjue-
pai) ttyovrat, and av^brraToi. The former denotes
the assembly, then sitting, of provincial citizens
forming the conventus, out of which the proconsul,
av^tTKaTos, selected " judices " to sit as his asses
sors. The apdvtraTOi would thus be the judicial
tiibunal composed of tbe proconsul and his asses
sors. In the former case, at Caesarea, it is difficult
to imagine that there could be any conventus and
any provincial assessors. There the only class of
men qualified for such a function would be the
Roman officials attached to the procurator; but in
Proconsular Asia such assemblies are well known to
have existed (Did. of Antiq. " Provincia," pp. 965,
966, 967).
Early Christian practice discouraged resort to
heathen tribunals in civil matters (1 Cor. vi. 1).
H. W. P.
TRIBUTE (ret SiSpax/J-a'- didrachma. Matt.
xvii. 2^; KTJraos: census, ibid. 25).
1. The chief BibHcal facts counected with the
payment of tribute have been already given under
Taxes. A few remain to be added in connection
with the word which in the above passage is thus
rendered, inaccurately enough, in the A. V. The
payment of the half-shekel (= half-sin(er = two
drachmae) was (as has been said) [Taxes], though
resting on an ancient precedent (Ex. xxx. 13), yet,
in its character as a fixed annual rate, of late ori
gin. It was proclaimed according to Rabbinic
rules on the first of Adar, began to be collected on
the 15th, and was due, at latest, on the first of Ni-
san (Mishna, Shelcalim, i. f. 7; Surenhusius, pp.
260, 261). It was applied to defta,y the general
expenses of the Temple, the moniing and evening
sacrifice, the incense, wood, shew-bread, the red
heifers, the scape-goat, etc. (Sbehil. I. c. in Light
foot, Hor. Heb. on Matt. xvii. 24). After the de
struction of the Temple it was sequestrated by
Vespasian and his successors, and transferred to
the Temple of the Capitoline Jupiter (Joseph. B.
J. vii. 6, § 6).
2. The explanation thus given of the "tribute"
of Matt. xvii. 24, is beyond all doubt the true one.
To suppose with Chrysostom, Augustine, Maldo
natus, and others, that it was the same as the
tribute (xrivaos) paid to the Roman emperor (Matt.
xxii. 17), is ^t variance with the distinct statements
of Josephus and the Mishna, and takes away the
whole significance of our Lord's words. It may be
questioned, however, whether tbe full significance
of those words is adequately brought out in the
popular interpretation of them. As explained by
most commentators, they are simply an assertion
by our Lord of his Divine Sonship, an implied
rebuke of Peter for forgetting the truth which he
had so recently confessed (comp. Wordsworth, Al
ford, and others) : " Then are the children (uloi)
free;" Thou hast owned me as the Son of the
Living God, the Son of the Great King, of the
Ixird of the Temple, in whose honor men pay the
Temple-tribute ; why, forgetting this, dost thou so
hastily make answer as if I were an alien and a
itranger ? True as this exegesis is in part, it fails

TRIBUTE
to account for some strikuig facts. (1.) The plural,
not the singular is used ¦ — " then are the chSdren
free." The words imply a class of "sons" as
contrasted with a class of aliens. (2.) The words
of our Lord here must be interpreted by his lan
guage elsewhere. The "sons of the Idngdom"
are, as in the Hebrew speech of the 0. T., those
who belong to it, in the apostolic language "hens
of the kingdom " (Matt. viii. 12, xiii. 3%; Jam. il.
5; Rom. viii. 17), "sons of God," "children of
their Father in heaven." (3.) The words that
follow, " Give unto them for me and thee," place
the disciple as standing, at least in some degree on
the same ground as his Master. The principle in
volved in the words " then are the children free "
extends to him also. Payment is made for both,
not on diflferent, but on the same grounds.
3. A fuller knowledge of the facts of the case
may help us to escape out of the trite routine of
commentators, and to rise to the higher and broader
truth implied in our Lord's teaching. The Tem
ple-rate, as above stated, was of comparatively late
origin. The question whether the costs of the
morning and evening sacrifice ought to be defrayed
by such a fixed compulsory payment, or left to the
free-will offerings of the people, had been a con
tested point between tbe Pharisees and Sadducees,
and the former had carried the day after a long
struggle and debate, lasting from the 1st to the
Sth day of Nisan. So great was the triumph in
the eyes of the whole party, that they kept the an
niversary as a kind of half festival. The Temple-
rate question was to them what the Church-rate
question has been to later Conservatives (Jost^ Ge
schichte des Juclenthums, i. 218). We have to
remember this when we come to the narrative of
St. Matthew. In a hundred different ways, on the
questions of the Sabbath, of fasting, of unwashed
hands and the like, the teaching of our Lord had
been in direct antagonism to that of the Pharisees.
The collectors of the rate, probably, from the nature
of their functions, adherents of the Pharisee party,
now corae, half-expecting opposition on tbis point
also. Their words imply that he had not as yet
paid the rate for the current year. His life of con
stant wandering, without a home, might seem like
an evasion of it. They ask tauntingly, " Will he
side, on this point, with their Sadducee opponents
and refuse to pay it altogether? " The answer of
Peter is that of a man who looks on the payraent
as most other Jews looked on it. With no thought
of any higher principle, of any deeper truth, he
answers at once, " His Master will of course pay
what no other religious Israelite would refiise."
The words of his Lord led him to the truth of
which the Pharisees were losing sight. The offer
ings of the children of the kingdom should be free,
and not compulsory. Tbe Sanhedrim, by making
the Temple-offering a fixed annual tax, collecting
it as men collected tribute to Cpesar, were loweruig,
not raising the religious condition and charMter
of the people. They were placing every Israelife
on the footing of a " stranger," not on that of «
" son." The true principle for all such offerings
was that which St. Paul afterwards asserted, fol
lowing in his Master's footsteps, " not grudgingly,
or of necessity, for God loveth ;i cheerful giver.
In proportion to the degree in which any ma"
could claim the title of a Son of God, in thai
proportion was he "free" from this forced e^
tion. Peter, therefore, ought to bave remembered
that here at least, was one who, by his ovro ooi>

TRIBUTE-MONEY
ession as the Son of the Living God, waa ipso
facto exempted.
4. The interpretation which has now been given
leads us to see, in these words, a precept ao wide
and far-reaching as the yet more memorable one,
'* Render unto Caisar the things that be Caesar's,
and unto God the things that be God*s." They
condemn, instead of sanctioning, the compulsory
payments wbich human policy has so often substi
tuted for the " cheerful gifts ' ' which alone God
loves. But the words which follow condemn also
the perversity which leads men to a spurious mar
tyrdom in resisting such payments. " Lest we
should offend them .... give unto them for me
and thee.'* It is better to comply with the pay
ment than to startle the weak brethren, or run
counter to feehngs that deserve respect, or lay an
undue stress on a matter of little moraent. In
such quarrels, paradoxical as it may seem, both
, parties are equally in the wrong. If the quarrel
is to find a solution, it must be by a mutual ac
knowledgment that both have been mistaken.
5. It is satisfactory to find that some hiterpret
ers at leasfc, have drawn near to the true meaning
of one of the most characteristic and pregnant
sayings in the whole cycle of our Lord*s teaching.
Augustine { Qu^jesiiones Evangel. Ixxv.), though
missing the main point, saw that what was true of
the Lord and of Peter Avas true of all (•' Salvator
autem, cum pro se et Petro dari jubefc, pro omnibus
exsolvisse videtur"). Jerome (ad loc.) sees in the
words a principle extending in some form or other
to all believers (*' Nos pro ilUus honore tributa non
reddimus, et quasi flii Regis a vectigalibus im-
raunes sumus "), though his words claira an ex
emption which, if true at times of the Christian
clergy, has never been extended to fche body of
Christian laity. Calvin, though adhering to the
common explanation, is apparenfcly determined
chiefly by his disUke of the inferences drawn from
the ofcher explanation by Papists on the oue side,
and Anabaptists on the ofcher, as claimuig an ex
emption from obedience in matters of taxation to
the civil magisfcrate. Luther (Annot in Matt xvii.)
more boldly, while dwelling chiefly on the friendly
pleasantry which the story represents as passing
between the Master and the disciple," seizes, with
his usual acuteness, the true point. " Qui fit (this
is his paraphrase of the words of Christ) rai Petre,
ut a te petant, cum sis Regis fihus  Vade
efc scito nos esse in alio regno reges et filios regis.
Shiibo illis suum regnum, in quo sumus hospites.
.... Filii regni sumus, sed non hujus regni
mundani." Tindal (Marg, Note on Matt. xvii.
26) in lilte manner, extends the principle, " So is a
Christian man free in all things .... yet payeth
he tribute, and submitteth himself to all men for
bis brother's sake." E. H. P.
TRIBUTE-MONEY. [Taxes; Tribute.]
TRIP'OLIS (^ TpinroKis)- The Greek name
of a city of greafc commercial importance, which
served at one time as a point of federal union for
Aradus, Sidon, and Tyre. What its Phoenician
name was is unknown ; but it seems not irapossible
that it was Kadyfcis, and that this was really the
place captured by Neco of which Herodotus speaks
(ii. 159, iii. 5). Kladyfcis is the Greek form of the
Syrian KedutJia, " the holy," a name of which a
o "Es muss ja ein fein, freundUch lieblich Qesell-
Whaft sein gewest inter Christum et discipidos suos."

TRIPOLIS

3323

relic sfcill seems to survive in the Nahr-Kadish, a
river which runs through Tarablous, fche modern
representative of Tripolis. All ancient federations
had for their place of meeting some spot conse
crated fco a common deity, and just to the south
of Tripolis was a promontory which went by
the name of ©eotJ irp6ffcoirov. [Peniel, iii.
2407 6.]
It was at Tripolis that, in the year 351 b. c,
the plan was concocted for fche simultaneous revolt
of the Phoenician cities and the Persian depend
encies in Cyprus againsfc the Persian king Ochus.
Although aided by a league with Nectanebus king
of Egypt, this attempt failed, and in the sequel
great part of Sidon was burnt and the chief citi
zens destroyed. Perhaps the importance of Trip
olis was increased by this misfortune of its neigh
bor, for soon affcer, when Alexander invaded Asia,
it appears as a port of the first order. After tht-
battle of Issus some of the Greek oSicers in Da^
rius's service retreated thither, and not ouly found
ships enough to carry theraselves and 8,000 soldiers
away, but a number over aud above, which they
burnt in order to preclude the victor from an im
mediate pursuit of them (Arrian, ii. 13). The
destruction of Tyre by Alexander, hke fchat of
Sidon by Ochus, would naturally tend rather to
increase than diminish the importance of Tripolis
as a commercial porfc. When Demefcrius Soter, the
son of Seleucus, succeeded in wresting Syria from
the young son of Antiochus (b. c. 161), he landed
there, and made the place the base of his opera
tions. It is this circumstance to which allusion ia
made in the only passage in which TripoHs is men
tioned in the Bible (2 Mace. xiv. 1). The pros
perity of the city, so far as appears, continued
down to the middle of the 6th century of the
Christian era. Dionysius Periegefces applies to it
the epithet XnTa.p4\v in the 3d century. In the
Peutinger Table (which probably was compiled in
the reign of the Emperor Theodosius) it appears on
fche great road along the coasfc of Phoenicia; and at
Orthosia (the next station to it northwards) the
roads which led respecfcively hito Mesopotamia and
Cilicia branched off from one another. The pos
session of a good harbor in so important a pomt
for land-traflSc, doubtless combined with the rich
ness of the neighboring mountains in determining
the original choice of tbe site, which seems to have
been a factory for the purposes of trade established
by the three greafc Phoenician cities. Each of these
held a portion of Tripolis surrounded by a fortified
wall, like the western nations at the Chinese ports.
But in A. D. 543 it was laid in ruins by the ter
rible earthquake which happened in the raonth
of July of that year, and overthrew Tyre, Sidon,
Berytus, and Byblus as well. On this occasion the
appearance of the coasfc was much altered. A lartre
portion of the promontory Theuprosopon (which in
the Chrisfcian times had its name, from motives of
piety, changed to Litlioprosopon ) fell into fche sea,
and, by the natural breakwater it c-wrtstituted,
created a new port, able to contain a considerable
number of large vessels. The ancient Tripolis was
finally destroyed by the Sultan El Mansour in the
year 1289 A. D.; and the modern Tarablous ie
situated a. couple of miles distant to the east, and
is no longer a port. EUMyna, which is perhape
on the site of the ancient TripoHs, is a sraall fish
ing village. Tarablous contains a population of
15,000 or 16,000 inhabitants, and is the centre of
one of the four pashahcs of Syria. It exports silk.

3324

TROAS

tobacco, galls, and oil, grown in the lower parts
of the mountain at the foot of which it stands;
and performs, on a smaller scale, the part which
was formerly taken by Tripolis as the entrepot for
fche productions of a most fertile region (Diod. Sic.
xvi. 41; Strabo, xvi. u. 2; Vossius ad Melam, i.
12; Theophanes, Chronographia, sub anno 6043).
J. W. B.
TRO'AS (Tp^ds)' The cifcy from which St.
Paul first sailed, in consequence of a Divine inti
mation, to carry the Gospel from Asia to Europe
(Acts xvi. 8, 11) — where he rested for a short time
on the northward road frora Ephesus (during the
next missionary journey), in the expectation of
meeting Titus (2 Cor. ii. 12, 13) — where on the
return southwards (during the same missionary
journey) he met those who had preceded him from
Philippi (Acts xx. 5, 6), and remained a week, the
close of which (before the journey to Assos) was
marked by the raising of Eutychus from the dead
during the protracted midnight discourse — and
where, after an interval of many years, the Apostle
leffc (during a journey fche details of which are
unknown) a cloak and some books and parchments
in the house of Carpus (2 Tim. iv. 13) — deserves
the careful attention of the student of the New
Testament. The full name of the city was Alexandreia Troas
(Liv. xxxv. 42), and sometimes it was called simply
Alexandreia, as by PUny (H. N. v. 33) and Sfcrabo
(xiii. p. 593), somefcimes simply Troas (as in the
N. T. and the Ant Itin. See Wesselhig, p. 334).
The former part of the name indicates the period
at which it was founded. It wjis first built by
Antigonus, under the name of Antigoneia Troas,
and peopled with the inhabitants of some neigh
boring cities. Afterwards it was embellished by
Lysimachus, and naraed Alexandreia Troas. Its
situation was on the coast of Mysia, opposite the
S. E. extremity of the island of Tenedos.
Under the Romans it was one of the mosfc im
porfcanfc fcowns of the province of Asia. It was the
chief poinfc of arrival and departure for those who
went by sea between Macedonia and the western
Asiatic districts; ahd it was connected by good
roads with other places on fche coast and in the in
terior. For the latter see the raap in Leake's Asia
Minor. The forraer cannot be better illustrated
fchan by St. Paul's two voyages between Troas and
Philippi (Acts xvi. 11, 12, xx. 6), one of which
was accomplished in two days, the other in five.
At this time Alexandreia Troas was a colonia with
the Jus Italicum. This strong Roman connection
can be read on its coins. The Romans had a pe
culiar feeling connected with the place, in conse
quence of the legend of their origin from Troy.
Suetonius tells us thafc JuUus CsBsar had a plan of
making Troas fche seafc of empire (Goes. 79). It
may perhaps be inferred from the words of Horace
(Cainn. iii. 3, 57) that Augustus had some such
dreams. And even the modern name Eski-Stamboul
(or " Old Constantinople ") seems to commemoi"ate
the thought which was once in Constautine's mind
(Zosira. ii. 30; Zonar. xiii. 3), who, to use Gibbon's
words, "before he gave a jusfc preference to the
Bituation of Byzantium, had conceived fche design

a * An island caUed TrogylHum lay off the coast
¦»f the promontory of that name (Strabo, xiv. p. K
iind some think this to be meant in Acts xx. 6. (See
Porbiger'B Handb. dfr alten Geographie, ii. 170.) The
ipostle would have beeu nearer to Ephesus at Trogyl-

TROPHIMUS
of erecting the seat of empire on this celebrated
spot, from which t^e Romans derived their fabulous
origin." The ruins at Eski-Stamboul are considerabla
The most conspicuous, however, especially the re
mains of the aqueduct of Herodes Atticus, did not
exist when St. Paul was there. Tbe walls, whicb
may represent the extent of the city in the Apostle'a
time, inclose a rectangular space, extending above
a mile from east to west, and nearly a mile from
north to south. That which possesses raost interest
for us is the harbor, which is still distinctly trace
able in a basin about 400 feet long and 200 broad.
Descriptions in greater or less detail are given by
Pococke, Chandler, Hunt (in Walpole's Alemoirs),
Clarke, Prokesch, and Eellows- J. S. H.
TROGYL'LIUM. Samos [which see] inex
actly opposite the rocky extremity of the ridge of
Mycale, which is called Tpay{>\?xtov in the N. T.
(Acts XX. 15) and by Ptolemy (v. 2), and Tpot-
y'lKiov by Strabo (xiv. p. 636). The channel is
extremely narrow. Strabo (l. c.) makes it about a
mile broad, and this is confirmed by our Admiralty
Charts (1530 and 1555). St. Paul sailed through
this channel on his way to Jerusalem at the close ol
hi^ third missionary journey (Acta, I. c). The
navigation of this coast is intricate; and it can be
gathered from Acts xx. 6, with subsequent notices
of the days spent on the voyage, that it was the
tirae of dark moon. Thus the night was spent at
Trogyllium." It is interesting to observe that a
little to the east of the extreme point there is an
anchorage, which is stiU caUed Si. Paul's Port
J. S. H.
TROOP, BAND. These words have apeculiar
signification in many passages of the 0. T., which
is apt to be overlooked, and the knowledge of which
throws a brighter light upon them. They are em
ployed to represent the Hebrew word *T^15, gSdUd,
which has invariably the force of an irregular body
of people, large or small, united not for the purpose
of defense or regular aggression, like an army, but
with the object of marauding and plunder. (See
Moab, vol. in. p. 1983, nofce, where fche term gedud ia
examined.) In addition to the instances of its use
there naraed, ifc may be observed tliat our transla
tors have in a few cases tried to bring out its mean
ing more strongly; as in 1 Chr. xii. 21, "band-of-
the-rovers;" Hos. vi. 9, and vii. 1, " troop-of-rob-
bers." G.
TROPH'IMUS {Tp6(l>ifios U<^ster-child\).
Of the three passages where this companion of St
Paul is mentioned, the first associates him very
closely with Tychicus (Acts xx. 4), and the last
seeras in sonje degree to renew the association, and
in reference to the same geographical district (2
Tira. iv. 20; see ver. 12), while the intermediate
one separates him entirely from this connection
(Acts xxi. 29).
Prom the first of these passages we learn that
Tychicus, like Trophimus, was a native bf Asu
C Aa-tavoi), and that the two were araong fchost
companions who traveUed with the .Apostle in the
course of the third missionary journey, aud during
part of the route which he took in returning from
Hum on the mainland than he was at MiletoB. A
better harbor, however, or greater facihty of inter
course may have led him to prefer the more distant
place for hia interview with the Ephesian elders.

TROUGHS
Macedonia toward Syria. Frora what we know
concerning the coUection which was going on at
this time for the poor Christians in Judsea, we are
disposed to connect these two men with the business
of that contribution. This, as we shall see, sug
gests a probable connection of Trophimus with an
other ch'cumstance.
Both he and Tychicus accompanied St. Paul
from Macedonia aa far as Asia {&xpi ttjs 'Atrfas
6. c), but Tychicus seems to have remained there
ivhile Trophimus proceeded wifch the Apostle to
Jerusalem. There he was the innocent cause of the
tumult in which St. Paul was apprehended, and
from which the voyage to Rome ultimately resulted.
Certiin Jews from the district of Asia saw the two
Christian missionaries togefcher, and supposed that
Paul had taken Trophimus into fche Temple (Acts
xxi. 27-29). From this passage we learn two new
facts, namely, thafc Trophimus was a Gentile, and
that be was a native, not simply of Asia, but of
Ephesus. A considerable interval now elapses, during
which we have no tiuce of either Tychicus or
Trophimus; bufc in the lasfc letter written by St.
Paid, shortly before his marfcyrdom, from Rome,
he menfcions them both (Tox^Khv aTreareiKa eis
"Eipetro*', 2 Tira. iv. 12; Tp6<}>ifj.ov wk^Kittov iv
MiA^Tflj aadevovvTa, ibid. 20). From fche lasfc of
the phrases we gather siraply fchafc fche Apostle had
uo long time before been iu the Le\'ant, that
Trophimus had been with him, and that he had
been left iu infirm health at jMiletus. Of the
further details we are ignorant; bufc fchis we may
say here, that while there would be considerable
difficulty in accoraraodating this passage to any
part of the recorded naiTative previous to the voy
age to Rorae," all difficulfcy vanishes on the sup
position of fcwo imprisonments, and a journey in
the Levant between thera.
Whafc was alluded to above as probable, is that
Trophimus was one of fche two brethren who, with
Titus, conveyed the second epistle to the Corin
thians (2 Cor. viii. 16-24). The argument is so
weU stated by Professor Stanley, thafc we give ifc in
his words: "Trophimus was, like Tifcus, one of
the few Geutiles who accompanied the Apostle; an
Ephesian, and therefore likely to have been sent
by the Apostle frora Ephesus with the first epistle,
or to have accorapanied him from Ephesus now; he
was, ae is impUed of ' this brother,' ' whose praise
was in aU the churches,' well known; so well
known that the Jews of Asia Minor at Jeru
salem immediately recognized him; he was also
especially connected with the Apostle on this very
mission of the coUection for the poor in Judaea.
Thus far would appeai- from the descriptiou of hira
ic Acts xxi. 29. From Acts xx. 4 it also appears
that he was wifch St. Paul on big return from fchis
very visit to Corinth" (Stanley's Corinthians, 26.
edit. p. 492).
The story in the Greek Menology that Trophimus
was one of the seventy disciples is evidently wrong:
the legend that he was beheaded by Nero's orders
U possibly true. J. S- H.
?TROUGHS. [Fountain; Well.]
*TROW (Luke xvii. 9) belongs to the period of

a Trophimus was no doubt at Miletus on the occa-
l(on recorded in Act^s xx. 15-38, but it is most certain
that he was not left there. The theory also that he
(vas left there on the voyage to Rome is preposterous ;
for tbe wind forced St. Paul's vessel to run direct from

TRUMPETS, FEaST OF 3325
our Englisli version, as synonymous with "think,"
" believe." It is from the A.-S- iredman, to trust,
altered of coui"se to trauen in German. H.
* TRUCE -BREAKERS. The Greek so
rendered {&airov5oi) both in 2 Tim. iii. 3 and Rom.
i. 31, means literally " without Ubations," and as
libations accompanied truces or treaties, " with
out truces," i. e. making no truces, and hence iiiir-
placable. K. D. C. R.
TRUMPET. [Corset.]
TRUMPETS, FEAST OF (ni?n"in tiv,
Num. xxix. 1; ijfiepa arffiaa-ias' dies clangoris et
tubarum; TV3^'~\I^^ ]^'^?T» l-ev. xxiu. 24: ixvrifx6-
ffvvQv aaXTriyymV' sabbatum memoriale clangen-
tibus tubis; in the Mishna H^trn tTW"), "the
beginning of the year "), the feast of the new moon,
wbich fell on the first of Tisri. It differed from
the ordinary festivals of the new moon in several
important particulars. It was one of the seven
days of Holy Convocation. [Feasts.] Instead of
the mere blowing of the trumpets of the Teraple at
the time of the offering of the sacrifices, it was " a
day of blowing of trumpets." In addition to the
daily sacrifices and the eleven victiras offered on the
first of every month [New Moon], there were
ofiered a young buUock, a rain, and seveu lambs of
the first yeai-, with the accustomed meat-offerings,
aud a kid for a shi-offering (Num. xxix. 1-6). The
regular monthly offering was fchus repeated, with
the exception of one young bullock.
It is said that both kinds of trumpet were blown
in the Temple on this day, the straight trumpet
(nn^^q) and the cornet ("IpStl!; and ]'\\), ), and
that elsewhere any one, even a child, might blow a
cornet (Reland, iv. 7, 2; Carpzov, p. 425; Rosh
Hash. i. 2; Jubilee, vol. ii. p. 1483, note c; Cor
net). When the festival fell upon a Sabbath, the
trumpets were blown iu the Temple, but nofc oufc of
it (Rosh Hash. iv. 1),
It has been conjectured that Ps. Ixxxi., one of
the songs of Asaph, was composed expressly for the
Feast of Trumpets. The Psalm is used in the ser
vice for the day by the modern Jews. As the third
verse is rendered in the LXX., the Vulgate, and the
A. v., this would seem highly probabl6, "Blow
up the trumpet in the new moon, the time ap
pointed, on our solemn feast day." But the best
authorities understand the word translated new
moon (np3) to mean ftdl moon. Hence the
psalm would more properly belong to the service
for oue of the festivals which take place afc the full
moon, the Passover, or fche Feast of Tabernacles
(Gesen. Thes. s. v.; RosenmuUer and Hengsten
berg on Ps. Ixxxi.).
Various meanings have been assigned to the
Feast of Trumpets. Maimonides considered that
its purpose was to awaken the people from their
spiritual slumber to prepare for the solemn humih
ation of the Day of Atonement, which followed ifc
within ten days. This may receive some counte
nance from Joel ii. 15, " Blow fche fcrumpefc ("lp1I£?)
in Zion, sanctify a fast, caU a solemn assembly."

the S. TV. corner of Asia Minor to the B. end of Crete
(Acts xxvii. 7). TVe may add that when Trophimua
waa left in sickness at Miletus, whenever that might
be, he was within easy reach of his home-friends af
Ephesus, as we see from Acts xx. 17.

3326

TRYPHENA

Some have supposed that it was intended to intro
duce the seventh or Sabbatical month of the year,
which was especially holy because ifc was the seventh,
and because it contauied the Day of Atonement
and the Feast of Tabernacles (Fagius in Lev. xxiii.
24; Buxt. Syn. Jud. u. xxiv.). Philo and some
early Christian writers regarded it as a memorial
of the giving of the Law on Sinai (PhUo, vol. v. p.
46, ed. Tauch.; Basil, mPs. Ixxxi. ; Theod. Qucest.
scxxii. in Lev.). But there seems to be no sufficient
reason to call in question the common opinion of
Jews and Christians, that it was the festival of the
New Year's Day of the civU year, the First of Tisri,
the month whieh commenced the Sabbatical year
and the year of Jubilee. [Jubilee, ii. 1485 b.] If
the New Moon Festival was taken as the consecra
tion of a natural division of time, the month in
which the earth yielded the last ripe produce of
the season, and began again to foster seed for the
supply of the future, might well be regarded as the
flrsfc month of the year. The fact that Tisri was
the great month for sowing might thus easily have
suggested the thought of commemorating on this
day the finished work of Creation, when the sons
of God shouted for joy (Job xxxviii. 7). The Feast
of Trumpets thus came to be regarded as the anni
versary of the birthday of the world (Mishna, Rosh
Hash. i. 1; Hupfeld, .Z)e Fest Heb. u. 13; Buxt.
Syn. Jud. c. xxiv.). .
It was an odd fancy of the Rabbis that on this
day, every year, God judges all men, and that they
pass before Him as a flock of sheep pass before a
shepherd {Rosh Hush. i. 2). S. C-
TRYPHE'NA and TnYPB.O'SA(Tp{,^aiva
Kal Tpvcpcoaa [luxurious : Vulg. Tryphcena and
Tryphosa] ). Two Chrisfcian women at Rome, who,
among those that are enumerated in the conclusion
of St. Paul's lefcter to thafc cifcy, receive a special
salutation, and on the special ground that they are
engaged there in "laboring in the Lord " (Rom.
xvi. 12). They may have been sisters, but it is
more likely that they were feUow-deaconesses, and
among the predecessors of that large number of
official women who ministered in the Church of
Rome at a later period (Euseb. Hist Eccl. vi. 43);
for it is to be observed that they are spoken of as
at that time occupied in Christian service (ras
Koiridjo-as), while tbe salutafcion to Persis, in the
same verse, is connected with past service (t^tis
iKoiriaaev). We know nothing more of these two sister-
workers of the apostohc time; but the name of
one of them occurs curiously, with other names
familiar to us in St. Paul's Epistles, in the apoc
ryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla. There Try-
phena appears as a rich Christian widow of Anti
och, who gives Thecla » refuge in her house, and
sends money to Paul for the relief of the poor. (See
Jones, On ihe Canon, ii. 371, 380.) It is impos
sible to discern any trace of probabiUty in this parfc
of the legend.
It is an interesting fact that the columbaria of
"Csesar's household'' in the Vlgna Codini, near
Porta S. Sebastiano, contain the narae Tryphena,
=is well as other naraes mentioned in this chapter,
Philologus and Julia (ver. 15), and also Amplias
^ver. 8). Wordsworth's Tour in Italy (1862), ii.
'73. J. S. H.
TRY'PHON {Tpv(f>a}v [Inxmious']). A usurper
)f the Syrian throne. His proper name was Diod-
3tu8 (Strib. xvi. 2, 10; App. S^t. c 6S), and the

TSEBAOTH, LORD OF
surname Tryphon was given to him, or, accordioe
to Appian, adopted by him, after his accession to
power. He was a nativ6 of Cariana, a fortified
place in the district of Apamea, where he was
brought up (Strab. I. c). In the time of Alex
ander Balas he was attached to the court (App.
I. c BovKos Tuv ^a<n\etoV' Diod. fr. xxi. ap.
MuU. Hist Gr. fragm. u. 17, <TTpaT7}y6s\ IMacc.
xi. 39, Tav irapa 'AA.€|.); but towanls the clow
of his reign he seems to have joined in the con-
spfracy which was set on foot to transfer the crown
of Syria to Ptol. Philometor (1 Mace. xi. 13; Diod.
I. c). After the death of Alexander Balas he took
advantage of the unpopularity of Demetrius 11.
to put forward the claims of Antiochus VI., the
young- son of Alexander (1 Mace. xi. 39; b. c.
345). After a time he obtained the support of
Jonathan, who had been ahenated from Demetrius
by his ingratitude, and the young king was crowned
(B. c. 144). Tryphon, however, soon revealed his
real designs on the kingdom, and, fearing the oppo
sition of Jonathan, he gained possession of his per
son by treachery (1 Mace. xii. 39-50), and after a
short time put him to death (1 Mace. xiii. 23).
As the way seemed now clear, he murdered Anti
ochus and seized the supreme power (1 Mace. xiii.
31, 32), which he exercised, as far as he was able,
with violence and rapacity (1 Mace. xiii. 34). Hia
tyranny again encouraged the hopes of Demetrius,
who was engaged in preparing an expedition against
him (b. c. 141), when he was taken prisoner (1
Mace. xiv. 1-3), and Tryphon retained the throne
(Just, xxxvi. 1; Diod. Leg. xxxi.) till Antiochus
VH., the brother of Demetrius, drove him to Dora,
from which he escaped to Orthosia in PhoBnicia
(1 Mace. XV. 10-14, 37-39; b. c. 139). Not long
afterwards, being hard pressed by Antiochus, he
committed suicide, or, according to other accounts,
was put to death by Antiochus (Strab. xiv- 5, 2;
App. Syr. c. 68, ^hvTtoxos — KTelvGi . . • • ahv
iv6va) TroAAy). Josephus (Ani. xiu. 7, § 2) adds
that he was killed at Apamea, the place which be
raade bis headquarters (Strab. xvi. 2, 10). The
authority of Tryphon was evidently very partial,
as appears from the growth of Jewish independence
under Simon Maccabieus ; and Strabo describes him
as oue of the chief authors of Cilician piracy (xiv.
3, 2). His name occurs on the coins of Anti
ochus VI. [vol. i. p. 118], and he also struck coins
in his own name. [Antiochus; De-vetkius-J B. F. W.

Coin of Tryphon.
TRYPHO'SA. [Tryphena and Tryphosa.]
* TSEBAOTH, LORD OF, is a men
exact orthography than Sabaoth, adopted m Kom.
ix. 29 and Jas. v. 4 frora the Greek {ffa&adiB\
the form under which this title of Jehov^ haa
been already noticed in this Dictionary. We •*¦
caU the subjecfc here for the purpose of qualifying
the explanation given under the other head. It w
said there to be applied to Jehovah simply as "the
leader and commander of the armies of the nation,
who ' went forth with them ' (Ps. xliv. 9), and »^
them to certain victory over the worshippers oi

TUBAL
"alse goas. It is undeniable that tsebaoth often
denot^ the national armies of Israel, and may some
times in connecfcion with Jehovah (Lord of hosts)
designate this array &s God's host, which He leads
forth to victory against tbe enemies of his people
(«ee 1 Sam. xvii. 45). But such an application by
no raeans exhausts the meaning of the term. Ifc is
used also of the sun, and moon, and stars, which
are called Jehovah's "host," because they, too,
execute his wUl, and represent so impressively his
majesty and power. Thus ui Gen. ii. 1 it is said :
" The heavens and fche earth were finished, and aU
the host of them." In Deut. iv. 19 the Israelites
are warned against idolatry: " Lest thou Uft up
thiue eyes unto heaven, and when thou seesfc the
sun, and the moon, and the stars, all the host
of heaven," thou "shouldesfc be driven to serve
thera," etc. (see also xvii. 3). • In various other
passages (2 K. xvii. 16, xxi. 3; 2 Chr. xxxiu. 3, 5;
Jer. xix. 13) the Chaldean worship of the stars is
described as that of bowing down or offering in
cense to "the host of heaven." Ifc is not sur
prising, fcherefore, fchat we should find the same
terra applied fco the heavenly inhabitants, angels,
Beraphira, and other superhuman orders that sur
round the fchrone of God, and are senfc forfch to do
hia pleasure in heaven and on earth. Thus in 1
K. xxu. 19 the prophet Micaiah says: " Hear thou
therefore the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord
(Jehovah) sitting on his throne, and aU the host
of heaven standing by hira; " and ver. 21: "And
there came forth a spirit (one of the host), and
sfcood before fche 1-^rd and said," etc. That Jeho
vah is styled "the Lord of hosts" with reference
to his supremacy as fche sovereign of myriads of
angels as well as of men, is evident frora the paral
lelism of various passages Thus in Ps. ciii. 20,
21: "Bless Jehovah, ye his angels, thafc excel in
strength. Bless Jehovah, all ye his hosts ; ye min
isters of his, that do his pleasure." Assuredly the
armies of Israel cannofc be intended here, or fche
sfcars which appear on the face of the heavens.
So in Ps. cxlviii. 2: "Pi*aise ye him, aU his angels;
praise ye him, all his hosts.^^ As to the existence
of such orders of superhuman beings, the angel
ology of the 0. T. agrees precisely with that of the
N. T. (see Luke ii. 13; Matt. xxvi. 53; Rev. xix.
14). [Angels.]
It is said under Sabaoth that the narae is
found in the EngUsh Bible only hi Rom. ix. 29 and
Jaraes v. 4. Ifc is found in those passages because
fche Greek is Kvptos "Xa^adtQ- It may be added
that in the Sept. translation of 1 Samuel and
Isaiah the expression is generally, " The Lord of
Sabaoth;" while always in 2 Samuel, frequently
in Jeremiah and throughout the Minor Prophets,
it is Paniohrator, ** the Almighty " or "all-ruling."
In the Latin Vulgate " Sabaoth " appears in the
0. T. only in Jer. xi. 20, while in the prophets the
usual equivalent is Dominus exerciiuum and Dom
inus or Deus virtuium in the Psalms. In Rora. ix.
29 and James v. 4, the Vulgate follows the Greek
text. (On this topic see Prof. Pluraptre in Sunr-
day Magazine, Dec. 1868 ; and CEhler in Herzog's
ReaUEncyk. vui. 400-404.) H.
TU3AL (bn^n [see below] ; b^n in Gen.
t.2; Ez. xxxii. 26, xxxix. 1: @o$4\, except in
Ez. xxxix. 1, where Alex. @o^€p [and xxvii. 13,
a Knobel connects these Iberians of the east and
rast, and considers the Tibareni to have been a branch

TUBAL

3327

where Eom. ^ viimatra, Alex, to tTunwauTa] :
Thubal, but in Is. kvi. 19, Jialia). In the an
cient ethnological tables of Genesis and 1 Chr.
Tubal is reckoned with Javan and Meshech
among the sons of Japheth (Gen. x. 2; 1 Chr.
i. 5). The three are again associated in the enu
meration of the sources of the wealth of Tyre;
Javan, Tubal, and Meshech, brought slaves and
copper vessels to the Phoenician markets (Ez. xxvii.
13). Tubal and Javan (Is. Ixvi. 19), Meshech and
Tubal (Ez. xxxii. 26, xxxviii. 2, 3, xxxix. 1), are
nations of the uorth (Ez. xxxviii. 15, xxxix. 2).
Josephus (Ani. i. 6, § 1) identifies the descendants
of Tubal with the Iberians, that is — not, as Je
rome would understaud it, Spaniards, but — the
inhabitants of a tract of country, between the Cas
pian and Euxine Seas, which nearly corresponded
to the modem Georgia." This approximates to
the view of Bochart (Phaleg, iii. 12), who makes
the Moschi and Tibareni represent Meshech and
Tubal. These two Colchian tribes are mentioned
together in Herodotus on two occasions; first, as
forming part of the 19th satrapy of the Persian
empire (iii. 94), and again as being in the army
of Xerxes under the command of Ariomardus the
son of Darius (vii. 78). The Moschi and Tibareni,
moreover, are " constantly associated, under the
names of Muskai and Tuplai, in the Assyrian in
scriptions " (Sir H. Rawlinson in Rawlinson's Her.
i. 535). The Tibareni are said by the Scholiast
on ApoUonius Khodius (ii. 1010) to bave been a
Scythian tribe, and they as well as the Moschi are
probably to be referred to that Turanian people,
who in very early times spread themselves over the
entire region between the Mediterranean and India,
the Persian Gulf and the Caucasus (Rawlinson,
Her. i. 535). In the time of Sargon, according
to the inscriptions, Aml)ris, the son of Khuliya,
was hereditary chief of Tubal (the southern slopes
of Taurus). He "had cultivated relations with
the kings of Musak and Vararat (Meshech and
Ararat, or the Moschi and Armenia) who were in
revolt against Assyi'ia, and thus drew upon himself
the hostility of the great king " (ibid. i. 169,
note 3). In former times the Tibareni were prob
ably more important, and the Moschi and Tibareni,
Meshech and Tubal, may have been naraes by
which powerful hordes of Scythians were known to
the Hebrews. But in history we only hear of
tbem as pushed to the furthest limits of their an
cient settlements, and occupying merely a strip of
coast along the Euxine. Their neighbors the
Chaldeans were in the same condition. In the
time of Herodotus the Moschi and Tibareni were
even more closely counected than at a later period,
for in Xenophon we find them separated by the
Macrones and Mossynoeci (Anab. v. 5, § 1; Plin. vi
4, &c.). The limits of the territory of the Tibareni
are extremely difficult to determine with any degree
of accm^cy. After a part of the 10,000 Greeks
on their retreat with Xenophon had embarked at
Cerasus (perhaps near the modern Kerasoun Dere
Su), the rest marched along the coast, and soon
came to the boundaries of the Mossynceci (Anab.
v. 4; § 2). They traversed the country occupied
by this people in eight days, and then came to the
Chalybes, and after tbem to the Tibareni. The
eastern limit of the Tibareni was therefore about
80 or 90 miles along the coast W. of Cerasus.
of this widely-spread Turanian family, known to th*
Hebrews as Tubal ( Wtkertafei d. Gm. % 13).

3328

TUBAL-CAlN

Two days' march through Tibarene brought the
Greeks to Cotyora (Anab. v. 5, § 3), and they were
altogether three days in passing through the coun
try (Diod. Sic. xiv. 30). Now from C. Jasonium
to Boon, according to Arrian (Peripl. 16), the
distance was 90 stadia, 90 more to Cotyora, and 60
from Cotyora to the river Melanthius, making in
all a coast line of 240 stadia, or three days' march.
Professor Rawlinson (Her. iv. 181) conjectures that
the Tibareni occupied the coast between Cape Ya-
soun (Jasonium) and the Elver Melanthius (Melet
Irmak), but if we follow Xenophon, we must place
Bof.n as their western boimdary, one day's march
fi'om Cotyora, aud their eastern limit must be
sought som3 10 miles east of the Melei Irmak,
perhaps not far from the modem Aptar, which is
3i hours from that river. The anonymous author
of the Perlplus of the Euxine says (33) that the
Tibareni formerly dwelt west of Cotyora as far as
Polemonium, at the mouth of the Pouleman cliai,
IJ miles east of Fatsdh.
In the time of Xenophon the Tibareni were an
independent tribe (An^b. vii. 8, § 25). Long be
fore this they were subject to a number of petty
chiefs, which was a principal element of their weak
ness, and rendered theii- subjugation' by Assyria
more easy. Dr. Hincks (quoted by Rawlinson,
Herod, i. 380, note 1) has found as many as twenty-
four kings of the Tuplai mentioned in the inscrip
tions. They are said by ApoUonius Rhodius to
have been rich in flocks (Arg. ii. 377). The traffic
in slaves and vessels of copper with which the peo
ple of Tubal supplied the markets of Tyre (Ez.
xxvii. 13) still further connects them witb tbe
Tibareni. It is well known that the regions bor
dering on the Pontus Euxinus furnished the most
beautiful slaves, and that the slave traffic was an
extensive branch of trade among the Cappadocians
(Polyb. iv. 38, § 4; Hor. Ep. i. 6, 39; Pers. Sat.
vi. 77; Mart. Ep. vi. 77, x. 76, &c.). The copper
of the Mossynoeci, the neighbors of the Tibareni,
was celebrated as being extremely bright, and with
out any admixture of tin (Arist. De Mir. Auscult.
p. 62) ; and the Chalybes, who lived between these
tribes, were long famous for their craft as metal-
smiths. 'We must not forget, too, the copper-mines
of Chalvar 'm Armenia (Hamilton, As. Min. i. 173).
The Arabic Version of Gen. x. 2 gives Chorasan
and China for Meshech and Tubal; in Eusebius
(see Bochart) they are Illyria and Thessaly. The
Talmudists ( Yoma, foi. 10, 2), according to Bo
chart, define Tubal as " the home of the Uniad
(^p'''^31S)," whom he is inclined to identify with
the Huns (Phaleg, iii. 12). They may perhaps
take their name from Oenoe, the modern Unieh, a
town on the south coast of the Black Sea, not far
from Cape Tasoun (.lasonium), and so in the im
mediate neighborhood of the Tibareni. In the
Targum of R. Joseph on 1 Chr. (ed. Wilkins)
S"'^3"'n''"1 is given as the equivalent of Tubal, and
Wilkins renders it by Bithynia. But the reading
in this passage, as well as in the Targums of Jeru
salem and of Jonathan on Gen. x., is too doubtful
to be followed as even a traditional authority.
W. A. W.
TU'BAL-CA'IN (Th ^5^^ [see below] :
i @6Pe\ : Tidtal-ca'in). The son of Lamech the
Cainite by his wife Zillah (Gen. iv. 22). He is
called " a furbisher of every cutting instrument of
topper and iron." The Jewish legend of later times

TXJRPENTINE-TREE
associates him with his father's song, "'amech
was Wind," says the story aa told by Rashi, "and
Tubal-Cain was leading him; and he saw Cain
and he appeared to him like a wild beast, so he
lold his father to draw his bow, and he slew him.
And when he knew that it was Cain his ancestor
he smote his hands together and struck his son
between them. So he slew him, and his wives
withdraw from him, and he conciliates them."
In this story Tubal-Cain is the " young man " of
the song. Eashi apparently considers the nama
of Tubal-Cain as an appellative, for he makes him
director of the works of Cain for making weaponi
of war, and connects "Tubal" with vSi^i tabbel,
to season, and so to prepare skillfully. He appeara
moreover to have pointed it 75^n, ibbel, which
seems to have been the reading of the LXX. and
Josephus. According to the writer last mentioned
(Ani. i. 2, § 2), Tubal-Cain was distinguished for
his prodigio'us strength and his success in war.
The derivation of the name is extremely obscure.
Hasse (Enldechungen, ii. 37, quoted by Knobel on
Gen. iv. 22) identifies Tubal-Cain with Vulcan;
and Buttmann (Mythol. i. 164) not only compares
these naraes, but adds to the comparison the TfA-
Xives of Ehodes, the first workers in copper and
iron (Strabo, xiv. 654), and Dwalinn, the demon
smith of the Scandinavian mythology. Gesenius
proposed to consider it a hybrid word, compounded
of the Pers. ij.Jyi, tupal, iron slag, or scoria,
and the Arab, i^y*^, kain, a smith; but this
etymology is more than doubtful. The Scythian
race Tubal, who were coppersmiths (Ez. xxvii. 13),
naturally suggest themselves in connection with
Tubal-Cain. W. A. W.
TUBIE'NI (Tov$trivoi; Alex. Taveetvof. Tu-
bianoei). The " Jews called Tubieni " lived about
Charax, 750 stadia from a strongly-fortified city
called Caspis (2 Mace. xii. 17). They were doubt
less the same who are elsewhere raentioned as living
in the towns of Toubion (A. V.. Tobie), which
again is probably the same with the Tob of the
Old Testament. G.
* TUMULT, Mark v. 38. [Mourning.]
* TURBANS. [BoHKETs.]
TURPENTINE-TREE (repefuvSos, rspf-
^Lvdos- terebinlhus) occurs only once, namely, in
the Apocrypha (Ecclus. xxiv. 16), where wisdom is
compared with the " turpentine-tree that stretcheth
forth her branches." The repefiivBos or Tep^iti/6os
of the Greeks is the Pisiacia terebinlhus, terebinth-
tree, common in Palestine and the East, supposed
by some writers to represent the elah (n7M) of
the Hebrew Bible. [Oak.] The terebinth, though
not generally so conspicuous a tree in Palestuie as
some of the oaks, occasionally grows to a large
size. See Eobinson (S. Ji. ii. 223, 223), who thus
speaks of it. " The Butm " (the Arabic name of
the terebinth) "is not an evergreen, as often repre
sented, but its small lancet-shaped leaves fall in
the autumn, and are renewed in the spring. Tht
flowers are small, and followed by small oval berries,
hanging in clustere from two to five inches long,
resembling much tiiose of the vine when the Krape»
are just set. From incisions in the trunk there !«
said to flow a sort of transparent balsam, consti
tuting a very pure aud fine species of tui'peutm^

TURTLE
with an agreeable odor like citron or jessamii.e,
and a mild taste, and hardening graduaUy into a
transparent gu,m. In Palestine nothing seems to
be known of this product of the butm ! " The
terebinth belongs to the Nat. Order Anacordiacece,
the plants of whioh order generally contain resinous
Kcretious. W. H.

TURTLE

3320

Pistacia terebinlhus.
TURTLE, TURTLE-DOVE O^Pl, toi-:
Tpvy^v : iurtur : generally in connection with
n^V, yondh, "dove"). [Dove.] The name is
phonetic, evidently derived from the plaintive cooing
of the bird. The turtle-dove occurs first in Scrip
ture in Gen. xv. 9, where Abram is commanded to
offer it along with other sacrifices, and with a young
pigeon (vTIS, gozdl). In the Levitical law a pair
of turtle-doves, or of young pigeons, are constantly
prescribed as a substitute for those who were too
poor to provide a lamb or a kid, and these birds
were admissible eitber as trespass, sin, or burnt-
offering. In one instance, the case of a Nazarite
having been accidentally defiled by a dead body, a
pair of turtle-doves or young pigeons were specially
enjoined (Num. vi. 10). It was in accordance ^vith
the provision in Ixv. xii. 6 that the mother of our
Lord made the offering for ber purification (Luke
ii. 24). During the early period of Jewish history,
there is no evidence of any other bird except the
pigeon having been domesticated, and up to the
time of Solomon, who may, with the peacock, have
introduced other gallinaceous birds from India, it
was probably the only poultry known to tbe Israel
ites. To this day enormous quantities of pigeons
are kept in dovecots in all the towns and villages
af Palestine, and several of the fancy races so famil
iar in this country have been traced to be of Syrian
origin. The ofiering of two young pigeons must
lave been one easily within the reach of the poorest,
and the offerer was accepted according to that he
had, and not according to that he had not. The
Edmission of a, pair of turtle-doves was perhaps
i yet further concession to extreme poverty; for,
jnlike the pigeon, the turtle, from its migratory
laturc Uld timid disposition, has never yet been

kept in a state of free domestication; but being
extremely numerous, and resorting especially to
gardens for nidification, its young might easily be
found and captured by those who did not even pos
sess pigeons.
It is not improbable that the palm-dove ( Turtur
jEgypiiacus, Temm.) may in some measure have
supplied the sacrifices in the wilderness, for it is
found in amazing numbers wherever the palm-tree
occurs, whether wild or cultivated. In most of
the oases of North Africa and Arabia every tree ia
the home of two or three pairs of these tame and
elegant birds. In the crown of many of the date-
trees five or six nests are placed together; and the
writer has frequently, in a palm-grove, brought
down ten brace or more without moving from his
post. In such camps as Elim a considerable supply
ofthese doves may have been obtained.
From its habit of pairing for life, and its fidelity
for its mate, it was a symbol of purity and an ap
propriate offering (corap. Plin. Nat. Hist x. 52)
The regular migration of the turtle-dove and its
return in spring are alluded to in Jer. viii. 7, " The
turtle and the crane and the swallow observe the
time oftheir coming; " and Cant. ii. 11, 12, " The
winter is past . . . and the voice of the turtle is
heard in our land." So Pliny, " Hyerae mutis,
a vere vocaUbus ; " and Arist. Hist. An. ix. 8,
" Turtle-doves spend the summer in cold countries,
the winter in warm ones." Although elsewhere
(viii. 5) he makes it hibernate (^aj\e?)- There is,
indeed, no more grateful proof of the return of
spring iu Mediterranean countries than the voice
of the turtle. One of the first birds to migrate
northwards, the turtle, while other songsters are
heard chiefly in the morning, or only at intervals,
immediately on its arrival pours forth from every
garden, grove, and wooded hill its melancholy yet
soothing ditty, unceasingly from early dawn till
sunset. It is from its plaintive note doubtless that
David in Ps. Ixxiv. 19, pouring forth his lament to
God, compares himself to a turtle-dove.
From the abundance of the dove tribe and their
importance as an article of food, the ancients dis
criminated the species of Columbldce more accu
rately than of many others. Aristotle enumerates
five species, which are not all easy of identification,
as but four species are now known commonly to
inhabit Greece. In Palestine the number of species
is probably greater. Besides the rock-dove ( Co-
hmba livia, L.), very common on all the rocky
parts of the coast and in the inland ravines, where
it remains throughout the year, and from which
all the varieties of the domestic pigeon are derived,
the ring-dove ( Columba palumbus, L. ) frequents all
the wooded districts of the country. The stock
dove (Columba mnns, L.) is as generally, but more
sparingly distributed. Another species, allied either
to this or to Columba livia, has been observed in
the valley of the Jordan, perhaps Col. leuconota,
Vig. See75^s,vol. i. p. 35. Tbe turtle-dove ( rur/«r
auritus, L.) is, as has been stated, most abundant,
and in the valley of the Jordan an allied species,
the palm-dove, or Egyptian turtle {Turtur ^gyp-
iiacus, Temm.), is by nq raeans uncommon. This
bird, most abundant among the palm-trees in Egypt
and North Africa, is distinguished from the com
mon turtle-dove by its ruddy chestnut color, ita long
tail, smaller size, and the absence of the collar on
the neck. It docs not migrate, but from the sim
ilarity of its note and habits, it is not probable that
it waa distinguished by the ancients. The large

S330

TUTORS

Indian turtle (Turtur gelastes, lemm.) has alto
tieen stated, though without authority, to occur In
Palestine. Other species, as the well known col
lared dove (Turtur risoj-ia, L.) have been incor
rectly included a& natives of Syria. H. B. T-

TurtUT Mgyptiaciis.
* TUTORS, only in Gal. iv. 2, the translation
of enirpoirot, more properly rendered "guardians."
It denotes those to whom a charge is committed,
in this instance that of guardian or overseer of
children who are the heirs of property, while tbe
associated term oiieovSiioi singles out those among
the overseers who regulate the pecuniary aflfairs of
the estate. The better sense of the latter term is
"stewards" and not "governors" (A. V.). See
especially Wieseler, Ueter den Br. an die Galiier,
p. 328. Tbe A. V. follows the antecedent English
versiona, except Wycliflfe's. See Remarks on Reur-
derings, etc., Bibl. Sacra, xxii. 139. H.
TYCH'ICUS (Tixiicos [fm-iuiious]). A com
panion of St. Paul on some of his journeys, and one
of his fellow-laborers m the work of the Gospel.
He is mentioned in five separate books of the New
Testament, and in four cases explicitly, in the fifth
very probably, he is connected with the district of
Asia. (1.) In Acts XX. 4, he appears as one of those
who accompanied the Apostle through a lorn^er or
shorter portion of his return-journey from the third
missionary circuit. Here he is expressly called
(with Trophimus) 'Aa-iav6s; but while Trophimus
went with St. Paul to Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 29),
Tychicus was left behind in Asia, probably at
Miletus (Acts xx. 15, 38). (2.) How Tychicus was
employed in the interval before St. Paul's first im
prisonment we cannot tell ; but in that imprison
ment he was with the Apostle again, as we see from
Col. iv. 7, 8. Here he is spoken of, not only as
" a beloved brother," but" as " a faithful minister
»nd fellow-servant in the Lord; " and he is to make
kno\sn to the Colossians the present circumstances
of the Apostle (t^ kot' i/ii nrivTa yvcoplaei), and
to bring comfort to the Colossians themselves (Xva
vapaKaXeo'r} rits Kap5ias v^av). From this we
gather that diligent service and warm Christian

TYRANNUS
sympathy were two features of (je life and ch«r-
acter of Tychicus. Colossae was in Asia; but fcca
the fact that of Onesimus, who is mentioned ira
mediately afterwards, it is said, Ss ia-rm ^| ipiuv
whereas Tychicus is not so styled, we naturally hi
fer that the Litter was not a native of that city.
These two men were doubtless the bearers both of
this letter and the following, as well as that to
Philemon. (3.) The language concerning Tychioui
in Eph. v. 21, 22, is very similar, though not ex
actly in the same words. And it is the more im
portant to notice this passage carefully, because it
is the only personal allusion in the epistle, and is
of some considerable value as a subsidiary argument
for its authenticity. If this was a circular letter
Tychicus, who bore a commission to Colossse, and
who was probably well known in various parts of
the province of Asia, would be a very proper per.<on
to see the letter duly delivered and read. (4.) The
next references are in the Pastoral Epistles, the first
in chronological order being Tit, iii, 12. Here St
Paul (writing possibly from Ephesus) says that it
is probable he may send Tychicus to Crete, about
the time when he himself goes to Nicopolis, (5.) In
2 Tim. iv. 12 (wiitteu at Home during the second
imprisonment) he says, "I am herewith sending
Tychicus to Ephesus." At least it seems natural,
with Dr. Wordsworth, so lo render airto-TtiXo,
though Bp. Ellicott's suggestion is also worth con
sidering, that this mission may have been connected
with the carrying of the frst epistle. (See their
notes on the passage.) However this may be, we
see this disciple at the end, as we saw him at the
beginning, connected locally with Asia, while also
cooperating with St. Paul. We have no authentic
information concerning Tychicus in any period
previous to or subsequent to these five Scriptural
notices. The tradition which places him afterwards
as bishop of Chalcedon in Bithynia is apparently
of no value. But there is much probability in the
conjecture (Stanley's Corintliians, 2d ed. p. 493)
that Tychicus was one of the two " brethren "
(Trophimus !)eing the other) who were associated
with Titus (2 Cor. viii. 16-24) in conducting the
business of the collection for the poor Christians in
.Iud%a. As arguments for this view we may men
tion the association with Trophimus, the probability
tbat both were Ephesians, the occurrence of both
nanies in the Second Epistle to Timothy (see 2 Tim.
iv. 20), the chronological and geographical agree
ment with the circumstances of the third missionary
journey, and the general language used concerning
Tychicus in Colossians and Ephesians. [Asia;
Ephesus; Trophimus.] J. S. H.
TYRAN'NUS (Tipavvos [despot, tyrant]).
The name of a man in whose school or place of
audience Paul taught the Gospel for two years,
during his sojourn at Ephesus (see Acts xix. 9).
The halls or rooms of the philosophers were called
a-xo\ai among the later Greeks (LiddeU and Scott.
s. v.); and as Luke applies tbat term to the »"-
ditorium in this instance, the presumption is that
T3Tannus himself was a Greek, and a public teacher
of philosophy or rhetoric. He and Paul must bave
occupied the room at different houre ; bnt whether
he hired it out to the Christians or gave to then
the use of it (iu either case he must have been
friendly to them) is lefi uncertain. Meyer is dis
posed to consider that Tyrannua was a Jewish rsbbi,
and the owner of a private synagogue or house !a
teaching (tl^niQ rT^S). But, in the fi^t plate,

TYRE
bis Greek name, and the fact that he is not men
tioned as a Jew or proselyte, disagree with that
Bupposition ; and, in the second place, as Paxil re
paired to this man's school after having been com
pelled to leave the Jewish synagogue (Acts xix. 9),
it is evident that he took this course as a means
of gaining access to the heathen ; an object which
lie would naturally seek through the cooperation of
one of their own number, and not by associating
himself with a. Jew or a Gentile adherent of the
Jewish faith. In speaking of bim merely as a cer
tain Tyrannua i^vpdvvov tiv6^), Luke indicates
certainly that he was not a behever at first; though
it is natural enough to think that he may have
become such as the result of his acquaintance with
the Apostle. Hemsen (Der Apostel Paulus, p. 218)
throws out the idea that the hall may have be
longed to the authorities of the city, and have
derived its name fi-om the original proprietor. H. B. H.
TYRE ("i'lS, "lis, i. e. Tz6r: i:{,pos' Tyrus:
Josh. xix. 29 [^olTvpioi] ; 2 Sam. xxiv. 7 ; Is. xxiii. 1 ;
Ez. xxvi. 15, xxvii. 2, &c.). A celebrated commercial
city of antiquity, situated in Phoenicia, on the east-
em coast of the Mediterranean Sea, in latitude 33°
17' N. (Admiral Smythe's Mediterranean, p. 469).
Its Hebrew name "Tzor" signifies a rock; which
well agrees with the site of Sur, the modern town,
on a rocky peninsula, formerly an island- From
the word " Tz6r '' were derived two names of the
city, in which the first letters differed from each
other, though both had a feature of their common
parent: 1st, the Aramaic word Tura, whence the
Greek word Turos, probably pronounced Tyros,
which finally prevailed in Latin, and with slight
changes, in the modern languages of the West;
and, Sdly, Sara, or Sarra, which occurs in Plautus
(True ii. 6, 58, " purpuram ex Sara tibi attuli"),
and which is familiar to scholars through the well-
known line of Virgil, " Ut gemm^ bibat, et SaiTano
dormiat ostro " (Georg. ii. 506; comp. Aul. Gell.
xiv. 6; Silius Itahcus, xv. 203; Juvenal, x.' 30).
According to a passage of Probus (ad Virg. Georg.
ii. 115), as quoted by Mr. Grote (History of Greece,
I- 353), the form "Sara" would seem to have
occurred in one of the Greek epics now lost, which
passed under the name of Homer. Certainly, this
form accords best with the modern Arabic name
of SiiT.
Pal^etyrus, or Old Tyre. There is no doubt
that, previous to the siege of the city by .Alexander
the Great, Tyre was situated on an island; but,
according to the tradition of the inhabitants, if we
may believe Justin (xi. 10), there was a city on the
mainland before there was a. city on the island ;
and the tradition receives some color from the name
of Palsetyrus, or Old Tyre, which was borne in
Greek times by a city on the continent, 30 stadia
to the south (Strabo, xii. 11, 21). But a difficulty
irises in supposing that Palaetyrus was built before
Tyre, as the word Tyre evidently means "a rock,'*
and few persons who have visited the site of
Palfletyrus can seriously suppose that any rock on
fche surface there can have given rise to the name.
To escape this difficulty, Hengstenberg makes the

TYRE

3331

a According to Herodotus, the priests at Tyre told
turn that their city had been founded 2,300 years be-
fere his visit. Supposing he was at Tyre in 450 b. c,
this would make the date of its foundation 2,750 b. c.
Josephus makes the more sober statement, probably

suggestion that Palsetyrus meant Tyre that formerly
existed; "quas quondam fuit; " and that the name
was introduced after the destruction of the greater
part of it by Nebuchadnezzar, to distinguish it from
that part of Tyre which continued to be in exist
ence (De rebus Tyriorum, p. 26). Movers, justi)
deeming this explanation unlikely, suggests that the
original inhabitants of the city on the mainland
possessed the island as part of their territory, and
named tbeir city from the characteristic features of
the island, though the island itself was not then
inhabited (Das Phonizische Alterthum, vol. ii. pt.
i. p. 173). This explanation is possible; but other
explanations are equally possible. For exaraple, the
Phcenician name of it may bave been the Old City;
and this may have been translated "Palffityrus '*
in Greek. Or, if tbe inhabitants of the mainland
migrated to the island, they may afterwards, at
some time or other, have given to the city which
they left the name of Old Tyre, without its bemg
necessarily implied that the city had ever borne
simply the name of T3Te. Or some accidental cir
cumstance, now beyond the reach of conjecture,
may have led to the name ; just as for some unac
countable reason Roma Vecchia, or Old Rome, ia
the name given in the Roman Campagna (as is
stated on the high authority of Mr. H. E. Bun
bury) to ruins of the age of Caracalla situated be
tween tbe roads leading to Frascati and Albano,
although there are no traces there of any Old Town,
and there is not the slightest reason to suppose
that there is any historical foundation whatever for
the name. And this again would tally with Mr.
Grote's remark, who observes (l. c) that perhaps
the Phcenician name which the city on the main
land bore may have been something resembling
Palae-Tyrus in sound but not coincident in mean
ing. It is important, however, to bear in mind
that this question regarding Palaetyrus is merely
archseologieal, and that nothing in Biblical history
is affected by it. Nebuchadnezzar necessarily be
sieged the portion of the city on tbe mainland, as
he had no vessels with which to attack the island ;
but it is reasonably certain that, in the time of
Isaiah and Ezekiel, the heart or core of the city waa
on the island. The city of Tyre was consecrated
to Hercules (Melkarth) who was the principal object
of worship to the inhabitants (Quintus Curtius, iv.
2; Strabo, xvi. p. 757); and .Arrian in his History
says that the temple on the island was the most
ancient of all temples within the memory of man
kind (ii. 16). It cannot be doubted, therefore, that
the island had long been inhabited. And with thia
agree the expressions as to Tyre being "in the
midst of the seas" (Ez. xxvii. 25, 26); and even
the threat against it that it should be made like
the top of a rock to spread nets upon (see Des
Vignoles' Chronologic de V Histoire Sainte, Berlin,
1738, vol. ii. p. 25). As, however, the space on
the island was limited, it is ^ery possible that the
population on the mainland may have exceeded the
population on the island (see Movers, I. c p. 81).
Whether built before or later than Palaetyrus,
the renowned city of Tyre, though it laid claims to
a very high antiquity" (Is. xxiii. 7; Herodot. ii.
14; Quintus Curtius, iv. 4), is not mentioned either

founded on Menander's history, that it was founded
230 years before the commencement of the building
of Solomon's temple. Under any circumstances, Jo
sephus could not, with his ideas and chronology, haw
accepted the date of the Tyrian priests ; for then Tyw

3332

TYKE

in the Iliad or in the Odyssey; bnt no inference
can be legitimately drawn from this fact as to the
existence or non-existence of the city at the time
when those poems were composed. The tribe of
Canaanites which inhabited the small tract of coun
try which may be called Phoenicia Proper [Phce-
nicia] was known by the generic name of Sidonians
(Judg. xviii. 7 ; Is. xxiii. 2, 4, 12 ; Josh. xiii. 6 ;
Ez. xxxii. 30); and this name undoubtedly included
TyTlans, the inhabitants being of the same race,
and the two cities being less than 20 English miles
distant from each other. Hence when Solomon
sent to Hiram king of Tyre for cedar-trees out of
Lebanon to be hewn by Hiram's subjects, he re
minds Hiram that " there is not among us any
that can skill to hew timber like the Sidonians "
(1 K. V. 6). Hence Virgil, who, in his very first
mention of Carthage, expressly states that it was
founded by colonists from Tyre (^Sn. i. 12), after
wards, with perfect propriety and consistency, calls
it the Sidonian city (^n. i. 677, 678, iv. 545. See
Des Vignoles, I. c. p. 25). And in Uke manner,
when Sidonians are spoken of in the Homeric
Poems (II. vi. 290, xxiii. 743 ; Od. iv. 84, xvii. 424),
this might comprehend Tyrians ; and the mention
of the city Sidon, while there is no similar mention
of Tyre, would be fully accounted for — if it were
necessary to account for such a circumstance at all
in a poem — by Sidon's having been in early times
more flourishing than Tyre. It is worthy, likewise,
of being noted, that Tyre is not mentioned in the
Pentateuch; but here, again, though an inference
may be drawn against the importance, no inference
can be legitimately drawn against the existence, of
Tyre in the times to which the Pentateuch refers.
In the Bible, Tyre is named for the first time in
the book of Joshua (xix. 29 ), where it is adverted
to as a fortified city (in the A. V. " the strong
city " ), in reference to fhe boundaries of the tribe
of Asher. Nothing historical, however, turns upon
this mention of Tyre; for it is indisputable that tbe
tribe of Asher never possessed the Tyrian territory.
According to the injunctions of the Pentateuch,
indeed, all the Canaanitish nations ought to have
been exterminated ; but, instead of this, the Israel
ites dwelt among the Sidonians or Phoenicians, who
were inhabitants of the land (Judg. 1. 31, 32), and
never seem to have had any war with that intel
ligent race. Subsequently, in a passage of Samuel
(2 Sam. xxiv. 7), it is stated that the enumerators
of the census in the reign of David went in pur
suance of their mission to Tyre, amongst other
cities, which must be understood as implying, not
that Tyre was subject to David's authority, but
merely that a census was thus taken of the Jews
resident there. But the firat passages in the He
brew historical WTitinga, or in ancient history gen
erally, which afford glimpses of the actual condition
of T^re, are in the book of Samuel (2 Sam. v. 11),
in connection with Hiram king of Tjtc sending
cedar-wood and. workmen to David, for building
iiim a palace; and subsequently in the book of
Kings, in connection with the building of Solomon's
temple. One point at this period is particularly

TYRE
worthy of attention. In contradistinction from all
the other most celebrated ind'ependent commercial
cities out of Phoenicia in the ancient and modern
world, Tyre was a monarchy and not a republic
and, notwithstanding its merchant princes, who
might haye been deemed likely to favor the estab
lishment of an afistocratical commonwealth, it con
tinued to preserve the monarchical form of govern-
ment until its final loss of independence. Aiiothei
point is the skill in the niechauical arts which seema
to have been already attained by the Tyrians.
Under this head, allusion is not specially made to
the excellence of the Tyrians in felling trees; for
through vicinity to the forests of Lebanon, they
would as naturally have become skilled in that art
as the backwoodsmen of America. But what i.-:
peculiarly noteworthy is that Tyrians had become
workers in brass or copper to an extent which
implies considerable advancement in art. In the
enumeration of tbe various works iu brass executed
by the Tyrian artists whom Solomon seut for, there
are liUes, palm-trees, oxen, lions, and cherubim
(1 K. vii. 13-45). The manner in which the cedar-
wood and fir-wood was conveyed to Jerusalem is
likewise interesting, partly from the similarity of
the sea voyage to wbat may commoiily be seen on
the Rhine at the present day. and partly as giving
a vivid idea of the really short distance between
Tyre and Jerusalem. The wood was taken in floata
to Joppa (2 Chr. ii. 16; IK. v. 9), a distance of
less than 74 geographical miles. In the Mediter
ranean during summer there are times when this
voyage along the coast would have been perfectly
safe, and when the Tyrians might have reckoned
confidently, especiaUy at night, on light winds to
fill the sails which were probably used on such
occasions. From Joppa to Jerusalem the distance
was about 32 miles ; and it is certain that by this
route the whole distance between the two celebrated
cities of Jerusalem and Tjtc was not more than
106" geographical, or about 122 English miles.
Within such a comparatively short distance (which
by land, in a straight line, was about 20 miles
shorter) it would be easy for two soveragns to
estabUsh personal relations with each other; more
especially as the northern boundary of Solomon's
kingdom, in one direction, was the southern bound
ary of Phoenicia. Solomon and Hiram may fre
quently have met, and thus laid the foundations of
a poUtical alliance in personal friendship. If by
messengers they sent riddles and problems for each
other to solve (Joseph. Ant. viii. 5, § 3; c. Apion.
i. 17), they may previously have had, on several
occasions, a keen encounter of wits in convivial in
tercourse. In this way, likewise, Solomon may have
become acquainted with the Sidonian women who,
with those of other nations, seduced him to Poly
theism and the worship of Astarte in his old age.
Similar remarks apply to the circumstances which
may have occasioned previously the strong auction
of Hiram for David (1 K. v. 1).
However this may lie, it is evident that under
Solomon there was a close alUance between the He
brews and the Tyrians. Hiram suppUed Solomon

would have been founded before the era of the Deluge.
Bee an instructive passage ae to the chronology of
Tosephus in Ant. viii. 3, § 1.
« It may be interesting to compare the distance
from which the limestone was brought with which St.
Paul's Cathedral was built. It was hewn from quar
ries in tho Isle of Portland, and was sent to Loudon

round the North Foreland up the river Thames. Xhfl
distance to London in a strai jht line from tbe North
Foreland alone is of itself about twelve miles greater
than from Tyre to Joppa ; while the distance ftom th«
Isle of Portland to the North Foreland is actuall.'
three times as great.

TYRE
mth cedar wood, precious metals, and workmen,
»nd gave him sailors for the voyage to Ophir and
India, while on the other hand Solomon gave Hiram
supplies of corn and oil, ceded to him some cities,
and permitted him to make use of some havens on
the Red Sea (1 K. ix. 11-14, 26-28, x. 22). These
friendly relations survived for a time the disastrous
secession of the Ten Tribes, and a century later
Ahab married a daughter of Ethbaal, king of tbe
Sidonians (1 K. xvi. 31), who,'according to Menan
der (Josephus, Ani. viii. 13, § 2), was daughter of
Ithobal, king of Tyre. As she was zealous for her
national religion, she seems to have been regarded
as an abomination by the pious worshippers of
Jehovah ; but this led to no special prophetical
denunciations against Tyre. The case became dif
ferent, however, when mercantile cupidity induced
the Tyrians and the neighboring Phcenicians to buy
Hebrew captives from their enemies and to sell
them as slaves to the Greeks [Phcesicians, iii.
2518 b] and Edomites. From this time commenced
denunciations, and," at first, threats of retaliation
(Joel iu. 4-8; Amos i. 9, 10); and indeed, though
there might be peace, there could not be sincere
friendship between the two nations. But the Uke-
Uhood of the denunciations being fulfilled first arose
from the progressive conquests of the Assyrian
monarchs. It was not probable that a powerful,
victorious, and ambitious neighbor could resist the
temptation of endeavoring to subjugate the smaU
strip of land between the Lebanon and the sea, so
insignificant in extent, but ovei-flowing with so much
wealth, which by the Greeks was called PhoBnicia.
[Phcenici.4.] Accordingly, when Shalmaneser,
king of Assyria, had taken the city of Samaria,
had conquered the kingdom of Israel and caiTied
its inhabitants into captivity, he turned his arms
against the Phcenician cities. At this time. Tyre
had reached a high point of prosperity. Since the
reign of Hiram, it had planted the splendid colony
of Carthage (143 years and eight months, Josephus
says, after the building of Solomon's 'Temple, t.
Apion. i. 18); it possessed the island of Cyprus,
with the valuable mines of the metal " copper " (so
named from the island); and, apparently, the city
of Sidon was subject to its sway. But Shalmaneser
seeras to have taken advantage of a revolt of the
Cyprians ; and what ensued is thus related by
Menander, who translated the archives of Tyre into
the Greek lauguage (see Josephus, Ani. ix. 14, § 2) :
" Elulseus reigned 36 years (over Tyre). This king,
upon the revolt of the Kittseans (Cyprians), sailed
with a fleet against them, and reduced them to
submission. On the other hand, the king of the
Assyrians attacked in war the whole of Phoenicia,
jut soon raade peace with all, and turned back.
On this, Sidon and Ace (i. e. Akko or Acre) and
Palaetyrus revolted from the Tyrians, with many
other cities which delivered themselves up to the
king of Assyria. Accordingly, when the Tyrians
would T^ot submit to him, the king returned and
fell upon them again, the Phcenicians having fur
nished him with 60 ships and 800 rowers. Against
these the Tyrians saued with 12 ships, and, dis
persing the fleet opposed to them, they took five
hundred men prisoners. The reputation of all the
citizens in Tyre was hence increased. Upon this
the king of the Assyrians, moving oif his army,
placed guards at their river and aqueducts to pre
vent the Tyrians from drawing water. This con-
Vnued for five years, and stiU the Tyrians held out,
iupplying themselves with water from wells." It is

TYEE

-•833

in reference to this siege that the prophecy against
Tyre in the writings entitled Isaiah, chap, xxiii.,
was uttered, if it proceeded from the Prophet Isaiah
himself: but this point will be again noticed.
After the siege of Tyre by Shalmaneser (whict
must have taken place not long after 721 u. c),
Tyre remained a powerful state with its own kings
(Jer. xxv. 22, xxvii. 3; Ez. xxviii. 2-12), remark
able for its wealth, with territory on the mainland,
and protected by strong fortifications (Ez. xxviii. 5,
xxvi. 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, xxvii. 11; Zech. ix. 3). Our
knowledge of its condition thenceforward until the
siege by Nebuchadnezzar depends entirely on va
rious notices of it by the Plebrew prophets; but
some of those notices are singularly full, and, espe
ciaUy, the twenty-seventh chapter of Ezekiel fur
nishes us, on some points, with details such as have
scarcely come down to us respecting any one city of
antiquity, excepting Rome and Athens. One point
especially arrests the attention, that Tyre, like ita
splendid daughter Carthage, employed mercenary
soldiers (Ez. xxvii. 10, 11). This has been the
general tendency in commercial cities on account of
the high wages which may be obtained by artisans
in a thriving,coramunity, compared with the ordi
nary pay of a soldier; and Tyre had been unable to
resist the demorahzing temptation. In its service
there were Phcenicians from Arvad, -^Ethiopians
obtained through the commerce of Egypt, and
hardy mountaineers from Persia. This is the first
time that tlie name of Persia occurs in tbe remains
of ancient literature, before its sons founded a great
monarchy on the ruins of the Chakiaian empire.
We may conceive them hke the Swiss, who, poor,
faithful, and brave, have during many centuries,
until the last few years, deemed eiilistment in
foreign service a legitimate source of gain. Inde
pendently, however, of this fact respecting Tyrian
mercenary soldiers, Ezekiel gives interesting details
respecting the trade of Pyre. On this head, with
out attempting to exhaust the subject, a few lead
ing points may be noticed- The first question is
as to the comitries from which Tyre obtained the
precious metals ; and it oppears that its gold carae
from Arabia by the Persian Gulf (v. 22), just as in
the time of Solomon it came from Arabia by the
Red Sea [Ophik]. Whether the Arabian mer
chants, whose wealth was proverbial in Eoman
classical times (Horace, Od. i. 29, 1), obtained their
gold by traffic with Africa or India, or whether it
was the product of their own country, is uncer
tain; but as far ;is the latter alternative is con
cerned, the point will probably be cleared up hi the
progress of geological knowledge. On the other
hand, the silver, iron, lead, and tin of Tyre came
from a very different quarter of the world, namely,
from the south of Spain, where the Phoenicians
had established their settlement of Tarshish, or Tar
tessus. As to copper, we should have presumed
that it was obtained from the valuable mines in
Cyprus; but it is mentioned here in conjunction
with Javan, Tubal, and jMeshech, which points to
the districts on the south of the Black Sea, in the
neighborhood of Armenia, in the southern line of
the Caucasus, between the Black Sea and the Cas
pian. The eountry whence Tyre wiis supphed with
wheat was Palestine. This point has been already
noticed elsewhere [Phcenicians, iii. 2519] as help
ing to explain why there is no instance on record
of war between Tyre and the Israelites. It may
be added that the value of Palestine as a wheat-
country to Tyre was greatly enhanced by its pros-

'W '

3334

TYRE

imity, as there was scarcely a part of the kingdom
of Israel on the west of the river Jordan which was
distant- more than a hundred mUes from that great
commercial city. The extreme points in the king
dom of Judah would be somewhat more distant;
but the wheat probably came from the northern
part of Palestine. Tyre lUiewise obtained from
Palestine oil, honey, and balm, but not wine appar
ently, notwithstandhig the abundance of grapes and
wine in Judah (Gen. xlix. 11). The wine was im
ported from Damascus, and was called wine of Hel-
bon, which was probably not the product of the
oountry adjoining the celebrated city of that name,
but came from the neighborhood of Damascus it
self (see Porter's Handbook for Syria, vol. ii. p. 495 ;
compare Athenseus, i. 61). The Bedawin Arabs
suppUed Tyre with lambs and rams and goats, for
the rearing of which their mode of life was so weU
adapted. Egypt furnished Unen for sails, and doubt
less for other purposes, and the dyes from shell-fish,
which afterwards became such a source of profit to
the Tyrians, were imported from the Peloponnesus
(compare the " Laconicas purpuras " of Horace, Od.
ii. 18, 7, and PUny, ix. 40). Lastly frora Dedan in
the Persian Gulf, an island occupied possibly by a
Phoenician colony, horns of ivory and ebony were
imported, which must originally have been obtained
from India, (Ez.xxvU. 10, 11, 22, 12, 13, 17, 18, 21,
7, 15).
In the midst of great prosperity and wealth,
which was the natural result of such an extensive
trade (Ez. xxvni. 4), Nebuchadnezzar, at the head
of an army of the Chaldees, invaded Judsea, and
captured Jerusalem. As Tyre was so near to Jeru
salem, and as the conquerors were a fierce and for
midable race (Hab. i. 6), led by a general of un
doubted capacity, who had not long before humbled
the power of the Egyptians, it would naturaUy be
supposed that this event would have excited alarm
and terror amongst the Tyrians. Instead of this
we may infer from Ezekiel's statement (xxvi. 2)
that their predominant feeUng was one of exulta
tion. At first sight this appears strange and al
most inconceivable; but it is rendered inteUigible
by some previous events in Jewish history. Only
34 years before tbe destruction of Jerusalem, com
menced the celebrated Reformation of .Josiah, a. o.
622. This momentous religious revolution, of
which a detailed account is given in two chapters
of the book of Kings (2 K. xxii., xxiii.), and which
cannot be too closely studied by any one who wishes
to understand the Jewish Annals, fiilly explains the
exultation and malevolence of the Tyrians. In
that Reformation, Josiah had heaped insults on the
gods who were the objects of Tyrian veneration and
love, he had consumed with fire the sacred vessels
used in their worship, he had burnt their images
and defiled their high places — not excepting even
the high place near Jerusalem, which Solomon the
friend of Hiram had built to Ashtoreth the Queen
of Heaven, and which for more than 350 years had
been a striking memorial of tbe reciprocal good-will
which once united the two monarchs and the two
nations. Indeed, he seemed to have endeavored to
exterminate their religion, for iu Samaria (2 K.
xxui. 20) he had slain upon the altars of the high
places all their priests. These acts, although in
their ultimate results they may have contributed
« It waa owing to tliis Reformation of Josiah that
ffhen the Jews were carried into captivity by Nebu-
.hadnezzar a generation had arisen untainted by idola-

TYRE
powerfuUy to the " difiiision of the Jewish religioa
must have been regarded by the Tyrians as a seriei
of sacrilegious and abominable outrages; and we
can scarcely doubt that the death in battle of
Josiah at Megiddo, and the subsequent destruction
of the city and Temple of Jerusalem were hailed by
them with triumphant joy, as instances of Divine
retribution iu human afi'airs.
This joy, however, must soon have given way
to other feeUngs, when Nebuchadnezzar invaded
Phoenicia, and laid siege to Tyre. That siege
lasted thirteen years (Joseph, c. Apion. i. 21), and
it is StUl a disputed point, which will be noticed
separately in this article, whether Tyre was actually
taken by Nebuchadnezzar on this occasion. How
ever this may be, it is probable that, on some terms
or other. Tyre submitted to the Chaldees. Thia
would explain, amongst other points, au expedition
of Apries, the Pharaoh-Hophra of Scripture, against
Tyre, which probably happened not long after, and
which may have been dictated by obvious motives
of self-defense in order to prevent the naval power
of Tyre becoming a powerful instrument of attack
ing Egypt in the hands of the Chaldees. In this
expedition Apries besieged Sidon, fought a naval
battle with "Tyre, and reduced the whole of the
coast of Phoenicia, though this could not have had
lasting efl'ects (Herod, u. 161; Diod. i. 68; Movers,
Das Phonizische Alterthum, vol. ii. p. 451). The
rule of Nebuchadnezzar over Tyre, though real,
may have been light, and in the nature of an affi
ance; and it may have been in this sense that Mer-
bal, a subsequent Tyrian king, was sent for to
Babylon (Joseph, c. Apion. i. 21). During the
Persian domination the Tyrians were subject in
name to the Persian king, and may have giveu him
tribute. With the rest of Phoenicia, they had sub
mitted to the Persians, without striking a blow;
perhaps, through hatred of the Chaldees; perhaps,
solely from prudential motives. But their connec
tion with the Persian king was not slavish. Thus,
when Cambyses ordered them to join in an expe
dition against Carthage, they refused compliance,
on account of their solemn engagements and pa
rental relation to that colony: and Cambyses did
not deem it right to use force toward them (Herod.
in. 19). Afterwards they fought with Persia
against Greece, and furnished vessels of war in the
expedition of Xerxes against Greece (Herod, vii.
98); aud Mapen, the son of Sirom the Tyrian, i»
mentioned araongst those who, next to the com
manders, were the most renowned in the fleet. It
is worthy of notice that at this time Tyre seems to
have been inferior in power to Sidon. These two
cities were less than twenty Enghsh railes distant
from each other ; and it is easy to conceive that in
the course of centuries their relative importance
might fluctuate, as would be very possilile in our
own country with two neighboring cities, such for
example, as Liverpool and Manchester. It is possi
ble also that Tyre may have been seriously weakened
by its long struggle against Nebuchadnezzar. Un
der the Persian dominion, Tyre and Sidon sup
pUed cedar wood again to the Jews for the build
ing of the secoud Temple; and this wood was sent
by sea to Joppa, and thence to Jerusalem, as had
been the case with the materials for the first Tem
ple in the time of Solomon (Ezra iii. 7). Vn-

try, and yet many of them probably free from tbe in'
tense scrupulousness in ceremonial observances whll*
prevailed subsequentlj.

TYRE
flcr the Persians likewise Tyre was visited by an
historian, l»m whom we might have derived val
uable hiformation respecting its condition (Herod.
ii. 44). But the information actually supphed by
him is scanty, as the motive of his voyage seeras to
have been solely to visit the celebrated temple of
Melkarth (the Phcenician Hercules), which was sit
uated in the island, and was highly venerated. He
gives no details as to the city, and merely specifies
two columns which he observed in the temple, one
of gold, and the other of emerald ; or rather, as is
reasonably conjectured by Sir Gardiner Wilkinson,
of green glass (Rawlinson's Herodotus, ii. 81, 82).
Towards the close of the following century, b. c.
332, Tyre was assailed for the third time by a great
conqueror: and if some uncertainty hangs over the
siege by Nebuchadnezzar, the results of the siege
by Alexander were clear and undeniable, ft was
essential to the success of bis military plans that
the Phcenician fleet should be at his command, and
that he should not be liable through their hostility
to have his comraunications by sea with Greece and
Macedonia suddenly cut off; and he accordingly
summoned all the Phoenician cities to submit to
his rule. All the rest of thera, including Aradus,
Byblus, and Sidon, complied with his demands, and
the seamen of those cities in the Persian fleet
brought away their ships to join him. Tyre alone,
calculating probably at first on the support of those
seamen, refused to admit him within its walls —
and then ensued a memorable siege which lasted
seven months, and the success of which was the
greatest of all the achievements which Alexander
up to that time had attempted. It is not necessai-y
to give here the details of that sie<^e, which may be
found in Arrian and Quintus Curtius, and in aU
good Grecian histories, such as those of Bishop
Thirlwall and Bir. Grote. It may be sufficient to
say, that at that time Tyre was situated on an
island neariy half a mile from the mainland — that
*' it was completely surrounded by prodigious walls,
the loftiest portion of which on the side fronting
the mainland reached a height not less than 150
feet;" and that notwithstanding his persevering
efforts, he could not have succeeded in his attempt,
if the harbor of Tyre to the north had not been
blockaded by>tbe Cyprians, and that to the south
by the Phcenicians, thus affording an opportunity
to Alexander for uniting the island to the mainland
by an enormous artificial " mole. Moreover, owing
to internal disturbances, Carthage was unable to
afford any assistance to its parent state.
The immediate results of the capture by Alex
ander were most disastrous to it, as its brave de
fenders were put to death; and, in accordance with
the barbarous policy of ancient times, 30,000 of its
inhabitants, including slaves, free females and free
children were sold as slaves (Arrian, iv. 24, § 9;
Diodorus, xvii. 46). It gradually, however, recov-
sred ita prosperity through tbe immigration of fresh

« That Tyre was on an island, previous to its siege
by Alexander, is one of the most certain facts of his
tory ; but on examining the locality at tbe present day
few persons would suspect fi'om existing appearances
that there was anything artificial iu the formation of
the present peninsula.
b Phny tbe elder gives an accoimt of the Phoeni
cian shell-fish (ix. 60,61), and states that from the
^rger ones the dye was extracted, after taking off the
shell : but that tbe small fish were crushed alive
togetheT with the shells. Mr. Wilde, an intelligent
modem traveller, observed at Tyre numerous round

TYRE 3335
settlers, though its trade is said to have suffered by
the vicinity and rivalry of Alexandria. Under the
Macedonian successors of Alexander, it sha^;ed the
fortunes of the Seleucidse, who bestowed on it many
privileges; and there are still in existence coins of
that epoch with a Phcenician and Greek inscrip
tion (Eckhel, Doctr. Nummorum Vet. vol. iii. p.
379, (fee; Gesenius, Monumenta Phcenidce, pp.
262-264, and Tab. 34). Under the Ptoraans, at
first it continued to enjoy a kind of freedom; for
Josephus mentions that when Cleopatra pressed
Antony to include Tyre and Sidon in a gift of
Phoenician and Jewish territory which he made to
her, he steadily refused, knowing them to have
been '* free cities frora their ancestors" (Ant siv.
4, § 1). Subsequently, however, on the arrival of
Augustus in the East, he is said to have deprived
the two cities of their liberties for seditious conduct
(i^ovKdiffaTOt Dion Cassius, Ixiv. 7). Still tbe
prosperity of Tyre iu the tirae of Augustus was
undeniably great. Strabo gives an account of it
at that period (xvi. 2, 23), and speaks of the great
wealth which it derived from the dyes of the cele
brated Tyrian purple, which, as is well known,
were extracted from shell-fish found on the coast,
belonging to a species of the genus Murex. In the
daj-s of Ezekiel, the Tyrians had imported purple
from the Pelopoimesus ; but they had since learned
to extract the dye for themselves; and they had the
advantage of having shell-fish on their coast better
adapted for this purpose even than those on the
Lacedifimonian coast (Pausanias, in. 21, § 6). Strabo
adds, that the great number of dyeing works ren
dered the city unpleasant as a place of residence ^
He further speaks of the houses as consisting of
raany stories, even of more than in the houses at
Rorae — which is precisely what might be expected
in a prosperous fortified city of limited area, in
which ground-rent would be high. Pliny the Elder
gives additional information respecting the city, for
in describing it he says that the circumference of
the city proper {i. e. the city on the peninsula) waa
22 stadia, while that of the whole city, including
Palaetyrus, was 19 Roman miles (Nat Hist v. 17).
The accounts of Strabo and Pliny have a peculiar
interest in this respect, that they tend to convey
an idea of what the city must have been, when
visited by Christ (Matt. xv. 21; Mark vii. 24).
It was perhaps more populous than Jerusalem
[Jerusalem, ii. 1320], and if so, it was undoubt^
edly the lai'gest city which he is known to have
visited. It was not much more than thirty miles
distant from Nazareth, where Christ mainly lived
as a carpenter's son during the greater part of his
hfe (Matt. ii. 23, iv. 12, 13, 18; Mark vi. 3). We
may readily conceive that He may often have gone
to Tyre, while yet unknown to the world; and
whatever uncertainty tbere may be as to the extent
to which the Greek language was hkely to be
spoken at Nazareth, at Tyre, and in its neighbor-

holes cut in the solid sandstone rock, in which sheila
seem to have been crushed. They were perfectly
smooth on the inside ; and many of them were shaped
exactly like a modern iron pot, broad and flat at the
bottom, and narrowing toward the top. Many of
these were filled with a breccia of shells ; in other
places this breccia lay in heaps in the neighborhood.
All the shells were of one species, and were undoubt
edly the Murex Trunculus. See Narrative ofa Voyage
to Madeira, Teneriffe, and along the Shores of th*
Mediterranean. Dublin, 1844.

3336 TYRE
hood, there must have been excellent opportunities
for conversation in that language, with which He
seems 4o have been acquainted (Mark vii. 26).
From the time of Christ to the beginning of the
bth century, there is no reason to doubt that, as
far as was compatible with the irreparable loss of
independence. Tyre continued in uninterrupted
prosperity ; and about that period Jerome has on
record very striking testimony ou the subject,
which has been often quoted, and is a landmark in
Tyrian history (see Gesenius's Jesaia, vol. i. p.
714). Jerome, in his C!ommentaries on Ezekiel,
comes to the passage in which the prophet threatens
Tyre with the approach of Nebuchadnezzar, king
if Babylon (Ez. xxvi. 7) ; and he then, amongst
ither points, refers to the verse in which the
nrophet predicts of Tyre, " Thou shalt be built no
more," saying that this raises a question as to how
a city can be said not to be built any more, which
we see at the present day the raost noble and the
most beautiful city of Phcenieia. " Quodque se-
quitur: nee sedificaberis ultra, videtur facere quses-
tionem quomodo non sit asdificata, quam hodie
cernimus Phcenices nobiUssimam et pitlcherrimam
civitatem.^^ He afterwards, in his remarks on the
•¦Jd verse of the 27th chapter, in which Tj-re is
called " a merchant of the people for many isles,"
says that this continues down to his time, so that
jommercial deahngs of almost all nations are car
ried on in that city — " quod quidem usque hodie
perseverat, ut omnium propeniodo gentium in ilia
exerceaniur commercia.'^ Jerome's Commentaries
on Ezekiel are supposed to have been written about
the years 411—114 A. D. (see Smith's Dictionary
of Greek and Roman Biography, vol. ii. p. 465),
so that his testimony respecting the prosperity of
Tyre bears date almost precisely a thousand years
after the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar,
B. c. .588. As to the passage in which Ezekiel
states that Tyre shall be built no raore, Jerome
says the meaning is, that " Tyre will be no more
the Queen of Nations, having its own king, as was
the case under Hiram and other kings, but that it
was destined to be always subject, either to the
Chaldeans, or to tbe Macedonians, or to the Ptole
mies, or at last to the Romans." At the same
time Jerome notices a meaning given to the pas
sage by some interpreters, that Tyre would not be
built in ihe last days ; but he asks of such inter
preters, " How they will be able to preserve the
part attributed to Nebuchadnezzar, especially as we
read in what follows, that Nebuchadnezzar besieged
Tyre, but had no reward of his labor (xxix. 18),
and that Egypt was given over to hira because in
besieging Tyre he had served the purpose of God."
When Jerome spoke of Tyre's subjection to the
Romans, which had then lasted raore than four
hundred years, he could scarcely have anticipated
that another subjugation of the country was re
served for it from a new conquering power, coraing
not from the north, but from the south. In the
7th century A. d. took place the extraordinary
Arabian revolution under Mohammed, which has
given a new religion to so raany millions of raan-
kind. In the years 633-638 a. d. all Syria and
Palestine, from the Dead Sea to Antioch, was con
quered by the Khalif Omar. This conquest was
so complete, that in both those countries the lan
guage of Mohammed has almost totally supplanted
the language of Christ. In Syria, there are only
three villages where Syriac (or Aramaic) is the
¦rernacular language. In Palestine, it is not the

TYRE
language of a single native ; and in -Terusalem, to a
stranger who understands what is involved in thia
momentous revolution, it is one of the most sug
gestive of all sounds to hear the Muezzin daily call
Mohammedans to prayers in the Arabic language o(
Mohammed, within the sacred precincts where once
stood the Temple, in which Christ worshipped in
Hebrew, or in Aramaic. (As to the Syriac lan
guage, see Porter's Handbook for Syria nnd PaL
estine, vol. ii. p. 651.) But even this conquest did
not cause the overthrow of Tyre. The most essen
tial conditions on which peace was granted to Tyre
as to other Syrian cities, were the payment of a
poll-tax, the obligation to give board and lodgini'
for three days to every Muslem traveller, the wear
ing a peculiar dress, the adraission of Moslems into
the churches, the doing away with all crosses and
all sounds of bells, the avoiding of all insulting
expressions towards tbe Mohammedan rehgion, and
the prohibition to ride on horseback or to bnild
new churches. (See Weil's Geschichte der ChdL
ifer, bd. i. 81, 82.) Some of these conditions were
humiliating, and nearly heart-breaking ; but if suli-
mitted to, tbe lives and private property of the
inhabitants remained untouched. Accordiugly, at
the time of the Crusades Tyre was still a flourish
ing city, when it surrendered to tbe Christians on
the 27th of June, 1124. It had early beeu the
seat of a Christian bishopric, and Cassius, bishop
of Tyre, is named as having been present at the
Council of Csesarea towards the cl'ise of the 2d
century (Reland, Palestine, 1054); and now, in
the year after its capture by the Crusaders, 'Wil
liam, a Frenchman, was raade its archbishop.
This archbishop has left on record an account of
the city, which gives a high idea of its wealth and
great military strength. (See Wilhelmi Tyi-ensis
Hisioi'ia, Ub. xiii. cap. 5.) And his statements
are confirmed by Benjamin of Tudela, who visited
it in the same century. (See Purchas's Pilgrims,
ii. 1443.) The latter writer, who died in 1173,
says : " Nor do I think any haven in the world to
be like unto this. The city itself, as I have said,
is goodly, and in it there are about four hundred
Jews, among whom sorae are very skillful in disci
plinary readings, and especially Ephraim the Egyp
tian judge, and Mair, and Carchesona, and Abra
ham, the head of the university. Some of the
Jews there have ships at sea for the cause of gain.
There are artificial workmen in glass there, who
make glass, called Tyrian glass, the most excellent,
and of the greatest estimation in all countries.
The best and most approved sugar is also found
there." In fact, at this period, and down to the
close of the 13th century, there was perhaps no
city in the known world which had stronger claims
than Tyre to the title of the " Eternal City," if
experience had not shown that cities as well as in
dividuals were subject to decay and dissolution.
Tyre had been the parent of colonies, which at a
distant period had enjoyed a long Ufe and had
died ; and it had survived more than fifteen hun
dred years its greatest colony, Carthage. It had
outlived ^Egyptian Thebes, and Babylon, and an
cient Jerusalem. It had seen Grecian cities rise
and fall; and although older than them all, it was
in a state of great prosperity when an illustrious
Roman, who had been saUing from jlgina to
Megara, told Cicero, in imperishable words, of the
corpses or carcases of cities, the oppidorum cadav.
era, by which in that voyage he had been hi
every direction encompassed (Ep. ad Familiar. IT.

TYRE
S.) Rome, it is true, was stUl in existence in the
13th century ; but, in coraparison with Tyre, Rome
itself was of recent date, its now twice consecrated
soil having been merely the haunt of shepherds or
robbers for some hundred years after Tyre was
wealthy and strong. At length, however, the evil
day of Tyre undoubtedly arrived. It had been
more than a century and a half in the hands of
Christians, when in March, A. D. 1291, the Sul
tan of Egypt and Damascus invested Acre, then
kuown to Europe by the name of Ptolemais, and
took it by storm after a siege of two months. The
result was told in the beginning of the next cen
tury by Marinus Sanutus, a Venetian, in the fol
lowing words: "On the same day on which Ptole
mais was taken, the Tyrians, at vespers, leaving
the city empty, without the stroke of a sword,
without the tumult of war, embarked on board
their vessels, and abandoned the city to be occu
pied freely by their conquerors. On the morrow
the Saracens entered, no one attempting to prevent

TYRE 3337
them, and they did what they pleased. " (Liber
Secreioruni fidelium Crucis, Ub. in. cap. 22.a)
This was the turning-point in the history of Tyre,
1879 years after the capture of Jerusalem by Neb
uchadnezzar ; and Tyre has not yet recovered from
the blow. In the first half of the 14th century it
was visited by Sir John Maundeville, who says,
speaking of " Tyre, which is now called Siir, here
was once a great and goodly city of the Christians :
but the Saracens have destroyed it in great part;
and' they guard that haven carefully for fe.ai' of the
Christians" (Wright's Early Travels in Palestine,
p. 141). About A. D. 1610-H it was visited by
Sandys, who said of it : " But this once famous
Tyre is now no other than a heap of ruins; yet
have they a reverent aspect, and do- instruct the
pensive beholder with their exemplary frailty. It
hath two harbors, that on the north side the fairest
and best throughout aU the I.*vant (which the cur-
sours enter at their pleasure) ; the other choked with
the deoayes of the city." (Purchas's Pilgrims, ii

Rums of Tyre.

1393.) Towards the close of the same century, in
1697 A. D., Maundrell says of it, " On the north
Bide it has an old Turkish castle, besides which
there is nothuig here but a mere Babel of broken
walls, pillars, vaults, etc., there being not so much
as an entire house left. Its present inhabitants are
only a few poor wretches that harbor in vaults and
subsist upon fishing." (See Harris, Voyages and
Travels, ii. 846.) Lastly, without quoting at
length Dr. Richard Pococke, who in 1737-40 A. D.
stated (see vol. x. of Phikerton's Voyages and
Travels, p. 470) that, except some janizaries, there
were few other inhabitants in the city than two or
three Christian families, the words of Hasselquist,
the Swedish naturalist, may be recorded, as they
mark the lowest point of depression which Tyre
seems to have reached. He was there in May,
1751 A. D., and he thus speaks of his visit : "We
followed the sea-shore .... and came to Tyre,
now caUed Zur, where we lay all night. None of

*> A copy of this work is in Gesta Dei per Francos,
Uanovise, 1611.
b M. Ernest Kenan says there has been no subsid-
eff'e of tbe land, owing to earthquakes or other causes ;
and that tbe west of the island has tbe same level as
\a ancient times. Mr. Wilde had spoken with great
210

these cities, which forraerly were famous, are su
totally ruined as this, except Troy. Zur now
scarcely can be called e^ miserable village, though it
was formerly Tyre, the queen of the sea. Here
are about ten inhabitants, Turks and Christians,
who live by fshing.'^ (See Hasselquist, Voyages
and Travels in the Levant, London, 1766.) A
slight change for the better began soon after. Vol
ney states that in 1766 A. D. the Metawileh took
possession of the place, and built a wall round it
twenty feet high, which existed when he visited
Tyre nearly twenty years afterward. At that time
Volney estimated the population at fifty or sixty
poor farailies. Since the beginning of the present
century there has been a partial revival of prosper
ity. But it has been visited at different times dur
ing the last thirty years by BibUcal scholars, such
as Professor Robinson (Bibl. Res. u. 463-471),
Canon Stanley (Sinai and Palestine, p. 270), and
M. Ernest Renan '> (Letter in ihe Moniteur, July

caution on this point, pp. 383-iS5. It is stiU very de
sirable tbat the peninsula and the adjoining coast should
be minutely examined by an experienced practical ge
ologist. There seems to be no doubt that the city haa
suffered from earthquakes. See Former, I c. ; and

3338

TYRE

11, 1861), who all concur in the account of its gen
eral aspect of desolation. Mr. Porter, who resided
several years at Damascus, and had means of ob
taining correct information, states in 1858 that
" the modem town, or rather village, contains from
3,000 to 4,000 inhabitants, about one half being
Metawileh, and the other Christians " (Handbook
for Travellers in Syi-ia and Palestine, p. 391).
Its great inferiority to Beyrout for receiving vessels
suited to the requirements of modem navigation
will always prevent Tyre from becoming again the
most important commercial city on the Syrian coast.
It is reserved to the future to detCTmine whether
with a good governraent, and with peace in the
Lebanon, it may not increase in population, and
become again comparatively wealthy.
In conclusion, it is proper to consider two ques
tions of much interest to the Biblical student, which
have been already noticed in this article, but which
could not then be conveniently discussed fully. (1)
The date and authorship of the prophecy against
Tyre in Isaiah, chap, xxiii.; and (2), the question
of whether Nebuchadnezzar, after his long siege
of Tyre, may be supposed to have actually taken
it. On the first point it is to be observed, that, as
there were two sieges of Tyre contemporaneous
with events mentioned in the Old Testaraent,
namely, that by Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, in
the reign of Hezekiah, and the siege by Nebuchad
nezzar, king of the Chaldees, after the capture of
Jerusalem in 588 b. c, and as Isaiah was living
during the former siege, but must have been dead
considerably more than a hundred years at the tirae
of the latter siege, it is probable, without denying
predictive prophecy, that the prophecy relates to
the first siege, if it was written by Isaiah. As the
prophecy is in the coUection of writings entitled
" Isaiah," there would formerly not have been any
doubt that it was written by that prophet. But it
has been maintained by eminent Biblical critics
that many of the writings under the title of his
name were written at the time of the Babylonian
Captivity. This seems to be the least open to dis
pute in reference to the prophecies commencing
with " Comfort ye, comfort ye my people," in the
1st verse of the 40th chapter, concerning which the
following facts seem to the writer of the present
article to be weU estabhshed." (1.) These prophe
cies are dilFerent in style from the undisputed writ
ings of Isaiah. (2.) They do uot predict that the
Jews will be carried away into captivity at Babylon,
but they presuppose that the Jews are already in
captivity there at the time when the prophecies are
uttered; that Jerusalem is desolate, and that the
Temple is burnt (Is. Ixiv. 10, 11, xHv. 26, 28, xiv.
13, xlvii. 5, 6, Ui. 2, 9, U. 3, 11, 17-23). (3.) The
name of Cyrus, who conquered Babylon probably
at least a hundred ard fifty years after the death of

compare Seneca, Nat. QiuBst. vi. 1-11, Strabo, xv. p.
757, and Justin, xl. 2, 1.
a Doubts as to the authorship of these chapters
were first suggested by Ddderlein in 1781, in a review
of Koppe's translation of Lowth's Isaiah. Since 1781
their later date has been accepted by Eichhorn, Rosen
miiUer, De Wette, Gesenius, Winer, Ewald, Hitzig,
Knobel, Herzfeld, Bleek, Geiger, and Davidson, and
tty numerous other Hebrew scholars. The evidence
has been nowhere stated more clearly than by Gese-
DiuB in his Jesaia (part ii. pp. 18-35, IJeipzig, 1821).
[On the other hand, the writer of the article Isaiah

TYRE
Isaiah is mentioned in them twice (xliv. 28 dr.
1): and (4), there is no external contemporary evi*
dence between the time of Isaiah and the time (rf
Cyrus to prove that these prophecies were then in
existence. But, although in this way the evidence
of a later date is peculiarly cogent in reference to
the 40th and following chapters, there is also reason
able evidence of the later date of several other chap
ters, such, for example, as the 13th and 14th (on
which observe particularly the first four verses of
the 14Ui chapter) and chapters xxiv.-xxvii. Hence
there is no a priori difficulty in admitting that the
23d chapter, respecting T3Te, may likewise have
been wiitten at the time of the Chjddiean invasion.
Yet this is not to be assumed without somethin</
in the nature of probable proof, and the real point
is whether any such proof can be adduced on this
subject. Now although Hitzig (Der Prophet
Jesaja, Heidelberg, 1833, p. 272) undertakes to
show that there is a difference of language between
Isaiah^s genuine prophecies and tbe 23d chapter,
and although Ewald (Die Propheten des Alien
Bundes, vol. i. p. 238), who refers it to the sideof
Tyre by Shalraan^er, believes the 23d chapter, on
the grounds of style and language, to have been
written by a younger contemporary and scholar of
Isaiah, not by Isaiah himself, it is probable that
the majority of scholars will be mainly influenced
in their opinions as to the date of that chapter by
their view of the meaning of the 13th verse. In
the A. V. the beginning of the verse is translated
thus: "Behold the land of the Chaldfeans, this
people was not till the Assyrian founded it for them
that dwell in the wildemess " — and this haa been
supposed by some able commentators, such as Ro-
sennmller and Hitzig (ad loc), to imply that tbe
enemies with which the Tyrians were threatened
were the Chaldees under Nebuchadnezzar, and not
the Assyrians under Shalmaneser. If this is the
meaning, very few critics would now doubt that the
prophecy was composed in the time of Nebuchad-
nezz^*; and there is certainly something remarka
ble in a supposed mention of the Chaldees by such
an early writer as Isaiah, inasmuch as, with tbe
possible exceptions in the mention of Abraham and
Abraham's family as having belonged to " Ur of
the Chaldees " (Gen. xi. 28, 31, xv. 7), the men
tion of the Chaldees by Isaiah would be the earliest
in the Bible. The only other passage respecting
which a doubt might be raised is in the book of
Job (i. 17) — a work, however, which seems to the
author of this article to have been probably written
later than Isaiah.^ But the 13th verse of the
chapter attributed to Isaiah by uo means necessa
rily implies that the Chaldees under Nebuchidnez
zar were attacking Tyre, or were about to attack
it. Accepting the ordinary version, it would be
amply sufficient that Chaldees should be formidable
mercenaries in the Assyrian army. '¦''"*' '° *^^ '"-

This is the in-

in the present work maintains the unity of the book
— Ed.]
ft In the total absence of external evidence nothing
in favor of an earlier date can be adduced to outweigli
one circumstance long since noticed among numerous
others hj Gesenius ( Geschichte der Hebraisdim Sprathe
und Schrift), that the Aramaic plural ]'*yP occurs
twelve times in the book (iv. 2 ; xii. 11 ; xt- 18 i
xviii. 2 ; xxvi. 4 ; xxxii. 11, 14 ; xxxiii. 8, 32 ; xxxiv.
3 ; xxxv. 16 ; xxxviii. 2). [But there are strong »'
sons for assigning an earlier date to the book : *•
iJOB, ii. p. 1408ff. — Eb.1

TYEE
terpretation of Gesenius ( Commentar uber den Je
saia, ad loc), who goes still farther. Founding his
reasoning on the frequent mention by Xenophon of
Chaldees, as a bold, warUke, and predatory tribe in
the neighborhood of Armenia, and collecting scat
tered notices round this fundamental fact, he con
jectures that bands of them, having served either as
mercenaries or as volunteers in the Assyrian army,
had received lands for their permanent settlement
on the banks of the Euphrates not long before the
invasion of Shalmaneser (see Xenophon, Cyropced.
ill. 2, §§ 7, 12; Anai. iv 3, § 4, v. 5, § 9, vii. 8,
§ 14). So great is our ignorance of the Chaldees
previous to their mention in the Bible, that this
conjecture of Gesenius cannot be disproved. There
is not indeed sufBcient positive evidence for it to
justify its adoption by an historian of the Chaldees ;
but the possibihty of its being true should make us
hesitate to assume that the 13th verse is incompat
ible with the date ordinarily assigned to the proph
ecy in which it occurs. But, independently of
these cousiderations, the beginning of the 13th
verse is capable of a totally different translation
from that in the A. V. It may be translated thus :
" Behold the land of the Chaldees, the people is no
more, Assyria has given it [the land] to the dwell
ers ill the wilderness." This is partly in accord
ance with Ewald's translation, not following him
in the substitution of " Canaanites " (which he
deems the correct reading) for ¦' Chaldees " — and
then the passage might refer to an unsuccessful re
belhon of the Chaldees against Assyria, and to a
conseciuent desolation of the land of the Chaldees
by their victorious rulers. One point may be men
tioned in favor of this view, that the Tyriaus are
not warned to look at the Chaldees in the way that
Habakkuk threatens his contemporaries with the
faostihty of that " terrible and dreadful nation,"
but the Tyrians are warned to look at the bend of
the Chaldees. Here, again, we know so little of
the history of the Chaldees, that this interpretation,
likewise, cannot be disproved. And, on the whole,
as the burden of proof rests with any one who de
nies Isaiah to have beeu the author of the 23d chap
ter, as the 13th verse is a very obscure passage, and
as it cannot be proved incompatible with Isaiah's
authorship, it is permissible to acquiesce in the Jew
ish tradition on the subject.
2dly. The question of whether Tyre was actually
taken by Nebuchadnezzar after his thirteen years'
siege, has been keenly discussed, (jesenius, Winer,
and Hitzig decide it in the negative, while Heng
stenberg has argued most fully on the other side.
Without attempting to exhaust the subject, and
assuming, in accordance with Movers, that Tyre, as
well as the rest of Phoenicia, submitted at last to
Nebuchadnezzar, the following points may be ob
served respecting the supposed capture: (1.) The
evidence of Ezekiel, a contemporary, seems to be
against it. He says (xxix. 18) that " Nebuchad
nezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a
great service against Tyre ; " that " every head was
made bald, and every shoulder was peeled, yet had
he no wages, nor his army for Tyrus, for the service
that he served against it; " and the obvious infer
ence is that, however great the exertions of the
army may bave been in digging intrenchments or

TYKE

3389

a Hengstenberg (De Rebus Tyriorum, p. 75) says
that this silence of the Greek and Phoenician histo
rians proves too much, as there is no doubt that the
eity was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar. To this Hitzig

in casting up earthworks, the seige was uiisucoeas-
ful. This is confirmed by the following verses (19,
20), in which it is stated that the land of Egypt
will be given to Nebuchadnezzar as a compensation,
or wages, to him and his army for their having
served against Tyre. Movers, indeed, asserts that
the only meaning of the expression that Nebuchad
nezzar and his army had no wages for their service
against Tyre is, that they did not plunder the city.
But to it, virtuous commander the best reward of
besieging a city is to capture it; and It is a stran£;e
sentiraent to attribute to the Supreme Being, or to
a prophet, that a general and his array received no
wages for capturing a citj , because they did not
plunder it. (2.) Josephus, who had access to his
torical writings on this subject which have not
reached our tinies, although he quotes Phcenician
writers who show that Nebuchadnezzar besieged
Tyre (Ant. a. 11, § 1; c. Apion. 23), neither states
on his own authority, nor quotes any one else as
stating that Nebuchadnezzar took it. (3.) The
capture of Tyre on this occasion is not mentioned
by any Greek or Eoman author whose writings are
now in existence. (4.) In the tirae of Jerome it
was distinctly stated by some of his contemporaries
that they had read, amongst other histories on this
point, histories of Greeks and Phcenicians, and es
pecially of Nicolaus Damascenus, in which nothing
was said of the siege of Tyre by the Chaldees ;" aud
Jerome, in noticing this fact, does not quote any
authority of any kind for a counter-statement, but
contents himself with a general allegation that many
facts are related in the Scriptures which are not
found in Greek works, and that " we ought not to
acquiesce in the authority of those whose perfidy
and falsehood we detest '' (see Comment ad Eze-
chielem, xxvi. 7). On this view of the question
there would seem to be small reason for beheving
that the city was actually captured, were it not for
another passage of Jerome in his Commentaries on
the passage of Ezekiel aheady quoted (xxix. 18), in
which he explains that the meaning of Nebuchad
nezzar's having received no wages for his warfare
against Tyre is, not that he failed to take the city,
but that the Tyrians had previously removed every
thing precious from it in ships, so that when Neb
uchadnezzar entered the city he- found nothing
there. This interpretation has been adraitted by
one of the most distinguished critics of our own day
(Ewald, Die Propheien des Alten Bundes, ad loc),
who, deeming it probable that Jerome had obtained
the information frora some historian whose name is
not given, accepts as historical this account of the
termination of the siege. This account, therefore,
as far as inquirers of the present day are concerned,
rests solely on the authority of Jerome; and it thus
becomes important to ascertain the principles and
method which Jerome adopted in writing his Com
mentaries. It is peculiarly fortunate that Jerome
himself has left on record sorae valuable informa
tion on this point in a letter to Augustine, for the
understanding of which the following brief prehm-
inary explanation will be sufficient: In Jerome's
Comraentafies on the second chapter of the Epistle
to the Galatians, when adverting to the passage
(vv. 11-14) in which St. Paul states that he had
withstood Peter to the face, " because he was to be

replies, that the historians could only have omitted tfl
mention the siege, because the siege had net been foi
lowed by the capture of the city {Der Proj,liet Jesaja
p. 278J.

8340

TYKE

blamed " for requiriiig Christians to comply with
the observances of the Jewish ritual law, Jerome
denies that there was any real difference of opinion
between the two Apostles, asserts that they had
merely made a preconcerted arrangement of appar
ent difference, in order that those who approved of
circumcision might plead the example of Peter, and
that those who were unwilling to be circumcised
might extol the religious liberty of Paul. Jerome
then goes on to say that " the fact of simulation
being useful, and occasionally permissible, is taught
by the example of Jehu king of Israel, who never
would have been able to put the priests of Baal to
death unless he had feigned willingness to worship
an idol, saying, ' Ahab served Baal a little, but
Jehu shall serve him much.' " On this Augustine
strongly remonstrated with Jerome in two letters
which are marked 56 and 67 in Jerome's Corre
spondence. To these Jerome returned an answer
in a letter marked 112, in which he repudiates the
idea that he is to be held responsible for all that is
contained in his Commentaries, and then frankly
confesses how he composed them. Begimiing with
Origen, he enumerates several writers whose Com
mentaries he had read, specifying amongst others,
Laodicenus, who had lately left the Church, and
Alexander, an old heretic. He then avows that
having read them all he sent for an amanuensis, to
whom he dictated sometimes his own remarks,
sometimes those of others, without paying strict at
tention either to the order or the words, and some
times not even to the meaning. " Itaque ut sini-
pliciter fatear, legi hsec omnia, et iu mente mea
plurima coacervans, accito notario, vel mea, vel
aliena dictavi, nee ordinis, nee verborum, interdum
nee sensuum memor " (see Migne's Edition of Je
rome, vol. i. p. 918). Now if the bearing of the
remarks concerning simulation for a pious purpose,
and of the method which Jerome followed in the
composition of his Commentaries is seriously con
sidered, it cannot but throw doubt on his uncorrob
orated statements in any case wherein a religious or
theological interest raay have appeared to hiui to
be at stake.
Jerome was a very learned man, perhaps the
most learned of all the Fathers. He was also one
of the very few among them who made themselves
acquainted with tlie Hebrew language, and in this,
as well as in other points, he deserves gratitude for
the services which he bas rendered to Bibhcal liter
ature. He is, moreover, a valuable witness to facts,
when he can be suspected of no bias concerning
them, and especially when they seem contrary to
his religious prepossessions. But it is evident, from
the passages in his writings above quoted, tbat he
had not a critical mind, and that he can scarcely
be regarded as one of those faoble spirits who prefer
truth to supposed pious ends which may be attained
by its violation. Hence, contrary to the most nat
ural nieaning of the prophet Ezekiel's words (xxix.
18), it would be unsafe to rely on Jerome's sole
authority for the statement that Nebuchadnezzar
and his array eventually captured Tyre.
L'tteriiiure. — For information on thig head, see
Phcekici-vns, vol. iii. p. 2522. In addition to the
works there mentioned, see Robinson's Bihl. Res.
ii. 461-471; Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, 264-
268; Porter's Haiidbook for Syria and Palestine,

TYRE
pp. 390-396; Hengstenberg, De Rebus Tyriorum,
Berlin, 1832; and Ritter's Erdkunde, vol. xvii. Igt
part, 3d book, pp. 320-379. Professor RobhiBon,
in addition to his instructive history of Tyre, hag
published, in the Appendix to his third volume,
detailed list, which is useful for the knowledge of
Tyre, of works by authors who had themselves
travelled or resided in Palestine. See likewise an
excellent account of Tyre by Gesenius iu his Jesaia,
i. 707-719, and by Winer, s. v., in his BM. Real.
wort. [Tykians; Tykds.] E. T.

Coin of Tyre.

* In 2 Sam. v. 11, and 1 Chr. jdv. 1, we are
told that Hiram king of Tyre sent cedar wood, and
carpenters, and masons to David, to build him a
palace; and, subsequently, that he sent materials
and workmen to Solomon to build the Temple
(1 K. V. 10; 2 Chr. ii. 14, 16). A striking con
firmation of this amity between Hiram and the
Hebrew kings has lately been brought to light.
Certain writings or uarks have been found on the
bottoni rows of the wall at the southeast angle ot
the Haram area, near where the ancient Temple
must have stood, at the depth of about 90 feet,
where the foundations lie on the limerock itself.
Mr. E. Deutsch, of the British Museum, who has
examined these stones on the ground, decides (1)
that these signs were cut or painted on the stones
when they were laid in their present places; (2) that
they do not represent any inscription; and (3) that
that they are certainly Phoenician. That they are
Phoenician marks is beyond question, because they
agree with those found on primitive substructions
in the harbor of Sidon. It is certainly remarkable
that Phcenician letters or etchings should be found
on these stones at Jerusalem, thus suddenly brought
to light; and the best explanation of the fact is
that they were placed there by the Tyrian archi
tects whom Hiram sent to Jerusalem to assist in
the erection of the Temple." The precise value of
the characters is not yet deterrained, but no doubt
they were designed to guide the workmen ui placing
the stones in their proper position, or in cutting
and shaping them so as to have them properly ad
justed to "each other (See Quart. Stalem. of Pal.
Explor. Fund, No. ii. 1869).
The N. T. references to Tyre are few, but lnte^
esting. The Saviour performed some of his mirar
cles in the vicinity (Matt. xv. 21; Mark vn. 24).
The Saviour's apostrophe to Chorazin and Beth-
saida represents the inhabitants of these cities as
more wicked than those of I'yre and Sidon, on ac
count of the misuse of opportmiities which Uie
latter did not enjoy (Matt. xi. 20; !'"''« '''"^
The disciples who went to Phoenice after the deatn
of Stephen undoubtedly made known the (.ospei
there (Acts xi. 19). Paul, on his last jouniey tc

a * We state the point in this manner becawe
there is room for the que.'^tion, whether the Uebre^^tf
had a distinct written character thus early and mu>

not have utied at that period one common w them
selves and the Phoemcians and other ki-adred in"»

TYRIANS
lerusalem, went on shore at Tyre and sought out
{aveipovTes) the disciples in that city. The proph-
3ts there attempted, in vain, to dissuade him from
yoing up to Jerusalem. The touching scene of
the farewell on the beach (Acts xxi. 5) forms a
memorable passage in ' Paul's history. Luke de
scribes the occurrence with autoptic precision. His
word aiyia\6s (a smooth shore, — cf. Acts xxvii.
39, as distinguished from one rocky, precipitous, —
on which they kneeled down), is the proper one for
the level, sandy beach on both the northern and
BOuthern sides of Tyre. Paul's company reem-
barked at this point, and sailed thence to Ptolemais
where they finished the voyage (Acts xxi. 7). H.
* TYR'IANS (Tiptot: Tyrii), inhabitants of
I'yre, Ecclus. xlvi. 18. The Heb. ''"ik, C'l'S,
LXX. Tiipios, Tipioi, variously rendered " of Tyre,"
"men of Tyre," and " they of Tyre " or " Tyrus,"
also occur 1 K. vii. 14 ; 1 Chr. xxii. 4 ; 2 Chr. ii.
14; Ezr. iii. 7; Neh. xiii. 16; 1 Esdr. v. 55; 2
Mace. iv. 49. [Tyre.] A.
* TYROPCB'ON, THB (^ rav Tvpoiroiav
ipipay^ = the Valley of ihe Cheesemongers). This
valley was an iraportant feature in the ancient to
pography of Jerusalem, running from the plateau
on the north to the fountain of Siloam, dividing
the southern part of the city into two high and
steep ridges, making it a double promontory. .Al
though immense quantities of rubbish had accumu
lated in it, almost filling its upper part. Professor
Robinson was able to point out its general course.
His theory, demanded by the specifications of ,/ose-
phus, th.ati it curved around the northern brow of
the southwest hill, was warmly disputed by some
writers; but subsequent investigations have estab-
.'ished its correctness. It has long been known
that the most interesting part of Jerusalem was
subterranean, and some of Capt. Warren's most
valuable recent explorations have been in this valley
He has sunk shafts in it to depths of between 50
and 80 feet, going down to its rocky bed, in which
he found drains and reservoirs cut, and tracing the
foundations of the west Haram wall for several
hundred feet. Opposite Robinson's Arch, on the
other side of the valley, he found the other pier of
the massive bridge which once spanned it, leading
from the Temple to the upper city ; and sixty feet
below the present surface he found some of the
ruins of the bridge itself. Further north he dis
covered the ruins of another similar bridge, built
later, as he thinks, and, also, an ancient gateway
in the westtt-n Haram waE — all now covered with
'• the debris of thousands of years." S. W.
TY'RUS [-112, 12 : Tipos, exc. Ez. xxvi.
xxvii., 2,(p, 2 Mace. iv. 49, Tupioi: Tyrus, Tyrii]
This form is employed in the A. V. of the books
of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea (Joel has "Tyre"),
Amos, Zechariah, 2 Esdras, Judith, and the Macca^
bees, aa follows: Jer. xxv. 22, xxvii. 3, xlvii. 4;
Ez. xxvi. 2, 3, 4, 7. 15, xxvii. 2, 3, 8, 32, xxviii. 2,
12, ixix. 18; Hos. ix. 13; Am. i. 9, 10; Zech. ix.
i,S; 2 Esdr. i. 11; Jud. ii. 28: 1 Mace. v. 15; 2
Mace. iv. 18, 32, 44, 49.
* TY'RTJS, THB LADDER OF (i, xKl/n^
Tvpov; Joseph. Khifia^TuplaV. termini Tyri), 1
Mace. xi. 59, is described by Josephus (B. J. ii.
10, § 2) as a high mountain on the coast of Pales-

UCAL

3341

a • Stanley suggests (S. ^ P. p. 266, note) that
»oth this promontory and the Ris el-Abyad, or White

tine, 100 stadia north of Ptolemais (Accho, Acre,
Akka). It is the modern Ras en-NoMrah, a
bluff promontory, about half-way between Ptole
mais and Tyre, forming the northern limit of the
Plain of Acre, as Carmel is the southern, but, as
Dean Stanley remarks (S. cf P. p. 264, 3d ed.), it
" differs from Carmel in that it leaves no beach be
tween itself and the sea, and thus, by cutting off all
comraunication round its base, acts as the natural
barrier between the bay of Acre and the maritime
plain to the north — in other words, between Pal
estine and Phcenieia." " See also Kitter, Erdk.
xvi. 809, 813,815; Rob. Phys. Geog. p. 21; Neu-
bauer, Geog. du Talmud, p. 39. A.
* TZADDI, one of the Hebrew letters.
[Weitihg.] H.
u.
U'CAL (^5^) and in some copies 73S [see
below] ). According to the received text of Prov.
xxx. 1, Ithiel and Ucal must be regarded as proper
names, and if so, they must be the names of disci
ples or sons of Agur the son of Jakeh, an unknown
sage among the Hebrews. But there is great ob
scurity about the passage. The LXX. translate
rois TTiffrevovtri Oet^ Kal travopai: the Vulgate,
cum quo est Deus, et qui Deo secum moranie con-
fortatus. The Arabic follows the LXX. to some
extent ; the Targum reproduces Ithiel and Ucal as
proper nanies, and the Syriac is corrupt, Ucal be
ing omitted altogether. Luther represents the
names as Leilhiel and Uchiil. De Wette regards
them as proper nanies, as do most translators and
commentators. Junius explains both as referring
to Christ. The LXX. probably read ''J^lOSb.
b^NlbS. The "Veneto-Greek has Ka\ <ruvl)iTo-
iUai^)^3N'), Cocceius must have pointed the
words thus, V?!^! 7S ''n"'Nb, " I have labored
for God and have obtained," and this, with regard
to the first two words must have been the reading
of J. D. Michaelis, who renders, " I have wearied
myself for God, and have given up the investiga
tion," applying the words to a man who had be
wildered himself with philosophical speculations
about the Deity, and had been compelled to give
up the'search. Bertheau also (Die Spriiche Sal.
Einl. xvii. ) sees iu the words, " I have wearied my
self for God, I have wearied myself for God, and
have fainted " ( vpSI), an appropriate comraence
ment to the series of proverbs which follow. Hit
zig's view is substantially the same, except that he
points the last word v3N1 and renders, " and I
became dull;" applying it to the dimness which
the investigation produced upon the eye of the
mind (Die Spr. Sal. p. 316). Bunsen (Bibelwerk,
i. p. clxxx.) follows Bertheau's punctuation, but
regards 7N Tl^S / on its first occurrence as a
symbohcal name of tihe speaker. " The saying ol
the man ' I-have-wearied-myself-for-God; ' I have
wearied myself for God, and have fainted away."
There is, however, one fatal objection to this view,
if there were no others, and that is, that the verb
nNv, " to be wearied," nowhere takes after it tha

Cape, are comprised mider the name of " Scala Tyrio
rum. A

3342

UEL

Kcusative of the object of weariness. On this ac
count alone, therefore, we must reject aU the above
explanations. If Bertheau's pointing be adopted,
the only legitimate translation of the words is that
given by Dr. Davidson (Introd. ii. 338), "I am
weary, 0 God, I am weary, 0 God, and am become
weak." Ewald considers both Ithiel and Ucal as
symbolical names, employed by the poet to desig
nate two classes of thinkers to whom he addresses
himself, or rather he combines both nanies in one,
•' God-with-nie-and-I-am-strong," and bestows it
upon an imaginary character, whom he introduces
to take part in the dialogue. The name ' God-with-
me,' says Keil (Havernick, Eird. iii. 412), " de
notes such as gloried in a more intimate communion
with God, and a higher insight and wisdom ob
tained thereby," while '' I-am-strong " indicates
" the so-called strong spirits who boast of their
wisdom and might, and deny the holy God, so
that both names most probably represent a class of
freethinkers, who thought themselves superior to
the revealed law, and in practical atheism indulged
the lusts of the flesh." It is to be wished that in
this case, as in many others, commentators had
observed the precept of the Talmud, " Teach thy
tongue to say, ' I do not know.' " ' W. A. W.
U'EL (bS^lS [wiU of God, Ges.] : Oi^A; [Vat.
0ut;\, and so FA., joined with preceding word:]
Uel). One of the family of Bani, who during the
Captivity had married a foreign wife (Ezr. x. 34).
CaUed J UEL in 1 Esdr. ix. 34.
U'KNAZ (T3|7t [prob. chase, hunting'] : Keyef :
Cenez). In the margin of 1 Chr. iv. 15 the words
" even Kenaa " in the text are rendered " Uknaz,"
as a proper name. Apparently some name has
been omitted before Kenaz, for the clause begins
*' and the sons of Elah," and then only Kenaz is
given. Both the LXX. and Vulg. omit the con
junction. In the Peshito-Syriac, which is evidently
corrupt, Kenaz is the, third son of Caleb the son of
Jephunneh. [He may have been at least a de
scendant of Caleb's, according to 1 Chr. iv. 15.]
tJ'LAI [2 syl.] CblN [Pehlvi, pure waier,
Furst]: [Theodot.] 06;8i{A. ; [LXX. OuAai:] Ukti)
is mentioned by Daniel (viii. 2, 16) as a river near
to Susa, where he saw his vision of the ram and
the he-goat. It has been generally identified with
the Eulaeus of the Greek and Roman geographers
(Marc. Heracl. p. 18; Arr. Exp. Al. vii. 7; Strab.
IV. 3, § 22; Ptol. vi. 3; PUny, H. N. vi. 31), a
large stream in the immediate neighborhood of
that city. This identification may be safely allowed,
resting as it does on the double ground of close
verbal resemblance in the two names, and complete
agreement as to the situation.
Can we, then, identify the Eulseus with any
existing stream ? Not without opening a contro
versy, since there is no point more disputed among
comparative geographers. The Eulseus has been
by many identified with the Choaspes, which is
undoubtedly the moderu Kerkhah, an affluent of
the Tigris, flowing into it a little below Kurnah.
By others it has been regarded as the Kuran, a
Uffge river, considerably further to the eastward,
ivhich enters the Khm' Bamishir near Mohamme-
rah. Some have even suggested that it may have
been the Shapur or Sha*ur, a small stream which
rises a few mites N. W. of Susa, and flows by the
mina into the Dizful stream, «u affluent of the
Kuran.

ULAI
The general grounds on which the Eulsus har
been identified vrith the Choaspes, and so with tha
Kerkhah (Salmasius, Rosenmiiller, Wahl, Kitto
etc. ) are, the mention of each separately by ancient
writers as "the river of Susa," and (more espe
ciaUy) the statements made by some (Strabo, Plin.)
that the water of the Eulseus, by others (Herod.
Athen., Plut., Q. Curtius) that that of the Cho^
aspes was the only water tasted by the Persian
kings. Against the identification it raust be no
ticed that Strabo, Pliny, Solinus, and Polyclitus
(ap. Strab. xv. 3, § 4) regard the rivers as distinct,
and that the lower course of the Eulffius, as de
scribed by Arrian (Exp. Al. vii. 7) and Pliny (H.
N. vi. 26), is such as cinnot possibly be reconciled
with that of the Kerkhah river.
The grounds for regarding the Eulseus as the
Kuran are decidedly stronger than those for iden
tifying it with the Kerkhtih or Choaspes. No one
can compare the voyage of Nearchus in Arrian's
Jndica with Arrian's own account of Alexander's
descent of the Eulaeus <vii. 7) without seemg that
the Eulaeus of the one narrative is the Pasitigris
of the other; and that the Pasitigris is the Kumn
is almost universally admitted. Indeed, it may be
said that aU accounts of the lower Eulseus — those
of Arrian, Pliny, Polyclitus, and Ptolemy — iden
tify it, beyond the possibility of mistake, with the
lower Kuran, and that so far there ought to he no
controversy. The difficulty is with respect to the
upper Eulseus. The Eulaeus, accordmg to Plmy,
surrounded the citadel of Susa (vi. 27), whereas
even the Dizful branch of the Kuran does not
come within six miles of the ruins. It lay to the
west, not only of the Pasitigris (Kuran), but also
of the Coprates (river of Dizful), according tc
Diodorus (xix. 18, 19). So far, it might be the
Shapur, but for two objections. The Shapur is
too smaU a stream to have attracted the general
notice of geographers, and its water is of so bad a
character that it can never have been chosen for the
royal table (Geograph. Journ. ix. 70). There is
also an important notice in Pliny entirely incom
patible with the notion that the short stream of the
Shapur, which rises in the plain about five miles
to tbe N. N. W. of Susa, can be the true Eulffius.
Pliny says (vi. 31) the Eulseus rose in Media, and
flowed through Mesobatene. Now this is exactly
true of the upper Kerkhah, which rises near ^flin-
adan (Ecbatana), and flows down the district of
Mahsabadan (Mesobatene).
. The result is that the various notices of ancient
writers appear to identify the upper Eulseus with
the upper Kerkhah, and the lower Euleeus (quite
unmistakably) with the lower Kuran. Does ttiis
apparent confusion and contradiction admit of ex
planation and reconcilement?
A i-ecent survey of the ground has suggested a
satisfactory explanation. It appears that the Ker
khah once bifurcated at Pai Pul, about 20 miles
N. W. of Susa, sending out a branch which passed
east of tbe ruins, absorbing into it the Shapur, and
flowing on across the plain in a S. S. E. direction
till it feU into the Kuran at Ahwaz (l.oftus,' Chal
dcea and Susiana, pp. 424, 425). Thus, the upper
Kerkhah and the lower Kuran were in old tunes
united, and might be viewed as forming a single
stream. The name Eulaeus ( Ulai) seems to have
applied most properly to the eastern branch stream
from Pai Pul to Ahwaz ; the stream above Pai
Pul was sometimes called the Euloeus, hut waa
more properly the Choaspes, which was also th«

ULAM
iole name of the western branch (or present course)
of the Kerkhah from Pai Pul to the Tigris. The
name Pasitigris was proper to the upper Kuran
from its source to its junction with the Eulspus,
after which the two names were equally applied to
the lower river. The Dizful stream, which was
not very generaUy known, was called the Coprates.
It is believed that this view of the river names will
reconcile and make inteUigible aU the notices of
them contained in the ancient wi-iters.
It follows from this that the water which the
Persian kings drank, both at the court, and when
they travelled abroad, was that of the Kerkhah,
taken probably from the eastern branch, or proper
Euleeus, which washed the walls of Susa, and (ac
cording to Pliny) was used to strengthen its de
fenses. This water was, and stUl is, believed to
possess peculiar lightness (Strab. xv. 3, § 22; 6'eo-
graph. Journ. ix. 70), and is thought to be at
Quce more wholesome and more pleasant to the
taste than almost any other. (Ou the controversy
concerning this stream the reader may consult Kin-
neir, Persian Empire, pp. 100-106 ; Sir H. Raw
linson,, in Geograph. Journ. ix. 84—93; Layard,
in the same, xvi. 91-94; and Loftus, Chaldcea and
Susiana, pp. 424-431.) G. R.
¦U'LAM (lj^^IS [porch, vestiiule]: OuAcC/ii:
Ulam). 1. A descendant of Gilead the grandson
of Manasseh, and father of Bedan (1 Chr. vu. 17).
2. (Ai\dn; [Vat. in ver. 40, Ai\eip;] Alex.
Ou\a;u. ) The first-born of Eshek, the brother of
Azel, a descendant of the house of Saul. His sons
were among the famous archers of Benjamin, and
with their sons and grandsons made np the goodly
famUy of 150 (1 Chr. viii. 39, 40).
UL'LA (WVy [yoke]: '0\d; Alex, nxo:
Olla). An Asherite, head of a family in his tribe,
a mighty man of valor, but how descended does
not appear (1 Chr. vii. 39). Perhaps, as Junius
suggests, he may be a son of Ithran or Jether ; and

UNCLEAN MEATS

3343

a This looks at first sight like a misplacement of
the name Rechob from its proper position farther on
in the verse. Rechob, however, is usually "Pad^.
6 Lev. xi. 29-30 forbids eating the weasel, the
mouse, the tortoise, the ferret, the chameleon, the
lizard, the snail, and the mole. The LXX. has, in
place of the tortoise, the KpoKoSetko^ 6 xepa-aXoi , and
Instead of the snail (put before the lizard, vo.vpa)t the
c in the LXX. of Lev. xi. 14, two birds only are
mentioned, tov yvira. xaX tov lktivov, and in the par
allel passage of Deut. xiv. 13 the same two ; but in
the Qeb. of the latter passage only our present text
has three birds' names. It is therefore probable that
one of these, HMn, rendered " glede " by the A. V.,
Is a mere corruption of nS"^, found both in Beut.
and in Lev., for whioh the LXX. gives yui/f. and the
Vulgate Milvius. So Maimon. took it (Bochart,
Hieroz. ii. 33, 353). Thus we have twenty birds
named as unclean, alike in the Heb. and in tbe LXX.
of Lev. xi. 13-19, and of many of these the identifica^
tion is very doubtful. Bochart says (p. 354), " nom-
ina avium immandarum recenset Maimon., interpre-
iarl ne conatus quidem est. In the Heb. of Deut.
xiv. we have, allowing for the probable corruption of
one namSj the same twenty, but in the LXX. only
aineteeu ; "every raven after his kind " {iravra. Kopaxa
Kou rd. 5/ioia avTcS), of Lev. being omitted, and the
other names, although the same as those of Lev., yet
Having a different order and grouping after the first

we may further conjecture that his name may be a
corruption of Ara.
UM'MAH (n^J? [gathenngy. [Uom.^Ap-
X^&'y ^at.] Apxw;8;" [Alex.] Afipa- Amma).
One of the cities of the allotment of AJsher (Josh.
xix. 30 only). It occurs in company with Aphek
and Rehob ; but as neither of these have been iden
tified, no clew to the situation of Ummah is gained
thereby. Dr. Thomson (Bibl. Saci-a, 1855, p.
822, quoted by Van de Velde) was shown a place
called ^ Alma iu the highlands on the coast, about
five miles N. N. E. of Ras en-NakhHra, which is
not dissimilar in name, and which he conjectures
may be identical with Ummah. Bi^t it is quite
uncertain. ^Alma is described in Land and Book,
chap. XX. G.
* UNCIRCUMCISION. [Concision;
CiRCUMCISIOM.] UNCLEAN MEATS. These were thinga
strangled, or dead of themselves, or through beasts
or birds of prey ; whatever beast did not both part
the hoof and chew the cud; and certain other
smaller animals rated as " creepmg things"*
(V^.^) ; certain classes of birds ^ mentioned in
Lev. xi. and Deut. xiv. twenty or twenty-one in
all; whatever in the waters had not both fins and
scales; whatever winged insect had not besides four
legs the two hind-legs for leaping; d besides thinga
offered in sacrifice to idols; aud all blood or what
ever contained it (save perhaps tbe blood of fish, as
would appear from that only of beast and bird beiug
forbidden, Lev. vil. 26), and therefore flesh cut
from the hve animal; as also all fat, at any i-ate
that disposed in masses among the intestines, and
probably wherever discernible and separable among
the flesh (Lev. iii. 14^17, vii. 23). The eating of
blood was prohibited even to " the stranger that
sojourneth among you " (Lev. xvii. 10, 12, 13, 14),
an extension which we do not trace in other dietary
precepts; e. g. the thing which died of itself was

eight. Thus Lev. xi. 17, consists of the three, koI
irvKTiKopoKa, Kai KarapaKTYji/, ical ij3ii' ; whereas Deut.
xiv. 16, which should correspond, contains Kat
€pbi8Lov,KiiiKVKvou,Kcu.LpLv. Also the cTTOi/', " hoopoe,"
and the jropftvpt'tor, " coot," figure in both the LXX.
lists, d Jn Lev. xi. 21 the Keri has l^'^ltyS, against
the Hb*"nt!l?W of the Cethib. It is best to adopt the
former and view the last part of the verse as consti
tuting a class that may be eaten from among a larger
doubtful class of " flying creeping-things," the difftr-
entia consisting in their having four feet, and a pair
of hind-legs to spring with. The A. V. is here ob
scure. " All fowls that creep," and " every flying
creeping thing," standing in Lev xi. 20, 21 liOr pre
cisely the same Heb. phrase, rendered by tbe T.YY
Ta epirera riv TreTeivur ; and " legs above their feet
to leap," not showing that the distinct larger spring
ing legs of the locust or cicada are meant ; where the
Heb. ^3?SD, and LXX. aviitTEpov seem to express
the upward projection of these legs above the crea
ture's back. So Bochart takes it (p. 452), who also
prefers 1^ in the reading above given; "ita enim
Hebrsei omnes ; " aua so, he adds, the Samar. Pent.
He states that locusts are salted for food in Egypt
(iv; 7, 491, 492 ; comp. Hasselquist, 231-233). The
edible class is enumerated in four species No precept
is found in Dent, relating to these.

3344

UNCLEAN MEATS

to be given "unto the stranger that is in thy
gates '* (Deut. xix. 21). As regards blood, the pro
hibition indeed dates from the declaration to Noah
against " flesh with the life thereof which is the
blood thereof," in Gen. ix. 4, which was perhaps
regarded by Moses as still binding upon all Noah's
descendants. The grounds, however, on which the
similar precept of the Apostohc Council, hi Acts
XV. 20, 21, appears based, relate not to any obliga
tion resting still unbroken on tbe Gentile world,
but to the risk of promiscuous offense to the Jews
and Jewish Christians, "/b?- Moses of old time
hath in every city them that preach him." Hence
this abstinence is reckoned amongst " necessary
things" (ret indvayKes), and "things offered to
idols," although not solely, it may be presumed, on
the same grounds, are placed in the same class with
"blood and things strangled" (airex^o'Bai elSwXo-
&\}Twv Kai. a'lfiaros Kal irvtKTov, vv. 28, 29). Be
sides these, we find the prohibition twice recurring
against " seething a kid in its mother's milk." It
is added, as a final injunction to the code of dietary
precepts in Deut. xiv., after the crowning declara^
tion of ver. 21, "ybr thou art an holy people unto
the Lord thy God; " but in Ex. xxiii. 19, xxxiv.
26, the context relates to the bringing first-fruits to
the altar, and to the *' Angel" who was to "go
before " the people. To this precept we shall have
occasion further to return.
The general distinction of clean and unclean is
rightly observed by Michaelis (Smith's Translation,
Art. ceil, etc.) to have its parallel amongst all
nations, there being universally certain creatures
regarded as clean, i. e. fit for food, and the rest as
the opposite (comp. Lev. xi. 47). With the greater
number of nations, however, this is only a tradi
tional usage based merely perhaps either on an in
stinct relating to health, or on a repugnance which
is to be regarded as an ultimate fact in itself, and
of which no further account is to be given. Thus
Michaelis (as above) remarks that in a certain part
of Germany rabbits are viewed as unclean, i. e. are
advisedly excluded from diet. Our feelings as re
gards the frog and the snail, contrasted with those
of continentals, supply another close parallel. Now,
it is not unhkely that nothing more than this is
Intended in the distinction between " clean " and
" unclean " in the directions given to Noah. The
intention seems to have been tbat creatures recog
nized, on whatever ground, as unfit for human food,
should not be preserved in so large a proportion as
those whose number might be diminished by that
consumption. The dietary code of the Egyptians,
and the traditions which have descended amongst
the Arabs, unfortified, certainly down to the time of
Mohammed, and in some cases later, by any legis
lation whatever, so far as we know, may illustrate
the probable state of the Israelites. If the Law
seized tipon such habits as were current among the
people, perhaps enlarging their scope and range, the
whole scheme of tradition, instinct, and usage so
enlarged might become a ceremonial barrier, having
a relation at once to the theocratic idea, to the
general health of the people, and to their separate-
ness as a nation.
The same personal interest taken by Jehovah in
hia subjects, which is expressed by the demand for
& ceremonially pure state on the part of every
taraehte as in covenant with Him, regarded also

a The camel, it may be observed, is the creature
must near the line Df separation, for the foot is par-

UNCLEAN MEATS
this particular detail of that piuity, namely, diet.
Thus the prophet (Is. Ixvi. 17), speaking in Hi*
name, denounces those that " sanctify theuiselven
(consecrate themselves to idolatry), eating swine's
flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse," and
those " which remain among the graves and lodge
in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and
broth of abomuiable things is in their vessels"
(Ixv. 4). It remained for a higher Lawgiver to
announce that " there is nothing firom without a
man that entering into him can defile him " (Mark
vii. 15). The fat was claimed as a bunit-offering
and the blood enjoyed the highest sacrificial esteem.
In the two combined the entire victim was^ by rep
resentation offered, and to transfer either to human
use was to deal presumptuously with the most holy
things. But, besides this, the blood was esteemed
as " the life " of the creature, and a mysterious
sanctity beyond the sacrificial relation thereby
attached to it. Hence we read, "whatsoever soul
it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that
soul shall be cut off from his people " (Lev. vii. 27,
comp. xvii. 10, 14). Whereas the offender in other
dietary respects was merely " unclean until even "
(xL 40, xvii. 15).
Blood was cei-tainly drunk in certain heathen
rituals, especially those which related to the solem
nization of a covenant, but also as a pledge of idol
atrous worship (Ps. xvi. 4; Kz. xxxiii. 25). Still
there is no reason to think that blood Jias ever been
a common article of food, and any lawgi\er might
probably reckon on a natural aversion etlectually
fortifying his prohibition hi this respect, unless
under sonic bewildering influence of superstition.
Whether animal qualities, grosser appetites, and
inhuman tendencies might be supposed by the He
brews transmitted into the partaker of the Wood
of animals, we have nothuig to show: see, however,
Josephus, Ant. iii. 11, § 2.
It is noteworthy that tbe practical effect of the
rule laid down is to exclude all the cai'nivo^'a
fimoiig quadrupeds, and, so far as we can interpret
the nomenclature, the rapiores among liirds. Thia
suggests the question whether they were excluded
as being not averse to human carcases, and in moat
eastern countries acting as the servitors of the
battle-field and the gibbet. Even swine have been
known so to feed ; and, further, by their constant
ruucation among whatever Hes on tbe ground, sug
gest impurity, even if they were not generally foul
feeders. Amongst fish those which were aljowed
contain unquestionably the most wholesome varie
ties, save that they exclude the oyster. Probably,
however, sea^fishing was little practiced by the
Israehtes; and the Levitical rules must be under
stood as referring backwards to their experience of
the produce of the Nile, and forwards to their
enjoyment of the Jordan and its upper lakes.
The exclusion of the camel and the hare from
allowable meats is less easy to account for, save
that the former never was in common use, and is
generally spoken of in reference to the semi-bar
barous desert tribes on tbe eastern or southern
border land, some .of whom certainly had no^ hi-
superable repugnance to his flesh ;« although it ia
so impossible to substitute any other creature foi
the camel aa the " ship of the desert," that to eat
him, especially where so many other creatures give
meat ao much preferable, would be the worst econ*

tially cloven but incompletely po. and he b ftl''*
rumiuant.

UNCLEAN MEATS
dmy possible in an eastern commissariat — that of
destroying the best, or rather the only conveyance,
in order to obtain the most indifferent food. The
hare** was long supposed, even by eminent natural
ists,'' to ruminate, and certainly was eaten by the
Egyptians. The horse and ass would be generally
spared, firom similar reasons to those which ex
empted the camel. As regards other cattle, the
young malra would be those universally preferred
for food, no more of that sex reaching maturity
than were needful for breeding, whilst the supply
of milk suggested the copious preservation of the
female. The duties of draught would require
another rule in rearing neat-cattle. The laboring
steer, man's fellow in the field, had a life somewhat
ennobled and sanctified by that comradeship. Thus
it seems to have been quite unusual to slay for
sacrifice or food, as in 1 K. xix. 21, the ox accus
tomed to the yoke. And perhaps in this case, as
being tougher, the flesh was not roasted but boiled.
The case of Araunah*s oxen is not similar, as cat
tle of all ages were useful in the threshing-floor
(2 Sam. xxiv. 22). Many of these restrictions must
be esteemed as merely based on usage, or arbitrary.
Practically the law left among the allowed meats
an ample variety, and no inconvenience was likely
to arise from a prohibition to eat camels, horses,
and asses. Swuje, hares, etc., would probably as
nearly as possible be exterminated in proportion as
the ^w was observed, and their economic room
filled by other creatures. Wunderbar (Blblisch-
Talm. Medicin, part ii. p. 50) refers to a notion
that " the animal element might only with great
circumspection and discretion be taken up into the
life of man, in order to avoid debasing that human
life by assimilation to a brutal level, so that thereby
the soul might become degraded, profaned, filled
with animal affections, and disqualified for drawing
near to God." He thinks also that we may notice
a meaning in "the distinction between creatures
of a higher, nobler, and less intensely animal or
ganization as clean, and those of" a lower and in
complete organization as unclean," and that the
insects provided with four legs and two others for
leaping are of a higher or more complete type than
others, and relatively nearer to man. This seems
^nciful, but may nevertheless have been a view
current among Rabbinical authorities. As regards
birds, the raptores have commonly tough and in
digestible flesh, and some of them are in all warm
countries the natural scavengei-s of all sorts of
carrion and offal. This alone begets an instinctive
repugnance towards them, and associates them
with what was beforehand a defilement. Thus to
kill them for food would tend to multiply various
sources of uncleanness.*^ Porphyry (Absiin. iv.

UNCLEAN MEATS

8345

a The "]Dt!?, "coney," A. V., Lev. xi. B; Deut.
xiv. 7 ; Pb. civ. 18 ; Prof. xxx. 26, is probably the
jerboa. f> See a correspondence on the question in The
Standard and most other London newspapers, April
2d, 1863.
c Bochart (Hieroz. it 33, 355, 1. 43) mentioos vari
ous symbolical meanings as conveyed by the precepts
regarding bh:ds : " Avea rapaces prohibuit ut a rapiua
averteret, nocturnas, ut abjicerent opera tenebrarum
et se proderent lucis filios, lacustres et riparias, qua-
rtun victus est impurissimus, ut ab omni immunditia
%)S arceret. Struthionem denique, qui a terra non
ittollitur, ut terrenis relictis ad ea tenderent quae sur-
mm aunt. Qu£e interpretatio non nostra est sed vete-
iim." He refers to Barnabat, Epist. x. ; Clemens

7, quoted by Winer) says that the Egyptian priests
abstained from all fish, from all quadrupeds witb
sohd hoofs, or having claws, or which were not
homed, and from all carnivorous birds. Other
curious parallels have been found amongst more
distant nations. <2
But aa Orientals have minds sensitive to teach
ing by types, there can be little doubt that such
ceremonial distinctions not only tended to keep
Jew and Gentile apart, but were a perpetual re
minder to the former that he and the latter were
not on one level before God. Hence, when that
economy was changed, we find that this was the
very symbol selected to instruct St. Peter in the
truth that Grod was not a "respecter of persons.'*
The vessel filled with " fourfooted beasts of the
earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and
fowls of the air," was expressive of the Gentile
world, to be put now on a level with the Israelite,
through God's "purifying their hearts by faith."
A sense of this their prerogative, however dimly
held, may have fortified the members of the priv
ileged nation in their struggle with the persecu
tions of the Gentiles on this very point. It was
no mere question of which among several means
of supporting life a man chose to adopt, when the
persecutor dictated the alternative of swine's flesh
or the loss of life itself, but whether he should
surrender the badge and type of that privilege by
which Israel stood as the favored nation before
God (1 Mace. i. 63, 64; 2 Mace. vi. 18, vii. 1).
The same feeling led to the exaggeration of the
Mosaic regulations, until it was "unlawful for a
man that was a Jew to keep company with or come
unto one of another nation" (Acts x. 28); and
with such intensity were badges of distinction
cherished, that the vnne, bread, oil, cheese, or any
thing cooked by a heathen,^ were declared unlaw
ful for a Jew to eat. Nor was this strictness, how
ever it might at times be pushed to an absurdity,
without foundation in the nature of the case. The
Jews, as, during and after the return from Cap
tivity, they found the avenues of the world opening
around them, would find their intercourse with
Gentiles unavoidably increased, and their only way
to avoid an utter relaxation of their code would he
in somewhat overstraining the precepts of prohibi
tion. Nor should we omit the tendency of those
who have no scruples to "despise" those who have,
and to parade their liberty at the expense of these
latter, and give piquancy to the contrast by wanton
tricks, designed to beguile the Jew from hia strict
ness of observance, and make him unguardedly
partake of what he abhorred, in order to heighten
his confusion by derision. One or two instances
of such amusement at the Jew's expense would
Alex. Strom, v. ; Origen, Homil. in Levit ; Novatian,
De Cibit Judaic, cap. iii. ; Cyril, contra Juimn. lib. ix.
d Winer refers to Von Bohien ( Genesis, p. 88) as
finding the origin of the clean and unclean animals
in the Zendavesta, in that the latter are the creation
of Ahriman, whereas man is ascribed to that of Or
muzd. He rejects, however, and quite rightly, the
notion that Persian institutions exercised any influ
euce over Hebrew ones at the earliest period of the
latter, and connects it with the efforts of some " den
Pentateuch recht jung und die Ideen des Zendavesta
rech' alt zu machen." See TJKCLEANNEf.3 for other re
semblances between Persian and Hebrew ritual.
« Winer also refers to Aboda Zara, ii. 2-6, v. 2:
Hottinger, Leg. Hebr., pp. 117, 141.

3346

UNCLEAN MEATS

drive the latter within the entrenchments of an
universal repugnance and avoidance, and make him
seek the safe side at the cost of being counted a
churl and a bigot. Thus we may accouut for the
refusal of the " king's meat " by the religious
captives (Dan. i. 8), and for the similar conduct
recorded of Judith (xii. 2) and Tobit (Tob. i. 11);
and in a similar spirit Shakespeare makes Shylock
say, " I will not eat with you, drink with you, nor
pray with you " (.Merchant of Venice, Act i. Sc.
iii.). As regards things offered to idols, all who
own one God meet ou common ground; but the
Jew viewed the precept as demanding a literal ob
jective obedience, aud had a holy horror of even
an unconscious infraction of the Law: hence, as
he could never know what had received idolatrous
consecration, his only safety lay in total abstinence ;
whereas St. Paul admonishes the Christian to ab
stain, "for his sake that showed it and for con
science' sake," from a thing said to have been
consecrated to a false god, but not to parade his
conscientious scruples by interrogating the butcher
at his stall or the host in his guest-chamber (1 Cor.
X. 25-29), and to give opposite injunctions would
doubtless in his view have been " compelling the
Gentiles to live as did the Jews" (iovSat^eii', Gal.
u. U).
The prohibition to " seethe a kid in his mother's
milk" has caused considerable dilference of opin
ion amongst commentators. Michaelis (Art. ccx.)
thought it was meant merely to encourage the use
of olive oil instead of the milk or butter of an
animal, which we commonly use in cookery, where
the Orientals use the former. This will not sat
isfy any mind by which the clew of symbolism, so
blindly held by the eastern devotee, ahd so deeply
interwoven in Jewish ritual, has been once duly
seized. Mercy to the beasts is one of the under
currents which permeate that Law. To soften the
feelings and humanize the character was the higher
ind more general aim. When St. Paul, comment
ing on a somewhat similar precept, says, " Doth
God care for oxen, or saith He it altogether for our
sakes? " he does not mean to deny God's care for
oxen, but to insist the rather on the more elevated
and more human lesson. The milk was the des-
tuied support of the young creature: viewed in
reference to it, the milk was its "life," and had a
relative sanctity resembling that of the forbidden
blood (oomp. Juv. xi. 68, "qui plus lactis habet
quam sanguinis," speaking of a kid destined for
the knife). No doubt the abstinence from the
forbidden action, in the case of a young creature
already dead, and a dam unconscious probably of
its loss, or whose consciousness such an use of her
milk could in nowise quicken, was based on a senti
ment merely. But the practical consequence, that
milk must be foregone or elsewhere obtained, would
prevent the sympathy from being an empty one.
It would not be the passive emotion which becomes
weaker by repetition, for want of an active habit
with which to ally itself. And thus its operation
would lie in i.idirectly quickening sympathies for
the brute creation at all other times. The Tal
mudists took an extreme view of the precept, as
forbidding generally the cooking of flesh in milk
(Mishna, ChoUin, viii.; Hottinirer, iej. Hebr. pp.
117, Ul, quoted by Winer).
It remains to mention the sanitary aspect of the
case. Swine are said to be peculiarly liable to dis-
lase in their own bodies. This probably nieans
¦Jiat they are more easily led than other creatures

UNCLEAN MEATS
to the foul feeding which produces it; and when
the average heat is great, decomposition rapid, and
malaria easily excited, this tendency in the animal
is more mischievous than elsewhere. A ma'jiel oi
mezel, from whence we have " measled pork," is
the old English word for a " leper," and it ia as
serted that eating swine's flesh in Syria and Egypt
tends to produce that disorder (Bartholin!, De
Mm-bis Bibl. viii.; Wunderbar, p. 51). But there
is an indefiniteness about these assertions which
prevents our dealing with them scientifically. Meii-
zel or mezel may well indeed represent "leper"
but which of all the morbid symptoms classed
under that head it is to stand for, and whether it
means the same, or at least a parallel disorder in
man and in pig, are indeterminate questions.
[Leper.] The prohibition on eating fat was salu
brious in a region where skin diseases are frequent
and virulent, and that on blood had, no doubt, a
similar tendency. The case of animals dying of
themselves needs no remark: the mere wish to
insure avoiding disease, in case they had died m
such a state, would dictate the rule. Yet the
beneficial tendency is veiled under a ceremonial
dilTerence, for the "stranger" dwelling by the
Israelite was allowed it, although the ktter was
forbidden. Thus is their distinctness before God,
as a nation, ever put prominently forward, even
where more common motives appear to have their
turn. As regards the aniqials allowed for food,
comparing them with those forbidden, there can
be no doubt on which side the balance of whole-
someness lies. Nor would any dietetic economist:
fail to pronounce in favor of the Levitical dietary
code as a whole, as insuring the maximum of puln
ho health, and yet of national distinctness, pro
cured, however, by a minimum of the inconvenience
arising from restriction.
Bochart's Hlerozoicon ; Forsk&l's Descriptiones
Animalium, etc., quce in liinere Orientali tibserva-
v'li, with his Icones Return Naiuralium, and Rosen-
miiller's Handbuch der Bibl. Allerthumskunde,-vol.
iv.. Natural History, may be consulted on some
of tbe questions connected with this subject; also
more generally, Moses Maimonides, De Cibis Vetilis ;
Beinhard, De Cibis Hebrteorum Prohibitis. H. H.
* The distinction between clean and uncleaL
animals was divinely recognized, apparently as al
ready familiar among men, before the Flood (Gen.
vii. 2). Animal food, on the other hand, was first
permitted to man after the Flood (Gen. ix. 3, cf. i.
29 and vi. 21); and that permission was couched
in the most genei-al terms without reference to clean
or unclean. It is plain, therefore, that the basis of
the distinction must be sought elsewhere than in
the fitness or unfitness of the various animals to be
used for food. Indeed some more satisfiictory way
of accounting for human customs in regard to this
use itself seems desirable than merely tradition, or
sanitary instinct, or sentiment. Such a basis both
for the original distinction, and also for the dif
ference in regard to the use of animals for food
seems to be furnished by the fact that immediately
after the Flood Noah offered in sacrifice " of every
clean beast and of every clean fowl " (Cien. viii. 20).
There must then have already existed a recognized
distinction among animals of clean and unclean ac
cording to their fitness or unfitness to be ofiered in
sacrifice, — a point probably determined by Divine
direction in the earliest ages. This seems also t«

UNCLEANNESS
be the fundamental idea in the word "IH^'^ used
to designate the clean animal. The distinction
having once been established for purposes of sacri
fice, would naturally have passed on to food, since
the eating of animal food was everywhere so closely
connected with the previous offering of a part of
the animal in sacrifice. When it became necessary
or expedient to extend the classes allowable for food
beyond' the very small number used for sacrifice,
it was readily done " by foUowincr the principle of
limilarity, and recognizing as suitable for food those
Miimals possessing the same general characteristics
ns were required in victims for sacrifice.
When by the Great Sacrifice on Calvary animal
lacrifices were done away, the basis for the distinc
tion in animals for food at once ceased, and man
recurred again to the broad permission of Gen. ix.
3, " Every moving thing that liveth shaU be meat
for you ; even as the green herb have I given you
all things." ' F. G.
UNCLEANNESS. The distinctive idea at
tached to ceremonial uncleanness among the He
brews was, that it cut a person off for the time from
social privileges, and left his citizenship among
God's people for the while in abeyance. It did not
merely require by law a certain ritual of purifica
tion, in order to enhance the importance of the
priesthood, but it placed him who had contracted
an uncleanness in a position of disadvantage, from
which certain ritualistic acts alone could free him.
These ritualistic acts were priraarily the means of
recalling the people to a sense of the personality
of God, and of the reality of the bond in which the
Covenant had placed them with, Him. As regards
the nature of the acts themselves, they were in part
purely ceremonial, and in part had a sanitary ten
dency; as also had the personal isolation in which
the unclean were placed, acting to some extent as
a quarantine, under circumstances where infection
was possible or supposable. It is remarkable that,
although many acts having no connection specially
with cleansing entered into the ritual, the most
fi^equently enjoined method of removing ceremonial
pollution was that same washing which produces
physical cleanliness. Nor can we adequately com
prehend the purport and spirit of the lawgiver,
unless we recognize on either side of the raerely
cereraoniai acts, often apparently enjoined for the
sake of solemnity alone, the spiritual and moral
benefits on the one side, of which they spake in
shadow only, and the physical correctives or pre
ventives on the other, which they often in substance
conveyed. Maimonides and some other expositors,
whilst they apparently forbid, in reality practice the
rationalizing of many ceremonial precepts (Wunder
bar, Bibl'lsch-Talmudische Medicin, 2e3 Heft, 4).
There is an intense reahty in the fact of the
Divine Law taking hold of a man by the ordinary
infirmities of flesh, and setting its stamp, as it were,
in the lowest clay of which he is moulded. And
indeed, things which would be unsuited to the
spiritual dispensation of the New Testament, and
whieh might even sink into the ridiculous by too
close a contact with its sublimity, have their proper
place in a law of temporal sanctions, directly affect
ing man's life in this world chiefly or solely. The
sacredness attached to the huraan body is parallel

UNCLEANNESS

3347

o Compare the view of the modern Persians iu this
'wpect. Cbardin's Voyages, vol. ii. p. 343, chap. iv.
Le corps se pr^ente devant Dieu conmie I'ame : 11

to that which invested the Ark of the Ccvenanl
itself. It is as though Jehovah thereby would teach
them that the *' very hairs of their head were all
numbered " before Him, and that " in hia book
were all their members written." Thus was incul
cated, ao to speak, a bodily holiness." And it is
remarkable indeed, that the solemn precept, " Ya
shall be holy; for I am holy," is used not only
where moral duties are enjoined, as in Lev. xix. 2,
but equally so where purely cereraoniai precepts are
delivered, as in xi. 44, 45. So the emphatic and
recurring period, " I am the Lord your God," is
found added to the clauses of positive observance
as well as to those relating to the grandest ethical
barriei's of duty. The same weight of veto or in
junction seems laid on all alike: e. g. "Ye shall
not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead,
nor print any marks upon you : I am the Lord,"
and " Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head,
and honor the face of the old man, and fear thy
God: I am the Lord" (xix. 28, 32). They had
his mark set in their flesh, and all flesh on which
that had passed had received, as it were, the broad
arrow of the king, and was really owned by him.
They were preoccupied by that mark of ownership
in all the leading relations of hfe, so as to exclude
the admission of any rival badge.
Nor were they to be only " separated frora other
people," but they were to be " holy unto God " (xx.
24, 26), " a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.'*
Hence a number of such ordinances regarding out
ward purity, which in Egypt they had seen used
ordy by the priests, were made publicly obligatory
on the Hebrew nation.
Tbe importance to physical well-being of the in -
junctions which required frequent ablution, under
whatever special pretexts, can be but feebly appre
ciated in our cooler and damper climate, where
there seeras to l)e a less i-apid action of the atmos
phere, as well as a state of the frame less disposed
towards the generation of contagion, and towards
morbid action generally. Hence the obvious utility
of reinforcing, by the sanction of religion, obser
vances tending in the main to that healthy state
which is the only solid basis of comfort, even though
in certain points of detail they were burdensome.
The custom of using the bath also on occasions of
ceremonious introduction to persons of rank or im
portance (Ruth iii. 3; Judith x. 3), well explains
the special use of it on occasions of religious minis
tration, viewed as a personal appearing before God ;
whence we understand the oflfice of the lavers among
the arrangements of the sanctuary (Ex. xxx. 18
21 ; 1 K. vii. 38, 39; comp. Ex. xix. 10, 14; 1 Sam.
xvi. 5; Josh. iii. 5; 2 Chr. xxx. 17). The examples
of parallel observances araong the nations of an
tiquity, will suggest themselves easily to the classical
student without special references. The closest ap
proximation, however, to the Mosaic ritual in this
respect, is said to be found in the code of Meno
(Winer, " Reinigkeit," 313, note).
- To th6 priests was ordinarily referred the exposi
tion of the law of uncleanness, as may be gathered
from Hag. ii. 11. Uncleanness, as referred to man,
may be arranged in three degrees; (1) that which
defiled raerely " until even," and was removed by
bathing and washing the clothes at the end of it —
such were all contacts with dead animals; (2) that

faut done qu'il soit pur, tant pour parler a Dieu, qu«
pour entrer dans le Ueu consacr^ a son ciilto."

J348

UNCLEANNESS

graver sort which defiled for seven days, and was
removed by the use of the " water of separation " —
inch were all defilements connected with the human
corpse; (3) uncleanness from the morbid, puerperal,
or menstrual state, lasting as long as that morbid
state lasted — but see further below; and in the
case of leprosy lasting often for life.
It suffices barely to notice the spiritual signif
icance which tbe law of carnal ordinances veiled.
This seems sometimes apparent, as in Deut. xxi. 6-8
(comp. Ps. xxvi 6, Ixxiii. 13), yet calling for a
spiritual discernment in the student; and this is
the point of relation between these " divers wash
ings" and Christian Baptism (1 Pet. iii. 21). Those
who lacked that gift were likely to confound the
inward with the outward purification, or to fix their
regards exclusively on the latter.
As the human person was itself the seat of a
«ovenant-token, so male and female had each their
ceremonial obligations in proportion to their sexual
differences. Further than this the increase of the
nation was a special point of the promise to Abraham
and Jacob, and therefore their fecundity as parents
was under the Divine tutelage, beyond the general
notion of a curse, or at least of God's disfavor, as
imphed in barrenness. The '* blessings of the breasts
and of the womb" were his (Gen. xhx. 25), and
the Law takes accordingly grave and as it were
paternal cognizance of the organic functions con
nected with propagation. Thus David could feel
" Thou has possessed my reins: thou hast covered
me in my mother's womb " (Ps cxxxix. 13); and
St. Paul found a spiritual analogy in the fact that
" God had tempered the body together, havina:
given more abundant honor to that part which
lacked" (1 Cor. xii. 24). The changes of habit in
cident to the female, and certain abnorraal states of
either sex in regard to such functions, are touched
on reverently, and with none of the .iiEsculapian
coldness of science — for the point of view is through
out frora the sanctuary (Lev. xv. 31); and the
purity of the individual, both moral and physical.
as well as the preservation of the race, seems in
cluded in it. There is an emphatic reminder of
human weakness in the fact of birth apd death —
man's passage alike into and out of his mortal state
— being marked with a stated pollution. Thus the
birth of the infant brought defilement on its mother,
which she, except so far as necessarily isolated by
the nature of the circumstances, propagated around
her. Nay, the conjugal act itself'' or any act re-
sembhng it, though done involuntarily (vv. 16-18),
entailed uncleanness for a day. The corpse, on the
other hand, bequeathed a defilement of seven days

a Comp. Uerod. ii. 64, where it appears that after
Buch intercourse an Egyptian could not enter a sanc
tuary without first bathing.
6 Ancient Greek physicians assert that, in southern
countries, the symptoms of the puerperal state con
tinue longer when a woman has borne a daughter than
when a son. Michaelis (Smithes D-anslation), Art.
214. c Winer quotes a remarkable passage from Pliny,
N. H. vii. 13, specifying the mysteriously mischievous
properties ascribed in popular superstition to the mcn-
itrual fl.ux ; e. g. buds and fruits being bhghted, steel
blunted, dogs driven mad by it, and the like. But
Pliny has evidently raked together all sorts of " old
rfves' fables," without any attempt at testing their
truth, and is therefore utterly untrustworthy. More
¦0 tho purpose is his qw»tation of Haller, E'ern.
Phfsiol. vii. 148, to the effect that this opinion of the

. UNCLEANNESS
to all who handled it, to the " tent " or chamba
of death,, and to sundry things within it. Nay
contact with one slain in the field of battle, or with
even a human bone or grave, was no less effectual
to pollute, than tbat with a corpse dead by the
course of nature (Num. xix. 11-18). This showa
that the source of pollution lay in the mere fact of
death, and seems to mark an anxiety to fix a sense
of the connection of death, even as of bhth, with
sin, deep in the heart of the nation, by a wide
pathology, if we may so call it, of defilement. It ig
as though the pool of human corruption was stirred
anew by whatever passed into or out of it. For the
special cases of male, female, and intersexual defile
ment, see Lev. xii., xv. Wunderbar, Biblisch-Tal-
mudische Medicin,^ pt. iii. 19-SO, refers to Mishna.
ZaUm, ii. 2, Nazir. ix. 4, as understanding by the
symptoms mentioned in I^v. xv, 2-8 ihe gonori'hoea
benigna. The same authority thinks that the plague
" for Poor's sake " (Num. xxv. 1, 8, 9 ; Deut. iv. 3;
Josh. xxii. 17) was posaibly a syphihtic affection
derived from the Moabites. [Issue; Medicine.]
The duration of defilement caused by the birth
of a female infant, being double that due to a male,
extending respectively to eighty 6 and forty days
in aU (Lev. xii. 2-5), may perhaps represent the
woman's heavier share iu the first sin and first
curse (Gen. iii. 16; 1 Tkn. ii. 14). For a man's
" issue," besides the uncleanness while it lasted, a
probation of seven days, including a washing on
the third day, is prescribed. Similar was the period
in the case of the woman, and in that of intercourse
with a woman so affected (I.^v. xv. 13, 24, 28).
Such an act during her menstrual separation ^ was
regarded as incurring, beyond uncleanness, the
penalty of both the persons being cut off from
among their people (xx, 18). We may gather from
Gen. xxxi. 35, that such injunctions were agreeable
to established traditional notions. The propaga
tion of uncleanness from the person to the bed,
saddle, clothes, etc., and through thera to other
pei-sons, is apt to impress the imagination with an
idea of the loathsomeness of such a state or the
heinousness of such acts, more forcibly by far than
if the defilement clove to the first person merely
(Lev. XV. 5, 6, 9, 12, 17, 20, 22-24, 26, 27). It
threw a broad margin around them, and warned
all off by amply defined boundaries. One expres
sion in ver. 8, seems to have misled Winer into
supposing that an issue of rheum (Schldinfiuss)
was perhaps intended. That " spitting," in some
cases where there was no disease in question, con
veyed defilement, seeras implied in Num. xii. 14,
and much more might such an act so operate, from

virulent and baneful effects of this secretion proceeded
from Asia, and was imported into Europe by the
Arabians ; which, however, lacks due foundation, and
which Pliny's language so far contradicts. The laws
of Menu are said to be more stringent on this head
than the Mosaic. The menstrual afi'ection begins at
an earlier age, and has periods of longer duration with
Oriental women than with those of our own climate.
That Greek religion recognized some of the Leritical
pollutions is plain from Eurip. Iphig. Taur. 380 foil.,
where we read of a goddess, — ^rts, jSporwv p.ev riy ns
ai/'TjTat (^ovou, ^ KCLi Aoxei'as, ¦^ veKpov BCyig x^P""*'
JSwjLtwi/ aTrei'pyei, fiv(ra.pov us y}yovp.evri. A fragment
of the same poet, adduced by Mr. Paley ad. loc. cU.,
is even more closely in point. It is, TroAAeufa fi* eX"^
eifiara ^eifyto yivea-iv re jSpOTWV Kat veKpoBrjH^ o»
\ptHinT6ju.€cos, •riji' t* eju.i^uxftii' ppia<nv IBemav s-eptf*
\ayfiai. Comp. also Theophr. Char, 17.

UNCLEANNESS

3349

UNCLEANNESS
one whOBu malady made him a source of pollution
sven to the touch.
As regards the propagation of uncleanness the
Law of Moses is not quite clear. We read (Num.
xix. 22), " Whatsoever the unclean person toucheth
shall be unclean; " but there uncleanness from con
tact with the corpse, grave, etc., is the subject of
the chapter which the injunction closes; and this is
eonfirined by Hag. ii. 13, where " one that is un
clean by a dead body'* is similarly expressly men
tioned. Also frora the command (Num. v. 2-4) to
"put the unclean out of the camp; " where the
'leper," the one "that hath an issue,'" and the
one "defiled bythe dead," are particularized, we
n;ay assume that the minor pollution for one day
ouly was not communicable, and so needed not to
be '* put forth." It is observable also that the
mryor pollution of the "issue" communicated by
contact the minor pollution only (Lev. xv. 5-11).
Hence raay perhaps be deduced a tendency in the
contagiousness to exhaust itself; the minor pollu
tion, whether engendered hy the major or arising
directly, being non-coramunicable. Thus the major
itself would expire after one remove from its
original subject. To this pertains the distinction
mentioned by Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. on Matt. xv.
2), namely, that between MQtO, « unclean," and
vIDD, '' profane " or " polluted," in that the latter
does not poUute another beside itself nor propagate
pollution. In the ancient comraentary on Num.
known as " Siphri " « {ap. ITgol. Thes. xv. 346), a
greater transmissibihty of poUuthig power seems
assumed, the defilement being tbere traced through
tliree removes from the original subject of it; but
this is no doubt a Kabbinical extension of the
original Levitical view.
Michaelis notices a medical tendency in the re
striction laid on coition, whereby both parties were
unclean until even; he thinks, and with some rea
son, that the law would operate to discourage polyg
amy, and, in monogamy, would tend to preserve
the health of the parents and to provide for the
healthiness of the offspring. The uncleanness sim
ilarly imposed upon self-pollution (Lev. xv. 16;
Deut. xxiii. 10), even if involuntary, would equally
exercise a restraint both moral and saluta.ry to
health, aud suggest to parents the duty of vigilance
over their male children (Michaelis, Art. ccxiv.-
ccxvii.). With regard to uncleanness arising from tbe
lower animals, Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. on Lev. xi.~
XV.) remarks, that all which were unclean to touch
when dead were unclean to eat, but not conversely ;
and that aU which were unclean to eat were un
clean to sacrifice, but not conversely; since " multa
edere licet quse non sacrificari, et multa tangere
licet quaj non edere.'* For uncleanness in matters
of food, see Unclkan Meats. All aniraals, how
ever, if dying of themselves, or eaten with the
blood, were unclean to eat. [Blood.] The carcase
also of any animal unclean as regards diet, however
dying, defiled whatever person it, or any part of it
touched. By the sarae touch any garment, sack,
ikin, or vessel, together with its contents, becarae
tnclean, and was to be purified by washing or scour-
tig; or if an earthen vessel, was to be broken, just
a The passage in the Latin version is, " Si vasa as though it were required of the host of Israel, i.
^uie feangunt hominem qui tangat vasa, quae tangant the whole body of the people, throughout the whole
mortumn, sunt immunda," etc. of their wandering in the wilderness. The Pentateuckt
b Bishop Colenso appears to have misapplied this, I etc., ch. vi. 39.

as the Brahmins break a vessel out of which a
Christian has drunk. Further, the water in which
such things had been purified comraunicated their
uncleanness; and even seed for sowing, if wettec
with water, became unclean by touch of any carrion
or unclean animal when dead. All these defile
ments were " until even " only, save the eating
" with the blood," the offender in which respect
was to "be cut off" (Lev. xi., xvii. 14).
It should further be added, that the same sen
tence "of cutting off," was denounced against all
who should " do presumptuously '* in respect even
of minor defilements; by which we may understand
all contempt of the legal provisions regarding them
The comprehensive term "defilement" also in
eludes the contraction of the unlawful marriages
and the indulgence of unlawful lusts, as denounced
in Lev. xviii. Even the sowing heterogeneous
seeds in the sarae plot, the mixture of materials in
one garment, the sexual admixture of cattle with
a diverse kind, the ploughing with diverse ani
mals in one team, although not formally so classed,
yet seem to fall under the same general notion,
save in so far as no specified term of defilement or
mode of purification is prescribed (Lev. xix. 19;
Deut. xxii. 9-11; corap. Michaelis, as above, ccxx.)
In the first of these cases the fruit is pronounced
" defiled," which Michaelis interpets as a consecra
tion, i. e. confiscation of the crop for tbe uses of the
priests. The fruit of trees was to be counted " as uncir
curacised," i. e. uncleiin for the first three years; in
the fourth it was to be set apart as " holy to praise
the Lord withal," and eaten comraonly not till the
fifth. Michaelis traces an economic effect in this
regulation, it being best to pluck off the blossom in
the early years, and not allow the tree to bear ftiiit
till it had attained to some maturity (ibid, ccxxii.).
The directions in Deut. xxiii. 10-13, relate to
the avoidance of impurities in the case of a host en
camped,* as shown in ver. 9, and from the mention
of " enemies " in ver. 14. The health of the army
would of course suffer from the neglect of such
rules; but they are based on no such ground of ex
pediency, but on the scrupulous cereraoniai purity
demanded by the God whose presence was in the
midst of them. We must suppose that the rule
which expelled soldiers under certain circumstances
of pollution from the camp for a whole day, waa
relaxed in the presence of an enemy, as otherwise
it would have placed them beyond the protection
of their comrades, and at the mercy of the hostile
host. As regards the other regulation, it is part
of the teaching of nature herself that an assembled
community should reject whatever the human body
itself expels. And on tbis ground the Levitical
Law seems content to let such a matter rest, for it
annexes no stated defilement, nor prescribes any
purification. Araongst causes of defilement should be noticed
the fact that the ashes of the red heifer, burnt
whole, which were mixed with .water and became
the standing resource for purifying uncleanness in
the second degree, themselves became a source of
defilement to all who were clean, even as of purifi
cation to the unclean, and so the water. Thus the
priest and Levite, who administered this purifica-

3350 UNCLEANNESS
tion in their respective degrees, were themselves
made unclean thereby, but in the first or lightest
d^ree only (Nura. xix. 7, foil.). Somewhat simi
larly the scape-goat, who bore away the sins of the
people, defiled him who led him into the wilderness,
and the bringing forth and burning the sacrifice
on the Great Day of Atonement had a similar
power. This lightest form of uncleanness was ex
piated by bathing the body and washing the clothes.
Besides the water of purification made as aforesaid,
men and women in their " issues," were, after seven
days, reckoned frora the cessation of the disorder,
to bring two turtle-doves or young pigeons to be
killed by the priests. The purification after child
bed ia well known from the N. T. ; the Law, how
ever, primarily required a lamb and a bird, and al
lowed the poor to commute for a pair of birds as
before. That for tbe leper declared clean consisted
of two stages: the first, not properly sacrificial,
though involving the shedding of blood, consisted
in bringing two such birds, the one of which the
priest killed over spring-water with ivhich its blood
was mingled, and the mixture sprinkled seven times
on the late leper, with an instrument made of cedar-
wood, scarlet wool, and hyssop; the living bird was
then dipped in it, and let fly away, symbolizing «
probably the hberty to which the leper would be
entitled when his probation and sacrifice were com
plete, even as the slaughtered bird signified the
diBcharge of the impurities which his blood had
contained during the diseased state. The leper
might now bathe, shave himself, and wash his
clothes, and come within the town or camp, nor
was every place which he entered any longer pol
luted by him (Mishna, Negaim, xiii. 11; Celim, i.
4), he was, however, relegated to his own house or
tent for seven days. At the end of that time he
was scrupulously to shave his whole body, even to
his eyebrows, and wash and bathe as before. The
final sacrifice consisted of two lambs, and an ewe
sheep of the first year with flour and oil, the poor
being allowed to bring one lamb and two birds as
before, with smaller quantities of flour and oil. For
the detail of the ceremonial, some of the features
of which are rather singular, see Lev. xiv. Lepers
were allowed to attend the synagogue worship,
where separate seats were assigned thera (Negaim,
xiii. 12).
All these kind of uncleanness disqualified for
holy fimctions : as the layman so affected might not
approach the congregation and the sanctuary, so any
priest who incurred defilement must abstain from
the holy things (Lev. xxii. 2-8). The high-priest
was forbidden the customary signs of mourning
for father or mother, " for the crown of the anoint
ing oil of his God is upon him " (Lev. xxi. 10-12),
and beside his case the same prohibition seems to
have been extended to the ordinary priests. At
least we have an exaraple of it in the charge given
to Eleazar and Ithamar on their brethren's death
(Lev. i. 6). From the specification of " father or
mother,'* we may infer that he was permitted to
mourn for his wife, and so Maimonides (de iMctu,
cap. ii.,iv., V.) explains the text. Further, from

a L e. conveying in symbol only a release from the
Btate to which the leper, whilst such, was sentenced.
It is probable, however, that the duality of the symbol
irose from the natural impossibility of representing life
*nd death iu the same creature, and that both the
ftirds involve a cl mplete representation of the Death,
Resurrection, and .Vscension which procure the Chris-

UN CLEANNESS
the special prohibition of Ezekiel, who was a priest,
to mourn for his wife (Ez. xxiv. 15, fell.), we kjon
that to mourn for a wife was generally permitted
to the priests. Among ordinary Israelites, the man
or woman who had an issue, or the latter while in
the menstrual or puerperal state, might not, ac
cording to the Rabbins, enter even the mount on
which the Temple stood ; nor might the intra-mural
space be entered by any Israehte in mourning. In
Jerusalem itself, according to the same authorities
a dead body might not be allowed to pass thenight.
nor even the bones of one be carried through its
streets : neither was any cultivation allowed there
for fear of the dung, etc., to which it might give
rise (Maimonides Constii. de Temp. cap. vii. xiv -
xvi.). No bodies were to be interred withui towns,
unless seven chief men, or the public voice, bade
the interment there; and every tomb within a town
was to be carefully walled in (ibid. xiii.). If a man
in a state of pollution presumed to enter the sanc
tuary, he was obliged to offer a sacrifice as well as
suffer punishment. The sacrifice was due under
the notion that the pollution of the sanctuary
needed expiation, and the punish ment was either
whipping, the " rebel's beating," which meant leav
ing the offender to the mercies of the mob, " cuttmg
off from the congregation," or death " by the hand
of heaven" (Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. on Lev. xv.;
Ugohni, Thes. xvi. 126).
As regards the special case of the leper, 'see
Leprosy. To the remarks there made, it may be
added that the priests, in their contact with the
leper to be adjudged, were exempted from the law
of defilement; that the garb and treatment of the
leper seems to be that of one dead in the eye of tbe
Law, or rather a perpetual mourner for his own
estate of death with " clothes rent and head bare,"
the latter being a token of profound afliiction and
prostration of spirit among au oriental people,
which no conventional token among ourselves can
adequately parallel. The fatal cry K»^, MD^,
" Unclean, unclean ! " was uttered not only by the
leper, but by all for whose uncleanness no remedy
could be found (Pesichiha, ^ 2; Ugol. Thes. xvi.
40). When we consider the aversion to leprouB
contact which prevailed in Jewish society, and that
whatever the leper touched was, as if touched by a
corpse, defiled seven days, we see the happy signifi
cance of our Lord's selecting the touch as his means
of heaUng the leper (Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. on
Matt. viii. 2) ; as we also appreciate better the bold
faith of the woman, and how daringly she over
stepped conventional usage based on the letter of
the Law, who having the " issue of blood," hitherto
incurable, " came behind hira and touched tbe hem
of his garment," confident that not pollution to Him
but cleansing to herself would be the result of that
touch (Luke viii. 43, foil.).
As regards the analogies which the ceremonial
of other oriental nations offere, it may be men
tioned that araongst the Arabs the touching a corpse
still defiles (Burckhardt, p. 80). Beyond this, M.
Chardin in his account of the religion of the Per
sians ( Voyages en Perse, vol. ii. 348, foil.) entera

tian Atonement. This would of course^ however, es
cape the notice of the worshipper. Christ, with his
own blood, " entered the holy places not made with
hands," as the living bird soared up to the viBiblfl
firmament with the blood of ib? fellow. We may com
pare the two goats completing apparently one slmllai
joint-symbol on the day of Atonement.

UNCTION
mto particulars which show a singularly close cor
respondence with the Levitical code. This will be
Been by quoting merely the headings of some of his
chapters and sections. Thus we iind under " chap.
iv. 1®" partie, Des purifications qui se font avec
d'eau ; a^e partie, De I'immondicit^ ; l"'" section,
De I'impuret^ qui se contracte semine coitus ; 2de
section, De I'impuret^ qui arrive aux femmes par
les pertes de sang, De I'impuret^ des pertes de sang
ordinaires, De I'iuipuret^ des pertes de sang extraor
dinaires, De I'impurete' . des pertes de sang des
couches. S^m" partie, De la purification des corps
morts." We may compare also with certain Levit
ical precepts the following : "Si un chien boit
dans un vase ou l^che quelque plat, il faut dourer
le vase avec de la terre iiette, et puis le laver deux
(bis d'eau nette, et il sera net." It is remarkable
also that these precepts apply to the people not qua
they are Mohammedans, but qua they are Persians,
as they are said to shun even Mohammedans who are
not of the same ritual in regard to these observances.
For certain branches of this subj**ct the reader
may be referred to the treatises in the Mishna
named Niddah (mensti^ata), Parah (vacca rufa),
Tehoroih (Puritaies), Zabbim (fluxu laboranles),
Celim (vasa), Miscaih Arlah (arbtrrum prapuiia) ;
also to Maimon. lib. v. Issure Biah (prohibits
coitiones), Niddah (ui sup.), .Maccaloih Assuroth
(ciM prohibii). H. H.
* UNCTION. [Anoint; Spirit, The Holy.]
UNDBRGIBDING, Acts xxvii. 17. [Ship
(4), p. 3005.]
* UNDEKSETTERS, 1 K. vii. 30, 34, are
props, supports. H.
* UNGRACIOUS, i. e. "graceless,"'"wicked,"
the translation (A. V.) iu 2 Mace. iv. 19, viii. 34,
IV. 3 of fuap'6s and rpiiraAiT'lipios, epithets applied
to Jason and Nicanor. A.
UNICORN (QS"n, riem,- Q"'S"1, rSeym; or
D"^")], reym: fj.ouoKepais, aSp6s. rhinoceros, uni
cornis), the unhappy rendering by tiie A. V., fol
lowing the LXX., of the Hebrew RSem, a word
which occurs seven times in the 0. T. as the name
of some large wild animal. More, perhaps, has
been written on the subject of tbe unicorn of the
ancients than on any other animal, and various are
the opinions which have been given as to the crea
ture intended. The rSem of the Hebrew Bible,
bowever, haa nothing at all to do with the one-
homed animal mentioned by Ctesias (Jndica, iv.
25-27), jEUan (Nat. Anim. xvi. 20), Aristotle
(Hist. Anim. ii. 2, § 8), Pliny (H N. viii. 21), -and
other Greek and Roman writers, as is evident from
Deut. xxxiii. 17, where, in the blessing of Joseph,
it is said, " His glory is like the firstling of his
hullock, and his horns are like the horns of a uni
corn " (DM"! ''5"]r2)) not, as the text of the A. V.
renders it, "the horns of unicorns.*' The two
horns of the RUm are " the ten thousands of
Ephraim and the thousands of Manasseh " — the
two tribes which sprang from one, i e. Joseph, as
two horns from one head. This text, most appro
priately referred to by Schultens ( Comment, in Job.
xxxix. 9 ), puts a one-homed animal entirely out of
the question, and in consequence disposes of the
•pinion held by Bruce (Trav. v. 89) and others,
that some species of rhinoceros is denoted, or that
iiaintained by some writers, that the riem is iden-
Ucaj with some one-horned animal laid to have-

UNICORN

3351

been seen by travellere in South Africa and in Thi
bet (see Barrow's Travels in S. Africa, i. 312-
318, and Asiatic Journal, xi. 154), and identicrd
with the veritable unicorn of Greek and Latin
writers! Bochart (Hieroz. ii. 335) contends thai
the Hebrew reem is identical with the Ai-abic rim
/*J\\ which is usually referred to the Oryx
leucoryx, the white antelope of North Africa, and
at one time perhaps an inhabitant of Palestine.
Bochart has been followed by Kosenmiiller, Winer,
and others. Arnold Boot (Animad. Sacr. iii. 8,
Lond. 1644), with rauch better reason, conjecturea
that some species of wus or wild ox is the Reem
of the Hebrew Scriptures. He has been followed
by Schultens ( Comment in Jobum xxxix. 9, who
translates the term by Bos sylvestris : this learned
writer has a long and most valuable note on thia
question), by Parkhurst (Heb. Lex. a. v. DW"1),
Maurer (Comment in Job. I. c), Dr. Harris (Nat,
Hist, of the Bible), and by Gary (Notes on Jod,
I. c.)- Eobinson (Bibl. Res. ii. 412) and Gesenius
(Thes. a. V.) have little doubt that the buffalo
(Bvbalus buffalus) is the rUm of the Bible. Be
fore we proceed to discuss these several claimants
to represent the reem, it will be well to note the
Scriptural allusions in the passages where the term
occurs. The great strength of the reem is men
tioned in Num. xxiii. 22, Job xxxix. 11 ; his hav
ing two horns in Deut. xxxiii. 17 ; his fierce nature
in Ps. xxii. 21; his indomitable disposition in Job
xxxix. 9-11; the active and playful habits of the
young animal are alluded to in Ps. xxix. 6; while
in Is. xxxiv. 6, 7, where Jehovah is said to be pre
paring "a sacrifice in Bozrah," it is added, "the
rUmim shall corae down, and the bullocks with
the bulls."
The claim of any animal poss^sed of a single
horn to be the. reem has already been settled, for
it is manifestly too much to assume, as some
writers have done, that the Hebrew term does not
always denote the same animal. Little can be
urged in favor of the rhinoceros, for even allowing
that the two-homed species of Abyssinia (R. bicor-
nis) may have been an inhabitant of the woody
districts near the Jordan in Biblical times, this
pachyderm must be out of the question, as one
which would have been forbidden to be sacrificed
by the Law of Moses, whereas the 7'eem is men
tioned by Isaiah as coraing down with buUocks
and raras tc the Lord's sacrifice. " Crania ani-
malia," says Rosenmiiller (Schol. in Is. I. c), " ad
saerificia idonea in unum congregantur." Agahi,
the skipping of the yourg i-Sem (Ps. xxix. 6) is
scarcely compatible with the habits of a rhinoceros-
Moreover this animal, when unmolested, is not gcii-
erally an object of much dread, nor can we believe
that it ever existed so plentifully in the Bible lands^
or even would have allowed itself to have been
sufficiently often seen so as to be the subject of fre
quent attention, the rhinoceros being an animal of
retired habits.
With regard to the claiirs of the Oryx leucoryx,
it must be observed that this antelope, hke the rest
of the family, is harmless unleas wounded or hard
pressed by the hunter, nor is it reraarkable for the
possession of any extraordinary strength. Figures
of the oryx occur frequently on the %yptian
aculpturea, "being among the animals tamed by
the Egyptians and kept in great numbers in theif
preserves " (Wilkinson's Anc. Egypt i. 227, ed.

33t»2

UNKNOWN GOD

1854). Certainly this antelope can i ever be the
fierce indomitable reem mentioned in the book
of Job.
Considering, therefore, that the reem is spoken
of as a two-horned animal of great strength and
ferocity, that it was evidently well known and often
seen by the Jews, that it is mentioned as an animal
fit for sacrificial purposes, and that it is frequently
associated with bulls and oxen, we think there can
be no doubt that some species of wild ox is intended.
The allusion in Ps. xcii. 10, " But thou shalt lift
up, as a rSeym, my horn," seems to point to the
mode in which the Bovidce use their horns, lower
ing the head and then tossing it up. But it is
impossible to determine what particular species of
wild ox is signified. At present there is no exist
ing exaraple of any wild bovine animal found in
Palestine; but negative evidence in this respect
must not be interpreted as aflfording testimony
against the supposition that wild cattle formerly
existed in the Bible lauds. The hon, for instance,
was once not unfrequentiy met with in Palestine,
as is evident from Biblical allusions, but no traces
of living specimens exist now. Dr. Koth found
Uons' bones in a gravel bed of the Jordan some few
years ago, and it is not improbable that some future
explorer may succeed in discovering bones and
skulls of some huge extinct l/rits, allied perhaps to
that gigantic ox of the Hercynian fiirests which
Csesar (BeU. Gall. vi. 20) describes as being of a
stature scarcely below that of an elephant, and so
fierce as to spare neither raan nor beast should it
meet with either. " Notwithstanding assertions
to the contrary," says Col. Hamilton Smith (Kitto's
Cycl. art. "Reem"), "the urus and the bison
were spread anciently from the Rhine to China,
and existed in Thrace and Asia Minor; while they,
or allied species, are still found in Siberia and the
forests both of Northern and Southern Persia.
Finally, though the buffalo was not found anciently
further west than Aracoria, the gigantic Ga%ir
(BiboB gaurus) and several congeners are spread
over all the mountain wildernesses of India and
the Sheriff-air- Wady ; and a further colossal species
roams with ether wild bulls in the vaUeys of
Atlas." Some have corg'ectured that the rSem depotes
the wUd buffalo. Although the chainsa, or tame
buflfalo, was not introduced into Western Asia
untU the Arabian conquest of Persia, it Is possi
ble that sorae wild species, Bubalus arnee, or B.
brachycerus, raay have existed formerly in Pales
tine. We are, however, raore in favor of some
gigantic Urus.^
Numerous references as to the fiovoKepus of the
ancients wiU be found in Bochart (Hieroz. iii.
cap. 27), Winer (Bibl. Realw. "Einhom";) but
no further notice of this point is taken here except
to observe that the more we study it the more con-
rinced we are that the animal is fabulous. The
supposed unicorns of which some modern travellers
speak have never been seen by trustworthy wit-
W. H.

* UNKNOWN GOD. [Altar, Amer. ed.;
Mars' Hill.]

a There appears to be no doubt that the ancient
lake-iuhabi tants of Switzerland towards the close of
the stone period succeeded in taming the urus. « In
% tame state," says Sir 0. Lyell {Antiquity of Man, p.
24), ''Its bono" were somQwhat less massive and

UR
* UNLEAVENED. [Bread; Lkaven ;
Passover.] UN'NI. 1. C*3^ [depressed]: 'EAtw^A, 'fi^|
[Vat. FA. in ver. 20, with part of preceding word,
HAftJvei; FA. in ver. 18, IwrjK; Alex. Avt, Avavi:]
Ani.) One of the Levite doorkeepers (A. V.
"porters") appointed to play the psaltery "on
alamoth " in the service of the sacred Tent, as
settled by David (1 Chr, xv. 18, 20).
2. (133?, but in KeH "^^V : [Rom.] Vat. and
Alex, omit; FA.s lava'i' Ha'nni.) A second Le
vite (unless the family of the foregoing be intended)
concerned in the sacred office after the Retuni from
Babylon (Neh. xii. 9).
* UNTOWARD, Acta ii. 40, in the sense of
"perverse," "intractable." "Toward" in parts
of ICngland at present is apphed to aniraals as
meaning " tame," " tractable." Bacon (Essay jh.)
uses " towardness " for docUity. (Eastwood and
Wright's Bible Word Book, p. 503.) H.
* UPHARSIN. [Mene, etc.]
U'PHAZ (T511«: Mco<pdC, 'a<pd{: Ophaz,
obryzum), Jer. x. 9; Dan. x. 5. [Ophir, iii.
2258 6.]
* UPPER-CHAMBER. [House, ii. il05.J
* UPPER COASTS or properly Parts (hor
TepiKa jttepT;), Acts xix. 1, are the intermediate
regions through which Paul passed (SieAfltfi;/), on
hia way from Antioch to Ephesus, at the beginniog
of his third missionary tour. The lands more
especially meant are Galatia and Phrygia (see
xix. 23). The term avwT€piKd,siS illustrated b;
Kypke (Observat Saci-ce, u. 95), impUea a twofold
geographical relation ; first, elevated, as compared
with the sea-coast where Ephesus was ; and, sec
ondly, inland or eastern, with reference to the relflp
tive position of the places. Xenophon's familiar
use of ava$aivw and avd^aais is another example
of a similar application of kindred words. H.
UR ("l^M [seebelow]: Xdtpa'' £^7') occurs in
Genesis only, and is there mentioned as the land
of Haran's nativity (Gen. xi. 28), the place from
which Terah and Abraham started " to go into the
land of Canaan" (xi. 31). It is called in Genesifl
''XjTofihe Chald(Bans" (D^^lt?;? "1?IS), while
in the Acts St. Stephen places it, by implication,
in Mesopotamia (vii. 2, 4). These are all the indi
cations which Scripture furnishes as to its locality.
As they are clearly insufficient to fix its site, the
chief traditions and opinions on the subject will be
first considered, and then an attempt will be
made to decide, by the help of the Scriptural
notices, between thera.
One tradition identifies Ur with the modem
Orfah. There is sorae ground for beUeving that
this city, called by the Greeka Edessa, had also the
name of Orrha as early as the time of Isidore {ab.
B. c. 150); and the tradition connecting it with
Abraham is perhaps not later than St. Ephraem
(A. D. 330-370), who makes Nimrod king of
Edessa, among other places ( Comment, in Gen. Op.
vol. i. p. 58, B.). According to Pocock (Desmp-

heavy, and Its borns were somewhat smaller than In
wild individuals."
& Tbe reader will find a full discussion of th<
" Unicorn of the Ancients " in tbe writer's article 1»
the Ann. and Mag. of Nut. Hist. Novembefj 1862.

UR
ti&n of ihe East, vol. i. p. 159), that Ur is Edessa
or Orfah is "the universal opinion of the Jews; "
and it is also the local beUef, as is indicated by the
title, " Mosque of Abraham," borne by the chief
religious edifice of the place, and the designation,
' I.Ake of Abraham the Beloved,' ' attached to the
pond in which are kept the sacred fish (Ains
worth, Travels in the Track, etc., p. 64; comp.
Pocock, i. 169, and Niebuhr, Voyage en Arable,
p. 330).
A second tradition, which appeara in the Tal
mud, and in some of the early Arabian writers,
finds Ur in Warka, the 'Opx^V of the Greeks, and
probably the Erech of Holy Scripture (caUed 'Opex
by the LXX.). This place bears the name of
Hwuk in the native inscriptions, and was in the
country known to the Jews as ' ' the land of the
Chaldgeans." A third tradition, less distinct than either of
these, but entitled to at least equal attention, dis
tinguishes Ur from Warka, while still placing it in
the same region (see Journal of Asiatic Society,
vol. xii. p. 481, note 2). There can be little doubt
that the city whereto this tradition points is that
which appears by its bricks to have been called
Hur by the natives, and which is now represented
by the ruins at Mugheir, or Umghdr, on the
right bank of the Euphrates, nearly opposite to its
junction with the Shai-el-Hie. The oldest Jewish
tradition which we possess, that quoted by Euse
bius from Eupolemus" (Prop. Ev. ix. 17), who
lived about b. o. 150, may be fairly said to intend
this place; for by identifying Ur (Uria) with the
Babylonian city, known also as Caraarina and
Chaldseopolis, it points to a city of the Moon,
which Hur was — Kamar being " the Moon " in
Arabic, and Khaldi the same luminary in the Old
Armenian. An opinion, unsupported by any tradition, re
mains to be noticed. Bochart, Calmet, Bunsen,
and others, identify " Ur of the Chaldees " with
a place of the name, mentioned by a single late
writer — Ammianus Marcellinus — as " a castle "
existing in his day in Eastern Mesopotamia, be
tween Hatra (ehfladhr) and Nisibis (Amm. Marc.
xxv. 8). The chief arguments in favor of this site
seera to be the identity of narae and the position of
the place between Arrapachitis, which is thought to
have been the dweUing-place of Abrahara's ances
tors in the time of Arphaxad, and Haran (Harran),
whither he went frora Ur.
It wiU be seen, that of the four localities thought
to have a claim to be regarded as Abraham's city,
two are situated in Upper Mesopotamia, between
the Mons Masius and the Sinjar range, while the
other two are in the alluvial tract near the sea, at
least 400 miles further south. Let us endeavor
first to decide in which of these two regions Ur ia
more probably to be sought.
That ChaldEea was, properly speaking, the south
ern part of Babylonia, the region bordering upon
the gulf, wUl be admitted by all. Those who main-
tam the northern emplacement of Ur argue, that
with the extension of Chaldsean power the narae
traveUed northward, and became coextensive with
Mesopotamia; but, in the first place, there is no

« The words of Eusebius are : AeKdrjj yeve^ ^ijmv
[EuTToXejuoT], ev TroAet tt)s BajSuAwi'tas KafxapCvjf, i^v
Tice? Aeyeiv iroMv OvpiT)v, elvai 6e (xetfep/njfei/OjueMji'
XoAdautfy ttoKiv, iv toCwv SeKaru yeve^ ysvetrBai
Afipadfx. 211

UR

3353

proof that the name Chaldsa was ever extended to
the region above the Sinjar; and secondly, if it
was, the Jews at any rate mean by Chalda'.a ex
clusively the lower country, and call the upper
Mesopotamia or Padan-Aram (see Job i. 17; Is.
xiii. 19, xliii. 14, &c. ). Again, there is no reason
to believe tliat ]3abylonian power was established
beyond the Sinjar in these early times. On the
contrary, it seems to have been confined to Baby
lonia proper, or the alluvial tract below Hit and
Tekrit, until the expedition of Cbedorlaomer, which
was later than the migration of Abraham. The
conjectures of Ephraem Syrus and Jerome, who
identify the cities of Nimrod with places in the
upper Mesopotamian country, deserve no credit.
The names all really belong to Chaldsea proper.
Moreover, the best and earliest Jewish authorities
place Ur in the low region. PZupolemus has been
already quoted to this effect. Josephus, though
less distinct upon the point, seems to have held
the same view (Ant. i. 6). The Talmudists also
are on this side of the question; and local tra
ditions, which may be traced back nearly to the
Hegira, make tbe lower country the place of Abra
ham's birth and early life. If Orfah has a Mosque
and a Lake of Abraham, Cutha near Babylon goes
by Abraham's name, as the traditional scene of all
his legendary miracles.
Again, it is really in the lower country only
that a narae closely corresponding to the Hebrew
"1*1S is found. The cuneiform Hur represents
"niM letter for letter, and only differs from it in
the greater strength of the aspirate. Isidore's
Orrha ("Op^a) differs from 'Ur considerably, and
the supposed Ur of .Ammianus is probably not Ur,
but Adur.«
The argument that Ur should be sought in the
neighborhood of Arrapachitis and Seruj, because
the names Arphaxad and Serug occur in the gene
alogy of Abraham (Bunsen, Egypt's Place, etc.,
iii. 366, 367), has no weight till it is shown that
the human names in question are really connected
with the places, which is at present assumed some
what boldly. Arrapachitis comes probably from
Arapklia, an old Assyrian town of no great conse
quence on the left bank of the Tigris, above Nine
veh, which has only three letters in common with
Arphaxad (^tOpQ"^K) ; and Seruj is a name which
does not appear in Mesopotamia till long after the
Christian era. It is rarely, if ever, that we can
extract geographical information from the names in
a historical genealogy ; and certainly in the pres
ent case nothing seems to have been gained by the
attempt to do so.
On the whole, therefore, we may regard it aa
tolerably certain that " Ur of the Chaldees" was a
place situated in the real Chaldaea — the low coun
try near the Persian Gulf. The only question that
remains in any degree doubtful is, whether ^arka
or Mugheir is the true locality. These places are
not far apart; and either of them is sufficiently
suitable. Both are ancient cities, probably long
anterior to Abraham. Traditions attach to both,
but perhaps more distinctly to Warka. On the

« The MS. reading is " Adur venere ; " "ad tJr " is
an emendation of the oommentators. Tha former is
to be preferred, since Ammianus does not use " ad "
after "venio."

3354 UR
other hand, it seems certain that Warka, the native
name of which was Huruk, represents the Erech
of Genesis, which cannot possibly be the Ur of tlie
same book. Mugheir, therefore, which bore the
exact name of ' Ur or Hur, remains with the best
claim, and is entitled to be (at least provisionally)
regarded as the city of Abraham.
If it be objected to this theory that .Abraham,
having to go from Mugheir to Palestine, would not
be likely to take Haran (Harran) on his way, more
partieularly as he must then have crossed the Ku-
phrates twice, the answer would seem to be. that
the movement was not that of an individual but
of a tribe, travelling with large flocks and herds,
whose line of migration would have to be deter
mined by necessities of pastura^je, and by the
friendly or hostile disposition, the weakness or
strength of the tribes already in possession of the
regions which had to be traversed. Fear of Arab

UR
plunderers (Job i. 15) may veiy probably hme
caused the emigrants to cross the Euphrates bef ire
quitting Babylonia, and having done so, they might
naturally follow the left bank of the stream to the
Belik, up which they might then proceed, attracted
by its excellent pastures, till they reached Harran.
As a pastoral tribe proceeding from Lower Baby
lonia to Palestine musi ascend the Euphrates as
high as the latitude of Aleppo, and perhaps would
find it best to ascend nearly to Bir, Harran vfas
but a little out of the proper route. Besides, the
whole tribe which accompanied Abraham was not
going to Palestine. Half the tribe were beiit on a
less distant journey; and with them the question
must have been, where could they, on or near the
line of route, obtain an unoccupied territory.
If upon the grounds above mdicated Mugheir
may be regarded as the true " Ur of the Chaldees "
from which Abraham and his family set out, some

ftuins of Temple at Mugheir (Loftos).

account of its situation and history would seem to
be appropriate in this place. Its remains have
been very carefully examined, both by Mr. Loftus
and Mr. Taylor, while its inscriptions have been
deciphered and translated by Sir Henry Rawlinson.
'Ur or Hur, now Mugheir, or Um^Mugheir,
"the bitumened,", or "the mother of bitumen,"
is one of the most ancient, if not the most ancient,
of the Chaldsean sites hitherto discovered. It lies
on the right bank of the Euphrates, at the distance
of about six miles from the present course of the
stream, nearly opposite the point where the Eu
phrates receives the Shat^el-Hie from the Tigris.
It is now not less than 125 miles from the sea;
but there are grounds for believing that it was an
ciently a maritime town, and that its present inland
position has been caused by the rapid growth of
the alluvium. The remains of buildings are gen
erally of the most archaic character. They cover
an oval space, 1,000 yards long by 800 broad, and
aonsist principally of a number of low mounds
inclosed within an enceinte, which on most sides
Is nearly perfect. The most remarkable building

is near the northern end of the ruins. It is a
teniple of the true Chaldaean type, built in stages,
of which two remain, and composed of brick, partly
sun-burnt and partly baked, laid chiefly in a cement
of bitumen. The bricks of this building bear the
name of a certain Ui^ukh, who is regarded as the
earliest of the Chaldsean monumental kings, and
the name may possibly be the same as that of
Orchamus of Ovid (Metaph. iv. 212). His siip-
posed date is b. c. 2000, or a little earlier. 'Ur
was the capital of this monarch, who had a domin
ion extending at least as far north as Nifier, and
who, by the grandeur of his constructions, is proved
to have been a wealthy and powerful prince. The
great temple appears to have been founded by this
king, who dedicated it to the Moon-god. Hurh,
from whom the town itself seems to have derived
its name. Ilgi, son of UiiAh. completed the tem
ple, as well as certain other of his father's build
ings, and the kings who followed upon these con
tinued for several generations to adorn and beautirf
the city. 'Ur retained its metropolitan clmracta
for above two centuries, and even after it becann

nt
lecond to Babylon, was a great city, with an espe-
sially sacred character. The notions entertained
of its superior sanctity led to its being used as a
cemetery city, not only during the time of the
early Chaldsean supremacy, but throughout the
Assyrian and even the later Babylonian period.
It ia in the main a city of tombs. By far the
greater portion of the space within the enceinte is
occupied by graves of one kind or another, while
outside the inclosure, the whole space for a dis
tance of several hundred yards is a thickly-occu
pied burial-ground. It is believed that 'Ur was
for 1,800 years a site to which the dead were
brought from vast distances, thus resembling such
pliices as Kerbela and Nedjif, or Meshed AU, at
the present day. The latest mention that we find
of 'Ur as an existing place is in tlie passage of
Eupolemus already quoted, where we learn that it
had changed its name, and was called Camarina.
It probably fell into decay under the Persians, and
was a mere ruin at the time of Alexander's con
quests. Perhaps it was the place to which Alex
ander's informants alluded when they told him
that the tombs of the old Assyrian kings were
chiefly in the great marshes of the lower country
(Arrian, Exp. Alex. vii. 22). G. R.
* UB (I^M, light: Rom., with next word,
@vpo<piip; Vat. S8upotj>ap; Alex, npa; F.A. Sovp:
Ur), father of Eliphal or Eliphelet, one of David's
valiant men (1 Chr. xi. 35). A.
UR'BANB [2 syl] (ObpPap6s [Lat. urbanus,
i, e. " urbane," " refined "] : Urbanus). It would
have been better if the word had been written
Urban in the Authorized Version. For unlearned
readers sometimes mistake the sex of this Christian
disciple, who is in the long list of those whom St.
Paul salutes in writing to Rome (Rom. xvi. 9).
We have no means, however, of knowing more
about Urbanus, except, indeed, that we may rea-
Bonably conjecture from the words that follow (rhv
(Tvvepybv y\p.Siv ev XpiiTTcp) that he had been at
some time in active religious coiiperation with the
Apostle. Each of those who are saluted just be
fore and jusfc^after is simply called rbr ayairrfrir
U.0V. The name is Latin. J. S. H.
U'RI C'"^^M [fery, burning]; Oipeias, Ex.
xxxi. 2, [xxxviii. 22;] Ovpias [Vat. -pei-], Ex.
xxxv. 30; 2 Chr. i. 5; Oiipi [Vat-pei], 1 Chr. ii.
20; Alex. Ovpt, except in 2 Chr.: Uri). 1. The
father of Bezaleel one of the architects of the
Tabernacle (Ex. xxxi. 2, xxxv. 30, xxxviii. 22; 1
Chr. ii. 20; 2 Chr. i. 5). He was of the tribe
of Judah, and grandson of Caleb ben-Hezron, his
father being Hur, who, according to tradition, wus
the husband of Miriam.
2. ("ASai.) The father of Geber, Solomon's
commissariat officer in Gilead (1 K. iv. 19).
y. ('nSou6; Alex. nSoue.) One of the gate
keepers of the Teniple, who had married a foreign
wife in the time of Ezra (Ezr. a. 24).
URI'AH (nj'n/lM, light of Jehovah : Oiplas
[Vat. -pet; in 1 Chr. xi. 41, Ovpla, Alex. Oupias,
Vat. FA. Ovpei:] Urias). 1. One of the thirty
commanders of the thirty bands into which the
Israelite army of David was divided (1 Chr. xi. 41 ;
i Sam. xxiii. 39). Like others of David's officers
{Ittai of Gath ; Ishbosheth the Canaanite, 2 Sam.
xxiii. 8, LXX. ; Zelek the Ammonite, 2 Sam. xxiii.
37) he was a foreigner — a Hittite. His name,
kowever, and his manner of speech (2 Sam. xi. 11)

URIAH

SSS.'i

indicate that he had adopted the Jewish religion.
He married Bathsheba, a woman of extraordinary
beauty, the daughter of EHam — possibly the same
as the son of Ahithophel, and one of his brother
oflScers (2 Sara, xxiii. 34); and hence, perhaps, as
Professor Blunt conjectures (Coincidences, u. x.),
Uriah's first acquaintance with Bathsheba. It raay
be inferred from Nathan's parable (2 Sam. xn. 3)
that he was passionately devoted to his wife, and
that their union was celebrated in Jerusalem a.s one
of pecuhar tenderness. He had a house at Jeru
salera underneath the palace (2 Sam. xi. 2). In
the first war with Aramon he foUowed Joab to the
siege, and with him remained encamped in the
open field (Ibid. 11). He returned to Jerusalera,
at an order from the king, on the pretext of asking
news ofthe war, — really in the hope that his re
turn to his wife raight cover the shame of his own
crime. The king met with an unexpected obstacle
in the austere, soldier-like spirit which guided all
Uriah's conduct, and which gives us a high notion
of the character and disciphne of David's officers.
He steadily refused to go horae, or partake of any
of the indulgences of domestic life, whilst the Ark
and the host were in booths and his corarades lying
in the .open air. He partook of the royal hospitality,
but slept always at the gate of the palace till the
last night, when the king at a feast vainly en
deavored to entrap him by intoxication. The sol
dier was overcome by the debauch, but still retained
his sense of duty sufficiently to insist on sleeping
at the palace. On the morning of the third day,
David sent hira back to the camp with a letter (as
in the story of Bellerophon), containing the com
mand to Joab to cause his destruction in the battle.
Josephus (Ant. vii. 7, § 1) adds, that he gave as a
reason an imaginary offense of Uriah. None such
appears in the actual letter. Probably to an un
scrupulous soldier like Joab the absolute will of the
king was sufficient.
The device of Joab was, to observe the part of
the wall of liabbath-Ammon, where the greatest
force of the besieged was congregated, and thither,
as a kind of forlorn hope, to send Uriah. A sally
took place. Uriah and the officers with him ad
vanced as far as the gate of the city, and were there
shot down by the archers on the wall. It seems
as if it had been an established maxim of Israelitish
warfare not to approach the wall of a besieged city ;
and one instance of the fatal result was always
quoted, as if proverbially, against it — the sudden
and ignominious death of Abimelech at Thebez,
wbich cut short the hopes of the then rising mon
archy. This appears from the fact (as given in tbe
LXX.) tbat Joab exactly anticipates what the king
will say when he hears of tbe disaster.
Just as Joab had forewarned the messenger, the
king broke into a furious passion on hearing of the
loss, and cited, almost in the very words which
Joab had predicted, the case of Abimelech. (The
only variation is the omission of the name of the
grandfather of Abimelech, which, in the LXX., ia
Ner instead of Joash.) The messenger, as instructed
by Joab, calmly continued, and ended the story with
the words: " Thy servant also, Uriah the Hittite,
is dead." In a raoraeut David's anger is appeased.
He sends an encouraging raessage to Joab on the
unavoidable chances of war, and urges him to con
tinue the siege. It is one of the touching parts of
the story that Uriah falls unconscious of his wife's
dishonor. She hears of her husband's death. The
narrative gives no hint as to her shame er remorse

3356

URIAS

She " mourned " with the usual signs of griif as a
widow; and then became the wife of David (2 Sam.
xi. 27).
Uriah remains to us, preserved by this tragical
incident, an example of the chivalrous and devoted
characters that were to be found amongst the Ca
naanites serving in the Hebrew army. A. P. S.
2. [Oupias ; Vat. Ovpeias.] High-priest in the
reign of Ahaz (Is. viii. 2; 2 K. xvi. 10-16). We
first hear of him as a witness to Isaiah's prophecy
concerning Maher-shalal-hash-baz, with Zechariah,
the son of Jeberechiah. He is probably the same
as Urijah the priest, who built the altar for Ahaz
(2 K. xvi. 10). If this be so, the prophet sum
moned him as a witness probably on account of his
position as high-priest, not on account of his per
sonal qualities; though, as the incident occurred
at the beginning of the reign of Ahaz, Uriah's
irreligious subserviency may not yet have manifested
itself. When Ahaz, after his deliverance from
Rezin and Pekah by Tiglath-Pileser, went to wait
upon his new master at Damascus, he saw there an
altar which pleased him, and sent the pattern of it
to Uriah at Jerusalem, with orders to have one
raade like it against the king's return. Uriah zeal
ously executed the idolatrous command, and when
Ahaz returned, not only allowed him to offer sacri
fices upon it, but basely complied with all his im
pious directions. The new altar was accordingly
set in the court of the Temple, to the east of where
the brazen altar used to stand ; and the daily sacri
fices, and the burnt-ofierings of the king and people,
were offered upon it ; while the brazen altar, having
been removed from its place, and set to the north
of the Syrian altar, was reserved as a private altar
for the king to inquire by. It is likely, too, that
Uriah's compliances did not end here, but that he
was a consenting party to the other idolatrous and
sacrilegious acts of Ahaz (2 K. xvi. 17, 18, xxiii. 5,
11, 12; 2 Chr. xxviii. 23-25).
Of the parentage of Uriah we know nothing. He
probably succeeded Azariah, who was high-priest in
the reign of Uzziah, and was succeeded by that
Azariah who was high-priest in tbe reign of Heze
kiah. Hence it is probable that he was son of the
former and father of the latter, it being by no means
uncommon among the Hebrews, as among the
Greeks, for the grandchild to have the grandfather's
name. Probably, too, he may have been descended
fi'om that Azariah who must have been high-priest
in the reign of Asa. But he has no place in tbe
sacerdotal genealogy (1 Chr. vi. 4-15), in which
there is a great gap between Amariah in ver. 11,
and Shallum the father of Hilkiah in ver. 13.
[HiGH-PEIEST, ii. 1071 b.] It is perhaps a legiti
mate inference that Uriah's line terminated in his
successor, Azariah, and that Hilkiah was descended
through another branch from Amariah, who was
priest in Jehoshaphat's reign.
3. [Obpla, gen.] A priest of the family of Hak-
koz (in A. V. wrongly Koz), the head ofthe seventh
course of priests. (See 1 Chr. xxiv. 10. ) It does
not appear when this Urijah lived, as he is only
named as the father or ancestor of Meremoth in
the days of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezr. viii. 33;
Neh. iii. 4, 21). In Neh. his name is Urijah.
A. C. H.
URI'AS (Obplas: Urias). 1. Uriah, the
husband of Bathsheba (Matt. i. 6).
2. [Vat. Oupeios.] CuijAH, 3 (1 F.8dr. ix. 43 ;
tomp. Neh. vii. 4).

URIM AND THUMMIM
U'RIBL, fre of God, an angel named only in
2 Esdr. iv. 1, 36, v. 20, x. 28. In the second of
these passages he is called " the archangel."
* In the book of Enoch, Uriel is described as
" the angel of thunder and trembling " (c. 20), and
the angel " placed over all the lights of heaven "
(c. 75, § 3). Milton makes him " regent of the
sun." ^
U'RIBL (bS'>-i:iS [fre of God]: oipii,K;
[Vat. Opn7\:] Uriel). 1. A Kohathite Lerite, son
of Tahath (1 Chr. vi. 24 [9]). If the genealogies
were reckoned in this chapter from father to son,
Uriel would be the same as Zephaniah in ver. 36 •
but there is no reason to suppose that this is the
case. 2. [In ver. 11, Vat. FA. ApnjX.] Chief of the
Kohathites in the reign of David (1 Chr. xv. 5, 11).
In this capacity he assisted, together with 120 of
his brethren, in bringing up the ark fi-om the house
of Obed-edom.
3. Uriel of Gibeah was the father of Maachah,
or Michaiah, the favorite wife of Rehoboam, and
mother of Abijah (2 Chr. xiii. 2). In 2 Chr. xi. 20
she is called " Maachah the daughter of Absalom; "
and Josephus (Ant. viii. 10, § 1) explauis this by
saying that her mother was Tamar, Absalom's
daughter. Rashi gives a long note to the effect
that Michaiah was called Maachah after the name
of her daughter-in-law the mother of Asa, who waa
a woman of renown, and that her father's name
was Uriel Abishalom. There is no indication, how
ever, that Absalom, like Solomon, had another
name, although in the Targum of R. Joseph on
Chronicles it is said that the father of Maachah
was called Uriel that the name of Absalom might
not be mentioned.
URI'JAH (n»-l^S [flame of Jehovah] :
Ovpias [Vat. -pet-] : Urias). 1. Urijah the priest
in the reign of Ahaz (2 K. xvi. 10), probably the
same as Uriah, 2.
2. (Ovpla. ) A priest of the family of Koz, or
hak-Koz [Neh. iii. 4, 21], the same as Uriah, 3.
3. (Ovpias; [Vat. OopEia:] Uria.) One of the
priests who stood at Ezra's right-hand when he
read the Law to the people (Neh. viii. 4).
4. (nnn^N: [Obplas; Vat. -p«-:] Urias.)
The son of Shemaiah of Kirjath-jearim. He proph
esied in the days of Jehoiakim concerning the land
and the city, just as Jeremiah had done, and tbe
king sought to put him to death ; but he escaped,
and fled into Egypt. His retreat was soon dis
covered : Elnathan and his men brought him up
out of Egypt, and Jehoiakim slew him with the
sword, and cast his body forth among the graves
of the common people (Jer. xxvi. 20-23). The
story of Shemaiah appears to be quoted by the
enemies of Jeremiah as a reason for puttuig him
to death ; and, as a reply to the instance of Micah
the Morasthite, which Jeremiah's friend gave as a
reason why his words should be listened to and hia
life spared. Such, at least, is the view adopted by
Rashi. W. A. W.
U'RIM AND THUM'MIM (D'^TH
n"'Sn : S^Aoio-is Kal iK'tieeia : doctrina li
Veritas). I. (1.) When the Jewish exiles were met on
their return from Babylon by a question whioh they
had no data for answering, they agreed to postpone
the aettleipent of the difficulty till there should rise

URIM AND THUMMIM

ap " a priest with Urim and Thummim " (E^r. ii.
33; Neh. vii. 65). The inquiry, what those Urim
and Thummim themselves were, seema hkely to
wait as long for a final and satiafying answer. On
svery side we meet with confessions of ignorance —
"Non constat" (Kimchi), ''Nescimus" (Aben-
Ezra), "Difficile est invenire" (Augustine) — va
ried only by wild and conflicting conjectures. It
would be comparatively an easy task to give a cata^
logue of these hypotheses, and transcribe to any ex
tent the learning which has gathered round them.
To attempt to follow a true historical method, and
BO to construct a theory which shall, at least, in
clude all the phenomena, is a more arduous, but
may be a more profitable task.
(2.) The starting-point of such an inquiry must
be from the words which the A. V. has left un^
translated. It will be well to deal with each sep-
irately. (A.) In Urim, Hebrew scholars, with hardly an
exception, have seen the plural of "I^M ( = Ught,
or fire). The LXX. translators, however, appear to
have had reasons which led thera to another ren
dering than that of (f>ws, or its cognates. They
give ^ S^Aftjo-is (Ex. xxviii. 30; Ecclus. xiv. 10),
and BrjKoi (Num. xxvii. 21 ; Deut. xxxiii. 8 ; 1 Sam.
xxviii. 6), while in Ezr. ii. 63, aud Neh. vii. 65, we
have respectively plural and singular participles of
^wrffaj. In Aquila and Theodotion we find the
more Hteral (ftcoTia-fiol. The Vulg., following the
lead of the LXX., but going further astray, gives
doctrina in Ex. xxviii. 30 and Deut. xxxiii. 8, omits
the word in Num. xxvii. 21, paraphrases it by " per
sacerdoies'^ in 1 Sam. xxviii. 6, and gives ^^ Judi
cium" in Ecclus. xiv. 10, as the rendering of
S^Xwo-iy. Luther gives Licht The literal English
equivalent would of course be "lights;" but the
renderings in the LXX. and Vulg. indicate, at least,
a traditional belief among the Jews that the plural
form, as in Elohim and other like words, did not
involve numerical plurality.
(B.) Thummim. Here also there is almost a
consensus" as to the derivation from Dn ( = per
fection, completeness); but the LXX., as before,
uses the closer Greek equivalent t4\gios but once
(Ezr. ii. 63), and adheres elsewhere to a\-fi0€ia; and
the Vulg., giving '•'•perfectus " there, in Uke man
ner gives " veWMs" in all other passages. Aquila
more accurately chooses reAett^o'eis-. Luther, in
his first edition, gave Volligkeit, but afterwards
rested in Recht. What bas been said as to the
plural of Urim applies here also. " Light and Per
fection " would probably be the best English equiv
alent. The assumption of a hendiadys, so that the
two words^ " perfect illumination " (Carpzov, App.
Crit. i. 5; Bahr, Symbolik, ii. 135), is unneces
sary and, it is believed, unsound. The mere phrase,
as such, leaves it therefore uncertain whether each
word by itself denoted raany things of a given kind.

UKIM AND THUMMIM 3357
or whether the two taken together might be re
feired to two distinct objects, or to one and the
and

same object. The presence of the article i
yet more of the demonstrative nSt before each, is
rather in favor of distinctness. In Deut. xxxiii. 8,
we have separately, '' Thy Thummim and thy
Urim," the first order being inverted. Urim ia
found alone in Num. xxvii. 21; 1 Sam. xxviii. 6;
Thummim never by itself, unless with ZiiUig we
find it in Ps. xvi. 5.
IL (1.) Scriptural Statements. — The mysteri
ous words raeet us for the first time, as if they
needed no explanation, in the description of the
high-priest's apparel. Over the ErnoD there is to
be a "breastplate of judgment" (tDQt£?^n ]pn,
Xoyeiov Kpia'eas'^ raiiimale jvdicli)., of gold, scar
let, purple, and fine linen, folded square and doub
led, a "span" in length and width. In it are to
be set four rows of precious stones, each stone with
the narae of a tribe of Israel engraved on it, that
Aaron raay "bear them upon his heart." Then
comes a further x»rder. Inside the breastplate, as
the tables of the Covenant were placed inside the
Ark (the preposition 7S is used in both cases, Ex.
xxv. 16, xxviii. 30), are to be placed "the Urim
and the Thummim," the Light and the Perfection;
and tbey, too, are to be on Aaron's heart, when he
goes in before the Lord (Ex. xxviii. 15-30). Not
a word describes them. They are mentioned as
things ah'eady. familiar both to Moses and the
people, connected naturally with the functions of
the high-priest, as mediating between Jehovah and
his people. The comraand is fulfilled (Lev. viii. 8).
They pass from Aaron to Eleazar with the sacred
ephod, and other poniifcalia (Num. xx. 28).
When Joshua is solemnly appointed to succeed the
great hero lawgiver, he is bidden to stand before
Eleazar the priest, " who shall ask counsel for him
after the judgment of Urim," and this counsel is to
determine the moveiTlents of the host of Israel
(Num. xxvii. 21). In the blessings of Moses, they
appear as the crowning gloryof the tribe of Levi
(" Thy Thummim and thy Urim are with thy Holy
One"), the reward of the zeal which led them to
close their eyes to everything but "the Law and
tbe Covenant" (Deut. xxxiii. 8, 9). Once, and
once only, are they mentioned by name in the his
tory of the Judges and the monarchy. Saul, left
to his self-chosen darkness, ia answered " neither
by dreams, nor by Urira, nor by prophet " (1 Sam,
xxviii. 6). There is no longer a priest with Urim
and Thummim (rots (pcoTi^ovoL Kal toTs TeXeiois,
Ezr. ii. 63; 6 (paTia-aiv, Neh. vii. 65) to answer
hard questions. When will one appear again V
The Son of Sirach copies the Greek names (StjA-oi,
aK-fideia) in his description of Aaron's garments,
but throws no light upon their meaning or their
use (Ecclus. xiv. 10).*^

a The exceptions to the consensus are just worth
Doticing. (1.) Bellarmine wishing to defend the Vulg.
translation, suggested the derivation of Urim from
n^^ = " to teach ; " and Thummim from ^QM, " to
be true." (Baxtort, Diss, de Vr. et Th.) (2.) Thum
mim has been derived from DWi^l confer. DI^ = " a
TwIn," on the theory that the two groups of gems, six
on each side the breast-plate, were what constituted
tbe Urim and Thummim. (B. Azarias, in Buxtorf,
(...)

b The LXX. rendering, so different from the literal
meaning, must have originated either (1) from a false
etymology, as if the word was derived ftom ti7n3
= " to divine " (Gen. xliv. 15) ; or (2) from the orac
ular use made of the breastplate ; or (3) from other
associations connected with the former (infra). Thfe
Vulg. simply follows the LXX. Seb. Schmidt gives the
,more literal " pertorale." " Breast-plate " is, perhaps,
somewhat misleading.
« The A. v., singularly enough, retranslates tin

3358 UKIM AND THUMMIM
(2.) Besides these direct statements, there are
others in which we may, without violence, trace a
reference, if not to both, at least to the Urim.
When questions precisely of the nature of those
described in Num. xxvii. 21 are asked by the
.eader of the people, and answered by Jehovah
(Judg. i. 1, XX. 18) — when like questions are
asked by Saul of the high-priest Ahiah, " wearing
an ephod " (1 Sam. xiv. 3, 18) — by David, as soon
as he has with him the presence of a high-priest
with his ephod (1 Sam. xxiii. 2, 12, xxx. 7, 8) —
we may legitimately infer that the treasures which
the ephod contained were the conditions and media
of his answer. The questions are in almost all
cases strategical," " Who shall go up for us against
the Canaanites first?" (Judg. i. 1, so xx. 18),
" Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men
into the hand of Saul? " (1 Sam. xxiii. 12), or, at
least, national (2 Sam. xxi. 1 ). The answer is, in
all cases, very brief, but more in form than a sim
ple Yes or No. One question only is answered at
a time. (3.) It deserves notice before we pass beyond the
range of Scriptural data, that in some cases of de
flection from the established religious order, we find
the ephod connected not with the Urim but with
the Terai'him, which, in the days of Laban, if not
earlier, had been conspicuous in Aramaic worship.
Micah, first consecrating one of his own sons, and
then getting a Levite as his priest, makes for him
"an ephod and teraphim " (Judg. xvii. 5, xviii. 14,
20). Throughout the history of the northern
kingdom their presence at Dan made it a sacred
place' (Judg. xviii. 30), and apparently determined
Jeroboam's choice of it as a sanctuary. When the
prophet Hosea foretells the entire sweeping away of
the system which the Ten Tribes had cherished, tbe
point of extremest destitution' is. that " they shall
be many days .... without an ephod, and with
out tei-aphim " (Hos. iii. 4), deprived of all coun
terfeit oracles, iu order that they may in the end
"return and seek the Lord."* It seems natural
to infer that the teraphim were, in these instances,
the unauthorized substitutes for the Urim. The
inference is strengthened by the fact that the LXX.
uses here, instead of teraphim, the same word (Sij-
Xmy) which it usually gives for Urim. That the
teraphim were tius used through the whole history
of Israel may be inferred from their frequent occur
rence in conjunction with other forms of divination.
Thus we have in 1 Sam. xv. 23, " witchcraft " and
" teraphim " (A. T. " idolatry "), in 2 K. xxiii. 24,
" familiar spirits," " wizards, and teraphim " (A.
"V. "images"). The king of Babylon, when he
uses divination, consults them (Ez. xxi. 21). They
speak vanity (Zech. x. 2).
III. Theories. — (1.) For the most part we have
to deal with independent conjectures rather than
with inferences from these tiaia. Among the latter,
however, may be noticed the notion that, as Moses
is not directed to make the Urim and Thummim,
Ihey must have had a supernatural origin, specially

URIM ANU THUMMIM
created, unlike anything upon earth (R. ben Nach.
man and Hottinger in Buxtorf, Diss, de U. et T
in Ugolini, xii.). It would be profitless to discusi
so arbitrary an hypothesis.
2.) A favorit* view of Jewish and of some
Christian writers has been, that the Urim and
Thummim were identical with the twelve stones
on which the names of the tribes of Israel were
engraved, and tbe mode in which an oracle was
given was by the illumination, simultaneous or suc
cessive, of the letters which were to make up tha
answer (Jalkut Sifre, Zohar in Exod. f. 105; Maj.
monides, R. ben Nachman, in Buxtorf, I. b. ; Drusius
in Cril. Sac. on Ex. xxviii. ; Chrjsostom, Grotius.
et cd.). Josephus (Ani. iii. 7, § 5) adopts another
foi-m of the same story, and, apparently identifying
the Urim and Thummim with the sardonyxes on
the shoulders of the ephod, says that they were
bright before a victory, or when the sacrifice waa
acceptable, dark when any disasfer was impending.
Epiphanius (de xii. gemm.), and the writer quof«i
by Suidas (s. v. 'EtpoiS), present the same thought
in yet another form. A single diamond (aii/uis)
placed in the centre of the breastplate prognosti
cated peace when it was bright, war when it waa
red, death when it was dusky. It is conclusive
against such views (1) that, without any eridence,
without even an analogy, they make unauthorized
additions to the miracles of Scripture; (2) that
the former identify two things which, in Ex.
xxviii., are clearly distinguished; (3) that the
latter makes no distinction between the Urim and
the Thummim, such as the repeaf£d article leads
us to infer.
(3.) A theory, involving fewer gratuitous as
sumptions, is that in the middle of the ephod, or
within its folds, there was a stone or plate of gold
on which was engraved the sacred name of Jehovah,
the Sheni-hammephorash of Jewish cabbalists," and
that by virtue of this, fixing his gaze on it, or
reading an invocation which was also engraved with
the name, or standing in his ephod before the
mercy-seat, or at least before the veil of the sanc
tuary, he became capable of prophesying, hearing
the Divine voice within, or listening to it as it pro
ceeded, in articulate sounds, from the glory of the
Shecbinah (Buxtorf, /. c. 7; Lightfoot, vi. 278;
Braunius, de Vestitu Hebr. ii. ; Saalschiitz, Archa-
' g. ii. 363). Another form of the same thought
is found in the statement of Jewish writers, that
the Holy Spirit spake sometimes by Urim, some
times by prophecy, sometimes by the Bath-Kol
(Seder Olam, c. xiv. in Braunius, /. c), or thatthe
whole purpose of the unknown symbols was " ad
excitandam prophetiam " (R. Levi ben Gershon, in
Buxtorf, I. c; Kimchi, in Spencer, I. c). A more
eccentric form of the " writing " theory was pro
pounded by the elder Carpzov, who maintained that
the Urim and Thummim were two confessionn of
faith in the Messiah and the Holy Spirit (Carpzov,
App. Crit. i. 5).
(4.) Spencer (de Ur. et Th.) present* s suigular

Greek words back into the Hebrew, and gives " Urun
and Thummim " as if they were proper names.
a On thia account, probably, the high-priest vor to
go out to battle (Num. xxxi. 6), as, in his absence,
there was to be a Saceriios Castrensis. [Priests.]
b The writer caonot bring himself, with Pusey
. Comm. in loc. ), to refer the things named by tho
prophet, partly to the true, partly to the felse ritual ;
Btill less, with SpcDcer (Diss, de Vr. et 77j.), to see in
ill of them thing" which the prophet recognizes as

right and good. It is simpler to take them aa de
scribing the actual polity and ritual iu which the
northern kingdom had gloried, and of which it was to
be deprived.
c A wilder form of this belief ia found in the cal)-
balistio book Zohar. There the Urim is said to have
had tho Divino name in 42, (he Thummim in 72 let
ters. The notion was probably derived from the Jew-
ish invocations of books like the Ctavicula Salimimit.
[Soiomon.]

UEIM AJ^D THUMMIM
anion of acuteness and extravagance. He rightly
recognizes the distinctness of the two things which
others had confounded. \Vhatever the Urim and
Thummim were, they were not tbe twelve stones,
and they were distinguishable one from the other.
They were placed inside the folds of the doubled
Choshen. Kesting on the facts referred to, he in
ferred the identity of the Urim and the Teraphim."
This was an instance in which the Divine wisdora
accommodated itself to man's weakness, and al
lowed the debased superstitious Israelites to retain
a fragment of the idolatrous system of their fathers,
in order to wean them, gradually from the system
as a whole. The obnoxious name of Teraphim was
dropped. . The thing itself was retained. The very
name Urim was, he argued, identical in meaning
with Teraphim.^ It was, therefore, a small image
probably in human form. So far the hypothesis
has, at least, the merit of being inductive and his
torical; but when he comes to the question how it
was instrumental oracularly, he passes into the most
extravagant of all assumptions. The image, when
the high-priest questioned it, spoke by the media
tion of an angel, with an articulate human voice,
just as the Teraphim spoke, in like manner, by the
intervention of a demon ! In dealing with the
Thummim, which he excludes altogether from the
oracular functions of the Urim, Spencer adopts
the notion of an Egyptian archetype, which will be
noticed further on.
(5.) Michaehs (Laws of Moses, v. § 52) gives
his own opinion that the Urim and Thummim were
three at-ones, on one of wbich was written Yes, on
another No, while the third was left blank or neu
tral. The three were used as lots, and the high-
priest decided according as the one or the other
was drawn out. He does not think it worth while
to give one iota of evidence; and the notion does
not appear to have been more than a. passing ca
price. It obviously fails to meet the phenomena.
Lots were familiar enough among the Israelites
(Num. xxvi. 55; Josh. xiii. 6, et at; 1 Sam. xiv.
41; Prov. xvi. 3-1), but the Urim was something
solemn and peculiar, lu the cases where the Urim
was consulted, the answers were always more than
a mere negative or affirmative.
(6.) The conjecture of Zullig (Comm. in Apoc.
Exc. ii.}, though adopted by Winer (Realwb.), can
hardly be looked on as more satisfying. With him
the Urim are bright, i. e. cut and poUshed, dia-^
monds, in form hke dice; the Thummim perfect,
I. e. whole, rough, uncut ones, each class with in
scriptions of some kind engraved on it. He sup
poses a handful of these to have been carried in the
pouch of the high-priest's Choshen, and when he
wished for an oi-acle, to have been taken out by
him and thrown on a table, or, more probably, on
'jhe Ark of the Covenant. As they fell their posi
tion, according to traditional rules known only to
the high-priestly famihes, indicated the answer.
He compares it with fortune-telling by cards or
eoffefr-grounds. The whole scheme, it need hardly
be said, is one of pure invention, at once arbitrary
and offensive. It is at least questionable whether
the Egyptians had access to diamonds, or knew the
>rt of polishing or engraving them. [Diamond.]

URIM AND THUMMIM 3359
A handful of diamond cubes, large enough to have
words or monograms engraved on them, is a thing
which has no paraUel in Egyptian archseology, nor,
indeed, anywhere else.
(7.) The latest Jewish interpreter of eminence
(KaUsch, on Ex. xxvni. 31), combining parts of
the views (2) and (3), identifies the Urim and
Thummim with the twelve tribal gems, looks on
the name as one to be explained by a hendiadys
(Light and Perfection = Perfect illumination), and
believes the high-priest, by concentrating his
thoughts on the attributes they represented, to
have divested himself of all selfishness and preju
dice, and so to have passed into a true prophetic
state. In what he says on this point there is much
that is both beautiful and true. Lightfoot, it may
be added, had taken the same view (ii. 407, vi.
278), and that given above in (3) converges to the
sarae result.
IV. One more Theory. — (1.) It may seem
venturesome, after so many wild and conflicting
conjectures, to add yet another. If it is beUeved
that the risk of faUing into one as wUd and baseless
need not deter us, it is because there are materials
within our reach, drawn from our larger knowledge
of antiquity, and not less from our fuller insight
into the less common phenomena of consciousness,
which were not, to the same extent, within the
reach of our fathers.
(2.) The starting point of our inquiry may be
found in adhering to the conclusions to which the
Scriptural statements lead us. The Urim were not
identical with tbe Thummim, neither of them
identical with the tribal gems. The notion of a
hendi idys (almost always the weak prop of a weak
theory) may be discarded. And, seeing that they
are mentioned with no description, we must infer
that they and their meaning were already known,
if not to the other Israelites, at least to Moses. If
we are to look for their origin anywhere, it ^mst be
in the customs and the symbolism of Egypt.
(3.) We may start with the Thummim, as pre
senting the easier problem of the two. Here there
is at once a patent and striking analogy. The
priestly judges of t^ypt, with whose presence and
garb Moses must have been familiar, wore, each of
them, hanging on his neck, suspended on a golden
chain, a, figure which Greek writers describe as an
image of Truth ('AX^fleia, as in the LXX.) often
with closed eyes, made sometimes of a sapphire or
other precious stones, and, therefore necessarily
small. They were to see in this a symbol of the
purity of motive, without which they would be
unworthy of their office. With it they touched
the lips of the litigant as they bade him speak the
truth, the whole, the perfect truth (Diod. Sie. i.
48, 75; iEUan, Var. Hist xiv. 34). That this
paraUeUsm commended itself to the most learned of
the Alexandrian Jews we may infer (1) from tbe
deUberate but not obvious use by the LXX. of tbe
word hK4\Qeia as the translation of Thummim;
(2) from a remarkable passage in PhUo (de VU.
Mos. ni. 11), in which he says that the breastplate
(\6yiov) of the high-priest was made strong thai
he might wear as an image {'iva a.ya\fxaTO<popij)
the two virtues which were so needful for his office.

a He had been preceded in this view by Joseph
Mede {Diss. I. c. 35), who pointed out the strong re
semblance, if not the identity ofthe two.
b The process of proof is ingenious, but hardly con-
rtucing Urim = " lights, fires ; " Seraphim ^

" the burning, or fiery ones ; " and Teraphim is but
the same word, with an Aramaic substitu'ion of H
for W,

3360 URIM AND THUMMIM
The connection between the Hebrew and the Egyp
tian symbol was first noticed, it is believed, by
Spencer {I. c). It was met with cries of alarm.
No single custom, rite, or symbol, could possibly
have been transferred from an idolatrous system
into that of Israel. There was no evidence of the
antiquity of the Egyptian practice. It was prob
ably copied from the Hebrew (Witsius, Egypiiaca,
ii. 10, 11, 12, in Ugolini, i. ; Riboudealdus, de
Urim et Th. in Ugolini, xii.; Patrick, Comm. in
Ex. xxviii.). The discussion of the principle in
volved need not be entered on here. Spencer's
way of putting the case, assuming that a debased
form of religion was given in condescension to the
superstitions of a debased people, made it, indeed,
needlessly offensive, but it remains true, that a rev
elation of any kind must, to be intelligible, use
preexistent words, and that those words, whether
spoken or symbolic, may therefore be taken from
any language with which the recipients of the rev
elation are familiar." In this instance the prej
udice has worn away. The most orthodox of Ger
man theologians accept the once startling theory,
and find in it a proof of the veracity of the Penta
teuch (Hengstenberg, Egypt and the Five Books of
Moses, c. vi.). It is admitted, partially at least,
by a devout Jew (KaUsch, on Ex. xxviii. 31).^
And thfe missing link of evidence has been found.
The castom was not, as had been said, of late
origin, but is found on the older monuments of
Egypt. There, round the neck of the judge, are
seen the two figures of Thmei, the representative
of Themis, Truth, Justice (Wilkinson, Ancient
Egyptians, v. 28). The coincidence of sound may,
it is true, be accidental, but it is at least striking.
In the words which teU of the tribe of Levi, in close
connection with the Thummim as its chief glory,
that it did the stern task of duty, blind to all
that could turn it aside to evil, " saying to his
father and his mother, I have not seen him " (Deut.
xxxiii. 9), we may perhaps trace a reference to the
closed eyes of the Egyptian Thraei.
(4.) The way is now open for a further inquiry.
We may legitimately ask whether there was any
symbol of Light standing to the Urim in the same
relation as the symboUc figure of Truth stood to the
Thummim. And the answer to that question is as
foUows. On the breast of well-nigh every member
of the priestly caste of Egypt there hung a pectoral
plate, corresponding in position and in size to the
Choshen of the high-priest of Israel. And in
many of theae we find, in the centre of the pectorals,
right over the heart of the priestly mummy, as the
Urim was to be "on the heart " of Aaron, what
was a known symbol of Light (see British Museum,
First Egyptian Room, Cases 67, 69, 70, 88, 89.
Second ditto, Cases 68, 69, 74). In that symbol
wers united and embodied the highest religious
thoughts to which man had then risen. It repre
sented the Sun and the Universe, Light and Life,
a It may be reasonably urged indeed that in such
sases the previous connection with a false system is a
reason for, and not against the use of a symbol in it-
lelf expressive. The priests of Israel were taught that
Jiey were not to have lower thoughts of the light and
^rfection which they needed than the priests of Ra.
t> It is right to add that the Egyptian origin is re-
jucted both by Biihr (Symbolik, u. 164) and Ewald {Al
terthum. pp. 307-309), but without sufficient grounds.
Ewald's treatment of the whole subject is, indeed, at
ftnce superficial and inconsistent. In the Alterthiimer
1. c.) he speaks of the Urim and Thummio} s lots,

URIM AND THUMMIM
Creation and Resurrection. The material of tha
symbol varied according to the rank of the wearer.
It might be of blue porcelain, or jasper, or corne
lian, or lapis lazuli, or amethyst. Prior to oui
knowing what the symbol was, we should probablj
think it natural and fitting that this, like the other
should have been transferred from the lower worship
to the higher, from contact with falsehood to fellow
ship with truth. Position, size, material, meanuig,
everything answers the conditions of the problem.
(5.) But the symbol in this case was the myBtic
Scarabaeus; and it may seem to some startling and
incredible to suggest that such an emblem could
have been borrowed for such a purpose. It is per
haps quite as difficult for us to understand how it
could ever have come to be associated with such
ideas. We have to throw ourselves back into a
stage of human progress, a phase of human thought,
the most utterly unUke any that comes within our
experience. Out of the mud which the NUe left
in its flooding, men saw myriad forms of life issue.
That of the Scarabaeus was the most conspicuous.
It seemed to them self-generated, caUed into being
by the Ught, the chUd only of the sun. Its glossy
wing-cases reflecting the bright rays made it seem
like the sun in miniature. It became at once the
emblem of Ka, the sun, and its creative power
(Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 4, § 21; Euseb. Prc^.
Evang. iii. 4; Brugsch, Liber Meiempsychoseos, p.
33 ; WUkinson, Ancient Egyptians, iv. 295, v. 26,
476). But it came also out of the dark earth, after
the flood of watei"s, and was therefore the symbol
of life rising out of death in new forms ; of a resur
rection and a metempsychosis (Brugsch, /. c. and
./Egypt. Alterth. p. 32). So it was that not iu
Egypt only, but in Etruria and Assyria iu-»d othffl
countries, the same strange emblems reappeared
(Dennis, Cities and Sejntlchres of Etruria, Introd.
Ixxiii.; Layard, Nineveh, ii. 214). So it was that
men, forgetting the actual in the ideal, invested it
with the title of Movoyev4]s (Horapollo, Hieroyl,
1. c. 10), tbat the more mystic, dreamy, Gnostic
sects adopted it hito their symbolic language, and
that semi-Christian Scarabtei are found with the
sacred words Jao, Sabaoth, or the names of angela
engraved on them (Bellermann, Ueber die Scara-
bden^Gemmen, i. 10), just as the mystic Tau, or
Crux ansaia, appeara, in spite of its original mean
ing, on the monuments of Christian Egypt (Wil
kinson, Anc. Egypt v. 283). In older Egypt it
was, at any rate, connected with the thought of
Divine illumination, found in frequent union with
the symbolic eye, the emblem of the providence of
God, and with the hieroglyphic invocation, "Tu
radians das vitam puris hommibus" (Brugsch's
translation, Liber Metemps. p. 33). It is obvious
that in such a case, as with the Ci-v^ ansaia, the
Scarabaeus is neither an idol, uor identified with
idolatry.'^ It is simply a word, as much the mere
exponent of a thought as tf it were spoken with

adopting Michaelis's view. In his Propheten (i. 15) he
speaks of the high-priest fixing his gaze on them to
bring himself into the prophetic state.
c The symbolic language of one nation or age will,
of course, often be unintelligible, and even seem lu
dicrous to another. They will take for granted that
men have worshipped what they manifestly respected.
Would it .be easy to make a Moi ammedan understand
cleariy the meaning of tho symbols of the four ^v&n-
gelista as used in the oruanientatious of English
churches? Would au English congregation, not
archaeologists, bear to be told that thrjy wer« to en

URIM AND THUMMIM
the lips, or written in phonetic characters. There
is nothing in ita Egyptian origin or its animal form
which need startle us any more than the like origin
of the Ark or the Thummim, or the like form in
the Brazen Serpent, or the fourfold symbolic
figures of the Cherubim. It is to be added, that
Joseph by his maiTiage with the daughter of the
priest of On, the priest of the sun-god Ra, and
Moses, as having been trained in the learning of
the Egyptians, and probably among the priests of
the same ritual, and in the same city, were certain
to be acquainted with the sculptured ivord, and
with ita nieaning. For the latter, at any rate, it
would need no description, no interpretation. Deep
set in the Choshen, between the gems that repre
sented Israel, it would set forth that Light aud
Truth were the centre of the nation's Ufe. Belong
ing to the breastplate of judgment, it would bear
witness that the high-priest, in his oracular acts,
needed above aU things spotless integrity and Di
vine illumination. It fulfiUed aU the conditions
and taught aU the lessons which Jewish or Chris
tian writers have connected with the Urim.
(6.} (A.) Have we any data for determining
the material of the symbol ? The following tend
at least to a definite conclusion: (1.) If the stone
was to represent Ught, it would probably be one in
which Ught was, as it were, embodied in its purest
form, colorless and clear, diamond or rock crystal.
(2.) The traditions quoted above from Suidas and
Epiphanius confirm this inference." (3.) It is ac
cepted as part of Ziillig's theory, by Dean Trench
(Epistles to Seven Chtirches, p. 125).^ The
" white stone " of Rev. ii. 17, like the other rewards
of him that overcometh, declared the truth of the
Universal Priesthood. What bad been the pecuUar
treasure of the house of Aaron should be bestowed
freely on aU believers.
(B.) Another fact connected with the symbol
enables us to include one of the best supported of
the Jewish conjectures. As seen on the bodies of
Egyptian priests and others it almost always bore
an inscription, the name of the god whom the priest
served, or, more coramonly, an invocation, from the
Book ofthe Dead, or some other Egyptian Uturgy
(Brugsch, Lib. Metemps. I. c). There would here,
also, be an analogy. Upon the old emblem, ceas
ing, it may be, to bear its old distinctive form,^
there might be the "new name written," the Tet
ragrammaton, the Shem-hammephorash of later
Judaism, directing the thoughts of the priest to the
true Lord of Life and Light, of whom, unlike the
Lord of Life in the temples of Egypt, there was no
form or similitude, a Spirit, to be worshipped there
fore in spirit and in truth.
(7.) We are now able to approach the question,
" In what way was the Urim instrumental in en
abling the high-priest to give a true oracular
response? " We may dismiss, with the more
thoughtful writers aheady mentioned (Kimchi, on

grave on their seals a peUcan or a fish, as a type of
Christ? (Clem. Alex. PeBda^. iii. 11, § 59.)
a The words of Epiphanius are remarkable, ¦}} 6^-
b For the reasons stated above, in discussing
Ziillig's theory, the writer finds himself unable to
igree with Dean Trench as to the diamond being cer-
Viinly the stoae in question. So far as he knows, no
diamonds have as yet been found among the jewels of
^gypt. Rock crystal seepis therefore th** more prob
able of the two.
c Changes in the form of an emblem till it ceases to

URIM AND THUMMIM 3361
2 Sam. XXV., may be added), the gratuitous prod.
igies which have no existence but in the fancies of
Jewish or Christian dreamers, the articulate voice
and tbe illumined letters. There remains the con
clusion that, iu some way, they helped him to rise
out of aU selfishness and hypocrisy, out of aU cere
monial routine, aiid to piiss into a state analogous
to that of the later prophets, and so to become
capable of a new spiritual illumination. The modus
operandi in this case may, it is believed, be at least
illustrated by some lower analogies in the less com
mon phenomena of consciousness. Among the
most remarkable of such phenomena is the change
produced by concentrating the thoughts on a single
idea, by gazing steadfastly on a single fixed point.
The brighter and more dazzUng the point upon
which the eyes are turned the more rapidly is the
change produced. The Ufe of perception is inter
rupted. Sight and hearing fail to fulfill their
usual functions. The mind passes into a state of
profound abstraction, and loses aU distinct per
sonal consciousness. Though not asleep it may
see visions and dream dreams. Under the sug
gestions of a will for the time stronger than itself,
it may be played on Uke " a thinking automaton." "^
When not so played on, its mental state is deter
rained by the "dorainant ideas" which were im
pressed upon it at the moment when, by its own
act, it brought about the abnormal change (Dr.
W. B. Carpenter in Quarterly Rev. xciii. 510, 522).
(8.) We are familiar with these phenomena
chiefly as they connect themselves with the lower
forms of mysticism, with the tricks of electro-biolo
gists, and other charlatans. Even as such they
present points of contact with many facts of inter
est in Scriptural or Ecclesiastical History. Inde
pendent of many facts in monastic legends of which
this is the most natural explanation, we may see in
the last great controversy of the Greek Church a
startling proof how terrible may be the influence of
these morbid states when there is no healthy moral
or inteUectual activity to counteract them. For
three hundred years or more the rule of the Abbot
Simeon of Xerocercos, prescribing a process precisely
analogous to that described above, was adopted by
myriads of monks in Mount Athos and elsewhere.
The Christianity of the East seemed in danger of
giving its sanction to a spiritual suicide Uke that of
a Buddhist seeking, as his highest blessedness, the
annihilation of the Nirwana. Plunged in profound
abstraction, their eyes fixed on the centre of their
own bodies, the Quietists ofthe 14th century (tjg'u-
Xaffrai, 6fj.<pa\6\l/vxot) enjoyed an unspeakable
tranquillity, believed themselves to be radiant with
a Divine glory, and saw visions of the uncreated
Ught whieh had shone on Tabor. Degrading aa
the whole matter seems to us, it was a serious dan
ger then. The mania spread like an epidemic, even
among the laity. Husbands, fathers, men of letters,
and artisans gave themselves up to it. It was im -

bear any actual resemblance to its original prototype
are familiar to aU students of symbolism. The Orux
ansata, the Tau, which was the sign of life, is, perhaps,
the most striking instance (Wilkioson. Anc. Egypt, v.
283). Gesenius, in like.manner, in his Monumenta
Phcenieia, ii. 68, 69, 70), gives engravings of Scarabaei
in which nothing but the oval form is left.
d The word ia used, of course, in its popular senae,
BB a toy moving by machinery. Strictly speaking,
automatic force is just the element which has, for ttw
tUne, disappeared.

3362 URIM AND THUMMIM
portant enough to be the occasion of repeated Syn- '
ods, in which emperors, patriarchs, bishops were
eager to take part, and mostly in favor of the prac
tice, and the coi*ollaries deduced from it (Eleury,
Hist Eccles. xcv. 9; Gieseler, .Ch. Hist § 129;
Maury, La Magie ei VAstrobgie, pp. 429, 430).
(9.) It is at least conceivable, however, that,
within given limits, and in a given stage of human
progress, the state which seems so abnormal might
have a use as well as an abuse. In the opinion of
one of the foremost among modern physiologists,
the processes of hypnotism would have their place
in a perfect system of therapeutics ( Quart Reoiew,
I. c). It is open tous to believe that they may,
in the less perfect stages of the spiritual history of
mankind, have helped instead of hindering. In this
way only, it may be, the sense-bound spirit could '
abstract itself from the outer world, and take up
the attitude of an expectant tranquiUity. The en
tire suppression of human consciousness, as in the
analogous phenomena of an ecstatic state [comp.
Trance], the surrender of the entire man to be
played upon, as the hand plays upon the harp, may,
at one time, have been an actual condition of the
inspired state, just as eveu now it is the only con
ception which some minds are capable of forming
of the fact of inspiration in any form or at any time.
Bearing this in mind, we may represent to our
selves the process of seeking counsel " by Urim."
The question brought was one aflfecting the well-
being of the nation, or its army, or its king. The
inquirer spoke in a low whisper, asking one ques
tion only at a time (Gem. Bab. Joma, in Mede,
/. c). The high-priest, fixing his gaze on the
"gems oracular" that lay "on his heart," fixed
his thoughts on the Light and the Perfection which
they symbohzed, on the Holy Name inscribed on
them. The act was itself a prayer, and, like other
prayers, it might be answered.^ After a time, he
passed into the new, mysterious half-ecstatic state.''
AU disturbing elements — selfishness, prejudice,
fche fear of man — were eUminated. He received
fche insight which he craved. Men trusted in his
decisions as with us men trust the j udgment which
has been purified by prayer for tbe help of the
Eternal Spirit, more than that which grows only
out of debate, and policy, and calculation.
(10.) It is at least interesting to think that a
like method of passing into this state of insight
was practiced unblamed in the country to which we
have traced the Urim, and among the people, ior
whose education this process was adapted. We
need not think of Joseph, the pure, the heaven-
taught, the blameless one, as adopting, stiU less as
falsely pretending to adopt, the dark arts of a sys
tem of imposture (Gen. xUv. 5, 15). For one iuto
whose chai'acter the dream-element of prevision en
tered so largely, there would be nothing strange in
the use of media by which he might superinduce
at will the dream-state which had come to him in
his youth unbidden, with no outward stimulus; aud
the use of the cup by which Joseph "divined" was
a The prayer of Ps. xliii. 8, " ^end out thy light
and thy truth," though it does not contain the words
Urim and Thummim, speaks^ obviously of that which
they symbohzed, and may be looked upon as an echo
of the high-priest's prayer in a form in wbich it might
fre u^ed by any devout worshipper.
6 Tho striking exclamation of Saul, " Withdraw thy
^and ! " when it seemed to him that the Urim was no
longer needed, was clearly an interruption of tbis pro-
eess (1 Sam xiv. 19).

URIM AND THUMMIM
precisely analogous to that which has been now de
scribed. To fiU the cup with water, to fix the eye on
;old or silver coin in it, or, more frequently, on
the dazzUng reflection of the sun's rays from it, wm
an essential part of the Kv\iKo/MivTda, the \eKavo-
fiavreia of ancient systems of divination (Maury,
La Magie et VAstrobgie, pp. 426-428; KaUsch,
Genesis, in loc.). In the most modern form of it,
among the magicians of Cairo, the boy's fixed gaze
upon the few drops of ink in the pahn of his hand
answers the same purpose and produces the same
result (Lane, Mod. Egypt, i. c. xii.). The differ
ence between the true and tlie false in these cases
is, however, far greater than the superficial resem
blance. To enter upon that exceptional state with
vague, stupid curiosity, raay lead to an imbecility
which is the sport of every casual suggestion. Tc
pass into it with feelings of hatred, passion, lust,
may add to their power a fearful intensity for evU,
till the state of the soul is demoniac rather than
human. To enter upon it as the high-priest en
tered, with the prayer of faith, might in Uke man
ner intensify wbat was noblest and truest in him.
and fit him to be for the time a vessel of the Truth.
(11.) It may startle us at first to think that any
physical media should be used in a divine order to
bring about a spiritual result, stiU more that those
media should be the same as are found elsewhere
in systems in which evil is at least preponderant;
yet here too Scripture aud History present us with
very striking analogies. In other foi'ms of worehip,
in the mysteries of Isis, in Orphic and Corybantian
revels, music was used to work the worshippers into
a state of orgiastic frenzy. In the mystic frater
nity of Pythagoras it was eraployed before sleep,
that their visions might be serene and pure (Plu
tarch, De Is. et Osir. ad fin.). Yet the same in-
.strumentality bringing about a result analogous at
least to the latter, probably embracing elements of
both, was used from the first in the gatherings of
the prophets (1 Sam. a. 5). It soothed the vexed
spirit of Saul (1 Sam. xvi. 23) ; it wrought on him,
when it came in its choral power, till he too burst
into the ecstatic song (1 Sam. xix. 20-24). With
one at least of the greatest of the prophets ifc was
as much the preparation for his receiving light and
guidance from above as the gaze at the Urim had
been to the high-priest. " Elisha said ....
' Now bring me a minstrel.' And It came to pass,
when the minstrel played, that tbe hand of the
Lord came upon him" (2 K. iii. 15). ^
(12.) The facts jusfc noticed point to the righ*
answer to the question which yet remains, as to
the duration of the Urim and the Thuraraim, and
the reasons of their withdrawal. The statement of
Josephus (Ant. iii. 7, §§ 5-7) that they had con
tinued to shine with supernatural lustre tiU within
two hundred years of his own time is simply a
Jewish fable, at variance with the direct confession
of their absence on the return from the Captivity
(Ezr. ii. 63), and in the time of the Maccabees
(1 Mace. lv. 46, xiv. 41). As little reliance is to

c That " the band of the Lord " waa the recognized
expression for this awful consciousness of the Divine
presence we find from the visions of Ezekiel (i. 3, ill.
14, et ai.), and 1 K. xvhi. 46. It helps us obviously
to determine the sense of the corresponding phrase,
" with the fiuger of Gad," in Ex. xxxi. 18. Comp
too, the equivalence, in our Lord's teaching, of the two
forms. " If I with the finger of God (Luke xi. 20 f=
* by the Spirit of God,' Matt. xii. 28) cast out derili '

UKIM AND THUMMIM
De placed on the assertion of other Jewish writers,
that they continued in activity till the time of the
Babylonian Exile (Sola, p. 43; Midrash on Song
of Sol. in Buxtorf, I. c). It is quite inconceiva
ble, had it been so, that there should have been no
single instance of an oracle thus obtained during
the whole history of the monarchy of Judah. The
facts of the case are few, but they are decisive.
Never, after the days of David, is the ephod, with
its appendages, connected with counsel from Jeho
vah (so Carpzov, App. Crit. i. 5). Abiathar is the
last priest who habitually uses it for that purpose
(1 Sam. xxiii. 6, 9, xxviii. 6; probably also 2 Sam.
xxi. 1). His narae is identified in a strange tradi
tion embodied in the Talmud (Sanhedr. f. 19, 1,
in Lightfoot, xi. 386) with the departed glory of
the Urim and the Thummim. And the explana
tion of these facta is not far to seek. Men had been
taught by this time another process by which the
spiritual might at once assert its independence of
the sensuous life, and yet retain its distinct per
sonal consciousness — a process less liable to per
version, leading to higher and more continuous
illumination. Through the sense of hearing, not
through that of sight, was to be wrought the
subtle and mysterious change. Music — in its
marvelous variety, its subtle sweetness, its spirit-
stirring power — was to be, for all time to come,
the lawful help to the ecstasy of praise and prayer,
openmg heart and soul to new and higher thoughts.
The utterances of the prophets, speaking by the
word of the Lord, were to supersede the oracles of
the Urim. The change which about this period
passed over the speech of Israel was a witness of
the moral elevation which that other change in
volved. " He that is now called a prophet was
beforetime called a seer" (1 Sam. ix. 9). To be
the mouth-piece, the spokesman of Jehovah was
higher than to see visions of the future, however
clear, whether of the armies of Israel or the lost
asses of Kish.
(13.) The transition was probably not made
without a struggle. It was accompanied by, even
if it did not in part cause the transfer of the Pon
tificate from one branch of the priestly family to
another. The strange opposition of Abiathar to
the will of David, at the close of his reign, is intel
ligible on the hypothesis that he, long accustomed,
as holding the Ephod and the Urim, to guide the
king's councils by his oracular answers, viewed,
with some approach to jealousy, the growing influ
ence of the prophets, and the accession of a prince
who had grown up under their training. With him
at auy rate, so far as we have any knowledge, the
Urim and the Thummim passed out of sight. It
was well, we may believe, tliat they did so. To
have the voices of the prophets in their stead waa
to gain and not to lose. So the old order changed,
giving place to the new. If the fond yearning of
the Israelites of the' Captivity had heen fulfilled,
and a priest had once again risen with Urim and
with Thummim, they would but have taken their
place among the " weak and beggarly elements "
which were to pass away. All attempts, from the
Hule of Simeon to the Spiritual Exercises of Loy
ola, to invert the Divine order, to purchase spiritual
ecstasies by the sacrifice of intellect and of con-

USURY

3363

a In addition to the authorities cited in the text,
)ne has to be named to which the writer has not been
tble to get access, and which he knows only through
4i6 Thesaurus of Ge»*nius. Bellermann, whose treat-

science, hive beeu steps backward into darkness,
not forward into light. So it was that God, in
many different measures and many different fash
ions (noKviiepoiS Kal •iro\vTp6ncos), spake in time
past unto the Fathers (Heb. i. 1). So it is, in
words that embody the same thought, and draw
from it a needful lesson, that
" God fulfills himself in many ways,
Lest one gcod custom should corrupt the world.'' "
E. H. P.
* USDUM ([» Ju«t : Usdum). This is the
name of the remarkable mountain of rock-salt near
the southern end of the Dead Sea, called by tha
natives Hnj'r Usdum, Khashm Usdum, and Jebel
Usdum. The name is generally accepted as a tra
dition of Sodora. It has been fully described by
Kobinson and Tristram, and its probable connec
tion with the saltness and volume of the sea, and
with the site of Sodom, has been discussed in pre
ceding articles. Travellers refer particularly to the
fantastic shapes into which some of its pinnacles
and angles are worn by the action of the elements.
The latest visitor. Captain Warren, collected "most
beautiful specimens of salt crystals, like icicles, only
pointing towards the sky, which melted away at
Jerusalem." Captain W. has beeu the first, in
modern times, to accomplish the ascent of the cliff
Sebbeh (Masada) on the east ( Quart Stiitem. Pal.
Ex. Fund, No. iv. pp. lil-150). [Masada;
Siddim, Vale of; Sodom.] S. W.
USURY. Information ou the subject of lend
ing and borrowing will be found under Loan. It
need only be remarked here tl^at the practice of
mortgaging land, sometimes at exorbitant interest,
grew up among the Jews during the Captivity, in
direct violation of the Law (Lev. xxv. 36, 37; Ez.
xviii. 8, 13, 17). We find the rate reaching 1 in
100 per month, corresponding to the Roman ceji-
lesimiB usurce, or 12 per cent, per annum — a rate
which Niebulir considers to have been borrowed
from abroad, and which is, or has been till quite
lately, a very usual or even a minimum rate in the
East (Nieb. Hist, of Roine, iii. 57, Engl. Tr.;
'Volney, Trav. ii. 254, note ; Chardin, Foa/. vi.
122). Yet the law of the Kuran, like the Jewish,
forbids all usury (Lane, M. E. i. 132; Sale, Kuran,
c. 30). The laws of Menu allow 18 and even 24
per cent, as an interest rate ; but, as was the law
in Egypt, accumulated interest was not to exceed
twice the original gum lent (Laws of Menu, c. viii.
140,141,151; Sir W. Jones, Works, vol. iii. p.
295; Diod. i. 9, 79). This Jewish practice wan
annulled by Nehemiah, and an oath exacted to in
sure its discontinuance (Neh. v. 3-13; Selden, De
Jur. Nat. vi. 10; Hofmann, Lex. " Usura ").
H. W.P-
* The word usury has come in modern English
to mean excessive interest upon money loaned,
either formally illegal, or at least oppressive. At
the time of the Anglican version, however, the
word did uot bear this sense, but meant simply
interest of any kind upon money, thus strictly cor
responding to the Hebrew tJt&D (and also S^H
which is used in Neh. v. 7). It is to be remem-

ises on the Scarabsei are quoted above, has also writ
ten. Die Urim unii Thummim, die altesten Gemmen
He apparently identifies the Urim and Thunimka witk
the gems of the breastplate.

3364

UTA

bered that the Jewish law prohibiting usury, for
bade the taking of any interest whatever for money
lent, without regard to the rate of interest; but
this prohibition related only to the Jews, their
brethren, and there was no command regulating
either the taking of interest, or its amount, from
foreigners. F. G.
U'TA (OuTti: Uiha), 1 Esdr. v. 30. It appears
to be a corruption of Akkub (Ezr. ii. 45).
U'THAI [2 syl] ("^PfW [Jehovah succors] :
rKufli': [Vat. raiBet;] Alex. Foifli: Othei). 1.
The son of Ammihud, of the children of Pharez,
the son of Judah (1 Chr. ix. 4). He appears to
have been one of those who dwelt in Jerusalem
nfter the Captivity. In Neh. xi. 4 he is called
"Athaiah the son of Uzziah."
2. (Oufloi; [Vat. Ou9t:] Uthai.) One of the
eons of Bigvai, who returned in the second cara
van with Ezra (Ezr. viii. 14).
U'THI (Oiai), I'Esdr. viu. 40. [Uthai, 2.]
* UTTER, Lev. v. 1, where he who does not
" utter " iniquity is said to commit iniquity, i. e.
if he does not make it known or disclose it. This
sense of the word now seldom occurs except in
speaking of the " utterance " or circulation of
money and stocks. H.
UZ iyiV [fruitful in trees, Dietr.]: o»f;
[Rom. Vat. om. in 1 Chr.; Alex.] nj: Us, Hus).
This name is applied to — 1. A son of Aram
(Gen. X. 23), and consequently a grandson of Shem,
to whora he is immediately referred in the more
concise genealogy of the Chronicles, the name of
Aram being omitted " (1 Chr. i. 17). 2. A son
of Nahor by Milcah (Gen. xxii. 21; A. V. Huz).
3. [''as, "Cls: Hus.] A son of Dishan, and
grandson of Seir (Gen. xxxvi. 28 ; [1 Chr. i. 42] ).
4. [ri 'AvaTris; Sin. ij Ai/rreiTij: Hus.] 'J'he
country in which Job lived (Job i. 1). As the
genealogical stateraents of the book of Genesis are
undoubtedly ethnological, and in many instances
also geographical, it may be fairly surmised that
the coincidence of naraes in the above cases is
not accidental, but points to a fusion of various
branches of the Shemitic race in a certain locality.
This surmise is confirmed by the circumstance that
other connecting links may be discovered between
the same blanches. For instance, Nos. 1 and 2
have in common the names Aram (comp. Gen. x.
23, xxii. 21 ) and Maachah as a geographical desig
nation in connection with the former (1 Chr. xix.
6), and a personal one in connection with the lat
ter (Gen. xxii. 24). Nos. 2 and 4 have in common
the names Buz and Buzite (Gen. xxii. 21; Job
xxxii. 2), Chesed and Chasdim (Gen. xxii. 22;
Job i. 17, A. V. " Chaldseans "). Shuah, a
nephew of Nahor, and Shuhite (Gen. xxv. 2 ; Job
ii. 11), and Kedem, as the country whither Abra
ham sent Shuah, together with his other children
by Keturah, and also as the country where Job
lived (Gen. xxv. 6 ; Job i. 3). Nos. 3 and 4,
again, have in coramon Eliphaz (Gen. xxxvi. 10;
Job ii. 11), and Teman and Temanite (Gen. xxxvi.
11; Job. ii. 11). The ethnological fact embodied
in the above coincidences of names appears to be as
a The LXX. inserts the words fcai viol 'Apojii before
the notice of Uz and his brothers : but for this there
ts no authority in the Hebrew. For a parallel instance
>f conciseness, see ver. 4.
tl The printed edition of the Mard-tid writes the

UZAL
follows : Certain branches of the Aramaic family
being both more ancient and occupying a more
northerly position than the others, coalesced with
branches of the later Abrahamids, holding a some
what central position in Mesopotamia aud Pales
tine, and again with branches of the still later
JJdomites of the south, after they had become a
distinct race from the Abrahamids. This conclu
sion would receive confirmation if the geographical
position of Uz, as described in the book of Job,
harmonized with the probability of such an amal
gamation. As far as we can gather, it lay either
east or southeast of Palestine (Job i. 3; see
Bene-Kedem); adjacent to the Sabseans jnd the
Chaldseans (Job i. 15, 17), consequently nuthward
of the southern Arabians, and westward of the
Euphrates; aud, lastly, adjacent to the Edomites
of Mount Seir, who at one period occupied Uz,
probably as conquerors (Lam. iv. 21), and whose
troglodyte habits are probably described in Job
xxx. 6, 7. The position of the country may further
be deduced from the native lands of Job's friends,
Eliphaz the Temanite being an Idumsean, Elihu
the Buzite being probably a neighbor of the Chal
dseans, for Buz and Chesed were brothers (Gen.
xxii. 21, 22), and Bildad the Shuhite being one of
the Bene-Kedem. Whether Zophar the NaamathHa
is to be connected with Naamah in the tribe of
Judah (Josh. xv. 41) may be regarded as prob
lematical: if he were, the conclusion would be
further established. From the above data we infer
that the land of Uz corresponds to tbe Arabia
Deserta of classical geography, at all events to so
much of it as lies north of the 30th parallel of lati
tude. This district has in all ages been occupied
by nomadic tribes, who roam from the bordere of
Palestine to the Euphrates, and northward to the
confines of Syria. Whether the name Uz sur
vived to classical times is uncertain : a tribe named
.ffisitsB (Alcrirai", is mentioned by Ptolemy (v. 19,
§ 2); this Bochart identifies with the CJz of Scrip
ture by altering the reading into AutriTai (Phaleg,
ii. 8); but, with the exception of the rendering in
the LXX. (iv x^pa rrj AhoWtSt, Job i. 1; comp.
xxxii. 2), there is nothing to justify such a change.
Gesenius ( Thes. p. 1003) is satisfied with the form
.(Esitffi as sufficiently corresponding to Uz.
W. L. B.
U'ZAI [2 syl.] ("'ns [robust] : Eb(aU [Vat.]
FA. Eu€i: Ozi). The father of Palal, who as
sisted Nehemiah in rebuilding the city wall (Neh.
iu. 25).
U'ZAL {bW [see note] ; Samar. bfS:
[Rom. in Gen. Alf^rjA; in 1 Chr. omits; Alex.]
AtfijX, Aifijc: Uzal, Huzal). The sixth son of
Joktan (Gen. x. 27; 1 Chr. i. 21), whose settle
ments are clearly traced in the ancient name of
Sau'&, the capital city of the Yemen, which was
-- ot
originally Awzal, UMjl (Ibn-Khaldoon, ap.
Caussin, Essai, i. 40, foot-note; Marasid, a. v.;
Gesen. Lex. s. v. ; Bunsen's Bibelwerk, etc. ).' It
has disputed the right to be the chief city of the
kingdom of Sheba from the earliest ages of which

name Oozdl, and saya, " It is said that its name was
Oozdl ; and wheu the Abyssinians arrived at it, and
saw it to be beautiful, they said ' San'4,' wbich meaiu
beautiful: therefore it was called Stn'i."

UZZA
>ny traditions have come down to us ; the rival
cities being Sheba (the Arabic Seb^), and
Sephar (or Zafar). Unlike one or both of
these cities which passed occasionally into the
hands of the people of Hazarmaveth (Had
ramawt), it seems to have always belonged to the
people of Sheba; and from its position in the cen
tre of the best portion of that kingdom, it must
always have been an important city, though prob
ably of less importance than Seba itself. Niebuhr
(Descr. p. 201 ff.) says that it is a walled towu,
situate in an elevated country, in lat. 15° 2', and
with a stream (after heavy rains) running through
it (from the mountain of Sawafee, El-Idreesee, i.
50), and another larger stream a little to the west,
and country-houses and villages on its banks. It
has a citadel on the site of a famous temple, called
Beyt-Ghumdan, said to have been founded by
Shoorabeel; which was razed by order of Othman.
The houses and palaces of San'a, Niebuhr says,
are finer than those of any other town of Arabia ;
and it possesses many mosques, public baths, and
caravanserais. El-Idreesee's account of its situa/-
tion and flourishing state (i. 50, quoted also by
Bochart, PAafe^, xxi.) agrees with that of Niebuhr.
Takoot says, " San'a is the greatest city in the
Yemen, and the most beautiful of them. It re
sembles Damascus, on account of the abundance
of its trees (or gardens), and the rippling of its
waters" (Mushtarak, s. v., comp. Ibn-El-Wardee
MS.); and the author of the Marasid (said to be
Yakoot] says, " It is the capital of the Yemen
and the best of its cities; it resembles Damascus,
on account of the abundance of its fruits " (s. o.
San'a). Uzal, or Awzal, is most probably the same as
the Auzara (A.lj(apa), or Ausara (Afaapa) of the
classics, by the common permutation of I and r.
Pliny (H. N. xii. 16) speaks of this as belonging
to the Gebanitse ; and it is curious that the ancient
division (or " mikhlaf ") of the Yemen in which it
is situate, and which is called Sinhau, belonged to
a very old confederacy of tribes named Jenb, or
Genb, whence the Gebanitaj of the classics ; another
division being also called Mikhlaf Jenb ( Marasid,
B. vv. mikhlaf and jenb, and Mushtarak, s. v. jenl)).
Bochart accepts Ausara as the classical form of
Uzal (Phaleg, 1. c), but his derivation of the name
of the Gebanitse is purely fanciful.
Uzal is perhaps referred to by Ez. (xxvii. 19),
translated in the A. V. " Javan," going io and fro,
Heb. vTIMH. A city named Yawan, or Yawan,
in the Yemen, is mentioned in the Kdmoos (see
Gesenius, iex. aud Bochart, I. c). Commentators
are divided in opinion respecting the correct read
ing of this passage ; but the most part are in favor
of the reference to Uzal. See also Javan. E. S. P.
• UZ'ZA (S-rr [strength] : 'AC<i; [Vat. Noavo:]
Oai). 1. A Benjamite of the sons of Ehud (1
Chr. viii. 7). The Targum on Esther makes him
one of the ancestors of Mordecai.
2. Cofti.) Elsewhere called Uzzah (1 Chr.
Jiii. 7, 9, 10, 11).
3. ('Af<ii [Vat. Ovaa], '0(( [Vat. FA. oCet];
[Alex.] Afa, Ofc Aza.) The children of Uzza
ivere a family of Nethinim who returned with
Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 49; Neh. vii. 51).
4. (n-|5;: 'of<i; Alex. Afo: Oza). Properly
Uzzah." As the text now stands, Uzzah is a

uJiZAH 3.^65
descendant of Merari (1 Chr. vi. 29 [14]); bu*
there appears to be a gap in the verse by which
the sons of Gershom are omitted, for Libni and
Shimei are elsewhere descendants of Gershom, and
not of Merari. Perhaps he is the same as Zina
(n3''t), or Zizah (HrT), the son of Shimei (1
Chr. xxiii. 10, 11 ) ; for these names evidently de
note the same person, and, in Hebrew character.
are not unlike Uzzah.
UZ'ZA, THE GARDEN OF (SJ? I? :
icrjiros 'O^i: horius Aza). The spot in which
Manasseh king of Judah, and his son Amon, were
both buried (2 K. xxi. 18, 26). It was the garden
attached to Manasseh's palace (ver. 18, aud 2 Chr.
xxxiii. 20), and therefore presumably was in Jeru
salem. The fact of its mention shows that it waa
not where the usual sepulchres of the kings were.
No clew, however, is afforded to its position. Jose
phus (Ant. X. 3, § 2) simply reiterates the state
ment of the Bible. It is ingeniously suggested by
Cornelius a Lapide, that the garden was so called
from being on the spot at which Uzza died during
the removal of the Ark from Kiijath-jearim to
Jerusalem, and which is known to have retained
his name for long after the event (2 Sam. vi. 8).
There are some grounds for placing this in Jerusa
lem, and possibly at or near the threshing-floor of
Araunah. [Nachon, vol. iii. p. 2051, and note.]
The scene of Uzza's death was itself a threshing-
floor (2 Sara. vi. 6), and the change of the word
from this, goren, T^3, into gan, ]3 garden, would
not be difficult or improbable. But nothing cer
tain can be said on the point.
Bunsen (Bibelwerk, note on 2 K. xxi. 18) on the
strength of the mention of " palaces " in the same
paragraph with Ophel (A. V. " forts ") in a denun
ciation of Isaiah (xxxii. 14), asserts that a palace
was situated in the Tyropoeon valley at the foot of
the Temple raount, and that this was in all proba
bility the palace of Manasseh and the site of the
Garden of Uzza. Surely a slender foundation for
such a superstructure ! G
UZ'ZAH (N-|y in 2 Sam. vi. 3, elsewhere
njV [strength]; 'ofo; Alex. Afa, Affa: Oza).
One of the sons of Ahinadab, in whose house at
Kirjath-je.irim the Ark rested for 20 years. The
eldest son of Ahinadab (1 Sam. vii. 1) seems to
have been Eleazar, who was consecrated to look
after the Ark. Uzzah probably was the second,
and Ahio " the third. They both accompanied its
removal, when David first undertook to carry it to
Jerusalera. Ahio apparently went before the cart
— the new cart (1 Chr. xiii. 7) — on whiofe it
was placed, and Uzzah walked by the side of the
cart. The procession, with all raanner of music,
advanced as far as a spot variously called " the
threshing-floor" (1 Chr. xiii. 9), "the threshing-
floor of Chidon " (ibid. Heb. LXX. ; Jos. Ani. vii.
4, § 2), "the threshing-floor of Nachor" (2 Sara.
vi. 6, LXX.), " the threshing-floor of Nachon "
(ibid. Heb.). At this point — perhaps slipping over
the smooth rock — the oxen 'or, LXX., " tha
calf") stumbled (Heb.) or " overturned the Ark "
(LXX.). Uzzah caught it to prevent its falling.
He died immediately, by the side of the Ark.
His death, by whatever means it was accomplished,
was so sudden and awful that, in the sacred lan

ii The LXX for " Ahio," read "his brethren."

3366

UZZEN-SHERAH

;uage of tho Old Testament, it is ascribed directly
to the Divine anger. " The anger of the Lord was
kindled against Uzzah, and God smote him there."
" For hiB error," vC&n"7^, adds the present
Hebrew text, not the LXX. ; " because he put his
hand to the Ark " (1 Chr. xiii. 10). The error or
sin is not explained. Josephus (Ant. vii. 4, § 2)
makes it to be because he touched the Ark not being
a priest. Some have supposed that it was because
the Ark was in a cart, and not (Ex. xxv. 14) carried
on the shoulders of the Levites. But the narrative
seems to imply that it was simply the rough, hasty
handling of the sacred coffer. The event produced
a deep sensation. David, with a mixture of awe
and resentment, was afraid to carry the Ark fur
ther; and the pla^e, apparently changing its ancient
name," was henceforth called " Perez-Uzzah," the
" breaking," or " disaster " of Uzzah (2 Sam. vi.
8; 1 Chr. xiii. 11; Jos. Ant. vii. 4, § 2).
There is no proof for the assertion that Uzzah
mas a Levite. A. P. S.
UZ'ZEN-SHB'RAH i'iT^^}^ I'TW [po-h-
ear or corner of SIterah] : kuI viol '0(<iy, ^eripi:
Ozensara). A town founded or rebuilt by Sherah,
an Ephraimite woman, the daughter either of
Ephraim himself or of Beriah. It is named only
In 1 Chr. vii. 24, in connection with the two Beth-
horons. The.se latter still remain probably in pre
cisely their ancient position, and called by almost
exactly their ancient names; but no trace of Uzzen-
Sherah appears to bave been yet discovered, unless
it be in Beit Sira, wbich is shown in the maps of
Van de Velde and Tobler as on the N. side of the
Wady Suleiman, about tbree miles S. W. of
Beitur ei-taliia. It is mentioned by Kobinson (in
the lists in Appendix to vol. iii. of Bibl. Res., 1st
ed., p. 120); and also by Tobler (Ztle Wanderung,
p. 188). [Sherah.]
The word ozen in Hebrew signifies an "ear;"
and assuming tbat uzzen is not merely a modifi
cation of some unintelligible Canaanite word, it
may point to an earlike projection or other natural
feature of the ground. The sarae may be said of
Aznoth-Tabor, in which aznoth is perhaps related
to the same root.
It has been proposed to identify Uzzen-Sherah
with Timnath-Serah ; but the resemblance between
the two names exists only in English (mNti7 and
mo), and the identification, tempting as it is
from the fact of Sherah being an ancestress of
Joshua, cannot he entertained.
It will be observed that the LXX. (in both
MSS.) give a different turn to the passage, by the
addition of the word ^3^1 before Uzzen. Sherah,
in the former part of the verse, is altogether omit
ted in the Vat. MS. (Mai), and in the Alex, given
as 'Xaapa. G.
UZ'ZI C-ty, short for n*-T57, Jehmah is my
strength. Compare Uzziah, Uzziei). 1. ('0^(;
[Vat. Ofei; in Ezr., 'O^iov, gen.; Vat. Saouia;
Alex. Ofii/i:] Ozi.) Son of Bukki, and father of
Zerahiah, in the line of the high-priests (1 Chr. vi.
5, 6, 51; Ezr. vii. 4). Though Uzzi was the lineal
ancestor of Zadok, it does not appear that he was

a For the conjecture that this was the Garden op
Uzza mentioned in the later history, see the precedmg
utiole.

UZZIAH
ever high-priest. Indeed, he is included in thog«
descendants of Phinehas between the high-priest
Abishua ('iJiaifiros) and Zadok, who, according to
Josephus (Ant. viii. 1), were private persons. He
must have been contemporary with, but rather
earliei- than Eli. In Josephus's list Uzzi is un
accountably transformed into Jonathan.
2. [Vat. corrupt.] Son of Tola the son of
Issachar, and father of five sons, who were all chief
men (1 Chr. vii. 2, 3).
3. ['O0.; Vat. Ofei.] Son of Bela, of the tribe
of Bergamin (1 Chr. vii. 7).
4. Another, or the same, from whom descended
some Benjamite houses, which were settled at
Jerusalem after the return frora Captivity (1 Chr.
ix. 8).
5. [Vat. FA. Ofei: Azzi.] A Levite, son of
Bani, and overseer of the Levites dwelling at Jeru
salem, in the time of Nehemiah (Neh. xi. 22).
6. [Vat. FA.l Alex, omit; Rom. FA.8 'Of(:
Azzi.] A priest, chief of the father's-house of
Jedaiah, in the tirae of Joiakim the high-priest '
(Neh. xii. 19).
7. [Rora. Vat. FA.l Alex, omit; FA.s 'o^:
Azzi.] One of the priests who assisted Ezra in
the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. xii.
42). Perhaps the same as the preceding. A. C. H.
UZZI'A (NJ-Vy [strength of Jehooah] ; 'o^o;
[Vat. FA.] Alex, ofeio: Oda). One of David's
guard, and apparently, from his appellation " the
Ashterathite," a native of Ashtaroth beyond Jor
dan (1 Chr. xi. 44).
UZZI'AH (n*-T^ [see above] : 'Afopt'os in
Kings [Vat. in 2 K.^v. 30, Axas, 34, Ofeios],
'OCias [Vat. Ofeias, exc. 2 Chr. xxvi. 1, OxoCeias;
Rom. '0^e(as, Is. i. 1, vi. 1, and so Sin. i. 1 and
vii. 1] elsewhere; Alex. Oxo(ias m 2 K. xv. 13:
Ozias, but Azarias in 2 K. xv. 13).
1. Uzziah king of Judah. In some passages
his name appears in the lengthened form "IH^'T^?
(2 K. XV. 32, 34; 2 Chr. xxvi., xxvii. 2; Is. i. 1,
vi. 1, vii. 1), which Gesenius attributes to an error
of the copyists, (T'tV and iT'nTJ? being nearly
identical, or "to an exchange of the names as
spoken by the common people, ss being pronounced
for sr." This is possible, but there are other in
stances of the princes of Judah (not of Israel)
changing their names on succeeding to the throne,
undoubtedly in the latter history, and perhaps in
the earliei^ as Jehoahaz to Ahaziah (2 Chr. xxi.
17), though this example is not quite certain.
[Ahaziah, 2.] After the murder of Amaziah,
his son Uzziah was chosen l>y the people to occupy
the vacant throne, at the age of 16 ; and for the
greater part of his long reign of 52 years he lived
in the fear of God, and showed himself a wise,
active, and pious ruler. He began his reign by a
successful expedition figainst bis father's enemies,
the Edomites, who had revolted from Judah in Je-
horam's time, 80 years before, and penetrated as
far as the head of the Gulf of 'Akaba, where he
took the important place of Elath, fortified it, and
probably established it as a mart for foreign com
merce, which Jehoshaphat had failed to do. This
success is recorded in the Second Book of Kings
(xiv. 22,, but from the Second Book of Chronicles
(xxvi, 1, &c.) we learn much more. Uzziah waged
1 other victorious wars in the south, especially againat

UZZIAH
the Mehunim, oi people of Ma^, and the Arabs
oi Gurbaal. A fortified town named Madn still
exists in Arabia Petrtea, south of the Dead Sea.
The situation of Gurbaal is unknown. (For con
jectures, more or less probable, see Ewald, Gesch.
1. 321; Meiil'xim; Guebaal.) Such enemies
would hardly maintain a long resistance after the
defeat of so formidable a tribe as the Edomites.
"Towards the west, Uzziah fought with equal suc
cess against the Philistines, leveled to the ground
the walls of Gath, Jabneh, and Ashdod, and
founded new fortified cities in the Philistine terri
tory. Nor was he less vigorous in defensive than
offensive operations. He strengthened the walls
of Jerusalera at their weakest points, furnished thera
with formidable enguies of war, and equipped an
army of 307,500 men with the best inventions of
military art. He was also a great patron of agri
culture, dug welk, built towers in the wilderness
for the protection of the flocks, and cultivated rich
vineyards and arable land on his own account.
, He never deserted the worship of the true God,
and was much influenced by Zechariah, a prophet
who is only mentioued in connection with him (2
Chr. xxvi. 5); for, as he must have died before
Uzziah, he cannot be the same as the Zechariah
of Is. viii. 2. So the southern kingdom was raised
to a condition of prosperity which it bad not known
since the death of Solomon ; and as the power of
Israel was gradually falhng away in the latter
period of Jehu*s dynasty, that of Judah extended
itself over the Ammonites and Moabites, and other
tribes beyond Jordan, from whom Uzziah exacted
tribute. See 2 (Jhr. xxvi. 3, and Is. xvi. 1-5, from
which it would appear that the annual tribute of
sheep (2 K. iii. 4) was revived either during this
reign or soon after. The end of Uzziah was less
prosperous than his beginning. I'^lated with his
splendid career, he determined to burn incense on
the altar of God, but was opposed by the high-
priest Azariah and eighty others. (See Ex. xxx.
7, 8; Num. xvi. 40, xviii. 7.) The king was en
raged at their resistance, and, as he pressed forward
with his censer, was suddenly smitten with leprosy,
a disease which, according to Gerlach (in loco), is
often brought out by violent excitement. In 2 K.
IV. 5 we are merely told that " the Lord smote
the king, so that he was » leper unto the day of
his death, and dwelt in a several house; " but his
invasion of the priestly office is not specified. This
catastrophe compelled Uzziah to reside outside the
city, so that the kingdom was administered till his
death by his son Jotham as regent. Uzziah was
buried '*with his fathers," yet apparently uot act
ually in the royal sepulchres (2 Chr. xxvi. 23).
Djring his reign an earthquake occurred, which,
though not mentioned in the historical books, was
apparently very serious in its consequences, for it
is alluded to as a chronological epoch by Amos
(i- 1), and mentioned in Zech. xiv. 5, as a con
vulsion from which the people "fled.'' [Earth
quake.] Josephus (Ant ix. 10, § 4) connects it
ffith Uzziah's sacrilegious- attempt to offer incense,
jut this is very unlikely, as it cannot have occurred
later than the 17th year of his reign [Amos].
The first six chapters of Isaiah's prophecies belong
to this reign, and we are told (2 Chr. xxvi. 22)
that a full account of it was written by that prophet.
Some notices of the state of Jud^ at this time
may also be obtained from the contemporary proph-
. ets Hosea and Araos, though both of these labored
more particularly in Israel. We gather from their

UZZIEL

3367

writings (Hos. iv. 15, vi. 11; Am. vi. 1), us well
as from the early chapters of Isaiah, tbat though
the condition of the southern kingdom was fki
superior, morally and religiously, to that of the
northern, yet that it was by no means free from
the vices which are apt to accompany wealth and
prosperity. At the same time Hosea conceives
bright hopes of the blessings which were to arise
from it ; and though doubtless these hopes pointed
to something far higher than the brilliancy of
Uzziah's administration, and though the return of
the Israelitos to " David their king " can only be
adequately explauied of Christ's kingdom, yet the
prophet, in contemplating the condition of Judah
at this time, was plainly cheered by the thought
that there God was really honored, and his wor
ship visibly maintained, aud that therefore with it
was bound up every hope that his promises to his
people would be at last fulfilled (Hos. i. 7, iii. 3).
It is to be observed, with reference to the general
character of Uzziah's reign, that the writer of the
Second Book of Chronicles distinctly states that
his lawless attempt to burn incense was the only
exception to the excellence of his administration
(2 Chr. xx™. 2). His reign lasted from B. kj.
808-9 to 756-T. G. E. L. C.
2. CoCta; [yat. oCeta-.] Ozias.) A Kohathito
Levite, and ancestor of Samuel (1 Chr. vi. 24 [9]).
3. [Vat. FA. Ofeia.] A priest of the sons of
Harim, who had taken a foreign wife in the days
of Ezra (Ezr. x. 21).
4. ('Af/a; [Vat. AfeS; FA. ACeSva; Alex.
0(tti.] Aziam.) Father of Athaiah, or Uthai
(Neh. xi. i).
5. (nn»-t» : 'o^ias [Vat. -^ei-] : Ozias.)
Father of jehonathan, one of David's overseers (1
Chr. xxvii. 25).
UZ'ZIBL (bW-'-TS: 'oCi^A; [Vat. ofeirjA,
exc. Num. iii. 19, 1 Chr. xxiii. 20, OfirjA., Lev. x.
i, Afi7)\; Alex. OfeiTj^ iu Ex. vi. 18:] Oziel:
"God is my strength " ). 1. Fourth sou of Ko
hath, father of Mishael, Elzaphan or Elizaphan,
and Zithri, and uncle to Aaron (Ex. vi. 18, 22;
Lev. X. 4). The family descended from him were
called Uzzielites, and Elizaphan, tbe chief of this
family, was also the chief father of the Kohathites,
by Divine direction, in the time of Moses (Num.
iii. 19, 27, 30), although he seems to have been
the youngest of Kohath's sons (1 Chr. vi. 2, 18).
The house of Uzziei numbered 112 adults, under
Amminadab their chief, at the time of the bring
ing up of the Ark to Jerusalera by King David (J
Chr. XV. 10).
2. [Vat. 0^en\K,] A Simeonite captain, son
of Ishi, who, after the successful expedition of his
tribe to the valley of Gedor, went with his three
brethren, at the head of five hundred meu in the
days of Hezekiah, to Mount Seir, and smote the
remnant of the Amalekites, who had survived the
previous slaughter of Saul and David, and took
possession of their country, and dwelt there " unto
this day" (1 Chr. iv. 42; see Bertheau).
3. Head of a Benjamite house, of the sons of
Bela (1 Chr. vii. 7).
4. [Vat. AfapoTjA.] A musician, of the ions
of Heman, in David's reign (1 Chr. xxv. 4), else
where called Azareel (ver. 18). Compare Uzziah
and Azariah.
5. [Vat. OfeiijA.] A Levite, of the sons of
Jeduthun, who in the days of King Hezekiah rook

3368 UZZIELITES, THE
an active part in cleansing and sanctifying the
Temple, after all the pollutions introduced by Ahaz
(2 Chr. xxix. 14, 19).
6. [Vat. Alex. I'A. omit.] Son of Harhaiah,
probably a priest in the days of Nehemiah, who
took part in repairing the wall (Neh. iii. 8). He
is described as " of the goldsmiths," i. e. of those
priests whose hereditary ofiice it was to repair or
make the sacred vessels, as may be gathered from
the analogy of the apothecaries, raentioned in the
same verse, who are defined (1 Chr. ix. 30). The
goldsmiths are also mentioned (Neh. iii. 31, 32).
That this Uzziei was a priest is also probable from
his name (No. 1), and from the circumstance that
Malchiah, the goldsmith's son, was so. A. C. H.
TTZ'ZIELITES, THE ObN^'-TS'ri [patr.]:
6 'Ofi^A, 'OCtvM [Vat. OCeir)A.:] Ozielitee, Ozi-
keUtce). The descendants. of Uzziei, and one of the
four great families into which the Kohathites were
divided (Num. iii. 27; 1 Chr. xxvi. 23).

V.
* VAGABOND at first meant only "wan
derer," "fugitive." It is applied thus to Cain
(Gen. iv. 12), and to the sons of persecutors (Ps.
cix. 10), as being doomed to rove frora place to
place. The exorcists at Ephesus (Acts xix. 13 ) are
so called, not opprobriously per se, but as going
about (ireptepxip^eyot) from one city to another in
the practice of their arts. H.
VAJEZA'THA (NnT>] [see below] : Za^ou-
9aios ; [Alex. Za^ouyada ;] FA. Za$ovSe9av;
Jezatha). One of tbe ten sons of Haman whom
the Jews slew in Shushan (Esth. ix. 9). Gesenius
derives his name from the Pers. S'^^.j "white,"
Germ, weiss ; but Fiirst suggests as more probable
that it is a compound of the Zend vahja, "better,"
an epithet of the Ized haoma, and znia, " born,"
and sou " born of the Ized haoma." But such ety
mologies are little to be trusted.
VALE, VALLBY. It is hardly necessary to
state that these words signify a hollow swell of
ground between two more or less parallel ridges of
high land. Vale is the poetical or provincial form.
It is in the nature of the case that the centre of a
valley should usually be occupied by the stream
which forms the drain of the high land on either
side, and frora this it commonly receives its name;
as, the Valley of the Thames, of the Colne, of the
Nile. It is also, though comparatively seldom,
called after some town or remarkable object which
it contains ; as, the Vale of Evesham, the Vale of
White-horse. Valley is distinguished from other terms more or
less closely related; on the one hand, fi-om " glen,"
'' ravine," " gorge," or " dell," which all express a
depression at once more abrupt and smaller than
a. valley; on the other hand, from "plain," which,
though it may be used of a wide valley, is not
ordinarily or necessarily so.
It is to be regretted that with this quasi-precision
of meaning the term should not have been employed
with more restriction in the Authorized Version of
the Bible.
The structure of the greater part of the Holy
"^and do°9 not lend itself to the forujation of valleys

VALE, VALLEY
in our sense of the *ord. The abrupt transitions
of its crowded rocky hills preclude the existence of
any extended sweep of valley ; and where one such
does occur, as at Hebron, or on the southeast of
Gerizim, the irregular and unsymmetrical positions
of the inclosing hills rob it of the character of a
valley. The nearest approach is found in the space
between the mountains of Gerizim and Ebal, which
contains the town of Nablus, the ancient Shechem.
This, however, by a singular chance, is not men
tioned in the Bible. Another is the " Valley of
Jezreel " — the undulating hollow which intervenes
between Giiboa (Jebel Fukua), and the so-called
Little Hermon (Jebel Duhy).
Valley is employed in the Authorized Version to
render five distinct Hebrew words.
1. 'Emek ipl^V. '¦ ipdpay^, KoiKis, also very
rarely ireUov, avKtiv, and E/ie/c or AfieK). This
appears to approach more nearly to the general
sense of the EnglLsh word than any other, and it is
satisfactory to find that our translators have in
variably, without a single exception, rendered it by
" valley." Its root is said _to have the force of
deepness or seclusion, which Professor Stanley has
ingeniously urged may be accepted in the sense of
lateral rather than of vertical extension, as in the
modern expression, — a deep house, a deep recess.
It is connected with several places ; but the only
one which can be identified with any certainty is
the Emek of Jezreel, already mentioned as one of
the neai'est approaches to an English valley. The
other Emeks are: Achor, Ajalon, Baca, Berachah,
Bethrehob, Elah, Gibeon, Hebron, Jehoshaphat,
Keziz, Rephaim, Shaveh, Siddim, Succoth, and of
ha-Charuts or " the decision " (Joel iii. 14).
2. Got or Ge (N^S or N\2 : tpdpay^). Of this
natural feature there is fortunately one example
remaining which can be identified with certainty —
the deep hollow which encompasses the S. W. and
S. of Jerusalem, and which is without doubt identi
cal with the Ge-hinnom or Ge-l.-en-hinnom of the
0. T. This identification appears to establish the
Ge as a deep and abrupt ravine, with steep sides
and narrow bottom. The term is derived by the
lexicographers from a root signifying to flow to
gether; but Professor Stanley, influenced probably
by the aspect of the ravine of Hinnom, proposes to
connect it with a somewhat similar root (n"*?))
which has the force of rending or bursting, and
which perhaps gave rise to the name Gihon, the
famous spring at Jerusalem.
Other Ges mentioned in the Bible are those of
Gedor, Jiphthah-el, Zeboira, Zephathah, that of salt,
that of the craftsmen, that on the north side of Ai,
and that opposite Beth Peor in Moab.
3. Nachal ( vn5 '• (papay^, xeiyitii/i/5oi/s). This
is the word which exactly answers to the Arabic
wady, and has been already alluded to in that con
nection. [Palestine, iii. 2300 a; River, p. 2735.]
It expresses, as no single English word can, the bed
of a stream (often wide and shelving, and like a
" valley " in character, which in the rainy season
may be nearly filled by a foaming torrent, though
for the greater part of the year dry), and the stream
itself, which after the subsidence of the rains has
shrunk to insignificant dimensions. To autumn trav
ellers in the south of France such appear.ances are
familiar ; the wide shallow bed strewed with water
worn stones of all sizes, amongst which shrubs are

VALLEY OF BAOA
growing promiscuously, perhaps crossed by a bridge
of four or five arches, under the centre one of which
brawls along a tiny stream, the sole remnant of the
broad and rapid river which a, few months before
might have carried away the structure of the bridge.
Such is the nearest likeness to the wadies of Syria,
excepting that — owing to the demolition of the
wood which formerly shaded the country, and pre
vented too rapid evaporation after rain — many of
the latter are now entirely and constantly dry. To
these last it is obvious that the word " valley " is
not inapplicable. It is employed in the A. V. to
translate Hoc/iaZ, alternating with "brook," "river,"
and "stream." For a list of the occurrences of
each see Sinai and Pal. App. § 38.
4. B'lk'ah (ni?^? : veSiov). This term ap
pears to mean rather a plain than a valley, wider
than the latter, though so far resembling it as to
be iudosed by mountains, like the wide district be
tween Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, which is still
called the Beka'a, as it was in the days of Araos.
[Plain, iii. 2546 6.] It is rendered by " valley "
in Deut. xxxiv. 3; Josh. xi. 8, 17, xii. 7; 2 Chr.
xxxv. 22; Zech. xii. 11.
5. Has-Siiefeldh {rih^VSri : rb ireSiov, ^
TreStnj). This is the only case in which the em
ployment of the term " valley " is really unfortunate.
The district to which alone the name has-ShSfelah
is applied in the Bible has no resemblance whatever
to a valley, but is a broad swelling tract of raany
hundred miles in area, which sweeps gently down
fi'om the mountains of Judah
" To mingle with the bounding main "
of the Mediterranean. [See Palestine, iii. 2296 ;
Plains, iii. 2547 b ; Sephela, p. 2911, &c.] It
is rendered "the vale" in Deut. i. 7; Josh. x. 40;
1 K. X. 27; 2 Chr. i. 15; Jer. xxxiii. 13; and " the
valley " or " valleys " in Josh. ix. 1, xi. 2, 16, xii.
8, XV. 33 ; Judg. 1. 9 ; Jer. xxxii. 44. ^ G.
* VALLBY OF BACA. [Baca, Amer. ed.]
* VALLEY OP DBOISIOIS'. [Jehosh
aphat, Valley of.]
* VALLEY OF SOREK. [Soeek, Vai^
ley of.]
* VALLBY-GATB, 2 Chr. xxvii. 9; Neh.
iii. 13. [Jerusalem, ii. 1322.]
VANI'AH (n;31: obovavla; [Vat. Ouie-
XMo;] Alex. Ouovvta; FA. Outepe: Vania). One
of the sons of Bani, who put away his foreign wife
at Ezra's command (Ezr. x. 36).
• VANITIES, a frequent designation, in the
Bible, of the false gods of the heathen, characterized
as having no actual existence. The usual Hebrew
terms so rendered are D'' Y^H, and C^IN, in
which the non-reality of the objects naturally sets
forth at the same tirae the folly and wickedness of
such worship (of. 1 Cor. viii. 4 S.).
In Acts xiv. 15, Paul places Jupiter and Mercury
in this class' of nonentities (tovtwu rwv /jiaTaiav).
Some, indeed, explain the terra there of the vain
practices of heathenism ; but that destroys the

VEIL

3369

" Taiiicnffft 6' eKatrTOS ttVTiav iroWai fxev KOvpiSia^
yV/a.tKa^, iroXXta 6* ert nhevvas TroAAaKo.? KTStvTOi
(Herod. 1. 135). '
^ *^ It is the custom of us Persians, when we make
212

evident opposition between the word and Thv Oehi
Thv (avTa in the context. [Idols; Idolatry.] H.
VASH'NI ('D':'l [Jah is praise, Furst]:
2az/£; [Vat. 5o»'6i'] Vasseni). The first-born of
Samuel as the text now stands (1 Chr. vi. 28 [13] ).
But in 1 Sam. viii. 2 the name of his first-born is
Joel. Most probably in the Chronicles the name
of Joel has dropped out, and " Vashni " is a cor
ruption of '^ntyi, " and (the) second." The Peshito
Syriac has amended the text, and rendered " The
sons of Samuel, his first-born Joel, and the name
of his second son Ahiah." In this it is followed
by the .Arabic of the London Polyglott.
VASH'TI 0^1^71 : 'Ao-tiV; O&c^o-tt?, Joseph.:
Vasthi : *' a beautiful woman,'" Pers.). The
"queen" (n37^L^) of Ahasuerus, who, for re
fusing to show herself to the king's guests at the
royal banquet, when sent for by the king, incurred
his wrath, and was repudiated and deposed (Esth.
i.); when Esther was substituted in her place.
Many attempts have been made to identify her with
historical personages; as by Ussher with Atossa,
the wife of Darius Hystaspis, and by J. Capellus
with Parysatis, the mother of Ochus; but, as was
said of Esther (like the "threescore queens" in
Cant. vi. 8, 9 "), it is far more probable that she
was only one of the inferior wives, dignified with
the title of queen, whose name has utterly disap
peared from history. [Esther.] This ^^ew of
Vashti's position seeras further to tally exactly with
the narrative of Ahasuerus' order, and Vashti'a
refusal, considered with reference to the national
manners of the Persians. For Plutarch ( Conjug.
prcecept c. 16) tells us, in agreement with Herod.
V. 18, that the kin^s of Persia have their legitiraate
wives to sit at table with them at their banquets,
but that, when they choose to riot and drink, they
send their wives away and call in the concubines
and singing-girls- Hence, when the heart of
Ahasuerus " was merry with wine," he sent for
Vashti, looking upon her only as a concubine; she,
on the other hand, considering herself as one of the
KovpiSiai yvva'tKes, or legitimate wives, refused to
corae. See Winer, Realwb. Josephus's statement
{Ant xi. 6, § 1), that it is contrary to the customs
of the Persians for their wives to be seen by any
men but their own husbands, is evidently inac
curate, beir^ equally contradicted by Herodotus,
V. 18,6 and by the book of Esther itself (v. 4, 8,
12, &c.). A. C. H.
* VAT. [Fat ; Oil, 9 ; Olive ; Wine
press.] VEIL. Under the head of Dress we have
already disposed of various terras improperly ren
dered "veU" in the A. V., such as miipachaih
(Ruth iii. 15), isaiph (Gen. xxiv. 65, xxxviii. 14,
19), and rddid (Cant. v. 1; Is. iii. 23). These have
been explained to be rather shawls, or mantles,
which might at pleasure be drawn over the face.
but which were not designed for the special purpose
of veils. It remains for us to notice the following,
terras which describe the val proper: (1.) Masveh,^

a great feast, to- Invite both our concubines and oui
wives to sit down with us,"

3370 VEIL
used of the veil, which Moses assumed when he
«ame down from the mount (Ex. xxxiv. 33-35). A
cognate word suih « occurs hi Gen. xhx. 11 as a
general term for. a man's raiment, leading to the
inference that the masveh also was an ample outer
robe which might be drawn over the face when
required. The context, however, in Ex. xxxiv. is
conclusive as to the object for which the robe was
assumed, and, whatever may have been its size or
form, it must have been used as a veil. (2.) Mis-
pachoth,^ used of the veils which tbe false prophets
placed upon their heads (Ez. xiii. 18, 21 : A. V.
" kerchiefs "). The word is understood by Gesenius
{Thes. p. 965) of cushions or mattresses, but the
etymology (sdphach, to pour) is equally, if not more
favorable, to the sense of a fiowing veil, and this
accords better with the notice that they were to be
placed "upon the head of every stature," implying
that the length of the veil was proportioned to the
height of the wearer (Fiirst, Lex. s. v. ; Hitzig in
Ez. 1. c). (3.) Re'dldth,<^ used of the light veils
worn by females (Is. iii. 19; A. V. '*mufl3ers"),
which were so called from their rustUng motion.
The same term is apphed in the Mishna (Sab. 6,
§ 6) to the veils worn by Arabian women. (4.)
Tsammdh,d understood by the A. V. of " locks "
of hair (Cant. iv. 1, 3, vi. 7; Is. xlvii. 2), and so
by Winer (Reahob. " Schleier"); but the contents
of the passages in which it is used favor the sense
of veil, the wearers of the article being in each case
highly born and handsomely dressed. A cognate
word is used in the Targum (Gen. xxiv. 65) of the
robe in which Rebecca enveloped herself.
With regard to the use of the veil, it is important
to observe that it was by no means so general in
ancient as in modern times. At present, females
are rarely seen without it in oriental countries, so
much so that in Egypt it is deemed more requisite
to conceal the face, including the top and back of
the head, than otiier parts of the person (Lane, i.
72). Women are even dehcate about exposing their
heads to a physician for medical treatment (Russell's
Aleppo, i. 24:Q}. In reraote districts, and among
the lower classes, the practice is not so rigidly en
forced (Lane, i, 72). Much of the scnipulousness
in respect to the use of the veil dates from the
promulgation of the Koran, which forbade women
appearing unveiled except in the presence of their
nearest relatives (Koi'. xxxiii. 55, 59). In ancient
times, the veil was adopted only in exceptional cases,
eiiher as an article of ornamental dress (Cant. iv.
1, 3, vi. 7), or by betrothed raaidens in the presence
of their future husbands, especially at the time of
the wedding ((Jen, xxiv. 65, xxix. 25 [Marriage] ),
or lastly, by women of loose character for purposes
of concealment (Gen. xxxviii. 14). But, generally
speaking, women both married and unmarried ap
peared in public with their faces exposed, both
among the Jews (Gen. xii. 14, xxiv. 16, xxix. 10;
1 Sam. i. 12), and among the Egyptians and As
syrians, as proved by the invariable absence of the
veil in the sculptures and paintings of these
peoples. Among th3 Jews of the New Testament age it
appears to have been customary for the woraen to
cover their heads (not necessarily their faces) when
engaged m public worship. For, St. Paul repro-

6 mnoDD. T : •

VERSIONS, ANCIENT
bates the disuse of the veil by the Corinthian women,
as implying an assumption of equality with the
other sex, and enforces the covering of the head as
a sign « of subordination to the authority of the
men (1 Cor. xi. 5-15). The same passage leads
to the conclusion that the use of the talith, with
which the Jewish males cover their heads in prayer,
is a comparatively modern practice; inasmuch m
the Apostle, putting a hypothetical case, states that
every man having anything on his head dishonors
his head, i. e. Christ, inasmuch as the use of the
veil would imply subjection to his fellow-men rathei
than to the Lord (1 Cor. xi. 4). W. L B.
VEIL OF THE TABERNACLE ANO
TEMPLE. [Tabernacle; Temile.]
* VEIL, RENDING OF THE. [Jk.us
Christ, ii. 1379 a.]
* VERMILION. [Colors, 4.]
VERSIONS, ANCIENT, OF THE OLD
AND NEW TESTAMENTS. On the an
cient versions in general, see Walton's Prolegom
ena : Simon, Histoire Critique ; Marsh's Micha
ehs; Eichhorn's Einleitung; Hug's Einleiiung j
De Wette's Einleiiung ; Havemick's Einleitu/ng ;
Davidson's Introduction [_Biblical Criticism'] ; Reusfl,
Geschichte des Neuen Testaments ; Home's Intro
duction by Ayre (vol. ii.), [or by Davidson (vol. ii.,
ed. 1856)], and Tregelles (vol. iv.); Scrivener's
Plain Introduction ; Bleek's Einleiiung ; [Keil's
Einleitung, Of Hug, De Wette, Havernick, Bleek,
and Keil there are English translations. On the
versions of the N. T. Hug is particularly full. —
A.] There were two things which, in the early cen
turies after the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
were closely connected : the preaching of the Gos
pel, leading to the diffused profession of the Chris
tian faith amongst nations of varied languages; and
the formation of versions of the Holy Scriptures for
the use of the Churches thus gathered in varied
countries. In fact, for many ages the spread of
Christianity and the appearance of vernacular
translations seem to have gone almost continually
hand in hand. The only exceptions, perhaps, were
those regions in which the Christian profession did
not extend beyond what might be called the civil
ized portion of the comraunity, and in which also
the (jreek language, diffused through the conquests
of Alexander, or the Latin, the concomitant of the
dominion of Rome, had taken a deeply-rooted and
widely-extended hold. Before the Christian era,
the Greek version of the Old Testament, commonly
termed the Septuagint, and the earlier Targuma
(if, indeed, any were wiitien so early) supplied every
want of the Jews, so far as we can at all discover.
And it cannot be doubted that the Greek transla
tion of the Old Testament had produced some con
siderable eff'ect beyond the mere Jewish pale: for
thus the comparatively large class of proselytes
which we find existing in the time of our Lord and
his Apostles must apparently have been led to em
brace a rehgion, not then commended by the holi
ness of its professors or by extei-nal advantages, but
only accredited by its doctrines, which professed to
be given by the revelation of God (as, indeed, they
were); and which, in setting forth the unity of

e The term efoutn'a in 1 Cor. xi. 10.r= sign of au
thority, just as jSao-iAei'a in Diod. Sic. i. 47 — sign of
r«yalty.

VERSION, ANCIENT (^THIOPICl

3371

God, and in < the condemnation of all idolatry,
lupplied a need, not furnished by anything which
professed to be a system of positive religion as held
by the Greek, Latin, or Egyptian priests.
Ill making inquiry as to the versions formed
after the spread of Christianity, we rarely find any
indication as to the translators, or the particular
sircumstances under which they were executed.
All we can say is, that those who had learned that
the docti-ines of tbe Apostles, — namely, that in the
name of Jesus Christ the Son of God there is for
giveness of sins and eternal life through faith in his
pnpitiatory sacrifice, — are indeed the truth of
Grod; and who knew that the New Testament con
tains the records of this religion, and the Old the
preparation of God for its introduction through
promises, types, and prophecies, did not long remain
without possessing these Scriptures in languages
which they understood. The appearance of ver
nacular translations was a kind of natural conse
quence of the formation of Churches.
We have also sorae indications that parts of the
New Testament were translated, not by those who
received the doctrines, but by those who opposed
them ; this was probably done in order the more
successfully to guard Jews and proselytes to Juda
ism against the doctrines of the Cross of Christ,
"to the Jews a stumbling-block."
Translations of St. John's Gospel and of the Acts
of the Apostles into the Hebrew dialect are men
tioned in the very curious narration given by Epi
phanius (i. xxx. 3, 12) respecting Joseph of Tibe
rias; he speaks oftheir being secretly preserved by
the Jewish teachers of that city. But these or any
similar versious do not appear to bave been exam
ined, much less used by any Christians. They de
serve a mention here, however, as being translations
of parts of the New Testament, the former existence
of which is recorded.
In treating of the ancient versions that have
come down to us, in whole or in part, they will be
described in the alphabetical order of the languages.
It may be premised tbat in most of thera the Old
Test, is not a version frora the Hebrew, but raerely
u secondary translation frora the Septuagint in
some oue of its early forms. The value of these
secondary versions is but httle, except as bearing
on the criticism of the text of the LXX., a depart
ment of Biblical learning in which they will be
found of much use, whenever a competent scholar
shall earnestly engage in the revision of that Greek
version of the Old Test., pointhig out the correc
tions introduced through the labors of Origen. S. P. T.
iETHIOPIC VERSION. — Christianity was
introduced into .Ethiopia in the 4th century,
through the labors of Frumentius and ^desius of
Tyre, who had been raade slaves and sent to the
king (Theodoret, Hist Eccl. i. 23; Socr. i. 19;
Sozomen, ii. 24). Hence arose the episcopal see
of Axum, to which Frumentius was appointed by
Athanasius. The iEthiopic version which we pos
sess is in the ancient dialect of Axum ; hence some
have ascribed it to the age of the earUest mission-
dries ; but from the general character of the ver
sion itself, this is improbable; and the Abyssin
ians theraselves attribute it to a later period';
though their testimony is of but little value by
Itself; for their accounts are very contradictory,
and some of thera even speak of its having been
translated from the Arabic ; which is certainly in-
Mrrect.

The Old Testament, as well as the New, was ex
ecuted from the Greek.
In 1513 Potken pubhshed the ethiopic Psalter
at Rorae: he received this portion of the Scriptures
frora some Abyssinians with whom he had met;
whora, however, he called Chaldaeans, and their
lauguage Chaldee.
In 1548-49, the iEthiopic New Test, was also
printed at Rome, edited by three Abyssinians : they
sadly complained of the difficulties under which
they labored, from the printers having been occu
pied on what they were unable to read. They
speak of having had to fill up a considerable portion
of the- book of Acts by translating fi'om the Latin
and Greek: in this, however, there seems to be
'some overstateraent. The Roman edition was re
printed in Walton's Polyglott; but (according to
Ludolf) all the former errors were retained; and
new ones introduced. When Bode in 1153 pub
lished a careful Latin translation of the .Ethiopic
text of Walton, he supplied Biblical scholars in
general with the means of forming a judgment as
to this version, which had been previously impoS'
sible, except to the few who were acquainted with
the language.
In 1826-30, a new edition, forraed by a collation
of MSS., was published under tbe care of Mr.
Thomas Pell Piatt (forraerly Fellow of Trinity
College, Cambridge), whose object was not strictly
critical, but rather to give to the Abyssinians their
Scriptures for ecclesiastical use in as good a forra
as he conveniently could, consistently with MS.
authority. From the notes made by Mr. Piatt in
the course of his collations, it is evident that the
translation had been variously revised. The differ
ences of MSS. had appeared so marked to Ludolf
that he supposed that there must have been two
ancient versions. But Mr. Piatt found, in the
course of his examination, that where certain MSS.
differ widely in their readings, some other copy
would introduce both readings, either in a conflat-p
form, or simply in the way of repetition. The
probability appears to be that there was originally
one version of the Gospels ; but that this was after
ward revised with Greek MSS. of a different com
plexion of text ; and that succeeding copyists either
adopted one or the other form in passages ; or else,
by omitting nothing frora text or margin, they
formed -a. confused combination of readings. It
appears probable that all the portion of the New
Test, after the Gospels originated from sorae of
the later revisers of the fbrraer part; its pani-
phrastic tone accords with this opinion. We can
only forra a judgraent from the pHnted texts oi
this version, until a collation of the MSS- now
known shall be so executed as to be available for
critical use.
As it is, we find in the copies of the ^version,
readings which show an affinity with the older
class of Greek MSS., intermingled with others
decidedly Byzantine. Some of the copies known
show a stronger leaning to the one side or the
other; and this gives a considerable degree oi
certainty to the conclusion on the subject of re
vision. An examination of the version proves both that
it waa executed from the Greek, and also that the
translator raade such mistakes that he could hardly
have been a person to whom Greek was the native
tongue. The following instances (mostly taken
from C. B. Michaelis) prove this: 5pta is con
founded with $pea (or ^pti)', Matt. lv. 13, "in

8372

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (ARABIC)

monte Zabulon; " xix. 1, " in montes Judtese trans
Jordanem." Acts iii. 20, irpoKexeipio-ncvov is ren
dered as " quem praeunxit " (irpoKexpio-fievov) ; ii.
37, KaTev^yrjffav " operti sunt quoad cor eorum "
{KaT7}voly7}a'av) ^ xvi. 25, 4-7r7}Kpo&VTO ahrwv ol
becfMioi, " percussa sunt vincula eorum " (iweKpoilr-
ovTO auTwv ot Bctxfiol)' Matt. v. 25, cvvowv is
rendered as intelligens (ivvoa>v)i Luke viii, 29,
Kol TTcSots <pv\ao-a-6fj.€vos, " a parvulis custodi-
tus," as if tcaihioLS. Rom. vii. 11, i^riirdrtja-ev,
'' conculcavit," as if i^eirdrrja-ev. Eev. iv. 3, Jpis,
" sacerdotes," as if Upcis, The meaning of words
alike in spelling is confounded : thus, 1 Cor. xii.
28, "Posuit Dominus aurem ecclesise," frora the
differing meanings of OT5. Also wrong render
ings sometimes seem to have originated vnth false
etymology: thus, Matt. y. 22, "Qui autem dixerit
fratrera suum pamwsum,^'' paKk having been con
nected with pdKos.
Bode*s Latin version, to which reference has al
ready been made, enabled critical scholars to use
the Roman text with much confidence. The late
Mr. L. A. Prevost, of the British Museum, exe
cuted for Dr. Tregelles a comparison of the text of
Mr. Piatt with the Roman, as reprinted in Walton,
together with a literal rendering of the variations;
this gave hira the critical use of both texts. The
present Bishop of Gloucester, Dr. Ellicott, speaking
with the personal advantage possessed by a scholar
himself able to use both Ethiopic texts of the
New Test., draws attention to the superiority of
that edited by Mr. Piatt : after speaking (Aids to
Faith, p. 381) of the non-paraphrastic character
of the ancient versions of the New Test, in gen
eral, Dr. Ellicott adds in a note: "It may be no
ticed that we have specified the Ethiopic version
as that edited by Mr. Pell Piatt. The Ethiopic
version found in Walton's Polyglott often degen
erates into a paraphrase, especially in difficult pas-

The Old Test, of this version, made from the
LXX. (as has been already specified), has been
subjected apparently (with the exception of the
Psalms) to very little critical examination. A com
plete edition of the iEthiopic Old Test, has been
commenced by Dillmann ; the first portion of which
appeared in 1853. [Tom. i. Octateuch, 1853-55;
tom. ii., 1 Sam.-Esther, 1861 ff. For editions of
sorae other parts of the O. T. see De Wette, Einl.
§ 61, 8e Ausg. ~ A.]
Literature. — Potken, Preface to the Ethiopic
Psalter, Rorae, 1513; C. B. Michaelis, Preface
to Bode's Collation of St Matthew, Halle, 1749;
Bode, Latin Translation of ihe ./Ethiopia New
Test Brunswick, 1753 ; T. P. Piatt, MS. Notes
made in the Collation of ./Ethiopic MSS., and
Private Letters sent io Tregelles ; L. A. Prevost,
MS. Collation of the Text of Piatt with the Ro
man, and Translation of Variations, executed for
Tregelles ; A. Dillmann, jEthiopische Bibeluber-
setzung in Herzog's ReaUEncykbpddie. S. P. T.
ARABIC VERSIONS. — To give a detailed
account of the Arabic versions would be impossible,
without devoting a much larger space to the sub-
'ect than would be altogether in its place in a Dic-
lionary of the Bible: for the versions themselves

a Cardinal Wiseman {On the Miracles of the New
Tesi,, Essays 1. 172-176, 240-244) gives a curious inves-
igation of the origin and translation of this Arabic

do not, owing to then* compttratively late date, pos
sess any pinmary importance, even for critical
studies; and thus many points connected with
these translations are rather of literary than
strictly Biblical interest. The versions of the
Old Test, must be considered separately from
those of the New ; and those from the Hebrew text
must be treated apart from those formed from the
LXX.
I. Arabic versions of ihe Old Test.
A. Made from the Hebrew text.
Rabbi Saadiah Haggaon, the Hebrew oonmen-
tator of the 10th century, translated portions (some
think the whole) of the 0. T. into Arabic. His
version of the Pentateuch was printed at Constan
tinople, in 1546. The Paris Polyglott contains the
same version Irom a MS- differing in raany of its
readings: this was reprinted by Walton. It seems
as if copyists had in parts altered the version con
siderably. The version of Isaiah by Saadiah was
printed by Paulus, at Jena, iu 1791, from a Bod
leian MS. ; the same Hbrary contains a MS. of his
version of Job and of the Psalms. Kimchi quotes
his version of Hosea.
The book of Joshua in the Paris and Walton's
Polyglotts is also from the Hebrew ; and this Ro
diger states to be the fact in the case of the Poly
glott text of 1 K. xii. ; 2 K. xii. 16 ; and of Neh.
i.-ix. 27.
Other portions, translated frora Hebrew in later
times, do not require to be even specified here.
But it was not the Jews only who translated into
Arabic from the original. There is also a version
of the Pentateuch of the Samaritans, made by Abu
Said. He is stated to have clearly had the trans
lation of Saadiah before him, the phraseology of
which he often follows, and at times he must have
used the Samaritan version. It is considered that
this work of Abu Said (of which a portion haa
been printed) is of considerable use in connection
with the history of the text of the Samaritan Pen
tateuch. [See Samaritan Pentateuch, ii. 3.]
B. Made from the Peshito Syriac.
This is the base of the Arabic text contained in
the Polyglotts of tbe books of Judges, Ruth, Sam
uel, Kings, and Nehemiah (with the exception
raentioned above in these last-named books).
In some MSS. there is contained a translation
from the Hexaplar-Syriac text, which (though a
recent version) is of some importance for the criti
cism of that translation.
C. Made from the LXX.
The version in the Polyglotts of the books not
specified above."
Another text of the Psalter in Justiniani Psaltff-
ium Octuplum, Genoa, 1516.
The Arabic versions existing in MS. exhibit very
various forms : it appears as if alterations had been
made in the different countries in which they had
been used; hence it is almost an endless task to
discriminate amongst them precisely.
II. Arabic versions of the New Test.
The printed editions of the Arabic New Teat.
must first be specified before their text can be de
scribed. 1. The Roman editio princeps of the four Gm-
pels, 1590-91 (issued both vrith and without an

Psalter, and of the occasional use of the Hebrew t«t
and sometimes of the Syriac version.

versions, ancient (ARMENIAN)

3373

nterlinear I^tin version. Reissued, with a new
iitle, 1619; and again, with a bibliographical pref
ace, 1774).
2. The Erpenian Arabic. The whole New Test.
edited by Ei-penius, 1616, at Leyden, from a MS.
Df the 13th or 14th century.
3. The Arabic of the Paris Polyglott, 1645. In
the Gospels this follows mostly the Roman text ; in
the Epistles a MS. from Aleppo was used. The
Arabic in Walton's Polyglott appears to be simply
taken from the Paris text.
4. The Carshuni Arabic text (i. e. in Syriac let
ters), the Syriac and Arabic New Test., pubUshed
at Rome, in 1703. For this a MS. brought from
Cyprus W95 used.
Storr proved, that in all these editions the Gos
pels are really the same translation, however it may
have been modified by copyists ; especially when the
Syriac, or Memphitic, stand by the side.
Juynboll, in his description of an Arabic Codex
at Franeker (1838), threw new light on the origin
of the Arabic Gospels. He proves that the Frane
ker Cbdex coincides in its general text with the
Roman editio princeps, and that both follow the
Latin Vulgate, so that Raymundi, the Roraan edi
tor, must not be accused of having Latinized the
text. The greater agreement of the Polyglott text
with the Greek he ascribes to the influence of an
Aleppo MS., which the Paris editor used. Juyn
boll then identifies the text of the Franeker MS.
(and of tbe Roman edition) with the version raade
in the Sth century by John, Bishop of Seville.
The question to be considered thus becomes. Was
the Latin the basis of the version of the Gospels ?
and did some afterwards revise it with the Greek ?
ar, was it taken from the Greek? and was the
alteration to suit the Latin a later work ? If the
former supposition be correct, then the version of
John of Seville may have been the frst ; if the
latter, then all that was done by the Spanish bishop
must have been to adapt an existing Arabic vei'sion
to the Latin.
Gildemeiater, in his comraunications to Tischen
dorf (Gr. Test 1859, Prolegg. p. ccxxxix.), en
deavors to prove, that all the supposed connection
of this (or apparently of any) version with John
af Seville is a mistake. The words, however, of
Mariana, the Spanish historian, are express. He
Bays, under the year 737, " His sequalis Joannes
Hispalensis Praesul divinos libros lingua Arabica
donabat utriusque nationis saluti consulens ; quo
niam Arabicse linguse multus usus erat Christianis
seque atque Mauris; Latina passim ignorabatur.
Ejus interpretatioiiis exempla ad nostram ^tatera
{i. e. A. D. 1600) conservata sunt, extantque non
uno in loco in Hispania." ** Gildemeister says,
indeed, that this was entirely caused from a mis
understanding of what had been stated by Roderic
of Toledo, the first who says anything on the sub-
tect He adds that John of Seville lived really in

a Adler (Reise nach Rom, p. 184} gives a citation
Irom D. yincenzio Juan de Lastanosa, who says in
bis Museo de las Medallas desconocidas, Huesca, 1645,
p. 115, "El santo Ar^obispo Don Juan traduxo la
tagrada escritura eu Arabigo, par cuya intercessiva hizo
Dios muchos milagros 1 los Moros le llamavan Caid
tlmateran.^^ Adler conjectures this designation to be
h * Some notice should perhaps be taken of an
\rabic version of the whole N. T. (except the Apoca- <

the 10th century, and not in tlie Sth: if so, ha
raust be a different person, apparently, from th*
Bishop, of the same narae, about whom Mariana
could hardly have been misinformed. It does not
appear as if JuynboU's details and arguments were
likely to be set aside through the brief fragments
of Gildemeister' s letters to Tischendorf, which the
latter has pubUshed.
In the Erpenian Arabic the latter part is a trans
lation from the Peshito-Syriac; the Epistles not
found in that version and the Apocalypse are said
to be from the Memphitic.
The latter part of the text in the Polyglotts is
from the Greek. Various Arabic translations of
portions of the New Test, exist in MS. : they do not
require any especial enumeration here.*
Literature. — Malaniraeus, Preface io the re.-is-
sue, in 1774, of the Roman edition of the Arabic
Gospels ; Storr, Dissertatlo inauguralls cHtica de
Evangellis Arabids, Tiibingen, 1775: JuynboU,
Letterkundlge Bijdragen (Tweede Siukje. Be
schrijving van een Arabischen Codex der Franeker
Bibliotheek, bevatiende de mer Evangellen, gevolgd
van eenige opmerklngen, welke de letterkundlge
Geschledenls van de Arabische Vertaling der
Evangellen betreffen), Leyden, 1838 ; Wiseman,
On the Miracles of the New Testament. S. P. T.
ARMENIAN VERSION. — Before the Sth
century the Armenians are said to have used the
Syriac alphabet; but at that time Miesrob is stated
to have invented the Armenian letters. Soon after
this it is said that translations into the Armenian
language commenced, at first frora the Syriac.
Miesrob, with his companions, Joseph and E^nak,
began a version of the Scriptures with the book of
Proverbs, and corapleted aU the Old Test. ; and in
the New, they used the Syriac as their basis, from
their inabUity to obtain any Greek books. But
when, in the year 431, Joseph and Eznak returned
from the council of Ephesus, bringing with them a
Greek copy of the Scriptures, Isaac, the Armenian
Patriarch, and Miesrob, threw aside what they had
already done, in order that they might execute a
version frora the Greek. But now arose the diffi
culty of their want of a competent acquaintance
with that language: to remedy thia, Eznak and
Joseph were sent with Moses Chorenensis (who is
himself the narrator of these details ) to study that
language at Alexandria. There they raade what
Moses calls their third translation ; the first being
that from the Syriac, and the second that which
had been attempted without sufficient acquaintance
with the Greek tongue. The fact seems to be that
the former attempts were used as far as they could
be, and that the whole was remodeled so as to suit
the Greek.
The first printed edition of the Old and New
Testaments in Armenian appeared at Amsterdam
in 1666, under the care of a person commonly

lypse) found In a MS, in the Vatican Library (Cod.
Vat. Arab. 13). and described by Scholz in bis Bib-
lijich-Erltische Reise (1823), pp- 117-126 ; comp. Hug,
§ 107. It appears by the Greek subscription to hav#
been made at Emeaa {Hums) in Syria by one Daniel
Philentolos. Though our knowledge of it is very
imperfect, the agreement of mauy of its readings with .
the oldest Greek MSS. in the specimens given by
Scholz ie remarkable. It wants, for example, the last
twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark, and supports the
reading ov iu 1 Tim. iii. 16. A.

3374

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (ARMENIAN)

termed Oscan, or Uscan, and described as being an
Armenian bishop (Hug, however, denies that Uscan
was his narae, and Eichhorn denies that he was a
bishop). From this editio princeps others were
printed, in which no attempt was made to do more
than to follow its text: although it was more than
suspected that Uscan had by no means faithfully
adhered to MS. authority. Zohrab, in 1789, pub
lished at Venice an improved text of the Armenian
New Test,; and in 1805 he and his coadjutors
completed an edition of the entire Armenian Scrip
tures, for which not only MS. authority was used
throughout, but also the results of collations of
MSS. were subjoined at the foot of the pages. The
basis was a MS. written in the 14th century, in
CiHcia ; the whole number employed is said to
have been eight of the entire Bible, twenty of the
New Test., with several more of particular por
tions, such as the Psalms. Tischendorf states that
Aucher, of the monastery of St. Lazarus at Venice,
informed him that he and some of his feUow-
monks had undertaken a new critical edition : this
probably would contain a repetition of the various
collations of Zohrab, together with those of other
MSS. The critical editors of the New Test, appear all
of thera to have been unacquainted with the Arme
nian language ; the want of a Latin translation of
this version has made it thus impossible for them
to use it as a critical authority, except by the aid
of others. Some readings were thus communicated
to Mill by Louis Piques; Wetstein received still
more from La Croze; Griesbach was aided by a
coUation of the New Test, of 1789, made by Bre-
denkamp of Hamburg. Scholz speaks of having
been furnished with a collation of the text of 1805 ;
but either this was done very partially and incor
rectly, or else Scholz raade but httle use (and that
without real accuracy) of the coUation. These
partial collations, however, were by no means such
as to supply what was needed for the real critical
use of the version ; and as it was known that Uscan's
text was thoroughly untrustworthy for critical pur
poses, an exact coUation of the Venice text of 1805
became a de^sideratum; Dr. Charles Rieu of the
British Museum undertook the task for Tregelles,
thus supplying him with a valuable portion of the
materials for his critical edition of the Greek Tes
tament. By marking the words, and noting the
import of the various readings, and the disci'epan-
des qf Uscan's text, Rieu did all that was practi
cable to make the whole of the labor of Zohrab
available for those not like himself Armenian schol
ars. It had been long noticed that in the Armenian
N'ew Test, as printed by Uscan 1 John v. 7 is
found: those who are only moderately acquainted
with criticism would feel assured that this must be
an addition, and that it could not be part of the
original translation. Did Uscan then introduce it
from the Vulgate? he seems to have admitted that
n some things he supplied defects in his MS. by
translations from the Latin. It was, however, said
that Haitho king of Armenia (1224-70), had in
serted tbis verse: that he revised the Armenian
version by means of the Latin Vulgate, and that he
translated the prefaces of Jerome (and also those
ffhich are spurious) into Armenian. Hence a kind
of suspicion attached itself to the Armenian version,
*nd its use was accompanied by a kind of doubt
W'hether or not it was a critical authority which
Bould be safely used. The known fact that Zohrab

had omitted 1 John v. 7, was felt tc be so far satis
factory that it showed that he had not found it in
his MSS., which were thus seen to be earlier than
the introduction of this corruption. But the col
lation of Dr. Rieu, and his statement of the Arme
nian authorities, set forth the character of tbe
version distinctly in this place as well as in the
text in general. Dr. Rieu says of 1 John v. 7,
that out of eighteen MSS. used by Zohrab, one
only, and that written a. d. 1656, has the passage
as in the Stephanie Greek text. In one ancient
MS. the reading is found from a recent correction.
Thus there is no ground for supposing that it was
inserted by Haitho, or by any one till the tame
when Uscan Uved. The. wording, however, of
Uscan in this place, Js not in accordance with the
MS. of 1656: so that each seeras to have been
independently borrowed frora the Latin. That
Uscan did this, there can be no reasonable doubt;
for in the immediate context Uscan accords with
the Latin in opposition to aU coUated Armenian
MSS.: thus in ver. 6, he foUows the Latin ^'¦Chris
tus est Veritas;" in ver. 20 he has, instead of
itrpev, the subjunctive answering to slmus : even
in this minute point the Armenian MSS. definitely
vary from Uscan. In iii. 11, for h.yairu>pi^v, Uscan
stands alone in agreeing with the Vulgate diligaiis.
These are proofs of the employment of the Vulgate
either by Uscan, or by some one else who prepared
the MS. from which he printed. There are many
o.uer passages in wliich alterations or considerable
additions (see for instance Matt. xvi. 2, 3, xxiii.
14; John viii. 1-11; Acts xv. 34, xxiii. 24, xxviii.
25) are proofs that Uscan agrees with the Vulgate
against all known MSS. (These variations in the
two texts of Uscan and Zohrab, as weU as the
material readings of Armenian MSS. are inserted
in TregeUes* Greek Test, on Dr. Rieu's authority.)
But systematic revision with the Vulgate is not
to be found even in Uscan's text: they differ greatly
in characteristic readings; though here and there
throughout there is some mark of an influence
drawn from the Vulgate. And as to accordances
with the Latin, we have no reason to believe that
there is any proof of alterations having been made
in the days of King Haitho.
Some have spoken of this version as though it
had been made from the Peshito Syriac, and not
from the Greek; the only grounds for such a notion
can be the facts connected with part of the history
of its execution. There are, no doubt, a, few read
ings which show that the translators had made
sorae use of the Syriac ; but these are only excep
tions to the general texture of the version ; an addi
tion from John xx. 21, brought into Matt, xxviii.
18, in both the Armenian and tbe Peshito, is prob
ably the most marked.
The collations of MSS. show that some amongst
them differ greatly from the rest : it seems as if the
variations did not in such cases originate in Arme
nian, but they must have sprung from sorae recast
ing of the text and its revision by Greek copies.
There may perhaps be proofs of the difference be
tween the MS. brought from Ephesus, and the
copies afterwards used at Alexandria; but thus
rauch at least is a certain conclusion, tbat compar
ison with Greek copies of different kinds must at
some period have taken place. The oraission of
the last twelve verses of St. Mark's Gospel in tha
older Armenian copies, and their insertion in the
later, may be taken as a proof of some effective rfr-
virion.

versions, ancient (EGYPTIAN)

3375

The Armenian version in its general texture is a
»aluable aid to the criticism of the text of the New
Test. : it was a worthy service to rehabilitate it as
il critical witness as to the general reading of cer
tain Greek copies existing in the former half of the
Sth century.
Literature. — Moses Chorenensis, Historits Ar-
meniacoe Libri iii., ed. Guliel. et Georg. Whiston,
1736; Rieu (Dr. Charles), MS. collation of ihe
Armenian text of Zohrab, and translation of ihe
carious readings made for Tregelles. S. P. T.
CHALDEE VERSIONS. [Takgums, below.]
EGYPTIAN VERSIONS. — I. The Mem
phitic Version. — The version thus designated
was for a considerable time the only Egyptian trans-
Lition known to scholars ; Coptic was then regarded
as a sufficiently accurate and definite appellation.
But when the fact was established that there were
at least two Egyptian versions, the name Coptic
was found to be indefinite, and even unsuitable for
the translation then so termed : for in the dialect
of Upper Egypt there was another; and it is from
the ancient Coptos in Upper Egypt that the term
Coptic is taken. Thus Copto-Memphitic, or more
simply Memphitic, is the better name for the -ver
sion in the dialect of Lower Egypt.
When Egyptian translations were made we du
not know : we find, however, that in the middle of
the 4th century the Egyptian language was in
great use amongst the Christian inhabitants of that
country ; for the rule of Pachomius for the monks is
stated to have been drawn up in Egyptian, and to
have been afterwards ti-an.slated into Greek. It was
prescribed that every one of the monks (estimated
at seven thousand ) for whom this rule in Egyptian
was drawn up, was to learn to read (whether so
disposed or not), so as to be able at least to read
the New Test, and the Psalms. The whole narra
tion presupposes that there was in Upper Egypt a
translation. So, too, also in Lower Egypt in the same century.
For PaUadius found at Nitria the abbot .John of
Lycopolis, who was well acquainted with the New
Test., but who was ignorant of Greek; so that he
could only converse with him through an inter
preter. There seems to be proof of the ecclesias
tical use of the Egyptian language even before this
time. Those who know what the early Christian
worship was, will feel how cogent is the proof that
the Scriptures had then been translated.
When the attention of European scholars was di
rected to the language and races of modem Egypt,
it was found that while the native Christians use
only Arabic vernacularly, yet in their services and
in the public reading of the Scriptures they employ
a dialect of the Coptic. This is the version new
termed Memphitic. When MSS. had been brought
fi«m Egypt, Thomas Marshall, an Englishman,
prepared in the latter part of the 16th century an
edition of the Gospels; the publication of which
was prevented by his death. From some of the
readings having been noted by him Mill was able
to use them for insertion in his Greek Test. ; they
iflen differ (sometimes for the better) from the text
fubliahed by Wilkins. Wilkins was a Prussian by
Dirthj m 1716 he published at Oxford the first
Memphitic New Test., founded on MSS. in the

Bodleian, and compared vrith some al Rome and
Paris. That he did not execute the work in a very
satisfactory manner would probably now be owned
by every one; but it must be remembered that nc
one else did it at all. Wilkins gave no proper ac
count of the MSS. which he used, nor of the vari
ations which he found in them : his text seems to
be in many places a confused combination of what
he took from various MSS. ; so that the sentences
do not properly connect themselves, even (it is said)
in grammatical construction. And yet for 130
years this was the the only Memphitic edition.
In 1846-48, Schwartze published at Berlin an
edition of the Memphitic Gospels, in which he em
ployed MSS. in the Royal Library there. These
were almost entirely modern transcripts; but with
these limited materials he produced a far more sat
isfactory work than that of Wilkins. At the foot
of the page he gave the variations which he found
in his copies; and subjoined there was a collation
of tbe Memphitic and Thebaic versions with Lach-
mann's Greek Test. (1842), and the first of Tisch
endorf (1841). There are also such references to
the Latin version of Wilkins, that it almost seeras
as if he supposed that all who used his edition
would also have that of Wilkins before them.
The death of Schwartze prevented the continua
tion of his labors. Since then Boetticher's editions,
first of the Acts and then of the Epistles, have ap
peared; these are not in a form which is available
for the use of those who are themselves unacquainted
with Egyptian : the editor gives as his reason for
issuing a bare text, that he intended soon to publish
a work of his own in which he would fully employ
the authority of the ancient versions. Several years
have since passed, and Boetticher does not seem to
give any further prospect of the issue of such volume
on the ancient versions."
In 1848-52 a magnificent edition of the Mem
phitic New Test, was published by the Society for
promoting Christian Knowledge, under the editorial
care of the Rev. R. T. I^ieder of Cairo. In its prep
aration he followed MSS. without depending on
tbe text of Wilkins. Thei'e is no statement of the
variations of the authorities, which would bave
hardly been a suitable accompaniment of an edition
intended solely for the use of the Coptic churches,
and in which, while the Egyptian text which is read
aloud is printed in large characters, there is at tho
side a small column in Arabic in order that the
readers may themselves be able to understand some
thing of what they read aloud.
It is thus impossible to give a history of this
version: we find proof that such a translation ex
isted in early times, we find this now (and from
time immemorial) in church use in Egypt; when
speaking of its internal character and ils value as
to textual criticism (after the other Egyptian ver
sions have been described), it will be found tbat
there are many considerations which go far to prove
the identity of what we now have, with that which
must have existed at an early period.
The Old Testament of this version was made
from the LXX. Of this, Wilkins edited the Penta
teuch in 1731 : tlie Psalter was published at Rome
in 1744. The Rev. Dr. Tattam edited the Minoi
Prophets in 1836, Job in 1846, and the Majoi
Prophets in 1852. Bardelli published Daniel in

a * It may be noted here that the later writings of
Boetticher have been published under the name of
Paul or Paul Anton de Lagarde. Among these is an

—jay De Novo Testamento ad Versionum OnentaHwn
Jidem edendo, Berl. 1857, 4to. A.

3376

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (EGYPTIAN)

i849. [A. Fallet, La version cophte du Pent,
Livr. 1, 2, Par. 1854. P. de L^arde, Der Pent.,
kopiisch, Leipz. 1867. — J. L. Ideler, Psalterium
Coptice, Berol. 1837. M. G. Schwartze, Psalte
rium in Dial. Copt. Ling. Memphit. transl. edidit,
Notisque crit. ei gram, insiruxit, Lips. 1843, 4to.
-A.] It. The Thebaic Vekston. — The examina
tion of Egyptian MSS. in the last century showed
that besides the Memphitic there is also another
version in a cognate Egyptian dialect. To this the
name Sahidic was applied by some, from an Arabic
designation for Upper Egypt' and its ancient lan-
guas^e. It is, however, far better to assign to this
version a name not derived from the language of the
Arabian occupants of that land : thus Copto-'rhe-
baic (as styled by Giorgi), or simply Thebaic, is
far preferable. The first who attended rauch to
the subject of this version was Woide, who collected
readings frora MSS. which he communicated to
Cramer in 1779. In 1785 Mingarehi published a
few portions of this version of the New Test, frora
the Nanian MSS- In 1789 Giorgi edited very
valuable Greek and Thebaic fragments of St. John's
Gospel, which appear to belong to the fifth century.
Miinter, in 1787, had pubhshed a fragment of
Daniel in this version; and in 1789 he brought out
portions of the Epistles to Timothy, together with
readings which he had collected from MSS. in
other parts of the New Test. In the following year
Mingarelli printed Mark xi. 29-xv. 22, from MSS.
which had recently been obtained by Nani; but
owing to the editor's death the unfinished sheets
were never, properly speaking, pidjlished. A few
copies only seem to have been circulated ; they are
the more valuable from the fact of the MSS. hav
ing been destroyed by the persons into whose hands
they fell, and from their containing a portion of the
New Test, not found, it appears, in any known MS.
Woide was now busily engaged in the collection of
portions of the Thebaic Scriptures: he had even
issued a Prospectus of such an edition in 1778.
Woide's death took place before his edition was
completed. In 1799, however, it appeared under
the editorial care of Ford. In this work all the
portions found by Woide himself were given, as
veil as those published by Mingarelli in his life
time: but not only were MingarelU's posthumous
sheets passed by, but also all that had been pub
lished by Miinter and Giorgi, as well as the tran
script of Miinter from the Borgian MSS., which
Ford might have used for his edition. This col
lection of fragments contains the gi-eater part of the
Thebaic New Test. They might, however, be
greatly amplified out of what are mentioned by
Zoega, as found in the Borgian MSS. (now in the
Propaganda), in bis catalogue published in 1810
after his death. It could hardly have been thought
that this definite account of existing Thebaic frag
ments would have remained more than half a cen
tury without some Egyptian scholar having rescued
the inedited portions of this version from their ob
scurity ; and surely this would not have been the
case if Biblical critics had been found who possess
Egyptian learning.
In the Memphitic Gospels of Schwartze there is
not only, as has beeu already mentioned, a collation
Bubjoined of the Thebaic text, but also the criticisms
of that learned editor on both Ford and Woide,
neither of whom, in his judgment, possessed suffi-
lient editorial competency. In this opinion he was
perhaps correct; but still let it be observed, that if

it had not been for the labors of Woide (of which
Ford was simply the continuer), there is no reasor
to suppose but that the Thebaic New Test, would
remain unprinted still. Had this been the case the
loss to textual criticism would have been great.
III. A Thikd Egypi'ian Version. — Some
Egyptian fi*agments were noticed by both Miinter
and Giorgi araongst the Borgian MSS., which in
dialect differ both frpm the Meraphitic and Thebaic.
These fragments, of a third Egyptian translation,
were edited by both theae scholars independently in
the sarae year (1789). In what part of Egypt this
third dialect was used, and what should be ita
distinctive name, has been a good deal discussed.
Arabian writers mention a third Egyptian dialect
under the name of Bashmuric, and this has by
some been assumed as the appellation for this ver
sion. Giorgi supposed that this was the dialect of
the Ammonian Oasis; in this Miinter agreed with
hira ; and thus they called the version the Ammo
nian. There is in fact no certainty on the subject:
but as the affinities of the dialect are closely alUed
to the Thebaic, and as it has been shown that
Bashmur is the district of Lower Egypt to the east
of the Delta, it seems by no means likely that it
can belong to a region so far from the Thebaid.
Indeed it has been reasonably doubted whether the
slight differences (mostly those of orthography) en
title this to be considered to be a really different
dialect from the Thebaic itself.
After the first portions of this version, others
were transcribed independently by Zoega and En-
gelbreth, and their transcripts appeared respectively
in 1810 and 1811. The latter of these scholars
accompanied his edition with critical remarks, and
the text of the other Egyptian versions on the same
page for purposes of comparison-
The Character and Critical Use ofthe Egyptian
Vei'sions. — It appears that the Thebaic version
may reasonably claim a higher antiquity than the
Memphitic. The two translations are independent
of each other, and both spring frora Greek copies.
The Thebaic has been considered to be the older of
the two, partly frora it having been thought that a
book in the Thebaic dialect quotes this version, and
from what was judged to be the antiquity of the
book so referred to. There are other grounds leas
precarious. If the Memphitic version exhibits a
general agreement with the text cun-ent at Alex
andria in the third century, it is not unreasonable
to suppose that it either belongs to that age, or at
least to one not very reraote. Now while this is
the case it is also to be noticed that the Thebaic
seems to ha\'e been framed from a text iu which
there was a much greater admixture, and that not
'irising from the later revisions which moulded it
into the transition text of the fourth century (com
mencing probably at Antioch), but exactly in the
opposite direction : so that the contents of the two
versions would seem to show that the antiquity of
the Thebaic is most to be regarded, but that the
Meraphitic is often preferable as to the goodness of
its readhigs, as well as in respect to dialect.
It is probable that the more Hellenized region of
Lower Egypt would not require a vernacular ver
sion at so early a period aa would the more thor
oughly Egyptian region of the Thebaid. There
are sorae marks of want of polish in the Thebaic;
the Greek words which are introduced are changed
into a barbarous form; the habitual introductlonof
an aspirate shows either an ignorance of the true
Greek sounds, or else it seems hke a want of polish

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (GOTHIC)

3377

B the dialect itself. That such a mode of express
ing Greek words in Egyptian is not needed, we can
jee from ita non-existence in ths Meraphitic.
The probable conclusions seem to be these : that
the Thebaic version was made in the early part of
the third century, for the.use of the common people
among the Christians in Upper Egypt ; that it was
formed from MSS. such as were then current in
the r^ons of Egypt which were distant frora Alex
andria; that afterwards the Meraphitic version was
executed in what was the more polished dialect,
from the Greek copies of Alexandria; and that thus
m process of time the Memphitic reraained alone in
ecclesiastical use. Possibly the disuse of the The
baic in the Egyptian churches did not take place
until Arabic was fast becoming the vernacular
tongue of that laud. It will be well for those whose
studies enable them personally to enter on the do
main of Egyptian literature, to communicate to
BibUcal scholars the results of new researches.
The value of these versions in textual criticism,
even though they are known only through defective
channels, is very high. In some respects they af
ford the same kind of evidence relative to tbe text
current in Egypt in the early centuries, as do the
Old Latin and the version of Jerome for that in
use in the West. [Yulgate.]
A few remarks only need be raade respecting the
third Egyptian version. The fi-agments of this fol
low the Thebaic so closely as to have no independ
ent character. This version does however possess
critical value, as furnishing evideilce in a small
portion not known in the Thebaic. The existence
ofthe ^iu-cZ version is a further argument as to the
early existence and use of the Thebaic, for this
seems to be forraed from it by moulding it into the
colloquial dialect of some locality.
Literature. — Schwartze, iluatuor Evangelia in
Dialecio Linguce Copiicce Memphidca, 1846-47;
Woide, Novi Testamenti Fragmenta Sahidica
(i. e. Thebaica) [Appendix ad Cod. Alex.], 1799;
MmgareUi, jEgyptiurum Codicum Rellquice, 1785,
&c.; Munter, Coinmentaiio de indole Versionis N.
T. Sahidicce, 1789; Giorgi, Eragmentum Ev. S.
Joan. Greece- Copto-Thedaicum, 1789; Zoega, Cat-
ahgus Codicum Copticoi-um Manuscriptorum qui
in Museo Borgiano VelitHs adsei'vaniur, 1810;
Engelbreth, Fragmenta Basmurlco-Copiica Veitris
et Novi Testamenti, 1811. S. P. T.
GOTHIC VERSION. — In the year 318 the
Gothic bishop and translator of Scripture, Ulphilas,
was bom. He succeeded Theophilus as bishop of
the Goths in 348, when he subscribed a confession
rejectmg tbe orthodox creed of Nicsea ; through
him it is said that the Goths in general adopted
Arianisni; it may be, however, raore correct to
consider that Arianism (or Semi-Arianisra) had al
ready spread amongst the Goths inhabiting within
the Roman Empire, as well as araongst the Greeks
and Latins. Theophilus, the predecessor of Ulphi
las, had been present at tbe council of Nic£ea, and
had subscribed the Homoousian confession. The
great work of Ulphilas was his version of the Scrip
tures, a translation in which few traces, if any (ex
cept in Phil. ii. 6), can be found of his peculiar and
irroneous dogmas. In 388 Ulphilas visited Con
stantinople to defend his heterodox creed, and while
th^re he died.
In the 5th century the Eastern Goths occupied
fcrid governed Italy, while the Western Groths took
poaaession of Spain, where they ruled till the be

ginning of the 8th century. Amoni;st the Gotha
in both these countries can the use of this version
be traced. It must in fact have at one tirae bee*
the vernacular translation of a large portion Oi
Europe. In the latter part of the 16th century the exist
ence of a MS. of this version was known, through
Morillon having mentioned that he had observed
one in the Ubrary of the monastery of Werden on
the Ruhr in Westphalia. He tnmscribed the Lord's
Prayer and some other parts, which were after
wards pubhshed, as were other verses copied soon
after by Arnold Mercator.
In 1648, alraost at the conclusion of the Thirty
Years' War, the Swedes took that part of Prague
on the left of the Moldau (Kleine Seite), aud
amongst the spoils was sent to Stockholm a copy of
the Gothic Gospels, known as the Codex Argenteus.
This MS. is generally supposed to be the sarae that
Morillon had seen at Werden ; but whether the
same or not, it had been long at Prague when found
there by the Swedes, for Strenius, who died in 1601,
mentions it as being there. The Codex Argenteus
was taken by the Swedes to Stockholm ; but on the
abdication of Queen Christina of Sweden, a few
years later, it disappeared. In 1655 it w^ in the
possession of Isaac Vossius in Holland, who had
been the queen's librarian ; to hira therefore it is
probable that it had been given, and not to the
queen herself, by the general who brought it from
Prague. In 1662 it was repurchased for Sweden
by Count Magnus Gabriel de la Gardie, who caused
it to be splendidly bound, and placed it in the
library of the University of Upsal, where it now
reraalns. While the book was in the hands of Vossius a
transcript was raade of its text, from which Junius,
his uncle, edited the first edition of the Gothic
Gospels at Dort in 1665 : the Anglo-Saxon Gospels,
edited by Marshall, accompanied the Gothic text.
The labors of other editors succeeded: Stiern-
hielm, 1671; Benzel and Lye, 1750; and others
coraparatively recent. The MS. is written on vel-
lura that was once purple, in silver letters, except
those at the beginning of sections, whieh are golden.
The Gospels have many lacunce : it is calculated
that when entire it consisted of 320 folios; there
are now but 188. The uniforraity of the writing is
wonderful: so that it has been thought whether
each letter was not formed by a hot iron impress
ing the gold or silver, used just as bookbinders put
on the lettering to the back of a book. It is pretty
certain that iJiis beautiful and elaborate MS. raust
have been vrritten in the Oth century, probably iu
Upper Italy when under the Gothic sovereignty.
Some in the last century supposed that the language
of this document is not Gothic, but Frankish — an
opinion which was set at rest by the discovery in
Italy of Ostro-Gothic writings, about which there
could be no question raised. Some Visi-Gothic
monuments in Spaiu were evidence on the same
side. Knittel, in 1762, edited frora a Wolfenbiittel
palirapsest some portions of the Epistle to the Ro
mans in Gothic, in which the Latin stood by the
side of the version of Ulphilas. This discovery
first made known the existence of any part of a
version of the Epistles. The portions brought to
Ught were soon afterwards used by Ihre in the col
lection of remarks on Ulphilas edited in 1773 by
Busching. But as it was certain that in obscure places tha

3378

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (GREEK)

Coaear Argenteus had been not very correctly read,
Ihre labored to copy it with exactitude, and to form
a Latin version: what he had thus prepared was
edited by Zahn in 1805.
New Ught dawned on Ulphilas and his version in
1817. While the late Cardinal Mai was engaged
hi the examination of palimpsests in the Ambrosian
Library at Milan, of which he was at that time a
librarian, he noticed traces of some Gothic writing
under that of one of the codices. This was found
to be part of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. In
making further examination, four other palimpsests
were found which contained portions of the Gothic
Version. Mai deciphered these MSS. in conjunc
tion with Count Carlo Ottavio Castiglione, and their
labors resulted iu the recovery, besides a few por
tions of the Old Test., of almost the whole of the
thirteen Epistles of St. Paul aud some parts of the
Gospels. The edition of Gabelentz and Loebe (1836-46)
conla,ins all that has been discovered of the Gothic
Version, with a Latin translation, notes, and a
Gothic Dictionary and Grammar. These editors
were at the pains to reexamine, at Upsal and Milan,
the MSS. themselves. They have thus, it appears,
succeeded in avoiding the repetition of errors made
by their predecessors. The Milan pahmpsests were
chemically restored when the mode of doing this
was not as well known as it is at present; the
whole texture of the vellum seems stained and
spoiled, and thus it is not an easy task to read the
ancient writing correctly. Those who have them
selves looked at the Wolfenbiittel palimpsest from
which Knittel edited the portions of Romans, and
who have also examined the Gothic palimpsests at
Milan, will probably agree that it is less difficult to
read the nnrestored MS. at Wolfenbiittel than the
restored MSS. at Milan." This must be borne in
mind if we would appreciate the labors of Gabe
lentz and Loebe.
In 1854 Uppstrom published an excellent edition
of the text of the Codex Argenteus, with a beauti
ful fac-simile. Ten leaves of the MS. were then
missing, and Uppstrom tells a rather ungratifying
story that they had been stolen by some Enghsh
traveller. It is a satisfaetion, however, that a few
years afterwards the real thief on his death-bed re
stored the missing leaves; and, though stolen, it
was not by any one out of Sweden, Uppstrom ed
ited them as a supplement in 1857.
In 1855-56 Massmann issued an exceUent small
edition of all the Gothic portions of the Scriptures
known to be extaut. He accompanies the Gothic
text with the Greek and the Latin, and there are a
Grammar and Vocabulary subjoined. This edition
is said to be more correct than that of Gabelentz
«nd Loebe. Another edition of Ulphilas ["Text,
Gram., u. Worterbuch "] by F. L. Stamm appeared
at Paderborn in 1858 [4= Ausg., von M. Heyne,
1869]. As an ancient monument of the Gothic language
.he version of Ulphilas possesses great interest; as
». version the use of which was once extended
widely through Europe, it is a monument of the
Christianization of the Goths; and as a version
knoum to have been made in the 4th century, and
transmitted to us in ancient MSS., it has its value
in textual criticism, being thus a witness to read
ings which were current in that age. In certain

a Such Is the ^vriter's judgment from his own ex-
Ijnination of the palimpsest at Wolfenbiittel, and of

passages it has been thought that there Is sonu
proof of the influence of the Latin ; and this has
been regarded as confii-med by the order of the Gos
pels in the Codex Argenteus, being that of some of
the Old Latin MSS., Matthew, John, Luke, Mark.
But if the peculiarities pointed out were borrowed
in the Gothic from the Latin, they must be cnnsid
ered rather as exceptional points, and not such as
affect the general texture of the version, for its
Greek origin is not to be mistaken. This is cer
tain from the manner in which the Greek construc
tions and the forms of compound words are imitated.
The very mistakes of rendering are proofs of Greek
and not Latin origin. The marks of conformity to
the Latin may have been introduced into the ver
sion in the case of MSS. copied in Italy during the
piie in that land of the Gothic sovereigns. The
Wolfenbiittel palimpsest ha^ Latin by the side of
the Gothic.
The Greek from which the version was made
must iu many respects have been what has been
termed the transition text of the 4th century;
another witness to which is the revised form of
the Old Latin, such as is found in the Codex
Brixianus (tbis revision being in fact the Ilala).
[Vulgate.] In all cases in which the readings of the Gothic
confirm those of the most ancient authorities, the
united testimony must be allowed to possess espe
cial weight.
Literatiire. — Waltz, Ueber das Leben und die
Lehre des Ulphila, 1840; Gabelentz and Loebe,
Ulfilas (Prolegomena), 1836-43; Uppstrom, Co
dex Argenteus, 1854 (Decem Codicis Argentei
rediviva folia, 1857); Massmann, Ulfilas, 1857.
[W. Bessell, Ueber tias Leben des Ulflas, etc.,
Gijtt. 1860; W. Krafft, art. " Clfila" in Herzog's
Real-Emykl. xvi. 616-624 (1862), comp. his LHe
Anfdnge d. christi. Kirche bei d. germ. VbVeei-n,
Bd. i. Abth. i. (1854) ; E. Bernhardt, Krit. Un-
lerss. iiber die goih. Biheliiberseizung, 2 Hefte,
Meiningen, Elberf., 1864-69. — A.] S. P. T.
GREEK VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTA
MENT. — 1. Septuagint. — Jn addiiion to the
special article on this version [Septuagint] a few
points may be noted here.
I. Name. — In all discussions relative to the
name of Septuagint, so universally appropriated to
the Greek version of Alexandria, the scholion dis
covered by Osann and published by Ritschl ought
to be considered. The origin of this Latin scholion
is curious. The substance of it is stated to have
been extracted from Calllmachus and Eratosthenes,
the Alexandrian librarians, by Tzetzes, and from
his Greek note an Italian of the 15th century has
formed the Latin scholion in question. The writer
has been speaking of the collecting of ancient Greek
poems carried on at Alexandria under Ptolemj
Philadelphus, and then he thus continues: "Nan.
rex ille philosophis affertissimus (corr. ' differtissi-
mus,' Ritschl, 'aftectissinius,' Thiersch) et cseteris
omnibus auctoribus Claris, disquisitis impensa regiffi
muuificentiEB ubique ten-arum quantum valuit vo
luminibus opera Demetrii Phalerei p h z x a senum
duas bibliothecas fecit, alteram extra regiani alteram
autem in regia." The scholion then goes on to
speak of books in many languages: "quce summa

those at Milan ; but of course he never saw tbe lattei
prior to their restoration.

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (GREEK)

3379

flilig^jitia rex ille in suam hnguam fecit ab optimis
Interpretibus convert:. " " Bernhardy reads instead
of "phzxa «enum,*' " et Ixx senum," and this
correction is agreed to by Thiersch, as it well may
be; some correction is raanifestly needed, and this
appears to be right. This gives us seventy elders
associated in the formation of the library. The tes
timony comes to us from Alexandrian authority;
and this, if true (or even if believed to be true),
would connect the Septuagint with the library; a
designation which raight raost easily be applied to
a version of the Scriptures there deposited ; and,
let the translation be once known by such a name,
then nothing would be more probable than that the
designation should be applied to the translators.'
This may be regarded as the first step in the forma
tion of the fables. l^t the Septwgint be first
kno^vn as applying to the associates in the collec
tion of tbe library, then to the library itself, and
then to that particular book in the library which
to so many had a far greater value than all its
other contents. Whether more than the Penta
teuch was thus translated and then deposited in
the Royal Library is a separate question.
II. The Conneciion of the Pentateuch in the
LXX. itnih the S imaritan Text — It was long ago
remarked that in the Pentateuch the Samaritan
copy and the LXX. agree in readings which differ
from the Hebrew text of the Jews. This has been
pointed out as occurring in perhaps two thousand
places. The conclusion to which some thus came
was that the LXX. must have been translated from
a Samaritan copy.
But, on many grounds, it would be difficult to
admit this, even if it were found irapossible to ex
plain the cohicidences. For (i.) it must be taken
into account that if the discrepancies of the Sa
maritan and Jewish copies be estimated numer
ically, the LXX. will be found to agree /«?• mo7-e
frequently with ihe latter than the former, (ii.)
In the cases of considerable aud marked passages
occurring in the Samaritan which are not in the
t'cwish, the LXX. does not contain them, (iii.) In
the passages in which slight variations are found,
both in the Samaritan and LXX., frora the Jewish
text, they often differ amongst themselves, and the
amplification of the LXX. is less than that of the
Samaritan, (iv.) Some of the sraall amplifications
in which the Samaritan seeras to accord with the
LXX. are in such incorrect and non-idiomatic He
brew that it is suggested that these must be trans
lations, and, if so, probably from the LXX. (v. ) The
amphfications of the LXX. and Samaritan often re-
eemble each other greatly in character, as if similar
false criticism had been applied to the text in each
case. But as, in spite of all similarities such as
theae, the Pentateuch of the LXX. is more Jewish
than Samaritan, we need not adopt the notion of
translation frora a Saraaritan Codex, whieh would
involve the subject in greater diflSculties, and leave
more points to be explained. (On some of the sup
posed agreements of the LXX. with the Samaritan,
lee Bishop Fitzgerald in Kitto's Jouimal of Sacred
Literature, Oct. 18^8, pp. 334-332.)
III. The Liturgical Origin of Portions of the
LXX, — This is a subject for inquiry which has
"eceived but little attention, not so much, probably,
*s its importance deserves. It was noticed by

a See Thiersch, De Pentateuchi versione Alexan-
¦irina, pp. 8, 9. Erlangen, 1841.
h Eichhorn and tbose who have followed him state

Tregelles many years ago that the headings of cer
tain psalms in the LXX. coincide with the litur
gical directions in the Jewish Prayer-book : the
results were at a later period communicated in
Kitto's Journal of Sacred Literature, April, 1852.
pp. 207-209. The results may be briefly stated :
The 23d Psalm, LXX. (24th, Hebrew), is headed
in the LXX., t^s fiias a-a^^drovl so too in He
brew, in De Sola's Prayers of the Sephardim,
Tltt;«"in DVn: Ps. xlvii., LXX. (Heb. xlviii.)
SeuTcpct ffojSjSaTou, ^'Stt? DVb : Ps. xciii., LXX.
(Heb. xciv.), TerpctSf tra^^aTOv, '^V^'IT^ DI^^V :
Ps. xcii., LXX. (Heb. xciii.), els t^v rjfjkepav Tot
irpoffafi&dTou, ''t£?t£7 DVv. There appear to ba
no Greek copies extant which contain similar head
ings for Psalms Ixxxi. and Ixxx. (Heb. Ixxxii. and
Ixxxi.), which the Jewish Prayer-book appropriates
to the third and fifth days; but that such once
existed in the case of the latter psaira seems to be
shown from the Latin Psalterium Veins having the
prefixed guinta sabbali, '*12?*'t5n DVv. Prof.
Delitzsch, in his Commentary on the Psalms, has
recently pointed out that the notation of these
psalms in the LXX. is in accordance with certain
passages in the Talraud.
It is worthy of inquiry whether variations in
other passages of the LXX. from the Hebrew text
cannot at times be coimected with liturgical use,
and whether they do not originate in part from
rubrical directions. It seems to be at least plain
that the psalms were translated from a copy pre
pared for synagogue worship.
2. Aquila. — It is a reraarkable fact that in
the second century there were three versions ex
ecuted of the Old Testaraent Scriptures into Greek.
The fii'st of these was made by Aquila, a native of
Suiope in Pontus, who had becorae a proselyte to
Judaisra. The Jenisalera Talmud (see Bartolocci,
Biblioihecct Rabb. iv. 281) * describes him as a dis
ciple of Rabbi Akiba; and this would place him in
some part of the reign of the Emperor Hadrian
(a. d. 117-138). It is supposed that the object
of his version was to aid the Jews in their contro
versies with tbe Christians: and that as tbe latter
were in the habit of employing the LXX., they
wished to have a version of their own on which
they could rely. It is very probable that the Jews
in many Greek-speaking countries were not su.fi-
ciently acquainted with Hebrew to refer for them
selves to the original, and thus they wished to have
such a Greek translation as they raight use with
confidence in their discussions. Such controversies
were (it must be remembered) a new thing. Prior
to the preaching of the gospel, there were none be
sides the Jews who used the Jewish Scriptures as a
means of leaming God's revealed truth, except those
who either partially or wholly becarae proselytes to
Judaism. But now the Jews saw to their grief,
that their Scriptures were raade the instruments
for teaching the principles of a religion which they
regarded as nothing less than an apostasy from
Moses. This, then, is a probable account of the origin
of this version. Extreme literality and an occasional
polemical bias appear to be its chief characteristics.

this on the authority of Ireoieus, instead of that of
the Jerusalem Talmud, a confusion which needs to b<
explicitly, and not merely tacitly corrected

3380

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (GREEK)

The idiom of the Greek language is very often
violated in order to produce what was intended
should be a very literal version ; and thus, not only
sense but grammar even was disregarded : a suffi
cient instance of this is found in his rendering the
Hebrew particle DN by o-iii', as in Gen. i. 1, triiv
rhv oiipavhy Kal ahv t^v ynv, " quod Graeca et
Latina lingua omnino non recipit," as Jerome says.
Another instance is furnished by Gen. v. 5, Kal
e^jjjtrev 'A5i/A Tpi6.Kovra eras Kal ivvaic6(rta eras.
it is sufficientiy attested that this version was
formed for controversial purposes : a proof of which
may be found in the rendering of particular pas
sages, such as Is. vii. 14, where TITZ^V, in the
LXX. TrapfleVos, is by Aquila translated veavts;
such renderings might be regarded perhaps rather
as modes of avoiding an argument than as direct
falsification. There certainly was room for a version
which should express the Hebrew more accurately
than was done by the LXX. ; but if this had been
thoroughly carried out it would have been found
that in many important points of doctrine — such,
for instance,' as in the divinity' of the Messiah and
the rejection of Israel, the true rendering of the
Hebrew text would have been in far closer con
formity with the teaching of the New Testament
than was the LXX. itself. It is probable, therefore,
that one polemical object was to make the citations
in the New Testament from the Old appear to be
inconclusive, by producing other renderings (often
probably more literally exact) differing from the
LXX., or even contradicting it. Thus Christianity
night seem to the Jewish mind to rest on a false
•asis. But in raany cases a really critical examiner
rould have found that in points of important doc-
irine the New Testament definitely rejects the read-
flig of the LXX. (when utterly unsuited to the
matter in hand), and adopts the reading of the
Hebrew. It is mentioned that Aquila put forth a second
edition (i. c. revision) of his' version, in which the
Hebrew was yet more servilely followed, but it is
not known if this extended to the whole, or only to
three books, namely, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel,
of which "there are fragments.
Aquila often appears to have so closely sought
to follow the etymology of the Hebrew words, that
not only does his version produce no definite idea,
but it does not even suggest any meaning at all.
If we possessed it perfect it would have been of
great value as to the criticism of the Hebrew text,
though often it would be of no service as to its real
understanding. That this version was employed for centuries by
the Jews themselves is proved indirectly by the
146tb Novella of Justinian : wKijv ot Sta, rris 'E\-
XtjvISo^ kvayivtlttTKOVTe^ rfj r&v efiBofi-iiKovra
XP^tromai irapaBda-ei . '- . irX^v a\\' us tiv fi^
Tcls Xoiirois ai/To'is airoKXeieiv vofito'delrifiev ipp.Tf
veins, &beiav SiSojiev ical rfj 'AkI/Aou Kexp^(riiii,
Ktiu ei aiw6ipvhos ^keivos koI ou perplav iirl
Tivav \e^euv exp Tp'bs robs efiiopi\Kovra t^v
difut)(uviav. 3. Theodotion. — The second version, of which
we have information as executed in the second cen
tury, is that of Theodotion. He is stated to have
been an Ephesian, and he seems to be most gen
erally described as an Ebionite : if this is correct,
ais work was probably intended for those semi-
Cbristians wbo may have desired to use a version

of their own instead of employing the LXX. witl
the Christians, or that of Aquila with the Jews.
But it may be doubted if the name of translaiion
can be rightly applied to the work of Theodotion ;
it is rather a revision of the LXX. with the Hebrew
text, so as to bring some of the fippies then in use
into more conformity with the original. This he
was able to do (with the aid probably of some in
structors) so as to eliminate portions which had
been introduced into the LXX., without really bemg
an integral part of the version ; and also so as to
bring much into accordance with the Hebrew in
other respects. But his own knowledge of Hebrew
was evidently very limited; and thus words and
parts of sentences were left untranslated ; the He
brew being merely written with Greek letters.
Theodotion as well as Aquila was quoted by
Irenseus; and against both there is the common
charge laid of corrupting texts which relate to the
Messiah: some polemical intention in such passages
can hardly be doubted. The statement of Epi
phanius that he made his translation in the reign of
Commodus accords well with its having been quoted
by Irenaeus ; but it cannot be correct if it is one
of the translations referred to by Justin Martyr as '
giving interpretations contrary to the Christian
doctrine of the New Test.
There can be no doubt tha:t this version was
much used by Christians: probably many changes
in the text of the LXX. were adopted from Theo
dotion: this may have begun before the Bibhcal
labors of Origen brought the various versions into
one conspectus. The translation of the hook of
Daniel by Theodotion was substituted for that ofthe
LXX. in ecclesiastical use as early at least as part
of the third century. Hence Daniel, as rendered
or revised by Theodotion, has so long taken the
place of the true LXX., that their version of thia
book was supposed not to be extant; and it hafi
only been found in one MS. In most editions of
the LXX. Theodotion's version of Daniel is still
substituted for that which really belongs to that
translation. i. Symmachus is stated by Eusebius and
Jerome to have been an Ebionite: so too in tbe
Syrian accounts given by Assemani; Epiphanius,
however, and others style hira a Samaritan. There
may have been Ebionites from amongst the Samari
tans, who constituted a kind of separate sect; and
these may have desired a version of their owo ; or
it may be that as a Samaritan he made this version
for some of that people who eraployed Greek, and
who had learned to receive more than the Penta
teuch. But perhaps to such motives was added (if
indeed this were not the only cause of the version)
a desire for a Greek translation not so uninteUigibl}
bald as tbat of Aquila, and not displaying such a
want of Hebrew learning as that of Theodotion. It
is probable that if this translation of Symmachus
had appeared prior to the time of Iremeus, it would
have been mentioned by him ; and this agi'ees with
what Epiphanius says, namely, that he lived under
the Emperor Severus.
The translation which he produced was probablj
better than the others as to sense and general
phraseology. When Jerome speaks of a second
edition he may probably mean some revision, more
or less complete, which he executed after his trans
lation was first made: it could hardly be a retrans-
lation, or anything at all tantamount thereto.
6. The Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Vbb-
SIONS. — Besides the translations of Aquila, Sfm-

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (GREEK)

3381

macbus. and Theodotion, the great critical work of
Origen comprised as to portions of the Old Test.
three other versions, placed for comparison with
tbe LXX.; which, from their being .anonymous,
are only known as the fifth, sixth, and seventh;
designations taken fi'om the places which they re
spectively occupied in Origen's columnar arrange
ment. Ancient writers seem not to have been uni
form in the notation which they applied to these
versions; and thus what is cited hom one by its
number of reference is quoted by others under a
different numeral.
These three partial translations were discovered
by Origen in the course of his travels in connection
with his great work of Biblical criticism. Euse
bius says that two of these versions (but without
designating precisely which) were found, the one
at Jericho, and the other at Nicopolis on the Gulf
oC Actium. Epiphanius says, that what he terms
the fifth, was found at Jericho, and the sixth at
Nicopolis; while Jerome speaks of the fifth as hav
mg been found at the latter place.
The contents of the ffth version appear to have
been the Pentateuch, Psalms, Canticles, and the
muior prophets: it seems also to be referred to in
the Syro-Hexaplar text of the Second Book of Kings:
it may be doubted if in all these books it was com
plete, or at least if so much were adopted by
Origen. The existing fragments prove that the
translator used the Hebresv original ; but it is also
certain that he was aided by the work of former
translators. The sixlh version seems to have been just tbe
same in its contents as the fifth (except 2 Kings) :
and thus the two may have been confused: this
translator also seems to have had the other versions
before hini. Jerome calls the authors of the fifth
and sixth "Judaicos translatores "; but the trans
lator of this must have been a Christian when he
executed his work, or else the hand of a Chris
tian reviser must have meddled with it befijre it
was employed by Origen; which seems from the
small interval of time to be hardly probable.
For in Hab. iii. 15 the translation runs, i^riKdes
TOU tratrai Thv \a6v trov Sik *lrjaov rod xpio'Tou
iron. Of the seventh version very few fragments re
main. It seems to have contained the Psalms and
minor prophets ; and the translator was probably a
Jew. From the references given by Origen, or by those
who copied from his columnar arrangement and its
results (or who added to such extracts), it has
been thought that other Greek versions were
spoken of. Of these i 'EPpaios probably refers to
the Hebrew text or to something drawn from it:
d ^bpos to the Old Syriac version: rh ^a/jtapeiTi-
k6v probably a reference to the Samaritan text,
or some Samaritan gloss: & 'EK\riviK6s, 6 "AK-
hos, b cLveniypaipos some unspecified version or
versions. The existing firagments of these varied versions
are mostly to be found in the editions of the relics
of Origen's Hexapla, by Montfaucon and by Bahrdt,
[and later, by F. Field, Oxford, 1867-70. See also
aelow, Syriac Versions, I. (B.), on the editions
of the Syriac from the Hexaplar Greek text. — A.]
(For an account of the use made of these ver-
lions by Origen, and its results, see Septuagint.)
6. The Veseto-Greek Version. — A MS. of
the fourteenth century, in the library of St. Mark
>t Venice, contains a peculiar version of the Pen

tateuch, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Ruth,
Lamentations, and Daniel. All of these books, ex
cept the Pentateuch, were publislied by Villoisoii
at Strasbourg in 1784 ; tbe Pentateuch was edited
by Ammon at Erlangen in 1790-91. The version
itself is thought to be four or five hundred years
older than the one JMS. in which it has been trans
mitted; this, however, is so thoroughly a matter
of opinion, that there seems no absolute reason for
determining that this one MS. may not be the
original as well as the only one in existence. It is
written in one very narrow column on each page;
the leaves follow each other in the Hebrew order,
so that the book begins at what we should call the
end. An examination of the MS. suggested tbe
opinion that it may have been written on tho
broad inner margin of a Hebrew MS. : and that
for some reason the Hebrew portion had been cut
away, leaving thus a Greek MS. probably unique
as to its form and arrangement. As to the trans
lation itself, it is on any supposition too recent to
be of consequence in criticism. It may be said
briefly that the translation was made from the He
brew, although the present punctuation and accent
uation is often not followed, and the translator waa
no doubt acquainted with some other Greek ver
sions. The language of the translation is a most
strange mixture of astonishing and cacophonous
barbarism with attempts at Attic elegance and re
finement. The Doric, which is employed to an
swer to the Ohaldtean portions of Daniel, seems to
be an indication of remarkable affectation. *
The Greek of St. Matthew's Gospel. —
Any account of the Greek versions of Holy Scrip
ture would be incomplete without some allusion
to the fact, that if early testimonies and ancient
opinion unitedly are to have some weight when
wholly uncontradicted, then it must be admitted
that the original language of the Gospel of St.
Matthew was Hebrew, and that the text which has
been transmitted to us is really a Greek trans
lation. It may be briefly stated that every early \vriter
who mentions that St. Matthew wrote a Gospel at
all says that he wrote in Hebrew (that is, in the
Syro-Chaldaic), and in Palestine in the first century;
so that if it be assumed that he did not write in
Hebrew but in Greek, then it may well be asked,
what ground is there to believe that he wrote any
narrative of our Lord's life on earth ?
Every early writer that has come down to us
uses the Greek of St. Matthew, and this with the
definite recognition that it is a translation ; hence
we may be sure that the Greek copy belongs tc tha
Apostolic age, having been thus authoritatively
used from and up to that time. Thus the ques
tion is not the authority of tbe Greek translation,
which comes from the time when the churches en
joyed Apostolic guidance, but whether there was a
Hebrew original from which it had been translated.
The witnesses to the Hebrew original were men
sufficiently competent to attest so simple a fact, es
pecially seeing that they are relied on in what is far
more important, — that St. Matthew wrote a Gos
pel at all. Papias, in the beginning of the second
century, repeats apparently the words of John the
Presbyter, an immediate disciple of our Lord, that
" Matthew vfrote the oracles in the Hebrew dia
lect.'' Irenseus, in the latter part of the same cen
tury, is equally explicit; in connection with the
Indian mission of Pantsenus in the same age, we
leam that he found the Gospel of Matthew in tha

3382

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (SLAyONIC)

very Hebrew letters. Tn the next century Origen,
the laborious investigator and diligent inquirer,
says, that the received account was that St. Mat
thew hatl written the first Gospel, and that it was
in Hebrew. So too in the next century, Epipha
nius and Jerome, both of whom, like Origen, were
acquainted with Hebrew. Jerome also mentions
the very copies of this Hebrew original which were
extant in his time, and which he transcribed. He
shows indeed that the copies then circulated amongst
the Nazarenes had been variously interpolated : but
this would not aflfect the antecedent fact. So too
Epiphanius shows that the document had been va-
riously depraved : but this does not set aside what
it originally was.
To follow the unanimous agreement of later writ
ers ia needless ; but what can be said' on the other
side? What evidence is adduced that St. Matthew
wrote in Greek ? None whatever : but simply some
apruyri notions that he ought to have done so are
advanced: then it is truly stated that the Greek
Gospel does not read as though it had about it the
constraint ofa translation; and thenjt is'said that
perhaps the witnesses for the Hebrew original were
mistaken." "But (says Principal Campbell) is the
positive testimony of witnesses, delivered as of a
well-known fact, to be overturned by a mere suppo
sition, a perkajys f for that the case is really as
they suppose no shadow of evidence is pretended "
(Wm^ks, ii. 171).
For another theory, that St. Matthew wrote
both in Hebrew and also in Greek, there is no evi
dence: the notion is even contradicted by the
avowed ignorance of the early Christian writers as
to whose hand formed the Greek version which
they accepted as authoritative. To them there was
nothing self -contradictory (as some have said) in
the notion of an authoritative translation. As it
can be shown that the public use of the four Gos
pels in Greek was universal in the churches from
the Apostolic age, it proves to us that Apostolic
sanction must have been the ground of this usage;
this surely is suflScient to authorize the Greek Gos
pel that we have.
Erasmus seems to have been the first to suggest
thatthe Greek is the original of the Apostle: at
least no writer earlier than Erasmus has been
brought forward as holding the opinion: in this
many have followed him on what may be called
very subjective grounds. Erasmus also advanced
the opinion that Irenseus Against Heresies was
written by him in Latin. For this he had just as

good grounds as for the Greek original of St. Slat
thew. As to Irenseus, no one appears to follow
Erasmus ; why should so many adhere to hia bold
opinion (opposed by so much evidence and sup
ported by none) relative to St. Matthew? On the
revival of letters there was much curiosity ex
pressed for the recovery of a copy of St. Matthew's
Hebrew original. Pope Nicholas "V. is said to
have offered five thousand ducats for a copy: this
probably suggested the retranslations into Hebrew
of this Gospel published in the following century
by Sebastian Miinster and others. S. P. T.
LATIN VERSIONS. [Vulgate.]
SAMARITAN VERSIONS. [Samakitam
Pentateuch, p. 2812 o.]
SLAVONIC VERSION. In the year 862
there was a desire expressed, or an inquiry made,
for Christian teachers in Moravia, and in the fol
lowing year the labors of missionaries began
amongst them. We need not consider the Mora
via in w'hich these services were commenced to be
precisely restricted to or identified with the region
which now bears that name, for in the ninth cen
tury Great Moravia was of far wider extent ; and
it was amongst the Slavonic people then occupying
this whole region, that the effort for Christianiza
tion was put forth. But while this further extent
of Moravia is admitted, it is also to he recollected
that the province of Moravia, of which Briinn is
the metropolis, is not only the nucleus of Moravia,
but that also the inhabitants of that country, still
retaining as they do their Slavonian tongue, rightly
consider themselves as the descendants and succes
sors of tbose who were then Christianized. Thus,
in 1862 they commemorated the thousandth anni
versary of their having taken this step, and in 1863
they celebrated tbe thousandth from the actual ar
rival of missionaries amongst them. These mission
aries were Cyrillus and Methodius, two brothers
from Tbessalonica: to Cyrillus is ascribed the in
vention of the Slavonian alphabet, and the com
mencement of the translation of the Scriptures.
Neander truly says that he was honorably distm-
guished from all other missionaries of that period
in not having yielded to the prejudice whieh repre
sented the languages of rude nations as too profane
for sacred uses ; and by not having shrunk from
any toil which was necessary in order to become
accurately acquainted with the language of the
people amongst whom he labored.' Cyrillus ap
pears to have died at Rome in 868, while Metho-

o The manner in which the testimony of competent
witnesses has been not only called in question, but
sec aside, is such as would cast doubt on any histor
ical fact competently attested ; and the terms applied
to the witnesses themselves are such as seem to show
that argument being vain, it is needful to have re
course to something else ; not mere assertion as op
posed to the definite evidence, but a modo of speaking
of the witnesses themselves and of misrepresenting
their words, which would not be ventured on in com
mon matters. Thus a writer who is well and justly
esteemed on other subjects, the Rev. Dr. Wm. Alex
ander, sets aside the evidence and the statements of
Jerome in this manner : " The one who says he had
Been the [Hebrew] gospel is Jerome ; but his evidence
ibout it is so conflicting that it is not worth a rush
First he says he has seen it, and is sure that it is tho
original of the Greek gospel ; then he softens down
ffith f it is called by most people Matthew's authentic,"
aa most believe,^ and so on Now he says, ' Who

translated it into Greek is unknown ; ' and presently,
with amusing self-complacency and obliviousness, hi
tells UB, ^ I myself translated it into Greek and Latin ! '
Why there is not a small-debt court in the country
where such a witness would not be hooted to the
door." Would such modes of reasoning be adopted if
it were not desired to mystify the subject? Who
cannot see that Jerome says that it is unknown who
had made the Greek translation then current for cen
turies ? And who imagines that he identified with
that version the one which he had recently made from
the document found at Beroea? But thus it is that
this is substituted for argument on this sutyect. Br.
Land, in tbe Joumai pf Sacred Literature, October,
1858, boldly asserts, " We may safely say that there is,
in probability as well as in direct testimony, a weight
as heavy in the scale of the Greek text as in that ol
the Hebrew, not to go further." But, io fact, thereis
no testimony, direct or indirect, for a Greek origioak
of St. Matthew.

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (SYEIAC)

3383

liius continued for many years to be bishop of the
Slavonians. Me is stated to have continued his
brother's translation, although how much they
themselves actually executed is quite uncertain;
perhaps nmch of the Old Testament was not trans
lated at all in that age, possibly not for many cen
turies after.
The Old Testament is, as might be supposed, a
version from the LXX., but what measure of re
vision it may smce have received seems to be by no
means certain. As the oldest known MS. of the
whole Bible is of the year 1499, it may reason
ably be questioned whether this version may not in
large portions be comparatively modern. This
could only be set at rest by a more full and accu
rate knowledge being obtained of Slavonic Biblical
MSS. Dobrowsky, however, mentions (Griesbach's
Gr. Test u., xxxiii.) that this MS. (his 1), and
two others copied from it, are the only Slavonic
MSS. of the entire Bible existing in Russia. If
it be correct tbat the. MSS. which he terms 2 and
3 are copied from this, there are strong reasons for
believing that it was not completed for some years
Bubs^equently to 1499. The oldest MSS. of any
part of this version is an Evangel iarium, in Cyril
lic characters, of the year 1056 ; that at Rheims
(containing the Gospels) on which the kings of
France used to take their coronation oath, is nearly
as old. One, containing the Gospels, at Moscow,
is of the year 1144.
The first printed portion was an edition of the
Gospels in Wallachia, in 1512; in 1575 the same
portion was printed at Wilna; and in 1581 the
whole Bible was printed at Ostrog in Volhynia;
from this was taken the Moscow edition of 1663.
Ul which, however, there was some revision, at least
BO far as the insertion of 1 John v. 7 is concerned.
Wetstein cited a few readings from this vei'sion ;
Alter made more extracts, which were used by
Griesbach, together with the collations sent to him
by Dobrowsky, both from MSS. and printed edi
tions. We thus can say, with some confidence,
that the general text is such m would have been
expected in the ninth century: some readings from
the Latin have, .it appeara, been introduced in
placffi: this arises probably from the early Slavo
nian custom of reading the Gospel in Latin before
they did it in their own tongue.
Dobrowsky paid particular attention in his col
lations to the copies of the Apocalypse: it has been,
however, long suspected that that book formed no
portion of this version as originally made. We can
now go further and say definitely that the Apoc
alypse, as found in sorae at least of the Slavonic
copies, could not be anterior to the appearance of
the first edition of the Gr. Test, of Erasmus in
1516. For there are readings in the Apocalypse

a Handschriftliche Funde von Franz Delitzsch.
Erstes Heft, Die Brasmischeo Entstellungen des Textes
der Apocalypse, nachgewiesen aus dem verloren ge-
glaubten Codex Reuchlini, 1861.
Handschriftliche Funde von Franz Delitzscli, mit
Beitragen von S. P. Tregelles. Zweites Heft, ueue Stu
dien Uber den Codex Reuchlini, etc., 1862. [Also with
the English title, "Manuscript Discoveries by Francis
Delitzsch, with additions by S. P. Tregelles. Part II.,
New Studies on the Codex Reuchlini, and new results
In the textual history of the Apocalypse, drawn from
the libraries of Munich, Vienna, Rome, etc., 1862."!
* See further an article by Dr. T. J. Conant on the
flreek Text of the Apocalypse, in the Baptist ::iuar-
«r^ for April, 1870.' A.

of Erasmus which are entirely devoid of any sup
port from Greek MSS. This can be said confi
dently, since the one Greek copy used by Erasmus
has been identified and described by Prof. De
litzsch.« It is now therefore known that pecufiari
ties as to error in Erasmus's text of the Apocalypse,
as it first appeared, are in several places due not tc
the MS. from which he drew, but to the want of
care in his edition. And thus, whatever agrees
with such peculiarities must depend on, and thus
be subsequent to the Erasmian text. In Rev. ii.
13, the Erasmian text has the peculiar reading, 4v
Tais Tj/xepaLS 4fia7s; for tbis no MS. was cited
by Griesbach, and all his authority, besides th#
Erasmian edition, was in fact "Slav. 3, 4," i. e.
two MSS. collated by Dobrowsky ; one of ihese ia
said by him to be copied from the oldest Slavonic
MS. of the whole Bible: if, therefore, it agrees
with it in this place, it shows that the Slavonic
MS. raust, in that part at least, be later than the
year 1516. The only Greek authority for this
reading, 4pa7s, is the margin of 92, the Dublui
MS., famous as containing 1 John v. 7: in which
the Gospels belong to the end of the fifteenth cen
tury; the Acts and Epistles are somewhat later,
and the Apocalypse was added about the year
1580.* There seems to be another Slavonic text
of the Apocalypse contained in Dobrowsky's 10, but
whether it is older than the one already mentioned
is doubtful. S. P. T.
SYRIAC VERSIONS. I. Of the Old Tes
tament. A. From ihe Hebi^ew. — In the early times of
Syrian Christianity there was executed a version
of the Old Testaraent from the original Hebrew,
the use of which must have been as widely extended
as was the Christian profession amongst that peo
ple. Ephraem the Syrian, in the latter half of
the 4th century, gives abundant proof of its use
in general by his countrymen. When he calls it
OUR veesion, b ^ O '^ X>, it does not appear to
be in opposition to any other Syriac translation
(for no other can be proved to have then existed),
but in contrast to the original Hebrew text, or
to those in other languages.^ At a later period
this Syriac translation was designated Peshito,
r-^^^^ (Simple); or, as in the preface of Bar-
Hebraeus to his Thesaurus Arcanojntm, J A..Ci°^X>
) "Vt^^ ^ "^ (Simple version). It is probable that
this name was applied to the version after another
had been formed from the Hexaplar Greek text.
In the translation made from Origen's revision of
tbe LXX., the critical marks introduced by him
were retained, and thus every page and every part

ft This Greek authority is the one denoted by 92.
Tischendorf (foUowing a misprint in TregeUes' Greek
and English Revelation, 1844) gives it 91**. That
would sigoity a correction in a later hand in 91 ; which _
is the modem supplement to the Vatican MS., in which
such a correction has been sought in vain.
c Ephraemi Opera Syr. i. 380 (on 1 Sam. xxiv. 4).
He is simply comparing the Hebrew phrase and the
Syriao version : )L> ;-d^ ij-/ J ^J \ ^^^

3384

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (SYRIAC)

was marked with asiefisks and obeli, from whicl.
.the translation from the -Hebrew was free. P.
might, therefore, be but natural for a bare text to
be thus designated^ in contrast to the marks and
fche citations of the different Greek translators
found iu the version from the Hexaplar Greek.
This translation from the Hebrew has always been
the ecclesiastical version of the Syrians ; and when
it is remembered how in the 5th century dissen
sions and divisions were introduced into the SyTian
churches, and how from that time the Monophy-
sites and those termed Nestorlans have been in a
state of unhealed opposition, it shows not only the
antiquity of this version,' but also the deep and
abiding hold which it must have taken on the
mind of the people, that this version was firmly
held fast by both of these opposed parties, as well
as by those who adhere to the Greek Church, and
by the Maronites. Its existence and use prior to
their divisions is sufficiently proved by Ephraem
alone. But how much older it is than that deacon
of Edessa we have no evidence. From Bar-He-
brseus (in the 13th century) we learn that there
were three opinions as to its age; some saying that
the version was made in the reigns of Solomon and
Hiram, some that it was translated by Asa, the
priest who was sent by the king of Assyria to
Samaria, and some tbat the version was made in
the days of Adai the apostle and of Abgarus, /king
of Osrhoene (at which time, he adds, the Simple
version of the New Test, was alsc made).''^ The
first of these opinions of course imphes that the
books written before that time were then trans
lated; indeed, a limitation of somewhat the same
kind would apply to the second. 1'he ground of
the first opinion seems to have been the belief that
the Tyrian king was a convert to the pi-ofession of
the true and revealed faith held by the Israelites ;
and that the possession of Holy Scripture in the
Syriac tongue (which they identified with his own)
was a necessary consequence of this adoption of
the true belief: this opinion is mentioned as having
been held by some of the Syrians in the 9tb cen
tury. The second opinion (which does not appear
to have been cited from any Syriac writer prior to
Bar-Hebrseus ) seems to have sorae connection with
the formation of the Samaritan version of the Pen
tateuch. As that version is in an Ararasean dia
lect, any one who supposed that it was made
immediately after the mission of the priest from
Assyria might say that it was then first that an
Aramaean translation was executed; and this might
afterwards, in a sort of indefinite manner, have
been connected with what the Syrians themselves
used. James of Edessa (in the latter half of the
7th century) had held the third of the opinions
mentioned by Bar-Hebrseus, who cites him in sup
port of it, and accords with it.
It is highly improbable that any part of the
Syriac version is older than the advent of our Lord ;
those who placed it under Abgarus, king of Edessa,
seem to have argued on the account that the Syrian
people then received Christianity; and thus they
supposed that a version of the Scriptures was a
necessary accompaniment of such conversion. All
that the account shows clearly is, then, that it was
believed to belong to the earliest period of the
Christian faith among them: an opinion with
which aU that we know on the subject accords
jrell. Thus Ephraem, in the 4th century, not only

Wiseman, Horts Syriaca^, p. 90.

shows that it was then current, but also gives the
impression that this had even then been long the
case. For in his commentaries he gives explana
tions of terms which were even then obscure. This
might have been from age: if so, the version was
made comparatively long before his days: or it
might be from its having been in a dialect different
from that to which he was accustomed at Edessa.
In this case, then, the translation was made in
some other part of Syria; wbich would hardly
have been done, unless Christianity had at such a
time been more difiused theie than it was at
Edessa. The dialect of that city is stated to have
been the purest Syriac; if, then, tbe version waa
made for that place, it would no doubt have been
a monument of such purer dialect. Probably the
origin of the Old Syriac version is to be compared
with that of the Old Latin [see Vulgate] ; and
that it differed as much from the pohshed lan
guage of Edessa as did the Old Latin, raade in the
African Pro\-ince, from the contemporai7 Vfriters
of Rome, such as Tacitus.
Even though the traces of the origin of this
version of the Old Test, be but few, yet it is of
importance that they should be marked; for the
Old Syriac has the peculiar value of being the first
version from the Hebrew original made for Chris
tian use; and, indeed, the only translation of the
kind before that of Jerome, which was made sub
sequently to the time when Ephraem wrote. This
Syriac commentator may have termed it " our ver
sion," in contrast to all others then current (for
the Targums were hardly versions), which were
merely reflections of the Greek and not of the
Hebrew original.
The proof that this version was made from the
Hebrew is twofold: we have the direct statements
of Ephraem, who compares it in places with the
Hebrew, and speaks of this origin as a, fact ; and
and who is confirmed (if that had been needful)
by later Syrian writers; we find the same thing as
evident from the internal examination of the ver
sion itself. Whatever internal change or revision
it may have received, the Hebrew groundwork of
the translation is unmistakable. Such indications
of revision must be afterwards briefly specified.
The first printed edition of this version was that
which appeared in the Paris Polyglott of Le Jay in
1645; it is said that the editor, Gabriel Sionita, a
Maronite, had only an imperfect MS., and that,
besides errors, it was defective as to whole passages,
and even as to entire books. This last charge seems
to be so made as if it were to imply that books
were omitted besides those of the Apocrypha, a
part which Sionita confessedly had not. He is
stated to have supphed the deficiencies by trans
lating into Syriac from the Vulgate. It can hardly
be supposed but that there is some exaggeration in
these statements. Sionita may have filled up an occa
sional hiatus in his MS. ; but it requires very defi
nite examination before we can fully credit that he
thus suppUed whole books. It seems needful to
believe that the defective books were siraply those
in the Apocrypha, which he did not supply. Tho
result, however, is, tbat the Paris edition is but an
infirm groundwork for our speaking with confidence
of the text of this version.
In Walton's Polyglott, 1657, the Paris text is
reprinted, but witli the addition of the Apocr}'phal
books which had been wanting. It was generally
said that AValton had done much to amend the
texts upon MS. authority ; but the late Prof. Lee

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (SYKIAC)

8385

denies this, stating that " the only addition made
by Walton waa some Apocryphal books." From
Walton's Polyglott, Kirsch, in 1787, published a
separate edition of the Pentateuch. Of the Syriac
Psalter there have been many editions. The first
of these, as mentioned by Eichhorn, appeared in
1610; it has by the side an Arabic version. In
1625 there were two editions; the one at Paris
edited by Gabriel Sionita, and one at Leyden by
Erpenius from two MSS." These have since been
repeated ; but anterior io them all, it is mentioned
that the seven penitential psalms appeared at Rome
in 1584.
In the punctuation given in the Polyglotts, a
Bjstem was introduced which was in part a pecul
iarity of Gabriel Sionita himself. This has to be
borne in mind by those who use either the Paris
Polyglott or that of Walton ; for in many words
there is a redundancy of vowels, and the form of
some is thus exceedingly changed.
When the British and Foreign Bible Society pro
posed more than forty years ago to issue the Syriac
Old Testament for the first time in a separate vol
ume, the late Prof. Lee was employed to make such
editorial preparations as could be connected with a
mere revision of the text, without any specification
of the authorities. Dr. Lee collated' for the purpose
six Syriac MSS. of the Old Test, in general, and a
very ancient copy of the Pentateuch : he also used
in part the commentaries of Ephraem and of Bar-
Hebrffius. From these various sources he con
structed his text, with the aid of that found already
in the Polyglotts. Of course the corrections de
pended on the editor's own judgment; and the
want of a specification of the results of collations
leaves the reader in doubt as to what the evidence
may be in those places in which there is a depart
ure from the Polyglott text. But though more in
formation might be desired, we have in the edition
of Lee a veritable Syriac text, from Syriao authori
ties, and free from the suspicion of having been
forraed in modem times, by Gabriel Sionita's trans
lating portions from the Latin. [Prof. I^e's edi
tion was published at London in 1823. — A.]
But we have now in this country, in the MS.
treasures brought from the Nitrian valleys, the
means of far more accurately editing this version.
Even if the results should not appear to be strik
ing, a thorough use of these MSS. would place this
version on such a basis of diplomatic evidence as
would show positively how this earliest Christian
translation from the Hebrew was read in the 6th
or 7th century, or possibly still earlier:* we thus
could use the Syriac with a fuller degree of confi
dence in the criticism of the Hebrew text, just as
we can the more ancient versiona of the New for
the criticism of the Greek.
In the beginning of 1849, the late excellent
Biblical scholar, the Rev. John Rogers, Canon of
Exeter, published Seasons why a New Edition of
the Peschiio, or Ancient Syriac Version of the Old
Testament, should be published. In this interest
ing pamphlet, addressed to the late Archbishop of
Canterbury, Canon Rogers speaks of the value of
the version itself, its importance in criticiam, the
existing editions, their defects, the sources of
emendation now posaeaaed by this country, in the

a * Dathe also published an edition of the text of
Brpenlus at Halle in 1768, adding the vowel-points,
ind notes. There is an English Translation qf the
Stfriac Peshito Version of the Psalms of David, with
213

Nitrian MSS. especially, " now [1849] imder the
care of the Rev. Wm. Cureton, who is making
known to the public tbe treasures of the library of
the Monastery of St. Mary Deipara, in the Nitrian
desert in Egypt, thus happily obtained." He ad
verts to the facility which would be afforded for the
proper publication of the proposed edition, from
type having been of late prepared representing the
proper Estrangelo Syriac character, of which Dr
Cureton waa even then making use in printing his
text of the Syriac Gospels, eto. If it had been an
honor to this country to issue the collations of Ken
nicott for the Hebrew Old Test., and of Holmes for
the LXX., might not this proposed Syriac edition
be a worthy succesaor to such works ? The j'liu
proposed by Canon Rogers for its execution wa«
this : to take the Syriao MS. which appeared to be
the best in each portion of the Old Test., both on
the ground of goodness and antiquity : let this be
printed, and then let collations be raade by various
scholars in interleaved copies ; the whole of the re
sults might then be pubUshed in the same form as
De Rossi's Varies Lectiones to the Hebrew Bible.
Canon Rogers gives a few hints as to what he
thought would be probable results from such a col
lation. He did not expect that the dififerences from
the printed Syriao would be very great; but still
there would be a far greater satisfaction as to the
confidence with which this version might be quoted,
especially in connection with the criticism of the
Hebrew original. By way of illustration he pointed
out a good many passages, in which it can hardly
be doubted that the defects iu the printed Syriac
arise from the defectiveness of the copy or copies on
which it was based. He also showed it to be a
point of important inquiry, whether In places ir
which the printed Syriac agrees with the LXX.,
the Syriac has been altered ; or whether both may
preserve the more ancient reading of Hebrew copies
once extant. The reasons why such a Syriac text
should be prepared and pubhshed, and why such
collations should be raade, are thus summed up by
Canon Rogers : " 1st. Because we have no printed
text from ancient and approved MSS. 2d. Be
cause the Latin version in Walton's Polyglott often
fails to convey the sense of the Syriac. 3d. Be
cause there are many omissions in the printed text
whioh may perhaps be supplied in a collation of
early MSS. 4th. Because the facilities now given
to the study of Hebrew make it desirable that new
facilities should also be given to the study of the
cognate languages. 5th. Because it is useless to
accumulate ancient and valuable Biblical MSS. at
tbe British Museum, if those MSS. are not applied
to the purposes of sacred criticism. 6th. Because
in comparing the Syriac with the Hebrew original,
many points of important and interesting investi
gation will arise. Finally, Because it is neither
creditable to the literary character of the age, nor
to the theological position of the Church of Eng
land, that one of our most ancient versions of the
Bible should contmue in its present neglected
state." These considerations of the late Canon
Rogers are worthy of being thus repeated, not only
as being the deliberate judgment of a good Biblical
scholar, but as also pointing out practically the
to he sought in making proper use of

Notes Critical cmd Explanatory, by tht Rev, Andrew
Oliver, Boston, 1861. A.
& The Pentateuch could probably be given nn a
basis of the^^h century.

8S86

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (SYRIAC)

the Biblical materials which are at our hands, and
of which the scholars of former ages had not the
benefit. There waa a strong hope expressed soon after
the issue of Canon Rogers's appeal, that the work
would have been formally placed in a proper man
ner in the hands of tbe Rev. Wm. Cureton, and
that thus it would hai e been accomplished under
his superintendence, at the Oxford University
Press. Canon Rogers announced thia in an ap
pendix to hia pamphlet. But thia haa not been ef
fected. It may atill be hoped that Dr. Cureton
will edit at least the Pentateuch fi'om a very an
cient copy : but there is not now in this country
the practical encouragement to such Biblical stud
ies as require the devotion of time, kbor, and at^
tention (as well as pecuniary expense), which in
the last century Kennicott and Holmes received.
But if the printed Syriac text rests on by no
means a really satisfactory basis, it may be asked.
How can it be said positively that what we have is
the same veraion substantially that was used by
Ephraem in the 4th century ? Happily, we have
the same means of identifying the Syriac with that
anciently used, aa we have of showing that the
modern Latin Vulgate is substantiaUy the version
executed by Jerome. We admit that the common
printed Latin has sufl^ered in various ways, and yet
at the bottom and in its general texture it is un
doubtedly the work of .Jerome : so with the Peshito
of the Old Test., whatever errors of judgment were
committed by Gabriel Sionita, the first editor, and
however little has been done by those who should
have corrected these things on MS. authority, the
identity of the version is too certain for it to be
thus destroyed, or even (it may be said) materially
obscured. From the citations of Ephraem, and the single
words on which he makes remarks, we have suffi
cient proof of tbe identity of the version: even
though at times he also furnishes proof that the
copies as printed are not exactly as he read. The
foUovring may be taken aa instances of accordance:
tbey are mostly from the pkces (see Wiseman, H.
Syr. p. 122, &c.) ui which Ephraem thinks it need
ful to explain a Syrian word in this version, or to
discuss its meaning, cither from ita having become
antiquated in his time, or from its being unused in
the same sense by the Syrians of Edessa. Thus,
Gen. i. 1, *~^ is used in Syriac as answering to
the Hebrew DS. The occurrence of this word
Ephraem mentions, giving his own explanation:
i. 2, cnarao oioL; x. 9, for T? "I'isa, the
Syriac has M'-.-^*-**^, which Ephraem men
tions as being a term which the Persians also use.
Gen. xxx. 14, for CMl^'^ there is ^C6;i.2sj,
a word which Ephraem mentions aa being there,
and the possible meaning of which he discusses.
Ex. xxviii. 4, )LiOO)i-2 stands for the Hebrew
laJri; Ephraem reads it ).iOOj,fi^, and ex
plains the meaning: xxxviii. 4,^>.0i-0 (~13pQ) ;
Kxviu. 16, J"0^^5^ (Vn'll^l?); ixviii. 40,
IdSB (nW3?a); Num. xi. 7, for 1| there is

j L;..2l£0Q.O, a word equ.dly, it seeras, meaning
coriander; which was, however, unknown ta
Ephraem, who expouuds it as though it meant
food of all kinds, aa if ) ^i-i>^ ^^. i gam.
xxiii. 28, »Q.:!>.-u£s for I?bp; 2 Sam. viii. 7,
\ aTS o, merely retaining the Hebrew word
"'Elbtt? in a Syriac form. 1 K. x. 11, JLoma
(Q'<an'pN); xu. 11, U<^c:s3 (D"«2np?).
2 K. iii. 4, Jj-aJ (in'la); Job ixxix 23,
\Sii^^ (nBpW); xii. 13, -^OT^L, the
Heb. tonb;;!. is. ui. 22, j^Vvi^.*:o
(ninSipa); Jer. li. 41, JK^^Lii^ (tltpEJ).
Zech. V. 7, )j^i!>^ (nS'^W). In these pas
sages, and in several others, the words of the
Peshito are cited by Ephraem because of their
obscurity, and of the need that they had of ex
planation. The proof that the version which haa come down
to ua is substantially that uaed by the Syrians in
the 4th century, is perhaps more definite from the
comparison of words than it would have been from
the comparison of passages of greater length; be
cause in longer citations there aiways might be
some ground for thinking that perhaps the MS. of
Ephraem might have been conformed to later Syr
iac copies of the Sacred Text; while, with regard
to peculiar words, no such auspicion can have any
place, aince it ia on such words still found in the
Peshito that the remarks of Ephraem are based.
The fact that he sometimes cites it differently from
what we now read, only shows a variation of copies,
perhaps ancient, or perhaps such as is found merely
in the printed text that we have.
From Ephraem having mentioned iranslators of
this version, it has been concluded that it was the
work of several : a thing probable enough in itself,
but which could hardly be proved from the occur
rence of a casual phrase, nor yet from variations in
the rendering of the sarae Hebrew word ; such va
riations being found in almost all translations, even
when made by one person ¦ — th.at of Jerome, for in
stance; and which it would be almost impossible to
avoid, especially before the time when concordances
and lexicons were at hand. Variations in phrase
ology give a far surer ground for supposing several
translators. It has been much discussed whether this trans
lation were a Jewish or a Christian work. Some,
who have maintained that the translator was a Jew,
have argued from his knowledge of Hebrew and
his mode of rendering. But these considerations
prove nothing. Indeed, it might well be doubt«d
if in that age a Jew would have formed anything
except a Chaldee Targum ; and thus diffuseness of
paraphrase might be expected instead of closeness
of translation. There need be no reasonable objec
tion made to the opinion that it is a Christian work.
Indeed it ia difficult to suppose, that before the dif
fusion of Christianity in Syria, the version coiiid
have been needed..
It may be said that the Syriac in general snp
ports the Hebrew text that we have : how far argu
ments may be raised upon minute coincidences oi

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (SYRIAC)

3387

mriations cannot be certainly known until the
undent text of the version is better established.
Occasionally, however, it is clear that the Syriac
translator read one consonant for another in the
Hebrew, and translated accordingly ; at times an
other vocalization of the Hebrew was followed.
A reserablance has been pointed out between the
Syriac and the reading of some of the Chaldee
Targums : if the Targum is the older, it is not un
likely that the Syriac translator, using every aid in
his power to obtain an accurate knowledge of what
he was rendering, examined the Targums in difB
cult passages. This is not the place for formally
discussing the date and origin of the Targums
[see below, Targumb] ; but if (as seems alraost
certain) the Targums which have come down to
us are almost without exception more recent than
the Syriac version, still they are probably the suc
cessors of earlier Targums, which by amplification
have reached their present shape. Thus, if existing
Targums are more recent than the Syriac, it may
happen that their coincidences arise from the use of
a common source — an earlier Targum.
• But there is another point of inquiry of more
importance: it is, how far has this version been
affected by the LXX. V and to what are we to
attribute this influence? It ia possible that .the
influence of the LXX. is partly to be ascribed to
copyists and revisers ; while in part this belonged
to the version as originally made. For, if a trans-
latKir had access to another version while occupied
in making his own, he might consult it in cases of
difficulty; and thus he might unconsciously follow
it in other parts. Even knowing the words of a
particular translation may affect the raode of ren
dering in another translation or revision. And
thus a tinge fixim the LXX. may have easily existed
in this version from the first, even though in whole
books it may not be found at all. But when the
extensive use of the LXX. is remembered, and how
soon it was superstltiously imagined to have been
made by direct inspiration, so that it was deemed
canonically authoritative, we cannot feel wonder
that readinga from the LXX. should have been
from time to time introduced ; thia may have com
menced probably before a Syriac version had been
made from the Hexaplar Greek text; because in
such revised text of the LXX. the additions, etc.,
in wbich that version differed from the Hebrew,
would be so marked that they would hardly seem
to be the authoritative and genuine text.
Some comparison with the Greek is probable
even before the tinie of Ephraem; for, as to the
Apocryphal books, while he cites some of them
(though not as Scripture), the Apocryphal addi
tions to Daniel and the booka of Maccabees were
not yet found in Syriac. Whoever translated any
of these books from the Greek, may easily have
aliio compared with it in some places the books pre
viously translated from the Hebrew.
In the book of Psalms this version exhibits many
peculiarities. Either the translation of the Psalter
must be a work independent of the Peshito in
general, or else it has been strangely revised aad
ultered, not only firom the Greek," but also from

B Perhaps as to this the veraion of the Psalms from
¦Jie Ureek made by Polycarp (to be mentioned pres
ently) has not been sufiSciently taken into account.
Indeed, remarkably little attention appears to have
been paid to the evidence that such a vex^ou ex-
iated

liturgical use. Perhaps, indeed, the Psalms are a
different version ; and that in this aspect the prac
tice of the Syrian churches is like that of the
Eoman CathoHc Church and the Church of England
in using liturgically a diff'erent version of the book
so rauch read ecclesiastically.
It is stated that, after the divisions of the Syrian
Church, there were revisions of this one version by
the Monophysites and by the Nestorlans ; probably
it would be found, if the subject could be fully
investigated, that there were in the hands of diflTer
ent parties copies in which the ordinary accidents
of transcription had introduced variations.
The Karkaphensian recension mentioned by
Bar-HebrjEus waa only known by name prior to
the investigations of Wiseman ; it is found in two
MSS. in the Vatican ; it was formed for the use
of Monophysites ; there ia peculiarity in the
punctuation introduced, by a leaning towards the
Greek ; but it it, as to its substance, the Peshito
version. B. The Syriac version from ihe Hexaplar
Greek Text. — The only Syriac version of the Old
Test, up to the 6th century was apparently the
Peshito. The first definite intimation of a portion
of the Old Testament translated from the Greek is
through Moses Agbelseus. This Syriac writer
Uved in the raiddle of the 6th century. He raade
a translation of the Glaphyra of Cyril of Alexan
dria frora Greek into Syriac; and, in the prefixed
Epistle, he speaks of the versions of the New Test.
and the Psalter, " which Polycarp (rest his soul ! ),
the Chorepiscopus, made in Syriac for the faithful
Xenaias, the teacher of Mabug, worthy of the raem-
ory of the good." >> We thus see that a Syriac
version of the Psalms had a similar origin to the
Pliiloxenian Syriac New Test. We know that the
date of the latter was A. D. 508 ; the Psalter was
probably a contemporaneous work. It is said that
the Nestorian patriarch, Marabba, A. D. 552, made
a version from the Greek ;' it does not appear to be
in existence, so that, if ever it waa completely exe
cuted, it was probably superseded by the Hexaplar
version of Paul of Tela; indeed Paul may have
used it as the basis of his work, adding marks of
reference, etc.
The version by Paul of Tela, a Monophysite, was
made in the beginning of the 7th century; for its
basis he used the Hexaplar Greek text — that is,
the LXX., with the corrections of Origen, the
asterisks, obeli, etc., and with the references to the
other Greek versiona.
The Syro-Hexaplar veraion waa made on the
principle of following the Greek, word for word, as
exactly as possible. It contains the marks intro
duced by Origen ; and the references to the versions
of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, etc. In fact,
it is frora this Syriac version that we obtain our
most accurate acquaintance with the results of the
critical labors of Origen.
Andreas Masius, in his edition of the book of
Joshua," firat used the results of thia Syro-Hexa
plar text ; for, on the authority of a MS. in hia
possession, he revised the Greek, introducing aster
isks and obeU, thus showing what Origen had done,

6 Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, ii. 83 ; where^
however, the obscure Syriac is turned into still mow
obscure l^itin.
c Josuse imperatoris historia illustrata at^ua expli-
cata ab Andrea Masio. Antwerp, 1574.

3388

VERSIONS. ANCIENT (SYRIAC)

how much he had inserted in the text, and what
he had marked as not found in the Hebrew. The
Syriac MS- used by Masius has been long lost;
though in this day, after the recovery of the Codex
Reuchlini of the Apocalypse (from which Erasmus
firat edited that book) by Prof. Dehtzsch, it could
hardly be a cause for surprise if this Syriac Codex
were again found.
It is from a MS. in the Ambrosian Library at
' Milan that we possess accurate means of knowing
this Syriac version. The MS. in question contains
the Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles,
Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Minor Prophets, Jeremiah,
Baruch, Daniel, Ezekiel, and Isaiah. Norberg pub
Ushed, at Lund in 1787, the books of Jeremiah
and Ezekiel, from a transcript which he had made
of the MS. at Milan. In 1788, Bugati pubUshed
at Milan the book of Daniel; he also edited the
Psalms, the printing of which had been completed
before his death in 1816; it was pubhshed in
1820. The rest of the contents of the Milan Codex
(with the exception of the Apocryphal books ) was
published at Berlin in 1835, by Middeldorpf, from
the transcript made by Norberg; Middeldorpf also
added the 4th (2d) book of Kings from a MS. at
Paris. Besides these portions of this Syriac vereion, the
MSS. from the Nitrian monasteries now in the
British Museum would add a good deal more :
amongst these there are six, from which much
might be drawn, so that part of the Pentateuch
and other books may be recovered." These MSS.
are like that at Milan, in having the marks of Ori
gen in the text; the references to readings in the
margin ; and occasionally the Greek word itself is
thus cited in Greek.
Dr. Antonio Ceriani, of the Ambrosian Library
at Milan, after having for a considerable time pro
posed to edit the portions of the Syro-Hexaplar
Codex of Milan which had hitherto remained in
MS., commenced such a work in 1861 (Monumenta
Sacra et Profana, Opera Collegii Biblioihecce
Ambrosianoe), the first part of the Syriac text
being Baruch, Lamentations, and the Epistle of
Jeremiah. To this work Ceriani subjoined a collar
tion of some of the more important texts, and crit
ical notes. A second part has since appeared. It
is to be hoped that he may thus edit the whole
MS., and tbat the other portions of this version
known to be extant may soon appear in print.
The value of this version for the criticism of the
LXX. is very great. It supplies, as far as a ver
aion can, the lost work of Origen.
The list of versions of the Old Test, into Syriac
often appears to be very numerous ; but on exam
ination it is found that many translations, the

a The following is the notation of these MSS., and
tbeir contents and dates : —
12,133 (besides the Peshito Exodus) ; Joshua (defective),
cent, vii, " Translated from a Greek MS. of the
Hexapla, collated with one ofthe Tetrapla."
12,134, Exodus, a. d. 697.
14,434, Psalms formed from two MSS. cent. viii. (with
the Song of the Three Children subjoined to the
second). Both MSS- are defective. Subscription,
« According to the LXX."
14,437, Numbers and 1 Kings, defective (cent. vii. or
vUi.). The subscription to 1 ICings says that it was
translated into Syriac at Alexandria in the year 927
(A. D. 616).
14,442, Genesis, defective (with 1 Sam. Peshito).
« According to the LXX." (cent. vi.).

names of which appear in a catalogue ore i-illj
either such as never had an actual extstenc, , ot
else that they are either the version from the
Hebrew, or else that from the Hexaplar text of tlie
LXX., under different names, or with some slight
revision. To enumerate the supposed versions is
needless. It is only requisite to mention that
Thomas of Harkel, whose work in the revision of i,
translation of the New Test, will have to be men
tioned, seems also to have made a translation from
the Greek into Syriac of some of the Apocryphal
books — at least, the subscriptions in certain MSS.
state this.
II. The Syriac New Testament Veb-
SIONS. A. The Peshito-Syriac N. T. (Text of Wid*
manstadt, and Cureton's Gospels.)
In whatever forms the Syriac New Test, may
have existed prior to the time of Philoxenus (the
beginning of the sixth century), who caused a new
translation to be made, it will be more convenient
to consider all such most ancient translations or
revisions together ; even though tbere may be rea
sons afterwards assigned for not regarding the ver
sion of the earlier ages of Christianity as absolutely
one. It may stand as an admitted fact that a version
of the New Test, in Syriac existed in the 2d cen
tury; and to tbis we may refer the stateraent of
Eusebius respecting Hegesippus, that he " made
quotations from the Gospel according to the He
brews and the Syriac," eK re tOv KaB' "E^paiovs
evayyehiov Kal tou SuptaKou (Hist Eccl. iv. 22).
It seems equally certain that in the 4th century
such a version was as well known of the New
Test, as of the Old. It was the companion of
the Old Test, translation raade frora the Hebrew,
and as such was hi habitual use in the Syriac
churches. To the translation in common use
araongst the Syrians, orthodox, Monophysite, or
Nestorian, from the 5th century and onward, the
name of Peshito has been as commonly appUed in
the New Test, as the Old. In the 7th century at
least the version so current acquired the name of
r^f-^i old, in contrast to that which waa then
formed and revised by the Monophysites.
Though we have no certain data as to the origin
of this version, it is probable on every ground that
a Syriac translation of the New Test, was an ac
companiment of that of the Old; whatever there
fore bears on the one, bears on the other also.
There seem to be but few notices of the old
Syriac version in early writers. Cosmas Indico-
pleustes, in the former half of the 6th century
incidentally informs us that the Syriac translation

17,103, Judges and Ruth, defective (cent. vii. or viii.).
Subscription to Judges, ^' According to the LXX. ; "
to Ruth, " From the Tetrapla of the LXX."
The notes on these MSS. made by the present writer
in 1857, have been kindly compared aud amplified by
Mr. William Wright of the British Museum.
Rdrdam issued at Copenhagen in 1859 the first por
tion of an edition of the MS. 17,103 : another part has
since been published. [Title: Libri Judicum et
Ruth secundum Versionem Syr iaco- Hexaplar em, etc.
2 fasc. Havniae, 1859-61.] Some of these MSS. were
written in the same century in which the veraion waa
made. They may probably be depended oi as giring
the text with general accuracy.

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (SYRIAC)

338E

joes not contain the Second Epistle of Peter, 2 and
3 John, and Jude. This was found to be correct
ffhen a thousand years afterwards this ancient
translation became again known to Western schol
ars. In 1552, Moses of Mardin came to Rome to
Pope JuUus III., commissioned by Ignatius the
Jacobite (Monophysite) patriarch, to state his reUg
ious opinions, to effect (it is said) a union with
the Romish Church, and to get the Syriac New
Test printed. In this last object Moses failed both
ut Rome and Venice. At Vienna he was, however,
successful. Widmanstadt, the chancellor of the
Emperor Ferdinand 1., had himself learned Syriac
from Theseus Ambrosius many years previously ;
aud through his influence the emperor undertook
the charge of an edition, which appeared in 1555,
through the joint labors of Widmanstadt, Moses,
and Postell. Some copies were afterwards issued
with the date of 1562 on the back of the title."
In having only three Catholic epistles, this Syriac
New Test, agreed with the description of Cosmas ;
the Apocalypse was also wanting, as well -as the
section John viii. 1-11; this last omission, and
some other points, were noticed in the list of errata.
The editors appear to have followed their MSS.
with great fideUty, so that the edition is justly
valued. In subsequent editions endeavors were
made conjectiu-ally to amend the text by introduc
ing 1 John V. 7 and other portions which do not
belong to tbis translation. One of the principal
sditioDS is that of Leusden and Schaaf ; in this the
text is made as full as possible by supplying every
lacuna from n«y source; in the punctuation there
is a strange peculiarity, that in the formet part
Leusden chose to follow a sort of Chaldee analogy,
while on his death Schaaf introduced a regular sys
tem of Syriac vocaUzation through all the rest of
the volume. The Lexicon which accompanies this
edition is of great value. This edition was first
issued in 1708: more copies, however, have the
date, 1709; while some have the false and dishonest
statement on the title page, " Secunda editio a
mendis purgata," and the date 1717. The late
Professor Lee published an edition in 1816, in
which he corrected or altered the text on the au
thority of a few MSS. This is so far independent
of that of Widmanstadt. It is, however, very far
short of being really a ciitical edition. In 1828,
the edition of Mr. William Greenfield (often re
printed from the stereotype plates) waa published
by Messrs. Bagster: in this tbe text of Widman-
itadt was followed (with the vowels fully expressed),
and with certain supplements within brackets from
Lee's edition. For the collation with Lee's text
Greenfield was not responsible. There are now in
this country exceUent materials for the formation
of a critical edition of this version ; it may, however,
be said, that as in its first publication the MSS.
employed were honestly used, it is in the text of
Widmanstadt in a far better condition than is the
Peshito Old Testament.

a The date of 1555 appears repeatedly in the body
uf the volume ; at the end of the Gospels, May 18,
1555 i St. Paul's Epp., July 18, 1555 ; Acts, Aug. 14,
1555 ; Cath. JSpp. and the conclusion, Sept. 27, 1555.
Tho volume ia dedicated to the Emperor Ferdinand,
ind the contents mention three other dedications to
8ther members of the imperial house. All of these
three are often wanting, and two of them, addressed
o the Archdukes Ferdinand and Charles, arc not only
generaUy wanting, but it is even said that no copy is
known ic which they are found.

This Syriac Version has been variously esti
mated : some have thought that in it they had a
genuine and unaltered monument of the second, oi
perhaps even of the first century. They thus nat
urally upheld it as almost coordinate in authority
with the Greek text, and as being of a period ante
rior to any Greek copy extant. Others finding in
it indubitable marks of a later age, were incUned
to deny that it had any claim to a very remote an
tiquity; thus La Croze thought that the commonly
printed Syriac New Test, is not the Peshito at all,
but the Philoxenian executed in the })ei;iiining of
the Bth century. The fact is, tbat this version as
transmitted to us contains marks of antiquity, nnd
also traces of a later age. The two things are so
blended, that if either class of phenomena alone
were regarded, the most opposite opinions might be
forraed. The opinion of Wetstein was one of the
raost perverse that could be devised : he found in
tbis version readings which accord with the Latin;
and then, acting on the strange system of criticism
which he adopted in his later jears, he asserted
that any such accordance with the Latin was a
proof of corruption from that version : so that with
him the proofs of antiquity became the tokens of
later origin, and he thus assigned the translation to
the seventh century. With him the real indica
tions of later readings were only the marks of the
very reverse. MichaeUs took very opposite ground
to that of Wetstein ; he upheld its antiquity and
authority very strenuously. The former point
could be easily j:?7m"ef/, if one class of readings alone
were considered ; and this is confirmed by the con-
ttnts of the version itself. But on the other hand
there are difficulties, for very often readings of a
rauch more recent kind appear; it was thus thought
that it might be compared with the Latin as found
in the Codex Brixianus, in which there is an ancient
groundwork, but also the work of a reviser is mani
fest. Thus the judgment forraed by Griesbach
seems to be certaiuly the correct one as to the pe
culiarity of the text of this version ; he says (using
the terms proper to his system of 7-ecensions):
" NuUi harum recensionum Syriaca versio, prout
quidem typis excusa est, simiUs, veruni nee uUi
proi-sus dissimilis est. In multis concinit cum Al-
exandrina recensione, in pluribus cum OccidentaU,
in nonnulUs etiam cum Constantinopohtan a, ita
tamen ut qu£e in hanc posterioribus denium seculia
invecta sunt, pleraque repudiet. Hiversis ergo tem-
porUjus ad Grcecos codices plane divevsos iterum iter-
umque recognita esse videtur''^ (Nov. Test. Proleg.
Ixxv.). In a note Griesbach introduced the com
parison of the Codex Brixianus, " lUustrari hoc
potest codicum nonnuUorum La,tinorum exemplo,
qui priscam quidem vei^iqnem ad Occidentalem re-
censionem accomraodatam representant, sed passim
ad juniores libros Grsecos refictam. Ex hoc gener e
esi Biixianus Codex Laiinus, qui non rare a
Grseco-Latinis et vetustioribus Latinis omnibus
solus discedit, et in Grascorum partes transit." *
6 Griesbach's most matured judgment on this sub
ject was thus given: " Interpolationes autem e locis
Evangeliorura parallelis, quales apud Syrum, Matt.
xxviii. 18, Luc. ix. 39, item Matt. xxii. 22, 23, Mar. vi.
11, xiii. 14, Luc. iv. 18, deprehenduntur, non magis
quam additamenta e lectionariis libris in sacrum con-
textum traducta, velut Luc. xv. 11, aut liturgieum
illud sissumentum Matt. vi. 13, vitia sunt r^ miv^
propria. . . . Quia plerasque interprlationes mode
enumeratas, cum aliiti ^usmodi generis multis, qufo
nunc in versione Syriaca extant, primitus ab ea ab-

3390

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (SYRIAO)

Some proof Ihat the text of the common printed
Peshito has been rewrought, will appear when it
is compared with the Curetonian Syriac Gospels.
Let it be distinctly remembered that this is no
new opinion ; that it is not the peculiar notion of
Tregelles. or of any one individual; for as the
question has been reopened, it has been treated as
if thia were some theory newly invented to serve a
purpose. The Rev. F. H. Scrivener, whose- labors
in the collation of (ireek MSS., and whose care in
editing Codex Augiensis of St. Paul's Epistles, de
serve very high commendation, avowed himself
many years ago an ardent admirer of the Peshito-
Syriac. But even then he set aside its authority
very often when it happened to adhere to the
ancient Greek text, to the other ancient versions,
and to the early Fathers, in opposition to the later
copies. But when the judgment of Griesbach re
specting the common printed Syriac had been re
peated and enforced by Tregelles (Home's Introd.
vol. iv. p. 265), Scrivener came forward as its cham
pion. In his Introduction to Codex Augiensis, Mr.
Scrivener says, "How is this divergency of the
Peshito version from the text of Codex B explained
by Tregelles ? He feels of course the pressure of
the argument against him, and meets it, if not suc
cessfully, with even more than his wonted boldness.
The transl.it' on degenerates in his hands into ' the
version commonly printed as the Peshito.'* Now
let us mark the precise nature of the demand here
made on our faith by Dr. Tregelles. He would
persuade us that the whole Eastern Church, dis
tracted as it has been, and split into hostile sections
for the space of 1,400 years, orthodox and Jacobite,
Nestorian and Maronite aUke, those who could
agree in nothing else, have laid aside their bitter
jealousies in order to substitute in their monastic
libraries and liturgical services, another and a spu
rious version in the roora of the Peshito, that sole
surviving monument of the first ages of the Gospel
in Syria ! Nay, more, that this wretched forgery
haa deceived Orientalists profound as MichaeUs "
and Lowth, has passed without suspicion through
the ordeal of searching criticism to which every
branch of sacred Uterature has been subjected dur
ing the last half century ! We will require soUd
reasons, indeed, before we surrender ourselves to an
hypothesis as novel as it appears violently improb
able" (pp. xiv., XV.). Mr. Scrivener's warmth of
declamation raight have been spared : no one calls
the Peshito "a spurious version," "wretched
forgery," etc., it is not suggested that the Syrian
churches agreed in some strange substitution : aU
that is suggested is, that at the tirae of the tran
sition Greek text, before the disruption ofthe Syrian
churches, the then existing Syriac version was re
vised and modernized in a way analogous to that in
which the Latin was treated in Cod. Brixianus.
On part of Mr. Scrivener's stateraents the Rev. F.
J. A. Hort has weU remarked: "The text may

fuisse et seriori demum tempore in earn irrepsisse,
plane mihi persuasum est. Yerissime enim clar. Hu-
giuB ( . . . . coll. prolegomenis in majorem meam N.
T. editionem, Hal. 1796, vol. i.p. Ixxv.) animadvertit,
versionem hanc a Diorthote quodam videri recognitam
fuisse oc castigatam. Id quod quinto seculo ioeunte,
antequam ecclesise orientales Nestorianis et Monopby-
siticis nxis disci u dere ntur, evenisse suspicor, et in
epistolis magis adliuc quam in Evangellis locum ha
buisse autumo.'* Commmtarius Critiats, ii. Melete-
mata. U., Ui. 1811

have been altered and corrupted between the firel
or second, and fifth centuries. This is all that Dr,
Tregelles has supposed, though Mr. Scrivener as
sails him with unseemly violence, as if he had rep
resented the vulgar text as ' a wretched forgery."
Mr. Scrivener's rashness is no less remarkable in
caUing this a ' novel hypothesis,* when in fact it is
at least as old as Griesbach. . . . There is neither
evidence nor hiternal probabiUty against the sup
position that the Old Syriac version was revised
into its present form .... in the 4th or even 3d
century, to raake it accord with Greek MSS. then
current at Antioch, Edessa, or Nisibis: and without
some such supposition the Syriac text must remain
an inexplicable phenomenon, unless we bring the
Greek and Latin texts into confirmity with it by
contradicting the full and clear evidence which we
do possess respecting thera. All that we have
now said raight have been alleged before the Cure
tonian Syriac was discovered: the case is surely
strengthened in a high degree by the appearance
(in a MS. assigned to the 5th century) ofa Syriac
version of the Gospels, bearing clear marks of the
highest antiquity in its manifest errors as weU as
in its choicest readings. The appropriation of the
name * Peshito,' appears to us wholly unimportant,
except for rhetorical purposes." ^
These remarks of Mr. Hort will suffice in rescu
ing the opinion stated by Tregelles from the charge
of novelty or rashness : indeed, the supposition as
stated by Griesbach, is a simple solution of various
difficulties; for if this be not tbe fact, then every
other most ancient document or monument of the
New Test, must have been strangely altered in its
text. The number of difficulties (otherwise inex
pUcable), thus solved, is about a demonstration of
its truth. Mr. Scrivener, however, seeras incapable
of apprehending that the revision of the Peshito ia
an opinion long ago held : he says since, " I know
no other cause for suspecting the Peshito, than that
its readings do not suit Dr. 'lYegeUes, and if this
fact be enough to convict it of corruption, I am
quite unable to vindicate it." « Why, then, do
not the readings "suit" Dr. Tregelles? Because,
if they were considered genuine, we should have (to
use Mr. Hort's words) to " bring the Greek and
Latin texts into conformity with it, by contradict
ing the fuU and clear evidence which we do possess
respecting them."
Whether the whole of this version proceeded
frora the same translator has been questioned. It
appears to the present writer probable that the
New Test, of the Peshito is not from the same hand
as the Old. Not ouly may MichaeUs be right in
supposing a pecuUar translator of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, but also other parts may be frora different
hands; this opinion will become more general the
more the version is studied. The revisions to
which the vei'sion was subjected may have suc
ceeded in part, but not wholly, in effacing the in-

a Even Michaelis did not think it needful to ftjisume
that the Peshito had been transmitted without any
change. "In using the Syriac version, we musfc never
forget that our present editions are very imperfect, and
not conclude that every reading of tbe Syriac printed
text waa the reading of the Greek MS. ofthe first cen
tury." Marsh's Michaelis, ii. 46.
i> Joumai of dassiccU and Sacred P/dlology {i^aaa-
bridge), Feb. 1860, pp. 378, 379.
c « Plain Introduction," p. 42-1, footnote.

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (SYRIAC)

3891

lications of a plurality of translators. The Acts
¦md Epistles seem to be either more recent than the
Gospeb, though far less revised ; or else, if coeval,
far more corrected by later Greek MSS.
There is no sufficient reason for supposing that
this version ever contained the four Catholic
Epistles and the Apocalypse, now absent from it,
not only in the printed editions but also in the
MSS. Some variations in copies of the Peshito have
been regarded as if they might be styled Monophy
site and Nestorian recensions : but the designation
would be far too definite; foj the differences are
Dot sufficient to warrant the classification.
The MSS. of the Karkaphensian recension (as
it has been termed) of the Peshito Old Test, con
tain also the New with a similai* character of text.
*The Peshito version of the N. T. has been
translated into English by Dr. J. W. Etheridge, 2
vols. Lond. 1846-49, and by Dr. James Murdock,
N. Y. 1851. A.
The Curetonian Syriac Gospels. — " Compara
tive criticism " shows the true character of every
document, whether previously known or newly
brought to light, which professes to contain the
eariy text of the New Test. By comparative crit
icism is not meant such a mode of examining au
thorities as that to which Mr. Scrivener has appUed
this term, but such a use of combined evidence
as was intended and defined by the critic by whom
the expression was (for convenience' sake) intro
duced: that is, the ascertainment that readings
are in ancient documents, or rest on ancient evi
dence (whether early citations, versions, or MSS.),
and then the examination of what documents con
tain such readings, and thus within what limits
the inquiry for the ancient text may be bounded.
Thus a document, in itself modern, may be proved
to be ancient in testimony : a version, previously un
known, may be shown to uphold a very early text.
For purposes of coraparative criticism early read
ings, known to be false, have often as definite a
value in the chain of proof as those which are true.
In the process of comparative criticism nothing is
assumed, but pouit after point is established by in
dependent testimony: and thus the character of the
text of MSS., of ancient versions, and of patristic
citations, is upheld by their accordance with facts
attested by other witnesses, of known age and cer
tain transmission.
It was reasonable to suppose with Griesbach that
the Syriac version must at one time have existed in
a form different frora that in the common printed
text : it was felt by Biblical scholars to be a mere
assumption that the name Peshito carried with it
lome hallowed prestige ; it was estabUshed that
was a groundless imagination that this version.

<» It is very certain that many who profess a peculiar
admiration for the Peshito do this rather from some
traditional notion than from minute personal acquaint-
ftDce. Tbey suppose that it has some prescriptive
right to the first rank amongst versions, *.h6y praise
ts excellences, which they have not personally in-
'estigated, and they do not care to know wherein it
h defective. Every error in translation, every doubt
ful reading, every supposed defect in the one known
MS. of the Curetonian Gospels, has been enumerated
by those who wish to depreciate that version, and to
detract from the critical merits of its discoverer and
•ditor. But raany of the supposed defects are really
the very opposite ; and if th?y similarly examined the
Peshito, they might find more feult with it and with

as edited, had been known from the earliest ages aa
the original monument of Syrian Christianity.
Hence if it could be shown that an earlier version
(or earUer basis of the same version) had existed,
there was not only no dpi'iori objection, but even
a demonstrated probability (almost certainty) that
this had been the case. When it is remembered
how little we know historicaUy of the Syriac ver
sions, it must be felt as an assumption that the
form of text common ft^m the fifth century and
onward was the original version. In 1348 TregeUes
(see Davidson's Introduction to • the Neio Test
vol. i. p. 429) suggested that "the Nitrian MSS.
when collated may exhibit perhaps an earlier text."
This waa written without any notion that it was
an ascertained fact that such a MS. of the Gospela
existed, and that the full attention ofa thorough
Syriac scholar had been devoted to its iUustration
and publication.
Among the MSS. brought from the Nitrian
raonasteries in 1842, Dr. Cureton noticed a copy
of the Gospels, differing greatly from the common
text: and this is the form of text, to which the
name of Curetonian Syriac has been rightly ap
plied. Every criterion which proves the common
Peshito not to exhibit a text of extreme antiquity,
equally proves the early origin of this. The discov
ery is in fact that of the object whicb was wanted,
the want of which had been previously ascertained.
Dr. Cureton considers tbat the MS. of the Gospela
is of the fifth century, a point in which aU com
petent judges are probably agreed. Some persons
indeed have sought to depreciate the text, to point
out its differences from the Peshito, to regard all
such variations as corruptions, and thus to stig
matize the Curetonian Syriac as a corrupt revision
of the Peshito, barbarous in language and false in
readings." This peremptory judgment is as reason
able as if the old Latin in the Codex Vercellensis
were called an ignorant revision of the version of
Jerome. The judgment that the Curetonian Syriac
is older than the Peshito is not the peculiar opinion
of Cureton, Alford,'' Tregelles, or Biblical scholars
of the school of ancient evidence in this country,
but it is also that of continental scholars, such as
Ewald, and apparently ofthe late Prof. Bleek.*'
The MS. contains Matt, i.-viii. 22, x. 31-xxiii.
25. Mark, the four last verses only. John i. 1-42,
iu. 6-vii. 37, xiv. 11-29 ; Luke ii. 48-iu. 16, vii.
33-xv. 21, xvii. 24-xxiv. 41. It would have been
a thing of much value if a perfect copy of this ver
sion had come down to us; but as it is, we have
reason greatly to value the discovery of Dr. Cureton,
which shows how truly those critics have argued
who concluded that such a version must have ex
isted ; and who regarded this as •-' proved fact, even
when not only no portion of the ¦, ersion was known

its translator. The last fourteen chapters of the book
of Acta, as they have come down to us in the Peshito,
present far more grounds for comment than an equal
portion of the Curetonian. The Peshito is a very
valuable version, although overpraised by some inju
dicious admirers, who (even if they have read it) have
never closely and verbally examined it. Many have
evidently never looked further than the Gospels, even
though aided by Schaaf s Latin interpretation.
t> " Perhaps the earliest and most important of aii
the versions." Alford's Gr. Test. Proleg. vol . i. p. 114,
ed. 4.
c See Bleek's Einleitung in das N. TeU. p 723,/flo(-
note.

8392

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (SYRIAC)

to be extant, but also when even the record of ita
existence was unnoticed. For there is a record
showing an acquaintance with this version, to which,
as well as to the version itself, attention has been
directed by Dr. Cui*eton. Bar SaUbi, bishop of
Amida in the 12th century, in a passage translated
by Dr. C. (in discussing the omission of three kings
in the genealogy in St. Matthew) says: " There is
found occasionaUy a Syriac copy, made out of the
Hebrew, which inserts these three kings in the
genealogy ; but that afterwards it speaks of four
teen and not of seventeen generations, because
fourteen generations has been substituted for seven
teen by the Hebrews on account of their holding
to the septenary number," etct*
It shows then that Bar SaUbi knew of a Syriac
text of the Gospels in which Ahaziah, Joash, and
Amaziah were inserted in Matt. i. 8 ; there is the
same reading in the Curetonian Syriac : but this
might have been a coincidence. But in ver. 17 the
Curetonian text has, in contradiction to ver. 8,
fourteen generations and not seventeen ; and so
had the copy mentioned by Bar Salibi: the former
point might be a mere coincidence; the latter, how
ever, shows such a kind of union in contradiction
as proves the identity very convincingly. Thus,
though this version was unknown in Europe prior
to its discovery by Dr. Cureton, it raust in the
12th century have been known as a text some
times found, and as mentioned by the Monophysite
bishop, it might be more in use amongst his co-
reUgionists than amongst others. Perhaps, as its
existence and use is thus recorded in the 12th cen
tury, sorae further discovery of Syriac MSS. may
furnish us with another copy so as to supply the
defects of the one happily recovered.
In examining the Curetonian text with the com
mon printed Peshito, we often find such identity
of phrase and rendering as to show that they are
not wholly independent translations: then, again,
we meet with such variety in the forms of words,
etc., as seems to indicate that in the Peshito the
phraseology had been revised and refined.^ But
the great (ifc mighfc be said characteristic) difference
between the Curetonian and the Peshito Gospels is
in their readings; for while the latter cannot in its
present state be deeraed an unchanged production
of the second century, the former bears all the
marks of extreme antiquity, even though in placea
it may have suffered frora the introduction of read
ings current in very early times.
The following are a few of the very many cases
in which the ancient reading is found in tbe Cure
tonian, and the later or transition reading in the
Peshito. For the general authmniies on the sub
ject of each passage, reference must be made to
the notes in critical editions of the Greek New
Test. Matt. xix. 17, Tl fie dpcoT^s Trepl tov ayadou'.
the ancient reading, as we find in the best authori
ties, and as we know from 'Origen ; so the Cure
tonian: tI fie Xeyeis ayad6v', the common text
with the Peshito. Matt. xx. 22, the clause of the
common text, Kal rh ^dTrricpa % iyta fiairTi^Ofiai
(and the corresponding part of the following verse)
are in the Peshito; while we know from Origen

a For tbe Syriac of this part of the passage from
Bar Salibi, £ee Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientatix, ii.
t60. b A collation of an ancient Syriac MS. of the Gospels
lUch, 7,157 in the British Museum) showed that the

that they were in his day a pecuUaiitj jf St. Mark
omitted in the Curetonian with the other best au
thorities. In facfc, except the Peshito and som«
revised Latin copies, there is no evidence at all
extant for these words prior to the fifth century.
Matt. V. 4, 5: here the ancient order of the beati
tudes, as supported by Origen, Tertullian, the
canons of Eusebius, and Hilary, is that of placing
fiaKdpioi oi irpaeis, k. t. \. before fiaxdpioi . oi
trevSovvTes, k. t. A. ; here the Curetonian agrees
with the distinct testimonies for this order against
the Peshito. In Matt. i. 18, we know from Irenaeus
that the name " Jegus " was not read; and thia is
confirmed by the^ Curetonian: in fact, the common
reading, however widely supported, could not have
originated until 'It^o-ow xp**'"'''^^ was treated as a
combiued proper name, otherwise the meaning of
TOU Se 'IijcoiJ XP^^'^°^ V y^veffts would nofc be
"the birth of Jesus Christ," but "the birth of
Jesus as the Christ." Here tbe Curetonian read
ing is in fuU accordance with what we know of the
second century in opposition to the Peshito. In
Matt. vi. 4 the Curetonian omits avr6s', in tbe
sarae ver. and in ver. 6 it omits 4v r^ tjiavep^* in
each case with the best authorities, but against the
Peshito. Matt. v. 44, has been amplified by copy
ists in any extraordinary manner: the words in
brackets show the amplifications, and the place
from wbich each was taken : e-ycti de \eym vfiiv,
'Ayaira.Te tovs ix^P'^^^ v/jlwv \_ev\oye7Te tovs
Karaptofievovs vfias, Luke vi. 28, Ka\as iroteire
TOVS fiiaovvras upas, ibid. 27], /col irpoaevx^trQe
uwep Ta>v \^eTrqpea.^6vT<av vfias /co), ^id. 35]
Si<t)K6vT(av vfias. The briefer form is attested by
Irenieus, Clement, Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius, etc. ;
and though the inserted words and clauses are
found in almost all Greek MSS- (except Codices
Vaticanus and Sinalticus), and in many versions
including the Peshito, ihey are not in the Curetonian
Syriac. Of a similar kind are Matt, xviii. 35, ri
irapaTTT^fiaTa avrwV, Luke viii. 54, ^K^aXuv cfaj
TrdvTas Kal; Luke ix. 7, u7r' avrov ', ix- 54, us Kal
'HXias iwolTja-ev : xi. 2, y€V7}9-f}rut rh 64K7}pd o-oh
&s iv oupav^ Ka\ eVi t^s yv^i ^^- ^» toD Trpo-
(fyfjTou; xi. 44, ypapfxareTs Kal <papiera.tot vrroKpi'
Tali John iv. 43, Kal air^XBev', v. 16, koI e^-firovt
avrhv airoKreTvai; vi. 51, ^v iylh dd>ffa>; vi. 69,
rod ^civros.
These are but a few samples of the variations
which exist between the Curetonian Syriac and the
Peshito as to the kind of text: the instance of
this might be increased almost indefinitely. Those
acquainted with critical results will know that some
of those here specified are crucial texts in points of
comparative criticism. Such a comparison not only
shows the antiquity of the text of the Curetonian
Syriac, but it also affords abundant proof that the
Peshito must have been modernized and revised.
The antiquity of the Curetonian text is also
shown by the occurrence of readings which were,
as we know, early current, even though rightly re
pudiated as erroneous : several of these are in the
Curetonian Syriac; it may suffice to refer to the
long addition after Matt. xx. 28.
The Curetonian Syriac presents such a text as
we might have concluded would be current in the

Syrians were in the habit of roforming th eir copies in
some respects. The grammatical forms, etc., of thii
MS. are much more ancient than those of the text of
Widmanstadt, who haa heen followed by succeOTiii
editors.

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (SYRIAC)

3393

«cond century ; the Peshito has many features
which couid not belong to that age; unless, indeed,
we are ready to reject established facts, and those
of a very numerous kind : probably, at least, two
thousand. It is not needful for very great attention to be
padd to the phraseology of the Curetonian Syriao in
order tosee that the Gospel of St. Matthew differs
in mode of expression and various other particulars
from what we find in the rest. This may lead us
again to look at the testimony of Bar Salibi; he
tells us, when speaking of this version of St. Mat
thew, " there is found occasionally a Syriac copy
made oui ofthe Hebrew : '' we thus know that the
opinion of the Syrians themselves in the 12th cen
tury was that this translation of St. Matthew was
not made frora the Greek, but from the Hebrew
original of the Evangelist: such, too, is the judg
ment of Dr. Cureton ; " this Gospel of St. Matthew
appears at least to be built upon the original Ara
maic text, which was the work of the Apostle him
self." {Preface to Syriac Gospels, p. vi.)
Dr. Cureton rightly draws attention to the pe
culiar title prefixed to the Gospel by St. Matthew,
,.jk2S)i ).j.;.2lk)» ^a*i>,;^oJ. Now
whatever be the meaning of the word dampharsho
here brought in — whether it signifies " the dis
tinct Gospel of Matthew," a« rendered by Cureton,
or "the Gospel of Matthew set forth^' [i. e. for
lessons throughout the ecclesiastical year], as Bern
stein advances, supporting his opinion by a passage
in Assemani (which can hardly here apply, as this
copy is not so "set forth"), or, if it means (as
some have objected), " the Gospel of Matthew ex-
pfomed" — still there must be some reason why
Vue first Gospel should be thus designated, and not
the others. But the use of the cognate Hebrew
verb in the Old Testament may aflford us some aid
as to what kind of explanation is meant, if indeed
that is the meaning of the term here used. In the
description of the reading of the law in Neh. viii. 8,
we are told, " So they read in the book of the law
distinctly (t2?"^-Q), and gave the sense, and caused
the people to understand the reading." The word
here used has been regarded by able scholars as
implying an interpretation from the ancient He
brew into the form of AramiEan then current. Such
a Mephorash, when written, would be the germ of
the Targum of after ages. (See below, p. 3396 a.)
The same word may be used in the heading of St.
Matthew's Gospel in the same sense — as being an
explanation from one Shemitic tongue or dialect
into another, just as St. Matthew's Gospel turned
from one form of Hebrew into pure Syriac would
be. But it may be asked, if St. Mattliew's Hebrew
(or Chaldaic) Gospel was before the translator, why
should he have done more than copy into Syriac
letters ? Why translate at all ? It is sufficient, in
reply, to refer to the Chaldaic portions of Daniel
»nd Ezra, and to the Syriac version made from
them. In varying dialects it sometimes happens
that the vocabulary in nse differs more than the
grammatical forms. The verbal identity may often
be striking even though accompanied with frequent
variation of terms.

« See Moses Aghelieus in Assemani, Biblioth. Orient.
.88. b Srettux to the Syria* edition of 2 Pet. etc.

We know from Jerome that the Hebrew St
Matthew had "inO where the Greek has iirioiaiov
We do Tioi find that word here, but we read foi
both eirtoiirtov and (rimepov at the end of the
verse, J-^Q-*? |.J_».:2S|^ " consinni! of the day."
This might have sprung from the interpretation,
" morrow by morrow," given to ~inZ2 ; and it may
be illustrated by Old Test, passages, e. g. Num. lv.
7, where T'Dj^H Dflb is rendered by l^^-**^
^f jLLAioJ. Those who think that if this Syriac
version had been made fr'om St. Matthew's He
brew, we ought to find "nriQ here, forget that a
translation is not a verbal transfusion.
We know from Eusebius that Hegesippus cited
from the Gospel according to the Heljrews, and
from the Syriac. Now in a fragment of Hegesip
pus (Routh, i. 219), there is the quotation, imko.-
pioi ol btpdaXfiol Ufj.o:v ol S^ew^rres Kal to Sra
i/jiSii' T^ aaoiovTa, words which might be a Greek
rendering from Matt. xiii. 16, as it stands in this
Syriac Gospel as we have it, or probably also in the
Hebrew work of the Apostle himself. Every notice
of the kind is important; and Dr. Cureton, in
pointing it out, has furnished students with one of
the varied data through which a right conclusion
may be reached.
Every successive investigation, on the part of
competent scholars, ¦ aids in the proof that the
Curetonian Gospels are an older form than those in
the Peshito ; that the Peshito is a revision replete
with readings unknown in the 2d century (and
often long after) ; and tbat the Curetonian text
possesses the highest critical as well as historical
value. The more the evidence, direct and indirect, is
weighed, the more established it appears will be
the judgment that the Curetonian Syriac of St.
Matthew's Gospel was translated from the Apostle's
Hebrew (Syro-Chaldaic) original, although injured
since by copyists or revisers.
B. The Philoxenian Syi'iac Version, and iis
Revision by Thomas of Harkel. — Philoxenus, or
Xenaias, Bp. of Hierapolis or Mabug at the be
ginning of the Gth century (who was one of those
Monophysites who subscribed the Henoiicon of the
Emperor Zeno), caused Polycarp, his Chorepiscopus,
to make a new translation of the New Test, into
Syriac. This was executed in A. d. 508, and it is
generally termed Philoxenian from its promoter."
This version has not been transmitted to us in
the form in which it was first made; we cnly pos
sess a revision of it, executed by Thomas of Harkel
in the following century (The Gospels, A. D. 616).
Pococke, in 1630,'* gives an extract from Bar Salibi,
in which the version of Thomas of Harkel is men
tioned; and though Pococke did not know what
version Thomas had raade, he speaks of a Syriac
translation of the Gospels communicated to him by
some learned man whom he does not name, which
from its servile adherence to the Greek was no
doubt the Harklean text. In the Bibliotheca Ori-
enialis of Assemani there were further notices of
the work of Thomas ; and in 1730 Samuel Palmer
sent from the ancient Amida (now Diarbekr) Syriac
MSS. to Dr. Gloucester Ridley, in which the ver
sion is contained. Thus he had two copies of tho
Gospels, and one of all the rest nf the New Test.
except the end of the Epistle to the Hebrews, imd

3394

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (SYRIAO)

the Apocalypse. No other MSS. appear to have
yet come to Ught which contain any of this version
beyond the Gospels. From the subscriptions we
learn that the text was revised by Thomas with
three (some copies say two) Greek MSS. One
Greek copy is similarly mentioned at the close of
the catholic epistles.
Ridley pubUshed, in 1761, an account of the
MSS. in his possession, and a notice of this version.
He had intended to have edited the text: this was
however done by White, at different times frora
1778 to 1803. After the publication of the Gospels,
the researches of Adler brought more copies into
notice of that part of the Harklean text. From
one of the MSS. in the Vatican, St. John's Gospel
was edited by Bernstein in 1851. It will be noticed
that this version differs from the Peshito, in con
taining aU the seven catholic epistles.
In describing this version as it has come down to
us, the text is the first thing to be considered. This
U characterized by extreme literahty: the Syriac
idiom is constantly bent to suit the Greek, and
everything is in some manner expressed in the
Greek phrase and order. It is difficult to imagine
that it could have been intended for ecclesiastical
reading. It is not independent of the Peshito, the
words, etc., of which are often employed. As to
the kind of Greek text that it represents, it is just
what might have been expected in the 6th century.
The work of Thomas in the text itself is seen in the
introduction of obeli, by which passages which
he rejected were condemned; and oi asterisks, with
which his insertions were distinguished. His model
in all this was the Hexaplar Greek text. The
MSS. which were used by Thomas were of a differ
ent kind from those employed in making the ver
sion; they represented in general a much older and
purer text. The margin of the Harklean recension
contains (Uke the Hexaplar text of the LXX.) read
ings, mostly apparently from the Greek MSS. used.
It has been questioned whether these readings are
not a comparison with the Peshito ; if any of them
are ao, they have probably been introduced since
the time of Thomas. It is probable that the Phi
loxenian version was very literal, but that the slav
ish adaptation to the Greek is the work of Thomas;
and that his text thus bore about the same relation
to that of PhUoxenus as the Latin Bible of Arias
Montanus does to that of his predecessor Pagninus.
For textual criticism this version is a good author
ity as to the text of its own time, at least where it
does not merely follow the Peshito. The amplifi
cations in the margin of the book of Acts bring a
MS. used by Thomas into close comparison with
fche Codex Bezae. One of the MSS. of the Gospels
sent to Ridley contains the Harklean text, with
some revision by Bar Salibi.
C. Syriac Versions qf Po7'tions wanting in the

a The Rev. B. Harris Cowper has courteously com
municated the following notice relative to the Syriac
Apocalypse in MSS. in the British Museum: "The
MS. No. 7,185 of the 14th century does not contain the
actual text of the Apocalypse, but a brief commentary
upon it — upon paper, and not quite perfect ; the text
Beeming to be that of our printed books. The text of
the Apocalypse is apparently all found in No. 17,127,
a commentary upon the book of the llth century.
This also seems to be of the same text as the printed
edition." b De Dieu says tbat this Syriao MS. contained
"omnia N. T. Syriaci, quae in prioribus deerant edi-
tlonibue." Does thia mean tbat tt merely contained

Peshito. — I. The second Epistle of Peter, the sec
ond and third of John, and that of Jude. The fact
has been already noticed, that the Old Syriac Ver
sion did not contain thrae epistles. They were
published by Pococke in 1630, from a MS. iu the
Bodleian. The version of these epistles so often
agrees with what we have in the Harklean recen
sion, that the one is at least dependent on the other.
The suggestion of Dr. Davidson (Biblical CHtidsm,
ii. 196), that the text of Pococke is that of Philox
enus before it was revised by Thomas, seems most
probable. But if it is objected, that the translatiob
does not show as great a knowledge of Greek as
might have been expected in the translation of
the- rest of the Philoxenian, it must be remembered
that here he had not the Peshito to aid him. In
the Paris Polyglott these epistles were added to the
Peshito, with which they have since been commonly
printed, although they have not the slightest rela
tion to that version.
II. The Ajjocalypse. — In 1627 De Dieu edited
a Syriac version of the Apocalypse, from a MS. in
the Leyden Library, written by one " Caspar from
the land of the Indians," who lived in the latter
part of the 16th century. A MS. at Florence, also
written by this Caspar, has a subscription stating
that it was copied in 1582 from a MS. in the writ
ing of Thomas of Harkel, in a. d. 622. If this is
coiTect it shows that Thomas by himself would
have been but a poor translator of the N. T. But
the subscription seems to be of doubtful authority;
and until the Rev. B. Harris Cowper drew atten
tion to a more ancient copy of the version, we
might weU be somewhat uncei-tain if this were reaUy
an ancient work." It is of small critic^ value, and
the MS. from which it was edited is incorrectly
written. It was in the MS. which Archbishop
Ussher sent as a present to De Dieu in 1631, in
which the whole of the Syriac N. T. is said to have
been contained (of what version is unknown), that
having been the only complete MS. of the kind
described;'' and of this MS., in comparison with
the text of the Apocalypse printed by De Dieu,
Ussher says, " the Syriac lately set out at Leyden
may be amended by my MS- copy '" (Todd's Wal
ton, i. 196, note). This book from tbe Paris Poly
glott and onward, has been added to the Peshito
In this translation. Some ha\'e erroneously called
this Syriac Apocalyse the Philoxenian, a name to
which it has no title : the error seems to have ori^-
nated from a verbal mistake in. an old advertise
ment of Greenfield's edition (for which he was not
responsible), which said " the Apocalypse and th(j
Epistles not found in the Peshito, are given from
the Philoxenian version."
III. The Syriac Version of John viii. 1-11. —
From the MS. sent by Archbishop Ussher to Di
Dieu, the latter published this section in 1631

what was previously wanting, or the whole, including
such parts ? It seems strange if this section of St.
John stood in it alone. This makes it seem as if the
interpretation given above were the true one. Ussher'B
own descriptiou is this : " 1 have received the parcels
of the N. Test, [in Syriac] which hitherto we have
wanted in that language, namely, the history of the
adulterous woman, the 2d Epistle of Peter, the 2d and
8d Epi^itles of St. John, the Epistle of Jnde, and the
Revelation ; as also a sraall tractate of Ephrem Syrui
in his own language." Archbishop Ussher to Dr
Samuel Ward, June 23, 1626 (Todd's Life of WaUon_
i. 194).

VBESIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)

339c

From De Dieu it was inserted in the London Poly
glott, with a reference to Ussher's MS., and hence
it has passed with the other editions of the Peshito,
where it is a mere interpolation.
A copy of the same veraion (essentially) is found
in Ridley's Codex Barsalibm, where it is attributed
to Maras, A. D. 622 : Adler found it also in a Paris
MS. ascribed to Abbas Mar Paul.
Bar Salibi cites a different version, out of Maras,
Bishop of Amida, through the chronicle of Zach
arias of Melitina. See Assemani (Biblioth. Orient.
ii. 53, 170), who gives the introductory words.
Probably the version edited is that of Paul (as
stated in the Paris MS.) and that of Maras the
(me cited by Bar SaUbi; while in Ridley's MS. the
two are confounded. The Paul mentioned is ap
parently Paul of Tela, the translator of the Hexa
plar Greek text into Syriac.
D. The Jekusalk.ii Syriac Lection aky. —
The MS. in the Vatican containing this version
waa pretty fully described by S. E. Assemani in
1756, in the Catalogue of the MSS. belonging to
that Library ; but so few copies of that work es
caped destruction by fire, that it was virtually un-
pubUshed, and its contents almost unknown. Adler,
who at Copenhagen had the advantage of studying
one of the few copies of this Catalogue, drew public
attention to this peculiar document in his Kurze
UebersicM seiner biilischkritischen Reise nach
Rom, pp. 118-127 (Altona, 1783), and still further,
in 1789, in his valuable examination of the Syriac
versions. The MS. was written in a. d. 1030, in
pecuhar Syriac writing; the portions are of coui-se
those for the different festivals, some parts of the
Gospels not being there at all. The dialect is not
common Syriac ; it was termed the Jerusalem
Syriac, from its being supposed to resemble the
¦Terusalem Talmud in language and other points.
The grammar is peculiar; the forms almost Chal
dee rather than Syriac ; two characters are used for
expressing F and P.
For critical purposes this Lectionary has a far
higher value than it has for any other: its readings
often coincide with the oldest and best authorities.
It is not yet known as to its entire text ; for except
a small specimen, no part has been printed; Adler,
however, selected large numbers of readings, which
have been commonly used by critics from that time
and onward. In Adler's opinion its date as a ver
sion wonld be from the 4th to the 6th century;
but it can hardly be supposed that it is of so early
an age, or that any Syrians then could have used
80 corrupt a dialect. It may rather be supposed
to be a translation made from a Greek Lectionary,
never having existed as a substantive translation :
to what age its execution should be assigned seems
wholly uncertain. (A further account of the MS.
of this version, drawn up from a comparison of
Assemani's description in the Vatican Catalogue,
and that of Adler, with the MS. itself in the
Vatican Library, made by the present writer, is
given in Home's lnt«-od. iv. 284-287, where, how
ever, "Jerusalem Targum" twice stands for Tal
mud.) It appears, from the statement of Dr. Ceriani of
Milan, that Count Marescalchi [Miniscalchi] has
met with a MS. of this Lectionary, and that he
has long had the intention of publishing it. [It
was published at Verona in 1861-64 by Count
Miniscalchi-Erizzo, in 2 vols. 4to, the firat contain
ing the text, with a Latin translation; the second
prolegomena and glossary. According to Davidson

(art. Syriac Versions in Kitto's Cycl. of Bibl
Lit., 3d ed.) the prolegomena are disappohiting. —
A.] On Hie Syriac Versions. — Adler, N. T. Ver-
siones Syriacm, Simplex, Philoxeniana et Hiero-
solymitana denuo examinntce, 1789 ; Wiseman,
Horce Syinacce, 1827 ; Kidley, De SyHacarum N.
Foederis versionum indole atque usu, etc., 1761;
Winer, Commentailo de versionis N. T. Syriacos
usu criiico caute instituendo, 1823; Wichelhaus,
De Novi Test, versione Syriaca antigua quam
Peschitho vacant, 1850; Bernstein, De Charklensi
N. T, iranslatione SyHaca commeniatio, 1857;
Oureton, Aniient Recensicn of the Syriac GospeU
(Preface, etc.), 1858. S. P. T.
TARGUM (D?in"!J?, from Q^nn ; Arab.
aj^Y^*, to translate, explain); a Chaldee word
of uncertain origin, variously derived from the
roots D2"l, Dp") (comp. Arab. lJ*^')> (*^*V
etc.), and even identified with the Greek rpdyrifia,
dessert (Fr. dragees), (trop. rpayfifxara, rS>v
\6ycov, Dion. Hal. Ehei. 10, 18), which occurs
often in the Talmud as SD*^:!")^ ''D^'Q, or
SQ'*3in (" such as dates, almonds, nuts," etc.
Pes. 119 b): the general term for the CHAL
DEE, or, more accurately ARAMAIC VERSIONS
of the Old Testament.
The injunction to "' read the Book of the Law
before all Israel .... the men, and women, and
children, and the strangers," on the Feast of Tab
ernacles of every Sabbatical year, as a means of
solemn instruction and edification, is first found in
Deut. xxxi. 10-13. How far the ordinance was
observed in early times we have no means of judg
ing. It would appear, however, that such readings
did take place in the da3's of Jeremiah. Certain it
is tbat among the first acts undertaken by Ezra
towards the restoration of the primitive religion
and pubhc worship is reported his reading " before
the congregation, both of men and women " of the
returned exiles, " in the Book in the Law of God "
(Neh. viii. 2, 8). Aided by those men of learning
and eminence with whom, according to tradition,
he founded that most important religious and polit
ical body called the Great Synagogue, or Men of
the Great Assembly (nb^^H HDD^ '^tt?3W,
536-167), he appears to have succeeded in so firmly
establishing regular and frequent public readings
in the Sacred Records, that later authorities almost
unanimously trace this hallowed custom to times
immemorial — nay to the time of Moses himself.
Such is the statement of Josephus (c. Ap. ii. 17);
and we read in the Acts, xv. 21, " For Moses of old
time hath in every city thera that preach hira,
being read in the synagogue every sabbath-day."
So also Jer. Meg. i. 1: "Ezra has instituted for
Israel that the maledictions in the Pentateuch
should also be read in pubhc," etc. Further, Meg.
31 b, " Ezra instituted ten things, namely, that
there should be readings in the Law also in the
afternoon service of Sabbath, on the Monday, and
on the Thursday, etc  But was not thia
instituted before in the desert, as we find * they
went for three days and found no water ' {water
meaning the Law, as Is. lv. 1 is fancifully explained
by the Haggada), until the ' prophets am(»ng them *
arranged the three weekly readings? But Ezra

3396

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUMS

•nly reinstituted them," comp. also B. Kama, 82
a, ete. To these ancient readings in the Penta^
teuch were added, in the course of time, readings
in the prophets (in some Babylonian cities even in
the Hagiographa), which were called ni"ltSDn,
Haftaroth ; but when and how these were intro
duced is still matter of speculation. Former in^'es-
?jgators (Abudraham, Elias levita, Vitringa, etc.)
almost unanimously trace their origin to the
Syrian persecutions, during which all attention to
the Law was strictly prohibited, and even all the
copies of it that were found were ruthlessly de
stroyed; so that, as a substitute for the Penta-
teuchical Parasha, a somewhat corresponding por
tion of the Prophets was read in the synagogue,
and the custom, once introduced, remained fixed.
Recent scholars on the other hand, without much
show of reason, as it would appear, variously hold
the Hafiarah to have sprung from the sermon or
homiletic exercise which accompanied the reading
in the Pentateuch, and took its exordiuni (as Haf-
tarah, hy an extraordinary linguistic stretch, is
expldned by Frankel) from a prophetic passage,
adapted in a manner to the Mosaic text under con
sideration; or, agahi, they imagine the Hafiarah
to have taken its rise spontaneously during the
exile itself, and that Ezra retained and enforced it
in Palestine.
If, however, the primitive religion was reestab
lished, together with the second Temple, in more
than its former vigor, thus enabling the small
number of the returned exiles — and these, accord
ing to tradition, the lowest of the low, the poor in
wealth, in knowledge, and in ancestry," the very
outcasts and refuse of tbe nation as it were^ — to
found upon the ruins of Zion one of the most
important and lasting spiritual commonwealths
that has ever been known, there was yet one thing
which neither authority nor piety, neither academy
nor synagogue, could restore to its original power
and glory- — the Hebrew language. Ere long it
was found necessary to translate the national books,
in order that the nation from whose midst they
had sprung might be able to understand them.
And if for the Alexandrine, or rather the whole
body of HeUenistic Jews, Greek translations had
to be composed, those who dwelt on the hallowed
soil of their forefathers had to receive the Sacred
Word through an Aramaic medium. The word
ti?*nDD, Mephorash, " explanatory," *' clearly,"
or, as the A. V. has it, "distinctly," used in the
above-quoted passage of Neh. viii. 8, is in the Tal
mud explained by " Targum." ^ Thus to Ezra
himself is traced the custom of adding translations
in the then popular idiom — the Aramaic — to the
periodical readings (Jer. Meg. 28 b; J. Ned. iv.,
Bab. Ned. i.; Maim. Hilch. Teph. xii. § 10, etc.),

a " Ten kinds of families went up from Babylon :
J?rlestB, Levites, Israelites, profaned ("^ /**^n, those
whose fathers are priests, but whose mothers are not
At for priestly marriage); proselytes, fireedmen, bas
tards (or rather those bom in illegal wedlock) ; Ne
thinim (lowest menials of the Temple) ; "^pliHU?
(' about whose lineage there is silence,* — of unknown
Whers) ; and ^'DIDM, ' foundlings, of unknown
fother and mother ' " (Kidd. 4, 1)
6 " Ezra, on leaving Sabylon, made it like unto
xmxe flour " H^'^'p^ nblDD* (ih.).

for which he is also reported to have fixed the
Sabbaths, the Mondays and Thursdays — the two
latter the market and law-days, when the villagera
came to town — of every week (Jer. Meg. i. 1 ;
Baba Kama, 82 a). The gradual decay of the
pure Hebrew vernacular, among the multitude at
least, may be accounted for in many ways. The
Midrash very strikingly points out, among the
characteristics of the long sojourn of Israel in
Egypt, that they neither changed their language,
nor their names, nor the shape of their garments,
during all that time. The bulk of their com
munity—shut up, as it were, in the small province
of Goshen, almost exclusively reduced to inter
course with their own race and tribes, devoted only
to the pasture of their fiocks, and perhaps to the
tilhng of- their soil — were in a condition infinitely
more favorable for the retention of all the signs and
tokens of tiieir nationality than were the Babylo
nian captives. Tbe latter, scattered up and down
the vast empire, seem to have enjoyed everywhere
full hberty of intercommunication with the natives
— very similar in many respects to themselves —
to have been utterly unrestrained in the exercise
of every profession and trade, and even to have
risen to the highest offices of state; and thus,
during the comparatively short space, they struck
root so firmly in the land of their exile, that when
opportunity served, tbey were, on the whole, loth
to return to the Land of Promise. What more
natural than that the immigrants under Zerubba
bel, and still more those who came with Ezra —
several generations of whose ancestors had been
settled in Babel — should have brought back with
them the Aramaic, if not as their vernacular, at all
events as an idiom with which they were perfectly
familiar, and which they may partly have con
tinued to use as their colloquial language in Pales
tine, as, in fact, they had had to use it in Babylon?
Continuous later immigrations from the " Cap
tivity " did not fail to reinforce and further to
spread the use of the same tongue. All the de
crees and official communications addressed to the
Jews by their Persian masters were in Aramaic
(Ezr. Neh. passim), Judsea being considered only
as part of the SjTian satrapy. Nor must it be
forgotten that the old colonists in Palestine (2 K.
xvii. 24) were Samaritans, who had come from
"Aram and Babel," and who spoke Chaldee; that
intermarriages with women from Ashdod, Ammon,
and Moab had been common (Neh. xiii. 23); that
Phoenicia, whose merchants (Tyrians, Neh. xiii. 16)
appear to have settled in Palestine, and to have
established commercial i-elations with Judsea and
Galilee, contains large elements of Chaldee in its
own idiom. Thus it came to pass that we find in
the book of Daniel, for instance, a somewhat forced
Hebrew, from whieh, as it would seem, the author

« " * And they read in the book of the I-aw of God
clearly (t£7*TlDD), and gave the understanding, so
that they understood the reading : ' — 'in the book
of the liaw ' — this is Mikra, the original reading in
the Pentateuch j ' tZ^mSD, cleariy ' — this is Tar
gum " (Meg. 3 a; Ned. 37 b). To this tradition also
might be referred the otherwise rather enigmatical
passage (Sanh. 21 6) : "Originally," says Mar Sutra,
" the Law was given to Israel in Ibri writing and the
holy (Hebrew) language. It was again given to them
in the days of Ezra in the Ashurith writing and th«
Aramaic language," etc.

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)

3397

gladly lapses into the more familiar Aramaic (comp.
ii. 4, etc.); that oracles were received by the high-
priests Johanan « and Simon the Just b in the Holy
of HoUes (during the Syrian wars) in Aramaic
(Sotah, 33, a) ; and that, in short, some time
before the Hasmonean period, this was the lan
guage in which were couched not only popular
sayings, proverbs, and the Uke (tOVm ^ti?Q,
Beresh. R. 107 d; Tanch. 17 a; Midr. TehiU. 23
d; 51/, etc., etc.), but official and legal documents
(Mishna Ketub. 4, 8; Toaeftah Sabb. c. 8; Edu-
ioth, 8, 4, — c. 130 b. c), even certain prayers ^
— of Babylonian origin probably — and in which
books destined for the great mass of the people
were written.'' That, indeed, the Hebrew Lan
guage — the "language of Kenaan" (Is. xix. 18),
or " Jehudith" (2 K. xviii. 26, 28; Is. xxxvi. 11)
of the Bible — became more and more the lan
guage of the few, the learned, the Holy Language,
Wipn ]W\ or, still more exactly, )Wh
MU:?"T*lp n^3, " Language of the Temple," set
aside almost exclusively for the holy service of relig
ion: be it tbe Divine Law and the works in which
this was contained (like the Mishna, the Boraithot,
Mechilta, Sifri, Sifra, the older Midrashim, and
very many portions of the Talmud), or the corre
spondence between the diffiirent academies (witness
the Hebrew letter sent from Jerusalem to Alex
andria about 100 B. c, Chag. Jer. ii. 2), or be
it the sacred worship itself in Temple and syna
gogue, which was almost entirely carried on in pure
Hebrew. If the common people thus gradually had lost all
knowledge of the tongue in which were written the
books to be read to them, it naturally followed (in
order " that they might understand them ") that
recourse must be had to a translation into the idiom
with which they were famiUar — the Aramaic.
That further, since a bare translation could not in
aU cases suffice, it was necessary to add to the trans
lation an explanation, more particularly of the more
difficult and obscure passages. Both ti-anslation
and explanation were designated by the term Tar
gum. In the course of time there sprang up a
guUd, whose special office it was to act as inter
preters in both senses (Mciurgeman «), while for
merly the learned alone volunteered their services.
These interpreters were subjected to certain bonds
and regulations as to the form and substance of
their renderings. Thus (corap. Mishna Meg. pas
sim; Mass. Sofer. xi. 1; Maimon. Hilch. TephiU,
12, § 11 ffi ; Orach Chaj. 145, 1, 2), " neither the
reader nor the interpreter are to raise their voices
one above theother; " " they have to wait for each

a " The youths who went to combat at Antiochia
have been victorious."
& " Perished has the army which the enemy thought
to lead against the Temple."
c Introduction to the Haggadah for the Pesach
(M^nb MnD) : "Such was the bread of misery
which our fiifchers ate in the land of Mizrajim. Who
ever is needy, he come and eat with us ; whoever is
in want, he come and celebrate the Pesach. This
year here, next year in the land of Israel ; thia year
slaves, next year free men." The Kaddish, to which
ifterwards a certain signification as a prayer for the
dead was given , and which begins as follows: "Let
there be magnified and sanctified the Great Name in
the world which He has created according to His
will, and which He rules as His kingdom, during your

other until each have finished his verse; " "the
Meturgeman is not to lean against a pillar or a
beam, but to stand with fear and with reverence; '"
" he is not io use a tvriiten Targum, but he is to
deliver his translation i«ua voce^' — lest it might
appear that he was reading out of the Torah itself,
and thus the Scriptures be held responsible for
y/hat a,ve his own dicta.; "no more than one verse
in the Pentateuch, and three in the Prophets [a
greater license is given for the book of Esther]
shall be read and translated at a time;" "that
there should be not more than one reader and one
interpreter for the Law, while for the Prophets one
reader and one interpreter, or two interpreters, are
allowed," etc. (comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 21 ff,; xii. 30; 27,
28). Again (Mishna Meg. and Tosiftah, ad lo-j.),
certain passages liable to give offense to the multi
tude are specified, which may be read in the syna
gogue and translated ; others, which may be read
but not translated ; others, again, which may
neither be read nor translated. To the first class ^
belong the account of the Creation — a subject not
to be discussed publicly, on account of its most
vital bearing upon the relation between the Creator
and the Kosmos, and the nature of both : the deed
of Lot and his two daughters (Gen. xix. 31); of
Judah and Tamar (Gen. xxxriU.) ; the first account
ofthe making of the golden calf (Ex. xxxu.); all
the curses in the Law; the deed of Amnon and
Tamar (2 Sam. xiii.); of Absalom with his father's
concubines (2 Sam. xvi. 22); the story of the
woman of Gibeah (Judg. xix.). These are to be
read and translated — being mostly deeds which
carried their own punishments with them. To be
read but not translated are o the deed of Reuben
with his father's concubine (Gen. xxxv. 22); the
latter portion of the story of the golden calf (Ex.
xxxii.); the benediction of the priests (on account
of its awful nature). And neither to be read
nor translated are the deed of David and Bath
sheba (2 Sam. xi. and xii.), and according to one
the story of Aranon and Tamar (2 Sam. xiii.).
(Both the latter stories, however, are, in Mishna
Meg. iv. 10, enumerated among those of the sec
ond class, which are to be read but not translated.)
Altogether these Meturgemanim do not seem to
have been held generally in very high respect; one
of the reasons being probably that they were paid
(two Selaim at one time, according to Midr. R.
Gen. 98), and thus made (what P. Aboth speciaUy
inveighs against) the Torah " a spade to dig with
it." '* No sign of blessing," it was said, moreover,
" could rest upon the profit they made by therr
calUng, since it was money earned on the Sabbath '*
( Pes. 4 b). Persons unfit to be readers, as those
life and your days, and the life of the whole house of
Israel, speedily and in a near time, and say ye
' Amen : Be the Greafc Name praised for ever an*i
evermore,' " etc.
d Megillath Taanith, etc.
« ¦jmnina, pniin, w^'^nnnin (at.
, 5^4.^. yj ; Arm. SargmaniH ; Ital. Turdmanno ,

^f'

Fi. Truchement ; Engl. Dragoman, ete.)

[( tt «i it
/Comprised in the mnemonic fonnula, ^pS n73

ilt'ib'i (Meg. 25 a).
(t tr n a
9 p3:?-|, iMd.

3398

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)

whose slothes were so tom and ragged that their
limbs became risible througli the rents (HmQ),
their appearance thus not corresponding to the rev
erence due to the Sacred Word itself, or bluid men,
were adraitted to the office of a Meturgeman ; and,
apart ftom there not being the slightest authority
attached to their interpretations, they were liable
to be stopped and silenced, publicly and ignomin-
iously, whenever they seemed to overstep the bounds
of discretion. At what time the regulation that
thsy should not be under fifty years of age (in odd
reference to the " men of fifty," Is. iii. 2, men
tioned in Juchas. 44, 2) came into use, we are not
able to decide. The Mishna certainly speaks even
of a minor (under thirteen years) as being allowed
both to read and to act as a Meturgeman (corap.
Mishna Meg. passim). Altogether they appear to
have borne the character of empty-headed, bom
bastic fools. Thus Midr. Kob. has to Eccl. vii. 5 :
" ' It is better to hear the rebuite pf the wise: ' —
these are the preachers (Darshanim) — ' than for
a man to hear the song of fools : ' — these are the
Meturgemanim, who raise their voices in sing-song,
(T'ti^3, or with empty fancies) : — 'that the people
may hear.' " And to ix. 17 : " ' The words of
wise men are heard in quiet ' — these are the
preachers (Darshanim) — 'more than the cry of
him that ruleth among fools ' — these are the
Meturgemanim who stand above the congregation."
And though both passages may refer more especially
to those Meturgemanim (Eraoras, speakers, ex
pounders) who at a later period stood by the side
of tbe Chacham, or president of the Academy, the
preacher tear elox^y (himself seated on a raised
dais), and repeated with a loud voice, and enlarged
upon what the latter had whispered into their ear
in Hebrew {Pi'^I^V 'i^wb lb tCmV DSH,
comp. Matt. x. 27, " What ye hear in the ear, that
preach ye upon the housetops"), yet there is an
abundance of instances to show that the Meturge
man at the side of the reader was exposed to re
bukes of a nature, and is spoken of in a manner,
not likely to be eraployed towards any but men
low in the social scale.
A fair notion of what was considered a proper
Targum may be gathered from the maxim pre
served in the Talmud (Kidd. 49 a); " Whosoever
translates [as Meturgeman] a verse in its closely
exact form [without proper regard to its real mean
ing] is a liar, and whosoever adds to it is impious
and a blasphemer, e. g., the literal rendering into
Chaldee of the verse, ' They saw the God of Israel '
(Ex. xxiv. 10), is as wrong a translation as ' They
saw the angel of God ; ' the proper rendering being,
' They saw the glory of the God of Israel.' "
[Comp. Samar. Pent. p. 2812 4.] Other in
stances are found in the Mishna (Meg. iv. 8);
" Whosoever renders the text (Lev. xviii. 21) ' And
thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the
fire to Molech,' by ' Thou shalt not give thy seed
to be carried over to heathenism (or to an Aramite
woman) ' [i. e. as the Gemara, ad loc; Jer. Sanh.
9, and Sifri on Deut. xviii. 10, explain it, one who
marries an Aramaic woman ; for although she may
become a proselyte, she is yet sure to bear enemies

« As, accoriiing to Frankel, the LXX. was only a
partial translation at first. Witness the confusion in
the last chapters of Exodus, which, as mere repetitions

to him and to God, since the mother will in the
end carry his children over to idolatrous worship]
as also he who enlarges upon (or figuratively ex
plains) the sections relative to incest (Lev. xviii.) 
he shall forthwith be silenced and publicly rebuked."
Again (comp. Jer. Ber. v. 1; Meg. iv. 10), "Those
who translate ' O my people, children of Israel as
I am merciful in heaven, so shall ye be merciful
on earth ; ' — ' Cow or ewe, it and her young ye
shall not kill iu one day' (r.«v. xxii. 28)  they
do not well, for they represent the Laws of God
[whose reasons no man dare try to fathom] as mere
axioms of mercy;" and, it is added, "the short
sighted and the frivolous will say, ' Lo I toa bird's-
nest He extends his mercy, but not to yonder mis
erable man . . .' "
The same causes which, in the course of time,
led to the writmg down — after many centuries of
oral transmission — of the whole body of the TVa-
ditional Law, the very name of which (min
ns 75?3££7, " oral law," in contradistinction to
3n33t27 min, or " written law ") seemed to
imply that it should never become a fixed, im
mutable code, engendered also, and about the same
period, as it would appear, written Targums; for
certain portions of the Bible, at least."
- The fear of the adulterations and mutilations
which the Divine Word — amid the troubles within
and without the commonwealth — must undergo
at the hands of incompetent or impious expoiients,
broke through the rule, that the Targum should
only be o?-al, lest it might acquire undue authority
(comp. Mishna Meg. iv. 5, 10; Tosifta, ibid. 3;
Jer. Meg. 4, 1; Bab. Meg. 24 a; Sota, 39 6).
Thus, if a Targum of Job is mentioned (Sab. 115 a;
Tr. Soferim, 5, 15; Tosifta Sab. c. 14; Jer. Sabb.
16, 1) as having been highly disapproved by Ga
maliel the Elder (middle of first century, A. D.), who
caused it to be hidden and buried out of sight; we
find, on the other hand, at the end of the second
century, the practice of reading the Targura gen
erally commended, and somewhat later Jehoshua
ben Levi enjoins it as a special duty upon his sons.
The Mishna even contains regulations about the
manner (Jad. iv. 5) in which the Targum is to be
written. But even in their written, and, as we may
presume, authoritiitively approved forra, the Tar
guras were of comparatively small weight, and of
no canonical value whatsoever. The Sabbath waa
not to be broken for their sake as it was lawful U>
do for the Scripture in the original Hebrew (Sab.
115 a). The Targum does not defile the hands
(for the purpose of touching consecrated food) as
do the Chaldee portions of Ezra and Nehemiah
(Yad. iv. 5).
The gradual growth of the Code of the written
Targum, such as now -embraces almost the whole
of the 0. T., and contains, we may presume, but
few snatches of the primitive Targums, is shi-oudeu
in deep obscurity. We shall not fail to indicata
the opinions arrived at as to the date and author
ship of the individual versions in their due places;
but we must warn the reader beforehand, that no
positive results have been attained as yet, save that
nearly all ihe names and dates hitherto commoid/y

(of chaps, xxv. and xxix.), were originally left untranfr
lated. Saadia in a similar manner uses the formaiai
\iXjiyS or ^^Xji^ iKAjO in repetitions.

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)

3399

tJtUichtd to them must he rejected,. And we fear
that, as long at least as the Targum shares the
bte of the LXX., the Samaritan Pentateuch, the
Midi-ash, the Talmud, etc. : namely, that a really
critical edition remains a thing occasionally dreamt
of, but never attempted,— so long must we abandon
the hope of getting any nearer a final solution of
this and many other still more important questions.
The utter corruption, moreover, of the Targum,
bitterly complained of already by Elias Levita
(an author, be it observed, of very moderate at
tainments, but absurdly overrated by certain of his
contemporaries, and by those who copied his usually
shallow dicta without previous examination), de
bars us from more than half its use. And yet how
fertile its study could be made; what light it might
be made capable of throwing upon the Bible itself,
upon the history of the earliest development of
Biblical studies, versions, and upon the Midrash —
both the Halacbah and Haggadah — snatches of
which, in their, as it were, Uquid stages, lie em
bedded in the Targums : all this we need not urge
here at length.
Before, however, entering into a more detailed
account, we must first dwell for a short time on
the Mich'ask " itself, of which the Targum forms
part. The centre of all mental activity^ and religious
action among the Jewish community, after the re
turn from Babylon, was the Scriptural Canon col
lected by the Soferim, or men of the Great Syn
agogue. These formed the chief authority on the
civil and reUgious law, and theu: authority was the
Pentateuch. Their office as expounders and com
mentators of the Sacred Records was twofold.
They had, firstly, to explain the exact meaning of
such prohibitions and ordinances contained in the
Mosaic Books as seeraed not explicit enough for
the multitude, and the precise application of which
in former days had been forgotten during the Cap
tivity. Thus, e. g., general terms, like the " work "
forbidden on the Sabbath, were by them specified
and particularized; not indeed according to their
own arbitrary and individual views, but according
to tradition traced back to Sinai itself. Secondly,
laws neither specially contained nor even indicated
in the Pentateuch were inaugurated by them ac
cording to the new wants of the times and the ever-
shifting necessities of the growing commonwealth
(Geseroth, Tekanoih). Nor were the latter in all
cases given on the sole authority of the Synod ; but
they were in most cases traditional, and certain
special letters or signs in the Scriptures, seemingly
superfluous or out of place where they stood, were,
according to fixed hermeneutical rules, understood
to indicate the inhibitions and prohibitions (Ge-
darim, "Fences "), newly issued and fixed. But
Scripture, which had for this pui-pose to be studied
most minutely and unremittingly — the most care
ful and scrutinizing attention being paid even to
its outward form and semblance — was also used,
and more especially in its non-legal, prophetical
parts, for homiletic purposes, as a wide field of
themes for lectures, sermons, and reUgious dis
courses, both in and out of the synagogue : at every
solemnity in public and private life. This juridical

and homiletical expounding and interpreting of
Scripture — the germs of both of which are founa
still closely intertwined and bound up with each
other in the Targum — is called darash, and the
avalanche of Jewish literature which began silently
to gather from the time of the return from the
exile and went on roUing uninterruptedly — how
ever dread the events which befell the nation —
until about a thousand years after the destruction
of the second Temple, may be comprised under the
general name Midrash — " expounding." The two
chief branches indicated are, Halachah (*Jvn.,
"to go"), the rule by which to go, = binding,
authoritative law ; and Haggadah ("TSH, " 1 »
say ") = saying, legend, — flights of fancy, darling
up from the Divine "Word. The Halachah, treating
more especially the Pentateuch as the legal part of
the 0. T., bears towards this book the relation of
an amplified aud annotated code; these amplifica
tions and annotations, be it weU understood, not
being new laws, formerly unheard of, deduced in
an arbitrary and fanciful manner from Scripture,
but supposed to be simultaneous oral revelations
hinted ai in the Scripture: in any case represent
ing not the human but the Divine interpretation,
handed down ihrough a named authonty (Kabbala,
Shemata — " something received, heard "). The
Haggadah, on the other hand, held especial sway
over the wide field of ethical, poetical, prophetical,
and historical elements of the 0. T., but was free
even to interpret its legal and historical passages
fancifully and allegorically. The whole Bible, with
aU its tones and colors, belonged to the Haggadah,
and this whole Bible she transformed into an end
less series of themes for her most wonderful and
capricious variations. " Prophetess of the exile,"
she took up the hallowed verse, word, or letter, and,
as the Halachah pointed out in it a special ordi
nance, she, by a most ingenious exegetical process
of her own, showed to the wonder-struck multitude
how the woful events under whicli they then
groaned were hinted at in it, and how in a manner
it predicted even their future issue. The aim of
the Haggadah being the purely momentary one
of elevating, comforting, edifying its audience for
the time being, ii did n^ot pretend io possess the
slightest authority. As its method was capricious
and arbitrary, so its cultivation was open to every
one whose heart prompted him. It is saga, tale,
gnome, parable, allegory, — poetry, in short, of its
own most -strange kind, springing up from the
sacred soU of Scripture, wUd, luxuriant, and tangled,
Uke a primeval tropical forest. Tf tbe Halachah
used the Scriptural word as a last and most awful
resort, against which there was no further appeal,
the Haggadah used it as the golden nail on which
to hang its gorgeous tapestry: as introduction,
refi*ain, text, or fundamental stanza for a gloss;
and if the fornier was the iron bulwark around the
nationality of Israel, which every one was ready at
every momeut to defend to his last breath, the
latter was a maze of flowery walks within those
fortress-waUs. That gradually the Haggadah pre
ponderated and became ihe Midrash kut t^ox'^v
of the people, is not surprising. We shaU notice

« tt?"nD (Arab, jw^^ J^o), first used in 2 Chr.
cUL 22, xziv. 27 ; " Commentary," in the sense of Cse-
lar*8 « Common taries," enlargement, embellishment.

complement, etc- (A. V. story .'). The compilers of
Chronicles seem to have used such promiscuous works
treating of Biblical personages and events, provided they
contained aught that served the tendency of the book.

3400

VEESIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)

how each successive Targum becanie more and
more impregnated with its essence, and from a
version became a succession of short homiletics.
This difference between the two branches of Midrash
is strikingly pointed in the following Talmudical
story : " E. Chia b. .^bba, a Halachist, and R.
Abbahu, a Haggadist, once came together into a
city and preached. The people flocked to the latter,
while the former's discourses remained without a
hearer. Thereupon the Haggadist comforted the
Halachist with a parable. Two merchants come
into a city and spread their wares, — the one rare
pearls and precious stones; the other a ribbon, a
ring, glittering trinkets: around whom will the
multitude throng? . . . Forraerly, when life was
not yet bitter labor, the people had leisure for the
deep word of the Law; now it stands in need of
comfortings and blessings."
The first collections of the Halachah — embrac
ing the whole field of juridico-poUtical, religious,
and practical life, both of the individual and of
the nation : the huraan and Divine law to its most
minute and insignificant details — were instituted
by Hillel, Akiba, and Simon B. Gamaliel ; but the
final redaction of the general code, Mishna,a to
which the later Toseftahs and Boraithas form sup
plements, is due to Jehudah Hannassi in 220 A. D.
Of an earlier date with respect to the contents,
but committed to writing in later times, are the
three books: Sifra, or Toi-aih Kohanim (an am
plification of Leviticus), Sifn (of Numbers and
Deuteronomy), and Mechiliha (of a portion of
Exodus). The masters of tbe Mishnaic period,
after the Soferim, are the Tannaim, who were fol
lowed by tbe Amoraim. The discussions and
further amplifications of the Mishna by the latter,
form the Gemara (Complement), a work extant in
two redactions, namely, that of Palestine or Jeru
salem (middle of 4th century), and of Babylon
(5th century A. D.), which, together with the
Mishna, are comprised under the name Talmud.
Here, however, though the work is ostensibly de
voted to Halachah, an almost equal share is allowed
to Haggadah. The Haggadistic mode of treatment
was threefold; either the simple understanding of
words and things (Peshat) or the homiletic appli
cation, holding up the mirror of Scripture to the
present {Derush), or a mystic interpretation (Sod),
the second of which chiefly found its way into the
Targum. On its minute division into special and
general, ethical, historical, esoteric, etc., Hs^gadah,
we cannot enter here. Suffice it to add that the
most extensive collections of it which have sur
vived are Midrash Rabbah (commenced about 700,
concluded about 1100 A. D.), comprising the Pen
tateuch and the five Megilloth, and the Pesikta
(about 700 A. D.), which contains the most com
plete cycle of Pericopes, but the very e-xistence of
which had until lately been forgotten, surprisingly
enough, through the very extracts made from it
(Jalkut, Pesikta Rabbathi, Sutarta, etc.).
From this indispensable digression we return to
the subject of Targum. The Targums now extant
are as follows ; —
I. Targum on the Pentateuch, known as that of
Onkelos. II. Targum on the first and last prophets, known
18 that of Jonathan Ben-Uzziel.

« Mishna, from sttana, " to leAm," " leaming," not,
u erroneously tr.auBlated of <ild, and repeated ever
llnce, AevTepwtns, '" repetition ; '' but corresponding

III. Targum on the Pentateuch, likewise known
as that of Jonathan Ben-UzzieL
IV. Targum on portions of the Pentateuch,
known as Targum Jerushalmi.
V. Targums on the Hagiographa, ascribed to
Joseph the Blind, namely: —
1. Targum on Psalms, Job, ProverDs.
2 Targum on the five Megilloth (Song of Songs,
Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, Ecclesiastes).
3. Two (not three, as commonly stated) other
Targums to Esther: a smaller and a larger, the
latter known as Targum Sheni, or Second Tar
gum. VI. Targum to Chronicles.
VII. Targum to Daniel, known fi'om an unpub
lished Persian extract, and hitherto not received
among the number.
VIII. Targum on the Apocryphal pieces of
Esther. We have hinted before that neither any of the
names under which the Targums hitherto went.
nor any of the dates handed down with them,
have stood the test of recent scrutiny. Let it,
however, not for a moraent be supposed tbat a
skeptic Wolfian school has been at work, and with
hypercritical and wanton mahce has tried to annihi
late the hallowed names of Onkelos, Jonathan, and
Joseph the Blind. It will be seen from what fol
lows that most of these names have or may have
a true historical foundation and meaning; but un
critical ages and ignorant scribes have perverted
this meaning, and a succession of most extraordi
nary misreadings and strangest da-repa irpirepa —
some even of a very modern date — have produced
rare confusion, and a chain of asseitions which dis
solve before the first steady gaze. That, notwith
standing all this, the implicit behef in the old
names and dates still reigns supreme will surprise
no one who has been accustomed to see the most
striking and undeniable results of investigation and
criticism quietly ignored by contemporaries, and
forgotten by generations which followed, so that
the same work had to be dene very raany times
over again before ;* certain fact was allowed to be
such. We shall follow the order indicated above: —
I. The Targom of Onkelos.
It will be necessary, before we discuss this work
itself, to speak of the person of its reputed author
as far as it concerns us here. There are few more
contested questions in the whole province of BibU
cal, nay general literature, than those raised on
this head. Did an Onkelos ever exist? Was there
more than one Onkelos? Was Onkelos the real
form of his name? Did he translate the Bible
at all, or part of it? And is this Targum the
translation he made? Do the dates of his life
and this Targum tally? ete., etc. The ancient
accounts of Onkelos are avowedly of the most cor
rupted and confused kind ; so much so that both
ancient and niodern investigators have failed to
reconcile and amend them so as to gain general
satisfaction, and opinions remain widely divergent.
This beuig the case, we think it our duty to lay
the whole — not very voluminous — evidence, col
lected both from the body of Talmudical and post-
Talmudical (.so-called Rabbinical) and patristic
exactly witb Talmud (from lamad, "to learn"), and
Torah (firom horeb, " to teach") : all three terms mean
ing " the study,'^ by way of eminence.

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TAKGUM)

3.101

writings before the reader, in order that he may
judge for himself how far the conclusions to which
we shall point may be right.
The first mention of " Onkelos " — a name vari
ously derived from Nicolaus (Geiger), "Qj/o/ua icaKii
[sic] (Renan), Homunoulus, Avunculus, etc. — more
fully "Onkelos the Proselyte," is found in the To
siftah, a work drawn up shortly after the Mishna.
Here we learn (1) that "Onkelos the Proselyte"
was so serious in his adherence to the newly-adopted
(Jewish) faith, that he threw his share in his pa
ternal inheritance into the Dead Sea (Tos. Demai,
vi. 9). (2.) At the funeral of GamaUel the elder
(Ist century A. D.J he burnt more than 70 minae
worth of spices in his honor (Tos. Shabb. 8). (3.)
This same story is repeated, with variations (Tos.
Semach. 8). (4.) He ia finally mentioned, by way
of corroboration to different Halachas, in connec
tion with GamaUel, iu tbree more places, which
complete our references frora the To.siftah (Tos.
Mikv. 6, 1; KeUra, iii. 2, 2; Chag. 3, 1). The
Babylonian Talmud, the source to which we turn
our attention next, mentions the name Onkelos
four times: (1.) As "Onkelos the Proselyte, the
son of Kalonikos" (CaUinicus? Cleonicus?), the
son of Titus' sister, who, intending to become a
convert, conjured up the ghosts of Titus, Balaam,
and Christ [the latter name is doubtful], in order
to ask them what nation was considered the first
in the other world. Their answer that Israel was
the favored one decided him (Gitt. 56). (2.) As
"Onkelos the son of Kalonymus " (Cleonynius?)
(.\boda Sar. 11 a). It is tbere related of him
that ttie emperor (Kaisar) seut three Roman
cohorts to capture him, and that he converted
them aU. (3.) In Baba Bathra 99 a (Boraitha),
"Onkelos the Proselyte" is quoted as an authority
on the question of the form of the Cherubim. And
(4.) The most important passage — because on it
and it alone, in the wide realm of ancient litera-
tm'e, has been founded the general beUef that
Onkelos is the author of the Targum now current
under this name — is found in Meg. 3 a. It reads
as foUows ; " R. Jeremiah, and, according to others,
K. Chia bar Abba, said : The Targum to the Pen
tateuch was raade by the ' Proselyte Onkelos,' from
the mouth of R. Eliezer and R. Jehoshua; the
Targum to the Prophets was made by Jonathan
ben Uzziei from the mouth of Haggai, Zechariah,
and Malachi  But have we not been taught
that the Targum existed from the time of Ezra?
.... Only that it was forgotten, and Onkelos
restored it." No mention whatever is to be found
of Onkelos either in the Jerusalem Talmud, re
dacted about a hundred years before the Baby
lonian, nor in the Church fathers — an item of neg
ative evidence to which we shaU presently draw
further attention. In a Midrash coUection, com
pleted about the middle of tbe 12th century, we
find again " Onkelos the Proselyte" asking an old
man, "Wliether that was aU the love God bore
towards a proselyte, that He promised to give hira
bread and a garment? Whereupon the old man
repUed that this was all for which the Patriarch
Jacob prayed " (Gen. xxvni. 20). The book Zohar,
of late and very uncertain date, makes "Onkelos "
a disciple of Hillel and Shammai. FinaUy, a MS.,
also of a very late and uncertain date, in the
Ubiary of the Leipzig Senate (B. H. 17), relates
of "Onkelos, the nephew of Titus " that he asked
the emperor's advice as to what merchandise he
thought it was profitable to ti'ade in. The em-
214

peror told him that that snould be bought which
was cheap in the market, since it was sure to rise
in price. Whereupon Onkelos went on his way.
He repaired to Jerusalem, and studied the Law
under R. Eleazar and R. Jehoshua, and his face
became wan. When he returned to the court, one
of the courtiers observed the pallor of his coun
tenance, and said to Titus, " Onkelos appears to
have studied the Law." Interrogated by Titus, he
admitted the fact, adding that he had done it by
his advice. No nation bad ever been so exalted,
and none was now held cheaper among the nations
than Israel; "therefore," be said, "I concluded
that in the end none would be of higher price."
This is all the information to be found in ancient
authorities about Onkelos and the Targum which
bears his name. Surprisingly enough, the latter is
well known to the Babylonian Talmud (whether to
the Jerusalem Talmud is questionable) and the
Midrashim, and is often quoted, but never once as
Targum Onkelos. The quotations from it are in
variably introduced with p''D2"^i"^Q^^, " As we
[Babylonians] translate; " and tbe version itself is
called (e. g. Kiddush. 49 cs) pT Diain, " Our
Targum," exactly as Ephraira Syrus ( 0pp. i. 380)
speaks of the Peshito as " Our translation."
Yet we find on the other hand another current
version invariably quoted in the Talmud by the
name of its known author, namely, D7*'p^ Q!l"1in,
" the [Greek] Version of Akilas: " a circumstance
which, by showing tbat it w.as customary to quote
the author by name, excites suspicion as to the re
lation of Onkelos to the Targum Onkelos. Still
more surprising, however, is, as far as the person
of Onkelos is concerned (whatever be the discrep
ancies in the above accounts), the similarity be
tween the incidents related of him and those re
lated of Akilas. The latter (pb''pV, Ob'^pM)
is said, both in Sifra (Lev. xxv. 7) and the Jeru
salem Talraud (Demai, xxvii. d), to have been born
in Pontus, to have been a proselyte, to have thrown
bis paternal inheritance into an asphalt lake (T.
Jer. Demai, 25 d), to have translated the Torah
before R. Eliezer and R. Joshua, who praised him
(1D7p, in aUusion perhaps to his name, D7'^p3) i
or, according to other accounts, before R. Akiba
(comp. Jer. Kidd. i, 1, 2, etc.,; Jer. Meg. 1, 11;
Babli Meg. 3 a). We learn further that he Uved
in the time of Hadrian (Ch£^. 2, 1), that he was
the son of the Emperor's sister (Tanch. 28, 1), that
he became a convert against the Emperor's wiU (ib.
and Shem. Rabba, 146 c), and that he consulted
Eliezer and Jehoshua about his conversion (Ber. K.
78 d; comp. Midr. Koh. 102 b). First he is said to
have gone to, the former, and to have asked him
whether that was aU the love God bore a proselyte
that He promised him bread and a garment (Gen
xxviii. 20). " See," he said, " what exquisite birds
and other delicaoies I now have; even my slaves
do not care for them any longer." Whereupon R.
Eliezer became wroth, and said, " Is that for
whieh Jacob prayed, ' And give me bread to eat
and a garment to wear,' so small ui thine eyes ? —
Comes he, the proselyte, and receives these things
without any trouble ! " — And Akilas, dissatisfied,
left the irate Master and went to R. Joshua. He
pacified him, and explained to him that " Bread "
meant the Divine Law, and " Garment," the Talith,
or sacred garment to be worn durmg prayer. " Apd

3402

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TAKGUM)

not this alone, he continued, but the Proselyte may
marry his daughter to a priest, and his offspring may
become a high-priest, and offer burnt-offerings in
the Sanctuary." More striking still is a Greek quo
tation from Onkelos, the Chaldee translator (Midr.
Echa, 58 c), which in reaUty is found in and quoted
(Midr. Shir hashir. 27 d) from Akilas, the Greek
translator. That Akilas is no other than Aquila CAkv? «9),
the well-known Greek translator of the Old Testa
ment, we need hardly add. He is a native of
Pontus (Iren. adv. Hce?: 3, 24; Jer. De Vir. Ill._
c. 64; Philastr. De Hcer. § 90). He lived under
Hadrian (Epiph. De Pimd. et Mctis. § 12). He is
called tbe irevOeplSrjs (Chron. Alex. ¦jrevdep6^) of
the Emperor (ib. § 14), becomes a convert to Ju
daisra (§15), whence he is called the Proselyte
(Iren. ib. ; Jerome to Is. viii. 14, etc.), and receives
instructions from Akiba (Jer. ib.). He translated
the 0. T., and his Version was considered of the
highest import and authority among tbe Jews, es
pecially those unacquainted with the Hebrew lan
guage (Euseb. PrcBp. Ev. 1. c. ; Augustin, Civ. D.
XV. 23; Philastr. Hcer. 90; Justin, Novell. 146).
Thirteen distinct quotations ^ from this Version are
preserved in Talmud and Midrash, and they tally,
for the most part, with the con'esponding passages
preserved in the Hexap)^ ; and for those even which
do not agree, there is no need to have recourse to
corruptions. We know from Jerome (on Ezek. iii.
15) that Aquila prepared a further edition of his
Version, called by the Jews Kar^ aKpi^eiav, and
there is no reason why we should not assume,
cceieris paribus, that the different passages belong
to the different editions.
If then there can be no reasonable doubt as to
the identity of Aquila and Akilas, we may well now
go a step further, and from the threefold accounts
adduced, — so strikingly parallel even in their
anachronisms and contortions — safely argue the
identity, as of Akilas and Aquila, so of Onkelos
" the translator,^' with Akilas or Aquila. Whether
in reality a proselyte of that narae had been in ex
istence at an earlier date — a circumstance which
might explain part of the contradictory statements;
and whether the difference of the forms is produced
through the 1? (ng, nk), with which we find the
name sometimes spelt, or the Babylonian manner,
occasionally to insert an n, like in Adrianus, which
we always find spelt A^idrianus in the Babylonian
Talmud; or whether we are to read Gamaliel II.
for Gamaliel the Elder, we cannot here examine;
-Anything connected with the person of an Onkelos
no longer concerns us, since he is not the author of
the Targum ; indeed, as we saw, only once ascribed
to him in the passage of the Babylonian Talmud
(Meg. 3 a), palpably corrupted frora the Jerusalem
Talmud (Meg. i. 9). And not before the 9th cen
tury (Pirke der. Eliezer to Gen. xiv. 27) does this
mischievous mistake seem to have struck root, and
even from that time three centuries elapsed, during
which the Version was quoted often enough, but
without its authorship being ascribed to Onkelos.
From all this it follows that those who, in the

a Greek quotations: Gen. xvii. 1, in Beresh. Rab-
61 b ; Lev. xxiii. 40, Jer Succah, 3, 5, foi 53 d
(comp. VaJ. Rab. 200 d) ; Is. iii. 20, Jer. Shabb. 6, 4,
foL Sb; Ez. xvi 10, Milr. Thren. 58c/ Ez. xxiii. 43,
Vaj. Rab. 203 d ; Pa. xh iii. 15 (MaFor T.. xlvii. accord-
'nij to LXX.l. Jer. Meg 2, 3, fob 736 ,' Prov. xviii. 21,

face of this overwhelming mass of evidence, would
fain retain Onkelos in the false position of trans
lator of our Targum, must be ready to admit that
there were two men living simultaneously of most
astoundingly similar names; both proselytes to Ju
daism, both translators of the Bible, both disciples
of R. Eliezer and R. Jehoshua; it being of both
reported by the same authorities that they trans
lated the Bible, and that they were disciples of the
two last-mentioned Doctors; both supposed to be
nephews of the reigning emperor, who disapproved
of their conversion (for this account comp. Dion
Cass. Ixvii. 14, and Deb. Rab. 2, where Domitian
is related to have had a near relative executed for
his incUning towards Judaism); and very many
more palpable improbabihties of the same descrip
tion. The question now remains, why was this Targum
called that of Onkelos or Akilas ? It is neither a
translation of it, nor is it at all done in the same
spirit. All tbat we leam about the Greek Version
shows us that its chief aim and purpose was, lo
counteract the LXX. The latter had at that time
become a mass of arbitrary corruptions — especially
with respect to the Messianic passages — as weU
on the Christian as on the Jewish side. It was
requisite that a translation, scrupulously hteral,
should be given into the hands of those who were
unable to read tbe original. Aquila, the disciple,
according to one account. Of Akiba— the same Akiba
who expounded (darash) for halachistic purposes
the seemingly most insignificant particles in tiie
Scripture (e. g. the nW, sign of accusative; Gen.
R. 1; Tos. Sheb. 1; Talm. Sheb. 26 a) — fulfilled
his task according to bis master's method. " Non
solum verba sed et etymologias verborum transferre
conatus est  Quod Hebrsei non solum habent
&p6pa sed et wpSapdpa, ille Kafo^^Aws et syllabas
interpretetur et litteras, dictatque avv rhv ovpavhv
Ka\ oh V t^v yr\v quod graeca et latina lingua non
recipit" (Jer. de Opt.. Gen. interpret). Targum
Onkelos, on the other hand, is, if not quite a para
phrase, yet one of the very freest versions. Nor do
the two translations, with rare exceptions, agree
even as to the renderings of proper nouns, which
each occasionally likes to transform into something
else. But there is a reason. The Jews in posses
sion of this most slavishly accurate Greek Bible-
text, could now on the one hand successfully com
bat arguments, brought against them from inter
polated LXX. passages, and on the other follow
the expoundings of the School and the Halachah,
based upon the letter of the Law, as closely as if
they had understood the original itself. That a
version of this description often man'ed the sense,
mattered less in times anything but favorable to
the literal meaning of the Bible. It thus gradually
became such a favorite with the people, that iti
renderings were household words. If the day whe?
the LXX. was made vvas considered a day of dis*
tress hke the one on which the golden calf was cast
and was actually entered among the fast days (8tb
Tebeth; Meg. Taanith), — this new version, whicb
was to dispel the mischievous influences of the older,

Vaj. Rab. foi. 2036,- Esth. i. 6, Midr. Esth, 120d
Dan. V. 5, Jer. Joma, 3, 8, foi. 41 a. — Hebrew quota
tions, re-translated from the Greek: Lev. xix. 20,
Jer. Kid. i. 1, foi. 59 a ; Dan. viii. 13, Ber. Rab. 24c.-
Chaldee quotations: Prov. xxv. 11; Bercsh. Rab. 104
b ; Is. V. 6, Midr. Koh. 113 c. d.

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)

3403

lamed for its author one of the most delicate com-
phmeiits in the manner of the time. The verse of
the Scripture (Ps. xiv. 2), " Thou art raore beauti
ful (jofjefita) than the sons of men," was applied
to hira — in allusion to Gen. ix. 27, where it is said
that Japhet (i. e. the Greek language) should one
day dwell in the tents of Shera (i. e. Israel), Meg.
1, 11, 71 b and c ; 9 6, Ber. Rab. 40 b. — OiJtw 7^^
*A/cuAas SovKe^Qiv ry e^paiKTJ Ke^ei ^/cSeSoj/cei/
fiirdiV ¦ • ¦ (pt\oTifi6repov ireiTKrrevfjLevos irap^
^lovBaiois, ripfxT}vevicevai r^v ypa<p-i]v, etc. (Orig.
ad Afric. 2).
What, under these circumstances, is more nat
ural than to suppose that the new Chaldee Version
— at least as excellent in its way as the Greek —
was started under the name which had become ex
pressive of the type and ideal of a Bible-translation ;
that, in fact, it should be called a Targum done in
the manner of Aquila — Aquila- Targum. Wheth
er the title of recommendation was, in considers^
tion of the merits of the work upon which it was
bestowed, gladly indorsed and retained — or for
aught we know, was not bestowed upon it until it
was generally found to be of such surpassing merit,
we need not stop to argue.
Being thus deprived of the dates which a close
examination into the accounts of a translator's life
might have furnished us, we must needs try to fix
the time of our Targum as approximately as we can
by the circumstances under which it took its rise,
and by the quotations from it which we meet in
early works. Without unnecessarily going into de
tail, we shall briefly record, what we said in the in
troduction, that the Targura was begun to be com
mitted to writing about the end of the 2d century,
A. D. So far, however, from its superseding the
oral Targum at once, it was on the contrary strictly
forbidden to reftd it in public (Jer. Meg. 4, 1).
Nor was there any uniforraity in the version.
Down to the middle of the 2d century we find the
masters most materiaUy differing from each other
with respect to the Targum of certain passages,
(Seb. 54 a) and translations quoted not to be found
m any of our Targums. The necessity must thus
have pressed itself upon the attention of the spiritual
leaders of the people to put a stop to the fluctuating
state of a version, which in the couree of time
must needs have become naturally surrounded with
a halo of authority Uttle short of that of the orig
inal itself. We shaU thus not be far wrong in
placing the work of coUecting the different frag
ments with their variants, and reducing them into
one — finally authorized Vereion — about the end
of the 3d, or the beginning of the 4th century, and
in assigning Babylon to it as the birthplace. It
was at Babylon that about this time the light of
learning, extinguished in the blood-stained fields of
Palestiue, shone with threefold vigor. The Acad
emy at Nahardea, founded according to legend dur
ing the Babylonian exile itself, had gathered
strength in the same degree as the numerous Pal
estinian schools began to decline, and when in 259
A. D. that most ancient school was destroyed, there
were three others simultaneously flourishing in its
stead, — Tiberias, whither the college of Palestinian
Jabneh had been transferred in the time of Gama
liel III. (200); Sora, founded by Chasda of Kafri
(293); and Purabadita, founded by R. Jehudah b.
Jecheskeel (297). And in Babylon for well-nigh a
housand years '• the crown of the Law " reraained,
and to Babylon, the seat of the « Head of the
Golah " (Dispersion), aU Israel, scattered to the

ends of the earth, looked for its spiritual guidance
That one of the first deeds of these Schools mus*
have been the fixing of the Targum, as soon as the
fixing of it became indispensable, we may well pre
sume; and as we see the text fluctuating down to
the middle of the 2d century, we must needs assume
that the redaction took place as soon afterwards as
may reasonably be supposed. Further corrobora
tive arguments are found for Babylon as the place
of its final redaction, although Palestine was the
country where it grew and developed itself. Many
grammatical and idiomatical signs — the substance
itself, i. e. the words, being Palestinian — point, as
far as the scanty materials in our hands permit us
to draw conclusions as to the true state of language
in Babylon, to that country. The Targum further
exhibits a greater linguistic similarity with the
Babylonian, than with the Palestinian Gemara.
Again, terms are found in it which the Talmud
distinctly mentions as pecuUar to Babylon," not to
mention Persian words, which on Babylonian soil
easily found their way into our work. One of the
most striking hints is the unvarying translation of
the Targum of the word "1713, " River," by Eu
phrates, the River of Babylon. Need we further
point to the terms above mentioned, under which
the Targum is exclusively quoted in the Talmud
and the Midrashim of Babylon, namely, " Our
Targum," "As we translate," or its later designa
tion (Aruch, Rashi, Tosafoth, etc.) as the " Targum
of Babel " ? Were a further proof needed, it might
be found in the fact that the two Babylonian
Schools, which, holding different readings in vari
ous places of the Scripture, as individual traditions
of their own, consequently held different readinga
in the Targum ever since the time of its redaction.
The opinions developed here are shared more or
less by some of the most competent scholare of our
day: for instance, Zunz (who now repudiates the
dictum laid down in his Gottesdiensil. Vurtr., that
the translation of Onkelos dates from about the
middle of the first century, A. d.; comp. Geiger,
Zeitschr. 1843, p. 179, note 3), Gratz, Levy, Herz
feld, Geiger, Frankel, etc. The history of the in
vestigation of the Targums, more especiaUy that of
Onkelos, presents the usual spectacle of vague spec
ulations and widely contradictory notions, held by
different investigators at different times. Suffice it
to mention that of old authorities, Reuchlin puts the
date of the Targum as far back as the time of Isaiah
— notwithstanding that the people, as we are dis
tinctly told, did not underetand even a few Arar
maic words in the time of Jeremiah. FoUowing
Asaria de Rossi and Eliah Levita (who, for reasons
now completely disposed of, assumed the Targum to
have first taken its rise in Babylon during the Cap
tivity), Bellarmin, Sixtus Seuensis, Aldret, Barto
locci, Rich. Simon, Hottinger, Walton, Thos. Smith,
Pearson, Allix, Wharton, Prideaux, Schickard,
take the same view with individual modifications^
Pfeiffer, B. Meyer, Steph. Morinus, on the other
hand, place its date at an extremely late period,
and assign it to Palestine. Another school held
that the Tai^ura was not written untU after tha
time of the Talmud — so Wolf, Havermann, partly
Rich. Simon, Hornbeck, Joh. Morinus, etc.: and
a n*l37D, " a girl," is rendered by S'^D"! ; " foi
thus they call in Babylon a young girl," "jOtl!?
M^'ni sp'13'^b basn ^mp (Ghag.i3a>.

3404

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)

fcheir reasons are both the occun'ence of " Talmud
ical Fables" in the Targum and the silence of the
Fathers. The former is an argument to which no
reply is needed, since we do not see what it can be
meant to prove, unless the " Rabbin us Tahnud"
has floated before their eyes, who, according to
"Henricus Seynensis Capucinus " (Ann. Eccl. tom.
i. 261), must have written aU this gigantic litera
ture, ranging over «. thousand years, out of his
own head, in which case, indeed, every dictum on
record, dating before or after the compilation of the
Talmud, and in the least resembling a passage or
story contained therein, must be a plagiarism from
ita sole venerable author. The latter argument,
namely, the sUenee of the Fathera, more especially
of Origen, Jerome, and Epiphanius, has been an
swered by Walton; and what we have said will
further corroborate his arguments to the effect, that
they did not mention it, not because it did riot ex
ist in their days, but because they either knew noth
ing of it, or did not underetand it. In the person
of an Onkelos, a Chaldee translator, the belief has
been general, and wiU reraain so, as long as the or-
dbaary handbooks — with rare exceptions — do not
care to notice the uncontested results of contempo
rary investigation. How scholars within the last
century have endeavored to reconcile the contradic
tory accounts about Onkelos, more particularly how
they have striven to smooth over the difficulty of
their tallying with those of Akilas-^ as far as either
had come under their notice — for this and other
minor points we must refer the reader to Eichhorn,
Jahn, Bertholdt, Havernick, etc.
We now turn to the Targum itself.
Its language is Chaldee, closely approaching in
purity of idiom to that of Ezra and Daniel. It fol
lows a sober and clear, though not a slavish exege
sis, and keeps as closely and minutely to the text
as is at aU consistent with its purpose, namely, to
be chiefly, and above aU, a version for the people.
Its explanations of difficult and obscure passages
bear ample witness to the competence of those who
gave it its final shape, and infused into it a rare
unity. Even where foreign matter is introduced,
or, as Berkowitz in his Hebrew work Oteh Or
keenly observes, where it most artistically blends
two translations: one literal, and one figurative,
into one; it steadily keeps in riew the real sense of
the passage in hand. It is always concise and clear
and dignified, worthy of the grandeur of its subject.
It avoids the legendary character with which aU the
later Targums entwine the BibUcal word, as far as
ever circumstances would aUow. Only in the po
etical passages it was compelled to yield — though
reluctantly — to the popular craving for Haggadah;
but even here it chooses and selects with rai-e taste
and tact.
Generally and broadly it may be stated that
_ alterations are never attempted, save for the sake of
clearness; tropical terms are dissolved by judicious
circumlocutions, for the correctness of which the
authors and editors — in possession of the living
tradition of a language still written, if not spoken
in their day — certainly seem better judges than
gome modern critics, who, through their own hicom-
plete acquaintance with the idiora, injudiciously
bjame Onkelos. Highly characteristic is the aver
sion of the Targum to anthropopathies and anthro
pomorphisms ; in fact, to any term which could in
the eyes of the multitude lower the idea of the High
est Being. Yet there are many passages retained in
which human affections and qualities are attributed

to Him. He speaks. He sees, He hears. He sniella
the odor of sacrifice, is angry, repents, etc.: —the
Targum thus showing itself entirely opposed to the
allegorizing and symbolizing tendencies, which in
those, and still more in later days, were prone to
transform Biblical history itself into the most ex
traordinary legends and fairy tales with or withou.
a moral. The Targum, however, while retaining
terms like "the arm of God," " the right hand of
God," "the finger of God ' — for Power, Provi
dence, etc. — replaces terms like " foot," " front,"
back of God," by the fitting figurative meamng.
We must notice further its repugnance to bring the
Divine Being into too close contact, as it were, with
man. It erects a kind of reverential barrier, a sort
of invisible medium of awful reverence between
the Creator and the creature. Thus terms Uke
' the Word " (Logos = Sansk. Om), " the Sheehi-
nah " (Holy Presence of God's Majesty, "the
Glory"), further, human beings talking not to, but
before" God, are frequent. The same care, in a
minor degree, is taken of the dignity of the persons
of the patriarchs, who, though the Scripture may
expose their weaknesses, were not to be held up in
their iniquities before the multitude whose ances
tors and ideals they were. That the most curious
fia'repa ¦jrp6repa and anachronisms occur^ such as
Jacob studying the Torah in the Academy of Shem,
etc., is due to the then current typifying tendencies
of the Haggadah. Some extremely cautious, withal
poetical alterations also occur when the patriarchs
speak of having acquired something by violent
means: as Jacob (Gen. xlviii. 22), by his "sword
and bow," which two words become in the Tar
gum "prayere and suppUcations." But the points
which wiU have to be considered chiefly when the
Targum becomes a serious study — as throwing
the clearest light upon its time, and the ideas then
in vogue about matters connected with religious
behef and exercises — are those which treat oi
prayer, study of the Law, prophecy, angelology,
and the Messiah.
The only competent investigator who, after Wi
ner (De Onkeloso, 1820), but with infinitely more
minuteness and thorough knowledge of the subject,
has gone fully into this matter, is Luzzatto. Con
sidering the vast importance of this, the oldest
Targum, for Biblical as weU as for linguistic studies
in general, — not to mention the advantages that
might accrue from it to other branches of learning,
such as geography, history, etc. : we thuik it ad
visable to give, for lihe first time, a brief sketch of
the results of this eminent scholar. His classical,
though not rigorously methodical, Oheb Ger
(1830) is. it is true, quoted by every one, but in
reality known to but an infinitely smaU number,
although it is written in the most lucid modern
Hebrew. He divides the discrepancies between Text and
Targum into four principal classes.
A. Where the language of the Text has been
changed in the Targum, but the meaning of the
former retained.
B- Where both language and meaning were
changed. C. Where the meaning was retained, but addi
tions were introduced.
D. Where the meaning was changed, and addi
tions were introduced.
He further subdivides these four into thirty-two
classes, to aU of which he adds, in a most thorough
and accurate manner, some telUng specimens. Not*

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)

3405

withstaading the apparent pedantry of his method,
nnd the undeniable identity which necessarily must
exist between some of his classes, a glance over
their whole body, aided by one or two examples in
each case, will enable us to gain as clear an insight
into the manner and "genius" of the Onkelos-
Targum as is possible without the study of the
work itself.
(A.) Discrepancies where the language of the text
has been changed in the Targum, but the meaning
of the former has been retained.
1 . Alterations owing te the idiora : e. g. the sin
gular," "Let there be [st(] lights" (Gen. i. 14), is
transformed into the plural & [sint] in tbe Targum ;
" man and woman," <^ as applied to the animals
(Gen. vii. 2), becomes, as unsuitable in the Ara
maic, " male and female." <*
2. Alterations out of reverence towards God,
more especially for the purpose of doing away with
all ideas of a plurality of the Godhead : e. g. the
terms Adonai, Elohim, are replaced by Jehovah,
lest these might appear to imply more than one
God. Where Elohim is applied to idolatry it is
rendered " Error." «
3. Anthropomorphisms, where they could be
misunderstood and construed into a disparagement
or a lowering of the dignity of the Godhead among
the common people, are expunged : e. g. for " And
God smelled a sweet smell " (Gen. viii. 21), Onke-.
los has, " And Jehovah received the sacrifice with
grace; " for " And Jehovah went/down to see the
city " (Gen. xi. 5), " And Jehovah revealeds Him
self," a term of frequent use in the Targum for
verbs of motion, such as " to go down," " to go
through," etc., applied te God. " I shall pass over''
you" (Ex. xii. 13), the Targum renders, "I shall
protect you."i Yet only anthropomorphisms which
clearly stand figuratively and might give oftense,
are expunged, not as Maimonides, followed by nearly
all commentators, holds, all anthropomorphisms,
for words like " hand, finger, to speak, see," ete.
(see above), are retained. But where the words
remember, think of, * etc., are used of God, they
always, whatever their tense in the text, stand in
the Targum in the present; since a past or future
would imply a temporary forgetting on the part of
the Omniscient.' A keen distinction is here also
established by Luzzatto between ""in and '' /2, the
former used of a real, external seeing, the latter of
a seeing " into the heart."
4. Expressions used of and to God by men are
brought raore into harraony with the idea of his
dignity. Thus Abraham's question, " The Judge
of the whole earth, should he not (M7) do jus
tice? " (Gen. xviii. 25) is altered into the affirma
tive: "The Judge .... verily He will do jua-

'' N2p"i:T n3T " S''aa37 mirta
'iT«i '"'Vanwi ''\-inD3
¦* Dins * -I3T, ips
1 Oomp. Prayer for Rosh hashana, TTTl'DW ^HT
131, " And tbere is no forgetting before the throne
»f Thy glory."
"* D^nbN " N-ibm ° 3i33ni
" n3"'D3i ' mia •¦ Vtm
'nmn3 'soDinn "3i3''3tt;b3

tice." Laban, who speaks of his gods "» in the text,
is made to speak of his religion " only in the
Targum. 5. Alterations in honor of Israel and their an
cestors. Rachel " stole " " the teraphim (xxxi. 19 \
is softened into Kachel " took " ; P Jacob " fled "
from Laban (ibid. 22), into " went " ; >¦ " The sons
of Jacob answered Shechem with craftiness "
(xxxiv. 13), into "with wisdom." '
6. Short glosses introduced for the better under
standing of the text: " for it is my mouth that
speaks to you " (xiv. 12), Joseph said to his breth
ren : Targum, " in your tongue," « i. e. without an
interpreter. *'The people who had made the calf "
(Ex. xxxii. 35); Targum, "worshipped,"" since not
they, but Aaron made it.
7. Explanation of tropical and allegorical expres
sions: "Be fruitful (lit. * creep,' from ^^127) and
multiply " (Gen. i. 28), is altered into " bear
children ; " "> " thy brother Aaron shall be thy
prophet"^ (Ex. vii. 1), into " thy interpreter " »
(iMeturgeman); " I made thee a god (Elohim) to
Pharaoh " (Ex. vii. 1), into " a master; " z "toa
head and not to a tail " (Deut. xxviii. 13), into
"toa strong man and not to ^ weak;""' and
finally, " Whoever says of his father and bis
mother, I saw them not" (Deut. xxxiii. 9), into
" Whoever is not merciful tr towards his father and
his mother."
8. Tending to ennoble the language : the " wash
ing " of Aaron and his sons is altered into " saiio-
tifying<J'; " the "carcasses" d' of the aniraals of
Abraham (Gen. xv. 11) beconie " pieces ; " «'
"anointing"/' becomes "elevating, raising;" s"
" the wife of the bosom," *' " wife of the cov-
enant.".?' 9. The last of the classes where the terms are
altered, but the sense is retained, is tbat in which
a change of language takes place in order to intro
duce the explanations of the oral Law and the tra
ditions: e. g. Lev. xxiii. 11, " On the morrow after
the Sabbath *' (i. e. the least of the unleavened
bread) the priest shall wave it (the sheaf)," Onkelos
for Sabbath, /easi-cfrtj/.'' For frontlets "i' (Deut. vL
8), Tefillin (phylacteries)."'
(B.) Change of both the terms and the raean
ing. 10. To avoid phrases apparently derogatory te
the dignity of the Divine Being : " Am I in God's
stead ? " o' becomes in Onkelos, " Dost thou ask
[children] from me ? P' from before God thou
shouldst ask them " (Gen. xxx. 2).
11. In order to avoid anthropomorphisms of an
objectionable kind. " With the breath of thy
nose " a' (" blast of thy nostrils," A. V., Ex. xv. 8),
becomes " With the word of thy raouth." <¦' " Aud

" n2rnt£7ST " n''b\n« " is''22
" laaanina ' an
•^ ttjbnb Kbi iT'pnb '' Q'^m
¦^ iwip'^i "' anas '' H-'ibs (anna;
¦^ naja "' "ain *' ¦jip'^n rw^ii.
¦''' "[d^^yi rw''A ^^ ra.w
'' «3to Mnr "¦' niQtiita
"' r^''^'"' "' ""^^s 'bw nnnn
^ 'i3i H'^sn ns •'aan
^ -fDS nn2i "^ "laiD -la'^ani

8406

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)

t shall spread my hand over thee"" (Ex. xxxiii.
22), is transformed into " I shall with my word
protect thee."' "And thou shalt see my back
parts,"^ but my face 't shall not be seen " (Ex. xxxiii.
23): " And thou shalt see what is behind me,= but
that which is before me/ shall not be seen " (Deut.
xxxiii. 12).
12. For the .sake of religious euphemisms : e. g.
" And ye shall be like God" o (Gen. iii. 5), is
altered into "like princes."^ « A laughterJ has
God made me" (Gen. xxi. 6), into "A joy* he
gives me " — " God " beiug entirely omitted.
13. In honor of the nation and its ancestors:
6. g. " Jacob was an upright man, a dweller in
tents " ' (Gen. xxv. 27), becomes " an upright man,
frequenting the house of learning." ™ " One of the
people n might have lain with thy wife " (Gen.
xxvi. 10) — " One singled out among the people," o
i. e. the king. " Thy brother came and took my
blessing with deceit " i" (Gen. xxvii. 35), becomes
" with wisdom." Q
14. In order to avoid similes objectionable on
aesthetical grounds. " And he will bathe his foot
in oil " ^ — "And he will have many delicacies e
of a king " (Deut. xxxiii. 24).
15. In order to ennoble the language. " And
man became a Uving being " ' (Gen. ii. 7) — " And
ii became in man a speaking spirit." « " How
good are tliy ienis, " 0 Jacob " — " How good are
thy lands,'" 0 Jacob " (Num. xxiv. 5).
16. In favor of the oral Law and the Rabbinical
explanations. " And go into the land of Moriah " ^
(Gen. xxii. 2), becomes " into tbe land of worship "
(the future place of the Temple). " Isaac went to
walky in the field" (Gen. xxiv. 63), is rendered
"topi-ay."ii [Comp. Sam. Pent., p. 2812 6]
" Thou shalt not boil a kid "' in the milk of its
mother" (Ex. xxxiv. 26) — as meat and milk,'' ac
cording to the Halachah.
(C.) Alterations of words (circumlocutions, ad
ditions, etc. ) without change of meaning.
17. On account of the difference of idiom : c. g.
" Her father's brother " °' (= relation, Gen. xxix.
12), is rendered "The son of her father's sister." (^'
" What God does «' (future) he has told Pharaoh "
(Gen. xU. 28) — " What God will do," /' etc.
18. Additions for the sake of avoiding expres
sions apparently derogatory to the dignity of the
Divine Being, by implying polytheism and the like :
" Who is like unto Thee »' among the gods ? " is
rendered, " Tbere is none like unto Thee,''' Thou
art God " (Ex. xv. 11). " And they sacrifice to

•'QD •'nistri
" -linS " "'3D

' a^nbs
' pinij

* s'^nn ' Q''bns nDV
" S2Dbis rT'Sa ti?aa?a
" Dvn im " sa57D in-'ai in
* nanaa « saainn "¦ laa?
• ipiasn ' n"in wz^b
" sbbaa ni^b Disn nini
• T'bns " -\vnvi " nnia " mcsb
z SanblD, [Abraham instituted, according to
he Midrash, thr morning- (Shabarith), Isaac the

demons who are no gods '' /' — "of no use " 1
(Deut. xxxii. 17).
19. In order to avoid erroneous notions impliec
in certain verbs and epithets used of the Divina
Being: e.g. "And the Spirit of God ''moved"
(Gen. i. 2) — "A wind from before the Lord." ""
" And Noah built God an altar " »' (Gen. viii. 20)
— " an altar before °' the Lord." " And Godi^ was
with the boy " (Gen. xxi. 20) — " And the word
of God ff' was in the aid of the boy." " The moun
tain of God " (Ex. iii. 1) — " The mountain upon
which was revealed the glory »'' of God." " The *
stafif of God " (Ex. iv. 20) — " The staflT with which
thou hast done tbe miracles before"' God." "And
I sball see *' what will be their end " — " It is open
(revealed) before me," "' etc. The Divine Being ia
Ul fact very rarely spoken of without that spiritual
medium mentioned before ; it being considered, as
it were, a want of proper reverence to speak to or
of Him directly. The terms " Before " (Qlp),
"Word" (Aiyos, Sna-'a), "Glory" (Nip''),
" Majesty " (n^n3DlJ7), are also constantly used
instead of the Divine name : e. g. " The voice of
the Lord God was heard" (Gen. iii. 8)— "The
voice of the Word." "And he will dwell in the
tents of Shem" (ix. 27) — "And the Shecbinah
[Divine Presence] will dwell." "And the Lord
went up from Abraham " (Gen. xvii. 22) — " And
the glory of God went up." " And God came to
Abimelech " (Gen. xx. 3) — " And tbe word from
[before] God came te Abimelech."
20. For tlie sake of improving seemingly irrever-
ential phrases in Scripture. " Who is God that
I should listen unto his voice ? " (Ex. v. 2) — " The
name of God has not been revealed to me, that I
should receive his word." ^
21. In honor of the nation and its ancestors.
" And Israel said to Joseph, Now I shall gladly
die " "^ (Gen. xlvi. 30), which might appear frivolous
in the mouth of the patriarch, becomes " I shall
be comforted ^ now." " And he led his flock to
wards y' the desert" (Ex. iii. 1) — " towards a good
spot of pasture «' in the desert.'*
22. In honor of the Law and tbe explanation of
its obscurities. " To days and years" (Gen. i. 14)
— " tbat days and years should be counted by
them." "" " A tree of knowledge of good and evil"
— " A tree, and those who eat its fruits '" will dis
tinguish between good and evil." " I shall not '
further curse for the sake of c" man" (viii. 21) —

afternoon- (Minha), and Jacob thu evening-praycl
(Maarib).] "' ibnn >ia '^ nbm -id2 "^ '^nN
¦*' nns 13 "" ntriy ¦''' lasjab T^nv
'' Tian ¦'a *' laa -13 n^'b
¦'¦' ''nbs sb *' "7ns inn n^b
'' a'^nbs nn "^ a''nbs mp ia nn
•" 'nb " 'n mp -^ 'bs
•^ 'm s-ia'^a '' sip'' *' 'n aip ia
" ••n^?!'' "^ "'aip "'ba
¦^ nna^aa bnpsi "<b •'bans sb
«" nnias " nanas v 'an nns
¦^ '3 TT'V-t -itw "" pnn •'aaab
'^' ''nn'^D ]''bDSi ]ib'"si °" nia:;^

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)

3407

' through tbe ain " of man." " To the ground
ihall not be forgiven the blood' shed upon it"
(Num. xxxv. 33) — " the innocenic blood."
23. For the sake of avoiding similes, raetonym-
ical and allegorical passages, too difficult for the
comprehension of the multitude : e. g. " Thy seed
like the dust of the earth" (Gen. xiii. 16) —
" mighty ^ as the dust of the earth." " I am too
small for all the benefits " (Gen. xxxii. 10) — " My
good deeds ^ are small." " And the Lord thy God
will circumcise thy heart " — " the folly of thy
heart."/ 24. For the sake of elucidating apparent obscuri
ties, ete., in the written Law. " 'Iherefore shall a
mau leave his father and his mother " (Gen. ii. 24)
— " the horae " s (not really his parents). " The
will of Hira who dwelleth in the bush " — " of Him
that dwelleth in heaven* [whose Shecbinah is in
heaven], and who revealed Himself in the bush to

25. In favor of the oral Law and the traditional
explanations generally. " He punishes the sins of
the parents on their children " (Ex. xx. 5), has the
addition, " when tbe children follow the sins of
their parents" (comp. Ez. xviii. 19), " The right
eous and the just ye shall not kill" (Ex. xxiii. 7)
— " He who has left the tribunal as innocent, thou
ahalt not kill him," i. e., according to the Halacha,
he is not to be arraigned again for tlie same crime.
" Doorposts " (mesusoth) (Deut. vi. 9) — " And
thou shalt write them . . . and affix ihem upon
the posts," ete.
(D.) Alteration of language and meaning.
26. In honor of the Divine Being, to avoid
apparent raultiplicity or a likeness. " Behold raan
will be Uke one of ns, knowing good and evil"
(Gen. iii. 22) — " He wiU be the only oue in the
worlds to know good and evil." " For who is a
God in heaven and on earth who could do like thy
deeds and powers? " (Deut. iii. 24) — " Thou art
God, thy Divine Presence (Shecbinah) is in heaven*
above, and reigns on earth below, and there is none
who does Uke unto thy deeds," ete.
27. Alteration of epithets employed of God.
"And before thee shaU I hide myself" ' (Gen. iv.
14) — " And before thee ifc is not possible to hide." »"
" This is my God and I wiU praise » Him, the God
of my father and I wiU extol" Him " (Ex. xv. 2)
— " This is my God, and I wiU build Him a sanc
tuary ;P the God of ray fathers, and I will pray
before Him." ff " In one moment I shall go up in
thy midst and annihilate thee " — " For one hour
wiU I take away my majesty from among thee"
(since no evil can come from above).
28. For the ennobling of the sense. " Great is
Jehovah above all gods " — " Great is God, and
there is no other god beside Him." " Send through
him whom thou wilt send " (Ex. iv. 13) — " through
him who is worthy to be sent."
29. In honor of the nation and its ancestors.
" And the souls they made ' iu Haran " (Gen. xii.
5) — " the souls they made subject to the Divine

¦° •'nin bn3 ' mb " pa taib
"r^^ao '."'niia'r pi^JT
•'' inb nm?sio " n^inaa^'^a n'^a
* s"'at:73 n\-ia3»T ^ sab5?3 ST'n''
* s''at2?3 -ynaaty ' -innos
"¦ s-iat:sb -itt7cs n''b " inias

Law ' in Haran." "¦ And Isaac brought her into
the tent of his mother Sarah " (Gen. xxiv. 67) —
" And lo righteous were her works," like the work«
of his mother Sarah." " And he bent his shouldel
to bear, and he became a tributary servant " (Gen
xlix. 15) — " And he wiU conquer the citieg of the
nations and destroy their dwelling-places, and those
that wiU remain there wiU serve him and pay
tribute to him." " People, foolish and not wise "
(Deut. xxxu. 6) — " People who has received the
Law and has not become wise." "
30. Explanatory of tropical and metonymical
phrases. " And besides thee no man shall raise hia
hand and his foot in the whole land of Egypt"
(Gen. xU. 44) — ¦ " There shall not a man raise his
hand to seize a weapon, and his foot to ride on a
horse." 31. To ennoble or improve the language. " Coats
of skin" (Gen. in. 21) — " Garments of honor"*
on the skin of their flesh." " Thy two daughters
who are found with thee " (Gen. xix. 15) — " who
were found faithful with thee." " May Reuben
live and uot die " (Deut. xxxiii. 6) — " May Reuben
Uve iu the everlasting Ufe."
The foregoing examples wiU, we trust, be found
to bear out sufficiently the judgment given above
on this Targum. In spite of its many and im
portant discrepancies, it never for one moment
forgets its aim of being a clear, though free, trans
lation for ihe people, and nothing more. Wher
ever it deviates from the literalness of the text,
such a course, in its case, is fully justified — nay,
necessitated — either by the obscurity of the pas
sage, or the wrong construction that naturally
would be put upon its wording by the multitude.
The explanations given agree either with the real
sense, or develop the current tradition supposed to
underlie it. The specimens adduced by other in
vestigators, however differently classified or ex
plained, are easily brought under the foregoing
heads. They one and all tend to prove that
Onkelos, whatever the objections against single
instances, is one of the most excellent and thor
oughly competent interpreters. A few instances
only — and they are very few indeed — may be
adduced, where even Onkelos, as it would appear,
"dormitat." Far be it from us for one moment
to depreciate, as has been done, the infinitely supe
rior knowledge both of the Hebrew and Chaldee
idioms on the part of the writers and editors of
our document, or to attribute their discrepancies
from modern translations to ignorance. They
drank from the fullness of a highly valuable tra
ditional exegesis, as fresh and vigorous in their
days as the Hebrew language itself stiU was in the
circles of the wise, the academies and schools.
But we have this advantage, that words which
then were obsolete, and whose meaning was known
no longer — only guessed at — are to us famihar
by the numerous progeny they have produced in
cognate idioms, known to us through the mighty
spread of linguistic science in our days ; and if w<

3408

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)

Are not aided by a traditional exegesis handed
down within and without the schools, perhaps ever
since the days of the framing of the document
itself, neither are we prejudiced and fettered by it.
Whatever may be implied and hidden in a verse
or word, we have no reason to translate it accord
ingly, and, for the attaining of this purpose, to
overstrain the powers of the roots. Among such
small shortcomings of our translator may be men
tioned that he appears to have erroneously derived
nSU? (Gen. iv. 7) from SDa; that nnDia
(xx. 6) is by him rendered nnDIS; T13S
(Gen. xU. 43) by S^bab S3S; 13'S (Deut.
xxiv. 5) "ISS ; and the like. Comp. however the
Commentators on these passages.
The bulk of the passages generally adduced as
proofs of want of knowledge on the part of Onkelos
have to a great part been shown in the course of
the foregoing specimens to be intentional devia
tions; many other passages not mentioned merely
instance the want of knowledge on the part of his
critics. Some plages, again, exhibit that blending of two
distinct translations, of which we have spoken ; the
catchword being apparently taken in two different
senses. Thus Gen. xxu. 13, where he translates :
" And,Abraham lifted up his eyes after these, and
behold there was a ram; " he has not "in his per
plexity " mistranslated ^^S for "inS, but he has
only placed for the sake of clearness the "inS
after the verb (he saw), instead of the noun (ram);
and the STn, which is moreover wanting in some
texts, has been added, not as a translation of ^nS
or ins, but in order to make the passage more
lucid still. A similar instance of a double trans
lation is found in Gen. ix. 6 : " Whosoever sheds a
man's blood,, by man shall his blood be shed " —
rendered " Whosoever sheds the blood of man, by
witnesses through the sentence of the judges shall
his blood be shed; " mS3, by man, being taken
first as " witness," and then as "judges."
We raay further notice the occurrence of two
Messianic passages in thia Targum : the one. Gen.
xlix. 10, Shiloh; the other, Nura. xxiv. 17, " scep
tre: " both rendered " Messiah."
A fuller idea of the "genius" of Onkelos as
translator and as paraphrast, may be arrived at
from the specimens sul^'oined in pp. 3418-3420.
We cannot here enter into anything Uke a mi
nute account of the dialect of Onlcelos or of any
other Targum. Regarding, the Unguistic shades
of the different Targums. we must confine ourselves
te the general remark, that the later the version,
tbe more corrupt and adulterated its language.
Three dialects, however, are chiefly to be distin
guished: as in the Aramaic idiom in general,
whioh in contradistinction to the Syriac, or Chris
tian Aramaic, may be called Judeeo-Araraaic, so
also in tbe different Targums; and their recogni
tion is a material aid towards fixing the place of

" iT'Spn sb
• so?! for S33
° ntsiD for -ias

' satc'b sp'^n sb
¦* ''3''213 for >y-)W
¦^sb-Q

their origin; although we must warn the reada
that this guidance is not always to be relied upon.
1. The Galilean dialect, known and spoken of
already in the Talmud as the one wbich most
carelessly confounds its sounds, vowels as well at
consonants. " The Galileans are negligent with
respect to their language,'* and care not for gram>
matical fornis"^ is a common saying in the Ge
mara. We learn that they did not distinguish
properly between B and P (2, D), saying Tapula
instead of Tabula, between Ch and K (D and p),
saying ;;;^€iptos for Kvptos. Far less could they
distinguish between the various gutturals, as is
cleverly exemplified in the story where a Judsean
asked a Galilean, when the latter wanted to buy an
1QS, whether he meant "IJPS (wool), or *1^M
(a lamb), or ^^^H (wine), or ^^^H (an ass).
The next consequence of this their disregard of
the gutturals was, that they often threw them off
entirely at the beginning ofa wordier aphceresin.
Again they contracted, or rather wedged together,
words of the most dissimilar terminations and be
ginnings. By confounding tbe vowels like the con
sonants, they often created entirely new words and
forms. The Mappik H (r?) became Ch (somewhat
similar to the Scotch pronunciation of the initial
H). As the chief reason for this Galilean confu
sion of tongues (for which comp. Matt. xxvi. 73;
Mark xiv. 70) may be assigned the increased fa
cility of intercourse with the neighboring nations
owing to their northern situation.
2. The Samaritan dialect, a mixture of vulgar
Hebrew and Aramaean, in accordance with the origin
of the people itself. Its chief characteristics are
tbe frequent use of the Ain (which not only stands
for other gutturals, but is even used as mater
lectionis), the commutation of the gutturals in
general, and the indiscriminate use of the mute
consonants "^ for *1, p for D, H for p, etc.
3. The Judaean or Jerusalem dialect (comp.
^ed. 66 b) scarcely ever pronounces the gutturals
at the end properly, often throws them off" entirely.
Jeshu^, becomes Jeshu ; Sheba — Shib. Many
words are peculiar to this dialect alone. The ap
pellations of " door," c »t light," ^ " reward," « etc.,
are totally different from those used in the other
dialects. Altogether all the peculiarities of pro
vincialism, shortening and lengthening of vowels,
idiomatic phrases and words, also an orthography
of its own, generally with a fuller and broader
vocalization, are noticeable throughout both the
Targums and the Talmud of Jerusalem, which, for
the further elucidation of this point, as of many
others, have as yet not found an investigator.
The following recognized Greek words, the greater
part of which also occur in the Talmud and Mid*
rash, are found hi Onkelos; Ex. xxviii. 25, ^iipvK'
\oi\f Ex. xxvni. 11, y\v<pi\\^ Gen. xxviii. 17,
iSteijTTjs;* Lev. xi. 30, Kta\d>Tf\s\^ Ex. xxviii. 19,
Bpt^Ktas^ (PUn. xxxvii. 68); Ex. xxxix. 11, Kap'
X'n^6viot, ^ comp. Pes. der. Kah. xxxii. (Carbun-
culi); Deut. xx. 20, x^pc^ffw/xa »" (Ber. R. xcviii.)

'r\h:i

s-'pia

tDinn
' san3-i3

^ sntobn

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)

3409

Ex. xxviii. 20, XP™/*"! " Num. xv. 38, Deut. xxu.
12, KpcunreSov ; * Ex. rsx. 34, kIo'tos ; " Gen.
xxxvu. 28, \9iSov;'' Ex. xxiv. 16, (pipaos',' Ex.
ixvi. 6, Tripirr) ; ^ Gen. vi. 14, iceSpos ; n Ex. xxviii.
19, Keyxpos * (Plui. xxxvii. 4). To these may be
added the unrecognized irepo/td' (Ex. xxi. 18),
^li8poIix1s,* or \e^p6xn (Gen. xxx. 14), &c.
The following short rules on the general mode
of transcribing the Greek letters in Aramaic and
Syriac (Targum, Talraud, Jlidrash, etc.), may not
be out of place: —
r before palatals, pronounced like v, becomes 3.
Z is rendered by T.
H appeara to have occasionaUy assumed the pro
nunciation of a consonant (Digararaa); and a 1
is inserted. 0 is n, T ts. But this rule, even making al
lowances for corruptions, does not always seem to
have been strictly observed.
K 13 p) sometimes D.
M, which before labials stands in lieu of a v,
becomes 3 : occasionally a 3 is inserted before
labials where it is not found in the Greek word.
H, generally D3, sometimes, however, W or
23.
n is Q, sometimes, however, it is softened
into !3.
P is sometimes altered into v or 3.
"P becomes either m or "in at the beginning
of a word.
2 either D or T.
The spiritus aspei; which in Greek ia dropped in
the middle of a word, reappeara again aometimes
(.arweSpoi — SanAedrin). Even the Ienis is repre
sented sometimes by a n at the beginning of a
word ; sometimes, however, even the asper is
dropped. As te the vowels no distinct rule is to be laid
down, owing principally to the original want of
vowel-points in our texte.
Before double consonants at the beginning of a
word an S prosiheiiaum is placed, so as to render
the pronunciation easier. The terminations are fre
quently Hebraized : thus oi ia sometimes rendered
by the termination of the Masc. PI. D^, etc.
A curious and instructive compariaon raay be
instituted, between this mode of transcription of
the Greek letters into Hebrew, and tbat of the
Hebrew letters into Greek, as found chiefly in the
l.xx S sometimes inaudible (spirit, len.), 'Aapdv,
"EKKavi; sometimes audible (as spirit, asper), 'A$-
padp, 'H\ias.
3=3: "PeiScKKa; sometimes tp: 'laK€0('li(l>,
wmetimes u: 'PoaC, sometiDies p.0: Zepovfifia-
B4\, sometimes it is completely changed into p.:
Itiliveia (2 Chr. xxvi. 6).

" (sa'') DIID (Moll. Lex. Syr. 435, makes it
ferjian.) b

siDona

nttjs

'Ditab

a = -y: Tipep, sometimes «: Aa^K, sometimes
X- 'Sepoix-
1 =d: once = t MarpaiB (Gen. xxxvi. 39).
n = S, either spii-ii. asp. Uke 'OSo^^ci, oi
spir. len. Uke 'Afie\.
I = V, not the vowel, but our V; 'Eva, Aeui-
thus also ov (as the Greek writers often express
the Latin v by ou): 'Utra-ovd: sometimes = 3:
SaSb (Gen. xiv. 5); sometimes it is entirely left
out, 'Aari for Vashti.
f =C, sometimes o-: Za$ov\d!V, Xatrfii; rarely
|: Bou| (Gen. xxii. 21).
n, often entirely omitted, or represented by a
spir. len. in the beginning, or the redupUcation of
the vowel in the middle or at the end of the word,
aometimea = x '¦ Xa/j ; soraetiraes = « : T<£j8eK
(Gen. xxii. 24).
t2 = T : 2a(/)oT : sometimes = S : *ou5 (Gen.
X. 6); or B: 'EKiipaAiie (2 Sam. v. 16).
• ^ = I : 'laKiip, or I before p (~1) : 'lepeplas.
Between several vowels it is sometimes entirely
omitted: 'ItoaSd.
3 ^ X • Xovodc ; sometimes k : Sa$a6aK<i
(Gen. i. 7); rarely = y; Tatpecopelp.
7, a, T = X, y, p ; but they are often found
interchanged : owing perhaps to the similarity of
the Greek lettera. 3 is sometimes also rendered n

^ = ju, sometimes j8: NejSpc^S, 5ej3A(£ (1 Chr.
i. 47). ty and D = 0-: SujuedSv, Sije/p, :S.iv.
V = spir. len.; *E<l>p<^v'. sometimes = 'y (c)
Tofiopfta; sometimes «: 'App6K (Gen. xxiii. 2).
D = ^: ^aK4y, or 7r: Sa^iraciS.
'2 ^= a-' StSefiv; sometimes (: Oij( (Gen. i. 23'
Cod. Alex.^ns; xxii. 21, "n^)-
P = «: Ba\dKj; sometimes x'- Xerrovpd', also
a: Xe\4\.
n = fl: 'lai^efl; sometimes r'. Tox^s.
As to the Bible Text from which the Targum
was prepared, we can only reiterate that we have
no certainty whatever on this head, owing to the
extraordinarily corrupt state of our Targum texts.
Pages upon pages of Variants have been gathered
by CappeUus, Kennicott, Buxtorf, De Rossi, Cler
icus, Luzzatto, and others, by a superficial com
parison of a few copies only, and those chiefly
printed ones. Whenever the very numerous MSS.
shaU be collated, then the learned world may pos
sibly come to certain probable conclusions on it.
It would appear, however, that broadly speaking,
our present Masoretic text has been the one from
which the Onk. Version was, if not made, yet
edited, at aU events; unless we assume that late
hands have been intentionally busy in mutu^y
assimilating text and translation. Many of the

* nD3p

Dimp

3410

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)

inferences drawn by De Hossi and others from the
discrepancies of the version to discrepancies of the
original from the Masor. text, must needs be re-
iected if Onkelos' method and phraseology, aa we
have exhibited it, are taken into consideration.
Thus, when (Ex. xxiv. 7) " before the people " ie
found in Onkelos, while our Hebrew text reads
" in the ears," it by no raeans foUowa that Onkelos
read ''aTSi : it is simply his way of explaining
the unusual phrase, to which he remains faithful
throughout. Or, " Lead the people unto the place
(A. V.) of which I have spoken (Ex. xxxu. 34), ia
solely Onkelos' translation of 'HJDS vS, scil. the
plaoe, and no Dlpa need be conjectured as hav
ing stood in Onkelos' copy; aa also (Ex. ix. 7)
his addition "From the cattle of ' the children of
Israel " does not prove a ''33 to have stood in
hi.1 Codex.
And this also settles (or rather leaves unsettled),
the question as to the authenticity of the targumic
texte, such as we have them. Considering that
no MS. has as yet been found older than at mo.st
600 years, even the careful comparison of aU those
that do exist would not much further our knowl
edge. As far as those existing are concerned, they
teem with the most palpable blunders, — not to
apeak of variants, owing to sheer carelessness on the
part of the copyiste ; — but few are of a nature dam
aging the sense materiaUy. The circumstance
that text and Targura were often placed side by
side, column by column, must have had no little
share in the incorrectness, since it was but natural
to make the Targum resemble the text as closely
as possible, while the nature of ita material difler
ences was often unknown to the scribe. In fact,
the aocent itself was raade to fit both the Hebrew
and the Chaldee wherever a larger addition did not
render it utterly impossible. Thus letters are in
serted, omitted, thrust in, blotted out, erased, in an
infinite number of plaees. But the difference goes
BtiU further. In some Codices synonymous terms
are us d most arbitrarily as it would appear:
n^nS and SnaTS earth, mS and SiCaS
man, miS and "^bna path, nin'' and
D^n vS, Jehovah and Elohim, are found to re
place each other indiscriminately. In some in
stances, the Hebrew Codex itself has, to add to the
confusion, been emendated from the Targum.
A Masorah has been written on Onkelos, vnth-
out, however, any authority being inherent in it,
and without, we should say, much value. It has
never been printed, nor, as far aa we have been
able to ascertain, is tbere any MS. now to be found
in this country, or in any of tbe pubUo Ubraries
abroad. What has become of Buxtorfa copy,
which he intended to add to hia never printed
" Babylonia " — a book devoted to this same subject
— we do not know. Luzzatto has lately found such
a " Masorah " in a Pentateuch MS., but he only
mentions some variants contained in it. Its title
must not mislead the reader; it has nothing what
ever to do with the Masorah of the Bible, but ia a re
cent work, like the Masorah of the Talmud, which
ha£ nothing whatever to do with the Talmud text.
The MSS. of Onkelos are extant in great nuni-
fcers — a circumstance easily explained by the in-
lunctinn that it should bo read every Sabbath at
borne, if not in tbe synagogue. The Bodleian has

5, the British Museum 2, Vieina 6, Augsburg 1,
Nuremberg 2, Altdorf 1, Carlsruho 3, Stuttgart 2,
Erfurt 3, Dresden 1, Leipsic 1, Jena 1, Dessau 1,
Helmstadt 2, Berlin 4, Breslau 1, Brieg 1, Regen»
burg 1, Hamburg 7, Copenhagen 2, Upsala 1
Amsterdam 1, Paris 8, Molsheim 1, Venice 6
Turin 2, Milan 4, Leghorn 1, Sienna 1, Genoa 1,
Florence 5, Bologna 2, Padua 1, Trieste 2, Parma
about 40, Rome 18 more or leas complete Codd.
containing Onkelos.
Editio Princeps, Bologna 1482, foL (Abr. b.
Chajjim) with Hebr. Text and Baahi. Later Edd.
Soria 1490, Lisbon 1491, Conatantinople 1505:
frora these were taken the texts in the Compluten
sian (1517) and the Venice (Bomberg) Polyglotts
(1518, 1526, 1547-49), and Buxtorf s Rabbinical
Bible (1619). This was foUowed by the Paris
Polyglott (1645), and Walton's (1657). A recent
and much emendated edition dates Wilna 1852.
Of the extraordinary similarity between Onkelos
and the Samaritan version we have spoken under
Samaritan Pentateuch [p. 2813]. There also
wiU be found a specimen of both, taken from the
Barberini Codex. Many more pointe connected
with Onkelos and his influence upon later herme
neutics and exegeaia, as weU as his relation to ear
lier or later versiona, we have no apace to enlarge
upon, desirable as an investigation of these points
might be. We have, indeed, only been induced to
dwell so long upon this single Targum, because in
the first instance a great deal that has been said
here wiU, mutatis mutandis, hold good alao for the
other Targuras ; and further, because Onkelos ia
THE Chaldee version kot' efoxiv, while, from
Jonathan downwai'ds, we. more and more leave the
province of Version and gradually arrive from Para
phrase to Midrash-Haggadah. We shaU therefore
not enter at any length into these, but confine our
selves chiefly to main results.
II. Targum on the Pkophets,
Namely, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve Minor Prophets
— called Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel.
Next in time and importance to Onkelos on the
Pentateuch stands the Targum on the Propheta,
which in our printed Edd. and MSS. — none older,
we repeat it, than about 600 years — is ascribed ixt
Jonathan ben Uzziei, of whom the Talmud contains
the following statemente : (1.) "Eighty disciplea
had Hillel the Elder, thirty of whora were worthy
that the Shecbinah (Divine Majesty) should rest
upon tbem, as it did upon Moses our Lord ; peace
be upon him. Thirty of tbem were worthy that
the sun should stand stiU at their bidding as it did
at that of Joshua ben Nun. Twenty were of in
termediate worth. The greatest of them aU was
Jonathan ben Uzziei, the least R. Johanan ben
Saccai; and it was said of R. Johanan b. Saccai,
that he left not (uninvestigated) the Bible, tbe
Mishna, the Gemara, the Halacbaha, the Hagga-
daha, the subtleties of the Law, and the subtleties
of the Soferim . . . . ; the easy things and the
difflcult things [from the moat awful Divine mys-
teriea to tbe coramon popular proverbs] .... If
this is said of tbe least of tbem. what ia to be said
of the greatest, i. e. Jonathan b. Uzziei? " (Bab.
Bath. 134 a; comp. Succ. 28 a.) (2.) A second
passage (see Onkelos) referring more especially tfl
our present subject, reads as foUowa : " The Tar
gum of Onkelos was made by Onkelos the Proafr
I lyte from the mouth of R. EUezer and 6 . Jehoshua,

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)

3411

Uld that of the Prophets by Jonathan b. Uzziei
from the mouth of Haggai, Zechariah, and Mala
chi. And in that hour was the land of Israel
ehaken three hundred parasangs  And a
voice was heard, saying, * Who is this who has re
vealed ray secrets unto the sons of man ? ' Up
rose Jonathan ben Uzziei and said : * It is I who
have revealed thy secrets to the sons of man. . . .
But it is known and revealed before Thee, that not
for my honor have I done it, nor for the honor of
my father's house, but for thine honor; that the
disputes may cease in Israel.' .... And he fur
ther desired to reveal the Targum to tbe Hagiog
rapha, when a voice was heard: * Enough.' And
why? — because the day of the Messiah is revealed
therein (Meg. 3 «)." Wonderful to relate, the sole
and exclusive authority for the general belief in the
authorehip of Jonathan b. Uzziei, is this second
Haggadistic passage exclusively; which, if it does
mean anything, does at all events not mean our
Targum, which is found mourning over the *' Tem
ple in ruins," full of invectives against Rome (Sam.
xi. 5; Is. xxjtiv. 9, «S!c., &c.), mentioning Armillus
(Is. X. 4) (the Antichrist), Germania (Ez. xxxviii.
6): not to dwell upon the thousand and one other
internal and external evidences against a date ante
rior to the Christian era. If interpolations must
be assumed, — and indeed Rashi speaks already of
corruptions in his MSS. — such solitary additions
are at aU events a very diflferent thing from a
wholesale system of intentional and minute inter
polation throughout the bulky work. But what
is stiU more extraordinary, tbis belief — loQg and
partly still upheld most reverentially against aU
difficulties — is completely modern : tbat is, not
older than at most 600 years (the date of our old
est Targum MSS.), and is utterly at variance with
the real and genuine sources: th6 Talmud, tbe
Midrash, the Babylonian Schools, and every au
thority down to Hai Gaon (12th cent.). Fre
quently quoted as this Targum is in the ancient
works, it is never once quoted as the Targum of
Jonathan. But it is invariably introduced with
the formula : " R. Joseph « (bar Chama, the
Blind, euphemistically called the clear-sighted, the
weU-known President of Purabaditha in Babylonia,
who succeeded Rabba in 319 A. D) says," etc.
(Moed Katon 26 a, Pesach. 68 a, Sanh. 94 b).
Twice even it is quoted in Joseph's name, and with
the addition, '* Without the Targum to this verse
(due to him) we could not understand it.'* This
is the simple state of the case: and for more than
two hundred years critics have lavished all their
acumen to defend what never had any real exist
ence, or at best owed its apparent existence to a
heading added by a superficial scribe.
The date which tbe Talmud thus in reality
assigns tp our Targum fully coincides with our
ffffmer conclusions as to tbe date of written Tar
gums in general. And if we may gather thus
much from tbe legend that to write down the Tar
gum to the Prophets was considered a much bolder
undertaking — and one to wbich stiU more reluet-
Mitly leave was given — than a Targum on the
Pentateuch, we sball not be far wrong in placing
ihis Targum some time, although not long, after
Onkelos, or about the middle of the fourth century ;
— the latter years of R. Joseph, wbo it is saipd,
tooupied himself chiefly with the Targum when he

a " Sinai," " Possessor of Wheat," in allusion to his
*8t mastery over the tradilions.

had become blind. The reason given for that re
luctance is, although hyperbolically expressed, per
fectly clear: *' The Targum on the Prophets revealed
the secrets " — that is, it allowed free scope to the
wildest fantasy to run riot upon the prophetic pas
sages — tempting through their very obscurity, —
and to utter explanations and interpretations rela
tive to present events, and oracles of its own for
future times, which might be fraught with grave
dangers in more than one respect. Tbe Targum
on the Pentateuch (permitted to be committed to
writing, Meg. 3 « ; Kidd. 69 a) could not but be,
even in its written form, more sober, more dignified,
more within the bounds of fixed and well-known
traditions, than any other Tar^uni; since it had
originally been read publicly, and been checked by
the congregation as weU as the authorities present;
— as we have endeavored to explain in the Intro
duction. There is no proof, on the other hand, of
more than fragments frora the Prophets having
ever been read and translated in the synagogue.
Whether, however, R. Joseph was more than the
redactor of this the second part of the Bible-
Targum, which was originated in Palestine, and
was reduced to its final shape in Babylon, we can
not determine. He may perhaps have made con
siderable additions of his own, by fiUing up gaps
or rejecting wrong versions of some parts. So
much seems certain, that the schoolmen of his
Academy were the collectors and revisers, and he
gave it that stamp of unity which it now possesses,
spite of the occasional difference of style: adapted
simply to the variegated hues and dictions of its
manifold Biblical originals.
But we do not mean to reject in the main either
of the Talmudical passages quoted. We believe
that there was such a man as Jonathan b. Uzziei,
that he was one of the foremost pupils of HiUel,
and also that he did translate, either privately or
publicly, parts of the prophetical books ; chiefly, we
should say, in a mystical manner. And so start
ling were his interpretations — borne aloft by his
high fame — that who but prophets themselves
could have revealed them to him ? And, going a
step further, who could reveal prophetic allegories
and mysteries of all the prophetic books, but those
who, themselves the last in the list, had the whole
body of sacred oracles before them ? This appears
to us the only rational conclusioh to be drawn from
the facts : as they stand, not as they are imagined.
That nothing save a few snatches of this origina*
paraphrase or Midrash could be embodied in our
Targum, we need not urge. Yet for these even we
have no proof. Zunz, the facile pHnceps of Tar
gumic as well as Midrashic investigation, who, as
late as 1830 (Gottesd. Fo;'/r. ), stiU believed him
self in the modern notion of Jonathan's authorship
("first half of first century, a. d."), now utterly
rejects the notion of " our possessing anything of
Jonathan ben Uzziei *' (Geiger's Zeiischr. 1837,
p. 250).
Less conservative than our view, however, are
the views of the modern school (Rappoport, Luz
zatto, Frankel, Geiger, Levy, Bauer, Jahn, Ber
tholdt, Levysohn, etc.), who not only reject the au
thorship of Jonathan, but also utterly deny that
there was any ground whatsoever for assigning a
Targum to him, as is done in the Talmud. The
passage, they say, is not older, but younger than
our Targum, and in fact does apply, erroneously oJ
course, to this, and to no other work of a simUar
kind. The popular cry for a gi'eat " name, upon

3412

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)

which to hang" — in Talmudical phraseology —
aU that is cherished and venerated, and the wish of
those eager to impart to this Version a lasting au
thority, found in Jonathan the most fitting person
to fether it upon. Was he not the greatest of the
great, " who had heen dusted with the dust of Hil-
lel's feet?" He was the wisest of the wise, the
one most imbued with knowledge human and di
vine, of all those eighty, the least of whom was
worthy that the sun should stay its course at his
bidding. Xay, such were the flames •* that arose
from his glowing spirit, says the hyperbolic Hag
gadah, that '* when he studied in the Law, the very
birds that flew over him in the air, were consumed
by fire" (nisrephu^ — not, as Landau, in the
preface to his Aruch, apologetically translates, be
came Seraphs). At the same time we readUy
grant that we see no reason why the great HUlel
himself, or any other much earUer and equally emi
nent Master of the Law, one of the Soferim perhaps,
should not have been fixed upon.
Another suggestion, first broached hy Drusius,
and long exploded, has recently been revived under
a somewhat modified form. Jonathan (Godgiven),
Drusius said, was none else but Theodotion (God-
given), the second Greek translator of the Bible
after the LXX., who had become a Jewish pros-
dyte. Considering that the latter Uved under
Commodus II., and the forraer at the time of
Christ; that the latter is said to have translated
the Prophets only (neither the Pentateuch, nor
the Hagiographa), whUe the former translated the
whole Bible; that Jonathan translated into Ara
maic and Theodotion into Greek, — notto mention
the fact that Theodotion was, to say the least, a
not very competent translator, since "ignorance
or negUgence " (Montfaucon, Pref. to Hexapla),
or both, must needs be laid at fiie door of a trans
lator, who, when in difficulties, simply transcribes
the hard Hebrew words into Greek characters,
without troubling himself any further; c while the
mastery over both the Hebrew and the Aramaic
displayed in the Jonathanic Version are astound
ing : — considering aU this, we need not like Wal
ton ask caustically, why Jonathan ben Uzziei
should not rather be identified with the Emperor
Theodosius, whose name also is " Godgiven ; " —
but dismiss the suggestion as Carpzov long since
dismissed ifc. We are, however, told now (Luzzatto,
Geiger, etc.), that as the Babylonian Targum on
the Pentateuch was called a Targum " in the
manner of Aquila or Onkelos," i. e. of sterling
value, so also the continuation of the Babylonian
Tai^um, which embraced the Prophets, was called
a Targum " in the manner of Theodotion " =
Jonathan; and by a further stretch, Jonathan-
Theodotion becanie the Jonathan b. Uzziei. We
cannot but disagree with this hypothesis also —
based on next to nothing, and carried to raore
than the usual length of speculation. While Akyla
is quoted continually in the Talmud, and is de
servedly one of the besfc known and best beloved
characters, every traifc and incident of whose per
sonal hisfcory is told even twice over, not the slight
est trace of such a person as Theodotion is to

a The simile of the fire — "as the Iaw was given
Rl fire on Sinai " — is a very favorite one in the Mid
rash « E'Si Ley- TU 18, V*)35, T. *eyyuA, ov^erffovK,

be found anywhere in the Talmudical literature.
What, agaui, was it that could have acquired bc
transcendent a fame for his translation and himself
that a Version put into the mouths of the verj
prophets should be called after him, " in order
thatthe people should like it"? — a translation
which was, in fact, deservedly unknown, and, prop
erly speaking, no translation at aU. It was, as
we leam, a kind of private emendation of some
LXX. passages, objectionable to the pious proselyte
in theu" then corrupted state. It was only the
book of Daniel which was retained from Theo
dotion's pen, because hi this book the LXX. had
become past correction. If, moreover, the inten
tion was " to give the people a Hebrew for a Greek
name, because the latter might sound too foreign,"
it was an entirely gratuitous one. Greek names
abound in the Talmud, and even names be^n-
ning with Theo like Theodorus are to be found
there. On the other hand, the opinion has been broached
that this Targum was a post-Talmudical produc
tion, belongii^ to the 7th or 8th cent. A. d. For
this point we need only refer to the Talmudic^
quotations from it. And when we further add,
that Jo. Morinus, ii. man as conspicuous by his
want of knowledge as by his most ludicrous attacks
upon aU that was "Jewish" or " Protestant " (it
was he, e. g, who wished to see the "forged"
Masoretic Code corrected from the Samaritan Pen
tateuch, q. v.), is the chief, and almost only, de
fender of this theory, we have said enough. On
the other theory of there being more than one
author to our Targum (Eichhom, Bertholdt, De
Wette), combated fiercely by Gesenius, Havernick,
and others, we need not further enlarge, after what
we have already said. It certainly is the work,
not of one, or of two, but of twenty, of fifty and
more IMeturgeuianim, Haggadists, and Halachists.
The edition, however, we repeat it advisedly, has
the undeniable stamp of one master-mind; and its
individual workings, ifcs manner and peculiarity are
indelibly impressed upon the whole k.bor from the
first page to the last. Such, we hold, must he the
impression upon every attentive reader ; more espe
cially, if he judiciously distinguishes between the
first and the last prophets. That in the historical
relations of the former, the Version must be, on
the whole, more accurate and close (although here
too, as we shaU show, Haggadah often tak^ the
reins out of tbe Meturgeman's or editor's hands),
while in the obscurer Oracles of the latter the
Midrash reigns suprerae — is exactly wbat the his
tory of Targumic development leads us to expect.
And with this we have pointed out the general
character of the Tai^um under consideratiuD.
Gradually, perceptibly almost, tbe translation be
comes the rpdyTjpa, a frame, so to speak, of alle
gory, parable, myth, tale, and oddly masked his
tory — such as we are wont to see in Talmud and
Midrash, ^Titten under the bloody censorship of
Esau-Rome; interspersed with some lyrical pieces
of rare poetical value. It becomes, in short, like
the Haggadah, a whole system of eastern phantas
magorias whirUng round the sun of the Holy Word

by way of emendation; Lev. xiii. 6, nnDDD,
Ma4T^aa; ibid. nSE£?, 2^tf j Lev. xviii. 28, vDT
9a^e\ ; Is. Ixiv. 5, W^IV, Efi0(>t.

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)

3413

af the Seer. Tet, it is always aware of being a
translation. It returns to its verse after long
Bxcurses, often iu next to no perceptible connection
with it. Even in the midst of the fuU swing of
fancy, swayed to and fro by the many cun'ents of
thought that arise out of a single word, snatches
of the verse from which the flight was taken wiU
suddenly appear on the surface Uke a refrain or a
keynote, showing that in reality there is a connec
tion, though hidden to the uninitiated. For long
periods again, it adheres most strictly to its text
and to its verse, and translates most conscientiously
and closely. It may thus fairly be described as
holding iu point of interpretation and enlargement
of the text, the middle place between Onkelos, who
Only in extreme cases deviates into paraphrase, and
the subsequenfc Targums, whose connection vrith
their texts is frequently of the most flighty charac
ter. Sometimes indeed our Targum coincides so
entirely with Onkelos, — being, in fact, of one and
the same origin and growth, and a mere continua
tion and completion as it were of the former work,
ihat this similarity has misled critics into specula
tions of the priority in date of either the one or
the other. Havernick, e, g. holds — against Zunz
— that Onkelos copied, plagiarized in fact, Jona
than. We do not see, quite apart from our placing
Onkelos first, why either should have used the
other. The three passages (Judg. v. 26 and Deut.
xxu. 5; 2 K. xiv. 6 and Deut. xxiv. 16; Jer.
xlviu. 45, 46 and Num. xxi. 28, 29) generally
adduced, do not in the first place exhibit that lit
eral closeness which we are led to expect, and which
alone could be caUed "copying;" and in the
second place, the two last passages are not, as we
also thought we could infer from the words of the
writers on either side, extraneous paraphrastic addi
tions, but simply the similar translations of similar
tests: whUe in the first passage Jonathan only
refers to an injunction contained in the Penta
teuch-verse quoted. But even had we found such
paraphrastic additions, apparently not belonging to
the subject, we should have accounttxi for them by
certain traditions — the common property of the
whole generation — being recalled by a certain
word or phrase in the Pentateuch to the memory
of the one translator; and by another word or
phrase in the Prophets to the n'emory of the other
translator. The interpretation of Jonathan, where
it adheres to the text, is mostly very correct in a
philosophical and exegetical sense, closely Uteral
even, provided the meaning of the original is easily
to be understood by the people. When, however,
siraUes are used, unfamiUar or obscure to the people,
it unhesitatingly dissolves them and makes them
easy in their mouths like household words, by
adding as much of explanation as seeras fit ; some
times, it cannot be denied, less sagaciously, even
incorrectly, comprehending the original meaning.
Yet we must be very cautious in attributing to a
version which altogether bears the stamp of thor
ough competence and carefulness that which may
be single corruptions or interpolations, as we find
them sometimes indicated by an introductory
" Says the Prophet : " « although, as stated above,
»e do not hesitate to attribute the passages dis
playing an acquaintance with works writfcen down

& 1 Sam. ii. 10 ; 2 Sam. xxiii. 3 ; 1 K. iv. 33 ; Is.
» 2, Ix. 6, X. 27, xi. 1, 6, xv- 2, xvi. 1, 6, xxviii. 5,

to the 4th century, and exhibithig popular notions
current at that time, to the Targum in its original
shape. Generally speaking, and holding the diifer-
ence between the nature of the Pentateuch (sup*
posed to contain in its very letters and signs Hala
chistic references, and therefore only to be handled
by the Meturgeman with the greatest care) and
that of the Prophets (freest Homiletes themselves)
steadily in view — the rules laid down above with
respect to the discrepancies between original and
Targum, in Onkelos, hold good also with Jonathan.
Anthropomorphisms it avoids carefuUy. Geo
graphical names are, in most cases, retained as in
the original, and where translated, they are gen
erally correct. Its partiality for Israel never goes
so far that anything derogatory to the character of
the people should be wUlingly suppressed, although
a certain reluctance against dweUing upon its iniqui
ties and punishments longer than necessary, is vis
ible. Where, however, that which redounds to the
praise of the individual — more especially of heroes,
kings, prophets — and of the community, is con
tained in the text, there the paraphrase lovingly
tarries. Future bliss, in this world and the world
to come, Uberation from the oppressor, restoration
of the Sanctuary on Mount Zion, of the Kingdom
of Jehovah and the House of David, the reestab-
Ushraent of the nation and of its full and entire
independence, as well as of the national worship,
with aU the primitive splendor of Priest and Levite,
singer and musician and prophet — these are the
favorite dreams of the people and of Jonathan, and
no Unk is overlooked by which those strains may
be drawn in as variations to the Biblical theme.
Of Messianic passages, Jonathan has pointed out
those mentioned below; * a number not too large,
if we consider how, with the increased misery of
the people, their ardent desire to see their DeUverer
appear speedily must have tried to find as many
places in the Bible as possible, warranting his
arrival. So far from their being suppressed (as, by
one ofthose unfortunate accidents that befall some
times a long string of investigators, who are copy
ing their information at third and fourth hand,
has been unblushingly asserted by almost everybody
up to Gesenius, who found its source in a misun
derstood sentence of Carpzov), they are most prom
inently, often almos't pointedly brought forward.
And there is a decided polemical animus inherent
in them — temperate as far as appearance goes,
but containing many an unspoken word: such as
a fervent human mind pressed down by all the
woes and terrors, written and unwritten, would
whisper to itself in the depths of its despair. These
passages extol most rapturously the pomp and glory
of the Messiah to come — by way of contrast to
tbe humble appearance of Christ: and in all the
places where suffering and misery appear to be the
lot forecast to the Anointed, it is Israel, to whom
the passage is referred by the Targum.
Of further dogmatical and theological peculia,ri-
ties (and this Targum wiU one day prove a mine
of instruction chiefly in that direction, besides the
other vast advantages inherent in it, as in the older
Targums, for linguistic, patristic, geographical, his
torical, and other studies) we may mention briefly
the "Stars of God " (Is. xiv. 13; comp. Dan. viii,

xiii. 1, xUii. 10, xiv. 1, Iii. 13, hii. 10 ; Jer. xxiii. 5j
xxx. 21, xxxiii. 13, 15 ; Hos. iii. 5. xiv. 8 ; Mic. iv
8, V. 2, 18 ; Zech. iii. 8, iv. 7, vi. 12, x. 4.

3414

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)

10; 2 Mace. ix. 10, being referred — in a similar
manner — to " the people of Israel " ) ; the doctrine
of the second death (Is. xxii. 14, Ixv. 15), etc.
As to the general nature of its idiom, what we
have said above holds good here. Likewise our
remarks on the relation befcween the text of the
original of Onkelos, and its own text, may stand
for Jonathan, who never appears to differ from the
Masoretic texfc wifchoufc a very cogenfc reason. Yet,
since Jonathan's MSS., though very much smaUer
in number, are in a still worse plight than those
of Onkelos, we cannot speak with great certainty
on this point. Respecting, however, the individual
language and phraseology of the translation, it
lacks to a certain, though smaU degree, the clear
ness and transparency of Onkelos; and is some
what alloyed with foreign words. Not to such
a degree, however, that we cannot fully indorse
Carpzov's dictum: " Cujus nitor sermonis Chaldaei
et dictionis laudatur puritas, ad Onkelosum proxime
accedens et parum deflectens a puro tersoque Chal-
daismo biblico" (Crit Sacr. p. 461), and incUne
to the belief of Wolf (Bibl. Hebr. ii. 1165): " Qu£e
vero, vel quod ad voces novas et barbaras, vel ad
res aetate ejus inferlores, aut futilia nonnuUa,
quamvis pauca tripUcis hujus generis exstent, ibi
occurrunt, ex merito falsarii cujusdara ingenio ad-
scribuntur." Of the manner and style of this
Targum, the few subjoined specimens will we hope
give an approximate idea.
In conclusion, we may notice a feature of our
Targum, not the least interesting perhaps, in rela
tion to general or "human" literature: namely,
that the Shemitic fairy and legendary lore, which
for the last two thousand years — as far as we can
trace it — has grown up in East and West to vast
glittering mountain-ranges, is to a very great extent
to be found, in an embryo state, so to say, in this
our Targum. When the literary history of those
most wonderful circles of mediaaval sagas — the
sole apparent fruit brought home by the crusaders
from the eastern battle-fields — shall come to be
written by a competent and thorough investigator,
he will have to extend his study of the sources to
this despised "fabulosus" Targum Jonathan ben
Uzziei. And the entire world of pious Biblical
legend, which Islam has said and sung in the Ara
bic, Persian, Turkish, and all its other tongues, to
the deUght of the wise and the simple for twelve
centuries now, is contained almost fully developed,
from beginning to end, but clearer, purer, and
incomparably more poetically conceived, in our
Targu m-H aggad ah .
The Editio Princeps dates Leiria, 1494. The
later editions are embodied in the Antwerp, Paris,
and London Polyglotts. Several single books have
likewise been repeatedly edited (comp. Wolf, Le
Long, KosenmUIler, etc.).
JUDGES V.

Authorized Temion.

avenging of Is
rael, when the
people willingly
offered them
selves.

3 Hear, 0 ye
kings ; give ear,
0 ye princes ; I,
even I, will sing
unto tbe Lord ;
I will sing praise
to the Lord God
of Israel.

4 Lord, when
thou wentest out
of Seir, when
thou marchedst
out of the field
of Edom, the
earth trembled,
and the heavens
dropped, the
clouds also
dropped water,

5 The moun
tains melted from
before the Lord.
even that Sinai
from before the
Lord God of Is
rael.

Tabgcu
[J onathan-ben-TJzdel]
To THE FbOPHETS.

Authorized Version.

Targum
[Jonathan-ben-Uzziel] To THE Prophets.

1 Then sang 1 And Deborah and Barak the
Deborah and Ba- son of Abinoam gave praise for the
rak the son of miracle aud the salvation which^
Abinoam on that were wrought for Israel on that
flay, saying, day, and spake :
2 Praise ye thej 2 When the children of Israel
Lord for the, rebel against the Law, then the

6 In the days
of Shamgar the
SOD of Anath, in
the days of Jael,
the highways
were unoccupied,
and the travellers
walked through
byways. 7 The inhabit.
ants of the vil
lages ceased, they
ceased in Israel,
uutil that I Deb
orah arose, that I
arose a mother in
Israel. 8 They chose
new gods ; then
was war in the

nations come over them and drin
them out of their cities ; but when
they return to do the Law, then
they are mighty over their enemies,
and drive them out trom the wholt
territory of the land of Israel. Thul
has been broken Siaera and all hia
armies to his punishment, and to a
miracle and a salvation for Israel.
Then the wise returned to sit io the
houses ofthe synagogue .... and
to teach unto the people the doctrine
of the Law. Therefore praise ye
and bless the Lord.
3 Hear, ye kings (ye who came
with Sisra to the battle-array), lis
ten, ye rulers [ye who were with
Jabin the king of Kenaan : not with
your armies nor with your power
have ye conquered and become
mighty over the house of Israel] —
said Deborah in prophecy before
God : I praise, give thanks and
blessings before the Lord, the God
of Israel.
4 [0 Lord, Thy Law which Thou
gavest to Israel, when tbey trans*
gress it, then the nations rule over
them : bnt when they return to It,
then they become powerful over
their enemies.] 0 Lord, on the day
when Thou didst reveal Thyself to
give it unto them from Seir, Thou
becamest manifest unto them in the
splendor of Thy glory over the tem-
tories of Edom : the earth trembled,
the heavens showered down, the
clouds dropped rain.
6 The mountains trembled before
the Lord, the mountains of Tabor,
the mountains of llermon, and the
mountain of Carmel, spake with
each other, and said one to the
other : Upon me the SbechiDah
will rest, and to me will It come.
But the Shecbinah rested upon
Mount Sinai, which is the weakest
and smallest of alt tbe mountains.
.... This Sinai trembled and
shook, and its smoke went up as goes
up the smoke of an oven: because of
the glory of the God of IsraeJ which
had manifested itself upon it.
6 When they transgressed in the
days of Shamgar the son of A.nath,
in the days of Jael, ceased the way
farers : they who had walked in
well-prepared waj'S had again to
walk in furtive paths.

7 Destroyed were the open cities
of the land of Israel : their inhab
itants were shaken off and driven
about, until I. Deborah, waa sent
to prophesy over the house of Is
rael.

8 When the children of Israel
went to pray unto newidols [errors],
which recently had comi to 1«

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TABGXJM)

3416

Authorized Version.

Tarqum
[Jonathan-ben-Uzziel] To IHE Prophets.

^tes : was there
a shield or spear
seen among forty
thousand in Is
rael?

8 My heart is
toward the gov
ernors of Israel
that ofifered them
selves willingly
among the peo
pie. Bless ye the
Lord.

10 Speak, ye
thatride on white
asses, ye that sit
in judgment, and
walk by the way.

worshipped, with which their fothers
did not concern themselves, there
came over them the nations and
drove them out of their cities : but
when they returned to the Law,
they could not prevail against them
until they made themselves strong,
aud Sisra went up against them,
the enemy and the adversary, with
forty thousand chiefs of troops, with
fifty thousand holders of the sword,
with sixty thousand holders of spears,
with seventy thousand holders
of shields, with eighty thousand
throwers of arrows and slings, be
sides nine hundred iron chariots
which he had with him, and his
own chariots. All these thousands
and all these hosts could not stand
before Barak and the ten thousand
men he had with him.
9 Spake Deborah in prophecy : I
am sent to praise the scribes of Is
rael, who, while this tribulation
lasted, ceased not to study in the
Law : and it redounds well unto
them who sat in the houses of con
gregation, wide open, and taught
the people tbe doctrine of the Law,
and praised and rendered thanks
before the Lord.
10 Those who had interrupted
their occupations are riding on
asses covered with many-colored
caparisons, aud they ride about
freely in all the territory of Israel,
and congregate to sit iu judgment.
They walk in their old ways, aud
are speaking of the power Thou hast
shown in the land of Israel, etc.

JUDGES XI.

89 And it came
to pass, at the
end of two
months, that she
retnmed unto her
fether, who did
with her accord
ing to his vow
which h'i had
vowed : and she
knew DO man-
And it was a cus
tom in Israel.

Authorized Version.

39 And it waa at the end of two
months, aud she returned to her
father, and he did unto her accord
ing to the vow which he had vowed :
and she had known no man. And
it became a statute in Israel.
Addition (nt^DlH), that no
man should offer up his son or his
daughter as a burnt-offering, as
Jephta che Gileadite did, who asked
not Phinehas the priest. If he had
asked Phinehas the priest, then he
would have dissolved his vow with
money [for animal sacrifices].

2 There is none
holy as the Lord :
for there is none
beside thee, nei
ther IS t/iere any
rock like our God.

3 Talk no more
so exceeding
proudly ; let not
arrogancy come
out of your
mouth : for the
Lord is a God of
knowledge, and
by him actions
are weighed.
4 The bows of
the mighty an
broken, and they
that stumbled
are girded with
strength.

1 SAM. II.

1 ANDlIannah
prayed, and said.
My heartr^oiceth
tn the Lord ; mine
hom is exalted
in the Lord ; my
mouth is enlarged
over mine ene
mies ; because I
rejoice in thy sal-
rabon.

1 And Hannah prayed in the
spirit of prophecy, and said : [Lo,
my son Saniuel will become a proph
et over Israel ; in his days they
will be freed from the hand of the
Philistines ; and through his hands
shall be done unto them wondrous
and mighty deeds: therefore] be
strong, my heart, in the portion
whieh God gave me. [And also
lleman the son of Joel, the son of

Targum
[Jonatban-ben-Uaaiel] To THE Prophets.

my son Samuel, shall arise, he and
his fourteen sons, to say praise with
nablia (harps?) and cythera, with
their brethren the Levites, to sing
the house of the sanctuary :
therefore] Let my horn be exalted
in the gift which God granted untc
me. [And also on the miraculous
punishment that would befall the
Philistines who would bring back
the ark of the Lord in a new chariot,
together with a sin-offering : thero
fore let the congregation of Isi-ael
say] I will open my mouth to speak
great things over my enemies ; be
cause I rejoice in thy salvation.
2 [Over Sanherib the king of
Ashur did she prophesy, and she
said : He will arise with all his
armies over Jerusalem, and a great
sign will be done with him. There
shall fitll the corpses of his troops :
Therefore praise ye all the peoples
and nations and tongues, and cryj :
There is none holy but God ; there
is not beside Thee ; and Thy people
shall say. There is none mighty but
our God.
3 [Over Nebuchadnezzar the king
of Babel did she prophesy and say :
Ye Chaldeans, and all nations who
will once rule over Israel] Do not
speak grandly ; let no blasphemy
go out from your mouth : for God
knows all, and over all his servants
he extends his judgment ; also from
you ho will take punishment of
your guilt.
4 [Over the kingdom Javan she
prophesied and s&id] The bows of
the mighty ones [of tbe Javanites]
will be broken ; [and those of the
house of the Asmoneans] who are
weak, to them will be done miracles
and mighty deeds.

1 SAM. xvn.

8 And he stood
and cried unto
the armies of Is
rael, and said
unto them. Why
are ye come out
to set your battle
in array ? Am
not I a Philis
tine, and ye ser
vants to Saul ?
choose you a man
for you, and let
him come down
to me.

8 And he arose, and he cried
unto the armies of Israel, and said
unto them : Why have you put
yourselves in battle array ? Am J
not the Philistine, and you the ser>
vants of Saul ? [I am Goliath the
Philistine from Gath, who have
killed the two sons of Eli, the priests
Chofna and Pinehas, aud carried
captive the ark of the covenant of
the Lord, I who have carried it to
the house of Dagon, my Error, and
it haa been there in the cities of the
Philistines seven months. And in
every battle which the Philistines
have had I went at the head of the
army, and we conquered in the bat^
tie, and we strew the killed like the
dust of tbe earth, and until now
have the Philistines not thought
me worthy to become captain of a
thousand over them. And you, 0
children of Israel, what mighty deed
h.is Saul the son of Ki sh fi-om Gibeah

3116

VEKSIONS, ANCIKNT (TARGUM)

Authorized Version.

Tarqdm
[Jonathan-ben-Uzziel] To the Prophets.

done for you that you made him
king over you ? If he is a valiant
man, let him come out and do bat
tle with me ; but if he is a weak
man], then choose for yourselves a
man , and let him come out against
me, etc.

1 KINGS XIX.

11, 12 And he
said. Go forth,
9.nd stand upon
the mount before
the Lord. And,
behold, the Lord
passed by, and a
great and strong
wind rent the
mountains, and
brake in pieces
the rocks, before
the Lord ; but the
IjORD ivas not in
the wind : and
after the wind an
earthquake ; but
the Lord was not
in the earth -
quake : And after
the earthquake a
fire J but the Lord
was not in the
fire ; and after
the fire a still
small voice.
13 And it was
so, when Elijah
heard it, that he
wrapped his face
in his mantle,
and went out, and
stood in the en
tering in of the
cave : and, be
hold, there came
a voice unto him,
and said, What
doest thou here,
Elijah?

11, 12 And he said [to Elijah],
Arise and stand on the mountain
before the Lord. And God revealed
himself: aud before him a host of
angels of the wind, cleaving the
mountain and breaking the rocks
before the Lord ; but not in fche
host of angels was the Shecbinah.
And after the hopt of the angels of
the wind came a host of angels of
commotion ; but not in the host
of the angels of commotion was the
Shecbinah of the Lord. And after
the host of the angels of commotion
came- a host of angels of fire; but
not in the host of the angels of fire
was the Shecbinah of the Lord.
But after fche host of the angels
of the fire came voices singing iu

^ 13 And it was when Elijah heard
this, he hid his face in his mantle.
and he went oufc and he stood at
the door of the cave : aod, lo ! with
him was a voice, saying. What doest
thou here, 0 El^ah ! etc.

ISAIAH xxxm

22 Fob the
Lord is our judge,
the Lord is our,
lawgiver, the
Lord is our king ;
he will save us.

22 For the Lord is our judge,
who delivered us with his power
from Mizraim ; the Lord is our
teacher, for He has given us the
doctrine of the Torah from Sinai ;
fche Lord is our king : He will de
liver us, and give us righteous res
titution from the army of Gog.

11 Thus shall
yesayunto them.
The gods that
have not made
9he heavens and

11 This is the copy of the Ifetter
which Jeremiah the prophet sent to
the remaining ancient ones of fcbe
captivity in Babel : " And if the
nationa among whom you are will

Authorized Version.

the earth, even
they shall perish
from the earth
and &om under
fchese heavens.

Taroum
[Jonathan-ben-Uzziel] To the Prophets.

say unfco you, Pray to our Errors:
— 0 house of Israel, then you shall
answer thus, and apeak in thia
wise : The Errors unfco which you
pray are Errors .which are of no
use : they cannot rain from heaven^
they cannofc cause fruifc to grow
from fche earfch. They and •their
worshippers will perish from the
earth, and will be destroyed from
under fchese heavens.

MICAH VL

4 For I brought
fchee up out ofthe
land of Egypt,
and redeemed
thee out of the
house of servants;
and I sent be
fore thee Moses,
Aaron, and Mir
iam.

4 For X have taken thee out firom
the land of Mizraim, and have re
leased thee from the house of thy
bondage : and have senfc before thee
three prophets : Moses, to teach
thee the tradition of fche ordinances :
Aaron, fco afcone for fche people ; and
Miriam, to teach the women.

III. and rv. Takgum of Jonathan Ben-Uz
ziel AND Jebushalmi- Targum on thk
Pentateuch. Onkelos and Jonathan on the Pentateuch and
Prophets, whatever be their exact date, place, au
thorship and editorship, are, as we have endeavored
to show, the oldest of existing Targums, and be
long, in their presenfc shape, to Babylon and the
Babylonian academies flourishing between the 3d
and 4th centuries A. d. But precisely as two par
allel and independent developments of tbe oral Law
(DDt£7n) have sprung up in the Palestinian and
Babylonian Talmuds respectively, so also recent in
vestigation has proved to demonstration the exist
ence of two distinct cycles of Targums on tha
written Law (l2nD2tZ7n) — {. e. the entire body
of fche Old Testament. Both are the offspring of
the old, primitive institution of the public "read
ing and translating of the Torah," which for many
hundred years had its place in the Palestinian
synagogues. The one first collected, revised, and
edited in Babylon, called — more especially that
part of it which embraced the Pentateuch (Onkelos)
— the Babylonian, Ows, by way of eminence, on
account of the superior authority inherent in all the
works of the Madinchae (Babylonians, in contra
distinction to the Maarbae or Palestinians). The
other, continuing its oral life, so to say, down to a
much later period, was written and edited — less
carefully, or rather with a much more faithful re
tention of the oldest and youngest fancies of Metur-'
gemanim and Darshanim — on the soil of Judaea.
itself. Of this enfcire cycle, however, the Penta
teuch and a few other books and fragmentary pieces
only have survived entire, while of most of the other
books of the Bible a few detached fragments are all
that is known, and this chiefly from quotations.
The injunction above mentioned respecting the sab
batical readhig of the Targum -^n the Pentateuch —
nothing is said of the Prophets — explains the fact,
to a certain extent, how the Pentateuch Targum

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)

3417

has been religiously preserved, while tlie others have
perished. This circumstance, also, is to be taken
into consideration, that Palestine was in later cen
turies well-nigh cut oif from communication with
tbe Diaspora, while Babylon, aud tbe gigantic
literature it produced, reigned paramount over all
Judaism, as, indeed, down to the 10th century, tbe
latter continued to have a spbitual leader in tbe
person of the Resh Gelutba (Head of the Golah),
residing in Babylon. As not the least cause of the
loss of the great bulk ot the Palestinian Targum
may also be considered the almost uninterrupted
martyrdom to which those were sulijected who pre
ferred, under all circumstances, to live and die in
the Land of Promise.
However this may be, the Targum on the Pen
tateuch has corae down to us : and not in one, but
in two recensions. More surprising still, tbe one
hitherto considered a fragment, because of its em
bracing portions only of tbe individual books, has
in rflality never been intended to embrace any
further portion, and we are thus in tbe possession
of two Palestinian Targums, preserved in their
original forms. The one, which extends from the
firat verse of Genesis to the last of Deuteronomy, is
Known under the name of Targum Jonathan (ben
Uzziei) or Pseudo-Jonathan on the Pentateuch.
The other, interpreting single verses, often single
words only, is extant in the following proportions :
a third on Genesis, a fourth on Deuteronomy, a
fifth on Numbers, three twentieths on Exodus, and
about one fourteenth on Leviticus. Tbe latter is
generally called Targum Jerushalmi, or, down to
the llth century (Hai Gaon, Chananel), Targum
Erets Israel, Targum of Jerusalem or of the land
of Israel. That Jonathan ben Uzziei, tbe same to
whom the prophetical Targum is ascribed, and who
ia reported to have lived eitber in tbe 5th-ith
century B. c, or about tbe time of Christ himself
(see above), could have little to do with a Targum
which speaks of Constantinople (Num. xxiv. 19, 24),
describes very plainly tbe breakiiig-up of the West-
Koman Empire (Num. xxiv. 19-24), mentions the
Turks (Gen. x. 2), and even Mohammed's two
wives, Ohadidja and Fatime (Gen. xxi. 21), and
which exhibits not only tbe fullest acquaintance
with tbe edited body of the Babylonian Talmud,
by quoting entire passages from it, but adopts its
peculiar phraseology — • not to mention the com
plete disparity between the style, language, and
general manner of the Jonathanic Targum on the
Prophets, and those of this one on the Pentateuch,
strikingly palpable at first sight, — was recognized
by early investigators (Morinus, Pfeiffer, Walton,
etc.), who soon overthrew the old behef in Jonatlian
b. Uzziel's authorship, as upheld by Menahem Re-
kanati, Asariah de Rossi, Gedaljah, Galatin, Fagius,
etc. But tbe relation in whicli the two Targums,
ao similar and yet so dissimilar, stood to each other,
liow they arose, and where and when — all these
questions have for a long time, in tbe terse words
of Zunz, caused many of the learned such dire
misery, tbat whenever the "Targum Hierosolymi-
tanum" comes up, they, instead of information on
it and its twin-brother, prefer to treat the reader
to a round volley of abuse of them. Not before the
first hiilf of this century did the fact become fully
and incontestably established (by the simple process
of an investigation of the sources), that both Tar
gums were ii reiL-ty one — that both were known
down to the 14th century under no other name
than Targum Jerushalmi — and that some forgetful
215

scribe about that time must have taken the abbre
viation ''"ri- 'T. J,' over one of the two docu
ments, and, instead of dissolving it into Targum-
Jerushalmi, dissolved it erroneously into wbat he
must till then bave been engaged in copying —
namely, Targum-Jonathan, sc. beu Uzziei (on the
Prophets). This error, fostered by the natural
tendency of giving a well-known and far-famed
name — without inquiring too closely into its ac
curacy — to a hitherto anonymous and compara
tively httle known version, bas been copied again
and again, until it found its way, a hundred years
later, into print. Of the intermediate stage, when
only a few MSS. had received the new designatio[i,
a curious fact, which Azariah de Ko.ssi (Cod. 37 b)
mentions, gives evidence. " I saw," he says, " two
complete Targums on the whole Pentateuch, word
for word alike; one in Keggio, which was described
in tbe margin, * Targum of Jonathan b. Uzziei;'
the other in iWantua, described at the margin as
' Targum Jerushalmi.' " In a similar manner
quotations from either in the Aruch confound tbe
designation. Benjamin Mussaphia (d. 1674), tbe
author of additions and corrections to the Aruch,
has indeed pronounced it as his personal conjecture
that both may be one and the same, and Drusius,
Mendelssohn, Kappoport, and others shared his
opinion. Yet tbe diiiiculty of their obvious dissim
ilarity, if they were identical, remained to be ac
counted for. Zunz tries to solve it by assuming
that Pseudo-Jonathan is tbe original Targum, and
that tbe fragmentary Jerushalmi is a collection of
variants to it. The circumstance of its also contain
ing portions identical with the codex, to which it is
supposed to be a collection of readings, he explains
by the negligence of the transcriber. Frankel,
however, followed by Traul^ and I.evysolm, has gone
a step further. From tbe very identity of a propor
tionately large number of places, amounting to
about thirty in each book, and from certain pal
pable and consistent differences which run through
both recensions, tbey have arrived at a different
conclusion, which seems to carry conviction on tlie
face of it, namely, that Jerushalmi is a collection
of emendations and additions to single portions,
phrases, and words of Onkelos, and Pseudo-.lona-
than a further emendated and completed edition
to the wliole Pentateuch of Jerushalmi-Onkelos.
The chief incentive to a new Targum on the Penta
teuch (that of Onkelos being well known in Pales
tine), was, on the one hand, the wish to explain
such of the passages as seemed either obscure in
themselves or capable of greater adaptation to the
tinies; and on the other hand tbe great and para
mount desire for legendary lore, and ethical and
homiletical motives, intertwined with the very letter
of Scripture, did not and could not feel satisfied
with the (generally) strictly literal version of On
kelos, as soon as the time of eccentric, prolix, oral
Targums had finally ceased in Palestine too, and
written Targums of Babylon were introduced as a
substitute, once for all. Hence variants, exactly as
found in Jerushalmi, not to the wliole of Onkelos,
but to such portions as seemed most to require
" improvement " in the direction indicated. And
how much this thoroughly paraphrastic version was
preferred to the hteral is, among other signs, plainly
visible from tbe circumstance tbat it is still joined.
for instance, to the reading of the Decalogue on tha
Feast of Weeks in the synagogue. At a later period
the gaps were filled np, and the whole nf the '¦xist

3418

VEBSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)

lug Jerushalmi was recast, as far again as seemed
fitting and requisite. This is the Jonathan, so
sailed for the last four hundred years only. And
fchus the identity in some, and the divergence in
other places finds its most natural solution.
Tlie Jerushalmi, in both its recensions, is writ
ten in the Palestuiensian dialect, the peculiarities of
which we have briefly characterized above. It is
older than ths Masora and the conquest of Western
Asia by fcbe Arabs. Syria or Palestine must be
its birthplace, the second half of the 7th cenfcury
its date, since the instances above given will uot
allow of any earlier time. Its chief aim and pur
pose is, especially in its second edition, to form an
entertaining compendium of all the Halachah and
Haggadah, which refers to the Pentateuch, and
takes its stand upon it. And in this lies its chief
use to us. There is hardly a single allegory, parable,
mystic digression, or tale in it which is not found
in the other Haggadistic writings — Hishna, Tal
mud, Mechilta, Sifra, Sifri, efcc. ; and both Winer
and Petermann, not to mention the older author
ities, have wrongly charged it with inventing its in
terpretations. Even where no source can be indi
cated, tbe author has surely only given utterance
to the leading notions and ideas of his fcimes, ex
travagant and abstruse as they may oftentimes ap
pear to our modern western minds. Little value
is inherent in its critical emendations on the exe
gesis of Onkelos. It sometimes endeavors either to
find an entirely new signification for a word, and
then it often falls into grave errors, or it restores in
terpretations rejected by Onkelos, only it must never
be forgotten that translation is quite a secondary
object with Jerushalmi. It adheres, however, to
the general method followed by Onkelos and Jona
than. It dissolves similes and widens too concise
'diction. Geographical names ifc alters into those
currenfc in its own day. It avoids anthropomor
phisms as well as anthropopathisms. The strict
distinction between the Divine Being and man is
kept up, and the word D^p " before " is put as a
kind of medium between the former and the latter,
no less than the other — " Shechinah," '* Word,"
" Glory," etc. It never uses Elohim where the
Scripture applies it to man or idols. The same
care is taken to extol fche good deeds of the people
aud ifcs ancesfcors, and to slur over and excuse the '

evil ones, efcc. : — all this, however, in a much mon
decided and exaggerated form than either in Onkeloi
or .lonathan. Its language and grammar are very
corrupt; it abounds — chiefly in its larger edition,
the Pseudo-Jonathan — in Greek, Latin, Persian,
and Arabic words ; and even making allowances for
the many blunders of ignorant scribes, enough will
remain to pronounce the diction ungrammatical in
very many places.
Thus much briefly of the Jerushalmi as one and
the same work. We shall now endeavor to poinfc
out a few characteristics belonging to its two re
censions respectively. The first, Jerushalmi kot'
e^ox'h^i knows very little of angels; Michael is
the only one ever occurring: in Jonathan, on fche
ofcher hand, angelology flourishes in great vigor:
to the Biblical Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, are added
the Angel of Deafch, Samael, Sagnugael, ShachassM,
Usiel; sevenfcy angels descend with God to see the
building of the Babylonian tower; nine hundred
millions of punishing angels go through Egypt
during the night of the Exodus, efcc. Jerushalmi
makes use but rarely of Halachah and Haggadah,
while Jonafchan sees the text as it were only through
fche medium of Haggadah : to him the chief end.
Hence Jonafchan has many Midrashim not found in
Jerushalmi, while he does not omifc a single one
contained in the latter. There are no direct his
torical dates in Jerushahni, but many are found in
Jonathan, and since all other signs indicate that
bufc a short space of time intervenes between the
two, the lafce origin of either is to a, great extent
made manifest by these dates. The most striking
difference between them, however, and the one
which is most characteristic of eitber, is fchis, fchat
while Jerushalmi adheres raore closely to the lan
guage of the Mishna, Jonathan has greater aflBnity
to that of the Talmud. Of either we subjoin short
specimens, which, for the purpose of easier compar
ison, and reference, we bave placed side by side with
Onkelos. The Targum Jerushalmi was first printed
in Bomberg"s Bible, Venice, 1518 ff., and was re
printed in Bomberg's edd., and in Walton, vol. ivr
Jonathan fco the Pentateuch, a AIS. of which was
firsfc discovered by Ashur Purinz in fche Library of
fche family of the Puahs in Venice, was printed for
fche first time in 1590, as " Targum Jonathan ben
Uzziei," afc Venice, reprinted afc Hanau, 1618, Am-
sfcerdam, 16i0, Pmgue, 1646, Walton, vol. iv., etc.

GENESIS ni. 17-24.

Authorized Yjbrsion.

17 And unto Adam he
said, Because thou hast
hearkened uuto the voice
of thy wife, and hast eaten
Df the tree, of which 1 com
manded thee, saying. Thou
Shalt not eat of it : cursed
is the ground for thy sake ;
In Borrow sbalt thou eat of
it all the day^ of thy life ;

18 Thorns also and this
ties shall it bring forth to
thee ; and thou shalt eat
the herb of tbe field ;

Onkelos.

17 And to Adam he said.
For that thou hast accepted
the word of thy wife, and
hast eaten from tbe tree of
which I have commanded
unto tbee, and said, Thou
shalt not eat from it :
cursed shall the earth be
for thy sake ; with trouble
shalt thou eat of it all the
days of thy life ;
18 And thorns and this
tles it shall grow for thee ;
and thou shalt eat the grass
of tbe field ;

TAiienM Jerushalmi.
First Recension,

18 And thorns and this
tles shall it multiply for
thee ; and thou shaJt eat
the grass that is on the
face of the earth Then

Targum
[Jonathan-ben-TJzQel] Jerushalmi.
Second Recension.

17 And to Adam he said.
Because thou hast received
the word of thy wife, and
hast eaten from the fruit of
the tree, of which I com
manded thee, Thou shalt
not eat from it : cursed be
the earth, because it has
not shown unto thee thy
fkult ; in sorrow shalt thou
eat of it all the days of thy
life; 18 And thorns and this
ties sball grow and multi
ply for thy pake ; and thou
shalt eat the grass that St
on the face of the field

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)

3419

AOIHOBIZED YXBSION.

19 In the sweat of thy
face shalt thou eat bread.
till thou return unto the
ground ; for out of it wast
thou taken : for dust thou
art, and unto dust shalt
thou return.

20 And Adam called his
wife's name Ere ; because
Bhe was the mother of all
living. 21 Unto Adam also and to
his wife did the Lord God
make coats of skins, and
clothed ttiem.

22 And the Lord God
laid. Behold, the man is
become as one of us, to
know good and evil : and
now, lest he put forth his
hand, and take also of the
tree of life, and eat, and
lire for ever :

28 Therefore the Lokd
Ood sent him forth from
The garden of Eden, to till
the ground from whence he
Tas taken.
24 So he drove out the
man ; and he placed at the
WnK of the garden of Eden

Onkelos.

19 In the sweat of thy
face shalt thou eat bread,
until thou returnest unto
the earth from which thou
art created : for dust art
thou, and to dust shalt
thou return.

20 And Adam called the
name of his wife Chavah ;
for that she was the mother
of all sons of man.
21 And Jehovah Elohim
made unto Adam and hia
wife garments of glory, on
the skin of their flesh, and
clothed them.

22 And Jehovah Elohim
said, Behold Adam is the
only one in the world
knowing good and evil
perchance now he might
stretch forth hia hand and
take also from the tree of
life, and eat, and live for
evermore.

23 And Jehovah Elohhn
sent him from the garden
of Eden, to till the earth
whence he was created.

24 And he drove out
Adam ; and he placed be
fore the garden of Eden the

Tarquh Jerushalmi,
First Recension.

began Adam and said, I
pray, through the Mercy
that is before Thee, Jeho
vah, let us not be accounted
before Thee as the beasts
that eat the grass on the
fitce of the field : may we
be permitted to arise and
toil with the toil of our
hands, and eat food from
the fruits of the earth ; and
thus may there be a differ
ence before Thee between
the sons of man and the
o&pring of cattle.

22 And the Word of Je
hovah Elohim said, Lo !
man, whom I created, is
alone in this world, as I
am alone in the highest
Heavens ; mighty nations
will spring from him ; from
him also will arise a people
that will know to distin
guish between good and
evil : now it ia better to
expel him from the garden
of Eden, before he atretch
out hia hand and take also
from the fruits of the tree
of life, and eat, and live for
ever.

24 And He expelled
Adam, and caused to re
side the splendor of his She-

Taroum
[Jonathan-ben-Uzziel] Jerushalmi.
Second Recension.

Adam answered and said, I
pray, by the Mercy that is
before Thee, Jehovah, that
we may not be deemed like
unto the beasts, that we
should eat grass that is on
the face of the field ; inay
we be allowed to arise and
toil with the toiling of our
hands, and eat food from
the food of the earth, and
thus may there be a dis
tinction now before Thee,
between the sons of men
and the oSspring of cattle.
19 .... In the toil of
the palm of thy band shalt
thou eat food, until thou
returnest unto the dust
from which thou wert cre
ated : for dust art thou, and
to dust shalt thou return :
for from tbe dusc thou wilt
once rise to give judgment
and account for all that
thou hast done, on tbe day
of the great Judgment.
20 And Adam called th«
name of his wife Chavah ;
for she is the mother of all
the SODS of man.
21 And Jebovah Elohim
made unto Adam and his
wife garmen ts of honor,
from the skin of the ser
pent which he had cast out
of it, on the skin of their
flesh, instead oftheir beauty
which they had cast off;
and he clothed them.
22 And Jehovah Elohim
said to the angels that were
ministering before him, Lo !
there is Adam alone on the
earth, as I am alone in the
highest Heavens, and there
will spring from him those
who know to distinguish
between good and evil : il
he had kept the command
ment I commanded, he
would have been living
and lasting, like the tiee
of life, for evermore. Now
since he has not kept what
I commanded. We decree
against him and expel him
from the garden of Eden,
before he may stretch out
his hand and take from the
fruits of the tree of life ;
for if he ate therefrom he
would Uve and remain for
ever. I And Jehovah Elohim
expelled him from the gar
den of Eden, and he went
and he settled on the Mount
of Moriah, to till the earth
of which he was created.
24 And He drcve out
Adam from where Ua had
made to reside the glaiy ol

8420

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUMj

Authorized Version.

Cherubim^,[!]and
a flaming sword
which tumed ev
ery way, to keep
the way of the
bee of life.

Onkelos.

Cherubim and tbe
sharp sword;
which turns to
guard the way to
the tree of life.

Tabodm Jerushaxui.
First Recension.

chinah from the beginning at the east
of the garden of Eden, above the two
Cherubim. Two thousand years be
fore the world was created, he cre
ated the Law, and prepared Gehin
nom [Hell] and Gan Eden [Paradise] :
He prepared Gan Eden for the right
eous, that they may eat and delight
in the fruits of the tree, because
they kept the commandments of the
law in thia world, and prepared Ge-
hinnom for the wicked, for it is like
unto a sharp sword that eats from
both aides ; He has prepared within
it sparks of light and coals which
consume the wicked, to punish them
in the future world for their not hav
ing kept tbe commandments of the
Law. For the tree of life that is the
Law ; whosoever keeps it in thia
world, he will Uve and last like the
tree of life : good ia the Law to
whomsoever keeps it in this world,
like the fruit of the tree of Ufe in the
world to come.

Tarouu
tJonathan-ben-Uzziel] Jerushalmi.
Second Recen.sion.

hia Shecbinah from the beginning be>
tween the two Cherubim. Before Ha
created the world He haa created the
Law : He has prepared the garden ol
Eden for the lighteoua, tbat they
shall eat and delight in the fruits of
the tree, because they have acted
during their life according to tha
doctrine of the Law in this world,
and have kept its rommandments :
He has prepared the Gehinnom for
tbe wicked, which is likened unto a
sharp sword that eats from two sides:
He prepared within it sparks of light
and coals of fire to judge with them
the wicked who rebelled in tbeir
lives against the doctrine of the
Law. Better is thia Law to him who
acts according to it than the fruits of
the tree of life, for the Word of Jeho
vah has prepared for him who keeps
it, that he shaU Uve and walk in the
paths of the way of the life of the
future world.

THE LAST CHAPTER OF DEUTERONOMY, Verses 1-5.

Authorized Version.

1 And Moses went up
from the plains of Moab
unto the mountain of
Nebo, to the top of Pis
gah, that is over againsfc
Jericho. And the Lord
shewed him all tbe land
ofGilead, unto Dan,

2 And all NaphtaU, and
the land of Ephraim, and
Manasseh, and all the
land of Judah, unto the
almost sea,

1 And Moses ascended
from the encampment of
Moab to the mountain of
Nebo : the head of the
height tbat is opposite
Jericho. And Jehovah
showed him all the land
of Gilead unto Dan.

2 And all NaphtaU and
the land of Ephraim and
Manasseh, aod all the
land of Judah to the
hindmost sea,

8 And the south, and
the plain of the vaUey of
Jericho, the city of palm
hpeea, unto Zoar.

8 And the west and the
plain of the vaUey of
Jericho the city of the
palms, unto Zoar.

Tarouu Jerushalmi.
First Recension.

1 And Moses ascended
from the plain of Moab
to the mountain of Nebo,
the summit of the hill
which is opposite Jeri
cho. And God showed
him the whole land :
Gilead unto Dan of Cses-

2 And all the land of
Naphtali, and the land
of Ephraim and Manas
seh, and the whole land
of Judah, to the hind
most seft,

3 And west, and the
plain of the valley of
Jericho the city which
produces the palms, that
is Zeer.

Targum
[Jonath an-ben-Uzael]
Jerushalmi.
Second Recension.

1 And Moses ascended from the
plains of Moab to the mountain of
Nebo, the summit of the height
which is ever against Jericho, and
the word of Jehovah showed him
all the mighty ones of the land :
the powerful deeds which Jephtha
from Gilead wonld do, and the vic
tories of Samson the son of Ma
noah , from the tribe of Dan.
2 Aud the thousand princes from
the house of NaphtaU who joined
issue with Balak, and the kings
whom Joshua the son of Nun from
the tribe of Efraim, would ki}l,an3
the power of Gideon the son of Jo
ash from the tribe of Manasseh,
and all the kings of Israel, and the
kingdom of the house of Judah
who would rule in the land until
the second Sanctuary would br
laid low.
3 And the king of the south who
would join the king of the north
to destroy the inhabitants of the
land, and the Ammonites, and the
Moabites, the inhabitants of the
valleys who would oppress Israel,
and tbe exile of the disciples of £1U^
who would be driven out from the
plain of Jericho, and the exile of
the disciples of Elisha who wonld
be driven out from the city of
palms by their brethren, the houpe
of Israel : two hundred thousand
men. And the woes of each gener
ation and the punishment of Ar-
maigus [Armillus] the evil one and
the battle-array of Gog. Aud m
this great misery Michael will ari»
with the sword : to save, etc.

-VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM,

3421

V. Targums of "Joseph the Blind*' on
THE Hagiographa.
" When Jonathan ben Uzziei began to para
phrase the Cetbubim " (Hagiographa), we read in
the Talmudical passage before quoted, " a mysteri
ous voice was heard saying : It is enough. Thou
hast revealed the secrets of the Prophets — why
wouldst thou also reveal those of the Holy Ghost ? ' '
— It would thus appear, that a Targum to these
books (Job excepted) was entirely unknown up to a
very late period. Those Targums on the Hagiog
rapha which we now possess have been attributed
vaguely to different authors, it being assumed in
the first instance that they were the work of one
man. Now it was Akylas the Greek translator,
mentioned in Bereshith Rabba (see above); now
Onkelos, the Cbaldee translator of the Pentateuch,
his mythical double; now Jonathan b. Uzziei, or
Joseph (Jose^ the Blind (see above). But the di
versity in the different parts of the work warring
too palpably against the unity of authorship, the
blindness of tbe last-named authority seemed to
show the easiest way out of the difficulty. Joseph
was supposed to have dictated it to different dis
ciples at different periods, and somehow every one
of the amanuenses infused part of his own individ
uality into his share of the work. Popular belief
thus fastened upon this Joseph tbe Blind, since a
name the work must needs have, and to him in
most of the editions, the Targum is affiUated. Yet,
if ever he did translate the Hagiographa, certain it
is that those which we possess are not by his or his
disciples' hands — that is, of the time of the 4th
century. "Writers of the ISth century already re
futed this notion of Joseph's author-ship, for the as
sumption of which there never was any other ground
than that he was mentioned in the Talraud, Uke
Onkelos-Akylas and Jonathan, in connection with
Targura ; and, as we saw, there is indeed reason to
believe that he had a share in the redaction of
"Jonathan" to the Prophets, which falls in his
time. Between hira and our bagiographical Tar
gums, however, many centuries must have elapsed.
Yet we do not even venture to assign to them more
than an approximate round date, about 1000 a. d.
Besides the Targums to the Pentateuch and the
Prophets, those now extant range over Psalms,
Proverbs, Job, the five Megilloth, i. e. Song of
Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, Ecclesiastes;
the Chronicles, and Daniel. Ezra and Nehemiah
alone are left without a Targum at present; yet we
can hardly help believing that ere long one wiU also
be found to the latter, as the despaired- of Chroni
cles was found in tbe 17th century, and Daniel —
ft sure trace of it at least — so recently, that as yet

nobody has considered it worth his while to take
any notice of it. We shall divide these Targumi
into four gi'oups: Proverbs, Job, Psalms; — Megil
loth ; — Chronicles ; — and Daniel.
1. Targum on Psalms, Job, Proverbs.
Certain Unguistic and other characteristics " ex
hibited by these three Targums, lead to the con
clusion that they are nearly conteoiporaneous pro
ductions, and that their birthplace is, most likely,
Syria. While the two former, however, are mere
paraphrases, the Targum on Proverbs comes nearer
to our idea of a version than almost any Targum, '
except perhaps that of Onkelos. It adheres as
closely to the original text as possible. The most
remarkable feature about it however, and one which
has given rise to endless speculations and discus
sions, is its extraordinary similarity to the Syriac
Version. It would indeed sometimes seem as iJ
they had copied each other — an opinion warmly
advocated hy Dathe, who endeavored to prove that
the Chaldee had copied or adapted the Syrian,
there being passages in the Targum which could,
he assumed, only be accounted for by a misunder
standing of the Syriac translation.^ It has, on the
other hand, been argued that there are a greats
number of important passages which distinctly show
that the Targumist had used an original Hebrew
text, varying from that of the Syriac, and had also
made use of the LXX. against the latter." The
Syriasms would easily be accounted for by the Ara
maic idiom itself, the forms of which vary but little
from, and easily merge iuto, the sister dialect ol
Syi'ia. Indeed nearly all of thera are found in the
Talmud, a strictly Aramaic work. It has been
supposed by others that neither ofthese versions, as
they are now in our hands, exhibit their original
form. A late editor, as it were, of the (mutilated)
Targum, might have derived his emendations from
that version which came nearest to it, both in lan
guage and in close adherence to the Hebrew text —
namely, the Syriac; and there is certainly every
reason to conclude from the wofully faulty state in
which this Targum is found (Luzzatto counts sev
eral hundred corrupt readings in it), that many and
clumsy hands must have been at work upon the
later Codd. The most likely solution of the diflS-
culty, however, seems to be that indicated by
Frankel — namely, that the LXX. is the common
source of both versions, but in such a manner that
the Aramaic has also made use of the Hebrew and
tbe Greek — of the latter, however, through the
Syriac medium. As a specimen of the curious
similarity of both versions, the following two verses
from the beginning of the book may find a plac*»
here : —

a E. g., the use of the word "^^^DM for angel in
Targ. Ts. and Job, the 3, affixed to the 3d p. plur.
proef Peal, tho infln. with prsef. ^, besides several
more or less unusual Greek and Syriac words common
to all three.
& E. g.^ ch. X3dx. 6, the Heb. word rT'li?, " city,"
la rendered \^UOj " city," in Syr. Targum trans
lates S^TD, " a lie," which is only to be accounted for
by tt lui.-understanding or misreading of the Syriac
Lo;..^ where for the second c the Chaldee trans-

ator read a \ |.^^0,

c Prov. xxvi. 10, the Masoretic text reads : ^"H
b'^DD n^tci bs bbinb ; lxx. noK^^ x^'-t^dc^
rai aap^ aiftpovtav (= b'^DD "lt£7^) ; Targ. ^^C
WbD'^m ^nWZ Wn -, thus adopting exactly
the reading of the LXX. against the received text
xxix. 21, "^"131? "13?3D p3Qtt, quoted in the same
manner in Talm. Succah. 52 b ; LXX. &$ KaracnraroAf
e(c 7rat£tw oUcttjs eorai j evidently readiog 1^51
n'^n'^^ Targ. ^In3 Sm^b. Comp. also xiTtt
16, xxx. 30, &Q.

8422

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)

Tabgdm (Ver. 2).
Ver. 3.
wbawT smna sbnpiab

CHAP. I. 2, 3. Syr. (Ver. 2).
Ver. 3.

Compare also vers. 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13; ch. ii.
?ers. 9,10,13-15; iii. 2-9, etc.
We must not omit to observe tliat no early Jew-
.sh commentator — Raslii, Ibn Ezra, etc. — men
tions the Targum either to Proverbs, or to Job and
Psalms. Nathan ben Jechiel (12th century) is the
first who quotes it. ^
Respecting the two latter Targums of this group.
Psalms and Job, it is to be observed that they are,
more or less, mere collections of fragments. Tbat
there must have existed paraphrases to Job at a
very early period foUows from the Talmudical pas
sages which we quoted in the introduction — nay,
we almost feel inclined to assume that this book,
considered by the learned as a mere allegory (¦' Job
never was, and never was created," is the dictum
found in the Talmud, Baba Bathra, 15 a: i. e. he
never had any real existence, but is a poetical,
though sacred, invention), opened the list of writ
ten paraphrases. How much of the primitive ver
sion is embodied in the one which we possess it is
of course next to impossible to determine, more es
pecially in the state of infancy in which the inves
tigation of the Targums as yet remains. So much,
however, is palpable, that the Targums of both
Psalms and Job in their present shape contain relics
of different authors in different times : some para-
phrasts, some strictly translators. Very frequently
a second version of the same passage is introduced
by the formula "iHS Dljin, "another Tar
gum," and varies most widely from its predecessor;
while, more especially in the Psalms, a long series
of chapters translated literally, is followed by an
other series translated in the wildest and most
fanciful character. The Cod. Erpen. still exhibits
these various readings, as such, side by side, on its
margin ; thence, however, they have in our printed
editions found their way into the text. How much
of these variants, or of the entire text, belongs, to
the Palestinian Cycles, which may well have em
braced tbe whole Torah, — or whether they are to
be considered exclusively the growth of later tinies,
and bave thus but a very slender connection with
either the original Babylonian or the Palestinian
Targum-works, future investigation must determine.
Tbe most useful in this group is naturally the
Targum on Proverbs, it being the one which trans
lates most closely, or rather the only one which
does translate at all. Besides the explanation it
gives of difficult passages in the text, its peculiar
atfinity to tbe Syriac Version naturally throws
some light upon both, and allows of emendations
jii and through either. As to Job and Psahns,
their chief use lies in their showing the gradual
dying stages of the idiom in wbich they are writ
ten, and also in tbeir being in a manner guides to
the determination of the date of certain stages of
Haggadah.

2, 3. Takgums ok the five Megilloth.
These Targums are likewise not mentioned be-
fore the 12th century, when the Aruch quotes them
severally, — although Esther must have been trans
lated at a very early period, since the Talmud al
ready mentions a Targum on it. Of this, we need
hardly add, no trace is found in onr present Tar
gum. The freedom of a " version '* can go no
further than it does in these Targums ori the Me
gilloth. They are, in fact, mere Haggadah, and
bear the most striking resemblance to tbe Midrash
on the respective books. Curiously enough, the
gradual preponderance of the Paraphrase over the
text is noticeable in the following order: Ruth,
Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, ICsther, Song of Songs.
The latter is fullest to overflowing of those " nugtz
atque frivoliiaies,*^ which have so sorely tried the
temper of the wise and grave. Starting from the
almost comical notion that all they found in the
books of Mohammedanism and of Judaism, of
Rome and of Greece, if it seeraed to have any ref
erence to " Religio," however unsupported, and
however plainly bearing the stamp of poetry — good
or bad — on ifs face, must needs be a reUgious creed,
and the creed forced upon every single believer: —
they could not but get angry with mere * day
dreams ' being interspersed with the sacred liteni-
ture of the Bible. Delitzsch, a scholar of our
generation, says of the Targums in general that
" history becomes in them most charming, most in
structive poetry ; but this poetry is not the inven
tion, the phantasraa of the writer, but the old and
popular venerable tradition or legend .... the
Targunis are poetical, both as to tbeir contents and
form ^' (Gesch. d.,JUd. Poesie, p. 27): and further,
" The wealth of legend in 'its gushing fullness did
not suffer any formal bounds; legend bursts upon
legend, like wave upon wave, not to be dammed in
even by any poetical forms. Thus the Jerusalem
Targura in its double Recensions [to the Penta
teuch], and the Targums on tlie five MegiUoth are
tbe most beautiful national works of art, through
'which tbere runs the golden thread of Scripture,
and which are held together only by the unity of
the idea" (p. 135). Although we do not share
Delitzsch's enthusiasm to the fuU extent, yet we
cannot but agree with him that there are, togethei
with stones and dust, many pearls of precious price
to be gathered from these much despised, because
hardly known, books.
The dialect of these books occupies the mean be
tween the East and West Aranieean, and there is a
certain unity of style and design about all the five
books, which fuHy justifies the supposition that
they are, one and aU, the work of 0)ii author. It
may be that, taken in an inverted seiies, they mark
the successive stages of a poet's Ufe; glowing, rap
turous, overflowing in the first; stately, sober.
prosy in the last. -\s to the tipie of ita » riting w

VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)

3423

iditing, we have again to repeat, tbat it is most
uncertain, but unquestionably belongs to a period
much later than the Talmud. Tbe book of lather,
enjoying both through its story-like form and tbe
early injunction of its being read or heard by e\ery
oue on the Feast of Purim, a great circulation and
popularity, has been targumized many times, and
besides the one embodied in the five Megilloth,
there are two more extant (not three, as generally
stated: the so-called tbird being only an abbrevia
tion of the fii^t), which are called respectively the
first: a short one without digressions, and the
second — (Targum sheni): u larger one, belonging
to the Palestinian Cycle. The latter Targum is a
collection of eastern romances, broken up aud ar
ranged to the single verses : of gorgeous hues and
extravagant imagination, such as are to be met with
in the Adshaib or Chamis, or any eastern collec
tion of legends and tales.
VI. Taegum on the Book of Chronicles.
This Targura was unknown, as we said before,
up to a very recent period. In 1680, it was edited
for the first time from an Erfurt MS. by M. F.
Beck, and in 1715 from a more complete as well as
correct MS. at Cambridge, by D. Wilkins. The
name of Hungary occurring in it, and its frequent
use of the Jerussdem-Targum to the Pentateuch,
amounting sometimes to simple copying (comp. the
(Jenealogical Table in chap, i., etc ) show sufficiently
that its author is neither "Jonathan b. Uzziei"
nor "Joseph the Bhnd," as has been suggested.
But the language, style, and the Haggadah, with
which it abounds, point to a late period and point
out Palestine as the place where it was Written.
Its use must be limited to philological, historical,
and geographical studies; the science of exegesis
will profit little by it. The first edition appeared
under the title Paraphrasis Chaldalca libr. Chron-
icorum, cura M. F. Beckli, 2 tom. Aug. Vhid.
1680-83, 4to; the second by D. "Wilkins, Para
phrasis .... auctore R. Josepho, etc. Amst.,
1715, 4to. The first edition has tbe advantage of
a large number of very learned notes, the second
that of a comparatively more correct and complete
text. VII. The Targum to Daniel.
It is for the first time that this Targum, for the
non-existence of which many and weighty reasons
were given (that the date of the Messiah's arrival
was hidden in it, among others), is here formally
introduced into the regular rank and file of Tar
gums, although it has been known for now more
than five and twenty years. Munk found it not
indeed in the Original Aramaic, but in what ap
pears to him to be an extract of it written in Per
sian. The MS. (Anc. Fond, No. 45, Imp. Library)
is inscribed " History of Daniel," and bas retained
only the first words of the Original, wbich it trans-
Utes likewise into Persian. This language is then
retained throughout.
After several legends known from other Targums,
foUows a long prophecy of Daniel, from which the
book is shown to have been written after the first
Crusade. Mohammad and his successors are men
tioned, also a king who coming from Europe
(^S^Dli TW) will go to Damascus, and kill the
[shmaehtic (Mohammedan) kings and princes; he
ffill break down the minarets (mS3D), destroy
he mosques (Mn'*[:iOD), and no one will after

that dare to pronounce tho name of the Profane
(71DD = Mohammad). The Jews will :Uso havfl
to suffer great misfortunes (as indeed the knightly
Crusaders won their spurs by dastardly murdering
the helpless masses, men, women, and children, in
the Ghettos along the Rhine and elsewhere, before
they started to deliver the Holy Tomb). By a
sudden transition the Prophet then passes on to the
" Messiah, son of Joseph," to Gog and Magog, and
to the •' true Messiah, the son of David." Munk
rightly concludes that the book must have been
composed in the 12th century, when Christian
kings reigned for a brief period over Jerusalem
(Notice sur Saadia, Par. 18ii8).
VIII. There is also a Chaldee translation extant
of the apocryphal pieces of Esther, which, entirely
lying apart from our task, we confine ourselves to
mention without further entering into tbe subject.
De Rossi has published them with Notes and Dis
sertations. Tiibingen, 1783, Svo.
Further fragments of the Palestinian Targum.
Besides the complete books belonging to the Pal
estinian Cycle of Targum which we have mentioned,
and the portions of it intersected as " Another
Reading," " Another Tantum," into the Babylo
nian Versions, there are extant several independent
frai^ments of it. Nor need we as yet despair of
findhig still further portions, perhaps one day to
see it restored entirely. There is all the more hope
for this, as the Targum has not been lost very long
yet. Abudraham quotes the Targum Jerushalmi
to Samuel (i. 9, l-3j. Kimchi has preserved several
passages from it to Judges (xi. 1, consisting of 47
words); to Samuel (i. 17, 18: 106 words); and
Kings (i. 22, 21: 68 words; ii. 4, 1: 174 words;
iv. 6: 55 words; iv. 7: 72 words; xiii. 21: 9
words), under the simple name of Toseftah, i. e.
Addition, or Additional Targum. Luzzatto has
also lately ibund fragments of tlie same, under the
names " Targum of Palestine," "Targum of Jeru
shalmi," " Another Reading,"' etc, in an African
Codex written 5247 A- m. = 1487 A. d., namely,
to 1 Sam. xviii. 19; 2 Sam. xii. 12; 1 Kings v. 9,
V. 11, V. 13, X. 18, X. 26, xiv. 13; to Hosea i. 1;
Obad. i. 1. — To Isaiah, Rashi (Isaaki, not as peo
ple still persist in calling him, Jarchi), Abudraham
and Farissol quote it: and a fragment of the Tar
gum to his prophet is extant in Cod. Urbin. Vat
ican No. 1, containing about 120 words, and be-
, ginning : " Prophecy of Isaiah, which he prophesied
at the end of his prophecy in the days of Manasseh
the Son of Hezekiah the King of the Tribe of the
House of Judah on tbe 17th of Tamuz in the hour
when Manasseh set up an idol in the Temple," etc.
Isaiah predicts in tliis his own violent death. Parts
of tbis Targum are also found in Hebrew, in Pesik
tab Rabbathi 6 a, and Yalkut Isa. 58 d. A Jeru
salera Targum to Jeremiah is mentioned by Kim
chi; to F^ekiel by R. Simeon, Nathan (Aruch),
and hkewise by Kimchi, who also speaks of a
further additional Targum to Jonathan for this
book. A " Targum-Jerushalrai " to Micah is
known to Rashi, and of Zechariah a fragment has
been published in Bruns (ICichhorn's Repert. xv.
174) from a Reuchlinian MS. (Cod. 354, Kennic-
25), written 1106. The passage, found as a mar
ginal gloss to Zech. xii. 10, reads as follows: —
" Targum Jerushalmi. And I shall pour out
upon the House of David and tbe inhabitants of
Jerusalem the spirit of prophecy ami of prayer foi
truth. And after this shall go forth Me siah tU<

3424 VERSIONS, ANCIENT
Son of Efraim to wage war against Gog. And
Gog will kill him before the city of Jerushalaim.
They will look up to me and they will ask me
ivherefore the heathens have killed Messiah the Son
of Efraim. Tbey will then mourn over him as
mourn father and mother over an only son, and
they will wail over him as one wails over a firstborn."
— A Targum Jerushalmi to the third chapter of
Habakkuk, quoted by Rashi, is mentioned by De
Rossi (Cod. 265 and 405, both 13th century). It
has been suggested that a Targum Jerushalmi on
the Prophets only existed to the Haftarahs, which
had at one time been translated perhaps, like the
portion from the Law, in public; but we have seen
that entire books, not to mention single chapters,
possessed a Palestinian Targum, which never were
intended or used for the purpose of Haftarah. And
there is no reason to doubt that the origin of this
Targum to the Prophets is precisely similar to, and
perhaps contemporaneous with, that which we
traced to that portion which embraces the Penta
teuch. The Babylonian Version, the" Jonathan-"
Targum, though paraphrastic, tiid not satisfy the
apparently more imaginative Palestinian public.
Thus from heaped-up additions and marginal
glosses, the step to a total re-writing of the entire
Codex in the manner and taste of the latter times
and the different locality, was easy enough. From
a critique of the work as such, however, we must
naturally keep aloof, as long as we have only the
few specimens named to judge from. But its gen
eral spirit and tendency are clear enough. So is
also the advantage to wbich even tbe minimum
that has survived raay some day be put by the stu
dent of Midrashic literature, as we have briefly in
dicated above.
We cannot conclude vrithout expressing the hope
— probably a vain one — that linguistic studies
may soon turn in the direction of that vast and
most interesting, as well as important, Aramaic
literature, of which the Targums form but a small
item. The writer finally begs to observe that the trans
lations of all the passages quoted from Talmud and
Midrash, as well as the specimens from the Targum,
have been made by him directly from the respective
originals. N. Pfeiffer, CHtica Sacr. ; Tho. Smith, Dia-
tinbe ; Gerhard, De Script. Sacr. ; Helvicus, De
Chald. Bibl. Paraph.; Varen, De Targ. OnkeL ;
Wolf, Bibl. Hebr. ; Carpzov, Critica Sacra ; Joh.
Morinus, Exercitt. Bibl. ; Schickard, Bechin. Hop
per. ; Jerar, Proleg. Bibllce ; Rivet, Isagoge ad
S. S. ; Allix, Judic. Eccles. Jud. ; Huet, De
Claris Interpp. ; Leusden, Philol. Hebr. ; Pri
deaux, Connect. ; Rarabach, Inst. Flerm. Sacr. ;
Elias Levita, Meturgeman; Tishbi; Luzzatto,
Oheb Ger; Perkovita, Oteh Or; Winer, Onke-
hs; Anger, De Onkeloso; Vitringa, Synagoga;
Azariah De Rossi, Meor Enajim ; Petermann, De
duabiis Pent. Paraph. ; Dathe, De raiione con
sensus vers. Chald. et Syr. Prov. Sal. ; Lovy, in
Geiger's Zeiischr. ; Levysohn and Traub in Fran-
kel's Monatssc/ir. ; Zunz, Gottesdiensil. Vortrdge ;
(ieiger, Urschrift; Frankel, Vorst^idienzur LXX.;
Beitrdge f Pal. Exeg., Zeitschrift ; Monats-
$chrifl ; Geiger, Zeiischrlfi ; Fiirst, OHent ; HaU.
AUg. Liter. Zeitg. 1821 and 1832; Introductions
Df Walton, Eichhorn, Keil, Hiivernick, Jahn, Herbst,
Bertheau, Davidson, etc. ; Gesenius, ./esaiVf; Home,
Aruch; Geschlchten oi .^ost, l-lerzfeid. Griitz, etc. ;
Delitzsch, Gesch. d. JUd. Poesie j Sachs's Beitrdgv;

VERSION, AUTHORIZED
Fiirst, Chald. Gramm. ; E. Deutsch in Wute'i'm
Monatschr., 1859 ; ZeitschHft and Verhandlungen
der Deutschen Morgenldnd. Gesellsch., etc., etc
F D
VERSION, AUTHORIZED. The history
of the English translations of the Bible connects
itself with many points of interest in that of tbe
nation and the Church. The Uves of the individ
ual translators, the long struggle with the indiffer
ence or opposition of men in power, the reUgious
condition of the people as calling for, or affected
by, the appearance of the translation, the time anil
place and form of the successive editions by which
the demand, when once created, was supplied —
each of these has furnished, and might again fm*-
nish, materials for a volume. It is obvious thsit
the work now to be done must he within narrower
limits; and it is proposed, therefore, to exclude all
tbat belongs simply to the personal bistory of the
men, or the general history of the time, or that
comes within the special province of bibliography.
What will be aimed at will be to give an account of
the several versions as they appeared ; to ascertain
the qualifications of the translators for the work
which they undertook, and the principles on which
they acted; to form an estimate of the final result
-oftheir labors in the received version, and, as con
sequent on tills, of the necessity or desirableness d
a new or revised translation; and, finally, to ^ve
such a survey of tbe literature of the subject as
may help the reader to obtain a fuller knowledge
for himself.
I. Early Translations. — It was asserted by
Sir Thomas More, in his anxiety to establish a
point against Tyndal, that he had seen English
translations of the Bible, which had been made be
fore ^Vycllffe, and that these were api)roved by the
Bishops, and were allowed by them to be read by
laymen, and even by devout women (Dialogues, ch.
viii. -xiv. col. 82). There seem good grounds, how
ever, for doubting the accuracy of this statement.
No such translations — versions, i. e. of the entire
Scriptures — are now extant. No traces of them
appear in any contemporary writer. Wjcliffe's
great complaint is. that there is no translation
(Forshall and Madden, Wycliffe's Bible, Pref. p.
xxi. Prol. p. 59). The Constitutions of Archbishop
Arundel (a. d. 1408} mention two only, and these
ai'e Wycliffe's own, and the one based on his and
completed after his death. More's statement must
therefore be regarded either as a rhetorical exagger
ation of the fact that parts of the Bible had been
previously translated, or as rising out of a mistake
as to the date of MSS. of tlie Wycliife version. The
history of the English Bible will therefore begin,
as it has begun hitherto, with the work of the first
great reformer. One glance, however, we may
give, in passing, to the earlier history of the Eng
lish Church, and connect some of its most honored
names with the great work of making the truths ol
Scripture, or parts of the books themselves, if not
the Bible as a whole, accessible to tbe people. We
may think of Caedmon as embodying the whole
history of the Bible in the alliterative metre of
Anglo-Saxon poetry (Bede, Hisi. Eccl. iv. 24); of
Aldhelm', Bishop of Sherborne, in the 7th centcfy,
as rendering the Psalter; of Bede, as translating in ,
the last hours of his life the Gospel of St. Jobr
(Epist Cuthberti)-, of Alfred, setting forth in hit
mother-tongue as the great groundwork of his
legislation, the four chaptei-s of Exodus (xx. -xxiii.'
that contauied the first code of the luws o^ Ismel

VERSION, AUTHORIZED

3425

tPauU's Life of Alfred, ch. v.). The wishes of
the great king extended further. He desired that
"all the free-born youth of his kingdom should
be able to read the English Scriptures" « (ibid.).
Portions of the Bible, some of the Psalms, and ex
tracts from other books, were translated by him for
his own use and that of his children. The tradi
tions ofa later date, seeing in him the representa
tive of all that was good in the old Saxon time,
made him the translator of the whole Bible (ibid.
Supp. to ch. v.).
The work of translating was, however, carried on
by othera. One Anglo-Saxon version of the four
Gospels, interhnear with the Latin of the Vulgate,
known as the Durham Book, is found in the Cot-
tonian MSS. of the British Museum, and is referred
to the 9th or 10th century. Another, known as
the Rushworth Gloss, and belonging to the sarae
period, is in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.^
Another, of a soraewhat later date, is in the same
collection, and in the Ubrary of C. C. College, Cam
bridge. The name of Aldhelm, Bishop of Sher
borne, is connected with a vprsion of the Psalms ;
that of ^Ifric, with an Epitome of Scripture His
tory, including a translation of many parts of the
historical books of the Bible (Lewis, Hist of
Transl. ch. i. ; Forshall and Madden, Pre/ace ;
Bagster's English Hexapla, Pref.). The influence
of Norraan ecclesiastics, in the reigns that preceded
or foUowed the Conquest, was probably adverse to
the continuajice of this work. They were too far
reraoved from sympathy with the subjugated race
to care to educate thera in their own tongue. The
spoken dialects of the EngUsh of that period would
naturally seem to thera too rude and uncouth to
be the channel of Divine truth. Pictures, mys
teries, miracle-plays, rather than books, were the
mstruments of education for all but the few who,
in monasteries under Norraan or Italian superin
tendence, devoted themselves to the study of theol
ogy or law. In the remoter parts of England, how
ever, where their influence was less felt, or the na
tional feeling was stronger, there were those who
carried on the succession, and three versions of the
Gospels, in the University Library at Cambridge,
iu the Bodleian, and in the British Museum, be
longing to the llth or 12th century, remain as
attesting their labors. The metrical paraphrase of
the Gospel history, known as the Ormulum, in al
literative English verse, ascribed to the latter half
of the 12th century, is the next conspicuous monu
ment, and may he looked upon as indicating a de-

a So Pauli (Eng. transl.). But would *^ Englisc ge-
writ " mean " the Scriptures " exclusively ? Do not
Ihe words of Alfred point to a general as well as a re
ligious education?
ft One interesting fact connected with this version
Is tbat its text agrees with that of the Codex Bezae
wbere that MS. differs most from the lextwi receptits of
the N. T. Another is its publication by Foxe the
Martyrologist in 1571, at the request of Archbishop
Parker. It was subsequently edited by Dr. Marshall
in 1665.
It may be noticed, as bearing upon a question after
wards the subject of much discussion, that in this and
the other Anglo-Saxon versions the attempt is made to
give vernacular equivalents even for the words which,
as belonging to il systematic theology, or for other
i-easons, mosc lafcer versions have left pnicticaliy un
translated. Thus bapLhrna is "fyllith" (washing);
¦*cmitentia, " doed-boU.» " ^redress for ovil deeds). So
srribfe are " boceie'' (bookmen). Synagogues, '' ges-
iamungum " (mentings) ; amen, " sothlice " (in

sire to place the facts of tbe Bible within reach of
others than the clergy.^? The 13th century, a time
in England, as throughout Europe, of religious re
vival, witnessed renewed attempts. A prose trans
lation of the Bible into Norman-French, cir. a. d.
1260, indicates a demand for devotional reading
within the circle of the Court, or of the wealthier
merchants, or of convents for women of high rank.
Further signs of the same desire are found in three
Pjiiglish versions of the Psalms — one towards the
close of the 13th century; another by Schorham,
cir. a. d. 1320; another — with other canticles
from the 0. T. and N. T. — by Richard Rolle of
Hampole, cir. 1349 ; the last being accompanied by
a devotional exposition: and in one of the GospeU
of St. Mark and St. Luke, and of all St. Paul's
epistles (the list includes tbe apocryphal epistle to
the Laodiceans), in the Ubrary of C. C. College,
Cambridge. The fact stated by Archbishop Arun
del in his funeral sermon on Anne of Bohemia, wife
of Richard II., tbat she habitually read the Gospels
in the vulgar tongue, with divers expositions, was
probably true of many others of high rank.*^ It is
interesting to note these facts, not as detracting
from the glory of the great reformer of the 14th cen
tury, but as showing that for him also there had
been a preparation ; that what he supplied met a
demand which had for many years been gathering
strength. It is almost needless to add that these
versions started from nothing better than the copies
of the Vulgate, more or less accurate, which each
translator had before him (Lewis, ch. i. ; Forshall
and Madden, Preface).
IL Wyclik-fe (b. 1324; d. 1384"). — (1.) It ia
singular, and not without significance, that the first
translation from the Bible connected with the narae
of WycUffe should have been that of part of the
Apocalypse.^ The Last Age of the Church (A. d.
1356) translates and expounds the vision in which
the reformer read the signs of his own times, the
sins and the destruction of " Antichrist and his
meynee" (^multitude). Shortly after this he
completed a version of the Gospels, accompanied by
a commentary " so that pore Christen men may
sorae dele know the text of the Gospel, with the
comyn sentence of olde hoUe doctores" (Preface).
Wycliffe, however, though the chief, was uot the
only laborer in the cause. The circle of English
readers was becoming wider, and they were not
content to have the Book which they honored
above all others in a tongue not their own./ An
other translation and commentary appear to have

sooth); and phylacteries, "healsbec" (neck-books).
See Lewis, Hist, of lyanalations, p. 9.
c The Ormulum, edited by Dr. White, was printed
at the Oxford University Press in 1852.
d Chronologically, of course, the Gospels thus re
ferred to ma> have been Wycliffe's translation ; but
the strong opposition of Arundel to the work of the
Reformer makes it probable that those which the
queen used belonged to a different school, like that o*
the versions just mentioned.
e The authorship of this book has however been
disputed (oomp. Todd's Pr/face).
f " One comfort is of knightes ; they saveren much
the Qospelle, and have wille to read in Bnglische the
Gospelle of Christes life" (WycUffe, Frotogue). Com
pare the speech ascribed to John of Gaunt (13 Rio. II.).
" We will not be the dregs of all, seeing other natiomi
have the law of God, which is the law of our iaitb,
written in their own language " (Foxe, Pref. to Saxom
Gospcis ; Lewis, p 29).

8126

VERSION, AUTHORIZED

been made about the same time, in ignorance of
W^ycliffc's work, and for the " manie lewid men
that gladlie would kon the Gospelle, if it were
draghen into the EngUsch tung." The fact that
many MSS. of this period are extant, containing
in English a Monotessaron, or Harmony of the
Gospels, accompanied by portions of the epistles, or
portions of the 0. T., or an epitome of Scripture
history, or the substance of St. Paul's epistles, or
the catholic epistles at fuU length, with indications
more or less distinct of Wycliffe's influence, shows
how wide-spread was the feeling that the time had
come for an EngUsh Bible. (Forshall and Mad
den, Pref. pp. xiii.-xvii.) These preliminary la^
bors were followed up by a coraplete translation
of the N. T. by Wycliffe himself. The 0. T.
was undertaken by his coadjutor, Nicholas de
Hereford, but was inten-upted probably by a cita
tion to appear before Archbishop Arundel in 1382,
and ends abruptly (following so far the order of
the Vulgate) in the middl^ of Baruch. Many of
the MSS. of this version now extant present a
different recension of tbe text, and it is probable
that the work of WycUffe aud Hereford was re
vised by Richard Pui-vey, cir. A. d. 1388. To
hira also is ascribed the interesting Prologue, in
which the translator gives an account both of his
purpose and his method. (ForshaU and Madden,
Pref. p. xxv.)
(2.) The former was, as that of AVycliffe had
been, to give an English Bible to the Knglish
people. He appeals to the authority of Bede, of
Alfred, and of GrostSte, to the examples of
*' Frenshe, and Beeiners (Bohemians), and Brit
ons." He answers the hypocritical , objections
that men were not holy enough for such a work :
that it was wrong for " idiots " to do what the
great doctors of the Church had left undone.
He hopes " to make the sentence as trewe and
open in EngUshe as it is in Latine, or more trewe
and open."
It need hardly be said, as regards the method of
the translator, that the version was based entirely
upon the Vulgate.^ If, in the previous century,
scholars like GrostSte and Roger Bacon, seeking
knowledge in other lands, and from raen of other
races, had acquired, as they seem to have done,
some knowledge both of Greek and Hebrew, the
succession had, at all events, not been perpetuated.
The war to be waged at a later period with a
different issue between Scholastic Philosbphy and
" Humanity" ended, in the first struggle, in the
triumph of the forraer, and there was probably no
one at Oxford among Wycliffe's ¦ contemporaries
who could have helped him or Purvey in a transla
tion frora the original. It is something to find at
such a time the complaint that " learned doctoris
taken littel heede to the lettre," the recognition
that the Vulgate was not all sufiicient, that " the

a A crucial inFitance is that of Gen. ui. 15 : " £!^e
I hall trede thy head."
b Thia knowledge is. however, at second hand, "bi
witneBse of Jeroni, of Lire, and other expositouris."
c It is worth while to give his own account of this
process : " First this simple creature," his usual way
wf speaking of himself, " hedde myche travaile, with
iiveree fetawis and helperis, to gedere manie elde
bibles, and othere doctoris, and comune glosis, and
tn make oo Latyn bible sumdel trewe, and thanno to
Btudie It of the new, the text with the glose, and
othere dnctorjs, as he mlzte, and speciali Lire on the

texte of oure bokis " (he is speaking of the Pgalter
and the difficulty of understanding it) " discordetli
much from the Ebreu."^ The difficulty which
was thus felt was increased by the state of the
Vulgate text. The translator complains that what
the Church had in view was not Jerome's version,
but a later and corrupt text; that " the comune
I.iityne Bibles han more neede to be corrected as
manie as I have seen in my life, than hath the
Englishe Bible late translated." To remedy tbis
he had recourse to collation. Many MSS. were
compared, and out of this comparison, the true
reading ascertained as far as possible. The next
step was to consult the Ghssa Ordlnaria, the com
mentaries of Nicholas de LyrS,, and others, as to
the nieaning of any difficult passages. After this
(we recognize here, perhaps, a departure from the
right order) grammars were consulted. Then came
the actual work of translating, which he aimed at
making idiomatic rather than Uteral. As he went
on, he submitted his work to the judgment of
others, and accepted their suggestions.*^ It is in
teresting to trace these early strivings after the
true exceUence of a translator ; yet more interests
ing to take note of the spirit, never surpassed, sel
dom equaled, in later translators, in which the work
was done. Nowhere do we find the conditions of
the work, inteUectual and moral, more solemnly
asserted. " A translator hath grete nede to studie
weU the sentence, both before and after," so that
no equivocal words may mislead his readers or
himself, and then also " he hath nede to lyve a
dene life, and be ful devout in preiers, and have
not his wit occupied about worldli things, that the
HoUe Spiryt, author of aU wisedom, and cunnynge
and truthe, dresse (= train) him in his work, and
suffer him not for to err " (ForshaU and Madden,
Prol. p. 60).
(3.) The extent of the circulation gained by this
version may be estimated from the fact that, in
spite of all the chances of time, and all the sys
tematic efforts for its destruction made by Arch
bishop Arundel and others, not less than 150 copies
are known to be extant, some of them obriously
made for persons of wealth and rank, othera ap
parently for humbler readers. It is significant as
bearing, either on the date of the two works, or
on the position of the writers, that while the quo
tations from Scripture in Langton's [Langland's]
Vision of Piers Plowman are uniformly given in
Latin, those in the Persone's Tale of Chaucer are
given in English, which for the most part agrees
substantially with Wycliffe's translation.
(4.) The following characteristics may be noticed
as distinguishing this version: (1.) The general
homeUness of its style. The language of the court
or of scholars is as far as possible avoided, and that
of the people followed. In this respect the prin
ciple has been acted on by later translators. The

elde testament, that helpid full myche in this werk,
the tbridde time to counsel with elde grammariaiu
and elde dy vynis of harde wordes and harde pent«ncefl
how those mizte best be understodo and translated,
the iiij tyme to translate as cleariie as he coude to
the sentence, nnd to have manie good felawis and
kunnyngo at the correcting of the translaciouu " (Prff
are, c. xv.). The note at the clo.se of the prefiice, on
the grammatical idioms of different languages, tht
many English equivalents, e. g. forthe I^tin ablativi
absolute, shows consid trable discernment.

VERSION, AUTHORIZED.

3427

ityle of Wycliffe is to that of Chaucer as Tyndal's
LB to Surrey's, or that of the A. V. to Ben Jon-
sou's. (2.) The substitution, in many cases, of
English equivalents for quasi-technical words. Thus
we find " fy " or » fogh " instead of *' Raca ' ' (Matt,
V. 22); "they were washed" in Matt. iii. 6;
"riohesse" for "mammon" (Luke xvi. 9, 11, 13);
" bishop '' for " high-priest " {passim). ^3.) The
sxtreme literalness with which, in some instances,
even at the cost of being unintelligible, the Vulgate
text is followed, as in 2 Cor. i. 17-19.
III. Tymdal. — The work of "Wycliffe stands
by itself. Whatever power it exercised in pre
paring the way for the Reformation of the 16th
century, it had no perceptible influence on later
translations. By the reign of Henry VIIL its
English was already obsolescent, and the re\'ival
of classical scholarship led men to feel dissatisfied
with a version which had avowedly been made at
second-hand, not from the original. With Tyndal,
on the other hand, we enter on a continuous suc
cession. He is the patriarch, in no remote ances
try, of the Authorized Version. With a consistent,
unswerving purpose, he devoted his whole life to
this one work; and through dangers and difficul
tly, amid enemies and treacherous friends, in exile
and loneUness, accomplished it. More than Cran
mer or Ridley he is the true hero of the English
Reformation. While they were slowly moving on
wards, halting between two opinions, watching how
the court-winds blew, or, at the best, making the
most of opportunities, he set himself to the task
without which, he felt sure, reform would be im
possible, which once accomplished, would render
it inevitable. " Ere many years," he said, at the
age of thirty-six (A. d. 1520), he would cause '' a
boy that driveth the plough " to know more of
Scripture than the great body of the clergy then
knew (Foxe, in Anderson's Amials of English Bible,
i. 36). We are able to form a fairly accurate esti
mate of his fitness for the work to which he thus
gave himself. The change which had come over
the universities of continental Europe since the
time of Wycliffe had affected those of England.
Greek had been taught in Paris in 1458. The first
Greek Grammar, that of Constantine Lascaris, had
been printed in 1476. It was followed in 1480 by
Craston's Lexicon. The more enterprising scholars
of Oxford visited foreign universities for the sake
of the new learning, Grocyn (d. 1519), Linacre
(d. 1524), Colet (d. 1519), had, in this way, from
the Greeks whom the fall of Constantinople had
scattered over Europe, or frora their Italian pupils,
learnt enough to enter, in their turn, upon the
work of teaching. When Erasmus visited Oxford
in 1497, he found in these masters a scholarship
which even he could admire. Tyndal, who went
to Oxford circ. 1500, must have been within the
range of their teaching. His two great opponents.
Sir Thomas More and Bishop Tonstal, are known to
have been among their pupils. It is significant
enough that after some years of study Tyndal left
Oxford and went to Cambridge. Such changes
were, it is true, common enough. The fame of
any great teacher would draw round hira men from
other universities, from many lands. In this in-
itance, the reason of Tyndal's choice is probably

not far to seek (Walter, Biog. Notice to Tyndal's
Doctrinal Treatises). Erasmus was in Cambridge
from 1509 to 1514. All that we know of Tyndal's
character and life, the fact especially tbat he had
made translations of portions of the N. T. as early
as 1502 « (Oflbr, Life of Tyndtd, p. 9), leads tc
the conclusion that he resolved to make the most
of the presence of one who was emphatically the
scholar and philologist of Europe. It must be re
membered, too, that tbe great scheme of Cardinal
Xiraenes was just then betrinning to interest the
minds of all scholars. The publication of the
Complutensian Bible, it is true, did not take place
tiU 1520; but the collection of jMSS. and other
preparations for it began as early as 1504. In the
mean time Erasmus himself, in 1516, brought out
the first published edition of the Greek Testament;
and it was thus made accessible to all scholars. Of
the use made by Tyndal of these opportunities we
bave evidence in his commg up to London (1522),
in the vain hope of persuading Tonstal '^known as
a Greek scholar, an enlightened Humanist) to
sanction his scheme of rendering the N. T. into
English, and bringing a translation of one of the
orations of IsocratM as a proof of his capacity for the
work. The attempt was not successful. " At the
last I understood not only that there was no room
in my Lord of London's palace to translate the N.
T., but also that there was no place to do it in all
England " (Pref. io Five Books of Moses).
It is not so easy to say how far at this time any
knowledge of Hebrew was attainable at the English
universities, or how far Tyndal had used any means
of access that were open to him. It is probable
that it raay have been known, in some measure, to
a few bolder than their feUows, at a time far earlier
than the introduction of Greek. The large body
of Jews settled in the cities of England must have
possessed a knowledge, more or less extensive, of
their Hebrew books. On their banishment, to the
number of 16,000, by Edward 1., these books fell
into the hands of the monks, superstltiously rever
enced or feared by most, yet drawing some to ex
amination, and then to study. Grostete, it is said,
knew Hebrew as well as Greek. Ro£;er Bacon
knew enough '' to pass judgment on the Vulgate as
incorrect and misleading. Then, however, came a
period in which linguistic studies were thrown into
the background, and Hebrew became an unknown
speech even to the best-read scholars. The first
signs of a revival meet us toward the close of the
15th century. The remarkable fact that a Hebrew
Psalter was printed at Soncino in 1477 (forty years
before Erasmus's Greek Testament), the Penta
teuch in 1482, the Prophets in 1486, the whole of
the 0. T. in 1488, that by 1496 four editions had
been published, and by 1596 not fewer than eleven
(Whitaker, Hist and Crit Inquiry, p. 22) indi
cates a demand on the part of the Christian stu
dents of Europe, not less than on that of the more
learned Jews. Here also the progress of the Com
plutensian Bible would ha\'e attracted the notice
of scholars. The cry raised by the " Trojans " of
Oxford in 1519 (chiefly consistint^ of the friars, who
from the time of WycUffe had all but swamped the
education of the place) against the first Greek lec
tures — that to study that language would make

o * The MS. on which this statement la fbunded is
pronounced by Mr. Francis Fry of Bristol to be un
questionably a forgery. So Mr. Westcott regards it
Hist aftixe English Bible, p. 32, note). A.

& The boast of Bacon, thafc any one using his
method could learn Hebrew and Greek within a week,
bold as it is, shows that he kne^ something of bc;tt
{Da Lawle Sac. Script e. 28).

3428

VERSION, AUTHORIZED.

men Pagans, that to study Hebrew would make
them Jews — shows that the latter study as well as
the fornier was the object of their disUke and fear "
(Anderson, i. 24; Hallam, Lit. of Eur. i. 403).
Whether Tyndal had in this way gained any
knowledge of Hebrew before he left England in
1524 may be uncertain. The fact that in 1530-31
he pubUshed a translation of Genesis, Deuteronomy,
and Jonah,* may be looked on as the first-fruits of
his lalx)rs, the work of a man who was giving this
proof of his power to translate from the original
(Anderson, Annuls, i. 209-288). We may perhaps
trace, among other motives for the many wander
ings of his exile, a desire to visit the cities Worms,
Cologne, Hamburgh, Antwerp (Anderson, pp. 48-
64), where the Jews lived in greatest numbers, and
some of which were famous for their Hebrew learn
ing. Of at least a fair acquaintance with that lan
guage we have, a few years lat£r, abundant evi
dence in the table of Hebrew words prefixed to his
translation of the five books of Moses, and in casual
etymologies scattered through his other works, c. g.
Mammon (Parable of Wicked Mammon, p. 68 "),
Cohen (Obedience, p. 255), Abel Mizraim (p. 347),
Pesah (p. 353). A remark (Preface to Obedience,
p. 148) shows how well he had entered into the
general spirit of the language. " The properties
of the Hebrew tongue agreeth a thousand times
more with the Englishe than with the Latine. The
manner of speaking is in both one, so that in a
thousand places thou needest not but to translate
it into Englishe word for word." When Spalatin
describes him in 1534 it is as one well-skilled in
seven languages, and one of these is Hebrew " (An
derson, i. 397).
The N. T. was, however, the great object of his
care. First the Gospels of St. Matthew and St.
Mark were published tentatively, then in 1525 the
whole of the N. T. was printed in 4to at Cologne
and in small Svo at Worms.= The work was the
fruit of a self-sacrificing zeal, and the zeal was its
own reward. In England it was received with
denunciations. Tonstal, Bishop of London, preach
ing at Paul's Cross, asserted that there were at
least 2,000 errors in it, and ordered all copies of it
to be bought up and burnt. An Act of Parlia^
ment (35 Hen. VUL cap. 1) forbade the use of all
copies of Tyndal's "false translation." Sir T.
More (Dialogues, I. c. Supplication of Souls, Con-
a As indicatiug progress, it may be mentioned that
the first Hebrew professor, Jlobert Wakefield, was ap
pointed at Oxford iu 1530, and that Henry VIH.'s
secretary. Pace, knew Greek, Hebrew, and Chaldee.
6 The existence of a translation of Jonah by Tyndal,
previously questioned by some editors and biographers.
has been placed beyond a doubt by the discovery of
a copy (believed to be unique) in the po.'tsession of the
Ven. Lord Arthur Hervey. It is described in a letter
by him to the Bury Post of Feb. 3, 1862, transferred
shortly afterwards to the Atheneeum
c The references to Tyndal are given to the Parker
Society edition.
ll Hallam's assertion that Tyndal's version " was
avowedly taken from Luther's," originated probably
In an inaccurate reminiscence of the title-page of
Coverdale's (Lit. of Europe, i. 526).
e The only extant copy of the Svo edition is in the
Library of the Baptist College at Bristol. It was
reproduced in 1862 in fac-simile by Mr. Francis Fry,
Bristol, the imptession being Umited to 177 copies.
Mr. Fry proves, by a careful comparison of type, size,
tvater-mark, and the li'Ke, with those of other books
from tlie same press, that it was printed by Peter

fiUaiwn of TyndaVs Answer) entered the listi
against it, and accused the translator of heresy,
bad scholarship, and dishonesty, of " corrupting
Scripture after Luther's counsel." The treatment
which it received from professed friends was hardly
less annoying. Piratical editions were printed
often carelessly, by trading publishers at Antwerp.^
A scholar of his own, George Joj-e, undertook (in
1534) to improve the version by bringing it into
closer conformity with the Vulgate, and made it
the veliicle of peculiar opinions of his own, sub
stituting " life after this life," or " verie life," for
" resurrection," as the translation of avioTaffii.
(Comp. Tyndal's indignant protest in Pref. to edi
tion of 1534.) Even the most zealous reformers in
England seemed disposed fo throw his translation
overboard, and encouraged Coverdale (infra) in
undertaking another. In the mean time the work
went on. Editions were printed one after another.^'
The last appeared in 1535, just before his death,
" diligently compared with the Greek," presenting
for the first time systematic chapter-headings, and
with some peculiarities in spelling specially intended
for the pronunciation of the peasantry (Offor, Life,
p. 82 h). His heroic life was brought to a close in
1636. We may cast one look on its sad end — the
treacherous betrayal, the Judas-kiss of the &lse
friend, the imprisonment at Vilvorden, the last
prayer, as the axe was about to fall, " Lord, open
the King of England's eyes." '
The work to which a life was thus nobly devoted
was as nobly done. To Tjndal belongs tbe honor
of having given the first example of a translation
based on true principles, and the excellence of later
versions has been almost in exact proportion aa they
followed his. Believing that every part of Scrip
ture had one sense and one only, the sense in the
mind of the writer (Obedience, p. 304), he made it
his work, using all philological helps tbat were
accessible, to attain that sense. Believing that the
duty of a translator was to place his readers sa
nearly as possible on a level with those for whom
the books were originally written, he looked on all
the later theological associations that had gathered
round the words of the N. T. as hindrances rather
than helps, and sought, as far as possible, to get
rid of them. Not "grace," but " favor," even ill
John i. 17 (in edition of 1525); not "charity,"
but "love;" not "confessing," but " acknowl-

Schoeffer of Worms. By a like process Mr. Anderson
(i. 63) fixes Cologne aa the place, and Peter Quentel aa
the printer of the 4to.
/ In two of these (1534 and 1535) the words, " ThiR
cup is the New Testament in my blood," in 1 Cor. xi-
were omitted (Anderson, i. 415).
3 The localities of the editions are not without
interest. Hamburgh, Cologne, Worms, in 1525 ;
Antwerp in 1526-1528 ; Marlborow (= Marburg) in
1529 ; Strasburg (Joye's edit.) in 1531 ; Bergen-op-
Zoom in 1533 (Joye's) ; John c. vi. at Nuremberg
in 1633 ; Antwerp in 1634 (Cotton, Printed Editions,
pp. 4-6).
h * This conjecture of Mr. Ofifor is not borne out
by an examination of the book itself. See Westcott'^
Hist, ofthe Englisk Bible, p. 64 f A.
* Two names connect theraselves sadly with this
version. A copy of the edition of 1534 was presented
speciaUy to 'Anne Boleyn, and is now extant in thi
British Museum. Seveiul passages, such as might ba
marked for devotional use, are underscored in red ink.
Another reforming Lady, Joan Bocher, was known t«
have been active in circulating Tyndal's N. T. (Neal
i. 43 i Strype, Mem. i. o. 26).

VERSION, AUTHORIZED

3129

edging; " not " peiiance," but " repentance; "
not "priests," but "seniors" or "elders;" not
'•'salvation," but "health;" not "church," but
"congregation," are instances of the changes
wbich were then looked on as startling and heret
ical innovations (Sir T. More, I. c). Some of them
we are now familiar with. In others the later ver
sions bear traces of a reaction in favor of the older
phraseology. In this, as in other things, Tyndal
was in advance, not only of his own age, but of the
age that followed him. To him, however, it is
owing that the versions of the English Church
have throughout been popular, and not scholastic.
All the exquisite grace and simplicity which have
endeared the A. V. to men of the most opposite
tempers and contrasted opinions — 'to J. H. New
man (DuiAln Review, June, 1853) and J. A.
Froude — is due mainly to his clear-sighted truth
fulness.'* The desire to make the Bible a people's
book led him in o^ie edition to something like a
provincial, rather than a national translation,^ but
on the whole it kept him free from the besetting
danger of the time, that of writing for scholars, not
for the pepple; of aversion full of "ink-horn"
phrases, not in the spoken language of the English
nation. And throughout there is the pervading
stamp, so often wanting in other like works, of the
most thorough truthfulness. No word has been
altered to court a king's favor, or please bishops,
or make out a case for or against a particular
opmion. He is working freely, not in the fetters
of prescribed rules. With the most entire sin
cerity he could say, " I call God to record, against
the day we shall appear before our Lord Jesus to
give a reckoning of our doings, that I never altered
one syllable of God's word against my conscience,
nor would this day, if all that is iu tbe world,
whether it be pleasure, honor, or riches, might be
given me " (Anderson, i. 349).
IV. Coverdale. — (1.) A complete transla^
tion of the Bible, diflferent from Tyndal's, bearing
the name of Miles Coverdale, printed probably at
Zurich, appeared in 1535. The undertaking itself,
and the choice of Coverdale as the translator, were
probably due to Cromwell. Tyndal's controversial
treatises, and the polemical character of his prefaces
and notes, had irritated the leading ecclesiastics
and embittered the mind of the king himself against
hira. All that he had written was publicly con
demned. There was no hope of obtaining the
king's sanction for anything that bore his name.
But the idea of an English translation began to
o The testimony of a Roman CathoUc scholar is
worth quoting: "In point of perspicacity and noble
-simpUcity, propriety of idiom and purity of sfcyle, no
EngUsh version has as yet surpassed ifc (Geddes, Pro
spectus for a new Translation, p. 89). The writer can
not forbear adding Mr. Froude's judgment iu his own
words : " The peculiar genius, if such a word may be
permitted, which breathes through it, the mingled
tenderness and majesty, the Saxon simplicity, the
preternatural grandeur, uuequaled, unapproached, in
the attempted improvements of modern scholars, — all
are here, and bear the impress of the mind of one
man, and that man William Tyndal " (Hist, of Eng.
iii. 84).
6 • Error ; see p. 3428, note h. A,
'' A list of such words, 99 in number, was formally
laid before Convocation by Gardiner in 1542, with fche
proposal that they should be left untranslated, or
Goglished with as Uttle change as possible (Lewis,
Hist ch. 2 ; [Eng. Hexapla, p. 10'>]).
'^ It is uncertain where thia version was printed, the

find favor. The rupture with the see of Home, the
marriage with Anne Boleyn, made Henry willino'
to adopt wbat was urged upon hira as the surest
way of breaking forever the spell of the Pope's au
thority. The bishops even began to think of the
thing as possible. It was talked of in Convocation.
They would take it in hand themselves. The work
did not, however, make much progress. The great
preliminary question whetiier "venerable" words,
such as hostia, penance, pascha, holocaust, and the
like, should be retained, was still unsettled (Ander
son, i. 414). c Not tiU " the day after doomsday '*
(the words are Cranmer's) were the English people
likely to get their English Bible from the bishops
(ibid. i. 577). Cromwell, it is probable, thought
it better to lose no further time, and to strike while
the iron was hot- A divine whom he had patron
ized, though not, hke Tyndal, feeling himself called
to that special work (Prtf. to Coverdale's Bible),
was willing to undertake it. To him accordiugly
it was intrusted. There was no stigma attached
to his name, and, though a sincere reformer, neither
at that time nor afterwards did he occupy a suffi
ciently prominent position to become au object of
special persecution. -^
(2 ) The work which was thus executed was
done, as might be expected, in a very diflferent
fashion from Tyndal's. Of the two men, one had
made this the great object of his life, the other, in
his own language, "sought it not, neither desired
it," but accepted it as a task assigned hira. One
prepared himself for the work by long years of labor
in Greek and Hebrew. The other is content to
make a translation at second hand " out of the
Douche (Luther's German Version) and the Lat
ine." « The one airas at a rendering which shall
be the truest and most exact possible. Tbe other
loses himself in weak commonplace as to the ad
vantage of using many English words for one and
the same word in the orighial, and in practice
oscillates between "penance" and "repentance,"
"love "and "charity," "priests "and "elders,'
as though one set of words were as true and ade
quate as the other (Preface, p. 19). In spite of
these weaknesses, however, there is much to like in
the spirit and' temper of Coverdale. He is a sec
ond-rate man, laboring as such contentedly, nst
ambitious to appear other than he is. He thinks
it a gre-at gain that there should be a diversity of
translations. He acknowledges, though he dare
not narae it, the excellence of Tyndal's version,./
and regrets the misfortune which left it incomplete.
title-page being silent on that point. Zurich, Cologne,
and Frankfort iiave all been conjecfcured. Coverdale
is known to have been abroad, and may have come in
contact with Luther.
e There seems something like an advertising tact in
this title-pa^. A scholar would have felt that there
was no value in any translation but one from the
original. But the " Douche *' would serve to attract
the Reforming parfcy, who held Luther's name in
honor ; while the " Latine " would at least conciliate
the conservative feeling of Gardiner and his associates.
Whitaker, however, maintains that Coverdale knew
more Hebrew than he chose, at this time, to acknowl
edge, and refers to his translation of one difficult
passage (" Ye take youre pleasure under the okes and
under all grene trees, the children beyinge slaine in
the vaUeys," Is. Ivii. 5) as proving an independent
judgment againsfc the authority of Luther aad the
Vulgate {Hist, and Crit. Enquiry , p. 52).
/ " If thou [the reader] be fervent in prayer, God
shaU nofc only send thee it fthe Bible I in a bettai

3430

VERSION, AUTHORIZED

He states frankly that he bad done his work with
the assistance of that and of five others." If the
language of his dedication to the king, whom he
compares to Moses, David, aud Josiah, seems to be
somewhat fulsome in its flattery, it is, at least,
hardly more oliensive than that of the dedication
of the A. v., and there was more to palliate
it.' (3.) An inspection of Coverdale's version serves
to show the influence of the authorities he fol
lowed. = The proper names of the 0. T. appear for
the most part in their Latin form, Elias, Eliseus,
Ochozias; sometimes, as in Esay and Jeremy, in
tbat which was familiar in spoken English. Some
points of correspondence with Luther's version are
not without interest. Thus "Cush," which in
Wycliffe. Tyndal, and the A. V. is uniformly ren
dered " Ethiopia," is in Coverdale " Morians' land "
(Ps. Ixviii. 31; Acts viii. 27, &e.), after the "Moh-
reulande" of Luther, and appears in this form
accordingly in the P. B. [Prayer Book] version of
the Psalms. The proper name Rabshakeh passes,
as in Luther, into the " chief butler " (2 K. xviii.
17; Is. xxxvi. 11). In making the sons of David
" priests " (2 Sam. viii. 18), he followed both his
authorities. *'EiriaKonot are " bishops " in Acts
XX. 28 (" overseers " in A. V.). " Shiloh," in the
prophecy of Gen. xlix. 10, becomes " the worthy,"
after Luther's " der Held." " They houghed
oxen " takes the place of " they digged down a
wall,'' in Gen. xlix. 6. The singular word " Lamia "
is taken from the Vulg., as the English rendering
of Zim (" wild beasts," A.V.) in Is. xxxiv. 14.
The " tabernacle of witness,'' where the A. V. has
" congregation," shows the same influence. In
spite of Tyndal, the Vulg. •* plena gratia," in Luke
i. 28, leads to "full of grace;" while we have,
on the other hand, " congregation " throughout the
N. T. for iKKKjiaia, and " love " instead of " char
ity " in 1 Cor. xiii. It was the result of the same
indecision that his language as to the Apocrypha
lacks the sharpness of that of the more zealous
reformers. " LSaruch " is placed with the canon
ical books, after " Lamentations." Of the rest
he says that tbey are "placed apart," as "not
held by ecclesiastical doctors in the same repute "
as the other Scriptures, but this is only because
there are " dark sayings " which seem to differ
from the " open Scripture." He has no wish
that they should be "despised or little set by."
"Patience and study would show that the two
were agreed."
(4. ) What has been stated practically disposes of
the claim wliich has sometimes been made for this
version of Coverdale's, as though it had been made
from the original text (.Anderson, i. 564; Whita
ker, Hist, anil Oil. ¦Enquiry, p. 58). It is not
improbable, however, that as time went on he added

[version] by the ministration of those that began it
before, but siiall also move the hearts of those that
before meddled not withal."
a The tive were probably — (1) the Yulgate, (2)
Luther's, (3) the German Swiss version of Zurich, (4)
the Latin of Pagninus, (6) Tyndal's. Others, how
ever, havB conjectured a German translation of the
Vulgate earlier than Luther's, aud a Dutch version
from Lutber (Whitaker, Hist, and Crit. Enquiry,
p. 49).
& He leaves it to tho king, e. g., " to correct his
Irauslation, to amend it, to improve [=: condemn] it,

to his knowledge. The letter addressed by him u.
Cromwell (Remains, p. 492, Parker Soc.) obviously
asserts, somewhat ostentatiously, an acquaintance
*' not only with the standing text of the Hebrew
with the interpretation of the Chaldee and the
Greek," but also with " the diversity of reading of
all texts" He, at any rate, continued his work as
a painstaking editor. Fresh editions of his Bible
were published, keeping their ground in spite of
rivals, in 1537, 1539, 1550, 1553. He was called
in at a still later period to assist in the Geneva ver
sion. Among smaller facts connected with this
edition may be mentioned the appearance of He
brew letters — of the name Jehovah — in the title-
page (nin''), and again in the margin of the alpha
betic poetry of Lamentations, though not of Ps.
cxix. The plural form " Biblia " is retained in the
title-page, possibly however in its later use as a
singular feminine [comp. Bible]. There are no
notes, no chapter headings, no divisions iuto verses.
The letters A, B, C, D, in the margin, as in the
early editions of Greek and Latin authors, are. the
only helps for finding places. Marginal references
point to parallel passages. The 0. T. especially in
Genesis, has the attraction of wood-cuts. Each book
has a table of contents prefixed to if
V. Matthew. — (1.) In the year 1537, a large
folio Bible appeared as edited and dedicated to the
king, by Thomas Matthew. No one of that name
appears at al! prominently in the religions history
of Henry VIII., and this suggests the inference that
the name was pseudonymous, adopted to conceal the
real translator. The tradition which connects this
Matthew with John Rogers, the proto-martyr of
the Marian persecution, is all bnt undisputed. It
rests (1) on the language of the indictment and
sentence which describe him (I'oxe, Acts and Mon
uments, pp. 1029, 1563; Chester, Life of Rogers,
pp. 418-423) as Joannes Rogers alias Matthew, as
if it were a matter of notoriety; (2) the testimony
of Foxe himself, as representing, if not personal
knowledge, the current belief of his time; (3) the
occurrence, at the close of a short exhortation to the
Study of Scripture in the Preface, of the initials
J. K. ; e (4) internal evidence. This subdivides
itself, (a.) Rogers, who had graduated at Pem
broke Coll. Cambridge in 1525, and had sufficient
fame to be invited to the new Cardinal's College at
Oxford, accepted the office of chaplain to the mer
chant adventurers of Antwerp, and there became
acquainted with Tyndal, two years before the latter's
death. Matthew's Bible, as might be expected, if
this hypothesis were true, reproduces Tyndal's
work, in the N. T. entirely, in the 0. T. as far as
2 Chr , the rest being taken with occasional modifi
cations from Coverdale. (b.) The language of the
dedication is that of one wbo has mixed much, as

yea, and clean to r^ect it, if your godly wisdom shall
think necessary."
c Ginsburg (App. to Coheleth) has shown that,
with regard to one book at least of the 0. T., Cover.
dale followed tbe Oerman-Swiss version printed al
Zurich in 1531, with an almost servile obsequious
ness. d A careful reprint, though not a fac-simile, of Cov
erdale's version has t)een published by Bagster (18381
e These ornamental initials aie curiously selected
H. R. for the king's name, W. T. (at tbe end of tha 0.
T.) for William Tyndal, E. Q. for Richard Graflon i*l
printer.

VERSION, AUTHORIZED

34-31

fiogers mixed, with foreign reformers. " This hope
have the godlie even in strange countries, in your
grace's godliness."
(2.) The printing of the book was begun appar
ently abroad, and was carried on as far as the end
of Isaiah. At that point a new pagination begins,
and the names of the London printers, Grafton and
Whitechurch, appear. The history of the book was
probably something like this : Coverdale's translst-
tioii had not given satisfaction — least of all were
the more zealous and scholar-like reformers con
tented with it. As the only complete English
Hible, it was, however, as yet, in possession of the
field. Tyndal and Rogers, tlierefore, in the year
preceding the imprisonment of the former, deter
mined on another, to include 0. T., N. T., and
Apocrypha, but based throughout on the original.
l.eft to himself, Rogers carried on the work, proba
bly at the expense of the same Antwerp merchant
who had assisted Tyndal (Poyntz), and thus got as
far as Isaiah. The enterprising London printers,
Grafton and Whitechurch, then came in (Chester,
Life of Rogers, p. 29). It would be a good spec
ulation to enter the market with this, and so drive
out Coverdale's, in which they had no interest.
They accordingly embarked a considerable capital,
£500, and theu came a stroke of policy which may
he described as a miracle of audacity. Rogers's
name, known as the friend of Tyndal, is suppressed,
and the siraulaeruvu of Thomas Matthew disarms
suspicion. The book is sent by Grafton to Cran
mer. He reads, approves, rejoices. He would
rather have -the news of its being licensed than a
thousand pounds (Chester, pp. 425-427). Appli
cation is then made both by Grafton and Cranmer
to Cromwell. The king's license is granted, but
the publisher wants more. Nothing less than a
monopoly for five years will give him a fair margin
of profit. Without this, he is sure to be undersold
by piratical, inaccurate editions, badly printed, on
inferior paper. Failing this, he trusts that the
king will order one copy to be bought by every in
cumbent, and six by every abbey. If this was too
much, the king might, at least, impose that obliga
tion on all the popishly-inclined clergy. That will
bring in something, besides the' good it may possi
bly do them (Chester, p. 430). The application
was, to some extent, successful. A copy was or
dered, by royal proclamation, to be set up in every
church, the cost beiug divided between the clergy
and the parishioners. This was, therefore, the
first Autliorized Version. It is scarcely conceiv
able, however, that Henry could havq read the
took which he thus sanctioned, or known that it
was substantially identical with what had been
pubhcly stigmatized in his Acts of Parliament (ut
supra). What had before given most offense had
been the polemic character of Tyndal's annotations,
and here were notes bolder and raore thorough still.
Even the significant W. T. does not appear to have
attracted notice.
(3.) What has been said of Tyndal's version
applies, of course, to this. There are, however,
signs of a more advanced knowledge of Hebrew.
All the technical words connected with the Psalms,
Neginoth, Shiggaion, Sheminith, etc., are elabo
rately explained. Ps. ii. is printed as a dialogue.
The names of the Hebrew letters are prefixed to the
verses of Lamentations. Reference is made to the
Chaldee Paraphrase (Job vi. ), to Rabbi Abraham
(Job xix.), to Kimchi (Ps. iii ). A like range of
knowledge is shown iu tlie N. T. Strabo is quoted

to show that the Magi were not kings, Macrobius
as testifying to Herod's ferocity (Matt, ii.). Eras ¦
mus's Paraphrase on llatt. xiii., xv. The popular
identification of Mary Jlagdalene with " the woman
that was a sinner" is discussed, and rejected
(l.ukex.). More noticeable even thau in Tyndal
is the boldness and fullness of the exegetical notes
scattered throughout the book. Strong and ear
nest in asserting what he looked on as the central
truths of the Gospel, there was in Rogers a Luther
like freedom in other things which has not appeared
again in any authorized translation or popular com
mentary. He guards his readers against looking
on the narrative of Job i. as literally true. He
recognizes a definite historical starting-point for
Ps. xiv. ("The sons of Korah praise Solomon for
the beauty, eloquence, power, and nobleness, both
of himself and of his wife "), Ps. xxii. (" David de-
clareth Christ's dejection  and all, under fig
ure of himself"), and the Song of Solomon (" Sol
omon made this balade for himself and his wife, the
daughter of Pharaoh, under the shadow of himself,
figuring Christ," etc.). The chief duty of the
Sabbath is " to minister the fodder of the Word to
simple souls," to be " pitiful over the weariness of
such neighbors as labored sore all the week long."
" When such occasions come as turn our rest to
occupation and labor, then ought we to remember
that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man
for the Sabbath" (Jer. xvii.). He sees in the
Prophets of the N. T. simply " expounders of Holy
Scripture " (.4.cts xv.). To the man living in faith,
" Peter's fishing after the resurrection, and all deeds
of matrimony are pure spiritual; " to tbose who are
not, " learning, doctrine, contemplation of high
things, preaching, study of Scripture, founding of
churches and abbeys, are works of the flesh " (Pref
to Romans)." "Neither is outward circumcision or
outward baptism worth a pin of theraselves, save
that they put us in remembrance to keep the cov
enant" (1 Cor. vii.). "He that desireth honor,
graspeth after lucre .... casties, parks, lordships
. . . . desireth not a work, rauch less a good work,
and is nothing less than a bishop" (1 Tim. iii.).
Ez. xxiv. is said to be " against bishops and curates
that despise the flock of Christ." The &yye\os
^KKXrjoia^ of Rev. ii. and iii. appears (as in Tyn
dal) as " the messenger of the congregation."
Strong protests against purgatory are found in
notes to Ez. xviii. and 1 Cor. iii., and in the " Ta
ble of Principal Matters '' it is significantly stated
under the word Purgatory that "it is not in the
Bible, but the purgation and remission of our sin
is made us by the abundant mercy of God." The
preface to the Apocrypha explains tbe name, and
distinctly asserts the inferiority of the books. No
notes are added, and the translation is taken from
Coverdale, as if it had not been worth while to give
much labor to it.
(4.) A few points of detail remain to be noticed
In the order of the books of the N. T. Rogers fol
lows Tyndal, agreeing with the A. V. as far as the
Epistle to Philemon. This is followed by the Epis
tles of St. John, then that to the Hebrews, then
those of St. Peter, St. James, and St. Jude.
Wood-cuts, not very freely introduced elsewhere,
are prefixed to every chapter in che Revelation.
The introduction of the " Table " mentioned above

« The long preface to tbe Romans (seven folio pages
was substantially identical with that in Tyndal's edI
tion of 1534.

3432

VERSION, AUTHORIZED

gives Rogers a claim to be the Patriarch of Con
cordances, the " father " of all such aa write in
dictionaries of the Bible. Reverence for the He
brew text is shown by his striking out the three
verses which the Vulgate has added to Ps. xiv. In
a later edition, pubUshed at Paris, not by Rogers
himself, but by Grafton, under Coverdale's superin
tendence, in 1539, the obnoxious prologue and
prefaces were suppressed, and the notes systemat
ically expurgated and toned down. The book was
in advance of the age. Neither book-sellers nor
bishops were prepared to be responsible for it.
VI. Taveiinek (1539). — (1.) The boldness of
the pseudo-Matthew had, as has been said, fright
ened the ecclesiastical world from its propriety.
(Coverdale's version was, however, too inaccurate to
keep its ground. It was necessary to find another
editor, and the printers applied to Richard Taver-
ner. But httle is known of his life. The fact that,
though a layman, he had been chosen as one of the
canons of the Cardinal's College at Oxford indicates
a reputation for scholarship, and this is confirmed
by the character of his translation. It professes,
in the title-page, to be " newly recognized, with
great diUgence, after the most faithful exemplars."
The editor acknowledges " the labors of others (i. e.
Tyndal, Coverdale, and Matthew, though he does
not name them) who have neither undiligently nor
unlearnedly travelled," owns that the work is not
one which can be done '-absolutely" (i. e. com
pletely) by one or two persons, but requires " a
deeper conferring of many learned wittes together,
andalsoa juster time, and longer leisure; " but the
thing had to be done; he had been asked to do it.
He had " used his talent " as he could.
(2.) In most respects this may be described as
an expurgated edition of Matthew's. There ia a
Table of Principal Matters, and there are notes;
but the notes ara briefer, and less polemical. The
passages quoted above are, e. g. omitted wholly or
in part. The epistles follow the same order as
before. VII. Cranmer. — (1.) In tbe same year as
Taverner's, and coming from tbe same press, ap
peared an English Bible, in a. more stately folio,
printed with a more costly type, bearing a higher
name than any previous edition. I'he title-page is
an elaborate engraving, the spirit and power of
which indicate the hand of Holbein. The king,
seated on his throne, is giving the Verbum Dei to
the bishops and doctors, and they distribute it to
the people, while doctors and people are all joining
in cries of ^'- Vivat Rex." It declares tbe book to
be " truly translated after the verity of the Hebrew
and Greek texts " by " divers excellent leai*ned
men, expert in the foresaid tongues." A preface,
in April, 1540, with the initials T. C, implies the
archbishop's sanction. In a later edition (Nov.
1540), his name appears on the title-page, and the
names of his coadjutors are given, Cuthbert (Ton
stal) Bishop of Durham, and Nicholas (Heath)
Bishop of Rochester; but this does not exclude the
possibility of others havirig been employed for the
iirst edition. **
(-2.) Cranmer^s version presents, as might be
expected, many points of interest. The prologue
gi\es a more complete ideal of what a translation
ought to ]be than we have as yet seen. Words not
In the original are to be printed in a different type.
They are added, even when " not wanted by the
nense," to satisfy those who have "missed them"
01 previous translations, i. '•• they represent the

various readinga of the Vulgate where it differs
from the Hebrew. The sign * indicates diversity
in the Chaldee and Hebrew. It had been intended
to give aU these, but it was found that tbis would
have taken too much time ahd space, and the ed
itors purposed therefore to print them in a little
volume by themselves. The frequent hands (J^")
in the margin, in like manner, show an inten
tion to give notes at the end; but Mattliew's Bible
had made men cautious, and, as there had uot been
time for " the King's Council to settle tbem," they
were omitted, and no help given to tbe reader be
yond the marginal references. In absence of notes,
the lay-reader is to submit himself to the '* godly-
learned in Christ Jesus." There is, as the title-
page might lead us to expect, a. greater display of
Hebrew than in any previous version. The books
of the Pentateuch have their Hebrew nanies given,
Bereschiih (Genesis), Velle Schemolh (Exodus),
and so on. 1 and 2 Chr. in like manner appear,
as Dlbre Ilaiamim. In the edition of 1541, many
proper names in the 0. T. appear in the fuller He
brew form, e. g. Amaziahu, Jeremiahu. In spite
of this parade of leai'ning, however, the edition of
1539 contains, perhaps, the most startling blunder
that ever appeared under the sanction of an arch
bishop's name. The editors adopted the preface
whicb, in Matthew's Bible, had been prefixed to
the Apocrypha. In that preface the common tra
ditional explanation of the name was concisely
given. They appear, however, to have shrunk from
offending the conservative party in the Church by
applying to the books in question so damnatory an
epithet as Apocrypha. They looked out for a word
more neutral and respectful, and found one that
appeared in some MSS. of Jerome so applied,
though in strictness it belonged to an entirdy dif
ferent set of books. Tbey accordingly substituted
that word, leaving the preface in all other respects
as it was before, and the result is the somewhat
ludicrous statement that the " books were called
Hagiographa,^'' because " they were read in secret
and apart ' ' !
(3.) A later edition in 1541 presents a few modi
fications worth noticing. It appears as "au
thorized" to be " used and frequented " in "every
church in the kingdom." The introduction, with
all its elaborate promise of a future perfection dis
appears, and, in its place, there is a long preface by
Cranmer, avoiding as much as possible all references
to other translations, taking a safe Via Media tone,
blaming those who "refuse to read," on the one
hand, and "inordinate reading," on the other.
This neutral character, so characteristic of Cran
mer's policy, was doubtless that which enabled it
to keep its ground during the changing moods of
Henry's later years. It was reprinted again ani'
again, and was the Authorized Version of the
English Church till 1568 — the interval of Mary's
reign excepted. From it, accordingly, were taken
most, if not all, the portions of Scripture in the
Prayer Books of 1549 and 1552. The Psalms, as
a whole, the quotations from Scripture in the Hom
ilies, the sentences in the Communion Services
and some phrases elsewhere, « still preserve the re
membrance of it. The oscillating character of the
book is shown in the use of "love" instead of
"charity" in 1 Cor. xiii.; and "congregation"
instead of " church " generally, after Tyndal; while
in 1 Tim. iv. 14, we have the singular rendering,

« Such, e. e*., as " worthy fruite tf penance."

VERSION, AUTHORIZED

3433

as if to gain the favor of his opponents, " with au
thority of priesthood.'* The plan of indicating
doubtful texts by a smaller type was adhered to,
aud waa applied, among other passages, to Ps. xiv.
5, 6, 7, and the more memorable text of 1 John v.
7. The translation of 2 Tim. iii. 16, " All Scrip
ture given by inspiration of God, is profitable."
etc., anticipated a construction of that text which
has sometimes been boasted of, and sometimes at
tacked, as an innovation. In this, however, Tyndal
had led the way.
VIII. Geneva. — (1.) The experimental trans
lation of the Gospel of St. Matthew by Sir John
Cheke into a purer Enghsh than before (Strype,
Life of Cheke, vii. 3). had so little influence on the
versions that followed that it hardly calls for more
than u. passing notice, as showing that scholars
were as yet unsatisfied. The reaction under Mary
gave a check to the whole work, as far as England
was concerned; but the exiles who fled to Geneva
entered on it with more vigor than ever. Cran
mer's version did not come up to their ideal. Its
size made it too costly* There were no explana
tory or dogmatic notes. It followed Coverdale too
closely; and where it deviated, did so, in some in
stances, in a retrograde direction. The Genevan
refugees — among them Whittingham, Goodmau,
Pullain, Sampson, and Coverdale himself — labored
"for two years or raore, day and night." They
entered on their " great and wonderful work " with
much "fear and trembling." Their translation of
the N. T. was " diligently revised by the most
approved Greek examples" (MSS. or editions?)
{Preface). The N. T., translated by Whitting
ham, was printed by Conrad Badius in 1557, the
whole Bible in 1560.
(2.) Whatever may have been its faults, the
Geneva Bible was unquestionably, for sixty years,
the most popular of all versions. Largely imported
in the early yeai-s of Elizabeth, it was printed in
England in 15G1, and a patent of monopoly given
to James Bodleigh. This was transferred, in 1576,
to Barker, in whose family the right of printing
Bibles remained for upwards of a century. Not
less than eighty editions, some of the whole Bible,
were printed between 1558 and 1611.« It kept its
ground for some time even against the A. V., and
gave way, as it were, slowly and under protest. The
causes of this general acceptance are not difficult
to ascertain. The volume was, iu all its editions,
cheaper and more portable — a small quarto, in
stead of the large folio of Cranmer's " Great Bible."
It was the first Bible wbich laid aside the obsoles
cent black letter, and appeared in Roman type.
It was the fii'st which, following the Hebrew ex
ample, recognized the division into verses, so dear
to the preachers or hearers of sermons. It was ac
companied, in most of the editions after 1578, by a
Bible Dictionary of considerable merit. The notes
were often really helpful iu dealing with the diffi
culties of Scripture, and were looked on as spiritual
aud evangelical. It was accordingly the version
specially adopted by the great Puritan party

a • Between 1558 and 1644, according to the Quar.
Rev. for April, 1870, about 150 editions were pub
lish sd of the Bible or parts thereof. It has been ob-
8er>ed that in the Souldiers Pockn Bible, published in
1643 for the use of Cromwell's army, nearly all the
selections of Scripture were taken from the Geneva
version. See the reprint by George Livermore, Cam-
bridiife, 1861, p. yi. A.
216

through the whole reign of Elizabeth, and far into
that of James. As might be expected, it was based
on Tyndal's version, often returning to it where
the intermediate renderings had had the character
of a compromise.
(3.) Some peculiarities are worthy of special
notice: (1.) It professes a desire to restore tbe
" true writing " of many Hebrew names, and we
meet accordingly with forras hke Izhak (Isaac),
Jaacob, and the like. (2.) It omits the name of St.
Paul from the title of the Epistle to the Hebrews ;
and, in a short preface, leaves the authorship an
open question. (3.) It avows the principle of put
ting all words not in the original in Italics. (4.)
It presents, in a calendar prefixed to the Bible,
something like a declaration of war against the es
tablished order of the Church's lessons, commemo
rating Scripture facts, and the deaths of the great
Refurmers, but ignoring saints' days altogether.
(5.) It was the first English Bible which entirely
omitted the Apocrypha. (6.) The notes were char
acteristically Swiss, not only in their theology, but
in their politics. They made allegiance to kings
dependent upon the soundness of their faith, and iu
one instance (note on 2 Chr. xv. 16) at least
seemed, to the easily startled James I , to favor
tyrannicide.'' (4.) The circumstances of the early introduction
of the. Geneva version are worth mentioning, if
only as showing in how different a spirit the great
fathers of the Enghsh Reformation, the most con
servative of Anglican theologians, acted from that
which has too often animated their successors
Men talk now of different translations and various
readings as hkely to undermine the faith of the
people. When application was made to Archbishop
Parker, in 1565, to support Bodleigh's application
for a hcense to repruit the Geneva version in
12mo, he wrote to Cecil in its favor. He was at
the time looking forward to the work he afterwards
accomplished, of " one other special Bible for the
churches, to be set forth as convenient time and
leisure should permit;" but in the mean time it
would "nothing hinder, but rather do much good,
to have diversity of translations and readings "
(Strype, Life of Parker, iii. 6).*^' In many of the
later reprints of this edition the N. T. purports to
be based upon Beza's Latin version ; and the notes
are said to be taken from [Beza,] Joac. Camerarius,
P. Loseler Villerius, and Fr. Junius.
IX. The Bishops' Bible. — (1.) The facts just
stated will account for the wish of Archbishop
Parker, in spite of his liberal tolerance, to bring
out another version which might establish its
claims against that of Geneva. Great preparations
were made. The correspondence of Parker with
his suffragans presents some points of interest, as'
showing how little agreement there was as to the
true theory of a translation. Thus while Sandys,
Bishop of Worcester, finds fault with the " com
mon translation" (Geneva?), as "following Mun-
ster too much," and so " swerving much from the
Hebrew," Guest, Bishop of St. David's, who took
6 The note " Herein he showed that he lacked zeal,
for she ought to have died," was probably one whicb
Scotch fonatics had handled in connection with the
name of James's mother.
c The Geneva version, as published by Parker, is
that popularly known as the Breeches Bible, from ita
rendering of Gen. iii. 7. It had however been preceded
in this by Wycliffe's

3434

VERSION, AUTHORIZED

the Psalms, acted on the principle of translating
them so as to agree with the N. T. quotations,
" for the avoiding of offense; " and Cox, Bishop of
Ely, while laying down the sensible rule that " ink-
hom terms were to be avoided," also went on to
add " that the usual terms were to be retained so
far forth .as the Hebrew will well bear" (Strype,
Parker, iii. 6). The principle of pious frauds, of
distorting the truth for the sake of edification, has
perhaps often been acted on by other translators.
It has not often been so explicitly avowed as in
the first of these suggestions.
(2.) The bishops thus consulted, eight in num
ber, togetiier with some deans and professors,
I rought out the fruit of their labors in a magnifi
cent folio (1568 and 1572J. Everything had been
done to make it attractive. A long erudite preface
vindicated the right ofthe people to read the Scrip
tures, and (quoting the authority of Bishop Eisher)
adraitted the position which later divines have often
been slow to adrait that "tbere be yet in the
Gospel many dark places which, without all doubt,
to the posterity shall be made much more open."
Wood-engravings of a much higher character than
those of the Geneva Bible were scattered profusely,
especially in Genesis. Three portraits of the Queen,
the Earl of Leicester, and Lord Burleigh, beautiful
specimens of copperplate engraring, appeared on the
title-pages of the several parts." A map of Pales
tine was given, with degrees of latitude and lon
gitude, in the edition of 1572. A most elaborate
series of genealogical tables, prepared by Hugh
Broughton, the great Rabbi of the age (of whom
more hereafter), but ostensibly by Speed the anti
quary (Broughton's name being in disfavor with
the bishops), was prefixed (Strype, Parker, iv. 20 ;
Lightfoot, Life of Broughton). In some points it
followed previous translations, and was avowedly
based on Cranmer's. "A new edition was neces
sary." " This had led some well-disposed men to
recognize it again, not as condemning the former
translation, which has been followed mostly of any
•ther translation, excepting the original text "
(Pref. of 1572). Cranmer's prologue was reprinted.
The Geneva division into verses was adopted
throughout. (3.) Some peculiarities, however, appear forthe
first and last time. (1.) The books of the Bible
are classified as legal, historical, sapiential, and
prophetic. This was easy enough for the 0- T.,
but the application of the sarae idea to the N. T.
produced some rather curious combinations. The
Gospels, the CathoHc Epistles, and those to Titus,
Philemon, and the Hebrews, are grouped together
as legal, St. Paul's other epLstles as sapiential; the
Acts appear as the one historical, the Revelation
as the one prophetic book. (2.) It is the only
lUble in which many passages, sometimes nearly
a whole chapter, have been marked for tbe express
purpose of being omitted when the chapters were
read in tbe public service of the Church. (3.) One
edition contained the older version of the Psalms
from Matthew's Bible, in parallel columns with

a The fitness of these illustrations is open to ques
tion. Others still more incongruous found thoir way
into the text of the edition of 1672, and the feelings
of the Puritans were shocked by seeing a wood-cut of
Keptune in tbe initial letters of Jonah, Micah, and
Kaliiun, while that of the Ep. to the Hebrews went so
Btf aa to give Leda aud tbe Swan. There must, to

that now issued, a true and piactical acknowledge
ment of the benefit of a diversity of translations.
(4.) I'he initials of the translators were attached to
the books which they had severally undertaken.
The work was done on the plan of limited, not joint
liability. (5.) Here as in the Geneva, there is the
attempt to give the Hebrew proper names more ac
curately, as, e. g., in Heva, Isahac, Uziahu, etc.
(4.) Of all the English versions, the Bishops'
Bible had probably the least success. It did not
command the respect of scholars, and its size and
cost were far from meeting the wants of the people.
Its circulation appears to have been practically
limited to the churches which were ordered to he
supplied with it. It had however, at any rate, the
right to boast of some good Hebrew scholars among
the translators. One of them, Bishop Alley, hid
written a Hebrew Grammar; and though vehe
mently attacked by Broughton (Townley, Literary
History of the Bible, iii. 190), it was defended aa
vigorously by Fulke, and, together with the A. V.
received from Selden the praise of being " the best
translation in the world " (" Table Tafi," Works,
iii. 2009).
X. Rheims and Douay. — (1.) The successive
changes in the Protestant versions of the Scriptures
were, as might be expected, matter of triumph to
the controversialists of the Latin Church. Some
saw in it an argument against any translation of
Scripture into the spoken, language of the people.
Others pointed derisively to the want of unity
which these changes displayed. There were some,
however, who took the line which Sir T. More and
Gardiner had taken under Henry VIII. They did
not object to the principle of an English translation.
They only charged all tbe versions hitherto made
with being false, corrupt, heretical. To this there
was the ready retort, that they had done nothing;
that their bishops in the reign of Henry had
promised, but had not performed. It was felt to
be necessary that they should take some steps
which might enable thera to turn the edge of this
reproach, and the English refugees who were settled
at Rheims — Martin, Allen (afterwards cardind),
and Bristow — undertook the work. Gr^ory
Martin, who had graduated at Cambridge, had
signalized himself by an attack on the existing
versions,'' and had been answered in an elaborate
treatise by Fulke, Master of Catherine Hall, Cam-
brijge (.4 Defence of tlie Since7'e and Ti'ue
Translation, etc.). The charges are mostly ofthe
same kind as those brought by Sir T. More against
Tyndal. " The old time-honored words were dis
carded. The authority of the LXX. and Vulgate
was set at nought when the translator's view of
the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek differed
frora what he found in them." The new model
translation was to avoid these faults. It was to
command the respect at once of prirats and people.
After au incubation of sorae years it was published
at Rheims in 1582. Though Martin was compe
tent to translate from tbe Greek, it professed to be
n " the authentic text of the Vulgate."

say the least, have been very slovenly editorship tc
permit this.
6 " A discovery of the manifold corrupdons of Holy
Scriptures by the Heretikes of our days, specially of the
English sectaries." The language of this and other
like books was, as might be expected, very aboflivft.
The Bible, in Protestant translations, was " not Gkid'i
word, but the devil's."

VERSION, AUTHORIZED

3436

fTotes were added, as strongly dogmatic as those
»f the Geneva Bible, and often keenly controversial.
t'he u'oik of translation was completed somewhat
later by the publi*^ation of the 0. T. at Douay in
1609. The language was precisely what might
have beeu expected from men who adopted Gardi
ner's ideal of what a translation ought to be.
At every page we stumble on " strange ink-horn
words,*' which never had been EngUsh, and never
could be, such, e. g., as "the Pasche and the
Azymes** (Mark xvi. 1), "the arch-synagogue"
(Mark v. 35), "in prepuce " (Rom. iv. 9), " obdu
rate with the fallacie of sin" (Heb. iii. 13), "a
greater hoste " (Heb. xi. 4), " this is the annuntia-
tion" (1 John v. 5), " pre-ordinate " (Acts xiii.
48), "the justifications of our Lord " (Luke i. 6),
"what is to me and thee" (John ii. 4), " longa^
nimity " (Rom. ii. 4), " purge the old leaven that
you raay be a new paste, as you are azymes"
(1 Cor. iv. 7), " you are evacuated from Christ "
(Gral. V. 4), and so on.«
(2.) A style such as this had, as might be ex
pected, but few admirers. Among those few, how
ever, we find one great name. Bacon, who leaves
the great work of the reign of James unnoticed,
and quotes alraost uniformly from the Vulgate,
goes out of his way to praise the Rheraish version
for having restored " charity " to the place from
which Tyndal had expelled it, in 1 Cor. xiii. ( Of
th'e Pactf cation of the Church).
XI. Authorized Version. — (1.) The posi
tion of the English Church in relation to the ver-
Bions in use at the commencement of the reign of
Jaraes was hardly satisfactory. The Bishops' Bi
ble was sanctioned by authoritys That of Geneva
had the strongest hold on the affections of the
people. Scholars, Hebrew scholars in particular,
found grave fault with both. Hugh Broughton,
who spoke Hebrew as if it had been his mother-
tongue, denounced the former as being full of
" traps and pitfalls," " overthrowing all religion,"
and proposed a new revision to be effected by an
Engli3.i Septuagint (72), with power to consult
gardeners, artists, and the like, about the words
connected with tbeir several callings, and bound to
submit their work to " one qualified for difficul
ties." This ultimate referee was, of course, to be
himself (Strype, Whitgift, iv. 19, 23). Unhappily,
neither his temper nor his mannere were such as to
(vin favor for this suggestion. Whitgift disliked
Mm, worried him, drove him into exile. His feel
ing was, however, shared by others; and among
the demands of the Puritan representatives at the
Hampton Court Conference in 1604 (Dr. Reinolds
being the spokesman), was one for a new, or, at
least, a revised translation. The special objections
which they urged were neither numerous (three
passages only — Ps. cv. 28, evi. 30, Gal. iv. 25,
were referred to) nor important, and we must con-

o Even Roman Catholic divines have felt the supe-
ilority of the A. Y., and Challoner, in hia editions
tf the N. T. in 1748, and the Bible, 1763, often fol-
ows it in preference to the Rheims and Bouay trans-
htioDs. 6 Only forty-seven names appear iu the king's list
fiumet. Reform. Records). Seven may have died, or
(declined to act ; or it may have been intended that
there should be a final Committee of Revision. A
full list is giveu by Fuller (Ch. Hist, x.) ; and is
reproduced, with biographical particulars, by Todd
tnd Anderson.

elude either that this part of their c£se had not
been carefully got up, or th^at the bullying to
which they were exposed had had the desiret
effect of throwing them into some confusion. The
bishops treated the difficulties which they did raise
with supercilious scorn. They were " trivial, old,
and often answered." Bancroft raised the cry of
alarm which a timid Conservatism has so often
raised since. " If every man's humor were to be
followed, there would be no end of translating "
(Card well, Conferences, p. 188). Cranmer's words
seemed likely to be fulfilled again. Had it been
left to the bishops, we might have waited for the
A. V. " till the day after doomsday." Even when
the work was done, and the translators acknowl
edged that the Hampton Court Conference had
been the starting-point of it, they could not resist
the temptation of a fling at their opponents. The
objections to the Bishops' Bible had, they said,
been nothing more than it shift to justify the
refusal of the Puritans to subscribe to the Com
munion Book (Preface to A. V.). But the king
disliked the politics of the Geneva Bible. Either
repeating what he had heard from others, or exer
cising his own judgment, he declared that there
was as yet no good translation, and that that
was the worst of all. Nothing, however, was
settled at the Conference beyond the hope thus
held out.
(2.) But the king was not forgetful of what he
thought likely to be the glory of his reign. The
work of organizing and superintending the arrange
ments for a new translation was one specially con
genial to him, and in 1606 the task was accord
ingly commenced. The selection of the fifty-four
scholars * to whom it was entrusted, seems, on the
whole, to have Ijeen a wise and fair one. Andrews
Saravia, Overal, Montague, and Barlow, repre
sented the "higher" party in the Church; Rei
nolds, Chaderton, and Lively that of the Puritans <
Scholarship unconnected with party was repre
sented by Henry Savile and John Boys. One
name is indeed conspicuous by its absence. The
greatest Hebrew scholar of the age, the man
who had, in a letter to Cecil (1595), urged this
very plan of a joint translation, who had already
translated several books of the 0. T. (Job, Eccle
siastes, Daniel, Lamentations) was ignomimouslj
excluded. This may have been, in part, owing to
the dislike with which Whitgift and Bancroft had
all along regarded him. But in part, also, it was
owing to Broughton's own character. An unman
ageable temper showing itself in violent language,
and the habit of stigmatizing those who differed
from him, even on such questions as those con
nected with names and dates, as heretical and -
atheistic, must have made him thoroughly imprac
ticable; one of the men whose presence throws a
committee or Conference into chaos.''

c This side was, however, weakened by the deatb.
of Reinolds and Lively during the progress of th«
work. The loss of the latter, Hebrew professor at
Cambridge for thirty years, was every way deplorap
ble. (2 It deserves notice that Broughton is the only
English translator who has adopted the Eternal aa
the equivalent for Jehovah, as in the French versioa.
To him also perhaps, more than to any other divine^
we owe the true interpretation of the Descent int«
Hell.

3436

VERoION, AUTHORIZED

(3.) What reward other than that of their own
ronsciences and the judgment of posterity were the
men thus chosen to expect for their long and labo
rious task? The king was not disposed to pay
them out of his state revenue. Gold and silver
were not always plentiful in the household of the
Enghsh Solomon, and from him they received
nothing (Heywood, State of Auth. BibL Revision).
There remained, however, an ingenious form of
liberality, which had the merit of being inexpen
sive. A king's letter was sent to the archbishops
and bishops, to be transmitted by them to their
chapters, commending all the translators to their
fe,vorable notice. They were exhorted to contribute
in all 1,000 marks, and the king was to be informed
of each man's liberality. If any livings in their
gift, or in the gift of private persons, became
vacant, tbe king was to be informed of it, that he
might nominate sorae of the translators to the
vacant preferment. Heads of colleges, in Hke
manner, were enjoined to give free board and lodg
ing to such divines as were summoned from the
country to labor in the great work (Strype, Whit
gift, iv.). That the king might tak^ his place as
the director of the whole, a copy of fifteen instruc
tions was sent to each translator, and apparently
circulated freely in both Universities.
(4.) The instructions thus given will be found
in Fuller {I. c), and with a more accurate text in
Burnet (Reform. Records). It will not be neces
sary to give them here in full ; but it will be mter-
ssting to note the bearing of each clause upon the
work hi hand, and its relation to previous versions.
(1.) The Bishops' Bible was to be followed, and as
little altered as the original Till permit. This
w;as intended probably to quiet the alarm of those
who saw, in the proposal of a new version, a con
demnation of that already existing. (2.) The names
of prophets and others were to be retained, as
nearly as may be as they are vulgarly used. This
was to guard against forms like Izhak, Jeremiahu,
etc., which had been introduced in some versions,
and wbich some Hebrew scholars were willing to
introduce more copiously. To it we owe probably
the forras Jeremy. Elias, Osee, Core, in the N. T.
(3.) The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the
word Church not to be translated Congregation.
The rule was apparently given for the sake of this
special application. " Charity," in 1 Cor. xiii. was
probably also due to it. The earlier vereions, it
will be remembered, had gone on the opposite prin
ciple. (4.) When any word hath divers significa
tions, that to be kept which hath been most com
monly used by the most eminent fathers, being
agreeable to the propriety of the place and the
analogy of faith. This, like the former, tends to
confound the functions of the preacher and the
translator, and substitutes ecclesiastical tradition
for philological accuracy. (5.) The division of the
chapters to be altered either not at all, or as little
as possible. Here, again, convenience was more in
view than truth and accuracy, and the result is
that divisions are perpetuated which are manifestly
arbitrary and misleading. (6.) No marginal notes
lo be affixed but only for the explanation of Hebrew

a Miles Smith, himself a translator and the writer
9f the Prefiice, complained of Bancroft that there was
no contradicting him (Beard, Revised Eng. Bible).
6 Gell's evidence, as having been chaplain to Arch
bishop Abbot, carries some weight with it. His works
are to be found in the Brit. Mus. Library, Mr. Scriv-

and Greek words. This was obviously directet*
against the Geneva notes, as the special objects of
the king's aversion. Practically, however, in what
ever leehng it originated, we may be thankful that
the A. V. came out as it did, without note or com
ment. The open Bible was placed in the hands of
all readers. The work of interpretation was left
free. Had an opposite course been adopted, we
might have had the tremendous evil of a whole
body of exegesis imposed upon the Church by
authority, reflecting the Calvinism of the Synod
of Dort, the absolutism of James, the high-flying
prelacy of Bancroft. (7.) Such quotations of places
to be marginally set down as may serve for fit
reference of one Scripture to another. The prin
ciple that Scripture is its own best interpreter wa«
thus recognized, but practically the marginal refer
ences of the A. V. of 1611 were somewhat scanty,
most of those now printed having been added in
later editions. (8 and 9.) State plan of translation.
Each corapany of translators is to take its own
books; each person to bring his own corrections.
The company to discuss them, and having finished
their work, to send it on to another company, and
so on, (10.) Provides for differences of opinion
between two companies by refemng them to a
general meeting. (11.) Gives power, in cases of
difficulty, to consult any scholars. (12.) Invites
suggestions from any quarter. (13.) Names the
directors of the work : Andrews, Dean of West^
minster; Barlow, Dean of Chester; and the Regius
Professors of Hebrew and Greek at both Univer
sities. (14.) Names translations to be followed
vhen they agree more with the original than the
Bishops' Bible, sc. Tyndal's, Coverdale's, Mat
thew's, Whitchurch's (Cranmer's), and (jeneva.
(15.) Authorizes Universities to appoint three or
four overseers of the work.
(5.) It is not known that any of the correspond
ence connected with this work, or any minute of
the meetings for conference is still extant. Nothing
is more striking than tbe silence with which the
version that was to be the inheritance of the Eng
lish people for at least two centuries and a half was
ushered into the world. Here and there we get
glimpses of scholars coming from their country
livings to their old college haunts to work diligently
at the task assigned thera (Peck, Desiderata Curi-
osa, ii. 87). We see tbe meetings of translators,
one man reading the chapter which he has been at
work on, while the others listen, with the original,
or Latin, or German, or Italian, or Spanish versions
in their hands (Selden, Table Talk). We may
represent to ourselves the differences of opinion,
settled by the casting vote of the " odd man," or
by the strong overbearing temper of a man like
Bancroft," the minority comforting theraselves with
the thought that it was no new thing for the truth
to be outvoted (GeU, Essay towards Amendment
of itst Eng. TransL of Bible, p. 321).'' Dogmatic
interests were in some cases allowed to bias the
translation, and the Calvinism of one party, the pre-
latic views of another, were both represented at the
expense of accuracy (Gell, I. c.).^
(6.) For three years the work went on, the sepa^

ener's statement to the contrary being apparently an
oversight {Supptemmt to A. V. of N. T. p. 101).
c The following passages are those commonly re
ferred to in support of thia charge : (1.) The rendering
" such as should be saved," in Acteii. 47. (2.) Th<
insertion of the words " any man " in Heb. z 88

VERSION, AUTHORIZED

3437

rate companies comparing notes as directed. When
the work drew towards its completion it was neces
sary to place it under the care of a select few.
Two from each of the three groups were accordingly
selected, and the six met in London, to superintend
the publication. Now, for the first time, we find
any more definite remuneration than the shadowy
promise held out in the king's letter, of a share in
the 1,000 marks which Deans and Chapters would
not contribute. The matter had now reached its
buainees stage, and the Company of Stationers
thought it expedient to give the six editors thirty
pounds each, in weekly payments, for their nine
laonths' labor. The final correction, and the task
of writing the arguments of the several books, was
given to Bilson, Bishop of \^'inchester, and Dr.
Miles Smith, the latter of whom also wrote the
Dedication and .the Preface. Of these two docu
ments the first is unfortunately familiar enough to
us, and is chiefly conspicuous for its servile adula^
tion." Jaraes I. is "that sanctified person," "en
riched with singular and extraordinary graces,"
that had appeared " as the sun in his strength."
To him they appeal against the judgment of those
whom they describe, in somewhat peevish accents,
¦8 " Popish persons or self-conceited brethren."
The Preface to the Reader is more interesting, as
throwing light upon the principles on which the
translators acted. They " never thought that
they should need to make a new translation, nor
yet to make of a bad one a good one." "Their
endeavor was to make a good one better, or out of
many good ones one principal good one." They
claim credit for steering a middle course between
the Puritans who " left the old ecclesiastical words,"
and the obscurity ofthe Papists "retaining foreign
words of purpose to darken the sense." They vin
dicate the practice, in whieh they indulge very freely,
of translating one word in the original by many
English words, partly on the intelligible ground
that it is not always possible to find one word that
will express all the meanings of the Greek or He
brew, partly on the somewhat childish plea that it
would he unfair to choose some words for the high
honor of being the channels of God's truth, and to
pass over others as unworthy.
(7.) The version thus published did not all at
once supersede tbose already in possession. The
fact that five editions were published in three years,
shows tbat there was a good demand- But the
Bishops* Bible probably remained in many churches
(Andrews takes his texts from it in preaching be
fore the king as late as 1621), and che popularity
of the Geneva Version is shown by not less than
thirteen reprints, in whole or in part, between 1611
and 1617. It is not easy to ascertain the impr^-
sion which tlie A. V. made at the tirae of its ap
pearance. Probably, as in most Uke cases, it was

(" the just shall live by faith, bufc if any man draw
back," etc.) to avoid an inference unfavorable to the
doctrine of Final Perseverance. (3.) The use of " bish
opric," in Act-f i. 20, of " oversight," iu 1 Pet. v. 2, of
" bishop," in 1 Tim. iii. 1, &c., and "overseers,"
Acts XX. 28, in order to avoid the ideuti&cation of
bishops and elders. (4 ) The chap ter- heading of Ps.
cxlix. in 1611 (since altered), " The Prophet exhorteth
to praise God for that power which he hath given the
Unurch to bind the consciences of men." Blunt {Du-
ies ofa Parish Priest., Leet. II.) appears in this ques
iion on the aide of the prosecution ; Trench ( On the A,
V. of the N. r.c.x.) on that of the defense. The charge
of an undue bias against Bome io 1 Cor. xi 27, Qal. |

far less for good or evil than friends or foes expected.
The Puritans, and the rehgions portion of the mid
dle classes generally, missed the notes of the Ge
neva book (Fuller, Ch. Hist x. 50, 51). The Ro
manists spoke as usual, of the unsettling effect ol
these frequent changes, and of the marginal read
ings as leaving raen iu doubt what was the truth oi
Scripture ^ One frantic cry was heard from Hugh
Broughton the rejected (Wcn'ks, p. 661), who
" would rather be torn in pieces by wild horses than
impose such a version on the poor churches of Eng
land." Selden, a few years later, gives a calmer
and more favorable judgment. It is " the best of
all translations as giving the true sense of the orig
inal." This, however, is qualified by the remark
that " no book in the world is translated as the
Bible is, word for word, with no regard to the dif
ference of idioms. This is well enough so long ag
scholars have to do with it, but when it comes
among the common people. Lord ! what gear do
;they make of it!" (Table Talk). The feeling
of which this was the expression, led even in the
midst of the agitations of the Commonwealth to
proposals for another revision, which, after being
brought forward in the Grand Committee of Relig
ion in the House of Commons in Jan. 1656, was
referred to a sub-committee, acting under White-
locke, with power to consult divines and report.
Conferences were accordingly held frequently at
Whitelocke's house, at which we find, mingled with
less illustrious names, those of Walton and Cud-
worth. Nothing, however canie ofit (Whitelocke,
Memorials, p. 564; Collier, Ch. Hist ii. 9). No
report was ever made, and with the Restoration the
tide of conservative feehng, in this as in other things,
checked all plans of further alteration. Many had
ceased to care for the Bible at all. Those who did
care were content with the Bible as it was. Only
here and there was a voice raised, like R. Cell's
(ut supra), declaring that it had defects, that it
bore in some things the stamp of the dogmatism ol
a party (p. 321).
(8.) The highest testimony of this period is that
of Walton. Erom the editor of the Polyglott, the
few words " inter omnes eniinet " meant a good
deal (Pref). With the reign of Anne the tide oi
glowing panegyric set in. It would be easy to put
together a long catena of praises stretching from
that time to the present. With many, of course,
this has been only the i-outine repetition of a tradi
tional boast. "Our unrivaled Translation," and
"our incomparable Liturgy," have been, equally,
phrases of course. But tiiere have been witnesses
of a far higher weight. In proportion as the Eng
lish of the 18th century was infected with a Latin
ized or Gallicized style, did those who had a purer
taste look with reverence to the strength and purity
of a better time as represented in tbe A. V. Thus
V. 6, Heb. xiii. 4, is oue on which an acquittal may b«
pronounced with little or no hesitation.
a It may be at least pleaded, in mitigation, that the
flattery of the translators is outdone by that of Francis
Bacon. & Whitaker's answer, by articipation, to the charge
is worth quoting: "No incv>nvenienr.e will follow il
interpretations or versions of Scripture, when they
have become obsolete, or ceased to be intelligible, may
be afterwards changed or corrected " (Dissert, on
fifcrip/. p. 232, Parker Soc. ed-)- The wiser divines ol
the English Church had not then learned to laise tha
cry of finality.

3438

VERSION, AUTHORIZED

Addison dwells on its ennobling the coldness of
modern languages with the glowing phrases of He
brew (Spectator, No. 405), and Swift confesses that
« " the translators of the Bible were masters of an
Enghsh style far fitter for that work than any we
»ee in our present writings " (Letter to Lord Ox
ford). Each half-century has naturally added to
the prestige of these merits. The language of the
A. V. has intertwined itself with the controversies,
the devotion, the Uterature of the English people.
It has gone, wherever they have gone, over the face
of the whole earth. The most solemn and tender
of individual memories are, for the most part, asso
ciated with it. Men leaving the Church of Eng
land for the Church of Rome turn regretfully with
a yearning look at that noble " well of English
undefiled," which they are about to exchange for
the uncouth monstrosities of Rheims and Douay.
In this case too, as in so many others, the position
of the A. V. has been strengthened, less by the
Bkill of its defenders than by the weakness of its
assailants. While from time to time, scholars and
divines (Lowth, Kewcome, Waterland, 'I'rench,
EUicott), have admitted the necessity of a revision,
those who have attacked the present version and
produced new ones have been, for the most part,
men of narrow knowledge and defective taste (Pur-
ver, and Harwood, and Bellamy, and Conquest),
just able to pick out a few obvious faults, aiid show
ing their competence for the task by entering on
the work of translating or revising the whole Bible
single-handed. One memorable exception must
not, however, be passed over. Hallam (Lit. of
Europe, iii. ch. 2, adfn.) records a brief but em
phatic protest against the "enthusiastic praise"
which has been lavished on this translation. " It
may, in the eyes of many, be a better English, but
it is not the EngUsh of Daniel, or Raleigh, or Ba
con, ... It abounds, in fact, especiaUy in the
O. T., with obsolete phraseology, and with single
words long since abandoned, or retained only in
provincial use." The statement may, it is believed,
be accepted as an enconiiuin. If it had been the
English of the men of letters of James's reign,
would it have retained as it bas done, for two cen
turies and a half, its bold on the mind, the mem
ory, the affections of the English people ?
XII. Schemes FOE A Rkvision. — (1.) A no
tice of the attempts which have been made at
various times to bring about a revision of the A. V.,
i)hougb necessarily brief and imperfect, may not be
without its use for future laborers. The first half
of the 18th century was not favorable for such a
work. An almost solitary Jissay for a New
Translation by H. E. (Ross), 1702, attracted Uttle
or no notice (Todd, Life of Walton, i. 134). A
Greek Test, with an English translation, singularly
vulgar and offensive, [by W. Mace,] was pubUshed
in 1729, of which extracts are given by Lewis (Ijisi.
of Transl. ch. v.) With the slight revival of learn
ing among the scholars of the latter half of that
jeriod the subject was again mooted. Lowth in a
Visitatioij Sermon (1758), and Seeker in a Latin
Speech intended for Convocation (1761), recom
mended it. Matt. Pilkington in his Remarks
(1759), and Dr. Thomas Brett, in an P.ssay im
Ancient Versions of the BVAe (1760), dwelt on the
importance of consulting them with reference to

« Whatever be tbe demerits of Lowth's Tsaiah, it
ieserves somothing better than the sarcasm of llurd,
tbah " its only use was to show how litde was to be

the 0. T. as weU as the X. T., with a new to «
more accurate text than that of the Masoretic He
brew, the former insisting also ou the obsolUa
words which are scattered in the A. V. and giving
a useful alphabetic list of them. A folio New and
Literal Translation of the whole Bible by Anthony
Purver, a Quaker (1764), was a more ambitious
attempt. He dwells at some length on the " ob
solete, uncouth, clownish " expressions which dis
figure the A. V. He includes in his list such
words as "joyous," "sola'-e," "damsel," "day-
spring," "bereaved," "marvels," "bondmen."
He substitutes " He hearkened to what he said,"
for "he hearkened to his voice;" "eat victuals,"
for "eat bread" (Gen. iii. 19); "waa in favor
with," for "found grace in the eyes of ; " " was
angry," for "his wrath was kindled." In spite oi
this defective taste, however, tbe work has consid
erable merit, is based upon a careful study of the
original, and of many of the best commentators,
and may be contrasted favorably with most of the
single-handed translations that have followed. It
was, at any rate, far above the depth of degrada
tion and folly whicli was reached in Harwood'a
Literal Transbdion of the N. T. " with freedom,
spirit, and elegance " (1768). Here again, a few
samples are enough to show the character of the
whole. " The young lady is not dead " (Mark v. 39).
" A gentleman of splendid family and opulent for
tune had two sons " (Luke xv. 11). " The clergy
man said. You have given him the only right aud
proper answer " (Mark xii. 32). " We shaU not
pay the common debt of nature, but by a soft tran
sition," etc. (1 Cor. XV. 51).
(2.) BibUcal revision was happily not left en
tirely in such hands as these. A translation by
Worsley " according to the present idiom of the
English tongue" (1770) was, at least, less offen
sive. Durell (Preface io Job), Lowth (Preface le
Jsaiali), Blayney (Pref. io Jeremiah, 1784), were
all strongly in favor of a new, or revised transla
tion. Durell dwells most on the arbitrary addi
tions and omissions in the A. V. of Job, on the
total absence in some cases, of any inteUigible*
meaning. Lowth speaks chiefly of the faulty state
of the text of the 0. T., an<l urges a correction of
it, partly from various readings, partly from ancient
versions, partly from conjecture. Each of the three
contributed, in the best way, to the work which
they had little expectation of seeing accomplished,
by laboring steadily at a single book and commit
ting it to the judgment of the Chm-ch.« Kenni
cott's labors iu collecting MS. of the 0. T. issued
in his State of the present Hebreio Teal (1763,
1759), and excited expectations that there might
before long be something like a basis for a new
version in a restored original.
A more ambitious scheme was started by the
Homan Catholic Dr. Geddes, in his Prospectus for
a New Translation (1786). His remarks on the
history of English translations, his candid acknowl
edgment of the excellences of the A. V., and espe
cially of Tyndal's work as pervading it, his critical
notes on the true principles of translation, on the
A. V. as falling short of them, may still be read
with interest. He too, like Lowth, finds fault with
the superstitious adherence to the Masoretic text,
with the undue deference to lexicons, and disregard

expected from any new translation." As the Bo8well
of Warburton, Hard could not resist the temptatioB
of attacking an old autagonist of his master's.

VERSION, AUTHORIZED

3439

af versions shown by our translators. The pro
posal was well received by many Biblical scholars,
Lowth, Kennicott, and Barrington being foremost
(imong its patrons. The work was issued in parts,
according to the terms of the prospectus, but did
not get further than 2 Chron. in 1792, when the
death of the translator put a stop to it. Partly
perhaps owing to its iucoppleteness, but still raore
from the extreme boldness of a preface, anticipating
the conclusions of a later criticism, « Dr. Geddes's
translation fell rapidly into disfavor. A Sermon
by White (famous for his Bampton Lectures) in
1779, and two Pamphlets by J. A. Symonds, Pro
fessor of Modern History at Cambridge, the first
on the Gospels and the Acts, in 1789 ; the second
on the Epistles, in 1794, though attacked in an
Apology for the Liturgy and Church of England
(1795), helped to keep the discussion from ob
livion. (3.) The revision of the A. V., like many other
salutary reforms, was hindered by the French Rev
olution. In 1792, Archbishop Newcome had pub
lished an elaborate defense of such a scheme, citing
a host of authorities (Doddridge, Wesley, Camp
bell, in addition to those already mentioned), and
taking tbe same hne as Lowth. Revised transla
tions of the N. T. were published by Wakefield in
1795, by Newcome himself in 1796, by Scarlett in
1798. . Campbell's version of the Gospels appeared
in 1788, that of tbe Epistles by Macknight in
1795. But in 1796 the note of alarm was sounded.
A feeble pamphlet by George Burges (Letter to ihe
Lord Bishop of Ely) took the ground that " the
present period was unfit," and from that time.
Conservatism, pure and siraple, was in the ascend
ant. To suggest that the A. V. might be inaccu
rate, was almost as bad as holding " French prin
ciples." There is a long interval before the question
again comes into anything like prominence, and
then there is a new school of critics in the Quar
terly Review and elsewhere, ready to do battle
vigorously for thiugs as they are. The opening of
the next campaign was an article in tlie Classical
Jouimal (No. 36), by Dr. John Bellamy, proposing
a new translation, followed soon afterwards by its
pubhcation under the patronage of the Prince Re
gent (1818). The work was poor and unsatisfac
tory enough, and a tremendous battery was opened
ttpon it in the Quarterly Revievj (Nos. 37 and 38),
as afterwards (No. 40) upon an unhappy critic, Sir
J. B. Burges, who came forward with a pamphlet
in its defense (Reasons in Favor of a New Trans-
hiiAm, 1819). The rash assertion of botb Bellamy
and Burges that the A. V. had been made almost
entirely from the LXX. and Vulgate, and a general
deficiency in all accui-ate scholarship, made them
easy victims. The personal element of this con
troversy may well be passed over, but three less
ephemeral works issued from it, which any future
laborer in the same field will find worth consulting.
Whitaker's Historical and Critical Inquiry was
ehiefiy an able exposure of the exaggerated state-
meat just msntioned. H. J. Todd, in his Vindl-

<» " I will not pretend to say that it [the history of
be Pentateuch] is entii-ely unmixed with the leaven
of the heroic ages. Let the fi,ther of Hebrew be tried
by the same rules of criticism as the father of Greek
history." t> A short epitome of this portion of Todd's book
has been published by the S. P. C. K. as a tract, and
will be found useful.

cation of the Authorized Translation (1819), en
tered more fully than any previous writer had done
into the history of the A. V., and gives many facta
as to the lives and qualifications of the translators
not easily to be met with elsewhere.^ The most
masterly, however, of the manifestoes against all
change, was a pamphlet (Remarks on ihe Critical
Principles, etc., Oxford, 1820), published anony
mously, but known to have been written by Arch
bishop Laurence. The strength of the argument
lies chiefly in a skillful display of all the difficulties
of the work, the impossibility of any satisfactory
restoration of the Hebrew of the 0. T., or any set
tlement of the Greek of the N. T., the expediency
therefore of adhering to a Textum recepius in both.
The argument may not be decisive, but the schol
arship and acuteness brought to bear on it make
the book instructive, and any one entering ou the
work of a translator ought at least to read it,
that he may kuow what difficulties he has to
face.c (4.) A correspondence between Herbert Marsh,
bishop of Peterborough, and the Rev. H. Walter,
in 1828, is the next hnk in the chain. Harsh had
spoken (Lectures on Biblical Criticism, p. 295)
with some contempt of the A. V. as based on
Tyndal's, Tyndal's on Luther's, and Luther's on
Miiiister's Lexicon, which was itself based on the
Vulgate. There was, therefore, on this view, no
real translation from the Hebrew in any one of
these. Substantially this was what Bellamy had
said before, but Marsh was a man of a different
cnlibre, and made out a stronger case. Walter, in
his answer, proves vphat is plain tnough, that Tyn
dal knew some Hebrew, aud that Luther in some
instances followed Rabbinical authority and not the
Vuli^ate; but the evidence hardly goes to the extent
of showing that Tyndal's version of the 0. T. waa
entirely independent of Luther's, or Luther's of the
Latin. ¦(5.) The last five-and-twenty years have seen
the question of a revision from time to time gain
ing fresh prominence. If men of second-rate power
have sometimes thrown it back by meddling with
it in wrong ways, others, able scholars and sound
theologians, have admitted its necessity, and helped
it forward by their work. Dr. Conquest's Bible,
with " 20,000 emendations " (1841), has not com
manded the respect of critics, and is almost self-
condemned by the silly ostentation of its title.
The motions which have from time to time been
made in the House of Commons by Mr. Heywood,
have borne httle fruit bevond the display of feeble
Liberalism and yet feebler Conservatism by which
such debates are, for the most part, characterized;
uor have the discussions in Convocation, though
opened hy a scholar of high repute (Professor Sel
wyn), been much more productive. Dr. Beard's
A Revised English Bible the Want ofthe Church
(1857), though tending to overstate the defects of
the A. v., is yet valuable as containing much
information, and representing the opinions of the
more learned Nonconformists. Far more impor-

c About this period also (1819) a new edition of
Newcome's version was published by Belsbam and
other Unitarian ministers, and, like Belianij''s attempt
on the 0. I., had the effect of stitfeoing the resistance
of the great body of the clergy to all proposals for a
revision. [The so-called Improved Version, here re
ferred to, was published in 18u8 ; reprinted Bostnu
1809. - A.]

3440

VERSION. AUTHORIZED

kant, every way, both as virtually an authority in
favor of revision, and as contributing largely to it,
are Professor Seholefield's Hints for an Improved
Trnnslation of the N. T. (1832). In his second
edition, indeed, he disclaims any wish for a new
translation, but the principle which he lays down
clearly and truly in his preface, that if there is
*' any adventitious difficulty resulting from a de
fective translation, then it is at the same time an
act of charity and of duty to clear away the diffi
culty as much as possible," leads legitimately to at
least a revision ; and this conclusion Mr. Selwyn
in the last edition of the Hints (1857) has delib
erately adopted. To Bishop Ellicott also belongs
the credit of having spoken at once boldly and
wisely on this matter. Putting the question
whether it would be right to join those who oppose
all revision, his answer is, " God forbid  It
is in vain to cheat our own souls with the thought
that these errors (in A. V.) are either insignificant
or imaginary. There are errors, there are inaccu
racies, there are misconceptions, there are obscuri
ties .... and that man who, after being in any
degree satisfied of this, permits himself to lean to
the counsels of a timid or popular obstructiveness,
or who, intellectiially unable to test tbe truth of
these allegations, nevertheless permits himself to
denounce or deny them, will . . . have to sus
tain the tremendous charge of having dealt deceit
fully with the inviolable word of God " {Pref. io
Pastoral Epistles). The translations appended by
Dr. Ellicott to his editions of St. Paul's Epistles,
proceed on the true principle of altering the A. V,
"only where it appears to be incorrect, inexact,
insufficieiit, or obscure," uniting a profound rever
ence for the older translators with a bold truthful
ness in judging of their work. The copious colla
tion of all the earlier English versions makes this
part of his book especially interesting and valuable.
Dr. Trench (On the A. V. of the N. T., 1858),
in like manner, states his conviction that " a re
vision ought to come," though as yet, he thinks,
*' the Greek and the English necessary to bring it
to a successful issue are alike wanting " (p. 3).
The work itself, it need hardiy be said, is the fullest
fontradiction possible of this somewhat despondent
statement, and supplies a good store of materials
for use when the revision actually comes. The
Revision of ihe A. V. by Five Clergymen (Dr.
Barrow, Dr. Moberly, Dean Alford, Mr. Humphry,
and Dr. Ellicott), represents the same school of
conservative progress, has the merit of adhering to
the clear, pure English of the A. V., and does not
deserve the censure which Dr. Beard passes on it
as "promising little and performing less." As yet,
this series includes only the Gospel of St. John, and
the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians." The
publications of tlie American Bil)le Union are signs
that there also the same want has been felt. The
translations given respectively by Alford, Stanley,
Jowett, aud Conybeare and Howson, in their
respective Commentaries, are in like manner, at
once admissions of the necessity of the work, and
contributions towards it. Mr. Sharpe (1840) and
Mr. Highton (1862) have ventured on the wider

a * The Kpistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Phil-
^plans and Colossians have since appeared A.
6 Mr. Malan "s careful translation of the chief Orien
tal and other versions of the Gospel according to Sfc.
John, and Mr. Scriveners notes on St. Matthew,
leserve to be mentioned as valuable coutributions

work of translations of the entire N. T. Mr
Cookesley has published the Gospel of St. Matthew
as Part I. of a like undertaking. It might alraost
seem as if at last there was something like a
consensus of scholars and divines on this question.
Tbat assumption would, however, be too hast).
Partly the vis inerti<B, which in a large body Uke
the clergy of the English Church, is always great,
partly the fear of ulterior consequences, partly also
the indifference of the majority of the laity, would
probably, at the present moment give at least a
numerical majority to the opponents of a revision.
Writers on this side are naturally less numerous,
but the feeling of Conservatism, pure and simple,
has found utterance in four men representing dif
ferent sections, and of different caUbre, — Mr.
Scrivener (Supp. to A. Eng. V. of N. T.), Dr.
M'Caul (Reasons for holding fast ihe Authm^ized
English Version), Mr. S. C Malan (A Vindication,
etc.), and Dr. Cumming (Revision and Transhr-
tion).^ XIII. Present State of the Question. —
(1.) To take an accurate estimate of the extent to
which the A. V. requires revision would call fw
nothing less than an examination of each single
book, and would therefore involve an amount of
detail incompatible with our present Hmits. To
give a few instances only, would practicaUy fix
attention on a part only of tlie evidence, and so
would lead to a false rather than a true estimate.
No attempt, therefore, will be made to bring
together individual passages as needing correction.
A few remarks on the chief questions which must
necessarily come before those who undertake a
revision will not, perhaps, be out of place. Exam
ples, classified under corresponding heads, will be
found in the book by Dr. Trench already men
tioned, and, scattered in the form of annotations,
in that of Professor Scholefield.
(2.) The translation of the N. T. is from a text
confessedly imperfect. What editions were used is
a matter of conjecture; most probably, one of those
published with a Latin version by Beza between
1565 and 1598, and agreeing substantially with
the texius recepius of 1633. It is clear, on prin
ciple, that no revision ought to ignore the results
of the textual critici.sm of the last hundred years.
To shrink from noticing any variation, to go on
printing as the inspired Word that which there is
a preponderant reason for believing to be an inter
polation or a mistake, is neither honest nor rever..
ential. To do so for the sake of greater edification
is simply to oflfer to God the unclean sacrifice of a
lie. The authority of the A. V. is at any rate in
favor of the practice of not suppressing facts. In
Matt. i. 11, xxvi. 26 ; Luke xvii. 36 ; John ix. 6 ;
Acts xiii. 18; Eph. vi. 9; Heb. ii. 4; James ii.l8;
1 John ii. 23; 1 Pet. ii. 21; 2 Pet. ii. 11,18;
2 John 8, different readings are given in the mar
gin, or, as in 1 John ii. 23, indicated by a different
type. In earlier versions, as has been mentioned,
1 John V. 7 was printed in smaller letters. The
degree to which this should be done will, of course,
require discernment. An apparatus like that in
Tischendorf or Alford would obviously be out ol

towards the work which they deprecate. A high
American authority, Mr. George P. Marsh, may also
be referred to as throwing the weight of hia jadgmeut
into the scale against any revision at the p' eseol
moment {Lectures on tlie English Language, Uot.
xxviii. ).

VERSION, AUTHORIZED

3441

ylace. Probably the useful Greek Testament ed
ited by Mr. Scri\'ener might serve as an example of
% middle course.
(3.) Still less had been done at the commence
ment of the 17lh century for the text of the 0. T.
The Jewish teachers, from whom Protestant divines
derived their knowledge, had giveu currency to the
belief that in the Masoretic text were contained the
ipsissima verba of Revelation, free from all risks of
error, from all casualties of transcription. The con
ventional phrases, " the authentic Hebrew," " the
Hebrew verity," were the expression of this undis-
cerning reverence." They refused to apply the same
rules of judgment here which they applied to the
text of the N. T. They assumed that the Maso
retes were infallible, and were reluctant to acknowl
edge that there had been any variations since.
Even Walton did not escape being attacked as un
sound by the great Puritan divine. Dr. John Owen,
for having called attention to the fact of discrepan
cies (Pruleg.ca.^. vi.). The materials for a revised
text are, of course, scantier than with the N. T. ;
but tbe label's of Kennicott, De Rossi, J. H. Mi
chaelis, and Davidson have not been fruitless, and
here, as there, the older versions must be admitted
as at least evidence of variations which once existed,
but which were suppressed by tbe rigorous uni
formity of the later Rabbis. Conjectural emenda
tions, such as Newcome, Lowth, and Ewald have
BO freely suggested, ought to be ventured on in
such places only as are quite unintelligible without
them. (4.) All scholars worthy of the name are now
^reed that as little change as possible should be
made in the language of the A. V. Happily there
is httle risk of an emasculated elegance such as
might have infected a new version in the last cen
tury. The very fact of the admiration felt for the
A. v., and the general revival of a taste for the
literature of the Elizabethan period, are safeguards
against any like tampering now. Some words,
however, absolutely need change, as "being alto
gether obsolete; otliers, more numerous, have been
nlowly pitssing into a different, often into a lower
or a narrower meaning, and are therefore no longer
what they once were, adequate renderings of the
original. (5.) The self-imposed law of fairness which led
the A. V. translators to admit as many English
words as possible to the honor of representing one
in the Hebrew or Greek text has, as might be ex
pected, marred the perfection of their work. Some
times the effect is simply the loss of the solemn
emphasis of the repetition of the same word.
Sometimes it is more serious, and affects the mean
ing. While it would be simple pedantry to lay
down unconditionally that but one and the same
word should be used throughout for one in the
original, there can be no doubt that such a ,limita-
tion is the true principle to start with, and that
instances to the contrary should be dealt with as

a The Judaizing spirit on this mati^r culminated
tn the Formida Helvetici Consensun, which pronounces
the existing 0. T. text to be " turn quoad consonas,
turn quoad vocalia, sive puncta ipsa, sive punctorum
potestatem, turn quoad res, turn quoad verba, fieo-
BVeVOTOS. & The Englishman's Hebrew Concordance and the
^glisliman's Greek Concordance, pubUshed by Wal-
vn and Maberly, doserve mention as usetul helps for
the student ofthe A. V. in overcoming this difficulty.

exceptional necessities. Side by side with thit
fault, there is another just the opposite of it. One
English word appears for several Greek or Hebrew
words, and thus shades of meaning, often of impor
tance to the right understanding of a passage, are
lost sight of. Taken together, the two forms of
error, which meet us in well-nigh every chapter,
make the use of an English Concordance absolutely
mislead ing. ^
(6.) Grammatical inaccuracy must be noted as a
defect pervading, more or less, the whole extent of
the present version ofthe N. T. Instances will be
found in abundance in Trench and Scholefield
(passim), and in any of the better CommentarieB.
The true force of tenses, cases, prepositions, arti
cles, is continually lost, sometimes at the cost of
the finer shades which give vividness and emphasis,
but sometimes also entailing more seriou.? errors.
Injustice to the translators of the N. T., it must
be said that, situated as they were, such errors
were almost inevitable. They learned Greek
through the medium of Latin. Lexicons •= and
grammars were ahke in the universal language of
scholars : and that language was poorer and less
inflected than the Greek, and failed utterly to rep
resent, e. g. the force of its article, or tbe difference
of its aorist and perfect tenses. Such books of this
nature as were used by the translators were necessa
rily bcised upon a far scantier induction, and were
therefore more meagre and inaccurate than those
which have been the fruits of -the labors of later
scholars, liecent scholarship may in many things
fall short of that of an earlier time, but the in
troduction of Greek lexicons and grammars in
English has been beyond all doubt a cbange for the
better. (7.) The field of the 0. T. has been far less ade
quately worked than that of the N. T., and Hebrew
scholarship has made far less progress than Greek.
Relatively, indeed, there seems good ground for be
lieving that Hebrew was more studied in the early
part of the 17th century than it is now. It was
newer and more popular. The reverence which
raen felt for the perfection of the '• Hebrew verity"
made them willing to labor to learn a language
which they looked upon as half-divine. But here
also there was the same source of error. The early
Hebrew lexicons represented partly, it is true, a
Jewish tradition; but partly also were based upon
the Vulgate (Bishop Marsh, Lectures, ii. App. 61).
The fornis of cognate Shemitic languages had not
been applied as a means for ascertaining the pre
cise value of Hebrew words. The grammars, also
in Latin, were defective. Little as Hebrew pro
fessors have, for the most nart- done in the way
of exegesis, any good commentary on tbe 0. T.
will show that here also there are eiTors as seri
ous as in the N. T. In one memorable case, the
inattention, real or apparent, of the translators to
the force of the HiphU form of the verb (Lev.
iv. 12) has led to a serious attack on the truth-

. c Conatantine'p and Scapula's were the two princi
pally used. During the half century that preceded
the A. V. the study of Greek had made great progress.
was taught at all the great schools in 1586, and made
part of the system of new ones then founded. Now-
ell, Dean of St. Paul's, published a Greek version oJ
the Catechism. The Grammar chiefly in use wm
probably Colet'a (?J.

8442

VERSION, AUTHORIZED

fulness of the whole narrative of the Pentateuch
(Colenso, Pentateuch Critically Examined, Part I.
ch. viL).
(8.) The division into chapters and verses is a
matter that ought not to be passed over in any
future revision. The former, it must be remem
bered, does not go furfcher back than the 13th cen
fcury. The latter, though answering, as far as the
0. T. is concerned, to a long-standing Jewish ar
rangement, depends, in the N. T., upon the work
of Kobert Stephens. [Bible.] Neifcher in the
O. T. nor in the N. T. did the verse-division ap
pear in any earlier English edition than thafc of
Geneva. The hiconveniences of changing both are
probably too great to be risked. The habit of re
femng to chapter and verse is too deeply rooted to
be got rid of. Tet the division, as it is, is not sel
dom artificial, and sometimes is absolutely mislead
ing. No oue would think of printing any other
book, in prose or poetry, in short clauses like the
verses of our Bibles, and the tendency of such a di
vision is to give a broken and disconthiuous knowl
edge, to raake raen good textuaries but bad divines.
An arrangement like that of the Paragraph Bibles
of our own time, with fche verse and chapter divis
ions relegated to the margin, ought to form part
of any authoritative revision. «
(9.) Other points of detail reraain to be noticed
briefly: (i.) The chapter headings of the A. V. often
go beyond their proper province. If it is intended
to give an authoritative commentary to the lay
reader, let ifc be done thoroughly. But if that
attempt is abandoned, as it was deliberately in
1611, then for thty chapter-headings to enter, as
they do, upon tho work of interpretation, giving,
as in Canticles, Psalms, and Prophets, passim,
mystical meanings, is simply an inconsistency.
Whafc should be a mere table of contents becomes
a gloss upon the texfc. (ii.) The use of Ifcalics in
printing the A. V. is at least open to some risks.
At first they seem an honest confession on the part
of the translators of what is or is not in the origi
nal. On the other hand, they tempt to a loose
translation. Few writers would think it necessary
to use them in translating other books. If the
words do not do more than represent the sense of
fche original, fchen there is no reason for treating
them as if fchey were added afc the discretion of the
translators. If they go beyond that, , they are of
fche nature of a gloss, altering the force of fche orig
inal, and have no righfc fco be there at all, while the
fact that they appear as additions frees the trans
lator from the sense of responsibility, (iii.) Good
as the principle of marginal references is, the mar-
^8 of the A. v., as now printed, are soraewhat
inconveniently crowded, and the references, being
often merely verbal, tend to defeat their own pur-

tt As examples of whafc may be said on both sides
ou this point, the reader may be referred to an article
on Paragraph Bibles in No. 208 of the Edinburgh. Re~
view (subeequently reprinted by the Kev. W. Uarness,
1855^ and the pamphlet by Dr. M'Caul {Reasons for
iotding fast) already mentiuned. Reevea's Bibles and
Testaments (1^02) and fiootbroyd^s translation (1824)
should be mentioned as having set the example fol
lowed by the Religious Tract Society in their Para
graph Bible.
b In all theRB poiuts tbere bas been, to a much
larger extent than is commonly known, a work of un-
iiithorized revision. Neither Italics, nor references,
ior readings, nor chapter-headings, nor, it may be
jdded, punctuation, are tbo sume now as they were in

pose, and to make the reader weary of referring
They need, accordingly, a careful sifting; and
though ifc would not be desirable fco go back tc
the scanty number of the original edition of 1611
something intermediate between that and fche pres
enfc over-abundance would be an improvement, (iv.)
Marginal readings, on the other hand, indicating
variations in the text, or diiFerei.ces in the judg
ment of translators, might be profitably increased
in number. The results of the labors of scholars
would thus be placed within the reach of all intelU-
gent readers, and so many diflSculties and stum-
bUng-blocks might be removed.*
(10) What has been said will serve tc show at
once to whafc extenfc a new revision is required, and
what are the chief difBculties to be encountered.
And the work, it is believed, ought not to be de
layed much longer. Names will occur to everyone
of men competent to undertake the work as far as
the N. T. is concerned; and if such alterations
only were to be introduced as commanded the as
sent of afc least two thirds of a chosen body of
twenty or fchirfcy scholars, while a place in the mar
gin was given to such renderings only as were
adopted by at least one third, there would be, it is
believed, at once a great change for the better, and
without any shock to the feelings or even the prej
udices of the great mass of readers. Men fit to
undertake the work of revising the translation of
the O. T. are confessedly fewer, and, for the most
parfc, occupied in other fchings. The knowledge
and the power, however, are there, though in less
measure, and even though the will be for the time
absent, a summons to enter on the task from those
whose authority they are bound to respect, would,
we cannot doubt, be hsteried to. It might have
the result of directing to their proper task and to
a fruitfiil issue energies which are too often with
drawn to ephemeral and unprofitable controversies.
As the revised Bible would be for the use of the
English people, the men appointed for the purpose
ought not to be taken exclusively from the Enghsh
Church, and the learning of Nonconformists shoidd,
at least, be fairly represented. The changes rec
ommended by such a body of men, under condi
tions such as those suggested, might safely be al
lowed to circulate experimentally for two or three
years. When they had stood thafc trial, they might
without risk be printed in the new Authorized Ver
sion. Such a work would unite reverence for the
past with duty towards the future. In undertak
ing it we should be, not shghting the translator!
on whose labors we have entered, but following in
their footsteps. It is fche wisdom of the Church to
bring oufc of its treasures things new and old.
E. H. P.
* Literature. — (1. ) Bistm-y of English Ver-

the A. v. of 1611. Tbe chief alterations appear to
to have been made first in 1683, and afterwards in
1769, by Dr. Blayney, under the sanction of the Ox
ford Delegates of the Press ( Gentleman's Magazine,
November, 1789). A like work was done about tha
same time by Dr. Paris at Cambridge. There had
however, been some changes previously. The edition
of 1838, in particular, shows considerable augmeotap
tions in the Italics (Turton, Text ofthe English Bible,
1833, pp. 91, 126). To Blayney also we owe mosfc of
the notes on weights and measures, and coins, and
fche explanation, where the text seems to requiM it, oi
Hebrew proper nanies. The whole question of theuM
of Italics is discussed elaborately ly Turton in the
work just mentioned.

VERSION, AUTHORIZED

3443

wmsofthe Bible. — Anthony Johnson, Hist. Ac-
oomt of Eng. Translations of the Bible, Lond.
1730; reprinted in Watson's Tracts, vo\. iii. John
Lewis, Complete Hisi. of the Translations qf the
Boly Bible and ihe N. T. into English (2d ed.
1739), 3d ed. Lond. 1818. Abp. Newcome, Hisi.
Vieii) of ihe Eng. Biblical Translations ; the Ex
pediency of revising our pt^esent Transl ition, etc.,
Dubl. 1792. H. J. Todd, Authentic Account of
mr Auth. Trans, of Ihe Bible and ofthe Trans
lators, 2d ed., Malton, 1834. The Eng. Hexapla,
exhibiting ihe Six Imixriant Eng. Translations of
rt? N. T., Wicl'if 1380, Tyndale 1534. Cranmer
1639, Genevan 1557, Anglo-Rhemish 1582, Au-
fhorized 1611; the Greek Text after Schok.
Preceded by an Ilisl. Accoimt of the Eng. Trans-
httiims. Lond., Bai^ster, 1841, 4to. (The anony
mous "Hist. Account" (pp. 160} was written by
S. P. Tregelles. It is valuable; but, for some rea
son, in the later, undated impressions of the Hex
apla a different and much briefer account has been
substituted. The so-called " Wiclif " is merely
Purvey's revision of Wj-clifFe's version; the real
Wyclifife's N. T. was first published by Lea Wilson
in 1848. The whole Bible as translated by Wjc-
liffe and hia followers was first printed in the mag
nificent edition of Forshall and Madden in 4 vols.
4to, Oxford, 1850.) C. Anderson, The Annals of
the Eng. Bible, 2 vols. Lond. 1845; abridged by
Dr. S. I. Prime, N. Y. 1849. A. W. M'Clure, The
Translafm's revived ; a Biographical .]fe'noir, etc.,
N. Y. 1853. Mra. H. C. Conant, Tlie Eng. Bible.
Bist. of the Eng. Translations, etc., N, T. 1856.
(A good popular account.) McClintock and
Strong's Cycl. of Bibl. Theol. and Eccles. Lit,
nil. 1. (N. Y. 1867), art. Authorized l^ersion. B.
F. Westcott, General View of the Hist, of the
English Bible, Lond. 1868. Articles in ihe Amer.
Bibl. Repos. Oct. 1835 (by B. B. Edwards), and in
the Quo!'. Rev. for April 1870 (repr. in Littell's Liv
ing Age, No. 1,355). • — Bibliographical: Lea Wil
son, Bibles, Testaments, Psalms, etc., in English
in the Collection of Lea IVilson, Lond. 1845, 4to.
H. Cotton, Editions ofthe Bible and Parts thereof
in Eng. from 1505 to 1850, 2d ed., Oxford, 1852.
Id,, Rliemes and Boway. An Altempt to shew
what has been done by Rom. Catholics for the Dif
fusion ofthe Holy Scriptures in English, Oxford,
1855. E. B. O'Callaghan, List of Editions ofthe
Boly Scriptures and Parts therecf jrrinted in
America previous to 1860, Albany, 1861, large Svo.
F. Fry, Description of ihe Great Bible, 1539, the
six Eds. of Cranmer's Bible, 1540, 1541, also of
the Eds. in folio of the A. V. printed iu 1611, 1613,
1617, 1634, 1640, Lond. 1866.
On the two folio editions of the A. V. printed in
1611, and on the changes which its text, headings,
marginal notes, etc., have undergone since that date,
see W. Kilburn, Dangerous Errors in several late
frinted Bibles, Finsbury, 1659. (Dr. John Lee,)
Memorial for the Bible Societies in Scotland, Edin.
1824. Report from Select Conn, on King's
Printers' Patents. 8 Aug. 1832, pp. 55. 67 f., 105,
119, 131, 152, 155 f., 160, 339-341 (Pari. Papers
1831-32, vol. xviii.). Thos. Curtis, The Exist
ing Moivipuly an Inadequate Protection ofthe A.
V. "f ihe Scriptures, Lond. 1833. E. Cardwell,
Oxford Bibles. Mr Cuiti'i's Misrepresentations
eaposed, Oxf. 1833. (From the Brit. Mag. for
Warch, 1833.) Thoa. Turton, The Text if the Eng.
Bible considered, 2d ed. Oxf. 1833. (George Liv-
trniore,) Eng. Vcrsiuas of Sci'ipture, in the

Christ. Examiner (Boston) for July, 1833. Thos.
Curtis, Received Version af ihe Bible, in Christ.
Rea. fbr March, 1838. Amer. Bible Society, Re-
pnrt of the Com. on Versions, N. Y. 1851 ; comp.
36^A Ann. Report of Ihe Soc. (N. Y. 1852), pp. 28-
37; Reijort on the Recent Collation of ihe Eng.
Vers, ofthe Bible, N. Y. 1857; and 42ei Arm. Re
port ofthe Soc. (N. Y. 1858), pp. 31-41. A. C.
C(oxe), Apol. for the Common Eng. Bible ; and
Review of Ihe Extraordinary Changes made in it
by Managers of the Amer. Bible Soc, 3d ed.. Bait.
1857. Statements, oTid Documents,, concerning the
recent Action of the Bo'ird of Managers if' ihe
Amer. Bible Soc  by Members of the Late
Com. on Versions, N. Y. 1858. (The history of the
" standard text " pnblished by the Amer. Bible Soo.
in 1851, and revoked in 1858, is very curious. See
McClintock and Strong's Cyclop., i. 563 f.) E. W.
Oilman, Early Eds. of the A. V. of Ihe Bible, In
the Bibl. Sacra for Jan. 1859. (James Lenox,)
The Early Eds. of King James's Bible in Polio, N,
Y. 1861, 4to. Report from the Select Com. on the
Queen's Printers' Patent (4 Aug. 1859), pp. 26 ff.,
38, 51 ff. (Pari. Papers 1859, Sess. 2, vol. v.).
The Present State ofthe Text of our Auth. Eng.
Bible, in the Clnistian Remembrancer for Oct.
1866. C. F. Schiiffer, The Eng. Vers, of Ihe N.
T. and the Marg. Readings, in the Bibl. Sacra
for July, 1869 ; see also his Exeget. Punctuation
of the N. T., ibid. Oct. 1868. The Rev. F. H.
Scrivener has lately pul>lished Part. I. (Gen. to
Solomon's Song) of The Cambridge Paragraph
Bible of the Auth. Eng. Version, with ihe Text
revised by a Collation of its Early and other
principal Editions, the Use if ihe Italic Type made
Uniform, tbe Marg. Refs. remodelled, and a Cril.
Inlrod. prefixed, Cambr. 1870, 4to. The " exact
Reprint of the Auth. Version of 1611," published
at Oxford, 1833, 4to, is from the second of the edi
tions issued in the year referred to.
(2.) Essays on the Revision of the A. V. — Many
works relating to this suliject have been mentioned
in the preceding article, p. 3438 f. Of the writers
there named, Symonds, Newcome, Scholefield and
Trench are particularly worthy of notice. We may
add. Rev. Wm Harness, Tbe State of ihe Eng.
Bible. Riprinted from the Edinb. Rev, of Oct.
1856, Lond. 1856. Kev. Wm. Selwyn, Notes on
the Revision ofthe A. V., Lond. 18-56. Dr. Fred.
Iliff, Plea for the Revisal tf Ihe Bible Trans, of
1611, Lond. 1857. Plea for a New Eng. Vers.
of ihe- Scripiures, hy a Licentiate ofthe Church
of Scotland, Lond. 1864. Alfoi-d, How io study
Ihe N. T., 3 vols. Lond. 1865-68, containing
numerous corrections of the A. V. A. Dewea,
Plea for translating ihe Scriptures, Lond. 1866.
Bp. Ellicott, Consideratum. on ihe Revision of the
Eng. Vers, ofthe N. i., Lond. 1870. Various
publications of Amer. Bible Union. Arts, in Nea
Englander, Feb. 1859 (E. W. Oilman), May, 1859
(J. W. Gibbs); Quar. Rer. .Tan. 1863; Conlemp
Rev. June, 1866 (T. K. Cheyne). Feb. 1870 (W. G.
Humphry) ; and Brit. Quar. Rea. Jan. 1870.
On the obsolete or obsolescent words and phrases
of the A. v., the bes-X work is The Bible Woi-d-
Book, by J. Eastwood and W. A. Wright, Lond.
1866 ; see also the New Englander for Miiy, 1859.
The Messrs. Bagster have lately published (Lond.
1870) A Critical English New Testament : pre.
senting al one 'View the A. V. and ihe resulis if
the Criticism nf Ihe Orig. Text ; and in conneo-
tion with this subject we may notice The N. T. .

3144

VERSION, AUTHORIZED

the Auth. Eng. Vers. ; with various Readings
from ihe three most celebrated MSS. [Sin. Vat.
Alex.] of ihe Greek Text, by Constantine Tiscken-
dmf TauchnHz Ed., vol. 1,000. Leipz. 1869. It
is to be regretted, however, that this volume is not
very carefully edited : e. g. in Jude 24 the reading
of the Vat. MS. is falsely given, and in ver. 25 " be
fore all the world " is a bad rendering of irfb iravrbi
TOV aiwi/os, " before all time.''
(3.) Recent Revisions or New Translations. —
Of the Whole Biule, or the Old Test., we
may mention: Noah Webster, The Holy Bible
. ... in the Coinmon Version, with Amendments
of Ute Language, 'Sevi Haven. 1833. G. E.
Noyes, Nevi Trans, of Job, Ecclesiastes, and the
Canticles, wiih Introductions and Notes (1828,
1846), 3d ed., Boston, 1867; Psalms and Proverbs
(1830, 1846), 3d ed., Bost. 1867; Hebrew Prqihets
(1833, 1837), 3d ed., with a New Introd. and Notes,
2 vols. Bost. 1806. Ebenezer Henderson, 7'Ae Book
of Isaiah translated, witli a Commentary, Lond.
1840, 2d ed. 1857; Minor Prophets, 1845, and
Andover, 1864; Jeremiah and Lam., 1851, And.
1868; Jizekiel, 1855, And. 1870. J. A. Alexander,
The Earlier Prophecies of Isaiah, N. Y. 1846;
the Later, 1847 ; Psalms iranslaied and explained,
3 vols. N. Y., IS-'iO. Moses Stuart, Comm. on
the Book of Daniel [with a New Trans.], Boston,
1850; Ecclesiastes, N. Y. 1851; Proverbs, 1852.
A. Benisch, The Jewish School and Family Bible,
3 vols. Lond. 1852-56. M. Kahsch, Hist, nnd
Crit. Commentary on tlie 0. T., with a New
Trans.; Genesis, Lond. 1858; Exodus, 1855;
Leviticus, ch. i.-x., 1867. Robt. Young, The Holy
Bible, trans, according io the Loiter aiul Idioms of
the Ong. Languages, 2d ed., Edin. 1863. (Ruth
lessly sacrifices the English idiom.) The Holy
Sci'iptures qf the Old Covenant, in a revised
Trans., by Ike Rev. Charles Wellbeloved, the Rev..
Geo. Vance Smith, and ihe Rev. John Scott Porter,
3 vols. Lond. 1859-62. Sam. Sbarpe, The He
brew Sa-iptures translated, 3 vols. Ixmd. 1865.
The Amer. Bible Union have pubhshed revised
translations, by Dr. T. J. Conant, of Job (N. Y.
1856), and Genesis (1868); a revised version ofthe
Psalms and Proverbs by the same hand is now in
press. The American translation of Lange's
Commentary, edited hy Dr. Schaff, gives through
out corrections of the A. V., and in the poetical
and prophetical books of the Old Test., new trans
lations. For other translations of particular books
of the 0. T., among which Ginsburg's Song of
Songs and Ecclesiastes deserve particular mention,
see the appropriate heads in tbe Dictionary.
New Testamest. — Charles Thomson, Sec.
of the Continental Congress, 7'he New Covenant,
trans, from the Greek, Phil. 1808 (vol. iv. of his
Holy Bible, trans, from ihe Greek). Granville
Penn, The Book if tlie New Covenant : being a
Crit. Revision of the Text and Trans, qf the Eng.
Vers, of Ihe N. T., I.ond. 1836, followed by
Annotations, 1837, and Supplemental Annotations,
new ed., 1841. (Edgar Taylor,) The N. T. re
vised from ibe A. V. and made conformable io ihe
Text of Griesbach, Lond., Pickering, 1840. Sam.
Sharpe, The JV. T. trans, from Griesbach's Text
(Ist ed. 1840), Sth ed. Und. 1862, and Crit.
Votes, 2d ed., I/)nd. 1867. Andrews Norton,
Trar^. ofthe Gospels, icith Notes, 2 vols. Boston,
1855. L. A. Sawyer, The N. T. translated, witli
improved Divisions of Chapters and Verses, Bos-
MD, 1858. Mr. Sawyer has also published trans

lations of the Hebrem Prophets and Poete, Bost
1861-62. A translation of the N. T. has beer
published anonymously by John Nelson Darby, the
founder of the sect of the Plymouth Brethren,
London, [186-?] each book issued separately. It
is not without merit. The " second revision " of
the N. T. by the Final Committee of the Amer.
Bible Union was published in N. Y., in different
forms, in 1866. In this version, " immerse " ia
substituted for "baptize," " immersion " for "bap
tism," etc. Preliminary revisions of most of the
books of the N. T., with notes, were previously
issued for public examination and criticism'. Among
the authors of these were Dr. T. J. Conant (Mat
thew), tbe Rev. N. N. Whiting (Mark, Luke,
Ephesians, Pastoral Epistles), Rev. Alex. Camp
bell (Acts), Dr. John Lillie (1 and 2 Thess., and
2d Peter to Rev. inclusive), and Dr. H. B. Hackett
(Philemon). A very large sum of money hae
been spent by the American Bible Union in carry
ing on this important work; and some of our
ablest scholars have been enjraged upon it. T. S.
Green, Tbe Twofold N. T., being a New Trans
accompanying a newly formed Text, Lond.,
Bagster, [1865,] 4to; comp. his Crit. Notes on
the N. T., Lond. 1867. Henry Alford, The N.
T. after the A. V. neioly compired with the Orig.
Greek and revised, Lond. 1869: comp. his JV. T.
for Eng. Readers, with corrections of the A. V.
and notes, 2 vols, in 4 pts., 1863-66. 0 .R. Noyes,
7'/;e JV. T. ; translated from the Greek Text of
Tischendmf, Boston, 1869; 4tli ed. 1870. Robt.
Ainslie, The N. T. trans, from ihe Greek Text
of Tischendorf (Sto, Lips. 1865), Ixjiid. and
Brighton, 1869. (The title and also the preface -
are deceptive. The translation is not from tlie
text of Tischendorf, but from his edition of the.
Codex Sinaiticus, whieh has many readings that
neither he nor any other critic would ever dream
of regarding as genuine.) N. S. Folsom, The
Four Gospels: trans, [mainly] from the Greek
Text of Tischendorf, ivilh various Readings and
Notes, Boston, 1869. For other translations of
parts of tbe N. T., see the literature under the
separate books. — The translations of Abner Knee-
land (JV. T. in Greek and English, Phil. 1822),
Eodolphus Dickinson (Bost. 1833), and Benj. Wil
son (Emphatic Diaghli, N. Y. [Geneva, III.]
1864) may be mentioned as literary curiosities. —
Among the versions which have been named, both
of the O. T. and the New, those of the late Dr.
Noyes appear to the present writer eminently dis
tinguished for accuracy, clearness, good taste,
natural, idiomatic English, and the attainment,
generally, of the happy medium between bald liter
alness and loose paraphrase.
The Convocation of Canterbury has already
(July, 1870) undertaken a revision of the A. V.,
and appointed a Committee for the work, under
the chairmanship of the Bishop of \\'inchester
(Wilberforce). They have divided themselves into
two companies, that on the Old Test, consisting
of the Bishops of St. David's, LlandalT, Ely, Lin
coln, Bath and Wells, Archd. Rose, Can. Selwjn,
Dr. Jebb, and Dr. Kay; "that on the New, of the
Bps. of Winchester, Glouces er and Bristol ^Ellicott),
and Salisbury, the Prolocutor, the Deans of Can
terbury (Alford), Westminster (Stanley), and Can.
Blakesley. Many other distinguished scholars have
been invited, some of them not meinbere of the
Church of England. The Convocation of York,
and the British Government have declined to par-

VESTRY
Ciiiipate. The Committee on the N. T. were to
bold their first meeting on June 22 and 23, 1870.
We have no room for further details.
For the literature pertaining to this topic, see
further Darling's Cycl. Bibl'uigraphica (Subjects),
sob 82 ff., and McClintock and Strong's Cyclopce-
dia, vol. iii., art. " English Versions," where will be
found many references to articles in periodical pub
lications. A.
* VESTRY (nnriba), a house or depository
at Samaria, of the sacred vestments of the priests of
Baal. The English and Hebrew terms occur only
in 2 K. X. 22. The garments were probably of fine
byssus (Biihr, Symbolik des Mosaisch. Cultus, ii.
87), and were worn by the priests only in religious
occupations. It was not the royal wardrobe, ex
cept as it may have been under the monarch's con
trol. H.
* VEX is very often used in the A. V. in the
sense of "harass," "torment," "afflict," "op
press'' (e. g. Num. xx. 15; 1 Sam, xiv. 47; Job
ixrii. 2 ; Matt. xv. 22 ; Acts xii. 1). It has now
become a much weaker word. A similar remark
applies to " vexationj " see Deut. xxviii. 20; 1
Chr. XV. 5; Is. ix. 1. A.
* VIAL in the A. V. Rev. v. 9, " golden vinls
full of odors," and xv. 7, xvi. 1-17, xvii. 1, xxi. 9,
" the seven vials full of tbe wrath of God," suggests
a false idea to the common reader. 'The Greek
word ipii\ii, which is here used, signifies not " a
small bottle," but " a broad, shallow bowl." A.
VILLAGES." It is evident that cliatser, "a
village," Ht., an inclosure, a collection of huts, is
often used, especially in the enumeration of towns
in Josh, xiii., xv., xix., to imply unwalled suburbs
outside the walled towns. And so it appears to
mean when we compare Lev. xxv. 31 witb v. 34.
Migrasli^ A. V. "suburbs," i. e. a place thrust
out from the city (see also Gen. xii. 48). Arab
villages, as found in Arabia, are often mere collec
tions of stone huts, " long, low, rude hovels, roofed
only with the stalks of palm-leaves," or covered for
a time with tent-cloths, wbich are removed when
the tribe change their quarters. Others are more
sohdly built, as are most of the modern villages of
Palestine, though in some the dwellings are mere
mud huts (Robinson, i. 167, ii. 13, 14, 44, 387;
Hasselquist, Trav. p. 155; Stanley, S. cf P. p.
233, App. § 83, p. 525). Arab villages of the Hed-
jSz and Yemen often consist of huts with circular
roofs of leaves or grass, resembling the description
given by Sallust of the Numidian mapalia, namely,

VINE

3445

ships with the keel uppermost (Sallust, Jvg. 18.
Shaw, Trav. p. 220; Niebuhr, Dtscr. de VA:-ab.
p. 54).
There is little in the 0. T. to enable us n)ore
precisely to define a villai;e of Palestine, beyond the
fact that it was destitute of walls or external de
fenses. Persian villages are spoken of iu similar
terms (Ez. xxxviii. 11; Esth. ix. 19).
By the Talmudists a village was defined as a
place destitute ofa synagogue (Lightfoot, Chorogr.
Century, ch. xcviii.). Galdee, in our Lord's time,
contained many villages and village-towns,*^ aud
Josephus says that in his time there were in Galika
204 towns and villages,'' some of wbich last had
walls (.Joseph. Vit. § 45). At present the country
is almost depopulated (Raumer, Pal. p. 105; Stan
ley, S. (f P. p. 384). Most modern Turkish and
Persian villages have a MenzM or Medhdfeh, a
house for travellers (Burckhardt, Syria, p. 295;
Robinson, ii. 19; Martyn, Life, p. 437).
The places to which in the 0. T. the term chaUier
is applied were mostly in tbe outskirts of the coun
try (Stanley, p. 526). In the N. T. the term
Kdifjfq is applied to Bethphage (Matt. xxi. 2), Beth
any (Luke X. 38; -lohn xi. 1), Emmaus (Luke xxiv.
13), Bethlehem (John vii. 42). A distinction be
tween city or town {ttSKis) and village {kc^/mt}) is
pointed out (Luke viii. 1). On the other hand,
Betbsaida is called '7r6\is (John i. 44; Luke ix. 10)
and also ku>}jl7} (Mark viii. 23, 26), unless by the
latter word we are to understand the suburbs of
the town, which meaning seems to belong to
"country"^ (Mark vi. 56). The relation of de
pendence on a chief town of a district appears to be
denoted by the phrase " villages of C^sarea Phi
lippi " (Mark viii. 27).
In the Hebrew language the prefix Caphar im
plied a regular village, as Capernaum, wbich place,
however, had in later times outgrown the limits
implied by its original designation (Lightfoot, I. c,
Stanley, pp. 52L-527; 1 Mace vii. 31). H. W. P.
VINE. Tbe well-known valuable plant ( Vitis
viniftra) very frequently referred to in the Old
and New Testaments, and cultivated from the
earliest times. The first mention of this plant
occurs in Gen. ix. 20, 21, where Noah is represented
as having been its fii'st cultivator. The Egyptians
say that Osiris first taught men the use ofthe vine.
That it was abundantly cultivated in Egypt is evi
dent from the frequent representations on the
monuments, as well as from the Scriptural allu
sions. See Gen. xl. 9-11, Pharaoh's dream; and
Num. XX. 5, where the Israelites complain that the

a 1. Bath. See Daughteb.
2. "^^H; en-oLvXts, kw/mj : villa, castetlum, oppi
dum, especially described ag unwalled, Lev. xxv. 31.
(Stanley, S. §• P. App. § 87.)
3. (a.) "IBS, from "IDS* " ^°T«' " (<^es. p. 706).
rwfwj : uito, (6.) n**D3 , only once, Neh. vi. 2 : /cujifq :
mculus. {c.) "1D3, only once, 1 Sam. vi. 18: KoljitT) :
viila. 4. (a.) t^nS, fromt'lQ (Ges. p. 1125, " to separate,"
»lBr " to judge," like Kpicw ; once " village," i. e. a
place of separated dwellings, Hab. iii. 14) ; Suvdtmjs :
^Uator. See Perizzite. (6.) ^IT")?, Judg. t. 7j U ;
i. V, foUowmg Targ., « villages ; " lit., rulers or war

riors. (c.)mTlQ, TTo'Xis (unwalled) Ez. xxxviii. 11.
(d.) ^'TIQ, properly a dweller in the country, pa-
ganus : ^epe^ato? : oppidum.
5. n^n : eTTttuAis : vicus : Num. xxxii. 41 ; Deut.
iii. 14 ; Judg. x. 4 : a word applied by modern Bedouiufl
to their own villages (Stanley, p. 527)- See Havoth-
Jaib. 6. D^tiJI^Q: irepicnropia : suburbana: lit., pa«
tures for flocks (Qes. pp. 306, .307).
In N. T. the word kuJ^tj is also rendered " town."
6 tt?")5>3, from U?n3, "drive out."
c KoyfjLOTToKeti, vicos et dvitates, Mark i. 3U.
'^ IIoAeis Kai Kioju-ai.
c 'Aypofc.

8446

VINE

mlderness was " no place of figs or of vines," evi
dently regretting that they had left the vines of
Egypt. Comp. also Ps. Ixxviii. 47 : " He destroyed
their vines with hail " (see on this subject Celsius,
Hierob. ii. 412).
The vines of Palestine were celebrated hoth for
luxuriant growth and for the immense clusters of
grapes which they produced. When the spies were
sent forth to" view the promised land, we are told
that on their arrival at the valley of Eshcol they
cut down a branch with one cluster of grapes, and
bare it between two on a staff (Num. xiii. 23).
This they did no doubt for convenience of carriage,
»nd in order that the grajjes oh that splendid
«luster might not be bruised. Travellers have fre
quently testified to tbe large size of the grape-
elusters of Palestine. Schulz (Leitungen des
Hochsten, v. 285, quoted by Rosenmiiller, Bibl. Bot.
p. 223) speaks of supping at Beitshin, a village
near Ptolemais, under a vine whose stem was about
a foot and a half in diameter, and whose height
was about thirty feet, which by its branches formed
a hut upwards of thirty feet broad and long.
" The clusters of tliese extraordinary vines," he
adds, " are so large that they weigh ten or twelve
pounds, and the benies may be compared with our
small plums." See also Belon, Observid. ii. .S40:
** Les seps des \'ignes sont fort gros et Ies rameaux
fort spacieux. Les habitants entendent bien
comme il la faut gouverner. Car ils la plantent si
loing I'une de I'autre, qu'on pourroit mener une
charrette entre deux. Ce n'est pas grande mer-
veille si les raisins sont si beaux et le vin si puis
sant." Strabo states that it is recorded that
there are vines in Margiana whose stems are such
as would require two men to span round, and whose
dusters are two cubits long (Geograph. i. 112, ed.
Kramer). Now Margiana is the modern district
of Ghilan in Persia, southwest of the Caspian Sea,
Uld the very country on whose hills the vine is be
lieved to be indigenous. Nothing would be easier
than to multiply testimonies relative to the large
size of the grapes of Palestine, from the published ac
counts of travellers such as Elliot, Laborde, Mariti,
Dandini (who expresses his surprise at the extraor
dinary size of the grapes of Lebanon), Kussell, etc.
We must be content with quoting the following ex
tract from Kitto's Physical History of Palestine,
p. 330, which is strikingly illustrative of the spies'
mode of carrying the grapes from Eshcol : " Even
in our own country a bunch of grapes was produced
at Welbeck, and sent as a present from the Duke
of Rutland to the Marquis of Rockingham, which
weighed nineteen pounds. It was conveyed to its
destination — more than twenty miles distant — on
a staff by four laborers, two of whom bore it in rota
tion." Tbe greatest diameter of this chister was
nineteen inches and a half, its circumference four feet
and a half, and its length nearly twenty-three inches.
Espeeiil mention is made in the' Bible of the
vines of Eshcol (Num. xiii. 24, xxxii. 9), of Sibmah,
Heshbon, and Elealeh (Is. xvi. 8, 9, 10 ; Jer. xlviii.
32), and En-gedi (Cant. i. 14). Prof. Stanley thus
speaks of the vineyards of Judah, which he saw
nlong the slopes of Bethlehem : "Here, more than
tlsewhere in Palestine, are to be seen on the sides
jf the bills, the vineyards marked by their watch-
towers and walls, seated on their ancient terraces ^
the earliest and latest symbol of Judah. The ele
vation of the bills and table-lands of Judah is the
true climate of the vitie. He ' bound his foal to
fche vine, and his ass's colt to the choice vine; he

VINE
washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in tbt
blood of grapes.' It was from the Judsean vallej
of Eshcol, ' the torrent of the cluster,' that the spiei
cut down the gigantic cluster of grapes. ' A vine
yard on a hill of olives,' with the ' fence,' and ' the
stones gathered out,' and the tower in the midst ol
it,' is the natural figure which, both in the prophetr
ical and evangelical records, represents the kingdom
of Judah " (S. 4- P. p. 164). From the abun
dance and excellence of the vines, it may readily be
understood how frequently tbis plant is the subject
of metaphor in the Holy Scriptures. Thus Israel
is a vine brought from Egypt, and planted by the
I.X)rd's hand in the Land of Promise; room had
been prepared for it (compare with this the passace
from Belon quoted above) ; and where it took root it
filled the land, it covered the hills with its shadow
its boughs were like the goodly cedar-trees (Ps.
Ixxx. 8, 10). Comp. Gmelin (Travels through
Russia and N. Persia, iii. 431), who thus speaks
of the vines of Ghilan : " It is fond of forests
. . . . and is frequently found about promontories,
and their lower part is almost entirely covered with
it. There, higher than the eye can reach, it winds
itself about the loftiest trees ; and its tendrils, which
here bave an arm's thickness, so spread and mutu
ally entangle themselves far and wide, that in places
where it grows in the most luxuriant wildness it ia
very difBcult to find a passage." To dwell under
the vine and fig-tree is an emblem of domestic
happiness and peace (1 K. iv. 25; Mic. iv. 4; Ps.
cxxviii. 3); the rebellious people of Israel are com
pared to "wild grapes," "an empty vine," "the
degenerate plant of a strange vine,'' etc. (Is. v. 2,
4, but see Cockle; Hos. x. 1; Jer. ii. 21). It is
a vine which our Lord selects to show the spiritual
union whioh subsists between Himself and hi)
members (Jobn xv. 1-6 ).
The following Hebrew words denote the vine: —
1. Gephcn (1?5), or, more definitely, gqihen
hayyayiniy*'!! ^53), of frequent occurrence in the
Bible, and used in a general sense. Indeed gephen
sometimes is applied to a plant that resembles a
vine in some particulars, as n|7E? ^33 (gephen
sadeli), 2 K. iv. 39, i. e. probably the Colocynth
plant [Gourd, ii. 962], or DID ^53 (gephen
Sidom), the vine of Sodom, certainly not a vine.
(See below.)
2. S6i-ek {TTW), or sbrekah {T^\rW\ is »
term expressive of some choice kind of vine (Jer. ii.
21; Is V. 2; Gen. xlix. 11), supposed to be iden
tical with that now called in Morocco serH, and in
Persia kishmish, with small round dark berries, and
soft stones. (See Niebuhr, Desciipt. de l^ Arabic,
p. 147; and Oedmann, Sammlwig, ii. 97.) From
the passage in Jeremiah, it is clear that the sbrik
denotes not another species of vine, but the com
mon vine which by some process of cultivation at
tained a high state of excellence.
3. Nazir (~1"'J3), originally applied to a Nazarite
who did not shave his hair, expresses an " undressed
vine " (A. V.), i. <j. one which every seventh and
every fiftieth year was not pruned. (See Gesenius,
Thes. s. v.)
Grapes are designated by various names: (!•)
Eshcdl (bStt'S), is either " a cluster," ripe or
unripe, like racemus, or a "single grape" (a> '•

VINE
b. IxT. 8; Mic. vii. 1). (2.) 'Endb (3.^3 ; Arab.
^_jJiX, "a cluster"). (3.) Sdser (^PS), sour,
i. e. unripe grapes (Is. xviii. 5). (4.) Zembrdh
(m'lQT) " * g'^PS '^"'^ "ff-" " l'"^ blossom " of
the vine is called semddar (TT^P), Cant. ii. 13,
15. " Grape stones " are probably meant by char-
isanntm (D'^pS'^n); A. V. "kernel," Num. vi. 4.
" The cuticle " of the grape is denominated zdg
(3t), Num. I. c; "the tendrils" by sdrigim
(a''3nti;), joei i. 7.
The ancient Hebrews probably allowed tho vine
to grow trailing on tbe ground, or upon supports.
This latter mode of cultivation appears to be al
luded to by Ezekiel (xix. 11, 12): "her strong
rods were broken and withered." Dr. Robinson,
who has given us much information on the vines of
Palestine, thus speaks of the manner in which he
saw them trained near Hebron : " They are
planted singly in i-ows. eight or ten feet apart in
each direction. The stock is suffered to grow up
large to the height of six or eight feet, and is then
jastened in a sloping position to a strong stake, and
the shoots suffered to grow and extend from one
plant to another, forming a line of festoons. Some
times two rows are made to slant towards each
vther, and thus form by their shoots a sort of arch.
These shoots are pruned away in autumn " (Bibl.
Res. ii. 80, 81).
The vintage, bdtsir ('y'^'3.), which formerly
was a season of general festivity, as is the case
more or less in all vine-growing countries, com
menced in September. The towns are deserted,
and the people live among tbe vineyards (D7^3)
in the lodges and tents (Bibl. R^s. 1. c. ; comp.
Judg. ix. 27; Jer. xxv. 30; Is. xvi. 10). The
grapes were gathered with shouts of joy by the
" gr,ape-gatherers " 0^3) (Jer. xxv. 30), and put
into baskets (see Jer. vi. 9). They were then car
ried on the head and shoulders, or slung upon a
yoke, to the " wine-press " (HS). [Wine.]
Those intended for eating were perhaps put into
flat open baskets of wickerwork, as was the custom
in Egypt (Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt. 1. 43). In
Palestine at present the finest grapes, says Dr.
Robinson, are dried as raisins, Isimmuk (p^ffiS),
and the juice of the remainder, after having been
trodden and pressed, " is boiled down to a syrup
which, under the name of dibs (tTS?) is much
used by all classes, wherever vineyards are found,
as a condiment with their food." For further re
marks on the modes of making fermented drinks,
etc., of the juice of the grape, see under Wine.
The vineyard (0^3), which was generaUy on a
hill (Is. V. 1; Jer. xxxi. 5; Amos ix. 13), was sur
rounded by a wall or hedge in order to keep out
the wild boars (Ps. Ixxx. 13), jackals, and foxes
(Num. xxii. 24; Cant. ii. 15; Neh. iv. 3; Ez. xiii.
i, 6; Matt. xxi. 33), which commit sad havoc
imongst the vines, both by treading them down
and by eating the grapes. Within the vineyard
was one or more towers of stone in which the vine-
draaaers. c&rimim (Q^D^S), lived (Is. i. 8, v. 2;

VINE OF SODOM

3447

Matt. xxi. 33; see also Robinson, Bihl. .Res. i. 2 13
ii. 81). The press, gath (i"^|i)) and vat, yekeb
(^5?.)) which was dug (Matt, xxi. 33) or hewn
out of the rocky soil, were part of the vineyard
furniture (Is. v. 2). See the art. Wine, for a
figure of a large foot-press with vat, represented in
operation. The wine-press of the Hebrews was
probably of the form there depicted. [Fat, p
814 a.]
The vine in the Mosaic ritual was subject tr
the usual restrictions of the "seventh year" (Ex.
xxiii. 11), and the jubilee ofthe fiftieth year (Lev.
xxv. 11). The gleanings, oleldth {r\T7y^), were
to be left for the poor and stranger (Jer. xlix. 9:
Deut. xxiv. 21). The vineyard was not to be
sown "with divers seeds" (Deut. xxii. 9), but fig-
trees were sometimes planted in vineyards (Luke
xiii. 6). Comp. 1 K. iv. 25: "Every man under
his vine and under his fig-tree." Persons passing
through a vineyard were allowed to eat the grapes
therein, but not to carry any away (Deut. xxiii.
24). Besides wild-boars, jackals, and foxes, other ene
mies, such as birds, locusts, and caterpillars, occa
sionally damaged the vines.
Beth-haccerem, " the house of the vine " (Jer.
vi. 1; Neh. iii. 14), and Abel-ceramlm, "the plain
ofthe vineyards," took their respective names from
their vicinity to vineyards. Gophna (now Jifna),
a few miles N. of Jerusalem, is stated by Eusebius
(Onom. ^dpay^ ^Srpvos) to have derived its name
from its vines, liut see Ophni. W. H.
VINE OF SODOM (DTP 1?.?, gephen
Seddm.: &fiitre\os ^o56p(>>v' vinea Sodomm'um)
occurs only in Deut. xxxii. 32, where of fhe wicked
it is said — " their vine is of the vine of Sodom,
and of the fields of Gomorrah." It is generally
supposed that this passage alludes to the celebrated
apples of Sodom, of which Josephus (Eell. Jud.
iv. 8, § 4) speaks, and to which apparently Tacitus
(Hist. V. 6) alludes. Much has been written on
this curious subject, and various trees have been
conjectured to be that which produced those
"Dead Sea fruits tbat tempt tbe eye,
But turn to ashes on tbe lips,"
of which Moore and Byron sing.
The following is the account of these fruits, as
given by Josephus : speaking of Sodom, he says :
" It was of old a happy land, both in respect of ita
fruits, and the abundance of its cities. But now i\
is all burnt up. Men say that, on account of the
wickedness of its inhabitants, it was destroyed by
lightning. At any rate, there are still to be seen
remains of the divine fire and traces of fine cities,
and moreover ashes produced in the fruits, whish
indeed resemble edible fruit in color, but, on being
plucked by the hand, are dissolved into smoke and
ashes." Tacitus is more general, and speaks of
all the herbs and flowers, whether growing wild
or planted, turning black, and crumbling into

Some travellers, as Maundrell (Early Trov. in
Palestine, p. 454, Bohn, 1848), regard the whole
story as a fiction, being unable either to see or
hear of any fruit that would answer the required
description. Pococke supposed the apples of Sodom
to be pomegranates, *' which, having a tough, hard
rind, and being left on the trees two or three years,
mav be dried to dust uiside. and the outside may

3448

VINE OF SODOM

remain fair." Hasselquist (Trav. p. 287) seeks to
identify the apples in question with the egg-shaped
fruit of the Solanum melongena when attacked by
fiome species of tenihredo, which converts the whole
of the inside into dust, while the rind remains
entire and keeps its color. Seetzen in his letters
to Baron Zach (Monat. Correspond, xviii. 442)
thought he had discovered the apples of Sodom in
the fruit of a kind of cotton-tree, which grew in
the plain of el-Ghor, and was known by the name
of Adschar. The cotton is contained in the fruit,
which is like a pomegranate, but has no pulp.
Chateaubriand concludes the long-sought fruit to
be that of a thorny shrub with small taper leaves,
which in size and color is exactly like the Httle
Egyptian lemon; when dried, this fruit yields a
blackish seed, which may be compared to ashes,
and which in taste resembles bitter pepper. Burck
hardt (Trav. in Syria, p. 392) and Irby and Man
gles believe that the tree which produces these
celebrated apples is one which they saw abundantly
in the Ghor to the east of the Dead Sea, known
by the vernacular name of asheyr or oshar. This
tree bears a fruit of a reddish-yellow color, about
three inches in diameter, which contains a white
substance resembling tbe finest silk, and enveloping
some seeds. This silk is collected by the Arabs,
and twisted into matches for their firelocks. Dr.
Robinson (Bibl. Pes. i. 523), when at ^Aln Jidy,
without knowing at the moment whether it had
been observed by former travellers or not, instantly
pronounced in favor of the ^osher fruit being the
apples of Sodom. His account of this tree is
minute, and may well be quoted: " The ^dsher of
the Arabs,'' which he identifies with the Asclepias
(Calotropis) procera of botanists, "is found in
abundance in Upper Egypt and Nubia, and also
in Arabia Felix; but seems to be confined in
Palestine to the borders of the Dead Sea. We
saw it only at ^Ain Jidy; Hasselquist found ifc in
the deserfc between Jericho and fche northern shore;
and Irby and Mangles met with ifc of large size at
the south end of the sea, and on the isthmus of
the peninsula. We saw here several trees of the
kind, the trunks of which were six or eight inches
in diameter, and the whole height from ten to fif
teen feet. It has a grayish cork-like bark, with
loug oval leaves .... it discharges copiously
from its broken leaves and flowers a milky fluid.
The fruit greatly resembles externally a large
smooth apple or orange, hanging in clusters of three
or four together, and when ripe is of a yellow
color. It was now fair and delicious to the eye,
and soft to the touch; bufc, on being pressed or
struck, it explodes with a pufF, like a bladder or
puff-ball, leaving in the hand only the shreds of
the thin rind and a few fibres. It is indeed filled
chiefly with air, which gives it the round form.

a « Yqu do not mention the Solanum Sodomtzum,
which I thought had been quoted as one apple
cf the Dead Sea, and which is the plant I always
*Jiought to be as probably the fruit in question aa any
other. The objection to S. melongena is, that it is a
cultivated plant ; to the oak gall, that it is wholly
absent from the Dead Sea district, though it answers
the descriptiou best, so £ir as its beautiful exterior
md powdery bitter interior are concerned.
" Tho Vine of Sodom, again, I always thought might
refer to Cucumis colocynthis [see Godrd, ii. 962], which
(s bitter and powdery inside ; the term vine would
scarcely be given to auy but a trailing or other plant
tS the habit of a vine. The objection to the Ca'a-

VINE OF SODOM
. . . Affcer a due allowance for tbe marveloui
in all popular reports, I find nothing which doa/
not apply almost literally to the fruit of the 'osher,
as we saw it. It must be plucked and handled
with great care, in ¦ order to preserve it from
bursting." Mr. Walter Elliot, in an article " on the Poma
Sodomitica, or Dead-Sea apples" (Trans, ofthe
Entomol. Soc. ii. 14, 1837-1840), endeavors to
show that the apples in question are oak gaUs,
which he found growing plentifully on dwarf oaks
(Quercus infectoria) in the country beyond the
Jordan. He tells us that the Arabs asked him to
bite one of these galls, and thafc they lauf^hed when
they saw his mouth full of dust. " That these
galls are the true Dead-Sea apples," it is added,
"there can no longer be a question: nothing can
be more beautiful than their rich, glossy, purplish-
red exterior: nothing more bitter than their porous
and easily pulverized interior" (p. 16). The opin
ion of Pococke may, we think, be dismissed at
once as being a most improbable conjecture. The
objection to the Solanum melongena is that the
plant is not peculiar to the shores or neighborhood
of the Sea of Sodom, but is generally distributed
throughout Palestine, besides which it is not likely
that the fruit of which Josephus speaks should be
represented by occasional diseased specimens of the
fruit of the egg-apple; we must look for some
plant, the normal character of whose fruit comes
somewhere nearer to the required conditions. Seet
zen's plant is the same as that mentioned by
Burckhardt, Irby and Mangles, and Robinson, i. c.
the 'osher. Chateaubriand's thorny shrub, with
fruit like small lemons, may be the Zukhim (Ba
lanites jEgyptiaca), but it certainly cannot be the
tree intended. It is not at all probable that the
oak-galls of which Mr. Elliot speaks should be
the fruit in question ; because these being formed
ou a tree so generally known as an oak, and being
common in all countries, would not have been a
subject worthy of especial remark, or have been
noticed as something peculiar to the district around
the Sea of Sodom. The fruit of the 'Usher appears
to have the best claim to represent the apples of
Sodom ; the Cahtrqpis procera is an Indian plant,'
and thrives in the warm valley of ^Ain Jidy, but
is scarcely to be found elsewhere in Palestine.
The readiness with which its fruit, "fair to the
eye," bursts when pressed, agrees well with Jose
phus's account; and alfchough there is a want of
suitableness between *' the few fibres '' of Robinson,'
and the "smoke and ashes" of the Jewish his
torian, yet, according to a note by the editor of
Seetzen's Letters, the fruit of the Calotropis in
winter contains a yellowish dust, in appearance
resembling certain fungi, but of pungent quality."
W.H.

t7opis procera {Asclep. gigantea, Lin.) is, that it is very
scarce and not characteristic of the district, being
found in one spot only. The beautiful silky cotton
would never suggest the idea of anything but what
ia exquisitely lovely — it is impossible to imagine any
thing more beautiful : to assume that a diseased state
of it was intended, is arguing ad iiinotum ab ignota
and a very far-fetched idea." J. D. Hooker.
Dr. Hooker's remark, that the term vine must refer
to some plant of the habit of a vine, is conclusive
against the claims of all the plants hitherto identified
with the Vine of Sodom. The C. colocynthis alone
possesses the required condition implied in the name
W.H

VINEGAR
VINEGAR (Vpi^ '¦ Hos : acetum). The
Hebrew term chomeis was applied to a beverage,
consisting generally of wine or strong drink tumed
Bour (whence its use was proscribed to the Naz
arite, Num. vi. 3), but sometimes artificially made
by an admixture of barley and wine, and thus
liable to fermentation (Mishn. Pes. 3, § 1). It
was acid even to a proverb (Prov. x. 26), and by
itself formed a nauseous draught (Ps. Ixix. 21),
but was serviceable for the purpose of sopping
bread, as used by laborers (Euth ii. 14). The
degree of its acidity may be inferred from Prov.
xxv. 20, where its effect on nitre is noticed. Sim
ilar to the chomeis of the Hebrews was the acetum
of the Romans, — a thin, sour wine, consumed by
soldiers (Veget. Re Mil. iv. 7), eitber in «. pure
state, or, more usually, mixed with water, when
it was termed posca (Plin. xix. 29 ; Spart. Hadr.
10). This was the beverage of which the Saviour
partook in his dying moments (Matt, xxvii. 48;
Mark xv. 36; John xix. 29, 30), and doubtless it
was refreshing to his exhausted frame, though
offered in derision either on that occasion or pre-
riously (Luke xxiii. 36). The same liquid, min
gled with gall (as St. Matthew states, probably
with tbe view of marking the fulfillment of the
prediction in Ps. Ixix. 21), or with niyrrh (as
St. Mark states with an eye to the exact historical
fact"), was offered to the Saviour at an earUer stage
of his suflerings, in order to deaden the perception
of pain (Matt, xxvii. 34; Mark xv. 23). W. L. B.
VINEYARDS, PLAIN OP THE (b^N
D'^nn? : '^.fieXxappelv, Alex. A;8e\ apireXuvcDv:
Abel JM05 est vineis consiia). This place, men
tioned only in Judg. xi. 33, has been already no
ticed under Abel (5 : see vol. 1. p." 5 a). To what
he has there said, the writer has only to call atten
tion to the fact that a ruin bearing the name of
Beit el-Kerm, — " house of the vine," was encoun
tered by De Saulcy to the north of Kerak (Narr.
i. 353). This may be the Abel ceramim of Jeph
thah, if the Aroer named in tbe same passage is
the place of that name on the Arnon ( PT". Mojeb).
It is however by no means certain ; and indeed the
probability is that the Ammonites, with the instinct
of a nomadic or semi-nomadic people, betook them
selves, when attacked, not to the civilized and cul
tivated country of Moab (where Beit el-Kerm is
situated), but to the spreading deserts towards the
east, where they could disperse themselves after the
usual tactics of such tribes. 6.
VIOL. For an explanation of the Hebrew
word translated " viol " see Psaltery. The old
£)nglish viol, like the Spanish viguela, was a six-
stringed guitar. Mr. Chappell (Pop. Mus. i. 246)
says, " the position of the fingers was marked on
the finger-board by frets, as in guitars of the present
day. The ' Chest of Viols ' consisted of three, four,
five, or six of different sizes ; one for the treble,
others for the mean, the counter-tenor, the tenor,
and perhaps two for the bass." Etymologically
vial is connected with the Dan._^o^ and the A.-S.
fiSele, through the Fr. viole. Old Fr. vielle, Med,

VOWS

3449

Lat vitella. In the Promptti-ium Parvuhj'um we
find " Tyyele, viella, fidieina, vitella.'* Again, in
North's Plutarch (Antonius, p. 980, ed. 1595) there
is a descripfcion of Cleopatra's barge, '¦' the poope
whereof was of gold, the sailes of purple, and the
owers of silver, which kept stroke in rowing after
fche sound of the musicke of flutes, howboyes,
cytherns, vyolls, and such other instruments aa
they played vpon hi the barge." W. A. W.
* VINTAGE. [Harvest; Vine; AVine.]
VIPER. [Serpent.]
* VOLUME. [Book; Eoll; Writing.]
VOPH'SI 0991 : 2aj3(; Alex. la/Sc Vapsi).
Father of Nahbi, tlie spy selected from the tribe
of Naphtali (Num. xiii. 14),
* VOTE. This is the proper word m. Acts
xxvi. 10, instead of "voice" of the A. V. Paul
says there that when Stephen and other disciples
wei-e put to death he "gave his vote," Kar-fiveyKa
ypTJipou, against them. Some allege this as proof
that he was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrim at
the time, and voted for the sentence of death.
But the language does not warrant thia conclusion.
Like our "suffrage," i|/^^os, a stone used as a
ballot, often signified opinion merely, assent or dis
sent, with only a figurative allusion to the act of
voting. Plato often uses the word in this sense
(see Rost and Palm's Gr. Handworierb. iii. p.
2575). It is improbable on other grounds that
Paul belonged to the Sanhedrim at that time.
His age would hardly have allowed him to attain
that honor so early (see Acts vii. 58), and his being
unmarried (as we may infer from 1 Cor. vii. 8) waa
a disquaUfication if, as the later Jews maintain, no
one could be a judge unless he was a father, be
cause a parent may be expected to be merciful.
Lechler gives the right interpretation. H.
VOWS.^ The practice of making vows, i. e.
incuiTing voluntary obligations to the Deity, on
fulfillment of certain conditions, such as deliverance
from death or danger, success in enterprises, and
the like, is of extremely ancient date, and common
in all systems of religion. The earliest mention
of a vow is that of Jacob, who, after his vision at
Bethel, promised that in case of his safe return he
would dedicate to Jehovah the tenth of his goods,
and make the place in which he had set up the
memorial-stone a place of worship (Gen. xxviii.
18-22, xxxi. 13). Vows in general are also men
tioned in the book of Job (xxii. 27).
Among instances of heathen usage in this respect
the following passages may be cited : Jer. xliv. 25,
and Jonah i. 16; Hom. fl. i. 64, 93, vi. 93, 308;
Odyss. iii. 382; Xen. Anab. iii. 2, § 12; Virg.
Georg. i. 436; ^n. v. 234: Hor. Cai-m. i. 5, 13,
iii. 29, 59; Liv. xxii. 9, 10; Cic. Att. viii. 16;
Justin, xxi. 3 ; a passage which speaks of immoral
vows; Veil. Pat. ii. 48.
The Law therefore did not introduce, but regu
lated the practice of vows. Three sorts are men
tioned: I. Vows of devotion, Neder ; IE. Vows
of abstinence, Esar ot Jsar ; III. Vows of destruc
tion, Cherem.
I. As to vows of devotion, the following rulai

a St. Mark terms it oTko; 6(r/iLvpi'ia-/x6'i'05> There is
no difficulty in the application of olvo<; and o^os to
the same subatance ; but whether the fj-era x°^V^
utfiiytievov of St. Matthew can in any way be ideu-
tjfled with the i(rii.vpvi<rfj.4vos of Mark, is doubtful.

The term x^^V ^^y ^®^^ have been applied to soma
soporific substance.
6 D^'lia, from "113, « to make vow " (Gm
• T : ' -t'
p. 855). See also Asatssux.

3450

vows

are laid down : A man might devote to saered uses
possessions or persons, but not the first-born either
of man or beast, which was devoted already (Lev.
xxvii. 26). [FiRST-EOBN.]
(a.) If he vowed land, he might either redeem it
or not. If he intended to redeem, two points were
to be considered : (1) the rate of redemption ; (2)
the distance, prospectively and retrospectively, from
the year of jubilee. The price of redemption was
fixed at 50 shekels of silver for the quantity of land
which a homer of barley (eight bushels) would suf
fice to sow (Lev. xxvii. 16; see Knobel). This
payment might be abated under the direction of
the priest, according to the distance of time from
the jubilee-year. But at whatever time it was
redeemed, he was required to add to the redemp
tion-price one fifth (20 per cent. ) of the estimated
value. If he sold the land in the mean time, it
might not then be redeemed at all, but was to go
to the priests in the jubilee- year (ver. 20).
The purchaser of land, in case he devoted and
also wished to redeem it, was required to pay a
redemption-price according to the priestly valua
tion first mentioned, but without the additional
fifth. In this case, however, the land was to
revert in the jubilee to its original owner (Lev.
xxvii. 16, 24, xxv. 27; Keil, Heh: Arch. §§ 66,
80). The valuation here' laid down is evidently based
on the notion of annual value. Supposing land to
require for seed about 3 bushels of barley per
acre, the homer, at the rate of 32 pecks, or 8
bushels, would be sufficient for about 2i or 3
acres. Fifty shekels, 25 ounces of silver, at five
shillings the ounce, would give £6 bs., and the
yearly valuation would thus amount to about £2
per acre.
The owner who wished to redeem, would thus
be ' required to pay either an annual rent or a
redemption-price answering to the number of years
short of the jubilee, but deducting Sabbatical years
(Lev. xxv. 3, 15, 16), and adding a fifth, or 20 per
cent., in either case. Thus, if a man devoted an
acre of land in the jubilee year, and redeemed it in
the same year, he would pay a redemption-price of
49—6 =43 years' value, -f- 20 per cent. = il03 is.,
or an annual rent of £2 Ss. ; a rate by no means
excessive when we consider, (1) the prospect of
restoration in the jubilee; (2) tbe undoubted fer
tility of the soil, which even now, under all disad
vantages, sometimes yields an hundredfold (Burck
hardt, Syria, p, 297).
If he refused or was unable to redeem, either
the next of kin (Goel) came forward, as he had
liberty to do, or, if no redemption was effected, the
land became the property of the priests (Lev. xxv.
25, xxvii. 21; Euth iii. h, iv. 1, eto.).
In the case of a house devoted, its value was to
be assessed by the priest, and a fifth added to the
redemption price in case it was redeemed (Lev.
xxvii. 15). Whether the rule held good regarding
houses in walled cities, namely, that tbe liberty of
redemption lasted only for one year, is not certain ;
but as it does not appear that houses devoted, but
not redeemed, became the property of the priests,
and as the Levites and priests had special towns
assigned to them, it seems likely that the price
only of the house, and not the house itself, waa
made over to sacred uses, and thus that the act of
consecration of a house means, in fact, the conse
cration of its value. The Mishna, however, says,
that if a devoted house fell down, the owner was

VOWS
not liable to payment, but that he was liable if
he had devoted the value of the house (Bracin,
V. 5). (b.) Animals fit for sacrifice, if devoted, were not
to be redeemed or changed, and if a man attempted
to do so, he was required to bring both the devotee
and the changeling (I^v. xxvii. 9, 10, 33). They
were to be free from blemish (Mai. i. 14). An
animal unfit for sacrifice might be redeemed, with
the addition to the priest's valuation of a fifth, or
It became the property of the priests. Lev. xxvii.
12, 13. [Offeriug.]
(c.) The case of persons devoted stood thns: A
man might devote either himself, bis child (not
the first-bom), or his slave. If no redemption took
place, the devoted person became a slave of the
sanctuary — see the case of Absalom (2 Sam. xv.
8; Michaelis, § 124, ii. 166, ed. Smith). [Naz
arite.] Otherwise he might be redeemed at a
valuation according to age and sex, on the follow
ing scale (Lev. xxvii. 1-7) : —
A. 1. A male from one month to 5 years £ s. d,
old, 6 shekels  = 0 12 6
2. Prom 5 years to 20 years, 20 shekels = 2 10 0
8. From 20 years to 60 years, 50 shekels =660
4. Above 60 years, 15 shekels . . . = 1 17 6
B. 1. Females from one month to 5 years,
3 shekels . . ....=-. 0 7 6
2. From 5 years to 20 years, 10 shekels = 1 5 0
; 3. Prom 20 years to 60 years, 30 shekels = 3 15 0
4. Above 60 years, 10 shekels . . . = 1 5 0
If the person were too poor to pay the redemption
price, his value was to be estimated by the priest,
not, as Michaelis says, the civil magistrate (Lev.
xxvii. 8; Deut. xxi. 5; Mich. § 145, ii. 283).
Among general regulations affecting vows, the
following may be mentioned ; —
1. Vows wei'e entirely voluntary, but once made
were regarded as compulsory, and evasion of per
formance of thera was held to be contrary to true
religion (Num. xxx. 2; Deut. xxiii. 21; Eccl.
V. 4).2. If persons in a dependent condition made
VOWS, as (a) an unmarried daughter living in her
father's house, or (ft) a wife, even if she afterwards
became a widow, the vow, if (a) in the first case
her father, or (b) in the second, her husband heaid
and disallowed it, was void; but if they heard
without disallowance, it was to remain good (Num.
xxx. 3-16). Whether this principle extended to
all children and to slaves is wholly uncertain, as
no mention is made of them in Scripture, nor by
Philo when he discusses the question (de Spec. JjSg.
6, ii. 274, ed. Mangey). Michaelis thinks the
omission of sons implies absence of power to con
trol them (§ 83, i. 447).
3. Votive offerings arising from the produce of
any impure traffic were wholly forbidden (Deut.
xxiii. 18). A question has risen on this part of
the subject as to the meaning of tbe word ceM),
dpg, which is understood to refer either to immoral
intercourse of the grossest kind, or liteially and
simply to the usual meaning of the word. The
prohibition against dedication to sacred uses of
gain obtained by female prostitution was doubtlras
directed ,against the practice which prevailed in
Phoenicia, Babylonia, and Syria, of which raen
tion is made in Lev. xix. 29; Baruch vi. 43 [or
Epist. of Jer. 43] ; Herod, i. 199; Strabo, p. 861;
August, de civ. Dei, iv. 10, and other autborities
quoted by Spencer (de leg. Hebr. ii. 35, p. 566).
Following out this view, and bearing in mind th«

VULGATE, THB
nent'on made in 2 K. xxiii. 7, of a practice evi-
Jeiitly connected with idolatrous worship, the word
aeleb has been sometimes rendered cimedus ; some
have understood it to refer to the first-born, but
Spencer himself, ii. 35, p. 672; Josephus, Ant. iv.
8, § 9 ; Gesen. ii. 685, and the Mishna, Temurah,
vi. 3, all understaud dog in the literal sense.
POG.] II., III. For vows of abstinence, see Corban ;
and for vows of extermination. Anathema, and
Ezr.x.8; Mic. iv. 13.
Vows in general and their binding force as a test
of religion are mentioned — Job xxii. 27 ; Prov. vii.
14; Ps. xxii. 25, 1. 14, Ivi. 12, Ixvi. 13, cxvi. 14;
ts. xix. 21; Nah. i. 15.
Certain refinements on votive consecrations are
noticed in the Mishna, e. g. : —
1. No evasion of a vow was to be allowed which
substituted a part for the whole, as, " I vowed a
sheep but not the bones" (Nedar. ii. 5).
2. A man devoting an ox or a house, was not
liable if the ox was lost, or the house fell down ;
but otherwise, if he had devoted the value of the
one or the other of these.
3. No devotions might be made within two
years before the jubilee, nor redemptions within
the year following it. If a son redeemed his
father's land, he was to restore it to him in the
jubilee (Erac. vii. 3).
4. A man might devote some of bis flock,
herd, and heathen slaves, but not all these (ibid.
viii. 4).
5. Devotions by priests were uot redeemable,
but were transferred to other priests (ibid. 6).
6. .4. man who vowed not to sleep on a bed,
might sleep on a skin if he pleased (Otho, Lex.
Rabb. p. 673).
7. The sums of money arising from votive con
secrations were divided into two parts — sacred (1)
to the altar; (2) to the repairs of the Temple (Re
land, Ani. e. x. § 4).
It seems that the practice of shaving tlie head
at the expiration of a votive period was not lim
ited to the Nazaritie vow (Acts xviii. 18, xxi.
24). The practice of vows in the Christian Church,
though evidently not forbidden, as the instance just
quoted serves to show, does not come within the
scope of the present article (see Bingham, Antiq.
xvi. 7, 9, and Suicer, eJx^)- H. W. P.
VULGATE, THB. (Latin Versions of
the Bible.) The infiuence which the Latin Ver
sions of the Bible have exercised upon Western
Christianity is scarcely less than that of the LXX.
ipon the Greek churches. But both the Greek
Uld the Latin Vulgates have been long neglected.
riie revival of letters, bringing with it the study
nf the original texts of Holy Scripture, checked for
a time the study of these two great bulwarks of the
Greek and Ijitin churches, for the LXX. in fact
belongs rather to the history of Christianity than
to the history of Judaism, and, in spite of recent
labors, their importahce is even now hardly recog
nized. In the case of the Vulgate, ecclesiastical
controversies have still further impeded all efforts
of liberal criticism. The Romanist (till lately)
regarded the Clementine text as fixed beyond ap
peal; the Protestant shrank from examining a sub-
'ect which seemed to belong peculiarly to the
Somanist. Yet, apart from all polemical ques-
fona, the Vulgate should have a very deep interest

VULGATE, THB

3451

for all the Western churches. For many centu
ries it was tbe only Bible generally used; and,
directly or indirectly, it is the real parent of all
the vernacular versions of Western Europe. The
Gothic Version of Ulphilas alone is independent of
it, for the Slavonic and modern Russian versions
are necessarily not taken into account. With
England it has a peculiarly close connection. The
earliest translations made from it were tbe (lost)
books of Bede, and the Glosses on the Psalms and
Gospels of the 8th and Oth centuries (ed. Thorpe.
Lond. 1835, 1842). In the lOth century iElfric
translated considerable portions of the 0. T. (Hep-
iaieuchus, etc., ed. Thwaites, Oxon, 1698). But
the most important monument of its influence is
the great English Version of Wycliffe (1324-1384,
ed. Forshall and Madden, Oxfd. 1850), wbich is a
literal rendering of the cun-ent Vulgate text. In
the age of tbe Reformation the Vulgate was rather
the guide than the source of the popular versions.
The Romanist translations into German (Michaelis,
ed. Marsh, ii. 107), French, Italian, and Spanish,
were naturally derived from the Vulgate (R. Simon,
Hist. Crit. N. T. Cap. 28, 29, 40, 41). Of others,
that of Luther (N. T. in 1523) was the most im
portant, and iu this the Vulgate had great weight,
though it was made with such use of the originals
as was possible. From Luther tbe influence of
the Latin passed to our own Authorized Version.
Tyndal had spent some time abroad, and was
acquainted with Luther before he pubUshed his
version of the N. T. in 1526. Tyndal's version
of the 0. T., which was unfinished at the time of
his martyrdom (1536), was completed by Cover-
dale, and in this the influence of the Latin and
German translations was predominant. A proof
of this remains in the Psalter of the Prayer Book,
which was taken from the » Great English Bible"
(1539, 1540), whicb was merely a new edition of
that called Matthew's, whicb was itself taken from
Tyndal and Coverdale. This version of the Psalms
follows the Galilean Psalter, a revision of the Old
Latin, made by Jerome, and afterwards introduced
into his new translation (comp. § 22), and differs'
in many respects from the Hebrew text (e. g. Ps.
xiv.). It would be out of place to follow this
question inte detail here. It is enough to remem
ber that the first translators of our Bible had been
familiarized with the Vulgate from their youth,
and could not have cast off the Influence of early
association. But the claims of the Vulgate to the
attention of - scholars rest on wider grounds. It ia
not only the source of our current theological
terminology, but it is, in one shape or other, the
most Important early witness to tbe text and
interpretation of the whole Bible. The materials
available for the accurate study of It are unfor
tunately at present as scanty as those yet unex
amined are rich and varied (comp. § 30). The
chief original works bearing on tbe Vulgate genei
ally are —
R. Simon, Histoire Critique du V. T. 1678-
1685: N. T. 1689-1693.
Hody, De Bibliorum textibus originalibus, Oxon.
1705. Martianay, Hieron. Opp. (Paris, 1693, with the
prefaees and additions of Vallarsi, Verona, 1734,
and Maffel, Venice, 1767).
Bianchini (Blanchinus lot Bianchini), Vindi-
lace Canon. SS. Vulg. Lai. EM. Romse, 1740.
Bukentop, Dux de Luce .... Bruxellis,
1710.

3452

VULGATE, THB

Sabatier, Bibl. SS. Lat. Vers. Ant., Remis,
1743. Van Ess, Pragmatisck-Teritische Gesch. d. Vulg.
Tubingen, 1824.
Vercellone, Varia Lectiones Vulg. Lat. Bibli
orum, tom. i., Eomae, 1860; tom. ii. pars prior,
1862. In addition to these there are the controversial
works of Mariana, Bellarmin, Whitaker, Fulke,
ete., and numerous essays by Calmet, D. Schulz,
Fleek, Riegler, ete., and in the N. T. the lab6rs
of Bentley, Sanftl, Griesbach, Schulz, Lachmann,
Tregelles, and Tischendorf, have collected a great
amount of critical materials. But it is not too
much to say that the noble work of Vercellone has
made an epoch in the study of the Vulgate, and
the chief results which follow from the first Install
ment of his collations are here for the first time
Incorporated In its history. The subject will be
treated under the following heads : —
I. The Origin and History of the name
Vulgate. §§ 1-3.
II. The Old Latin Versions. §§ 4-13.
Origin, 4, 5. Character, 6. Canon, 7. Revis
ions ; Itala, 8-11. Remains, 12, 13.
III. The Labors of Jerome. §§ 14-20.
Occasion, 14. Revision of Old Latin of N. T.,
15-17. Gospels, 15, 16. Ads, Epistles, etc., 17.
Revision of 0. T. from the LXX., 18, 19. Trans
lation of 0. T. from the Hebrew, 20.
I\'^. The History of Jerome's Transla
tion to the Introduction of Printing.
§§ 21-24. CoiTuption qf Jerome's text, 21, 22.
Revision of Alcuin, 23. Later revisions: divisions
of the text, 24.
V. The History op the Printed Text.
§§ 25-29. Early editions, 25. The Slxtlne and
Clementine Vulgates, 26. Their relative merits,
27. Later editions, 28, 29.
VI. The Materials for the Revision of
Jerome's Text. §§ 30-32. MSS. of 0. T.,
30, 31. OfN. r., 32.
VII. The Critical Value of the Latin
Versions. §§ 33-39. In 0. T., 33. fn N. T.,
34-38. Jerome's Revision, 34-36. The Old Latin,
37. Interpretation, 39.
VIII. The Language of the Latin Ver
sions, §§ 40-45. Provincialisms, 41, 42. ffrte-
cism.s, 43. Infiuence on Modern Language,
45. I. The Origin and History of the name
Vulgate. — 1. The name Vulgate, which Is
equivalent to Vulgata editio (the current text of
Holy Scripture), has necessarily been used diff'er-
ently in various ages of the Church. There can
be no doubt that the phrase originaUy answered to
the Koivj) ixSoiTis of the Greek Scriptures. In this
sense It is used constantly by Jerome in his Com
mentaries, and his language explains sufficiently
the origin of the term : " Hoc juxta LXX. inter
pretes dlximua, quorum editio toto orbe vulgata
est" (Hieron. Comm. in Is. Ixv. 20). " Multum
iu hoc loco LXX. editio Hebraioumque discordant.
Primum ergo de Vulgata editione tractabimus et
postea sequemur ordinem veritatla " (id. xxx. 22).
!n some places Jerome distinctly quotes the Greek
text: "Porroin editione Vulgata dupliolter legi-
mus; quidam enim codices habent SrjXoi eioir,
hoc est manifesli sunt : alii ^eiXaioi eliriv, hoc est
meiiculosi sive miseri sunt " ( Comm. in Osee, vii.
13 ; comp. 8-11, eto. ). But generally he regards
the Old Latin, which was rendered from the LXX.,

VULGATE, THE
as substantially identical witb it, and thus intro.
duces Latin quotations under the name of the
LXX. or Vvlgctia editio ;".... miror quomodo
vulgata editio .... testimonium alia interpreta-
tione subverterit : Congregabar et ghrificabor
coram Domino  Illud autem quod In LXX.
legitur: Congregabor et glorificabor coram Domino
. . . . " (Comm. in /s. xlix. 5). So again: "Phll-
Isthffios .... aliemgenas Vulgata scrlblt editio "
(ibid. xiv. 29). " . . . . Palsestlnls, quos indlf-
ferenter LXX. alienigenas vocant " (in Ezek. xvi.
27). In this way the transference of the name
from the current Greek text to the current Latin
text became easy and natural; but there does not
appear to be any instance in the age of Jerome
of the application of the term to the Latin \^erslon
of the O. T. without regard to its derivation from
the LXX., or to that of the N. T.
2. Yet more : as the phrase Kotvij exSoB-is came
to signify an uncorrected (and so corrupt) text, the
same secondary meaning was attached te vulgata
editio. Thus in some places the vulgata editio
stands in contrast with the true Hexaplarlc text
of the LXX. One passage will place this in the
clearest light: " . . . . breviter admoneo aUam
esse editionem quam Origenes et Caesariensis Euse
bius, omnesque Grsecise translatores koiv^v, id est,
communem appeUant, atque vulgatam, et a plerisque
nunc AovKiavhs dicitur; aliam LXX. interpretunf
quae in e^airKois codicibus reperitur, et a nobis ir
Latlnum sermonem fideliter versa est . . .
Kotuif autem ista, hoc est, Communis editio, ipsi
est quae et LXX., sed hoc interest inter utram
que, quod Kotvij pro locis et temporibus et pre
voluntate scriptorum vetus corrupta editio est;
ea autem quse habetur in 4^aTr\o7s et quam noi
vertimus, Ipsa est quse in eruditorum hbria in-
corrupfa et Immaculata LXX. Interpretum trans
latio reservatur" (Ep. cvl. ad Sun. et Fret.
§2). 3. This use of the phrase Vulgata editio to
describe the LXX. (and the Latin Version of the
LXX.) was continued to later times. It is sup
ported by the authority of Augustine, Ado of
Vienne (A. D. 860), R. Bacon, etc.; and Bellarmin
distinctly recognizes tbe application of the term,
so that Van Ess is justified in saying tbat the
Council of Trent erred in a point of history when
they described Jerome's Version as "vetus et
vulgata editio, quse longo tot ssculorum usu in
ipsa ecclesia probata est " (Van Ess, Gesch. 34)
As a general rule, the Latin Fathers speak of
Jerome's Version as "our " version (nostra editio,
nostri codices) ; but it was not unnatural that the
Tridentlne Fathers (as many later scholars) should
be misled by the associations of their own time,
and adapt to new circumstances terms which had
grown obsolete In their original sense. And when
the difference of the (Greek) "Vulgate" ofthe
early Church, ahd the (Lathi) "Vulgate" of the
modem Roman Church has once beeu apprehended,
no further difficulty need arise from the identity
of name. (Compare Augustine, Ed. Benedict.
Paris, 1836, tom. V. p. xxxiii.; Sabatier, i. 792;
Van Ess, Gesch. 24-42, who gives very full snd
conclusive references, though he fails to perceive
that the Old Latin was practicaUy Identified with
tbe LXX.)
II. The Old Latin Versions. — 4. The his
tory of the earliest Latin Version of the Bible la
lost in complete obscurity. AU that can be
affirmed with certainty is that it was made in

VULGATE, THE
AMca." During the first two centuries the
Ohurch of Eome, to which we naturally look for
the source of the version now identified with it,
was essentially Greek. The Koman bishops bear
(jreek naraes; the earliest Koraan Uturgy was
Greek ; the few remains of the Christian literature
of Rome are Greek.'' The same remark holds true
of Gaul (comp. Westcott, Hisi. of Canon of N. T.
pp. 269,270, and reff.); but the Church of N.
Africa seems to have been Latin-speaking from the
first. At what date this Church was founded is
uncertain. A passage of Augustine (c. Donat.
Ep. 37) seeras to imply that Africa was converted
late; but if so, the Gospel spread there with re
markable rapidity. At the end of the second
century Christians were found in every rank, and
in everyplace; and the master-spirit of Tertullian,
the first of the Latin Fathers, was then raised up
to give utterance to the passionate thoughts of
his native Church. It is therefore from Tertullian
that we must seek the earliest testimony to the
existence and character of the Old Latin (Vetus
Latina). 5. On the first point the evidence of Ter
tullian, if candidly examined, is decisive. He
distinctly recognizes the general currency of a
Latin Version ofthe N. T., though not necessarily
of every book at present included in the Canon,
which* even in his time had been able to mould the
popular language {adv. Prax. 5 : In usu est nos-
trorum per simplicitatem Interpretationis . . . .
Be Monog. 11: Sciamus plane non sic esse in
Graeco authentico quomodo in usum exiit per dua-
rum syllabarum aut callidara aut simplicera ever-
sionem ....). -This was characterized by a
"rudeness" and "simplicity," which seems to
point to the nature of its origin. In the words
of Augustine (De doctr. Christ, ii. 16 (11) ), " any
one in the first ages of Christianifcy who gained
possession ofa Greek MS., and fancied that he had
a fair knowledge of Greek and Latin, ventured to
translate it." (Qui scripturas ex Hebraea lingua
in Grsecam verterunt numerari possunt; Latiui
autem interpretes nullo modo. Ut enim cuivis
primis fidei temporibus in manus venit Codex
Grfficus, et aliquantulum facultatis eibi utriusque
Linguse habere videbatur, ausus est interpretari.)*^
Thus the version of the N. T. appears to have
arisen fix>m individual and successive efforts; but it
does not follow by any means that numerous ver
sions were simultaneously circulated, or that the
several parts of the version were made indepen-
deutly.rf Even if it had been so, the exigencies of
the public service must soon have given definiteness
and substantial unity to the fragmentary labors of
indiriduals. The work of private hands would
necessarily be sulyect to revision for ecclesiastical
use. The separate books would be united in a
volume; and thus a standard text of the whole
coUection would be established. With regard to
the 0. T. the case is less clear. It is probable that

VULGATE, THE

3453

^ This has been eRtablished with the greatest full-
WEB by Card. Wiseman, Two iMiers on 1 John v. 7,
iiddreescd to the editor of the Catholic Magazine,
1832, 1833 ; republished with additions, Rome, 1835 ;
»nd again in his collected Essays, vol. i. 1853. Eich-
Qorn aud Hug bad maintained the same opinion ;
ad Lachmann has further confirmed ib (N. T. i.
Praf.). ^ In the absence of all evidence it is impossible to
lay how far the Christians of the Italian provinces
p^ tbe Greek or Latin langtiage habitually

the Jews who were settled in N. Africa were con
fined to the Greek towns; otherwise it might be
supposed that the Latin Version of the 0. T. is in
part anterior to the Christian era, and that (as in
the case of Greek) a preparation for a Christian
Latin dialect was already made when the Gospel
was introduced into Africa. However this may
have been, the substantial similarity of the dif
ferent parts of the Old and New Testaments
establishes a real connection between them, and
justifies the belief that there was one popular Latin
Version of the Bible current in Africa in the last
quarter of the second century. Many words which
are either Greek (machaara, sophia, perizoma, po-
deris, agonizo, etc.) or literal translations of Greek
forms (vivifico, justifico, etc.) abound in both, and
explain what Tertullian meant when he spoke of
the "simplicity" of the translation (compare
below § 43).
6. I'he exact literality of the Old Version was
not confined to the most minute observance of or
der and the accurate reflection of the words of the
original: in many cases the very forms of Greek
construction were retained in violation of Latin
usage. A few examples of these singular anomalies
will convey a better idea of the absolute certainty
with which the Latin commonly indicates the text
which the translator had before him, than any gen
eral statements: Matt. iv. 13, habitavit in Caphar-
naum maHtimam; id. 15, terra Neptalim vlam
maris ; id. 25, ab Jerosolymis . . . . et trans Jor
danem; V. 22, reus erit in gehennam ignis; vi. 19,
ubi tinea et comestura exterrainat, Mark xii. 31,
majns hoi-um prcecepiorum aliud non est. Luke x.
19, nihil vos nocebit. Acts xix. 26, non solum
Ephesi sed paene totius Asice. Kom. il. 15, inter se
cogitationum accusantium vel etiam defendentium.
1 Cor. vii. 32, solicitus est quse .sunt Domini. It
is obvious that there was a, continual tendency to
alter expressions like these, and in the first age of
the version it is not improbable that the continual
Grsecism which marks the Latin texts of D^ ( Cod.
Bezce), and E2 (Cod. Laud.) had a wider currency
than it could maintain afterwards.
7'. With regard to the African Canon of the N.
T. the Old Version offers important evidence. From
considerations of sfcyle and language ifc seems cer
tain that the Epistle to the Hebrews, James, and
2 Peter, did not form part of the original African
Version, a conclusion whieh falls in with fchat which
is derived from historical tesfcimony (comp. The
Hisi. ofthe Canon of the N. T. p. 282 ff.). In
the 0. T., on fche other hand, fche Old Latin erred
by excess and nofc by defecfc; for as fche Version was
made from the current copies of fche LXX. it in
eluded fche Apocryphal books which are commonl)
confcained in them, and to these 2 Esdras was earl;
added. 8. Affcer tbe translation once received a definite
shape in Africa, which could not have been long
after the middle of the second century, it was not

c Card. Wiseman has shown (Etsays, i. 24, 25)
that " interpreter " and " verto " may be used of a
revision ; bufc in connection with primis fidei tem-
poribus they seem certainly to describe the origin of
the Version.
d It would be out of place here to point out miout«
differences In reudering which show that the transla
tion waa the work of differenfc hands. Mill {Protege.
521 ff.) has made some interesting collections to
establish this result, but he places too much reliance
on the version of Di (Cod.

3454

VULGATE, THE

publicly revised. The old texfc was jealously guarded
by ecclesiastical use, and was retained there at a
time when Jerome's Version was elsewhere almost
universally received. The well-known story of the
disturbance caused by the attempt of an African
bishop to introduce Jerome's " cucurbiia " for the
old '¦'¦ hedera''' in the, history of Jonah (August.
Ep. civ. ap. Hieron. Epp., quoted by Tregelles, In^
troduction, p. 242) shows how carefully intentional
changes were avoided. But at the same time the

VULGATE, THE
text suflTered by the natural corruptions cf copying
' especially by interpolations, a form of error to
which the Gospels were particularly exposed (comp.
§ 15). In the O. T. the version was made from
the unrevised edition of the LXX. and thus from
the first included many false readings of which Je
rome often notices instances (e. g. Ep. evi. ad
Sun. et Fret). In Table A two texts of the Old
Latin are placed for comparison with the Vulgate
of Jerome.

Cod. Wirceb.
Precatus sum Dominum Deum
meum et dixi :
Domine Deus, magne et mirabilis,
qui serves testamentum tuum,
et misericordiam diligentibus te,
et servantibus prgecepta tua :
Peccavimus, fecimus injurias,
nocuimus et declinavimus
a praeceptis tuis et a judiciis tuis,
et non exaudivimus servos tuos pro-
fetas,
qui loquebautur ad reges nostros,

et ad omnes populos tervse.
Tibi, Domine, justitia :
nobis autem, et fratribus nostris,
confusio faciei ;
Sicut dies hie viro Judce
et iTdiabitantibus Hierusalem,
et omni Israel,
qui proximi sunt et qui longe sunt,
in qua eos disseminasti ibi,
contumacia eorum,
qua exprobaverunt tibi, Domine.

TABLE A. Dan. ix. 4^8.«
August. JSp. cxi. ad Victor.
Precatus sum Dominum Beiun
meum,
et confessus su/m et dixi :
Domine Deus, magne et mirabilis,
et qui servas testamentum tuum,
<et misericordiam diligentibus te,
et servantibus preecepta tua :
Peccavimus, adversus legem fecimus,
impie egimus et recessimus et de
clinavimus
a prseceptis tuis et a judiciis tuis,
et non exaudivimus servos tuos
prophetas,
qui loquebantur in nomine tuo ad
reges nostros,
et ad omnem populum terrse,
Tibi, Domine, justitla :
nobis autem
confusio faciei ;
Sicut dies hie viro Juda,
et habitantibux Jerusalem,
et omni Israel,
qui proximi sunt et qui longe sunt,
in omni terra in qua eos dissemi
nasti ibi,
propter contumaciam eorum,
quia improbaverunt te, Domine.

a The differences in tbe two first columns are marked by ItaUcs. The
Italics in col. 3 mark wbere the text of Jerome differs from both the other
texts.

Vulgata nova.
Oravi Dominum Deum meiim,i
et confessus sum * et dixi :
Obsecro Domine Deus, magne et /er-
ribilis,
eustodiens pactum,
et misericordiam (Uligentibus te,
et custodientibus mandata tua :
Peccavimus, iniguitatem 3 fecimus,
impie egimus, et recessimus et de
clinavimus
a mandatis tuis ac judiciis.
Non obedivimus servls tuis prophe-
tis,
qui locuti sunt in nomine tuo regi-
bus nostris,
principibus nostris, patribua nostris,
omnique populo terrae.
Tibi, Domine, justitia :
nobis autem 4
confusio fELciei ;
Sicut est hodie viro Juda s
et habitatoribus Jerusalem,
et omni Israel, -
his qui prope. sunt, et his qui prorml,
in universis terris ad quas ejedstj
eos
propter iniquitates eorum,
in quibus peccaverunt in te.
3 et c. 8. om. Toi.
4 a. om. Toi.

im. om. Toi.
^ inique, Toi.
* JudsB, Toi.

9. The Latin translator of Irenseus was prob
ably contemporary with TertuUian," and his ren
derings of the quotations from Scripture confirm
the conclusions which have been already drawn as
to the currency of (substantially) one Latin version.
It does not appear that he had a Latin MS. before
him during the execution of his work, but he was
so familiar with the common translation that he re
produces continually characteristic phrases which
he cannot be supposed to have derived from any
other source (Lachmann, N. T. i. pp. x., xi.).
Cyprian (t a. d. 257) carries on the chain of tes
timony far through the next century; and he is
follovreil by Lactantius, Juvencus, J. Firmicus Ma-
ternus, Hilary the deacon (Ambrosiaster), Hii^
ARY of Poitiers (t A. D. 368), and Lucifer of
Cagliari (t A. D. 370). Ambrose and Augustine
exhibit a peculiar recension of the same texfc, and
Jerome offers some traces of it. From this date
MSS. of parts of the African text have been pre
served (§ 12), and it is unnecessary to trace the
history of its transmission to a later time.
10. But while the earliest Latin Version was
a Ifc should be added that Dodwell places him much
laker, at the clOse of the 4th cent. Comp. Qrabe, Pro-
egg, ad hen. ii. § 3.
6 It is unnecessary now to exaraine the conjectures

preserved generally unchanged in N. Africa, it fared
differently in Italy. There the provincial rudeness
of the version was necessarily more offensive, and
the comparative familiarity of the leading bishopa
with the Greek texts made a revision at once more
feasible and less startling to their congr^tiona.
Thus in the fourth century a definite ecclesiastical
recension (of the Gospels at least) appears to have
been made in N. Italy by reference to the Greek,
which was distinguished by the name of Hah.
This Augustine recommends on the ground of ita
close accuracy and its perspicuity (Aug. De Boctir.
Christ. 15, "in ipsis interpretationibus Itala* cseteriit
prseferatur, nam est verborum tenacior cum per-
spicuitate sententise "), and the text of tbe Gospels
which he follows is marked by the latter charac
teristic when compared with the African. In the
other books the difference cannot be traced witt
accuracy; and it has not yet been accurately deter
mined whether other national recensions may not
have existed (as seems certain from the evidenc*
which the writer has collected) in Ireland (Britain),
Gaul, and Spaiu.

whieh have been proposed, usitat2-gua, ilia qua. They
were made at a time when the history, of the Old LatiD
was unknown.

VULGATE, THE
11. The Itala appears to have been made in
wme degree with authority: other revisions were
made for private use, in wliich such changes were
uitroduced as suited the taste of scribe or critic.
The ne.'ct stage in the deterioration of the text was
the intermixture of these various revisions ; so that
it the close of the fourth century the Gospels were
in such a state as to call for that final recension
which was made by Jerome. What was the nature
of this confusion will be seen from the accompany
ing tables (B and C, on next page) more clearly
than from a lengthened description.
12. The MSS. of the Old Latin which have been
preserved exhibit the various forma of that version
irhich have been already noticed. Those of the
Gospels, for the reason which has been given, pre
sent the difierent types of text with unmistakable
clearness. In the 0. T. the MS. remains are too
¦canty to allow of a satisfactory classification.
i. MSS. of the Old Latin Version of the 0. T.
1. Fragments of Gen. (xxxvii., xxxviii., xii.,
xlvi., xlviii.-l, parts) and Ex. (x., xi., xvi.,
xvii., xxiii.-xxvii., parts) from Cod. E. (§ 30)
of tie Vulgate : Vercellone, i. pp. 183-84,
307-10.
2. Fragments (scattered verses) of the Penta
teuch: Miinter, Miscell. Hafn. 1821, pp.
89-95.
3. Fragments (scattered verses of 1, 2 Sam.
and 1, 2 Kings, and the Canticles), given
by Sabatier.
4. Corbel. 7, Ssec. xiii. (Sabatier), Esther.
5. Pechianus (Sabatier), Fragm. Esther.
6. Orat. (Sabatier), Esther i.-iii.
7. Majoris Monast. Ssec. xii. (Martianay, Sa
batier), Job.
8. Sangerm. Psalt. Ssec. vii. (Sabatier).
9. Fragments of Jeremiah (xiv.-xli., detached
verses), Ezekiel (xl.-xlviii., detached ftag-
ments), Daniel (iii. 15-23, 33-50, viii., xi.,
fragments), Hosea (ii.-vi., fragments), from
1 palimpsest MS. at Wiirzburg (Ssec. vi.,
vii.): Miinter, Miscell. Hafn. 1821.
11. BVagmenta Hos. Am. Mich  ed.
E. Eanke, 1858, &e. (This look the writer
has not seen.)
12. Bodl. Auct. F. 4, 32. Fragments of
Deuteronomy and the Prophets, " Grsece et
Latine litteris Saxonicis," Ssec. viii., ix.'^
ii. MSS. of the Apocryphal books.
1. Beg. 3564, Ssec. ix. (Sabatier), Tob. and
Jud.
2, 3. Sangerm. 4, 15, Ssec. ix. (Sabatier),
Tob. and Jud.
4. Vatic. (Reg. Suec), Ssec. vii., Tob.
5. Corbel. 7 (Sabatier), Jud.
6. Pechian. (Sabatier), Ssec. x., Jud.
The text of the remaining books of the Vetus
Latina not having been revised bv Jerome
is retained in MSS. of the Vulgate.

VULGATE, THE

3455

a To thsse must probably be added the MSS. of
Senesis and the Psalter in the possession of Lord Ash-
burnham, said to be " of the fourth century."
The text of the Oxford MS. (No. 12) is extremely
Viteresting, and offers many coincidences with the ear-
iest African readings. The passages contained in it
ire (a) Deut. xxxi. 7 ; 24-30 ; xxxii. 1-4. (j3) Hos. ii.
18a;iv. 1-3 a I 9a; vi.l 6,2; 16; X. 12 a; xii. 6; viii.
3. 4. Amos iii. 8 ; v. 3 ; 14. Mich. iii. 2 ; lv. 1, 2 ;
» (parti ; v. 2-; vi. 8 ; vii. 6, 7. Joel iii. 18. Obad.
15. Jon. i. 8 l>, 9. Nah. iii. 13. Hab. ii 4 i> ; iii. 8.
Jertan.i. 14-16; IS (part). Agg. ii. 7, 8. Zech. i.

iii. MSS. oftheN. T.
(1.) Of the Gospels.
African (i. e. unrevised) text.
a. Chd. Vercellensis, at Vercelli, written
by Eusebius, bishop of Vercelli in the
4th cent. Published by Irici, 1748,
and Bianchini, Ev. Quadr. 1749.
6. Cod. Veronensis, at Verona, of the 4th
or 5th cent.- Published by Bianchini
(as above).
c. Cod. Colbertinus, in Bibl. Imp. at
Paris, of the llth cent. Published by
Sabatier, Versiones aniiquce.
d. Cod. Clarommilanus, in the Vatican
Libr., of the 4th or 5th cent. It con
tains a great part of St. Matthew, and
is mainly African in character. Pub
lished by Mai, Script, vet. nov. Coll.
iii. 1828.
c. Cod. Vindobonensis, at Vienna, of 5th
or Bth cent. It contains fragments of
St. Mark and St. Luke. Edited by
Alter in two German periodicals.
f. Cod. Bobbiensis, at Turin, of the Sth
cent. It contains parts of St. Mat
thew and St. Mark. The chief parts
published by Tischendorf in the Jahr-
biicher d. Literatur, Vienna, 1847 it
The text is a remarkable revision of
the African.
g. The readings of a Speculum, published
by Mai, Pairum nova collectio, L 2,
1852. Comp. Tregelles, Introduction,
240.
h. Cod. Sa.ngallensis, of the 5th or 4th
cent. It contains fragments of St.
Matthew and St. Mark. Transcribed
by Tischendorf.
t. Cod. Palat., at Vienna, of the Sth
cent. Published by Tischdf. 1847. A
very important MS., containing St.
John, and St. Luke neaily entire, and
considerable parte of the other Gos
pels.
To these must be added a very remark
able fragment of St. Luke published
by A. M. Ceriani, from a MS. of the
6th cent, in the Ambrosian Libr. at
Milan: Monum. Sacra, .... 1861;
and a purple fragment at Dublin
(Ssec. V. ) containing Matt. xii. 13-23,
published by Dr. Todd in Proceed
ings of R. I. A. iii. 374.
k. Cod. Corbeiensis, St. Matt. Edited
by Martianay and Sabatier.
Italic revision.6
I. Cod. Brixianus, of the Sth cent. The
best type of the Italic text. Published
by Bianchini, l. v. Comp. Lachm.
JV. T. i. Prsef. xiv.

4 (part) ; viii. 16, 17, 19 I : ix. 9 ; xiii. 5 ; 7. Mai. i.
6 (part), 10 i, 11 ; ii. 7 ; iii. 1. Zech. ii. 8 6 ,• Mai. iv
2, 13 ; 5, 6 a. (y) Gen. i. l-ii. 3 ; Ex. xiv. 24-xv. 3 ;
Is. iv. 1-v. 7 ; lv. 1-5 ; Ps. xii. 1-4 ; Gen. xxii. 1-19.
6 The critical value of fchese revised ante-Hiefo-
nymian texts is unduly underrated. Each recension,
as the representative of a revision of the oldest text
by tha help of old Greek MSS., is perhaps not infe
rior to the recension of Jerome ; and the MSS. in
which they are severall;r contained, though numer
ically inferior to Tulgate MSS., are scarcely inferior i>
real authority.

TABLE B. Mare ix. 44-49.

Vod. TitrceO. (a).
Et Bl pes tnu6 Bcandalizat fe,
amputa ilium :
bonum est tibi clodum introire In
vitam ateT^am,
quam duos pedes babentem
mitti in gehennam,
ubi iffnis est inextinctibiliSt
ubi vermis eorum non morie(ur,
et ignis eor^m non extinguetur.
Et si oculus scandalizat te,
exime iUitm:
bonum. est tibi luscum introire in
regnum Dei,
quam duos oculos habentem
mitti in gehennam,
ubi vermes eorum non morientta-,
et ignis non extinguetur.
Omnia hostia insaU^tWf
et bonum est sal;
quodsi sal insulsum fuerit,
in quo illut amdietis t
Habete in vobis scUem,
et paccm habete inter vos.

Cod. Veronen. (b),
£t fli pes tuus scandalizat te^
ampiUa ilium :
bonum tibi est claudum introire
in vitam atte^'nam,
quam duos pedes habentem
mitti in gehennam,
ubi vermes eorum non morientur,
et ignis eorum non extinquetur.
Quod si oculis tuus.scanualizat tc,
exime illwn :
bonum esC tibi Ivscum introire in
regnum Dei,
quam duos oculos habentem
mttti in gehennam,
ubi vermes eorum non morientitr,
et ignis eorum non extinguetur.
Omnis enim victima sale ealietw.
Bonum est sal:
quodsi sal insulsum fuerit,
iu quo illut condietis t
Habete in vobis salem,
et pacem habete inter vos.

Cod. OoJbei-t. (c).
£t si pes tuus scandalizat te,
amputa ilium a te :
bonum enim est tibi claudum in
troire in vitam aitemani,
quam duos pedes habentem,
mitti in gehennam
ignis inextinguibilis,
ubi vermis eorum non jnorieturt
et ignis eoi'um non eo^atingwslur.
Quodei oculus tuus scandalizat te,
exime eum a te :
bonum enim est tibi luscum intro
ire in regnum Dei,
quam duos oculos habentem
introire in gehennam,
ubi ignis non exstinguetur,
et vei-mts non morietur.
Omnis enim victiTna salietur;
Bonum est sal:
quod si sal infatuatum fuerit,
in quo ilium candies t
Habete in vobis sal,
et pacem habete in vobis.

Cod. Brix. ff ).
Et si pes tuns scandalizat fe,
absciae evm :
bonum est tibi clodum introire in
vitam
quam duos pedes habentem
mitti in geliennani,
in igiiem inextingutbilem ;
ubi vermis eorum non moriiur,
et ignis non extinguitur.
^odsi oculus tuus scandalizat te,
eice eum.
Bonum est tibi unum oculum ha
bentem introire in regnum Dei,
quam duos oculos habentem
mitti in gehennam ignis
ubi vermis eoinon non moritur,
et ignis non extinguitur.
Omnis enim igne salietur,
et omne sacnficium sale salietur.
Bonum est sal;
guodsi sal insulsum fuerit,
in quo condieturf
Habete in vobis salem,
et pacem habete inter vos.

Cod. Amiatinus (Vulgate).
Et si pes tuus te scandalizat,
amputa ilium :
bonum est tibi claudum Introire
in vitam xtemam
quam duos pedes habentem
mitti in gehennam
ignis inextinguibilis,
ubi vermis eorum non moritur^
et ignis non extinguitur.
Quor^ si oculus tuus scandalizat te
cicceum.*bonum est tibi luscum introire in
regnum Dei,
quam duos oculos habentem
mitti in gehennam iffnis
ubi vermis eorum non moritur
et ignis non extinguitur.
Omnis enim igne sallietur
et omnis victima sallietur.
Bonum est sal:
quodsi sal insulsum f\ierit,
in quo illud condietis f
Habete in vobis sal^
et pacem habete inter vos.

Cbd. Bobbiensis (k).*
£t si pes et scandaliziat te
putar eum
Donum est dbi clodum venire ad
vitam
quam duos pedes habentem
mitti in gehennam.

St si oculua te scandaliziaverit
exirne eum :
melius est tibi guacum^ue parte
corporis debilem introiis in reg
num Dei
quam in'effrum
in gehetma incidere
nbi ubi
ignis non extinguetur
et vepim in quo oritur
omnia autem substantia consumi-
Bonum est sal \tur.
Set si salsfatum fner.
in ouoc^illutcondistis?
ffcKieiis in vobis jpanetn.
Pacati estate in ilia uivtcem.

CO

' Vienna JoArftticAer, 1847'-48. Some of the grosser errors are corrected in the MS.; e. g. hdbete fo^r hdbetis ; salem for panem. Cbnrfistis is surely an error ofthe press for condtefis.

Harl 1775.
Post hsc erai dies festus Judsorum
et aacendit lbs Hierosolpmis
Est dutetfi HierOBoIymis
probatica jaiscina
ifUd! cognommatur Jlebraice Bethzeta*
quinque poiticus habens
in his jacebat multifcudo magna
lemauenHum csecorum claudorum
aridbrum ezpectantium
aquae motum

Erat autem quidam homo t&l
xxx octo annos habena
tn infinnitate sua
hunc^nm vidisset Ihsjacentem
et cognovisset quia muUum jlom tempus
haheret • dicit ei
Via sanus fieri? i-

Bgerton 609 (mm).
Poet hac erat dies festus Judnorum
et ascendit lbs Hierusolemis
Est autem in Hierusolemis
super probatica piscina
aguiB cognomiiiatur HebreKC Bethsaida
V porticos habens
In his enim jacebat muUitudo magna
languentium csecorum claudorum
aridorum expectantium
aquie motum
Angelus autem Dm secundum tempus
dtscendebat inpiscinam
et movebat aquam
et guicumque prtus discenderet
tn natato'ria post niotionem aquse
sanus fiebat quacvnque ten^'etur infir-
mitate
Erat autem ibi homo
xxxta et viii annos habena
Infinnitate siia
Hunc cum vidisset Ihsjacentem
et cognovigset quia jam mulpum tempus
hdberet dicit ei
Vis sanus fieri?

TABLE C. John t.
Harl. 1023 (Irishl.
Post hcec erat dies festus Judffiorum
et ascendit lbs Hierosolimis
Est autem EUerosolimis
super probatica piscina
qiiBB cognominatur Ebreice Bethsaida
V porticos habens
In liis jacebat multitudo magna
langentitan ceecorum claudorum
aridorum TiaraHiicorum expectantium
aquffi motum
Angelus autem Dm secundum tempus
lavdbatur * in natatoria
et Jiiovebatur aqua
qmcumque ergo prior discendisset
in natatoria post motianes aquoe
sanuB fiebat a longore quocumqiie tene-
batur
Erat autem homo qmdam ibi
xxxviii annos habens
in inflrmitate sua
Hunc cum vidisset Qia Jacebat *
et cognovisset quia multatm Jam tempus
htOtet dicit ei ths
YiB.sanuBfiai>ii>*

Cambr.Ek.J.%i.
Post hiec erat dies festus Judffiorum
et ascendit Ihs hiei-usolimis
super probatica piscina
quss cognominatur t Jlebreicse Bethsaida
quinque porticos habens
in his jacebat multitudo magna
lugentium csecorum claudorum
aridorum paralitieorum expectantium
aqu£e motum
Angelus autem secundum tempus
lavabatur in natatoria
et movebatur aqua
Quicumque ergo prior discendisset
in natatoria post motationem aqus
snnus fiebat a lanquore quocumque
detenebatur* hoc m grasds exemplarUnis
non habetur *
Erat autem quidam homo ibi
xxxviii aniiQs habens
in infirm itato sua
Hunc cum vidisset Ihs jacentem
et cognovisset quia multum Jam tempus
habet dicit ei
Vi$ sapus fieri?

Cambr. M. 6, SS.
Post hiec erat dies festus Judeomm
et ascendit Ihs hierusolimis
est hierusolimis
super probatica piscina
quffi cognominatur Ebreice Bedsaida
quinque porticus habens
in his jacebat multitudo magna
languentium Cfficorum claudorum
oridoruin expectantium
aquse motum
Angelus autem Dnl secundum tempus
dtscendebat inpiscinam
et mov^at aguam
quique ergo i rius diccendisset
post motionem aquse
sanuB fiebat a languore guocumqye (en*>
baiur.
Erat autem ibi homo quidam
annos habens
in infirmitate sua
hunc cum vidisset Ihs jacentem
et cognovisset quia multium Jam, tempui
habet dicit ei
Vis sanus fieri?

* Variations of B. M. Addit.^SSl.: Hierosolimam. asbraica bethsaida.

Angelus autem Dm secundum I
 ¦ ' indiB( '¦ • • '
imf. aisci

 __    — r-"-, — ,  ;,—-:-. — ; — .-'-¦' I e* movebat aguam. gui e. prius. natatoriam. 4anusf. post motum agute aguoc, I. ten.^i h. quidam. om.Ai.
temp J dpscendebat lu pisoinam et movebatur aqua et aanabatar rnius. Et qui prior descendiBaet m piscinam jacentem. j. m. tempus. Variations of Hereford GosdoIb (Analo-Saxon) : Jiideorum, in hirtuolimis e a &i

langiwntiuni. cec. ang. autem disc, et movebatur aqua (om. J>nt, etc.) eigiac.
ot. a. quae, teneb. infirm, xxx. et viii. nab. ann. audtaxt. iam m. om. **%¦.

VULGATE, THB
IB. Cod. Monacensis, of the Sth cent.
fransoribed by Tischendorf.
Jrith (British) revision."
(o.) Cambridge Univ. Libr. Kk. 1, 24.
Ssec. viii. ? St. Luke, i. 15-end, and
St. John, i. 18-xx. 17. Bentley's X.
Capitula wanting in St. Luke ; xiv. in
St. John. No Ammonian Sections.
(Plate ii. fig. 1.)
(fi.) Cambridge Univ. Libr. Ti. 6, 32.
Ssec. viii.-x. The Pools of Deer.
St. Matt, i.-vii. 23. St. iVlark, i. 1,
T. 36. St. Luke, i. 1, iv. 2. St. John,
entire. Tery many old and peculiar
readings. Nearer Vulg. than (o), but
very carelessly written. No Ammonian
Sections or Capitula. Belonged to

VTJLUATE, THB

3457

>¦ It would be impossible to enter in detail in the
pnsent place into the peculiarities of the text presented
by this group of MSS. It will be observed that copies
ire inoluded in it which represent historically the
Irish (rj, e), Scotch (fi), Mercian (^), Northumbrian (6),
and — if we may trust the very uncertain tradition
which represents the Gospels of St. Chad as written by
Giidas (comp. Lib. Landav. p. 615, ed. 1840) — Welsh
churches. Bentley. who had collated more or less
completely four of them, observed their coincidence
IQ remarkable readings, but the individual differences
of the copies, no less than their wide range both in
place and age, exclude the idea that all were derived
from one source. They stand out as a remarkable mon
ument of the independence, the antiquity, and the in
fluence of British (Irish) Christianity.
Eor the present it must sufl&ce to give a few special
readings which show the extent and character of the
variations of this family from other families of MSS.
The notation of the text is preserved for the sake of
brevity. Matt. viii. 24. — Fluctibus -|- erai autem (enim y)
iUis ¦oenttt.'i contrarius (contr. vent. ^) (y S e f)-
Matt. X. 29. — Sine voluntate Dei patris vestri qui
in calis at (sine p. vol. q. e. in c. e). Sine p. v. vol.
qui inc. e. ^¦**. Sine patre vestro voluntate, etc., ^*
Matt. xiv. 35. — Loci iUius venerunt et [om. ven. et.
& ^ tidoraverunt eum et (5 e ^).
Matt, xxvii. 49. — Alius autem accepta lanceapupu-
git (pupungit) tatus ejus et exit (-iit -ivit) aqua et san
guis (y 5 e).
Mark xiii. 18. — Ut kieme nori Jiat (-et) fuga vestra
(y fi e) vet sabbato (5 e), ut non fra (sic) fu^a vestra
himie vel .sabbato (^).
Luke xxiii, 2. — Nostram + et solventem legem (-J-
noBtram 0 et prophetas (6 e ^.
Luke xxiv. 1. — Ad mon. -|- Maria Magdalena et
¦Utera Maria et qucBdam cum eis (S e).
John xix. 30. — Cum autem expiravit (asp., e trdisot
?pm (sic) ^) velamentum (velum a e 0 tempii scfssum
est medium a summo usque (ad a) deorsum (aye f ).
John xxi. 6. — Invenietis -{- Dixerunt autem Per tO'
tarn noctem tahorantes nihil cepimus : in verbo autem
tuo mittimus (laxttemus [sic i. e. Iaxabim.uB] rete e,
mitemus (sic) ^) (y e 0-
Other readings more or less characteristic are Matt.
\U 14, matrem o?n esjus ; ii. 15, est om a Domino ; iv. 9^
vade-|-«(ro; iv. 6, de te -f- ut custodiant te in om.
nibus viis tuis ; v. 5, lugent + nunc ; t, 48, sicut
pater ; vi. 13, patiaris nos induci, etc.
Aa a more continuous specimen the following read
ings occur iu oue chapter in the Hereford Gospels in
vhich this Latin t€xt, with a few others only, agrees
slosely with the Greek : Luke xxiv. 6, esset in Gal.
7, tertia die ; 16. agnoscerent eum ; 20, tradiderunt
Vm ; 24, videxunt ; 28, finxit longius vre ; 88. qttare
togitationes ; 39. pedes meos ; 44, A«c sunt verba mea
jua tocutus sum ad vos. Other remarkable readings in

monks of Deer in Aberdeenshfre.
Comp. Mr. H. Bradshaw in thf
PHnted Catahgue.b [Spe p. 3482 a.]
(7.) Lichfield, Book of St. Chad. Ssec.
viii. St. Matt., St. Mark, and St.
Luke, i.-iii. 9, Bentley's I2
(5.) Oxford, Bodl. D. 24 (3946). Ssec.
viii. The Gospels of Mac Regol, or
the Rzishioorth MS. Bentley's ^.
No Capit., Sect., or Prefaces. A col
lation of the Latin text in the Lindis-
farne text of St. Matt, and St. Mark
(comp. p. 3475, note o), together with
the Northumbrian gloss, has been pub
lished by Rev. J. Stevenson. Defi
cient Liike iv. 29-viii. 38.^
(e.) Oxford, C. C CoU. 122. S«c. a.,

the same passage are 8, horum verborum ; 18, Respon
dens unus om. et ; 21, quo hmc omnia ; 27, et erat in
dpi ens ; 29, inclinata est dies jam.
A comparison of the few readings from the Gospels
given in the Epistle of Gildas according to tho Cam
bridge MS. ( Univ. Libr. Ld. 1, 17), for the text in
Stevenson's edition is by no means accurate, shows
some interesting coincidences with these Irish (Brit
ish) MSS. (For the explanation of the additional ref
erences see § 31.)
Matt. V. 15. — Supra y a € f K W F (6) ; v. 16, mag-
nijicent 5 (o, 6) ; v. 19, qui enim y e P (a, 6) ; vii. 2,
judicahitur de vobis e (a, 6) ; vii. 3. non consideras (a) ;
vii. 4, in oculo tuo est y ; vii. 6, miseritis (a, b) ; Tii.
15, attendite + vobis y S «^ (6) ; vii. 17, bonus fructus
50 (a, 6); id et mala maios ; vii, 23, operarii iniqui'
tatis (a) ; vii. 27, im.pigerunt 0 ; x. 28, et corpus et
anlmam, e, c. et an. y fi ; xv, 14, ceed duces sunt ; xvi.
18, infirm y6€^BH0ZK(^(a); xvi. 19, qumcun-
que ; id, erunt ligata S (b) ; xxiii. 3, vero opera fi f <f> ;
id., et ipsi non f fi e ^(b) ; xxiii. 13, gui claud. D. id.,
vos autem. 5 ^ II 0 ^.
Thus of twenty-one readings which differ from Cod.
Am. thirteen are given in one or other of those MSS.
which have been supposed to preseut a typical British
(Irish) text, and of these eleven are found in the
Rushworth MS. alone. While on the other hand nine
readings agree with Cod. Veron. and seven with t^d.
VercelL, and every reading is supported by some old
authority. Thus, though the range of comparison is
very limited, the evidence of these quotations, as far
as It goes, supports the belief in a distinct British
text. In the Evangelic quotations in the printed text of
St. Patrick, out of seventeen variations, eight (as fer
as I can find) are supported by no known Latin au
thority : the remainder are found in y, 6, e or <^. Ba-
CHiARius I have not been able to examine, though his
writings are not unlikely to offer some illustrations ol
the early text.
Seddltos (Opus Paschale), as might have been ex
pected from his foreign training, gives in the main a
pure Vulgate text in his quotations from the Vulgate.
When he differs from it (e. g. Luke x. 19, 20 ; John
xi. 43, prodi), he often appears to quote from memory,
and differs from all MSS.
The quotations given at length in the British copy
of Juvencus (Camb. Univ. Libr. Ff. 4, 42) would prob
ably repay a carefM examination.
b This MS., in common with many Irish MSS. (e.g
Brit. Mus. Harl. 1802, 2795, the Book of MacDuman,
and some others, as Harl. 1775, Cotton. Tib. A ii.) sepa
rates ihe genealogy in St. Matt, from the rest of tha
Gospel, closing v. 17 with the words Finit R-ologu.$,
and then adding incipit EvangeUum.
c The reading of this MS. in Matt. xxi. 28 ff. is very
remarkable : Homo quidam habebat duos filios et ac
cedens ad primum dixit fill vade operare in viam *
meam iUe autem respondens dixit eo dne et uon lit

B458

VULGATE, THE

xi.? Bentley's C. Has Canons and
Prefaces, but no Sect, or Capit.
(f.) Hereford {Saxon) GospeU. Ssec. viii.
(ix.). The four Gospels, with two
small lacunie. Without Prefaces,
Canons, Capitula, or Sections. A
very important copy, and probably
British in origin." (Plate ii. fig. 5.)
{n.) The Book of Armagh (all N. T.),
Trin. Coll. Dublin : written A. D. 807.
Oomp. Proceedings of S. /. A. iii.
pp. 316, 356. Sir W. Betham, Irish
AnUq. Researches, ii.''
((.) A copy found iu the Domhnach
Airgid (Royal I. Acad.), Ssec. v., vi.
Comp. Petrie, TransacUons of R. 1.
A., xviii. 1838. O'Curry's Lectures,
Dublin, 1861, pp. 321 ff., where a fac
simile is given.
(<•) (k) Two copies in Trin. Coll. Dublin,
said to be "ante-Hieronymian, Ssec.
vii." ¦=
To these must be added a large number of Irish,
Including under this term Korth British MSS.,
which exhibit a text more nearly approaching the
Vulgate, but yet with characteristic old readings.
Such are : —
Brit. Mus., Harl. 1802. Sasc. x.-xii. A. D.
1138? Prefaces all at the beginning. No
Capitula or Sections. Bentley's W. (Plate
ii. fig. 4.)
Brit. Mus., HcirU 1023. Sac. x.-xii. ? No
Capitula or Sections. (Plate ii. fig. 3.)
lambeth. The Book of Mac Duman.i^
Ssec. X. Has Sections, but no Prefaces or
Canons.
Dublin, T. C. C. The Book of KeUs. Sffic.
viii.
Dublin, T. C. C. The Book of Dwrow. Sffic.
viii.
Dublin, T. C. C. The Book of Dimma. Skc.
viii.
Dublin, T. C. C. The Book of Moling.
Ssec. viii.^
Gallican (?) revision./
Brit. Mus., Egerton, 609, formerly Majoris
Monaslerii ; iv. Gospp. deficient from
Mark vi. 56 to Luke xi. 1. This MS. is
called mm, and classified under Yulgate
MSS. in the editions of the N. T., but it
has been used only after Calmet's very im
perfect collation, and ofSjrs a distinct ty^e
of text. PriBf'. Can. No CapittUa.

¦ccedenB autem ad alterum dixit similiter at ille re
spondens ait nolo, postea autem poenitentia motus abiit
in viniam.* quis ex duob : fecit voluntatem patris.
:Ucunt * novissimus.
a For the opportunity of examining this MS. the
writer is indebted to the kindness of the Rev. J. Jebb,
i>. D-, Canon of Hereford.
& This MS. contains the Ep. to the Laodicenes, with
the note Sed Hirunumus earn negat esse PauU ;
Betham, ii. 263. The stichometry is as follows : Ma-
theux ventus habet MMDCC, Marcus MDCC, Lucas
MMDCCC, Johannis MMCCC. Id. p. 318.*
c Dr. Beeves undertook to publish the text of the
Book of Armagh, with collations of t, »c, and other
MSS. in T. C. D., b.ut the writer has been unable to
taam whether he will carry out his design. The MSS.
i]-K the writer knows only by description, and very
imperfectly. rf fus-shnlles of many of these " Irish " MSS. art
jiren iu Westwood's Paiieographia Sacra and in 0'

VULGATE, THE
(2.) Of the Acts and Epistles.
n. Cod. Bdbiensis, at Vienna. A fen
fragments of the Acts and Cath. Epp
Edited by Tischendorf, Jahrbucher d
Lit. 1. c.
0. Cod. Cprbei., a MS. of Ep. of St.
James. Ipublished by Martianay, 1695.
p. (Of St. Paul's Epp.) Cod. Chirm.,
the Latin text of D2. Published by
Tischendorf.
q. (Of St. Paul's Epp.) Cod. Sangerm.,
the Latin text of £3, said to have an
independent value, but imperfectly
known.
r. (Of St. Paul's Epp.) Cod. Boem., the
Latin text of Gg, is in the main an
old copy, adapted in some points to
the Greek.
s. (See Gospels.)
t. Fragments of St. Paul's Epistles tran
scribed at Munich by Tischendorf.
u, V. (Acts) the Latin text of Dj and Ej
(Cod. Bezse aud Cod. Laud.).
To these must be added, from the result of a
partial collection [collation ?] : —
Xl. Oxford, Bodl. 3418 (Selden, 30),
Acts. S«c. viii., vii. An uncial MS.
of the highest interest. Deficient xiv.
26, fdei — xv. 32, cum essent. Bentl.
^2. Among its characteristic readings
may be noticed : v. 34, foras modicum
apostolos secedere ; ix. 40, surge in
nomine Domini Ihu Xti. ; xi. 17, ne
daret illis Spiritum Sanctum credenti-
bus in nomine Ihu Xti.; xiii. 14,
Paulus et Barnabas; xvi. 1, et cum
circuisset has nationes pervenit in
D,erben. (Plate i. fig. 4.)
Ej. Oxford, Bodl. Laud. Lat. 108 (E,
67). Saic. ix. St. Paul's Epp. in
Saxon letters. Ends Hebr. xi. 34,
aciem gladii. Corrected apparently
by three hands. The original text
was a revision ofthe Old Latin, but it
has been much erased. In many cases
it agrees with d almost or quite alone:
e. g. Eom. ii. 14, 16, iii. 22, 26, x.20,
XV. 13, 23, 27, 30. The Epistles to
Thess. are placed before the Ep. to
Coloss. This arrangement, . which is
given by Augustine (he Doctr. Chiist.
ii. 13), appears to have prevailed in
early English MSS., and occurs in

Curry's Lectures. The text of most of them (eveu of
those collated by Bentley) is very imperfectly known,
and it passes by a very gradual transition into the or
dinary type of Vulgate. The whole question of tlie
general character and the specific varieties of these
MSS. requires careful investigation. The Table (V)
will give some idea of their variations from the com
mon text. The Stow St. John, at present in Lord
Ashburnham's coUection, probably belongs to thia
family. e These ibur MSS I know only by Mr. Westwood's
descriptions in his Palteographia Sacra ; and to Mi.
Westwood belongs the credit of first direcUog attenarai
to Irish MSS. after the time of Bentley.
/ The text of this recension, which I believe to In
contained alao in g 1, and Bentley's p (comp. p. 8477,
note c) is closely allied to the British type. As to ths
Spanish text I have no sufiicient materials to form »
estimate of its character.

VULGATE, THB
the Saxon Cambridge MS., and sev
eral other MSS. of the Bible quoted
by Hody, p. 664. Comp. § 31 (2) 8."
The well-known Harleian MS. 1772
(§ 32, (2) 3) ought to be reckoned
rather among the Old than the Vul
gate texts. A good collection of its
more striking variations is given in the
Harleian Catalogue. In the Acts and
Epistles (no less than in the Gospels)
there are indications of an unrevised
(African) and revised texts, but the
materials are as yet too imperfect to
allow of an exact determination cf the
difi'erent types.
(3.) In the Apocalypse the text depends on m
»nd early quotations, especially in Primasius.
13. It will be seen that for the chief part of the
0. T., and for considerable parts of the N. T. (e. g.
Apoc. Acts), the Old text rests upon early quota
tions (principally Tertullian, Cyprian, Lucifer of
Cagliari, for the African text, Ambrose and Au-
gustme for the Italic). These were collected by
Sabatier with great diligence up to the date of his
work; but more recent discoveries (e. g. of the
Koman Speculum) have furnished a large store of
new materials whioh have not yet been fully em
ployed. (The great work of Sabatier, already often
referred to, is still the standard work on the Latin
Versions. His great fault is his neglect to distin
guish the different types of text, African, Italic,
British, Gallic; a task whieh yet remains to be
done. The earliest work on the subject was by
Flaminius Nobilius, Vetus Test. sec. LXX. Latine
reddUum .... Romse, 1588. The new collations
made by Tischendorf, Mai, Miinter, Ceriani, have
been noticed separately.) [See also the addition at
the end of this article. — A.]
IIL The Labors of Jerome. — 14. It has
been seen that at the close ot the 4th century the
Latin texts of the Bible current in the Western
Church had fallen into the greatest corruption.
The evil was yet greater iu prospect than at the
time; for the separation of the East and West,
politically and ecclesiastically, was growing immi
nent, and the fear of the perpetuation of false and
conflicting Latin copies proportionately greater.
But in the crisis of danger the great scholar was
raised up who probably alone for 1,500 years pos
sessed the qualifications necessary for producing an
original version of the Scriptures for the use of the
Latin churches. Jerome — Eusebius Hieronymus
— was born in 329 a. d. at Stridon in Dalmatia,
and died at Bethlehem in 420 A. D. From his
early youth he was a vigorous student, and age re
moved nothing from his zeal. He has been well
called the Western Origen (Hody, p. 350), and if he
wanted the largeness of heart and generous sym
pathies of the great Alexandrine, he had more
chastened critical skill and closer concentration of
power. After long and self-denying studies in the
East and West, Jerome went to Rome a. d. 382,
probably at the request of Damasus the Pope, to
assist in an important synod (AJ). cviii. 6), where he
seems to have been at once attached to the service
)f the Pope {Ep. cxxiii. 10). His active Biblical

VULGATE, THE'

345a

labors date from this epoch, and in examining them
it will be convenient to follow the order of time,
noticing (1) the Revision of the Old Latin Version
of the N. T.; (2) the Revision of the Old Latin
Version (from the Greek) of the 0. T. ; (3) the Ne«
Version of the 0. T. from the Hebrew.
(1.) Tlie Revision ofthe Old Latin Vernon of
the N. T. — 15. Jerome had not been long at
Rome (A. D. 383) when Damasus consulted him on
points of Scriptm'al criticism (Ajo. xix. "Dilectionis
tuse est ut ardenti illo streuuitatis ingenio ....
vivo sensu scribas "). The answers which he re
ceived {Epp. XX., xxi.) may well have encouraged
him to seek for greater services ; and apparently in
the same year he applied to Jerome for a revision
of the current Latin Version of the N. T. by the
help of the Greek original. Jerome was fully sensi
ble of the prejudices which such a work would ex
cite among those " who thought that ignorance
washolinras" {Ep. ad Marc, xxvii.), but the need
of it waa urgent. " There were," he says, " almost
as many forms of text as copies " (" tot sunt ex
emplaria pene quot codices,** Prmf. in Ew.). Mia^
takes had been introduced " by false transcriptioHj
by clumsy corrections, and by carel^s interpola
tion '* {id ), and in the confiision whieh had ensued
the one reraedy was to go back to the original
source (Graca Veritas, Gneca origo). The Gospels
had naturally suffered most. Thoughtless scribes
inserted additional details in the narrative from the
parallels, and changed the forms of expression to
those with which they had been originally famil
iarized (id.). Jerome therefore applied himself to
these first ("hase prsesens prsefafciuncula poUicetur
quatuor tantum Evangelia "). But his aim was to
revise the Old Latin, and not to make a new ver
sion. When Augustine expressed to him his grat
itude for " his translation of the Gospel " {Ep. eiv.
6, " non parvas Deo gratias agimus de opere tuo
quo Evangelium ex Grceeo interpi'eiatits es'*), he
tacitly corrected him by substituting for this
phrase "the correction ofthe N. T.'* {Ep. cxii. 20,
" Si me, ut dicis, hi N. T. emendatione suscipis
. . , . "). For this purpose he collated early
Greek MSS., and preserved the current rendering
wherever the sense was not injured by it (" . . . .
Evangelia .... codicum Grsecorum emendata
coUatione sed veterum. Quae ne multum a lectionis
Latinse consuetudine disereparent, ita calamo tem-
peravimus {all. imperaviraus) ut his tantum qua
sensum videbantur mutare, correctis, reliqua manere
pateremur ut fuerant;" Prcef. ad Dam.). Yet
although he proposed to himself this limited object,
the various forms of corruption which had been in
troduced were, as he describes, so numerous that
the difference of the Old and Revised (Hieronymian)
text is throughout clear and striking. Thus in
Matt. V. we have the foUowing variations: —

Vetus Latina.b
7 ipsis miserebititr Deus,
11 dixerint ....
— propter yws(i(iaw.
12 ante tos patres eorum
(Luke vi. 26).

Vulgata nova (Hieron.),
7 ipsi misericordiam con'
seguentur.
11 dixeriat .... menti-
entes.
— propter mt.
12 ante vos.

" A very interesting historical notice of the use of
the Old Latin in the North of England Is given by
Bede, who says of Ceolfrid, a contemporary abbot,
" Bibliothecam utriusque Monasterii [Weannouth
and Jarrow] magna ^'emiaasse industria. Ita ut trea

Pandectas novBe translationis, ad unum vetustsB trans-
lationis, quem de Roma attulerat, ipse supers i^ungeret
. . . . " (Hist. Abbot. Wiremuth. et Girvnens. Quoted
by Hody, De Text. p. 409).
6 Iu giving the reatJUnga of Vetus X/nsina the writes

3460

VULGATE, THB

Vetus Latina.
17 non veni solvere legem
aut prophetas.
18 fiant : catum et terra
transibuntj verba au
tem mea non prester'
ibunt.
22 fratri suo sine caitsa.
25 es cum illo in ira-
29 eat in gehennam.
37 quod autem amphus.
il adhuc alia duo.
iQ odies.
i4 vestvoSjet benedicite qui
maledicent vobis et
benefacite.
Of these variations those in vers. 17, 44, are only
partially supported by the old copies, bufc they
iUustrate the character of the interpolations from
which the text suffered. In St. John, as might be
expected, the variations are less frequent. The Gth
chapter confcains only the following: —

Vulgata nova (Hieron.).
17 non veni solvere.
18 fiant.

22 &atri sno.
25 es in via cum eo (and
often).
29 mittatvr in gehennam.
37 quod autem his abun-
dantius.
41 et alia duo.
43 odio habebis.
44 vestros bene&icite.

2 sequebatur autem.

2 et sequebatur.

21 (Tolebant)

21 (voluerunt).

23 (quem benedixerat

23 (gratias agente Domi

Dominus (alii aliter) }.

no).

89 hsec est enim.

39 hsec est autem.

39 (Patris mei).

39 (Patris mei qui misit
me\

53 (manducare).

53 (ad manducandum).

66 (a patre).

66 (a patre meo).

67 ex hoc ergo.

67 ex hoc.

16. Some of the changes which Jerome intro
duced were, as will be seen, made purely on lin
guistic grounds, but ifc is impossible to ascertain on
whafc principle he proceeded in this respect (comp.
§ 35). Others involved questions of interpretation
(Matt. vi. 11, supersubstarUiaUs for iiriova-ios)-
Bufc the greater number consisted in fche removal
of the interpolafcions by whieh fche synopfcie Gospels
especially were disfigured. These interpolations,
unless his description is very much exaggerated,
musfc have been far more numerous than are found
in existing copies ; but examples sfcill occur which
show the important service which he rendered to
fche Church by checking the perpetuation of apoc
ryphal glosses: Matt. "iii. 3, 15 (v. 12); (ix. 21);
XX. 28; (xxiv. 36); Mark i. 3, 7, 8; iv. 19;
ivi. 4; Luke (v. 10); viii. 48; ix. 43, 60; xi.
36; xii. 38; xxiii. 48; John vi. 56. As a check
upon further interpolation he inserted in his texfc
the notation of the Eusebian Canons [New Tes
tament, § 21] ; bufc ifc is worthy of notice fchat he
included in his revision the famous peric(^e, John
vii. 53-viii. 11, which is not included ia that
analysis. 17. The preface to Damasus speaks only of a
revision of fche Gospels, and a question has been
raised whether Jerome really revised the remaining
books ofthe N. T. Augustine (a. d. 403) speaks
jnly of " the Gospel " {Ep. civ. 6, quoted above),
and there is no preface to any other books, such aa
is elsewhere found before all Jerome's versions or
editions. Bufc the omission is probably due to the
comparatively pure state in which the text of fche
rest of the N. T. was preserved, Damasus had
requested {Prcef. ad Dam.) a revision of the whole,

VULGATE, THB
and when Jerome had faced fche more invidious and
difficulfc part of his work there is no reason to think
thafc he would shrink from the completion of it.
In accordance with this view he enumerates (a. d.
398) among his works " the restoration of the
(Latin Version of the) N. T. to harmony with the
original Greek." {Ep. ad Jjucin. Ixxi. 5: "N. T.
GnecEe reddidi auctoritati, ut enim Veterum Li-
brorum fides de Hebrseis voluminibus examinauda
est, ita novorum Grsecae ( ? ) sermonis normam desid-
erat." De Vir. III. cxxxv.: "N. T. Grsecae fidei
reddidi. Vetus juxta Hebraicam transtuli.") It
is yet more directly conclusive as fco the facfc of thie
revision, that in writing to Marcella (cir. a. d. 385)
on the chaises which had been broughfc against
him for " introducing changes in the Gospels," he
quotes three passages from the Epistles in which
he asserts the superiority of the present Vulgate
reading to that of the Old Latin (Rom. xii. 11,
Domino servientes, for iempwi servientes ; 1 Tim.
v. 19, add. nisi sub duobus aufc tribus testibus;
1 Tim. i. 15, fdelis sermo, for humanus sermo).
An examination of the Vulgate texfc, with the
quotations of ante-Hieronymian fathers and the
imperfect evidence of MSS., is itself sufficient to
establish the reality and cbaracfcer of the revision.
This will be apparent from a collation of a few
chapters taken from several of the later books of ,
fche N. T. ; but it will also be obvious that the
revision was hasty and imperfect; and in later
fcimes fche line befcween the Hieronymian and Old
texts became very indistinct. Old readings appear
in MSS. of the Vulgate, and on the other hand uo
MS. represents a pure African texfc of fche Acta and
Epistles. Acts i. 4-25.

Versio Vetus.a
4 cum conversaretur cum.
illis .... quod au-
distis a me.
6 tingemini,
6 at illi convenientes.
7 at ille rfSpondens dixit.
8 superveniente S. S.
10 Intenderenfc. Comp. iii.
(4), 12 ; vi. 15; X. 4;
(xiii. 9).
13 ascenderunt in supe-
riora.
— erant habitantes.
14 perseverantes unanimes
orationi.
18 Hie igitur adquisivit.
21 qui convenerunt nobis-
ciun viris.
25 ire. Comp. xvii. 30.

Vulg.
convescens . . . quam
andistis per os meum
baptizabimini. Igitur qui convenerant
Dixit autem..
supervenientis S. 8.
intuerentur.

13

14

25

in ccenaculum ascend
erunt.
manebant. persev. unanimiter m
aratione.
Et hie quidem possedii.
viris qui nobiscum siaii
congregaii.
ut abiret.

Acts xvii. 16-34.

16 circa simulacrum.
17 Judseis.
18 seminator.
22 superstitiosos.
23 perambulans.
 culturas vestras.
26 ex uno sanguine.

16 idolotatria deditam
17 cum Judseis.
18 seminiverbiuj.superstitiosiores,
23 prateriens,
— simulacra vestra.
26 ex uno.

Bom. i. 13-15.

^as througnout con&ned himself to tbose which are
lupported by a combination of authorities, avoiding

13 Non autem arbitror.
15 quod in me £££ prompt lu
sum.

13 nolo autem.
15 quod in me promptum
est.

the peculiarities of single MSS., and (ff posfflble)of a
single family.
a See note b, p. 3459.

VULGATE, THE

VULGATE, THE

3461

1 Cob. X. 4-29.

Vorsio Vetus.
4 sequent! ae (sequent!.
q), {Cod. Aug. f).a
6 in figuram.
7 idolorum cultorea (g
corr.) efficiamur.
l2 putat (g corr.).
L5 sicut prudentes, vobis
dico.
16 quem (f, g).
— communicatio (alt.) (f,
g)-
21 participare (f, g).
29 infideU (g).

Vulg.
consequeute eos.
in figura (f), (g).
idololatrsB (idolatres, f).
efficiamini (f).
existimat (f).
ut (sicut, f, g) prudenti-
bus loquor (dico, f, g).
ciii. participatio.
participes esse.
(aliena) ; alia (f^.

2 CoR. iii. 11-18.

U dum {quod g corr.) nou
revelatw (g corr.).
18 de {a g)gloria in glori-
am (g).

14 non revetatum (f)

18 a claritate
tatem.

in tlari-

Qal. iii. 14r-25.
14 benedictionem (g). j 14 pollicitationem (f).
15 irritum facit (JTritat,Q)\lh spemit (f).
25 veniente autem fide (g).[25 At ubi venit fides (f).

PmL. ii. 2-30.

2 unum (g).
6 cum . . . constitutv^,
(g).
12 diUctissimi (g).
26 soUidtus {tcBdebatur, g).
28 soUicitus itaque.
SO parabolatUrS de anima
sua (g).

2 id- ipsum (f ).
6 cum . . . esset (f ),
12 carissimi (f ).
26 mcBstus (f ).
28 festinantius ergo {fest.
egOy f:/est. autem, g).
30 tradens animam suam.

ITm. i
1 Humanus (g corr.}.
2 docitrilem (g).
4 babentem in obsequio.
8 turpitucros.
12 JUios bene regentes (g
corr.).

ii. 1-12.
1 fidelts (f ).
2 doctorcTn (f ).
4 habentem JwArfiios (f, g),
8 turpe twirum sectantes
(f ) (turpil. s. g).
12 quiJUiis suis liene pres-
sint (f ).

(2.) The Revision of the 0. T. from the LXX.
— 18. About the same time (cir. A. D. 383) at
which he was engaged on the revision of the N. T.,
Jerome undertook also a iirst revision of the Psal
ter. This he made by the help of the Greek, but
the work was not very complete or careful, and the
words in which he describes it may, perhaps, be
extended without injustice to the revision of the
later books of the N. T. ; "Psalterium Eomse
. . . emendaram et juxta LXX. Interpretes, licet
cursim magna illud ex parte correxeram '* (Prcef.
in Lib. Ps.). This revision obtained the name of
the Roman Psalter, probably because it was made
for the use of the Roman Church at the request
of Damasus, where it was retained till the pontifi-
tate of Pius V. (a. d. 1566), who introduced the
jsllioan Psalter generally, though the Eoman
,'salter was still retained in three Italian churches
;Hody, p. 383, "in una Romse Vaticana ecclesia,
et extra urbem in Mediolanensi et iu ecclesia S.
Marci, Venetiis"). In a short time "the old
OTor prevailed over the new correction," and at

a The Latin readings of Cod. Aug. have been added,
as offering an interesting example of the admixture
¦rf a few old veadings with the revised text. These
•f Cod. Bam (g) differ, as will be seen, very widely
from them.

the urgent request of Paula and Eustochium .Jerome
commenced a new and more thorough revision
{Gallican Psalter).' The exact date at which this
was made is not known, but it may he fixed with
great probability very shortly after A. D. 387, whec
he retired to Bethlehem, and certainly before 391,
when he had begun liis new translations from the
Hebrew. In the new revision Jerome attempted
to represent as far as possible, by the help of the
Greek Versions, the real reading of the Hebrew.
With this view he adopted the notation of Origen
[Septuagint; compare Prcef. in Gen., etc.], and
thus indicated all the additions and omissions of
the LXX. text reproduced in the Latin. TBe
additions were marked by an obelus {¦*-); the
omissions, which he supplied, by an asterisk ( * ).
The omitted passages he supplied by a version of
the Greek of Theodotion, and not directly from the
Hebrew (" imusquisque . . . ubicunque viderit
virgulam praecedentem ( 4- ) ab ea usque ad duo
[iuncta ( It ) quse impressimus, sciat iu LXX.
interpretibus plus haberi. Ubi autem stellse ( * )
similitudinem perspexerit, de Hebrseis voluminibus
additum noverit, seque usque ad duo puncta, jzixia
Theodotionis dumtaxat editionem, qui simpUcitale
sermonis a LXX. interpretibus mm discwdaf,"
Praf. ad Ps. ; compare Prceff. in Job, Paralip.
Libr. Solcmi. juxta LXX. Jntt., Ep. evi. ad Sun
et Fret.). This new edition soon obtained a wide
popularity. Gregory of Toura is said to have
introduced it from Eome into the public services in
Fr.ince, and from this it obtained the name of the
GaUican Psalter. The comparison of one or two
passages will show the extent and nature of the
corrections which Jerome introduced into this
second work, as compared with the Roman Psalter.
(See Table D, on next page.)
How far he thought change really necessary
will appear from a comparison of a few verses
of his translation from the Hebrew with the earlier
revised Septuagintal translations. (See Table E.)
Kumerous MSS. remain which contain the Latin
Psalter in two or more forms. Thus Bibl. Bodl.
Laud. 35 (Saec. x. ?) contains a triple Psalter,
Gallican, Eonian, and Hebrew: Coll. C. C. Oxon.
xii. (Ssec. xv.) Gallican, Roman, Hebrew: Jd. x.
(Ssec. xiv.) Gallican, Hebrew, Hebr. text with
interlinear Latin : Brit. Mus. Harl. 634, a double
Psalter, Gallican and Hebrew: Brit. Mus. Arund.
155 (Ssec. xi.) a Eoman Psalter with Gallican
corrections: Coll. SS. Trin. Cambr., E. 17, 1,
a triple Psalter, Hebrew, Gallican, Eoman (Ssec.
xii.): Id. E. 8, 6, a triple Psalter, the Hebrew
text, with a peculiar interlinear Latin Version,
Jerome's Hebrew, Gallican. An example of the
unrevised Latin, which, indeed, is not very satis
factorily distinguished from the Eoman, is found
with an Anglo-Saxon interlinear version, Univ.
Libr. Cambr. Ff. i. 23 (Ssec. xi.). H. Stephens
published a " Quincuplex Psaltenum, Galli-
cum, Rhomaicum, Hebraicum, 'Vetus, Conciliatum.
. . Paris, 1513," but he does not mention the
MSS. from whioh he derived his texts.
19. From the second (Gallican) revision of the
Psalms Jerome appears to have proceeded to a
revision of the other books of the 0. T., restoring

6 In one place Jerome seems to include these two
revisions in one work : " Psalterium . . . certe
emendatissimum juxta LXX. interpretes nosiro labore
dudum Roma suscipit "... (Apol. adv. Ruf. it
SO).

8462

VULGATE, THE
TABLE D.

En Tables D, E, and F, the passages are taken from Martianay's and Sabatier's texts, without any refennoe tt
MSS., 60 that the variations cannot be regarded as more than approximately correct.

Vetus Latina.

{Nisi quod)
Nisi quia (quod)
SSnorasti.

nspextt me.
deprecationem.

kymnum.{Dmnxno.)jocundatwm.^pud inferos.

Ps. viii. 4-6.
Psalt. Romanum.
Quoniam videbo coelos, opera digitorum tu-
orum :
lunam et Stellas quas tu fundasti.
Quid est homo, quod memor es ejus?
aut filius hominis, quxmiam visitas eum ?
Minuisti eum paulo minus ab angelis ;
gloria et honore coronasti eum :
et constituisti eum super opera manuum tu-
arum.

Psalt, Gtdlicanum.
Quoniam videbo coelos * tuos " opera digiUv
rum tuorum ;
lunam et stellaf^ quse t tu 'f fundasti.
Quid est homo, quod memor es ejus ?
aut filius hominis, quoniam visitas eum?
Minuisti eiun paulo minus ab angelis;
gloria et honore coronasti eum,
t et " constituisti eum super opera manuum
tuarum.

Ps. xxxix. 1-4.
Exspectans exspectavi Dominum :
et respixit me ;
et exaudivit deprecationem meam ;
et eduxit me de lacu miserise,
et de Iuto fsecis.
£t statuit super petram pedes meos ;
et direxit gressus meos.
Et immisit in os meum canticum novum :
hymnum Deo nostro.

Exspectans exspectavi Domtnum ;
et intendit mihi ;
et tex"audivifc preoes meas ;
et eduxit me de lacu miseriaa,
tet "de Iuto fsecis.
Et statuit super petram pedes meofl ;
feV^ direxit gressus meos.
Et immisit in os meum canticum novum:
carmen Deo nosfaro.

Ps, xvi. (xv.) 8-11 (Acts ii.
Frovidebam Dominum in conspectu meo
semper,
quoniam a dextris est mihi, ne commovear.
Propter hoc delectatum est cor meum,
et exsultavit lingua mea:
insuper et caro mea requiescet in spe.
Quoniam non derelinques animam meam in
inferno (-um) ;
nee dabis Sauctum tuum videre corruptio-
nem.
Notas mihi fecisti vias vitse :
adimplebis me Isetitia cum vultu tuo :
delectationes in dextra tua, usque in finem.

25-28).
Providebam Dominum in conspectu meo
semper,
quoniam a dextris est mihi, ne commovear.
Propter hoc kstatum. est cor meum,
et exsultavit lingua mea :
t insuper "et caro mea requiescet iu spe.
Quoniam non derelinques animam meam in
inferno ;
nee dabis Sanctum tuum videre corruptio-
nem.
Notas mihi fecisti vias vitffi :
adimplebis me Isetitia cum vultu tuo :
delectationes in dextera tua t usque " la
finem.

TABLE E.
Ps. ixxiii. (xxxiv.) 12-16 (1 Pet. iii. 10-

Vetus Latina.
Quis est homo qui vult vitam,
et cupit videre dies bonos ?
Chhibe linguam tuam a malo :
-it labia tua ne loqnantur dolum.
Deverte a malo et fac bonum :
inquire pacem et sequere eam.
Oculi Domini super justos
Bt aures ejns ad preces eorum.
Vultus Domini super facientes mala.

Vulgata.
Quis est homo qui vult vitam,
diligit dies videre bonos ?
Frohibe linguam tuam a malo :
et labia tua ne loquantur dolum.
Diverte a malo et fee bonum :
inquire pacem, etpersequere eam.
Oculi Domini super justos
et aures ejus in preces eorum.
Vultus autem Domini super fecieu-
tes mala.

1-12). Jerome^s JYanst. from th* Hdr.
Quis est vir qui velit vitam
diligens dies videre bonos ?
Custodi linguam tuam a malo,
et labia tua ne loquantur dolum.
Recede a malo et fac bonum :
quatre pacem et persequere eam.
Oculi Domini arf justos
et aures ^us ad ctamores eornm.
Vultus Domini super fecientefi ffld-
lum.

Ps. xxxix. (xl.) 6-8 (Heb. x. 5-10).

Sacrificium et oblationem nolulsti :
aures autem perfecisti mihi.
Holocausta etiam pro delicto non
postulasti.
Tunc dixi : Ecce venio
In capite libri scriptum est de me
nt faciam voluntatem tuam.

In omnem terram exiit sonus eo
rum :
et in finibus orbis terrse verba eo
rum.

Sacrificium et oblationem noltiisti :
aures autem perfecisti mihi.
Holocaustum et pro peccalo non
postulasti :
Tunc dixi : Ecce venio.
In capite libri scriptum est de me,
utfacercTn voluntatem tuam.

Ps. xviii. (xix.) 5 (Eom. x. 18).
In omnem terram exivit sonus eo
rum.
et In Jmes orbis terrse verba eorum

Victima et oblatione non indiges.
aures /of/ '5^1 mihi.
Holocaustum et pro peccato non
petisti.
Tunc dixi : Ecce venio.
In volumine libri scriptum eflt do
me,
ut facerem placitum tibi.

In universam terram exivit »iii»
eorum :
et in ^nem rrbis verba eoram.

VULGATE, THB
JI, by the help of the Greek, to a general con
formity with the Hebrew. In the preface to the
Bevision of Job, he notices the opposition which he
had met with, and contrasts indignantly his own
labors with the more mechanical occupations of
monks which excited no reproaches (" Si aut iiscel-
lam junco texerem aut palmarum folia complicarem
.... nullus morderet, nemo reprehenderet. Nunc
autem .... corrector vitiorum falsarius vocor*').
Similar complaints, but less strongly expressed,
occur in the preface to the books of Chronicles, in
which he had recourse to the Hebrew as well aa io
the Greek, in order to correct the innumerable
errors in the names by which both texts were de
formed. In the preface to the three books of Solo
mon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles) he notices
no attacks, but excuses himself for neglecting to
revise Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, on the ground
that "he wished only to amend the Canonical
Scriptures " (" tantummodo Canonicas Scripturas
vobis emendare desiderans"). No other prefaces
remain, and the revised texts of the Psalter and
Job have silone been preserved; but there is no
reason to doubt that Jerome carried out his design
of revising all the " Canonical Scriptures " (comp.
Ep. cxii. ad August, (eir. A. D. 404), " Quod au
tem in aliis quseris epistolis: cur prior mea in li
bris Canonicis interpretatio asteriscos habeat et
virgulas prsenotatas .... "). He speaks of this
work as a whole in several places (e. g. adv. Ruf.
ii. 24, "Egone contra LXX. interpretes aliquid
sum locutus, quos ante annos plurimos diligentis-
sime emendates mese linguae studiosis dedi . . . V"
Comp. Id. iii. 25 ; Ep. Ixxi. ad Lucin., " Septua
ginta interpretum editionem et te habere non du-
bito, et ante annos plurimos (he is writing A. D.
398) diligentissime emendatam studiosis tradidi"),
and distinctly represents it as a Latin Version of
Origen's Hexaplar text {Ep. evi. ad Sun. et Fret.,
" Ea autem quse habetur in 'EloirAoij et quam non
vertimus"), if, indeed, the reference is not to be
confined to the Psalter, which was the immediate
subject of discussion. But though it seems certain
that the revision was made, there is very great dif
ficulty in tracing its history, and it is remarkable
that no allusion to the revision occurs in the pref
ace to the new translation of the Pentateuch,
Joshua (Judges, Euth), Kings, the Prophets, in
which Jerome touches more or less plainly on the
difficulties of his task, while he does refer to his
former labors on Job, the Psalter, and the books of
Solomon in the parallel prefaces to those books, and
also in his Apology against Eufinus (ii. 27, 29, 30,
31). It has, indeed, been supposed (Vallarsi,
Prief. in Hier. x.) that these six books only were
published by Jerome himself. The remainder may
have been put into circulation surreptitiously. But
this supposition is not without difficulties. Au
gustine, writing to Jerome (cir. A. D. 405), ear
nestly begs for a copy of the revision from the
LXX., of the publication of which he was then
anly lately aware {ICp. xcvi. 34, " Deinde nobis
mittas, obsecro, interpretationem tuam de Septua^
ginta, quam te edidisse nesciebam; " comp. § 34).
It does not appear whether the request was granted
or not, but at a much later period (cir. A. D. 416)
Jerome says that he cannot furnish him with " a
copy of the LXX. (j. e. the Latin version of it)
iirnished with asterisks and obeli, as he had lost
.he chief part of his former labor by some person's

VULGATE, THE

3463

treachery " (Ep. exxxiv., " Pleraque prioris laborit
fraude cujusdam amisimus"). However this may
have been, Jerome could not have spent more than
four (or five) years on the work, and that too in the
midst of other labors, for in 491 he was ah-eady en
gaged on the versions from the Hebrew which con
stitute his great claim on the lasting gratitude of
the Church.
(3.) The Translation of the 0. T. from the
Hebrew. — 20. Jerome commenced the study of
Hebrew when he was already advanced in middle
life (cir. A. D. 374), thinking that the difficulties
of the language, as he quaintly paints them, would
serve to subdue the temptations of passion to whicli
he wsis exposed ^Ep. cxxv. § 12; comp. Prcef. in
Dan.). From this time he continued the study
with unabated zeal, and availed himself of every
help to perfect his knowledge of the language. His
first teacher had been a. Jewish convert ; but after
wards he did not scruple to seek the instruction of
Jews, whose services he secured with great difficulty
and expense. This excessive zeal (as it seemed"
exposed him to the misrepresentations of his ene
mies, and Rufinus indulges in a silly pun on the
name of one of his teachers, with the intention of
showing that his work was not "supported by the
authority of the Church, but only of a second Ba
rabbas " (Ruf. Apol. ii. 12 ; Hieron. Apol. i. 13 ;
comp. Ep. Ixxxiv. § 3, and Prcef. in Parol.). Je
rome, however, was not deterred by opposition from
pursuing his object, and it were only to be wished
that he had surpassed his critics as much in gen
erous courtesy as he did in honest labor. He soon
turned his knowledge of Hebrew to use. In some
of his earliest critical letters he examines the force
of Hebrew words (Epp. xviii., xx., A. D. 381, 383);
and in A. d. 384, he hsid been engaged for some
time in comparing the version of Aquila with He
brew MSS. (Ep. xxxii. § 1), which a Jew had suc
ceeded in obtaining for him from the synagogue
(Ep. xxxvi. § 1). After retiring to Bethlehem, he
appears to have devoted himself with renewed ar
dor to the study of Hebrew, and he published sev
eral works ou the subject (cir. a. d. 389; dumsl.
Hebr. in Gen. etc. ). These essays served as a pre
lude to his New Version, which he now commenced.
This version was not undertaken with any ecclesi
astical sanction, sis the revision of the Gospels was,
but at the urgent request of private friends, or
from his own sense of the imperious necessity of
the work. Its history is told in the main in the
prefaces to the several installments which were suc
cessively published. The Books of Samuel and
Kings were issued first, and to these he prefixed
the famous Prologus galeatus, addressed to Paula
and Eustochium, in which he giv^ an account of
the Hebrew Canon. It is impossible to determine
why he selected these books for his experiment, for
it does not appear that he was requested by any
one to do so. The work itself was executed with
the greatest care. Jerome speaks of the transla
tion as the result of constant revision (Prol. Gal.,
" Lege ergo primum Samuel et Msilachim meum '¦
meum, inquam, meum. Quidquid enim crebriua
vertendo et emendando soUicitius et didicimus et
tenemus nostrum est"). At the time when this
was published (cir. A. D. 391, 392) other books
seem to have been already translated {Prol. Gal.,
"omnibus libris quos de Hebrseo vertimus"); and
in 393 the sixteen prophets " were in circulation.

¦ A «^uesti4n has been raised whether Daniel was not translated at a later time (comp. Yit. Hieron. xxi.),

3464

VULGATE, THE

and Job had lately been put into the hands of his
most intimate friends {Ep. xlix. ad Pammack.).
Indeed, it would appear that already in 392 he had
in some sense completed a version of the 0. T. {De
Vir: III. cxxxv., " Vetus juxta Hebraicum trans
tuli." This treatise was written in that year) ; «
but many books were not completed and published
till some years afterwards. The next books which
he put into circulation, yet with the provision that
they should be confined to friends (Prcef. in Ezr.),
were Ezra and Nehemiah, which he translated at
the request of Dominica and Rogatianus, who had
urged him to the task for thre^ years. This was
probably in the year 394 ( Vit. Hieron. xxi. 4), for
in the preface he alludes to his intention of discuss
ing a question which he treats in Ep. Ivii., written
in 395 {De c^iimo Gen. interpi'ei.). In the preface
to the Chronicles (addressed to Chromatius), he al
ludes to the same epistle as "lately wTitten," and
these books may therefore be set down to that year.
Tbe three books of Solomon followed in 398,* having
been " the work of three days " when he had just
recovered from a severe illness, which he suffered in
that year {PrcBf. " Itaque longa se^rotatione frac-
fcus .... tridui opus nomini vestro [Chromatio
et Heliodoro] consecravi." Comp. Ep. Ixxiii. 10),
The Octateuch now alone remained {Ep. Ixxi. 5,
i. e. Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and Es
ther, Prosf. in Jos.). Of this the Pentateuch (in
scribed to Desiderius) was published first, but it is
uncertain in what year. The preface, however, is

VULGATE, THE
not quoted in the Apology against Rufinus (a. t>.
400), as those of all the other books whicb were
then published, and it may therefore be set down .
to a later date (Hody, p. 357). The remaining
books were completed at the request of Eustochium
shortly after the death of Paula, A. d. 404 {Prctf.
in Jos.). Thus the whole translation was spread
over a period of about fourteen years, from the six
tieth to the seventy-sixth year of Jerome's life. But
still parts of it were finished in great haste (e. a.
the books of Solomon). A single day was suffi
cient for the translation of Tobit {Prcsf. in Tob.)'
and " one short effort " (una lucubratiuncula) for
the translation of Judith. Thus there are errors
in the work which a more careful revision might
have removed, and Jerome hiraself in many places
gives renderings which he prefers to those which he
had adopted, and admits from time to time that he
had fallen into error (Hody, p. 362). Yet such
defects are trifling when compared with what he
accomplished successfully. The work remained for
eight centuries the bulwark of western Christianity;
and as a monument of ancient linguistic power
the translation of the 0. T. stands unrivaled and
unique. It was at least a, direct rendering of
the original, and not the version of a version*
The Septuagintal tradition was at length set aside,
and a few passages will show the extent and char
acter of the differences by which the new transla
tion was distinguished &om the Old Latin whicb
it superseded.

TABLE F.

Vetus Latina
£t tu Bethlehem domus Ephrata
nequaquam minima es ut sis iu millibus Judffi :
ex te mihi egredietur
ut sit in principem Israel,
9t egre&sus ^us ab initio,
ex diebus scBCuli.

Mic. v. 2 (Matt. ii. 6). Vulgata nova
Et tu Bethlehem Ephrata,
parvulus es in millibus Judffi :
ex te mihi egredietur
qui sit dominator in Israel,
et egressus ejus ab initio,
a diebus cBtemitatis.

Jee. xxxviii. (xxxi.) 15 (Matt. ii. 18).

Vox in Rkama audita est,
lamentatio et fletus et iuctus,
Rachel plorantis illios suos,
et noluit conquiescerej
quia non sunt.

Vox in excelso audita est
lamentationis luctus et fletus,
Rachel plorantis filios suos ;
et nolentis [noluit] consolari
super eis [s. filiis suis], quia non rant

Hoc primum. bibe velodterfae
regio Zabulon, terra Neptalim;
et reliqui gui juxta mare estis
trans Jordanem GaliloMe gentium,
Populus qui ambulabat in tenebris
vidit lucem magnam :
qui habitatis in regioue et umbra mortis
lux orietur vobis.

Is. ix. 1, 2 (Matt. iv. 16, 16).
Primo tempore alleviata est
terra Zabulon et terra Nephthali :
et novissimo aggravata est via maris
trans Jordanem GalilEeee gentium.
Populus qui ambulabat in tenebris
vidit lucem magnam ;
habitantibus in regione umbrte mortis
lux orta est eis.

&te peccata nostra portat
et pro nobis dolet.

Is. Hii. 4 (Matt. viii. 17).
j Ynre languores nostros ipse tuUt
j et dolores nostros ipse portamt.

13 Jerome does not include him among the prophets in
the Prol. Gal. ; but in a letter written a. d. 394 {Ep.
Liii. ad Paul.) he places him distinctly among the four
greater prophets. The preface to Daniel contains no
mark of time : it appears only that the translation
was made after that of Tobit, wheu Jerome was not
ret familiar with Chaldee

a Sophronius (De Vir. 111. exxxiv.) had also then
translated into Greek Jerome's version of tlie Peahna
and Prophets.
b The date given by Hody (a. d. 388J rests on s
false reference (p. 356)

VULGATE, THE VULGATE, THE
Zech. ix. 9 (Matt. xxi. 5). Vulgata nova.

3465

Vetus Latina.
Qande vehement er, filia Sion,
prtBdica filia Jerusalem :
Ecce Aex tuus veniet tibi Justus et salvans :
ipse mansitetuj et ascendens super
sabjugalem et puUum novum.

Exsulta satis, filia Sion,
jubiia filia Jerusalem.
Ecce Rex tuus veniet tibi Justus et salvator :
ipse pauper et ascendens super
asinam et super puUum JUium asincB,

Is.
spiritus Domini super me,
propter quod unxit me :
evangelizare pauperibus misit me,
sanare contritos corde,
praedicare captlris remissionem^
et ccBcis ut videant :
Tocare annum aeceptabilem Domino
et diem retributionia :
consolari omnes lugentes.

Ixi. 1, 2 (Luke iv. 18, 19).
Spiritus Domini (al. add. Dei) super me,
eo quod unxerit Dominus me :
ad annunciandum mansuetis misit me,
ut mederer contritis corde,
et praedicarem captivis indulgentiam,
et clausis apertionem :
ut prEedicarem (al. et annunciarem) annum placalv
ilem Domino
et diem ultionis Deo nostro :
ut consolarer omnes lugentes.

St dicam non populo meo :
Populus meus es tn.
Et ipse dicet :
Dominus Deus meus es tu.

Et erit in loco ubi dictum, est €
Non populua meus vos :
Vocabuntur EHii Dei viventis.

Hos. ii. 24 (RoM. ix. 25).
Et dicam non populo meo ;
Populus meus es tu.
Et ipse dicet :
Deus meus es tu.

Hos. i. 10 (Rom. ix. 26).
Et erit in loco ubi dieetur eis :
Non populus meus vos :
Dieetur eis: Filii Dei viventis.

Is. xxviii. 16 (Rom. x. 11).
Ecce ego immittam in fundamenta Sion lapidem • • • { Ecce ego mittam in fundamentis Sion lapidcm .
et qm crediderit non corifundetur. { qui crediderit nonfestin^t.

De morte redimam illos :
tibi est causa fua, mors?
ubi est aculeus tuus^ Infeme ?

Hos. xiii. 14 (1 Con. xv. 55).
De morte redimam eos :
ero mors tua, o mors,
morsus tuus ero, Infeme.

Job iv. 15-21.

Et spiritus in faciem mihi occurrit,
Horruerunt capilli mei et cames.
Bxsurrexi et non cognovi.
bispexi, et non erat figura ante faciem meam :
sed auram tantum et vocem audiebam.
Quid enim ? Nunquid homo coram Domino mun-
dus erit,
ant ab operibus suis sine macula vir ?
Si contra servos suos non credit,
et adversus angelos suos pravmn quid reperit.
Habitantes autem domos luteas,
de quibus et nos ex eodem Iuto sumus,
percussit illos tanquam tinea,
et a mane usque ad vesperam ultra non sunt ;
et quod non possent sibi ipsis subvenire perierunt.
Afflavit enim eos et aruerunt,
Interienint, quia non habebant sapientiam.

Et cum spiritus me prsesenta transiret,
inhorruerunt piii carnis meae
Stetit quidam, ciiijus non agnoscebam vultnro
imago coram oculis meis,
et vocem quasi auree Ienis audivi.
Nunquid homo Dei comparatione justificabitUTi
aut factore suo purior erit vir ?
Ecce qui serviunt ei non sunt stabiles :
et iu angelis suis reperit pravitatem.
Quanto magis hi qui habitant domos luteas,
qui terrenum habent fundamentum,
eonsumentur velut a tinea ?
De mane usque ad vesperam succidentv
et quia nullus intelligit in setemmn peribunt
Qui autem reliqui fuerint auferentur ex eis :
Morientur, et non in sapientia.

IV. The History of Jerome's Transla
tion TO THE Invention of Printing. — 21.
The critical labors of Jerome were received, as such
labors always are received by the multitude, with
a loud outcry of reproach. He was accused of
disturbing tbe repose of the Church, and shaking
the foundations of faith. Acknowledged errors, aa
he complains, were looked upon as hallowed by
ancient usage {Prcef. in Job ii.); and few had the
wisdom or candor to acknowledge the imporfcsnce
of seeking for the purest possible text of Holy
Scripture, Even Augustine was carried away by
the popular prejudice, and endeavored to discour-
218

age Jerome from the task of a new translation
{Ep. civ.), which seemed to bim to be dangerous
and almost profane. Jerome, indeed, did little to
smooth the way for the reception of his work.
The violence and bitterness of his language is more
like that of the rival scholars of the 16th century
than of a Christian Father; and there are few
more touching instances of humility than that of
the young Augustine bending himself in entire
submission before the contemptuous and impatient
reproof of the veteran scholar {Ep. cxii. s. /.).
But even Augustine could not overcome the force
of early habit. To the last he remained faithful

3466

VULGATE, THE

to the Italic text which he had first used; and
while he notices in his Retraci^iiones several faulty
readings which he had formerly embraced, he shows
no tendency to substitute generally the New Ver-
iion for the Old." In such cases time is the great
reformer. Clamor based upon ignorance soon dies
away; and the new translation gradually came into
nse equally with the old, and at length supplanted
it. In the 5th century it was adopted in Gaul by
Eiicherius of Lyons, Vincent of Lerins, Sedulius
and Claudianus Mamertus (Hody, p. 398); but
the Old Latin was still retained in Africa and
Britain {ibid.). In tbe 6th century the use of
Jerome's Version was universal among scholars
except in Africa, where the other still lingered
(Junilius); and at the close of it Gregory the
Great, while commenting on Jerome's Version,
acknowledged that it was admitted equally with
the Old by the Apostolic See {Prcef. in Job ad
Leandrum), " Novam translationem dissero, sed ut
comprobationis causa exigit, nunc Novam, nunc
Veterem, per testimonia assumo; ut quia sedes
Apostolica (cui auctore Deo prsesideo) utraque
utitur mei quoque labor studii ex utraque fulcia-
tur." But the Old Version was not authorita
tively displaced, though the custom of the Roman
Church prevailed also in the other churches of the
West. Thus Isidore of Seville {De Offic. Eccles.
\. 12), after afiSrming the inspiration of the LXX.,
goes on to recommend the Version of Jerome,
"which," he says, "is used universally, as being^
more truthful in substance and more perspicuous
m language." " [Hieronymi] editione generaliter
omnes ecclesise usquequaque utuntur, pro eo quod
veracior sit in sententiis et clarior in verbis:"
(Hody, p. 402). In the 7tb century the traces of
the Old Version grow rare. Julianus of Toledo
(a. d. 676) affirms with a special polemical pur
pose the authority of the LXX., and so of the
Old Latin; but still he himself follows Jerome
when not influenced by the requirements of con
troversy (Hody, pp. 405, 406). In the Sth cen
tury Bede speaks of Jerome's Version as " our
edition" (Hody, p. 408); and from this time it is
needless to trace its history, though the Old Latin
waa not wholly forgotten.* Yet throughout, tbe
New Version made its way without any direct
ecclesiastical authority. It was adopted in the
different churches gradually, or at least without
any formal command. (Clompare Hody, p. 411 ff.
for detailed quotations.)
22. But the Latin Bible which thus passed grad
ually into use under the name of Jerome was a
strangely composite work. The books of the 0. T.,
with one exception, were certainly taken from his
version from the Hebrew; but this had not only
been variously corrupted, but was itself in many
f^ When he quotes it, he seems to consider au ex
planation nece»sary {De doctr. Christ, iv. 7, 15): "Ex
illius propbet«e libro potiasimum hoc faciam . .
non autem secundum LXX. interpretes, qui eliam
ipsi divino spiritu interpretati, ob hoc aliter videntur
nonnuUa dixisse, ut ad spiritualem sensum. magis ad-
moneretur lectoris intentio .... sed sicut ex Hebrseo
in Latinum eloquium, presbytero Hieronymo utrius
que linguaa perito interpretante, translata sunt." In
his Retractationes there is no definite reference, as far
as I have observed, to Jerome's critical labors. He
notices, however, some false readings : Lib. i. vil. ; Pb.
xliii. 22 (Rom. viii. 06) ; Wisd. viii. 7 ; Eccles. i. 2 ;
id. xix 4; Matt, v 22, om. sine causa; Lib ii., xii. ;
Matt. XX. 17 (duodecim for duo\. {

VOLGATE, THB
particulars (especially in the Pentateuch) at vari
ance with his later judgment. Long use, bowever
made it impossible to substitute his Psalter fbm
the Hebrew for the Gallican Psalter; and thus thin
book was retained from the Old Version, as Jerome
had corrected it from the LXX. Of the Apocry-
phal books Jerome hastily revised or translated two
only, Judith and Tobit. The remainder were le-
tained from the Old Version against his judgment-
and the Apocryphal additions to Daniel and Esther'
which he had carefullv marked as apocryphal in his
own version, were treated as integral parts of the
books. Ji. few MSS. of the Bible faithfully pre.
served the " Hebrew Canon," but the great mass,
according to the general custom of copyists to omit
nothing, included everything which had held i
place in the Old Latin. In the N. T. the only
injportant addition which was frequently interpo
lated was the apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans.
The text of the Gospels was in the main Jerome's
rerised edition; that of the remaining books his
very incomplete revision of the Old Latin. Thm
the present Vulgate contains elements which belong
to every period and form of the Latin Version —
(1.) Unrevised Old Latin : Wisdom, Ecclus., 1, 2
Mace, Baruch. (2.) Old Latin revised from Ou
LXX.: Psalter. (3.) Jerome's fee translaUm
from the original text: Judith, Tobit. (4.) Je-
rome's translation from the Oiiginal: 0. T. ex
cept Psalter. (5.) Old Latin revised from Greek
MSS. : Gospels. (6.) Old Latin cursorily re
vised: the remainder of N. T.
The Revision of Alcuin. — 23. Meanwhile the
text of the different parts of the Latin Bible was
rapidly deterioratmg. The simultaneous use of the
Old and New versions necessarily led to great cor
ruptions of both texts. Mixed texts were formed
according to the taste or judgment of scribes, and
the confusion was further increased by the changes
which were sometimes introduced by those who had
some knowledge of Greek." From this cause
scarcely any Anglo-Saxon Vulgate MS. of the 8tb
or Gth centuries which the writer has examined is
wholly free from an admixture of old readings.
Several remarkable examples are noticed belOw
(§ 32); and in rare instances it is difficult to de
cide whether the text is not rather a revised Vetus
than a corrupted Vulgata nova (e. g. Brit. Mus.
Reg. i. E. vi.; Addit. 5,463). As early as the 6th
century, Cassiodorus attempted a partial revision
of the t«xt (PsaJter, Prophets, Epistles) by a colla
tion of old MSS. But private labor was unable to
check the growing corruption ; and in the Sth cen
tury this had arrived at such a height, that it at
tracted the attention of Charlemagne. Charle
magne at once sought a remedy, and entrusted to
Alcuin (cir. A. D. 802) the task of revising the

b Thns Bede, speaking of a contemporary abbot,
saya that he increased the library of two monasteries
with great zeal, "ita ut tres i*anrffcia5 " (the name
for the collection of the Holv Scrir tures adopted by
Alcuin, in place of Bibliotheca) "nova translatiir
nis ad unum vetustse translationis, quam de Roma
attulerat, ipse superadjungeret . . . ." (Hody, p.
409). c Jerome notices this fruitftil source of error : " Si
quid pro studio ex latere additnm est non debet poni
in corpore, ne priorem translationem pro scribentiuin
voluntate conturbat " (Ep. evi. ad Sun. et Fret.)
Bede, Walafrid Strabo, and others, complain of the
same custom.

VULGATE, THE
Latin text for public use. This Alcuin appears to
have done simply by the uae of MSS. of the Vul
gate, and not by reference to the original texts
(Person, Letter vi. io Travis, p. 145). The pas-
aages which are adduced by Hody to prove his fa-
mOiarity with Hebrew, are in fact only quotations
from Jerome, and he certainly left the text unal
tered, at least in one place where Jerome points out
its inaccuracy (Gen. xxv. 8).« The patronage of
Charlemagne gave a wide currency to the revision
of Alcuin, and several MSS. remain which claim to
date immediately from his time.'' According to a
very remarkable statement, Charlemagne was more
than a patron of sacred criticism, and himself de
voted the last year of his life to the correction of
the Gospels " with the help of Greeks and Syr
ians " (Van Ess, p. 159, quoting Theganus, Script.
Hist. Franc, ii. 277).^
24. However this may be, it is probable that
Alcuin's revision contributed much towards pre-
gerring a good Vulgate text. The best MSS. of
his recension do not differ widely from the pure
Hieronymian text, and his authority must have
done much to check the spread of the interpolations
which reappear afterwards, and which were derived
from the intermixture of the Old and New Versions.

VULGATE, THE 3467
Examples of readings which seem to be due to him
occur: Deut. i. 9, add. solitudinem ; ve/iissemu8,
for -eiis ; id. 4, ascendimus, for ascendemus ; ii
24, in manu tua, for in manus tuos ; iv. 8.3, vidisii,
for vixisti ; vi. 13, ipsi, add. soli ; xv. 9, oculos, om.
tuos: xvii. 20, f litis, for flii: xx. 6, add. venient;
xxvi. 16, at, for et. But the new revision waa
gradually deformed, though later attempts at cor
rection were made by Lanfranc of Canterbury (a. d,
1089, Hody, p. 416), Card. Nicolaus (a. d. 1150),
and the Cistercian Abbot Stephanus (cir. A. D.
1150). In the 13th century Cort^ectoria were
drawn up, especially in France, in which varieties
of reading were discussed ; ^ and Roger Bacon com
plains loudly of the confusion whicb was introduced
into the " Common, that is the Parisian copy,''
and quotes a false reading from Mark viii. 38,
where the correctors had substituted conft^ssus for
confusus (Hody, pp. 419 ff.). Little more was done
for the text of the Vulgate till the invention of
printing; and the name of Laurentius Valla (cir.
1450) alone deserves mention^ as of one wbo de
voted the highest powers to the criticism of Holy
Scripture, at a tirae whe© such studies were little
esteemed. «
V. The History of the Printed Text. —

a Hieron. Qucest. in Gen. xxv. 8 ; Comm. in Ec
cles. ix. 466 ; ibid. xii. 490.
b Among these is that known as Charlemagne's Bi
ble, Brit. Mus. Add. 10,546, which haa been described
by Hug, Einl. § 123. Another is in the library of the
G*atory at Rome (comp. § 30, Cod. D). A third is in
the Imperial Library at Paris. All of these, however,
are later than the age of Charlemagne, and date prob
ably from the time of Charles the Bald, a. d. 875.
c Mr. H. Bradshaw suggests that this statement de
rives some confirmation from the preface which Charle
magne added to tho collection of Homilies arranged
by Paulus Diaconus, in which he speaks " of the pains
which he had taken to set the church books to
rights." A copy of this collection, with the Preface
(xith cent.), is preserved in the Library of St. Peter's
CoU. Cambr.
d Vercellone has g^veu the readings of three Vati
can Correctoria, and refers to his own essay upon
them in Atti della Pontif. Acad. Rom., di Arckeologia,
xiv. There is a Correctorium in Brit. Mus. Keg. 1 A,
viii. « The divisions of the Latin Versions into capitula
were very various. Cassiodorus (t 560 a d.) mentions
an ancient division of some books existing in his time
(" Octateuchi [/. e. Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth]
titulos . , , credidimus imprimendos a majoribus nos
tris ordine currente descriptos " De Inst. Div. Litt.
i), and in other books (1, 2 Chron., the books of Solo
ipon), he himself made a corresponding division. Je
rome mentions capitula, but the sections which he in
dicates do not seem to establish the existence of any
generally received arrangement ; and the variety of
the capitulation in the best existing MSS. of his ver
sion proves that no one method of subdivision could
claim his authority. The divisions which are given
In MSS. correspond with the summary of contents by
which the several books are prefaced, and vary con
siderably in length. They are called indiscriminately
capitula, breves, tituli. Marrianay, in his edition of
the Bibliotheca, gives a threefold arrangement, and as-
sigDs the different terms to the three several divisions ;
thus Genesis has xxxviii tituli, xlvi breves, Ixxxii (or
cliv) capitula. But while Jerome does not appear to
have fixed any division of the Bible into chapters, he
wranged the text iu Unes {versus, ort'xot) for conven-
fcnce in reading and interpretation ; and the lines
were combined in marked groups {membra, Kiaka). In
the poetical books a further arrangement marked the

parallelism of the answering clauses (Martianay, JVo-
legg. iv. Ad Div. Bibl.). The number of lines {versus)
is variously given in different MSS. (Comp. Vercellone,
Var. Leet. App. ad Jos.) For the origin of the present
division of the Vulgate, see BmLE, i. 307 a.
An abstract of the capitula and versus given in the
Alcuin MS., known as " Charlemagne's Bible " (Brit.
Mus. Addit. 10,546), will give a satisfactory idea of the
contents, nomenclature, and arrangement of the best
copies of the Latin Bible.
Epistola ad Paulinum. Prasfatio.
Bresit, i. e. Genesis, capp. Ixxxii. habet versos m. doo.
EUesntoth, i. e. Exodus, capp. cxxxviiii. v. iu
Leviticus, Hebraice
Vaiecra. . capp. Ixxxviiii. y- u. cco-
Numm. . . capp. Ixxviiii. habet vers. munr. ui.
Add/ibarim, Grece
Beuteronomium capp. civ. habet vers. n. do.
Praefatio Jesu Naue et Judicum.
Josue Ben Nun . capp. xxxiii. habet vers. I. dccl.
Soflim, i. e. Judicum,
(liber) . . . capp. xviii. habet vers. numr.
1. DCCL.
Ruth  none, habet ver. num. cot.
Praefatio (Prologus galeatus).
Samuhel {Regum), lib.
prim. . . . capp. xxvi. habet versus, u. coo.
Samuhel {Regum), lib.
sec. . . . capp. xviii- habet versus, u. cc.
Malachim, i. e. Regum,
lib. tert. capp, xviiii.
(for xviii.) habet vers, ii. d.
Malachim, i. e. Regum,
lib. quart. . capp. xvii. habet versus n. ccl-
Prologus. _
Isaias  none, habet vers. m. dlxxz.
Prologus. Hieremias (with Lam. and
Prayer) . . . none, habet versus iiii. ooooi
Prologus. Hiezecheel {-iel) . . none. none.
Danihel ... none, habet versus i. iKJOOIt-
Osee, Johel, Amos, Abdias,
Jonas, Mic/ias, Naum,
Abacuc, Sophonias, Ag-
geus, Zacharias, Mdla-
chias . . ¦ none. none.
Prologus.

3468

VULGATE, THE

25. It was a noble omen for the future progress of
printing that the first book which issued from the
press was the Bible; and the splendid pages ofthe
Mazarin Vulgate (Mainz, Gutenburg and Fust)
stand yet unsurpassed by the latest efforts of typog
raphy. This work is referred lo about the year
1455, and presents the common text of the 15th
century. Other editions followed in rapid succes
sion (the first with a date, Mainz, 1462, Fust and
Schoiffer), but tbey offer nothing of critical interest.
The first collection of various readings appears in a
Paris edition of 1504, and others followed at Venice
and Lyons in 1511, 1513; but Cardinal Xiraenes
(1502-1517) was the first who seriously revised the
I^tin text (" . . . contulimus cum quamplu-
rimis exemplaribus venerandse vetustatis; sed his
maxime, quse in publica Complutensis nostrse
Universitatis bibliotheca reconduntur, quse supra
octingentesimum abhinc annum litteris Gothicis
conscripta, ea sunt sinceritate ut nee apicis lapsus
possit in eis deprehendi," Prmf.)^., to which he
assigned the middle place of honor in his Polyglott

tob  none. v. i. ncc.
Origo Proph. David, Prsefatio.
Liber Psalmorum ((jallican) none, habet vr. v.
Epist. ad Chroni. et Heliod.
Liber Proverbiorum capp. Ix. habet versus i. dccxl.
Ecclesiastes , . capp. xxxi. none.
Cantica Canticorum . none, habet versus cctxxx.
Liber Sapientim capp. xlviii. habet versus i. ncc.
Ecdesiasticus . capp. cxxvii. habet versus u. dccc.
Prseiatio.Dabreiamin, lib. prim. none. hab. (sic)
Paralypominon (Ub.
sec.)  none. none.
Prsefatio. Liber Ezree . . . 
Prologus. Hester (with add. )
Praefe.tio. Tobias ....
Prologus.Judith ....
Liber Macliabr. prim.
Machabr. liber sec.
Praef. ad Damasum.
Argumentxun.Canones.
Prologus.Mattheus . . capp. Ixxxi. habet vers. u. nco.
Marcus . , . capp. xlvi. habet v- I- Dcc.
Lucas . . . capp. Ixxiii. vers, iii, dcco.
Johannes . . capp. xxxv. vers. i. doco.
Ub. Actuum Apost. capp. Ixxiiii. habet vers. uT. no.
Prologus septem JEpistolarum Can.
Bpistl. Sci. Jacobi . capp. xx. none.
Epistl. Set. Petri prim. capp. xx. 
Bpistl. Set. Petri sec. capp. xi. 
Bpistl. Set. Joh. prim. capp. xx. —
Epistl. Sel. Joh. sec. . capp. v. 
Epistl. Sci. Joh. tert. . capp. vi. 
Bpistl. Sci. Jud. . . capp. vii. 
Bpla. ad Rom,anos . capp. li. habet versus DCCCCXl.
Epla. ad Cor. prim. capp. Ixxii. none.
E^la. ad Cor. sec. capp. xxviii. habet vers, ccxcn.
Epla. ad Galathas capp. xxxvii. habet versus ccxm.
Bpla. ad Ephesios capp. xxxi. habet versus cccxvn.
Epla. ad PhiUppenses capp. xviiii. none.
Epla. ad Thess. prim. capp. xxv. habet versus ccxin.
Epla. ad Thess. sec. capp. villi, none.
Epla. ad Colosenscs capp. xxxi. none.
Bpla. ad Tim. prvm. capp. xx!x. vers, ccxxx.
Bpla. ad Tim. sec. capp. xxv. none.
Bpla. ad Tit. , . capp. x- none.

none, habet, versus v. Dco.

none. none.

 habet versus i
Ixi. none.
lv. 

VULGATE, THE
between the Hebrew and Greek texts [comp. Nea»
Testament, iii. 2129 b] . The Complutensian text
is said to be more correct than those which pre-
ceded it, but still it is very far from being pure.
This was followed in 1528 (2d edition 1532) by ari
edition of R. Stephens, who had bestowed great
pains npon the work, consulting three MSS. of
high character and the earlier editions, but as yet
the best materials were not open for use. About
the same time various attempts were made to cor
rect the Latin from the original texts (Erasmus
1516; 6 Pagninus, 1518-28; Card. Cajetanua';
Steuchius, 1529; Clarius, 1542), or even to make
a new Latin version (Jo. Campensis, 1533). A
more iraportant edition of R. Stephens followed in
1540, in which he made use of twenty MSS. and
introduced considerable alterations into his former
text. In 1541 another edition was published by
Jo. Benedictus at Paris, which was based ou the
collation of MSS. and editions, and was often
reprinted afterwards. Vercellone speaks much
more highly of the Biblia Ordinaria, with glosses.

Epla. ad Philem.. . capp. iiii. none.
Bpla. ad Hebr. capp. xxxviiii. none.
Epla. ad iModieenses none. none.
Apocalypsis . , capp. xxv. habet versus i. dcco.
An argumenSu7n is given before each of the boobs
of the N. T. except the Catholic Epistles and the Epis-'
tie to the Laodiceans, and the whole MS. closes with
sixty-eight hexameter Latin verses.
The divisions agree generally with Brit. Mus. Harl.
2805, and Lambeth 3, 4. In the Vallicellian Alcmn
MS. (comp. p. 3474 d) the apocryphal Ep. to the Lath
diceans is not found ; but it occurs in the same posi
tion in the great Bible in the King's Library (1 B. vii.
viii.), with four capitula.
Many examples of the various divisions into capitis
are given at length by Thomaaius, Opera, i. ed. Vas-
zosi, RomeB, 1747- The divisions of the principal
MSS. which the writer has examined are given be
low, § 30.
Bentley gives the following stichometiy from Cod.
Sangerm. (g) : —
Ep. ad Rom,, Scribta de Chorintho. Versos dccco.
(so two other of B.'s MSS.).
ad Cor. i., Scribta de Philipis. Versus DOCCiax
ad Cor. ii., Scribta de Macedonia. Versa
DLXX. (sic).
ad Galat., Scribta de urbe Roma. Ferti
CCLXmJEO. (sic).
ad Ephes., Scribta de urbe Roma. Versus
cccxn.
ad Philip., Scrota de urbe Roma. Versi OCOt.
ad Coloss., Scribta de urbe Roma. Versi ccvin.
ad Thess. i., Scripta de Athenis. Versi OLXnn.
ad Thess. ii., Scripta de urbe Roma. Versus
WUl.
ad Tim. i. , Scribta de Ijiuditia. Versus ccxxx.
ad Tim. ii., Scripta a Roma. Versus clxxd.
ad Tit., Scripta de Nicopolin. Versus LXTO.
ad Philem., Scribta de urbe Roma, Versus
xxxnn.
ad Hebr., Scribta de Roma. Versus DOO.
No verses aru given irom this MS. for the other
books. a The copy which is here alluded to is still in the
library at Alcala, but the writer is not aware that it
has been reexamined by any scholar. There is also a
second copy of the Vulgate of the 12th cent, A list
of Biblical MSS. at Alcala is given in Dr. Tregelles'
Printed Text of N. T., pp. 15-18.
b Erasmus himself wished to publish the Latin text
as he found it in MSS. ; but he was dissuaded by the
advice of a friend, " urgent rather than wise " (" amid
consiliis improbls verius quam fellcibus ").

VULGATE, THE
etc , published at Lyons, 1545, as giving readings
in accordance with the oldest MSS., though the
sources from which they Are derived are not given
{Varice Led. xcix.). The course of controversy
m the 16th century exaggerated the importance of
tbe differences in the text and interpretation of the
Vulgate, and the confusion called for sorae remedy.
An authorized edition became a necessity for the
Romish Church, and, however gravely later theo
logians may have erred in explaining the policy or
intentions of the Tridentine Fathers on this point,
there can be no doubt tbat (setting aside all refer
ence to the oi-iginal t«xts) the principle of their
decision — the preference, that is, of the oldest
Latin text to any later Latin version — waa sub-
Btantially right.^
The Sixtine and Clementine Vulgates. — 26.
Tbe first session of tbe Council of Trent was held
on Dec. 13th, 1545. After some preliminary
arrangements the Nicene Creed was formally pro
mulgated as the foundation of the Christian faith
on Keb. 4th, 1546, aud then the Council proceeded
to the question of the authority, text, and inter
pretation of Holy Scripture. A committee was
appointed to report upon the subject, which held
private meetings from Feb. 20th to March 17th.
Considerable varieties of opinion existed as to the
relative value of the original and Latin texts, and
the final decree was intended to serve as a com
promise.'' This was made on April Sth, 1546, and
consisted of two parts, the first of which contains the
Ust of the canonical books, with the usual anathema
ou those who refuse to receive it; while the second,
"On the Edition and Use of the Sacred Books,"
contains no anathema, so that its contents are not
articles of faith.*' The wording of the decree itself
contains several marks of the controversy from
which it arose, and admits of a far raore liberal
construction thati later glosses have affixed to it.
In affirming the authority of the * Old Vulgate ' it
contains no estimate of the value of tbe original
texts. The question decided is siraply the relative
merits of the current Latin versions (" si ex
omnibus Latinis versionibus quse circumferuntur
.... "), and this only in reference to 2^bliC'
exercises. The object contemplated is the advan-
t^e (utilitas) of the Church, and not anything
essential to its constitution. It was further en
acted, as a check to the license of printers, that
" Holy Scripture, but especially the old and com
mon (Vulgate) edition (evidently without excluding
the original texts), should be printed as correctly
as possible." In spite, however, of the compara
tive caution of the decree, and the interpretation
which was affixed to it by the highest authorities,
it was received with little fivor, and the want of a
standard text of the Vulgate practically left the

VULGATE, THE

3469

a Bellarmin justly insists on this fact, which has
i sen strangely overlooked in later controversies (i3e
Verbo Dei, x. ap. Vau Ess, § 27) : " Nee enim Patres
[Tridentini] fontium uUam mentionem fecerunt. Sod
solum es tot latinis versionibus, quae nunc circum
feruntur, unam delegerunt, quam ceteris anteponerent
.... antiquam novis, probatam longo usu recenti-
L^ adhuc, ac ut sic loquar, crudis . ¦ . . . "
& The original authorities are collected and given
fcc length by Van Ess, § 17.
c Insuper eadem Sacrosancta Synodus considerans
MD parum utilitatis accedere posse ecclesise Dei, ai ex
omnibus latinis editionibus. quse circumferuntur
lacrorum librorum, quaeoam pro autheotica habenda
lit, innotescat, statuit et declarat, ut haec ipsa vetus

question as unsettled as before. The decree itself
was made by men little fitted to anticipate the
difficulties of textual criticism, but afterwards these
were found to be so great that for some time it
seemed that no authorized edition would appear.
The theologians of Belgium did something to meet
the want. In 1547 the first edition of Henteniua
appeared at Louvain, which had very considerable
influence upon later copies. It was based upon
the collation of Latin MSS. and the Stephanie
edition of 1540. In the Antwerp Polyglott of
1568-1572 the Vulgate was borrowed from the
Complutensian (Vercellone, Vai: Led. ci.); but
in the Antwerp edition of the Vulgate of 1573-74
the text of Hentenius was adopted with copious
additions of readings by Lucas Brugensis. This
last was designed as the preparation and temporary
substitute for the Papal edition: indeed it may be
questioned whether it was not put forth as the
"correct edition required by the Tridentine d&-
cree" (comp. Lucas Brug. ap. Vercellone, cii.).
But a Papal board was already engaged, however
desultorily, upon the work of revision. The earliest
trace of an attempt to realize the recommendations
of the Council is found fifteen years after it was
raade. In 1561 Paulus Manutius (son of Aldus
Manutius) was invited to Rorae to superintend the
printing of Latin and Greek Bibles (Vercellone,
Var, Led. etc., i- Prol. xix. n.). During that
year and the next several scholars (with Sirletus
at their head) were engaged in the revision of the
text. In the pontificate of Pius V. the work was
contiimed, and Sirletus still took a chief part in it
(1569, 1570, VerceUoue, I. c. xx, n.), but it was
currently reported that the difficulties of publishing
an authoritative edition were insuperable. Nothing
further was done towards the revision of the Vul
gate under Gregory XIIL, but preparations were
raade for an edition of the LXX. This appeared
in 1587, in the second year of the pontificate of
Sixtus v., who had been one of the chief promoters
of the work. After the publication of tbe LXX.,
Sixtus iramediately devoted himself to the produc
tion of an edition of the Vulgate. He was him
self a scholar, and his imperious genius led him to
face a task from which others had shrunk. *' He
had felt," he says, "from his first accession to the
papal throne (1585), great grief, or even indigna
tion (indigne ferentes), that the Tridentine decree
was still unsatisfied; " and a board was appointed,
under the presidency of Card. Carafa, to arrange
the raaterials and offer suggestions for an edition.
Sixtus himself revised the text, rejecting or con^
firming the suggestions of the board by his absolute
judgment; and when the work was printed he
examined the sheets with the utmost care, and
corrected the errors with his own hand.<=' The

et vulgata editio, quae longo tot seculorum usu in ipsa
ecclesia probata est, in publicis lectionibus, disputa-
tionibus, prasdicationibus et exposi tionibus pro au-
thentica habeatur ; et ut nemo illam r^icere quovis
praetextu audeat vel praesumat  Sed et impres-
soribus modum  imponere volens  de-
crevit et statuit ut posthac sacra scviptuTa, pot issimum
vero hsec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio quam emenda-
tissime imprimatur 
d The original words are both interesting and im
portant : " Nos .... ipsius Apostolorum Principis
auctoritate confisi . ¦ haudquaquam gravatt
sumus .... hunc quoque non mediocrem accurate
lucubrationis laborem suscipere, atque ea omnia
perlegere quae alii coUegerant aut senserant, diver-

UIO

VULGATE, THE

edition appeared in 1590. with the famous consti
tution jEternus ille (dated March 1st, 1589) pre
fixed, in which Sixtus affirmed with characteristic
decision the plenary authority of the edition for all
future time. " By the fullness of Apostohcal
power " (such are his words) " we decree and de
clare that this edition . . . .• approved by the
authority delivered to us by the Lord, is to be
received and held as true, lawful, authentic, and
unquestioned, in all public and private discussion,
reading, preaching, and explanation." « He further
forbade expressly the publication of various read
ings in copies of the Vulgate, and pronounced that
all readings in other editions and MSS. which vary
irora those of the revised text " are to have no
credit or authority for the future " (ea in iis quse
huic nostrse editioni non consenserint, nullam in
posterum fidem, nullamque auctoritatem habitura
esse decernimus). It was also enacted that the
new revision should be introduced into all missals
and service-books; and the greater excommunica
tion was threatened against all who in any way
contravened the constitution. Had tbe life of Sixtus
been prolonged, there is no doubt but that his iron
will would have enforced the changes which he
thus peremptorily proclaimed ; but he died in Aug.
1590, and those whom he had alarmed or offended
took immediate raeasures to hinder the execution
of his designs. Nor was this without good reason.
He had changed the readings of those whom he
had eraployed to report upon the text with the raost
arbitrary and unskillful hand ; and it was scarcely
an exaggeration to say that his precipitate " selt-
reliance had brought the Church into the most
serious peril." ^ During the brief pontificate of
Urban VII. nothing could be done ; but the reaction
was not long delayed.
On tlie accession of Gregory XIV. some went
so far as to propose that the edition of Sixtus
should be absolutely prohibited; but Bellarmin
suggested a middle course. He proposed that

sarum lectionum rationes perpendere, sanctorum doc-
torum sententias recognoscere : quae quibus antefe-
renda estfent dijudicare. adeo ut in hoc laboriosissimae
emendationis curriculo, in quo operam quotidianam,
eamque pluribus horis coUocandam duximus, aliorum
quidem labor fuerit in consuleudo, noster autem in eo
quod ex pluribus esset optimum deligendo : ita tamen
ut veterem multis in Ecclesia abhinc sajculis receptam
lectionem omnino retinuerimus. Novam interea Typo-
graphiam in Apostolico Vaticano Palatio nostro . . . .
exstruximus . . . . ut in ea emendatum jam Biblio
rum volumen excuderetur ; eaque res quo magis
incorrupte perficeretur, nostra nos ipsi manu correxi-
mus, si qua praelo vitia obrepserant, et quae confusa
aut facile confundi posse videbantur .... distinxi-
nus " (Hody, p. 496 ; Van Ess, p. 273).
a '".... ex certa nostra scieutia, deque Apos-
\7lica3 potestatis plenitudine statuinius ac declaramus,
eam Vulgatam sacrae, tarn veteris, quam novi Testa
menti paginte liatinam editionem, quae pro authentica
a Concilio Tridentino recepta est, sine uUa dubitatione,
aut coutroversia censendam esse hanc ipsam, quam
nunc, prout optime fieri poterit, emendatum et in
Vaticana Typographia impressam in universa Chris-
tianii Republica. atque in omnibus Christian! orbis
Ecclesiis legendam evulgamus, decernentes eam . .
pro vera, Icgicima, authentica et indubitata, in omnl-
bu)> publici.H privatisque disputatlonibus, lectiooibuR,
prsedicutionibus, et explanationibus recipiendam et
teniindnui esse."
'j Bellarmin to Clement VIII. : " No vit teafcitudo
veatrti cui se totamque ecclesiam discrimiui conmiiaerit
Bixtas V. diim juxta propries doctrina"- sensus sacrorum

VULGATE, THB
the erroneous alterations of the text which had
been made in it ("qu£e male mutata erant")
« should be corrected with all possible speed and
the Bible reprinted under the name of Sixtus, with
a prefatory note to the effect that errors (aliqua
errata) had crept into the former edition by the
carelessness of the printers." ^ This pious fraud
or rather daring falsehood,'' for it can be called by
no other name, found favor with those in power.
A commission was appointed to revise the Sixtme
text, under the presidency of the Cardinal Coloiina
(Columna). At first the commissioners made but
slow progress, and it seemed likely that a year
would elapse before the revision was completed
(Ungardli, in Vercellone, Proleg. Iviii.). The
mode of proceedings was therefore changed, and the
comnoission moved to Zagarolo, the country seat
of Colonna; and, if we may bdieve the inscription
which still commemorates the event, and the cur
rent report of tbe time, the work was completed m
nineteen days. But even if it can be shown that
the work extended over six months, it is obvious
that there was no time for the examination of new
authorities, but only for makuig a rapid reviBion
with the help of the materials already collected.
The task was hardly finished when Gregory died
(Oct. 1591), and the publication of the revised text
was again delayed. His successor, Innocent IX.,
died within the same year, and at the begimiing
of 1592 Clement VIII. was raised to the popedonb.
Clement entrusted the final revision of the text to'
Toletus, and the whole was printed by Aldus
Manutius (the grandson) before the raid of 1592.
The Preface, which is moulded upon that of Sixtus,
was written by Bellannin, and is favorably distan-
guished from that of Sixtus by its temperance and
even modesty. The text, it ^ said, had been pre
pared with the greatest care, and though not abso
lutely perfect was at least (what is no idle boast)
raore correct than that of any former edition.
Some readings indeed, it is allowed, had, though

bibliorum emendationem aggressus est ; nee satis bcio
an gravius unquam periculum occunerit " (Van Ess,
p. 290).
c The following is the original passage quoted by
Van Ess from the first edition of Bellarmin's Auto
biography (p. 291), anno 1591 : " Cum Gregoriua XIV.
cogitaret quid agendmn esset de bibliis a Sixto V.
editis, in quibus exa.nt permulta perperam mutata,Tioik
deerant viri graves, qui censerent ea biblia esse pub-
lice prohibenda, sed N. (Bellarminus) coram pontifice
demonstravit, biblia ilia non esse prohibenda, sed esse
ita corrigenda, ut salvo honore Sixti V. pontificis biblia
ilia emendata proderentur, quod fieret si quam cele^
rime toUerentur qua male mutata erant, et biblia
recuderentur sub nomine ejusdem Sixti, et addita
praefatione qua significaretur in prima editione Sixli
preB festinatione irrepsisse aliqua errata, vel typogia-
phorum vel aliorum incuria, et sic N. reddidit Sixto
pontifiei bona pro malis." The last words refer to
Sixtus' condemnation of a thesis of Bellarmin, in which
he denied " Papam esse dominum directum totiofl
orbis ; '¦ and it was this whole passage, and not the
Preface to the Clementine Vulgate, whicb cost Bellar
min his canonization (Van Ess, irom the original doc
uments, pp. 291-818). It will be observed that Bel
larmin first describes the errors of the Sixtine edition
really as deliberate alterations, and theu proposes to
represent them as errors.
d The evidence collected by Van Kbo (pp. 285 ff-))
and even the cautious admissions of Diigarelli and
Vercellone (pp. xxxix.-xliv.), will prove that this Isn
guage is not too strong.

VULGATE, THE
im>Dg, ^.een left unchanged, to avoid popular
jffense " But yet even here Bellarmin did not
gcruple to repeat the fiction of the intention of
Sixtus to recall hia edition, which still disgraces
the front of the Roman Vulgate by an apology no
less needlras than untrue.'' Another edition fol
lowed in 1593, and a third in 1598, with a triple
Ust of errata, one for each of the three editions.
Other editions were afterwards published at Rome
(comp. Vercellone, civ.), but with these corrections
the history of the authorized text properly con
cludes. 27. The respective merits of the Sixtine and
Clementine editions have been often debated. In
point of mechanical accuracy, the Sixtine seems to
be clearly superior (Van Ess, 365 ff.), but Van
Ess has allowed himself to be misled in the esti
mate which he gives of the critical value of the
Sixtine readings. The collections lately published
by Vercellone ^ place in the clearest light the strange
and uncritical mode iu which Sixtus dealt with the
evidence and results submitted to him. Tbe rec
ommendations of the Sixtine correctors are marked
by singular wisdom and critical tact, and ui almost
every case where Sixtus departs from them he is in
error. This will be evident frora a collation of
the readings iu a few chapters as given by Vercel
lone. Thus in the first four chapters of Genesis
the Sixtine correctors are right against Sixtus : i.
2, 27, 31; ii. 18, 20; iii. 1, 11, 12, 17, 21, 22; iv.
1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 19 ; aud on the other hand

VULGATE, THE

3471

« This fact Bellarmin puts in stronger light when
writing to Lucas Brugensis (1603) to acknowledge his
critical collations on the text of the Vulgate ; " De
lit>ello ad me misso gratias ago, sed scias velim biblia
vulgata non esse a nobis accuratissime castigata, multa
enim de industria justLs de causis pertransivimus, qui£
oorrectione indigere videbantur."
b The original text of the passages here referred to
is full of interest: "Sixtus V  opus tandem
confectum typis mandari jussit. Quod cum jam e.'^set
excusuin et ut in lucem emitteretur, idem Pontifex
operam daret [implying that the edition was not pub
lished], animadvertens non pauca in Sacra Biblia preli
vitia irrepsisse, quae iterata diligeutia indigere videren-
tur, totum opus sub incudem revocandum censuit
atque decrevit [of this there is not the faintest shadow
of proof]  Accipe igitur, Christiane lector
.... ex Vaticana typographia veterem ac vulgatam
sacrae scripturae editionem, quanta fieri potuit dili
geutia castigatam : quam quidem sicut omnibus
numerls absolutam. pro humana imbecillitate affirmare
difficile eat, ita ceteris omnibus quae ad hanc usque
diem prodierunt emendatiorem, purioremque esse,
minime dubitandum  In hac tamen pervulgata
lectione sicut nonnuUa consulto mutata, ita etiam
alia, quae mutanda videbantur, consulto immutata
reUctasunt, turn quod ita faciendum esse ad offensio-
nom populorum vitandam S. Hieronymus non semei
admouuit turn quod . . . ." The candor of these
words contrasts strangely with the folly of later cham
pions ofthe edition.
In consequence of a very amusing mistranslation
ofa phrase of Hug, it has been commonly stated in
England that this Preface gained, instead of cost,
Bellarmin his canonization : (Hug, Einl. 1. 490,
" Welche ibn um seine Heiligsprechung gebracht
kaben soil"). The real offense lay in the words
luoted above (p. 3470, note c).
c The most important of these is the Codex Cara-
fianus, a copy of the Antwerp edition of 1583, with
ths MS. corrections of tOie Sixtine board. This waa

Sixtus is nght against the correctors in i. 15. The
Gregorian correctors, therefore (whose results are
given in the Clementine edition), in the main sim
ply restored readuags adopted by the Sixtine board
and rejected by Sixtus. In the book of Deuteron
omy the Clementine edition follows the Sixtine
correctors where it differs from the Sixtine edition :
i. 4, 19, 31; ii. 21; iv. 6, 22, 28, 30, 33, 39; v.
24; vi.4; viii.l; ix.9; x.3; xi. 3; xii. 11, 12, 15,
&c. ; and every change (except probably vi. 4 ; xii. 11,
12) is right; while on the other hand in the same
chapters there are, as far as I have observed, only
two instances of variation without the authority of
the Sixtine correctors (xi. 10, 32). But in point
of fact the Clementine edition erra by excess of cau
tion. Within the same limits it follows Sixtus
against the correctors wrongly in ii. 33 ; iii. 10, 12,
13, 16, 19, 20; iv. 10, 11, 28, 42; vi. 3; xi. 28;
and in the whole book admits in the following pas
sages arbitrary changes of Sixtus: iv. 10; v. 24;
vi. 13; xii. 15, 32; xviu. 10, 11; xxix. 23.<^ In
the N. T, as the report of ijie Sixtine correctors
has not yet been published, it is impossible to say
how far the same law holds good; but the follow
ing comparison of the variations of the two editions
in continuous passages of the Gospels and Epistles
will show that the Clementine, though not a pure
text, is yet very far purer than the Sixtine, which
often gives Old Latin readings, and sometimes
appears to depend simply on patristic authority «
{i. e. pp. U.): —

found by Ungarelli in the Library of the Roman Col
lege of SS. Blaise and Charles. Comp. Vercellone,
Prfj?/ \i.
d The common statement that the Clementine edi
tion follows the revision of Alcuin, while the Sixtine
gives the true text of Jerome, ia apparently a mere
conjectural assertion. In Deuteronomy, Sixtus gives
the Alcuinian reading in the following passages : i. 19 ;
iv. 30, 33 ; xxi. 6 ; and I have not observed one pas
sage where tho Clementine text agrees with that ol
Alcuin unless that of Sixtus does also.
Passages have been taken from the Pentateuch, be
cause in that Vercellone has given complete and trust
worthy materials. The first book of Samuel, in which
the later corruptions are very extensive, gives results
generally of the same character. Great and obvious
interpolations are preserved both in the Sixtine and
Clementine editions : iv. 1 ; v. 6 ; x. 1 ; xiii. 15 ; xiv
22, 41 ; XV. 3, 12 ; xvii. 36 ; xx. 15 (chiefly from the
LXX.). The Sixtine text gives the old reading dis
placed from the Clementine : iii. 2, 3 ; iv 1 , 4 ; vii.
10 (?) ; ix. 1 (?), 25. The Clementine restores the oU
reading against Sixtus : i. 9, 19 ; ii. 11, 17, 26, 30 ; iv.
9 (?), (21) ; vi 9 ; ix. 7 ; X. 12 ; xii. 6, 11, 15, 23 ; xiii.
18 ; xiv. 2 (?), 14, 15, Thus iu fifteen chapters Clem
ent alone gives the old readings sixteen times, Sixtus
alone five times. Vercellone, iu the second part of
his Variae Lectiones, which was pubUshed after thia
article waa printed, promises a special discussion of the
interpolations of 1 Sam., which were, as might have
been expected, expunged by the Sixtine correctors.
Vercellone ad 1 Reg. iv. 1.
e The variations between the Sixtine and Clemen
tine editions were coUated by T- James, Bellum papale,
s. Concordia discors .... Lond. 1600 ; and mora com
pletely, with a collation of the Clementine editions,
by H. de Bukentop, Lux de luce, lib. iii. pp. 315 ff.
VerceUone, correcting earlier critics, reckons that thi
whole number of viiriations between the two revisions
ia about 3,000 {Prolegg. xlviii. no(-).

3472

VTJLGATE, THB

Sixtine.

Gementine.

Matt. i. 23 Tocabitur (pp. U.).

— Tocabunt,

U. 5, Juda (gat. mm. etc.).

— Judse.

13, surge, accipe (T).

— surge et accipe.

iii. 2, appropinquabit (iv,

— appropinquavit.

17), (MSS. GalUc.

pp. U.).

8, de quo dictum est

— qui dictus est.

(toi. it).

10, arboris (Tert.).

— arborum.

iv. 6, ut . . . . toUant (it.)

— et  tollent.

7, Jesus rursum.

— Jesus: Rursum.

15, Qalilsese (it. am. etc.).

— Galilaea.

16, ambulabat (?).

— sedebat.

T. 11, vobis homines (gat

— vobis.

mm. etc.).

80, abscinde (?).
— abscide.
40, injudicioCit.)-
— judicio.
vi. 7, eth. faciunt (it.).
— ethuici.
30, enim (it.).
— autem.
Tii. 1, et non judicabimini,
— ut non judicemini.
nolite condemnare
et non condemna-
bimini (?).
4, sine, frater (it. pp.
11.).
23, a me omnes (it. pp.
11.).
25, supra (pp. 11. toi.
— sine.
— a me.
— super.
etc.).
29, scribae(it.).
— scribse eorum.
viii. 9, alio (it. am. etc.).
— alii.
12, ubi (pp. 11.).
— ibi.
18, jussit discipulos (it.).
—jussit.
20, caput suum (it. toi.).
— caput.
28, venisset Jesus (it.).
— venisset.
32, magno impetu (it.).
— impetu.
33, haec omnia (?).
— omnia.
84, rogabant eum ut Je
— rogabant ut.
sus (?).
Bphes. i. 15, in Christo J. (pp. 11.
— in Domino J.
Bodl.).
21, dominationem Ci).
— et dominationem.
ii. 1, vos convivificavit
— vos.
(pp. no
il, vos eratis (pp. 11.
— vos.
Bodl. etc.).
— , dicebamini (pp. 11.).
— dicimini.
12, qui (pp. U. Bodl.
— quod.
etc.). .
22, Spiritu Sancto (pp.
— Spiritu.
11. Sang. etc.).
iii. 8, mihi enim (pp. U.).
— mihi.
16, virtutem (it.).
— virtute.
— , in interiors homine
— in interiorem hom
(pp. 11. Bodl.).
inem.
iv. 22, deponite (it.).
— deponere.
30, in die (pp. 11. Bodl.
— in diem.
etc.).
y. 26, mundans eam (pp.
11).
27, in gloriosam (?).
— mundans.
— gloriosam.
Ti. 15, in prseparationem
— in prseparatione.
(it).
20, in catena Ista (it.?).
— iu catena ita.
(Some of the readings of B
odl. (§ 13, (8) sg) are
idded. It. is used, as is comm"
r!y done, for the old
tezts generally ; and the notatic
u '-f the MSS. is that
usually followed.)
a The materials whieh Bentley collected (see p. 3474,
note a) are an invaluable help fbr inrestigation, but
they win not Bupcrsede it. It is, indeed, impossible
to determine on what principle he inserted or omitted
variations. Sometimes he notes with the greatest care
discrepancies of orthography, and at other times he
neglects important ditferences of text. Thus in John
I. 18-51 he gives correctly 23 variations of the Cam
bridge MS. (Kk. 1, 24 ) and omits 51 ; and in Luke i.
VTJLGATE, THB
28. While the Clementine edition waa still recen
some thoughts seem to have been entertained of re*
vising it. Lucas Brugensis made important coUe*.
tions for this purpose, but the practical difficultiea
were found to be too great, and the study of various
readings was reserved for scholars (Bellarmin. ad
Lucam Brug. 1606). In the next generation use
and controversy gave a sanctity to the authorized
text. Many, especially in Spain, pronounced it to
have a value superior to the origuials, and to be
inspired in every detail (comp. Van Ess, 401,
402; Hody, in. ii. 15); but it is useless to dwell
on the history of auch extravagancies, from which
the Jesuits at least, following their great champion
Bellarmin, wisely kept aloof. It was a more serious
matter that the universal acceptance of the papal
text checked the critical study of tbe materials ou
which it was professedly based. At length, how
ever, in 1706, Martianay pubhshed a new, and in
the main better text, chiefly from original MSS., in
his edition of Jerome. Vallarsi added fresh collar
tions in his revised issue of Martianay's work, bnt
in botb cases the collations are imperfect, and it is
impossible to determine with accuracy on what MS.
authority the text which is given depends. Sa
batier, though professing only to deal with the
Old I..atin, published important materials for the
criticism of Jerome's Version, and gave at length
the readings of Lucas Brugensis (1743). Mon
than a century elapsed before anything more of im
portance was done for the Text of the Latin version
of the O. T., when at length the fortunate discovery
of the original revision of the Si-ttine correctors
again directed the attention of Eoman scholars to
their authorized text. The first-fruits of their
labors are given in the volume of Vercellone
aheady often quoted, which has thrown more light
upon the history and criticism of the Vulgate than
any previous work. There are some defects in the
arrangement of the materials, and it is unfortunate
that the editor has not added either the authorized
or corrected text; but still the work is such that
every student of the Latin text must wait anxiously
for its completion.
29. The neglect of the Latin text of the 0. T.
is but a consequence of the general neglect of the
criticism of the Hebrew text. In the N. T. far
more has been done for the correction of the Vul
gate, though even here no critical edition has yet
been published. Numerous collations of MSS.,
more or less perfect, have been made. In this, as
in many other points, Bentley pointed out the true
path which others have followed. His own colla
tion of Latin MSS. was extensive and important
(comp. Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, xxxv. ff.).»
Griesbach added new collations, and arranged those
which others had made. Lachmann printed the
Latin text in his larger edition, havhig collated the
Codex Fuldensis for the purpose. Tischendorf has
labored among Latin MSS. only with less zeal than
among Greek. And Tregelles has given in hil
edition of the N. T. the text of Cod. Amiatinus
from his own collation with the variations of the
1-39 he gives 13 variations of St. Chad's Gospels and
omits 30 i and there is nothing in the character of
the readings recorded which can have determined the
selection, as the variations which are neglected are
sometimes noted from other MSS., and are in them
selves of every degree of importance. A specimen
from each ofthe volumes which contain his collatiom
will show the great amount (if labor which he be
stowed upon the work; and, hitherto, no specimen
VULGATE, THE
Clementine edition. But in all these cases the
study of the Latin was raerely ancillary to that of
the Greek text. Probably from the great antiquity
and purity of the Codd. Amiatinus and Fuldensis,
there is comparatively little scope for criticism in
the revision of Jerome's Veraion ; but it could not
be an unprofitable work to examine more in detail
than has yet been done tbe several phases through
which it has passed, and the causes which led to
its gradual corruption. {A. full account of the
editions of the Vulgate is given by Masch [Le
Long], Bibliotheca Sacra, 1778-90. Copies of the
Sixtine and Clementine editions are in the library
of the British Museum.)
VL The JIatisrials for the Revision of
Jerome's Text. — 30. Very few Latin MSS. of
the 0. T. have been collated with critical accuracy.
The Pentateuch of Vercellone {Romce, 1860) is the
first attempt to collect and arrange the materials
for determinhig the Hieronymian text in a manner
at all corresponding with the importance of the
subject. Even in the N. T. the criticism of the
Vulgate text has always been made subsidiary to
that of the Greek, and most of the MSS. quoted
have only been examined cursorily. In the follow
ing list of MSS., which is necessarily very imper
fect, the notation of Vercellone (from whora most
of the details, as to the MSS. which he ha? ex-

VULGATE, THE

3475

amined, are derived) has been followed as far aa
possible; but it is much to be regretted that he
marks the readings of MSS. Correctoria and edi
tions in tbe same manner.
(i.) MSS. of Old Test, and Apocrypha.
A {Codex Amiatinus, Bibl. Laurent. Flor.), at
Florence, written about the middle of the 6th cent.
(cir. 541, Tischdf.) yvith great accuracy, so that
both in age and worth it stands first araong the
authorities for the Hieronymian text. It contains
Jerome's Psalter frora the Hebrew, and the whole
Latin Bible, with the exception of Baruch. The
variations from the Clementine text in the N. T,
have been edited by F. F. Fleck (1840); and
Tischendorf and Tregelles separately collated the
N. T, in 1843 and 1846, the former of whora pub
lished a complete edition (1850 ; 2d ed. 1854) of
this part of the MS., avaihng himself also of the
collation of Tregelles. The 0. T. has been now
collated by Vercellone and Palraieri for Vercel
lone's Varies Lectiones (Vercellone, i. p. Ixxxiv.).
The MS. was rightly valued by the Sixtine cor
rectors, who in .many places follow its authority
alone, or wheu only feebly supported by other evi
dence: tj. g. Gen. ii. 18, v. 26, vi. 21, vii. 3, 5, ix.
18, 19, X, 1.
B {Codex Toleianus, Bibl. Eccles. Tolet.), at
Toledo, written in Gothic letters about the Sth

has beeu published. Tbe student may find it inter-
eeUug to compare the variations noted with those in
Table B.
CoU. SS. Trin. Cambr., Mark ix. 45-49.
B. 17, 5. 20 1
1 2 p jLi I Et si pes tuus te scaudal-
eum fl izat, amputa ilium : bonum
2 t^TTjU.1 0
12opytf/G do fj. est tibi claudum introire in
vitam aeternam, quam duos
pedes habeDtem mitti in
gehennam ignis iuextiogui-
[ ] del. r bilis ; [ubi vermis eorum
fX(fi
fU p ^ y C ^eorum xj/ non mori tur, et ignis ^ non
gue o p Y C extivguituT. Quod si oculus
del. aeoirfiift eie p tuus scandalizat te ei[i]ce
2|Ll(^ 1
1 2 p 0 cae )(^ eum : bonum est tibi ii/scum
introire in regnum Dei,
quam duos oculos habentem
mitti iu gehennam ignis :]
"' P /^ X ** "^^ vermis eorum non mon'-
0 *^
ftm tt gue opp tur, et ignis non extingui- f4
del. ^ j^uXoTT tur. Omnis [enim] igne
II salietur, et omnis victima
OjLt 2
Wdel, ejrptrT^0MHf;^<yy [sale] salietur. Bonum est
1 2 C sal : quod si sal insulsum fu
erit, in quo illutl condietis?
(B. 17.5.) M^
^ter X sal \ : ; : ^ sin Habete in ^ vobis sal, et
Wtem aeoTTCTH^x pacem habete inter vos.
II omnes enim igne examin-
antur ju,
In this excerpt a — 0 (except y) represent French
MSS. collated chiefly by T. Walker ; M, H, the MSS
b the Brit. Mus. markoi Harl 2788, Harl. 2826 re

spectively ; ^, the Gospels of St. Chad ; ;^, tbe Gos*
pels of Mac Kegol ; y, the Gospels of St. John G. Oxon
(comp. the lists p. 3455, f.).
Coll. SS. Trin. Cambr. Mark ix. 45-49.
(B. 17, 14.) 2 BHOTD 1
0 ^ 1 2 P K Et si pes tuus te scandal
izat, amputa illiuu : bonum
2 1 F
1 2 D cZo £ est tibi cZaudum introire in
vitam aetemam, quam duos
pedes habentem mitti in ge-
5 K T P B (semper) hennam ignis inexstiugui-
bflis: ubi vermis eorum non
rie Z. moritur, et ignis non exstin-
P
gue Z. L ] del. Z. g*Mitur. [Quod si oculus *u-
us scandalizat te, eji'^t^ eum :
bonum est tibi luscum fn-
troire in regnum Dei, qnam
^K inextinguibilis (erased) duos oculos babenteu: mitti
rie % (erased) em Y in gebeuTiam ignia^^ ubi
gue Tl (erased) vermis eorum non moritur,
jj^eorum K (erased) et ignis^ non exatingTtitur.]
YED EPBP
nt 0 (dti H B (sic) Omnis enim igJic soiietur, et
E
D 0 T f Z F det. 0 B P H. K omnia victima [sale] so/io-
tur. Bonum est sal : quod si
lum P sai P K sal xasulsmn fuerit, in quo
DZEHOY
di^tur (corr. -ia) E. TMud condwfw 1 Habete in
THPDKfY</>
Z E salem BDE vobis sal, et pacem habete
inter vos.
The collations in this volume are, as will be seem
somewhat confused. Many are io Bentley's hand,
who has added numerous emendations of the Latin
text in B. 17, 14. Thus, on the came page from which
this example is taken, we find: Mark ix. 20, ab in-
fant^a. fo. leg. ab in/anti. iraiSioQev. x. 14, Quos
quum videret. forte leg. Quod cu videret (sic a p. m
O : a later note), x. 38, Et baptismum que ego. leg.
Aut baptisma, quod ego. For the M.SS. quote:l, see
the lists already referred to.

;i74

VULGATE, THE

cent. The text is generally pure, and closely ap
proaches to that of A, at least in 0. T. A collar
tion of this MS. with a Louvain edition of the
Vulgate (1569, foi.) was made by Christopher Pa-
fomares by the command of Sixtus V., and the
Sixtine correctors set a high value upon ita read
ings ; e. g. Gen. vi. 4. The collation of Palomares
was published by Bianchini {Vindicim, p. lv. ff.),
from whom it has been reprinted by Migne (Hieron.
Opp. X. 875 ff.). Vercellone has made use of the
original collation preserved in the Vatican Library,
which is not always correctly tianscribed by Bian
chini; and at the same time he had noted the vari
ous readings which have been neglected owing to
the difference between the Ijouvain and Clementine
texts. The MS. contains all the Latin Bible (the
Psalter from the Hebrew), with the exception of
Baruch. A new collation of the MS. is still de
sirable; and for the N. T. at least the work is one
which might easily be accomplished.
C (Codex PaulUnus, v. CaroUnus, Bomee, Mon.
S. Benedict, ap. Basil. S. PauUi extr. mcenia), a
MS. of the whole Latin Bible, with the exception
Df Baruch. Vercellone assigns it to the 9th cen
tury. It follows the recension of Alcuin, and was
Dne of the MSS. used by the original board ap
pointed by Pius IV. for the revision of the Vulgate.
It has been collated by Vercellone.
D ( Codex 'Valliceliianus olim Statianus, Romae,
Bibl. Vallicell. Orat. B. vi.), an Alcuinian MS. of
the Bible also used by the Roman correctors, of the
same date (or a little older) and character as C.
Comp. Vallarsi, Praf. ad Hieron. ix. 15 (ed.
Migne), and note b, p. 3467. Collated by Ver
cellone. E (Codex Ottobomanus o\]m Cervinianus, Vatic.
60), a MS. of a portion of the O. T., imperfect at
the beginning, and ending with Judg. xiii. 20. It
Is of the Sth' century, and gives a text older than
Alcuin's recension. It contains also important
fragments of the Old Version of Genesis and Ex
odus published by Vercellone in his Vaiioe Lec
tiones, i. CoU. by Vercellone.
F (Romse, Coll. SS. Blasii et Caroli), a MS. of
the entire Latin Bible of the 10th century. It
follows, in the main, the recension of Alcuin, with
some variations, and contains the Roman Psalter.
Coll. by Vercellone.
G (Romse, CoU. SS. Blasii et CaroU), a MS. of
the 13th century, of the common late type. Coll.
by Vercellone.
H, L, P, Q, are used by VerceUone to mark the
readings given by Martianay, Hentenius, Castel-
lanus, and R. Stephanus, in editions of the Vul
gate. I, Ssec. xiii. Collated in part by C. J. Bauer,
Eichhorn, Reperiorium, xvii.
K (Monast. SS. Trin. Cavse), a most important
MS. of the whole Bible, belonging to the monas
tery of La Cava, near Salerno. An exact copy of
it was made for the Vatican Library (num. 8484)
by the command of Leo XIL, and this has been
used by VerceUone for the books after Leviticus.

a Bentley procured collations of upwards of sixty
English and Eronch latin MSS. of the N. T , which
ure still preserved among bis papers in Trin. Coll.
Cambridge, B. 17, 5, and B. 17, 14. A list of these,
as given by Bentley, la printed in Ellis's Bentleii
.Critica Sacra, pp. xxxv. ff. I haVe identified and
noUced the Englisli MSS. below (comp. p. 3476 ff.).
Of Bibles BeuLey gives more or less complete coUatious

¦VnLGATE, THB
For the three £rst books of the Pentateuch he had
only an imperfect collation. The MS. belongs ta
tbe 6th or 7th century (Mai, Nona Pairum BiU
i. 2, 7 ; Spicil. Rom. ix. Prsef. xxiu.), and presents
a peculiar text. Tischendorf has quoted it on 1
John V. 7, 8.
M, N, 0, are Correctoria in the Vatican Library.
R, S (Romse, CoU. SS. Blasii et CaroU), Ssc.
xiv., of the common late type given in the editions
of the 15th century.
T, Ssec. i., xi. ; U, Ssec. xii., two MSS. of the
type of the recension of Alcuin.
V (Rom£e, CoU. SS. Blasii et CaroU), Ssec. xuL,
akin to F.
These MSS., of which Vercellone promises com
plete coUations, thus represent the three great types
of the Hieronymian text ; the original text in vari
ous stiges of decadence (A, B, K) ; the recension
of Alcuin (C, D, F, T, U, V); and the current
later text (E, G, R, S). But though perhaps no
MS. will ever surpass A in general purity, it is to
be hoped that many more MSS., representing tbe
ante- Alcuinian text, may yet be examined.
31. Martianay, in his edition of the Bivina
Bibliotheca, quotes, among others, the foUowing
MSS., but he uses them in such a way that it is
Impossible to determine throughout the reading of
any particular MS. ; —
Codex Memmianus, Ssec.. x.
Codex Carcassonensis, Ssec. x. ;,
Codex Sangermanensis (1), Ssec. i.
Codex Regius, 3563-64.
Codex Sangermanensis (2), a fragment.
Codex Narbonensis. (Index MSS. Codd,
Hieron. ix. pp. 135 ff. ed. Migne.)
To" these, Vallarsi, in his revised edition, adds a
collation, more or less complete, of other MSS. foi
the Pentateuch (Joshua, Judges) — of
Cod. Palatinus, 3.
Cod. UrbiTias.
For the books of Samuel and Kings.
Cod. Veronensis, a MS. of the very highest
value. (Comp. Vallarsi, Pr^f. 19 ff. ed.
Migne.)
For the Psalms.
Codd. Reg. Suec. u. 1286.
Cod. Vatic. 154.
Cod. S. Crucis (or 104, CfoteroensM), (tiie
most valuable).
For Daniel.
Cod. Palat. 3.
Cod. Vatic. 333.
For Esther, Tobit, and Judith.
Cod. Reg. Suec. 7.
Cod. 'Vatic. Palat. 24.
But of aU these only special readings are known.
Other MSS. which deserve examination are : —
1. Brit. Mus. Addit. 10, 546. Ssec. ix
(Charlemagne's Bible), an Alcuinian copy. Comp.
p. 3467, note e.
2. Brit. Mus. Reg. 1 E, vii., viii. Ssec. ix., x.
(Bentley's MS. R)."
3. Bi-it. Mus. Addit. 24,142. Ssec. ix., x. _

of the K. T. from Paris. BiU. Reg. 3562 (A. B. 876);
3561, Sosc. ix. ; 8563-64, Saeo. ix. ; 35642, Sao. lx.,.x
AU appear to be Alcuinian.
Sir F. Madden has given a list of the chief MSS. of
the Latin Bible (19 copies) in the Gentlemttn's Maga.
zine, 1836, pp. 580 ff. This Ust, however, miglit 1*
increased.

Y^l T]J I Brit. -Mus.— Harl. i71S. pj T
co<ySe CTTSIOWrTBlT
q « TsevDxioBtrspeciTcio ? LlJ[>ITATefn"p ATKTS

2 Brtt. .Mus— Addit. 5463.

c^jsexoaoB'jTecjTcio TxiNrrXXGcqpXXRjs
ojccr/sTX Nrocxjssrooas

3. StcnyKurst— < St. Cuthbert's, St .lohn. )
NON hxsemus Re<^eno
Kiisi c^iesARem
uTcfiacipiqeReTUR ^
^uscepei^uHTA^uTeo) ihro
er^xix^eRtiMT
eTBAiol*>jssi8i cKuoecn

4 Oxon. Bodl.— 348. (Seld. 30. )

lDROl>iBeT BApTlZAKT ^pCITpTllLtppof
SlCReOl^ qCTOXOCOR^ellCe'T^ e,
e-TKespONDeN^ a.it CReOoT>ipLlcr
esse iB5> ^rpoo ariu^ six sTcsjRe

VULGATE, THE
(Important : apparently taken from a much older
copy. The Psalter is Jerome's Version of the
Hebrew. The Apocryphal books are placed after
the Hagiographa, with the heading : Incipit quartos
ordo eorum I'ibrorum qui in Veteri Testamento
extra Canonem Bebraeorum mnt. The MS. be
gins Gen. xUx. 6.)
4. Brit. Mus. HarL 2,805 to Psalms with some
lacunae. Ssec. ix.
5. Brit. Mus. Egerton 1,046. Ssec. viii. Prov.
iccles. Cant. Sap. Ecclus. (with some lacunse).
Good Vulgate.
6. Lambeth, 3, 4. Ssec. xii.
.32. ii. MSS. of tlie N. T.
A, B, C, D, F, etc., as enumerated before. To
these must be added the Codex Fuldensis of the
whole N. T, which, however, contains the Gospels
in the form of a Harmony. Tbe text of the MS.
is of nearly equal value with that of A, and botb
seem to have been derived from the same source
(Tischdf. Prolegg. Cod. Am. p. xxiu.). The MS.
has been coUated by Lachmann and Buttmann,
and a complete edition is in preparation by E.
Ranke. Other Vulgate MSS. of parts of the N. T. have
been examined more or less carefully. Of the
Gospels, Tischendorf (Proleg. ccxUx. ff.) gives a
list of a considerable number, which have beeu ex
amined very imperfectly. Of the more important
of these the best known are : —
For. Prag. (at Prague and Venice). Published
by Bianchini, in part after Dobrowsky.

VULGATE, THE

3475

a for all critical purposes the Latin texts of this
edition are worthless. In one chapter taken at ran
dom (Mark viii.)) there are seventeen errors iu the text
of the Lindisfarne MS., including the omission of one
line with the correspooding gloss.
b The accompanying Plates will give a good idea
of the external character of some of the most ancient
and precious Latin MSS. which the writer has exam
ined. For permission to take the tracings, from
which the &c-similes were made, his sincere thanks
are due to the various Institutions in whose charge
the MSS. are placed.
n.\.fig. I. Brit. Mus. Harl. 1,775, Matt. xxi. 30,31,
Eo domine — et me\retrices'\. This MS. (like figs. 2, 3)
exhibits tbe arrangement of tho text iu lines {versus,
oTixoi.). The original reading novissimus has been
changed by a late hand into primus. A characteristic
error of sound will be noticed, ibit for ivit (6 for v),
which occurs also in fig. 2.
Fig. 2. Brit. Mus. Add. 5,463. Matt. xxi._30, 31,
ait — novissimus. This magnificent MS. shows the
beginning of contraction {duob^) and punctuation.
Fig. 3. Stonyhurst. John six. 15-17, non habewMS
— crucem. This MS., unlike the former, seems to
have been prepared for private use. It is written
throughout with the greatest regularity and care.
The large capitals probably indicate the beginnings of
membra (KtliAa). The words are here separated.
Fig. 4. Oxf. Bodl. 3,418. Acts viu. 86, 37, et ait —
stare. PI. ii. Fig. 1. Cambr. Univ. Libr. Kk. i. 24. John
V. 4, sanus fiebat — homo ihi. This MS. ofiers a fine
example of the semi-uncial "Irish " character, with
the characteristic dotted capitals, which seems to have
been used widely iu the 8th century throughout Ire
land and central and northern England. The text
contains a most remarkable instance of the incorpora
tion of a marginal gloss into the body of the book
(Aoc in Grecis exemplaribus non habetur), without any
mark of separation by the original hand. This clause
*1bo offers a distinct proof of the revision of the copy
firom which the MS. was derived by Greek MSS. The
¦Qutraction for autem is worthy of notice.

Harl. (Brit. Mus. ffarl 1,775). Saac vii. CoU.
in part by Griesbach {Symb. Cnt. i. 305 ff.).
Per. Fragments of St. Luke, edited by Bian
chini. Brit. Mus. Cotton. Nero D, iv. Ssec. viii.
(Bentl. Y). The Lindisfarne (St. Cuthbert) Gos-
peb with interlinear Northumbrian gloss. Ed. by
Stevenson, for Suriees Society (St. Matt. ; St.
Mark). The Northumbrian gloss by Bouterwek,
1857. Stevenson has added a collation of the
Latin of the Rushworth Gospels " (p. 3457, No.
The following, among many others in the United
Eangdom, deserve examination: * —
(1.) Of the Gospels.
1. Brit. Mus. Harl. 1,775, Saec. vii. (Gnes-
bach's Harl. Bentley's Z). A new and
complete collation of this most precious
MS. is greatly to be desired. It contains
the Prefaces, Canons, and Sections, with
blank places for the Capitula.*^ (Plate I.,
fig. 1.)
2. Brit. Mus. Reg. 1 E. vi. Ssec. vii. (Bent
ley's P). A very important English MS.^
with many old readings, Praf. Can. (no
Sections), Cap. Mt. xxviii. Mc. xii (?) Lc.
XX. Joh. xiv. Supposed to have formed
part of the Biblia Gregoriana : Westwood,
Archceological Journal, xl. p. 292.
3. Brit. Mus. Reg. 1 B. vii. Ssec. viii. (Bent
ley's I-I). Another very important MS.,
preserving an old text.*' Prcef Can. (Sect.)
Fig. 2. Brit. Mus. Reg. 1 B. vii. Another type of
" Saxon " writing.
Fi^s. 3, 4. Brit. Mus. Harl. 1,023. Matt, xxvii. 49,
with the addition Alius autem — et sanguis. Ibid.
1802. Matt. xxi. 30, 31, et non iit — pupli[cani}.
Two characteristic specimens of later Irish writing.
The contractions for eum, autem, ejus, et, aqua, in
fig. 3, and for et, non, enim, quia iu fig. 4, are notice
able. Fig.b. Hereford Gospels. John i. S,i, factum est
— compraeehenderunt. Probably a British type ofthe
" Irish *' character. The symbol for est (-T-)t and the
ch for h, are to be observed.
c The varying divisions into capitula probably indi
cate different families of MSS., and deserve attention
at least in important MSS. The terms breviarium,
capitula, breves, appear to be used quite indiscrim
inately. One term is often given at the beginning and
another at the end of the list. Brit. Mus. Addit. 9,381
gives tituli (a division into smaUer sections) as well as
capitula. d Tliis MS. contains the addition, after Matt, sx
28, in the following form : —
Tos autem quaeritis de modico
crescere et de maxima minui
Cum- autem introieretis
ad coenam voeati
Nolite recumbere in supe
rioribus locis [veniat
Ne forte dignior te super
et accedens is qui te invitamt
Dicat tibi adhuc inferius
accede et confundaris
Si autem recubueris in in
feriori loco et venerit hu
milior te
Dicet tibi qui te invitabit
Accede adhuc supfrius et
erit tibi hoc utilius.
The same addition is given in the first hand of Oxfbrd
Bodl. S67,a.nd in the second hand of B.M. .4£/rf.?4,143j
with the following variations '. introimtis advenerit^

3476

VULGATE, THE

Cap. Mt. btxxvU. (sic). Mc. xlvi. Lo. xciv.
Joh. xiv. (Plate II., fig. 2.)
4. Brit. Mus. Cotton. Otho C V. Saec. viii.
(Fragments of Matt, and Mark. Bentley's
(()). Injured by fire: restored and mounted,
1818. The complement of 2i.
8. Brit. Mus. Addit. 5,463. Saec. viii. (Bent
ley's F). A magnificent (Italian) uncial
MS. with many old readings. Praf Can.
(Sect.) Cap. Mt. xxviii. Sic. xiii. Lc. xx.
Joh. xiv. (Plate I., fig. 2.)
6. Brit. Mus. Harl. 2,788. Saao. viii., ix.
(Codex aureus i. Bentley's Mj). Good Vul
gate.
7. Brit. Mus. HarL 2,797. Saec. viii., ix.
(Codex aureus ii.) Vulgate of late type.
8. Brit. Mus. Reg. 2 A. xx. Saec. viii. (Lec
tiones qusedam ex Evangellis.) Good Vul
gate.
8. Brit. Mus. Harl. 2,790, cir. 850. A fine
copy, with some old readings,
10. Brit. Mus. Harl. 2,795. SffiC. ix. (In red
letters.) Vulgate of late type.
11. Brit. Mus. Harl. 2,823. Skc. ix. Good
Vulgate, with versus.
12. Brit. Mus. Harl. 2,826. Saec. ix., viii.
(Bentley's H2). Good Vulgate.
13. Brit. Mus. Reg. 1 A, xviii. Saec. ix., x.
(Cod. Athelstani. Bentley's 0). Many old
and peculiai' readings.
14. Brit. Mus. Reg. 1 D, iii. Saec. x. Like
13, but most carelessly written.
15. Brit. Mus. Addit. 11,848. Sffic. ix. Care
fully written and corrected. Closely re
sembling 20.
16. Brit. Mus. Addit. 11,849. Sffio. ix. Vul
gate of late type.
17. Brit. Mus. Egerton, 768. Stec. ix. (St.
Luke and St. John.) Some important read
ings.
18. Brit. Mus. Egerlon, 873. Saec. ix. Good
Vulgate. Prtef. Can. (Sect.) Cap. Matt.
xxviii. Mc. xiii. Le. xxi. .Toh. xiv.
19. Brit. Mus. Adil'u. 9,381. Saec. ix. From
St. Petroo's, Bodmin. Some peculiar read
ings. Prcef. Can. (Sect.) Tituli. Mt. cclii.
(Cap. Ixxxiv. versus iiDcc.). Mc. clxxxvi.
Lo. cccxl. .Joh. ccxxvi.
20. Brit. Mus. Collon. Tib. A, ii. Saec. x.
(The Coronation Book. Bentley's E). Many
old readings in common with 1, 3, 5, but
without great interpolations."
21. Brit. Mus. Reg. 1 D. ix. Saec. xi. (Ca
nute's Book. Bentley's A). Good Vul-

mvitamt. In B. M. jRcg-. A. xviii. the variations are
much more considerable : pvsiiio,majori minores esse,
introeuntes autem et rogati ad' coenam, tods eminen-
tioribus, clarior, om. ts, ad coenam vocauit, deorsum, in
I. inf. rec., supervenerit, ad coenam vocamt, adhuc
sursum accede, om. hoc.
a Bentley has also given a collation of another Cot-
tonian MS. (Otho, B ix.) very similar to this, which
almost perished in the Bra in 1731. Mr. E. A. Bond,
Deputy Keeper of the MSS., to whose kindness the
writer is greatly indebted for important help in exam
ining the magnificent collection of Latin MSS. in the
British Museum, has shown him fragments of a few
leaves of this MS. which were recovered from the
wreck of the fire. By a singular error Bentley calls
this MS., and not Tib. A. ii., the Corona'.ion Book.
Domp. SmiUi, Cotton. Cat.

VULGATE, THE
22. Cambridge Univ. Ubi:. Ll. i. 10. (Passit
et Kesurrectio ex lv. Ew.). Stec. viii,
Written (apparently) for Ethelwald, Bp. of
Lindisfarne.
23. Cambridge, C. C. C. Libr. cclxxxvi. (iy.
Gospels, with Eusebian Canons.) Seec. vi
vii. Supposed by many to have been sent
by Gregory the Great to Augustine. Cap.
Matt, xxviii. Mark xiii. Luke xx. John xiv.
Vulgate with many old readings. It hai
been corrected by a very pure Vulgate text.
Described and some readings givert by J.
Goodwin, Publ. of Cambr. Antiquarian
Society, 1847.'!
24. Cambridge, C. C. C. Libr. cxcvii. (Frag
ments of St. John and St. Luke, extending
over Jobn i. 1-x. 29, and Luke iv. 5-xxiii.
26, with Eusebian Canons.) Saec. viii.
The fragments of St. John were published
by J. Goodwin, (. o. A curiously .mixed
text, forming a connecting link between the
"Irish" text and the Vulgate, but' with
out any great interpolations. SeeNo. 4.
Comp. p. 3457.
25. Cambridge, Trin. CoU. B. 10, 4, iv.
Gospels, Saec. ix. (Cap.) Matt, xxvii. Mc.
xiii. Lo. xxi. Joh. xiv. Good Vulgate, with
some old readings. (Bentley's T.)
26. Cambridge, CqU. D. Joh. C. 23.- The
Bendish Gospels, Sfeo. ix. Good Vulgate,
very carefully written.
27. Oxford, Bodl. 857 (D. 2, 14). Sffio. vii.
Begins, Matt. iv. 14, ut adim. — ends John
xxi. 15, with a lacuna from Matt. viii. 29,
dicentes — ix. 18, defuncta est. Sect.
Praf. (Cap.) Mo. xiii. Lc. xx. Joh. xiv.
Closely akin to 23.=
28. Durham, " Codex Evangeliorum plus
mille annorum, litteris c'apitalibus ex Bibli
otheca Uunelmensi." (Bentley's K.) Ends
John i. 27.
29. Durham, "Codex Evangeliorum plus
mille annorum, sed imperfectus." (Bentley's
|.) Begins Mark i. 12. Two very impor
tant MSS. Both have many old readings
in common with 1, 3, 4, 6.
30. Stonyhurst, St. Cuthbert's St. John, found
in 1105 at the he;id of St. Cuthbert when
his tomb was opened. Ssec. vii. Very pure
Vulgate, agreeing with Cod. Am, in many
very remarkable readings : c. g. i. 16, dia
vobis; il. 4, tibi et mihi; iv. 10, respimdii
Jesus dixit ; iv. 16, et veni, om. hue, etc.''
(Plate I. fig. 3.)

b A complete edition of this text, with collations of
London Brit. Mus. Harl. 1,775 i Reg. 1 E. vi. 1 B.
vii. ; Adilit. 6,463 ; Oxford, Bodl. 867, is, I believe, in
preparation by the Hev. G. Williams, Fellow of King's
College, Cambridge.
0 By a very strange mistake Tischendorf describes
this MS. as " multorum Ni. Ti. fragmentorum."
d It may be iuteresting to give a rough classjfloation
of these MSS., all of which the writer has examined
with more or less care. Many others of later date
may be of equal value ; Hnd there are several early
copies in private coUecnons (as at Middlehill) and at
Dublin (e. g. the (Vulgate) Boole of St. Columlm, S»o.
vii. (Westwood) Pat. Scu:ra), which he has lieen obliged
to leave unexamined.
Group i. Vulgate text approaching closely it. tli*

Vol. HI

PL U.

s <>

1

S o
S3

B

= E

fE
p

3

I 0 CA

P to

5 'Ji
_ 0) 3
C pj c
3 3^^

0-

VULGATE, THE
(2.) Of the Acts aud Epistles and Apoc. : —
1. Oxford, Bodl. SeW. 30 (Acts). See § 12,
(2). (Plate I. fig. 4.)
2. Oxford, Bodl. Laud. E, 67 (Epp. Paul).
See § 12, (2).
3. Brit. Mus., Harl. 1,772. (Epp. Paul, et
Cath. (except 3 Jo. Jud.). Apoc.) Saec.
viii. Griesbach, Symb. Crit. i. 326 ff., a
most important MS. (Bentley's M.) See
§ 12, (2).
4. Brit. Mus. Harl. 7,55L (Fragm. of Cath.
Epp. and St. Luke.) Ssec. viii. (Bentley's
Ol 7.)
5. Brit. Mus. Addit. 11,852. Saec. ix. Epp.
Paul. Act. Cath. Epp. Apoc. Good Vij-
gate.o
6. Brit. Mus. Reg. 1 A. xvi. Saec. xi. Good
Vulgate.
7. Cambridge, Coll. SS. Trin. B. 10, 5.
Ssec. ix. (Collated by F. J. A. Hort.
Bentley's S.) In Saxon letters: akin to 2.''
8. Cambridge, CoU. SS. Trin. Cod. Aug.
(F2). Published by F. H. Scrivener, 1859.=
9. " Codex ecclesise Lincolniensis 800 an
norum." (Bentley's |, Act. Apoc.)
10 Brit. Mus. Reg. 2 F. i. Ssec. xii. (Bent
ley's B.) Paul. Epp. xiv. cum commentario.
Many old readiugs.
A Lectionary quoted by Sabatier (Ssec. viii.),
ind the Mozarabic Liturgy, are also of great criti-
sal value.
In addition to MSS. of the Vulgate, the Anglo-
Saxon Version which was made frora it is an im
portant help towards the criticism of the text. Of
this the Heptateuch and Job were published by E.
Thwaites, Oxfd. 1699 ; the (Latin-Saxon) Psalter,
by J. Spelman, 1640, and B. Thorpe, 1835 ; the
Gospels, by Arohbp. Parker, 1571, T. Marshall,
1666, and more satisfactorily by B. Thorpe, 1842,
and St. Mail, by J. M. Kemble (and C. Hfirdwick),
with two Anglo-Saxon texts, formed on a collation
of five MSS. and tbe Lindisfarne text and gloss.
Comp. also the Prankish Version of the Harmony
ot Ammonius, ed. Schmeller, 1841.
VII. The Ckitical Valdk of the Latin

VXTLGATE, THE

3477

uiliale to the Cod. Amiat. : 6, 8, 11, 12, 18, 21, 22,
26, 28, 30.
Group ii. Vulgate text ofa later type : 7, 10, 16.
Group iii. A Vulgate text mainly wiih old readings :
1, 9, 17, 19, 23, 27.
Group iv. A mixed text, in which the old readings
are numerous and important : 2, 3, 4 (24), 5, 13,
14,16,20,28,29.
A more complete collation might modify this ar
rangement, but it is (I believe) approximately true.
a This MS. contains the Epistle to the Laodicenes
after ttiat to the Hebrews, and also the addition 1 Joh.
V. 7, in the following form* : Quia tres sunt qui testi
monium dant sps, et aqua, et sanguis, et tres unum
sunt.- Sicut in caelo tres sunt, pater verbum et sps, et
tres unum sunt. It is remarkable tbat the two other
oldest authorities in support of this addition, also sup
port the Epistle to the Laodicenes — tbe MS. of La
Cava, and the Speculum published by Mai.
& A fragment containing prefatory excerpts to a
copy of St. Paul's epistles written in a hand closely re
sembling this is fonnd B. M. Cotton. Yitell. C. viii.
c From an examination of Bentley's unpublished
coUanons, it may be well to add tbat of the eighteen
French MSS., which he caused to be compared with
the Clementine text (Lutet. Paris, apud Ctaudium
Smuman, uaozxvm. See Trin. Coll. Camb. B. 17, S).

Versions. — 33. The Latin Version, in ita various
forms, contributes, as has been already seen, more
or less important materials for the criticism of the
original texts of the Old and New Testaments, and
of the Common and Vlexaplaric texts of the LXX.
The bearing of the Vulgate on the LXX. will not
be noticed here, as the points involved in the in
quiry more properly belong to the history of the
LXX. Little, again, need be said on tbe value of
the translation of Jerome for the textual criticism
of the 0. T. As a whole hia work is a remarkable
monument of the substantial identity of tbe Hebrew
text of the 4th century with the present Masoretic
text; and the want of trustworthy materials for
the exact determination of the Latin text itself, haa
made all detailed investigation of his readings im
possible or unsatisfactx)ry. The passages which
were quoted in the premature controversies of the
16th and 17th centuries, to prove the corruption of
the Hebrew or Latin text, are commonly of little
importance as far as the text ia concerned. It will
be enough to notice those only which are quoted
by Whitaker, the worthy antagonist of Bellarmhi
(Disputation on Scripture, pp. 163 ff., ed. Park.
Soc). Gen. i. 30, om. all green herbs (in Vet. L.); iii.
15, Ipsa conteret caput tuum. There seems good
reason to believe that the original reading was ipse.
Comp. Vercellone, ad loc. See also Gen. iv. 16.
iii. 17, in opere tuo. "IT12J72 for "ITini?^.
iv. 16, 0772. Nod, which is specially noticed in
Jerome's Qucest. Hebr.
vi. 6, add. et priccavens in futurum. The words
are a gloss, and not a part of tbe Vulgate text.
viii. 4, vicesimo septimo, for septimo decimo-
So LXX.
Id. 7, egrediebatur et non revertebatur. The
non is wanting in the best MSS. of the Vulgate,
and has been introduced from the LXX.
xi. 13, trecentis tribus, for quadringentis tribus.
So LXX.
ix. 6, fundetur sanguis illius. Om. " by man."
xxxvii. 2. Sedecim for septemdecim. Probably
a transcriptural error.
the following are the most important, and woiid repay a
complete collation. The writer has retained Bentley's
notation : some of the MSS. may probably iL.ave passed
into other collections.
a. 5. Germani a Pratis. Saec. viii. Gold uncials on
purple vellum. Matt. vi. 2, ut — to end. Mark
ix. 47, eice ^xi. 13, vidisset. xii. 23, resurrexennt
— to end. Good Vulgate.
ja. S. Ger?nani a Pratis. tg' of Tischdf. etc.) A
very important MS., containing part of 0. T., the
whole of N. T. (of Gallican text ?), and " tri^i
folia Pastoris." Existing collations are very
incomplete. At the end of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, whicb precedes the Shepherd, the MS.
has (according to Bentley) the following note ;
Explicit ad Hebrcuos. Lege cum pace. Biblio
theca Hieronimi Preshiieri Betfdeem secuifditm
Graecum ex emendatis. mis exemplaribus conlatus
(sic).
V. S. Germani a Pratis, 1, 2, a. d. 809.
0. Bibl. Begia, Paris. 3,706. 4 Gosp. Saec. ix.
Many old readings.
n. Bibl. Regiai, Paris. 3,706 (2, 3). 4 Gosp., with
some lacunae. Saec. viii. Many old readings.
p. fi^. Martini Turonensis. Lit. aureis. Siec. viii
An important MS. (Gallican!). Comp. p. 3458)
note/.

3478

VULGATE, THE

xxxix. 6, om. " Wherefore he left — Joseph."
xl. 5, om. " The butler — prison."
xlix, 10. Comp. Vercellone ad he.
33, om.
In xxiv. 6, xxvii. S, xxxiv. 29, the variation is
probably in the rendering only. The remaining
passages, ii. 8; iii. 6; iv. 6, 13, 26; vi. 3; xiv. 3;
xvii. 16; xix. 18; xxi. 9; xxiv. 22; xxv. 34 ; xxvii.
33; xxxi. 32; xxxviii. 5, 23; xlix. 22, contain dif-
fierences of interpretation ; and in xxxvi. 24, xii. 45,
the Vulgate appears to have preserved important
traditional renderings.
34. The examples which have been given shoiv
tbe comparatively narrow limits within which the
Vulgate can be used for the criticism of the Hebrew
text. Tbe Version was made at a time when the
present revision was already established; and the
freedom wbich Jerome allowed himself in rendering
the sense of the original, often leaves it doubtful
whether in reality a various reading is represented
by the peculiar form which he gives to a particular
passage. In the N. T. the case is far different.
In this tbe critical evidence of the Latin is separable
into two distinct elements, the evidence of the Old
Latin and that of the Hieronymian revision. The
latter, wbere it differs from the former, represents
tbe received Greek text of tlie 4th century, and so
far clairas a, respect (speaking roughly) equal to
that due to a first-class Greek MS. ; and it may
be fairly concluded, that any reading opposed to the
combined testimony of the oldest Greek MSS. and
the true Vulgate text, either arose later than the
4th century, or was previously confined within a
very narrow range- The correlations of Jerome do
not carry us back beyond the age of existing Greek
MSS-, but, at the same time, they supplement the
original testifnony of MSS. by an independent wit
ness. The substance of the Vulgate, and the copies
of the Old Latin, have a more venerable authority.
The origin of tbe Latin Version dates, as has been
seen, from the earliest age of the Christian Church.
Tbe translation, as a whole, was practically fixed
and current more than a century before the tran
scription of the oldest Greek MS. Thus it is a
witness to a text more ancient, and therefore,
csetei'is paribus, more valuable, than is represented
by any other authority, unless the Peshito in its
present form be excepted. This primitive text was
not, as far as can be ascertained, free from serious
lorruptions (at least in the synoptic Gospels) from
the first, and waa variously corrupted afterwards.
5ut the corruptions proceeded in a different direc
tion and by a different law from those of Greek
MSS., and, consequently, the two autborities
mutually correct each other. , What is the nature
of these corruptions, and what the character and
value of Jerome's revision, and of the Old Latin,
will be seen from some examples to be given in
detail. 35. Before giving these, however, one prelimi
nary remark must be made. In estimating the
critical value of Jerome's labors, it is necessary to
draw a distinction between his different works.
His mode of proceeding was by no means uniform ;
and the iraportance of his judgment varies with the
object at which he aimed. The tbree versions of
the Psalter represent couipletely the three different
methods which he followed. At firet he was con
tented with a popular revision of the current text
(the Roman Psalter); then he instituted an ac
curate comparison between the current text and
the original (the GoUican Psalter); and in the next

VULGATE, THE
place he translated independently, giving a direct
version of the original (the Hebrew Psalter). These
three methods follow one another in chronological
order, and answer to the wider views which Jerome
gradually gained of the functions of a BiblicaJ
scholar. The revision of the N. T. belongs unfor-
innately to the first period. When it was made,
Jerome was as yet unused to the task, and he waa
anxious not to arouse popular prejudice. His aim
was little more than to remove obvious interpola
tions and bluuders; and in doing this he likewise
introduced some changes of expression which soft
ened the roughness of the Old Version, and some
which seemed to be required for the true expression
ofthe sense (e. g. Matt. vi. 11, supersvbstaniialem
for quoiidionum). But while he accomplished
much, he failed to carry out even this limited pur
pose with thorough completeness. A rendering
which he commonly altered was still suffered to re
main in some places without any obvious reason
(6. g. fivcT-ffpiou, So^d^Wj a<pavl^oj) ; and the
textual' emendations which he introduced (apart
from the removal of glosses) seem to have been
made after only a partial examination of Greek
copies, and those probably few in number. The
result was such as might have been expected. The
greater corruptions of the Old Latin, whether by
addition or omission, are generally corrected in tie
Vulgate. Sometimes, also, Jerome gives the true
reading in details which had been lost in tbe Old
Latin: Matt. i. 25, cognoscebatj ii. 23, prc^hetas;
V. 22, om. elKTJ', ix. 15, lug ere ; John iii. 8; Luke
ii. 33, & waT-fip; iv. 12: but not rarely, he leaves a
false reading uncorrected (Matt. ix. 2S, vobis; x.
42), or adopts a false reading where the true one
was also cun'ent; Matt. xvi. 6; xviii. 29; xix. 4;
John i. 3, 16; vi. 64, Even in graver variations
he is not exempt from error. The famous peritx^e,
John vii. 53-viii. 11, which had gained only a
partial entrance into the Old Latin, is certainly es
tablished in the Vulgate. The additions in Matt
xxvii. 35, Luke iv. 19, Jobn v. 4, 1 Pet. iii. 22,
were already generally or widely received in the
Latin copies, and Jerome left them undisturbed
The same may be said of Mark xvi. 9-20 ; but the
"heavenly testimony" (1 John v. 7), which -is
found in the editions of the Vtdgate, is, beyond all
doubt, a later interpolation, due to an African gloss;
aud there is reason to believe that the interpolations
in Acts viii. 37, ix. 5, were reaUy erased by Jerome,
though tbey maintained their place in the mass of
Latin copies.
36. Jerome's revision of the Grospels was far
more complete than that of the remaining parts ol
the N. T. It is, indeed, impossible, except in the
Gospels, to determine any substantial difference in
the Greek texts which are represented by the Old
and Hieronymian Vereions. Elsewhere the differ
ences, as far as they can be satisfactorily estab
lished, are differences of expression and not of text;
and there is no sufiicient reason to believe that the
readings which exist in the best Vulgate MSS.
when they are at variance with other Latin author
ities, rest upon the deliberate judgment of Jerome.
On the contmry, his Commentaries show that he
used copies differing widely from tbe recension
which passes under his name, and even expressly
condemned as faulty in text or rendering many
passages whicb are undoubtedly part of tbe Vulgate.
Thus in his Oimmentary on the Galatians he con
demns the additions, iii. 1, veritati non obedire,
v. 21, homicidla ; and the translations, i. 16« w**

VULGATE, THE
xc^tievi cami et sanguini (for non contuti cum
cai'ne ei sanguine) ; v. 9, modicum fermentum io-
tam massam con-umpit (for modicum fermentum
U)tam conspersionem ferment at) ; v. 11, evacuatum
est (for cessavit)', vi. 3, seipsum (seipse) seducit
(for mentem suam deci/nt). And in the text of
the epistle which he gives there are upwards of fifty
readings which differ from the best Vulgate text,
af which about ten are improvements (iv. 21; v.
13, 23; vi. 13, 15, 16, <fec.), as many more inferior
readings (iv. 17, 26, 30, &c.), and the remainder
differences of expression: malo for neguam, recto
pede incedunt for 7"€C^e ambulant, rursum for
iterum. The same differences are found in his
Commentaries on the other epistles: ad Imphes. i.
6; iii. 14; iv. 19; v. 22, 31; ad Tii.ui.16. From
this it will be evident that the Vulgate text of the
Acts and the Epistles does not represent the crit
ical opinion of Jerome, even in the restricted sense
in which this is true of the text of the Gospels.
But still there are some readings which may with
probability be referred to his revision : Acts xiii.
18, mores eorum susiinuit for nutriit {aluit) eos.
Rom. xii. 11, Domino for iempori. Eph. iv. 19,
Uktminabii te Cfirisius for cont in ges Chrisium.
Gal. ii. 5, neque ad horam cessimus for ad hornm
cessimus. 1 Tim. v. 19, add. nisi sid) duobus aut
tribus testibus.
37. The chief corruptions of the Old Latin con
sist in the introduction of glosses. These, like the
corresponding additions in the Codex Bezee (Uj^),
are sometimes indications of the venerable antiq
uity of the source from which it was derived, and
seem to carry us back to the time when the evan
gelic tradition bad not yet been wholly superseded
by the written Gospels. Such are the interpola
tions at Matt, iii. 15; xx. 28; Luke iii. 22 (com
pare also Luke i. 46; xii. 38); but more frequently
they are derived from parallel passages, either by
direct transference of the words of another evangel
ist, or by the reproduction of the substance of them.
These interpolations are frequent in the synoptic
Gospels; Matt. iii. 3; Mark xvi. 4; Luke i. 29,
vi. 10; ix. 43, 50, 54; xi. 2; and occur also in
St. John vi. 56, &c. But in St. John the Old
Latin more commonly errs by defect than by excess.
Thus it omits clauses certainly or probably genuine:
iii. 31; iv. 9; v. 36; vi. 23; viii. 58, &c. Some
times, again, the renderings of the Greek text are
free: Luke i. 29; ii. 15; vi. 21. Such variations,
however, are rarely likely to mislead. Otherwise
the Old Latin text of the Gospels is of the highest
value. There are cases where some Latin MSS.
combine with one or two other of the raost ancient
witnesses to support a reading which has been ob
Uterated in the mass of authorities: Luke vi. 1;
Mark xvi. 9 ff.; v. 3; and not unfrequentl7 (comp.
§ 35) it preserves the true text which is lost in the
Vulgate: Luke xiii. 19; xiv. 5; xv. 28.
38. But the places where -the Old Latin and the
Vulgate have separately preserved the true reading
are rare, when compared witb those in which they
combine with other ancient witnesses against the
great mass of authorities. Every chapter of the
Gospels will furnish instances of this agreement,
ffhich is often the more striking because it exists
anly in the original text of the Vulgate, while the
later copies have been corrupted in the same way as
the later Greek MSS.: Mark ii. 16; iii. 25 (V);
»iii. 13, &c. ; Kom. vi. 8; xvi. 24, <fec. In the first
few chapters of St. Matthew, the followuig may be
noticed: i. 18 {bis)i ii. 18 : iii. 10 ; v. 4, b, 11,

VULGATE, THE

U\^

130, 44, 47; vi. 5, 13; vii. 10, 14, 29; viii. 32
(x. 8), (fee. It is useless to multiply examples
which occur equally in every part of the N. T. '
Luke ii. 14, 40; iv. 2, &c.; John i. 52; iv. 42,
51; V. 16; viii. 59; xiv. 17, &c.: Acts ii. 30, 31,
37, (fee; 1 Cor. i. 1, 15, 22, 27, &c. On theother
hand^ there are passages (comp. § 35) in which
the Latin authorities combine in giving a false read
ing: Matt. vi. 15; vii. 10- viii. 28 (?), &c.; Luke
iv. 17; xiii. 23, 27, 31, &c.; Acts iii. 20, &c.; 1
Tim. iii. 16, &c. But these are comparatively few,
and commonly marked by the absence of all East
ern corroborative evidence. It may be impossible
to lay down definite laws for the separation of read
ings which are due to free rendering, or careless
ness, or glosses, but in practice there is little diffi
culty in distinguishing the variations which are due
to the idiosyncrasy (so to speak) of the version
from those which contain real traces of the original
text. And when every allowance has been made
for the rudeness of the original Latin, and the haste
of Jerome's revision, it can scarcely be denied that
the Vulgate is not only the most venerable but also
the most precious monument of Latin Christianity,
For ten centuries it preserved in Western Europe
a text of Holy Scripture far purer than that which
was current in tbe Byzantine Church; and at the
revival of Greek learning, guided the way towards
a revision of the late Greek text, in which the best
Biblical critics have followed the steps of Bentley,
with ever-deepening conviction of the supreme im
portance of the coincidence of the earliest Greek
and Latin authorities.
39. Of the interpretative value of the Vulgate
little need be said. There can be no doubt that
in dealing with the N. T., at least, we are now
in possession of means infinitely more varied and
better suited to the right elucidation of the text
than could have been enjoyed by the original
African translators. It is a false humility to rate
as nothing the inheritance of ages. If the inves
tigation of the laws of language, the clear per
ception of principles of grammar, the accurate
investigation of words, tbe minute comparison of
ancient texts, the wide study of antiquity, tho
long lessons of experience, have contributed nothing
towards a fuller understanding of Holy Scripture,
all trust in Divine Providence is gone. If we are
not in this respect far in advance of the simple
peasant or half-trained scholar of North Africa, or
even of the laborious student of Bethlehem, we
have proved false to their example, and dishonor
them by our indolence. It would be a thankless
task to quote instances where the Latin Version
renders the Greek incorrectly. Such faults arise
most commonly from a servile adherence to the
exact words of tbe original, and thus that which
is an error in rendering proves a fresh evidence of
the scrupulous care with which the translator
generally followed the text before him. But while
the interpreter of the N. T. will be fully justified
in setting aside without scruple the authority of
early versions, there are sometimes ambiguous
passages in which a version may preserve the
traditional sense (John i. 3, 9, viii. 25, &c.) or
indicate an early difference of translation; and thea
its evidence raay be of the highest value. But
even here the judgraent must be free. Versions
supply authority for the text, and opinion only for
the rendering.
VIIL The Language op the Latin Ver
sions. — 40. Tbe characteristics of Christian

8480

VULGATE, THE

l.atinity have been most unaccountably neglected
by lexicographere and grammarians. It is, indeed,
only -tely that the full importance of provincial
dia^r^ts in the history of languages has been fully
ri^jaignized, and it may be hoped that the writings
1. TertuUian, Arnobius, and the African Fathers
generally, will now at length receive the attention
which they justly claim. But it is necessary to go
back one step further, and to seek in the remains
of the Old Latui Bible the earliest and the purest
traces of the popular idioms of African Latin.
It is easy to trace in the patristic writings the
powerful influence of this venerable Version; and
on the other hand, the Version itself exhibits nu
merous peculiarities which were evidently borrowed
from the current dialect. Generally it is necessary
to distinguish two distinct elements both in the
Latin Version and in subsequent writings: (1)
Provincialisms and (2) Grsecisms. The former
are chiefly of interest as illustrating the history of
the Latin language ; the latter as marking, in some
degree, its power of expansion. Only a few re
marks on each of these heads, which may help to
guide inquiry, can be offered here; but the care
ful reading of some chapters of the Old Version
(e. g. Psalms, Ecclus., Wisdom, in the modern
Vulgate) will supply numerous illustrations."
(1.) Provincialisms. — 41. One of the most in
teresting facts in regard to the language of the
Latin Version is the reappearance in it of early
forms which are found in Plautus or noted as
archaisms by grammarians. These establish in a
signal manner the vitality of the popular as dis
tinguished from the literary idiom, and, from the
great scarcity of memorials of the Italian dialects,
possess a peculiar value. Examples of words, forms,
and consti'ucUons will show the extent to which this
phenomenon prevails.
(o) Words :
Stultiloquium, multiloquium, vaniloquus
(Plautus); stabilimentum (id.); Stius
(subst. id.); condignns {id.); araiiuv^
cula (id.); versipellis (id.); satwitas
(id.); stacte {id.); cor(^(MS (Ennius);
cusioditio (Festus) ; decipula.^ dejero
(Plautus); exentero (id.); aciifs (Pac.);
inino (to rfz-jue, Festus).
{$) Forms: Deponents as Passive: consohr, hortor,
promereor (Heb. xiii. 16); ministror.
Irregular inflections: partibor absconsus ;
conversely, exies, etc.
tapetia (Plautus), h(BC (fem. pi.).
Unusual forms: pascua (fem.); murmur
(masc.) ; sal (neut.) ; retia (sing.);
cerior, odio, cornum, placor (subst.),
dulc(yr.
-y) Cor^tru^iions :
Emigre with ace. (Ps. Ixi. 7, emigrabit te
de tabemaculo); dominor with gen.;
noceo with ace. ; suij suus, for ejtts, etc. ;
-non for ne prohibitive; capit impers.
42. In addition to these there are many other

« Cardmal Wiseman {Two Letters, etc., republished
a Essays, i. pp. 46-64) has examined tbis subject in
Bome detail, aud the writer has fully availed himself
f«f hfe examples, in addition to those which he had
oimseif collected. The Thesaurus of Faber (ed. 1749)
to the most complete for Ecclesiastical Latin ; and Du-

VULGATE, THE
peculiarities which evidently belong to the African
(or common) dialect, and not merely to the Chris
tian forra of it. Such are tbe words mirwyra/re
minoratio, impropenum, framea (a sword), ahlac-
tatio., annualis, aMeviare, peciusculum^ antemurale
panifica, paratura, toriura, tribtUare (met.), trib~
ulaiio, valefacere, veredarius, viare, victualia, w-
rectum (viretum), vitulamen, volatilia (subst.)
quaternio, reelinatorium, scrutinium, sponsare
straloria (subst.), suffer entia, mfficientia, super-
abundantia, susiinentla, cartallus, cass'idile, collao-
ianeus, condulcare, genimen, grossiiudo, refectio
(KardAvfia), exterminium^ defunctio (decease), sub
stantia (abs.), incolntus.
New verbs are formed from adjectives : pessimare,
pj'oximare, opproximare, assiduare, pigritari,
salvare {salvator, salvatio), obviare, jucundare,
and especially a large class in -fco: Tnoriifico^ vivi-
fco, sanctifico, glorifico, clai't/ico, beaiifico^ msti-
fco, graiijico, f'uctifieo.
Other verbs worthy of notice are: appropriare,
appretiare, ienebrescere, indulcare, implanare,
(planus), manicnre.
In this class may be reckoned also many
(1.) New substantives derived from adjectives:
possibilitas, pi'mclaritas, patemitas, prcesdentia,
religiosit/is, naiiuiias, supervacuitas, magnaUa,
Or verbs: requietio, respectio, creatura, subi-
tatio, extollentia.
(2.) New verbals: a-ccensibilis, accq^tabUis, do-
cibilis, produciilis, passibilis, receptU)ilis., r^'eheti-
sibilu, suadibilis, svbjectibiliSj arr^iitUis; and
participial forms: pudoratus, angnsiiatus, timora-
ius, sensatus, disciplinatus, magnatus, Unguaius.
(3.) New adjectives: animcBquus, temporaneus,
tmigenitus, querulosus ; and adverbs, teiTtbilitery
unanimiter, spiritualiter, eognoscibiHter, f ductal
iter. The series of negative compounds is peculiarly
worthy of notice : immemoraiio, incrediiio, incon-
summaiio ; inhoju»'are ; inauadliatus, zjide/icienSf
ineonfusibilis, imporiabilis.
Among the characteristics of the late stage of a
language must be reckoned the excessive frequency
of compounds, especially formed with the preposi
tions. These are peculiarly abundant in the LaUn
Version, but in many cases it is difficult to deter
mine whether they are not direct translations of
the late LXX. forms, and not independent forms;
e. g. addeeimare, adinvenire -ntio, adincrescere,
perefflu^rej^ermundare, prcpurgare, superexal-
tare, super invalescere, supererogare^ reinvitare,
rememoraiio, repropitiari, siAinferre. Of these
many are the direct representatives of Greek words:
superaduUa (1 Cor. vii. 36), superseminare (Matt.
xiii. 25), compariidpes, emicaptivus, comphniatvs,
etc. {supersubstantialis. Matt. vi. 11); and others
are formed to express distinct ideas: subcinericius,
subnervare, etc.&
(2.) GVcBctsms. — 43. The " simplicity " of the
Old Version necessarily led to the introduction of
very numerous Septuagintal or N. T. forms, many
of which have now passed into common use. In
this respect it would be easy to point out the dif-

tripon's Concordance is, as far as the writer has ob
served, complete for the authorized Clementine text.
b It would be interesting to trace the many strik
ing parallelisms between tbe Vulgate and the African
Appuleius (e. g. incredibilis (act.) ineffugibilis, mole*
tare, etc.), or the Spanish Seneca (e, g. inqmetudo, i»
punitiusy etc.).

VULGATE, THE
ference which exists between Jerome's own work
and the original translation, or his revision of it.
Examples of Greek words are: zelire, perizoma,
python, pythonissa, proselyius, jn-ipheies -tissa
4mre -tare, poderis, pompaiice, thesaurizare,
anathematizare, agoniznre, agonia, aromaiizare,
angelus -icus, peribolus, pisticiis, probatica, pa~
pyrio, pasiophoria, telonium, euchnris, acharis,
Tomphcea, bravium, dlthaln-ssus, doma {thronus),
thyriiiatorium, irisiega, scandilum, sitarcia, blas-
pkemare, etc., besides the purely technical terms:
patriarcka, Parasceve, Pascha^ Paracletus. Other
words based on the Greek are : opoi ior, angario,
apostatare, apostolatus, acedior (a/CTjSio).
Some close renderings are interesting: amodo
(iiri TouTou), propitiatonuvi {tKaariipiov)', inid-
ipsum {4x1 rh avrh), rationale (A-oyetof, Ex. xxviii.
15, Ac.), scenofactoiHus (Acts xviii. 3), seminiver-
bius (Acts xvii. 18), subintroducius (Gal. ii. 4), sn-
perceriari (Jude 3), civilitas (Acts xxii. 28), inten-
tator mahrum (James i. 13). To this head also
must be referred such constructions as zelare with
accus. {(7}\ovp Ttva); facere with inf. (iroieTi/
.... y€V€(r6ai)\ potesias with iif. {i^ovaia
a4n4vat)i the use of the inf. to express an end
(Acts vii. 43, eTrot'^ffare irpoa-KvysTv) or a result
(Luke i. 25, hreiBev acpeKcTv^ respexii atiftrre);
the introduction of quia for Un in the sense of thai
(Luke i. 58, audierunt .... quia), or for '6ti
redtaiivum (Matt. vii. 23, Confitebor illis quia
....); the dat. with assequi (Luke i. 3, irapaKo-
\ov6elv V. L.); the use of the gen. with the
comparative (John i. 50, majora horum); and
such Hebraisms as vir mortis (1 K. ii. 26). Comp.
§6. (Jenerally it may be observed tliat the Vulgate
Latin bears traces of a threefold influcice derived
from the original text; and the modifications of
form which are capable of being earned bacli to
this source occur yet more largely in modern lan-
guE^es, whether in this case they are to be referred
to the plastic povfer of the Vulgate on the popular
dialect, or, as is more likely, we must suppose that
the Vulgate has preserved a distinct record of pow
ers which were widely working iu tbe times of the
Empire on the common Latin. These are (1) an
extension of the use of prepositions for simple cases,
e. g. in the renderings of ii/. Col. iii. 17, facere in
verbo, etc.; (2) an assimilation of pronouns to
the meaning of the Greek article, e. g. 1 John i.
2, ipsa vita; Luke xxiv. 9, illis undecim, etc.;
and (3) a constant employment of the definitive
and epithetic genitive, where classical usage
would have required an adjective, e. g. Col. i.
13, filius caritalis stue ; iii. 12, viscera miseri-
lordia. 44. The peculiarities which have been enumer
ated are found in greater or less frequency through
out the Vulgate. It is natural that they should be
most abundant and striking in the parts which have
heeu preserved least changed from the Old Latin,
the Apocrypha, the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse.
Jerome, who, as he often says, had spent many
years in the schools of grammarians and rhetori
cians, could not fail to soften down many of the as
perities of the earlier version, either by adopting
variations already in partial use, or by correcting

VULGATE, THE

3481

faulty expressions himself as he revised the text.
An examination of a few chapters in the Old and
New Versions of the Gospels will show the character
and extent of the changes which he ventured to in
troduce: Luke i. 60, ouxly ^^on. Vet. L., nequa
quam, Vulg.; id. 65, ^y '6\t) rfj bpeivfj, in omni
montana, Vet. L., super omnia montana, Vulg.;
ii. \, pi-ofteretur, professio. Vet. L., describeretur^
descriptio, Vulg. ; id. 13, exercitus ccelesiis, Vet
L., militicB ecelestis, Vwlg. ; id. 34, quod coniradice-
iar. Vet. L., cui contr. Vulg.; id. 49, in propria
Patris mei, Vet. L., in his qum patris mei sunt,
Vulg. Some words he seems to have changed
constantly, though not universally: e. g. obaudltio,
obaudio (obedientia, obedto); mensurare (metiri);
dileciio (caritas); sacrameniuni (mysterium), etc.
And many of the most remarkable forms are con
fined to books which he did not revise: elucidare^
inaltare {l\x(i\xwdQ.Ti); fumigabundu,s, illamentatus,
indisciplinatus, insuspicabilis ; exsecrnmenium {ex-
ierminium), gaudlmonium ; extollentia, honorif-
ceniia: horiHpHatio, inhonoraiio.
45. Generally it may be said that the Scriptural
idioms of our coramon language have come to us
mainly through the Latin; and in a wider view
the Vulgate is the connecting link between classi
cal and raodern languages. It contains elements
which belong to the earliest stage of Latin, and ex
hibits (if often in a rude form) the flexibility of the
popular dialect. On the other hand, it has fur
nished the source and the model for a large portion
of cun-ent Latin derivatives. Eveu a cursory ex
amination of the characteristic words which have
been given will show how many of thera, and how
raany corresponding forms, have passed into living
languages.^ To follow out this question in detail
would be out of place here; but it would furnish a
chapter in the history of language fruitful in results
and hitherto unwritten. Within a more hmite^
range, the authority of the Latin Versions is unde
niable, though its extent is rarely realized. The
vast power which they have had in determining the
theological terms of western Christendom can
hardly be overrated. By far the greater part of
tbe current doctrinal terminology is based on the
Vulgate, and, as far as can be ascertained, was
originated in the Latin Version. Predestination
justification, supererogation (supererogo), sanctifi-
caiion, salvation, mediator, regeneraiion, revela
tion, visitation (met.), propitiation, first appear in
the Old Vulgate. Grace, redemption, electidt^,
reconciliation, satisfaction, inspiration, sci'ipt'./re,
were devoted there to a new and holy use. /Sac
rament {ixvffriipiov) and communion are from the
same source; and though baptism is Greek, it
comes to us from the Latin. It would be easy to
extend the list by the addition of orders, penance,
congregation, p7iesi. But it can be seen from the
forms already brought forward that the Latin Ver
sions have left their mark both upon our language
and upon our thoughts; and if the right method
of controversy is based upon a clear historical per
ception of the force of words, it is evident that the
study of the Vulgate, however much neglected, can
never be neglected with irapunity. It was the Ver
sion which alone they knew who handed down to
the Reformers the rich stores of mediseval wisdom ;

« Probably the most remarkable example of the in
fluence of theology upon popular language, is the en
tire suppression of the correlatives of verbum in all the
Romaucw languages. The forms occur iu the religious
219

technical sense (the Word), but otherwise they are re
placed by the representatives of parabola (parola, ptt
role, etc.). Oompare Diez, Etym. Wanb. p. 253.

34 '^2

VULTURE

the Version with which the greatest of the Reform
ers were most familiar, and from which they had
drawn tlieir earUest knowledge of Divine truth.
B. F. W.
* Recent Literature. — Firsfc of all should be
named the excellent article Vulgata, by 0. F.
Fritzsche, in Herzog's Real^Encyk. xvii. 422-460
(1863). See also 0. Zcickler, Hieronymus, sein
Leben u. Wirken, Gotha, 1865; L. Diestel, Gesch.
d. Alten Test, in der christi. Kirehe, Jena, 1869,
p. 94 ff. ; F. Kaulen, Gesch. der Vulgata, Mainz,
1869; and H. Runsch, Rula u. Vulgata. Das
Sprachidiom .... erldutert, Marb. 1869. See
also Riinsch, Die Ini. Bibeliibersetzungen im
christi. Afrika zur Zeii des Augustinu.% in the
Zeitschr. f d. hisi. Theol, 186*7, pp. 606-634;
and Beitrdge zur pairisiischen Bezeugung d. bibl.
Textgestalt u. Latinitdt, I. Aus Ambrosius, ibid.
1869, pp. 434-479, and 1870, pp. 91-145. Por
tions of the Old Latin versions have been published
by F. Mone, De libris palimpsesiis, Carlsr. 1855,
p. 49 ff. (Prov.): E. Ranke, Fragmenta Vers. sac.
Script. Lat. Aniehieronym. e Cod. MS. eiiiit, etc.
Ed. Libri repeiita, cui accedit Appendix. Wien,
1868 (1st ed. 1856-58); O. F. Fritzsche, /'rn^m.
Inteip. vet Lnt. (Judges), appended to his Liber
Judicum sec. LXX., Tur'ci, 1867; A. Vogel, Bei
trdge zur Uerstellung d. nli. Int. Bibelubtr setzung,
Wien, '1868; and especially Librorum Levii. et
Nam. Versio nnilqua Rata e Cod. perantiquo in
Biblioth. Ashburnho-m. conservnto nunc primum
typis edltn, Lond. 1868, foi. (privately printed).
The Booh of Deer (p. 3457, j8) has been edited by
John Stuart, Edin. 1869. A.
VULTURE. The rendering in A. V. of the
Heb. n*"^ {dayydh) and ^^^; and also in Job
xxviii. 7, of n*S, nyyah ; elsewhere, in Lev. xi.
14, and Deut. xiv. 13, raore correctly rendered
"kite": LXX, -yuip and Xktivos- Vulg. vultur :
excepfc in Is. xxxiv. 15, where LXX. read i\a<hosy
and Vulg. correctly milvus.
There seems no doubt but that the A. V. trans
lation is incorrect, and that the original words re
fer to some of the smaller species of raptorial birds,
as kites or buzzards. HJ"^ is evidently synony
mous with Arab. RjcX^, k'da.yah, the vernacular
for the " kite " iu North Africa, and, without tbe
epithet "red," forthe black kite especially. Bo
chart {Hieroz. ii. 2, 195) explains it Vultur niger.
Tbe Samaritan and all other Eastern Versions agree
in rendering ifc *'kite.'* n**M {ayyah) is yet more
certainly referable to this bird, which in other pas
sages it is taken to represent. Bochart {Hieroz. ii.
b. 2, c. 8, p. 193) says it is the same bird which
the Arabs call LjLs (yaya) from its cry; but does
not state what species this is, supposing it appar
ently to be the magpie, the Arab name for wbich,
however, is , kLxJUuf, el aqaaq.
There are two very differenfc species of bird com
prised under, the English term vulture : the griffon
{Gyps fulvus, Sav.), Arab, y^mi^ nesser: Heb.
n^^j nesher : invariably rendered " eagle " by A.
V. ; and the percncpter, or Egyptian vulture (iVe-
ifihronpeixnopterus, Sav.), Arab. X«-^\} raMma.

VULTURE
Heb. Dn"1, raeh&m: rendered "gier-eagle" bj
A. V.
The identity of the Hebrew and Arabic terms in
these cases can scarcely be questioned. However
degrading the substitution of the ignoble vulture
for the royal eagle may at first sight appear in
many passages, it must be borne in mind that the
griffon is in aU its movements and characteristics a
majestic and royal bird, the largest and most pow
erful which is seen on the wing in Palestine, and
far surpassing the eagle in size and power. Its
only rival in these respects is the bearded vultura
or lammergeyer, a more uncommon bird every
where, and which, since it is not, like the griffon,
bald on the head and neck, cannot be referred to as
nesher (see Mic. i. 16). Very different is the slov
enly and cowardly Egyptian vulture, the familiar
scavenger of all oriental towns and villages, pro
tected for its useful habits, but loathed and de
spised, till its name has become a term of reproach
like that of the dog or the swine.
If we take the Heb. ayyah to refer to the red
kite {mihms regalis, Temm.), and dayydh to the
black kite {milvus ater, Temm.), we shall find the
piercing sight of the forraer referred to by Job
(xxviii. 7), and the gregarious habits of the latter
by Isaiah (xxxiv. 15). Both species are inhabit
ants of Palestine, the red kite being found all over
the country, as formerly in England; but nowhere
in great numbers, generally soaring at a great
height over the plains, according to Dr. Roth, and
apparently leaving the country in winter. The
black kite, which is so numerous everywhere as to
be gregarious, may be seen at all times of the year,
hovering over the villages and the outsku:ts of
towns, on the lookout for ofl^ and garbage, which
are its favorite food. Vulture-like, it seldom, hu-
iess pressed by hunger, attacks living animals. It
is therefore never molested by the natives, and
builds its nest on trees in their neighborhood, fan
tastically decorating it with as many rags of col
ored cloth as it can collect.
There are three species of vulture known to in
habit Palestine: —
1. The Lammergeyer {Gypaetos ba7batus,Cnv.)j
which is rare everywhere, and only found in deso
late mountain regions, where it rears its young in
the depth of winter among inaccessible precipices.
It is looked upon by the Arabs as an eagle rather
than a vulture.
2. The Griffon {Gyps fulvuSj Sav.), mentioned
above, remarkable for its power of vision and the
greafc height at which it soars. Aristotle {Anim.
Hist. vi. 5) notices the manner in which the gritfon
scents its prey from afar, and congregates in the
wake of an army. The same singular instinct was
remarked in the Russian War, when vast numbers
of this vulture were collected in the Crimea, and
remained till the end of the campaign in the neigh
borhood of the camp, although previously they had
been scarcely known in the country. " Whereso
ever the carcass is there will the eagles be gathered
together " (Matt. xxiv. 28) ; " Where the slain are,
there is she " (Job xxxix. 30). The writer observed
this bird universally distributed in all the moun
tainous and rocky districts of Palestine, and espe
cially abundant in the southeast. Its favorite
breeding-places are between Jerusalem and Jericho,
and all round the Dead Sea.
The thfrd species is the Egyptian vulture (iVeo-
phron percnopierus, Sav.), often called Fharaoh'i

"WAGES
uen, observed in Palestine by Hasselquist and all
lubsequent travellers, and very nuraerous every
where. Two other species of very large size, the
tared and cinereous vultures (Vultur nubicus,
Smith, and V'ultur cinereus, L.), although inhab
itants of the neighboring countries, and probably
also of the southeast of Palestine, have not yet
been noted in collections from that country. H. B. T.

w.
WAGES." The earliest mention of wages is
of a recompense not in money but in kind, to Jacob
from Laban (Gen. xxii. 15, 20, xxx. 28, xxxi. 7,
8, 41). This usage was only natural among a
pastoral and changing population like that of tbe
tent-dwellers of Syria. In Egypt, money payments
by nay of wages were in use, but the terms cannot
now be ascertained (Ex. ii. 9). The only mention
of the rate of wages in Scripture is found in the
parable of the householder and vineyard (Matt. xx.
2), where the laborer's wages are set at one denarius
per day, probably = 7|(i., a rate which agrees with
Tobit v. 14, where a drachma is mentioned as the
rate per day, a sum which may be fairly taken as
equivalent to the denarius, and to the usual pay of
a soldier (ten asses per diem) in the later days of
the Boman republic (Tac. Ann. i. 17; Polyb. vi.
39). It was perhaps the traditional remembrance
of this sum as a day^s wages tbat suggested tbe
mention of " drachmas wrung from the hard hands
of peasants" (Shakespeare, Jul. Cces. iv. 3). In
earUer times it is probable that the rate was lower,
as until lately it was throughout India. In Scot
land we know that in the last century a laborer's
daily wages did not exceed sixpence (Smiles, Lives
of Engineers, ii. 96). But it is likely tbat labor
ers, and also soldiers, were supplied with provisions
(Michaelis, Laws of Moses, § 130, vol. ii. p. 190,
ed. Smith), as is intimated by the word otli^via,
used in Luke iii. 14, and 1 Cor. ix. 7, and also by
Polybius, vi. 39. Tbe Mishnah (Baba meizia,
vii. 1, § 5), speaks of victuals being allowed or
not according to the custom of the place, up to
the value of a denarius, i. e. inclusive of the pay.
The law was very strict in requiring daily pay
ment of wages (Lev. xix. 13; Deut. xxiv. 14, 15);
and the Mishnah applies the sarae rule to the use
of aniniab (Baba meizia, ix. 12). The employer
who refused to give his laborers sufficient victuals
is censured (Job xxiv. 11), and the iniquity of
withholding wages is denounced (Jer. xxii. 13;
Mai. iii. 5; James v. 4).
Wages in general, whether of soldiers or labor-
as, are mentioned (Hag. i. 6 ; Ez. xxix. 18, 19 ;
John iv. 36). Burckhardt mentions a case in
Syria resembling closely that of Jacob with Laban
— a man who served eight years for his food, on

WALLS

3483

" 1. ~13t£7, mSt&a : iiiffflM : merces.
tt' V : -
2. n v5?B : /iLcT^os : opus : wages for work done,
*om 7?Q, "work "(Ges. p. 1117).
' 1. nintSM: xopw'": muri: only in Ezra v. 8.
2. (o) -1^3 : ijtpayiias : materia, (b) "T^J ;
tfo-yiui: maaria. (c) rTTIS : Siiumi/ia, i^payno!:
tipa.

condition of obtaining his master's daughter in
marriage, and was afterwards compelled by his
father-in-law to perform acta of service for him
(Syria, p. 297). H. W. P.
WAGON. [Cart and Chakiot.] The
oriental wagon or arabah is a vehicle composed
of two or three planks fixed on two solid circular
blocks of wood, from two to five feet in diameter,
which serve as wheels. To the floor are sometimes
attached wings, which splay outwards like the sides
of a wheelbarrow. For the conveyance of passen
gers, mattresses or clothes are laid in the bottom,
and the vehicle is drawn by buffaloes or oxen
(Arundell, Asia Minor, ii. 191, 235, 238; Olearius.
Trav. p. 309; Ker Porter, Trav. ii. 533.) Egyp
tian carts or wagons, such as were sent to con
voy Jacob (Gen. xiv. 19, 21, 27), are described
under Cart. The covered wagons for conveying
the materials of the Tabernacle were probably con
structed on Egyptian models. They were each
drawn by two oxen (Num. vii. 3, 8). Herodotus
mentions a four-wheeled Egyptian vehicle (S/ia|a)
used for sacred purposes (Her. ii. 63).
H. W. P.
* Under this head belongs " litters " Is. Ixvi.
20, the Hebrew word being the same as that for
" wagons " in Num. vii. 3, 8. Litters occurs
only tbis once in the A. V. H.
* WALL OP PARTITION. [Partition
Wall.] WALLS.* Only a few points need be noticed
in addition to what has been said elsewhere on
wall-construction, whether in brick, stone, or wood.
[Bricks; Handicraft; Mortar.] ]. The prac
tice common in Palestine of carrying foundations
dow.n to the solid rock, as in the case of the Teraple,
and in the present day with structures intended to
be permanent (Joseph. Ant. xv. 11, § 3 ; Luke vi.
48; Eobinson, ii. 3-38; Col. Ch. Chron. (1857),
p. 459 ). The pains taken by the ancient builders
to make good the foundations of their work may
still be seen, both in the existing substructions
and in the nuraber of old stones used in more
modern constructions. Sorae of these stones —
ancient, but of uncertain date — are from 20 feet
to 30 feet 10 inches long, 3 feet to 6 feet 6 inches
broad, and 5 feet to 7 feet 6 inches thick (Rob. i.
2;i3, 282, 286, iii. 228). As is the case in num
berless instances of Syrian buildings, either old or
built of old materials, the edges and sometimes the
faces of these stones are " beveled " in flat grooves.
Tbis is coramonly supposed to indicate work at
least as old as the Roman period (Rob. i. 261, 286,
ii. 75, 76, 278, 353, iii. 52, 58, 84, 229, 461, 493,
511; Fergusson, Bdbk. of Arch. p. 288). Ou
the contrary side, see Col. Ch. Chron. (1858), p.
350. But the great size of these stones is far exceeded
by some of those at Baalbek, three of which are

3. rUDin : nlxos •. mums.
4. vTT ', Svvaiui : virtus : also irporeix^ff/ui : ager
6. V'ln and ^'JH : roixos: paries.
6. ^^"in : irspireixos = "•"" ¦' °^y '" "*'"¦ '^- 2^
7. (o) bnb. (6) bn?, Chald. : T»ixot : porta.
8. T^i? : Toixos : paries.
9. "yW : TeixM : mums.

3484

WANDERING

each about 63 feet long; and one, still lying in the
quarry, measures 68 feet 4 inches in length, 17 feet
S inches broad, and 14 feet 7 inches thick. Its
weight can scarcely be less than 600 tons (Rob. iii.
505, 512; Volney, Trav. ii. 241).
2. A feature of some parts of Solomon's build
ings, as described by Josephus, corresponds re
markably to the method adopted at Nineveh of
encrusting or veneering a wall of brick or stone
with slabs of a more costly material, as marble or
alabaster (Joseph. Ant. viii. 5, § 2; Fergusson,
Hdbk. 202, 203).
3. Another use of walls in Palestine is to sup
port mountain roads or terraces formed on the
sides of hills for purposes of cultivation (Rob. ii.
493, iii. 14, 45).
4. The '* paths of the vineyards " (Num. xxii.
24) is illustrated by Robinson as a pathway through
vineyards, with walls on each side {Bibl. Res. ii. 80;
Stanley, S. and P. 102, 420 ; Lindsay, Trav. p.
239; Maundrell, Ea^-ly Trav. p. 437). [Win
dow.] H. W. P.
WANDERING IN THE WILDER
NESS. [Wilderness of Wandering.]
WAR. The most important topic in connec
tion with war is the formation of the army, which
is destined to carry it on. This has been already
described under the bead of Army, and we shall
therefore take up the subject from the point where
tiiat article leaves it. Before entering on a war
of aggression the Hebrews sought for the Divine
sanction by consulting either the Urim and Thum
mim (Judg. i. 1, XX. 27, 28; 1 Sam. xiv. 37, xxiii.
2, xxviii. 6, xxx. 8), or some acknowledged prophet
(1 K. xxii. 6; 2 Chr. xviii. 5). The heathens
betook themselves to various kinds of divination
for the same purpose (Ez. xxi. 21). Divine aid
was further sought in actual warfare by bringing
into the field the Ark of the Covenant, which was
the symbol of Jehovah Himself (1 Sam. iv. 4-18,
xiv. 18), a custom which prevailed certainly down
to David's time (2 Sam. xi. 11; comp. Ps. Ixviii.
1, 24). During the wanderings in the wildemess
the signal for warlike preparations was sounded by
priests with the silver trumpets of the sanctuary
(Num. i. 9, xxxi. 6). Formal proclamations of
war were not interchanged between the belligerents ;
but occasionaUy messages either deprecatory or
defiant were sent, as in the cases of Jephthah and
the Ammonites (Judg. xi. 12-27), Ben-hadad and
Ahab (1 K. xx. 2), and again Amaziah and Jehoash
(2 K. xiv. 8). Before entering the enemy's dis
trict spies were sent to ascertain the character of
the country and the preparations of its inhabitants
for resistance (Num. xiii. 17; Josh. ii. 1; Judg.
vii. 10; 1 Sam. xxvi. 4). When an engagement

*> "i'l^IlD, lit. an "enclosing" or "besieging,"
and hence applied to tbe wall by which tbe siege was
effected. 6 n^7D. Saalschiitz (j4rcAao2. ii. 604) understands
this term of the scaling-ladder, comparing tbe cognate
gidtam (Gen. xxviii. 12), and giving the verb sh&phac,
wbich accompanies soll&li, the sense of a " hurried
advancing " of the ladder.
c p^^T. Some doubt exists as to the meaning of
this term. The sense of " turrets " assigned to it by
3esenius {Thes. p. 880) has been objected to on the
ground that the word always appears in the singular
pumber, and in connection with the expression " round

WAR
was imminent a sacrifice was ofl^red (1 Sam. rii,
9, xiii. 9), and an inspiriting address delivered
either by the commander (2 Chr. xx. 20) or by a
priest (Deut. xx. 2). Then followed the battle*
signal, sounded forth from the silver trumpets ai
already described, to which the host responded by
shouting the WMT-cry (1 Sam. xvii. 52; Is. xliL
13; Jer. 1. 42; Ez. xxi. 22; Am. i. 14). The
combat assumed the form of a number of hand-to-
hand contests, depending on the qualities of the
individual soldier rather than on the disposition of
masses. Hence the high value attached to fleet-
ness of foot and strength of arm (2 Sam. i. 23, ii.
18; 1 Chr. xii. 8). At the same time various
strategic devices were practiced, such as the am
buscade (Josh. viii. 2, 12; Judg. xx. 36), surprise
(Judg. vii. 16), or circumvention (2 Sam. v. 23)
Another mode of settling the dispute was by the
selection of champions (1 Sam. xvii. ; 2 Sam. ii.
14), who were spurred on to exertion by the offer
of high reward (1 Sam. xvii. 25, xviii. 25; 2 Sami
xviii. 11; 2 Chr. xi. 6). The contest having been
decided, the conquerors were recalled fi-om the pur
suit by the sound of a trumpet (2 Sam. ii. 28,
xviii. 16, XX. 22).
The siege of a town or fortress was conducted ia
the following manner : A line of circumvallation o
was drawn round the place (Ez. iv. 2; Mic. r. 1),
constructed out of the trees found in the neighbor
hood (Deut. XX. 20), together with earth and any
other materials at hand. "Diis line not only cnt
ofi' the besieged from the surrounding country, but
also served as a base of operations for the besiegers.
The next step was to throw out firom this line one
or more " mounts " or " banks " ^ in the direction
of the city (2 Sam. xx. 15 ; 2 K. xix. 32 ; Is. xxxvii.
33), which was gradually increased in height uutil
it was about half as high as the city wall. On
this mound or bank towers ^ were erected (2 K.
xxv. 1; Jer. Iii. 4; Ez. iv. 2, xvii. 17, xxi. 22,
xxvi. 8), whence the slingers and archers might
attack with effect. Batteiing-rams ^ (Ez. iv. 2, xxi.
22) were brought up to the waUs by means of the
bank, and scaUng-ladders might also be placed on
it. Undermining the walls, though practiced by
the Assyrians (Layard, Nin. ii. 371), is not noticed
in the Bible ; the reference to it in the LXX. and
Vulg., in Jer. li. 58, is not warranted by the orig
inal text. Sometimes, however, the walls were
attacked near the foundation, eitber by individual
warriors who protected themselves fi:om above by
their shields (Ez. xxvi. 8), or by the further use of
such a machine as the ffelepoliSj^ referred to in
1 Mace. xiii. 43. Burning the gates was another
mode of obtaining ingress (Judg. ix. 52). The
water-supply would naturaUy be cut off, if it were

about " the city. Hence the sense of « circum valla-
tion " has been assigned to it by Michaelis, KeU
{Archdol. ii. 303), and others. It is difBcult, however,
in this case, to see any distinction between the terms
dayik and m&tzdr. The expression " round about "
may refer to the custom of casting up banks at differ
ent points ; the use of the singular in a colleotive
eense forms a greater difficulty.
e Thie is described by Ammianus Marcellinus (xxilL
4, § 10) as a combination of the testudo and the bat
tering-ram, by means of which the besiegers brok«
through the lower part of the wall, and thus " leaped
into the city," not ftom above, as the words printd
facie imply, but fiwm below.

WAR
possible (Jnd. viii. 7). The besieged, meanwhile,
strengthened and repaired their fortifications (Is.
ixii. 10), and repelled the enemy from the wall by
missiles (2 Sam. xi. 24), by throwing over beams
and heavy stones (Judg. ix. 53 ; 2 Sam. xi. 21 ;
Joseph. B. J. V. 3, § 3, 6, § 3), by pouring down
boiling oil (B. J. iii. 7, § 28), or lastly by erecting
fixed engines for the propulsion of stones and arrows
(2 Chr. xxvi. 15). [Ekginb.] Sallies were also
raade for the purpose of burning the besiegers'
works (1 Mace. vi. 31; B. J. v. 11, § i), and
driving them away from the neighborhood. The
foregoing operations receive a large amount of illus-
iratioii from the representations of such scenes on
ths Assyrian slabs. We there see the " bank "
thrown up in the form of an inclined plane, witli
the battering-ram hauled up on it assaulting the
walls; movable towers of considerable elevation
brought up, whence the warriors discharge their
arrows into the city; the walls undermined, or
attempts made to destroy them by picking to pieces
, the lower courses ; the defenders actively engaged
in archery, and averting the force of the battering-
ram by chains and ropes; the scaling-ladders at
length brought, and the conflict become hand-to-
hand (Layard's Nin. ii. 366-374).
The treatment of the conquered was extremely
severe in ancient times. Tbe leaders of the host
were put to death (Josh. x. 26; Judg. vii. 25),
with the occasional indignity of decapitation after
death (1 Sam. xvii. 51; 2 Mace. xv. 30; Joseph.
B. J. i. 17, § 2). The bodies of the soldiers killed
h action were plundered (1 Sam. xxxi. 8 ; 2 Mace.
'iii. 27); the survivors were either killed in some
avage manner (Judg. ix. 45; 2 Sam. xii. 31; 2
3hr. xxv. 12), mutilated (Judg. i. 6; 1 Sam. xi.
3), or carried into captivity (Num. xxxi. 26 ; Deut.
XX. 14). Women and children were occasionally
put to death with the greatest barbarity (2 K. viii.
12, XV. 16 ; Is. xiii. 16, 18 ; Hos. x. 14, xiii. 16 ;
Am. i. 13; Nah. iii. 10; 2 Mace. v. 13): but it
was more usual to retain the maidens as concubines
or servants (Judg. v. 30; 2 K. r. 2). Sometimes
the bulk of the population of the conquered coun
try was removed to a distant locality, as in the
case of the Israelites when subdued by the As
syrians (2 K. xvii. 6), and of the Jews by the
Babylonians (2 K. xxiv. 14, xxv. 11). In addition
to these measures, the towns were destroyed (Judg.
ix. 45; 2 K. Ui. 25; 1 Mace. v. 28, 51, x. 84), the
idols and shrines were carried off (Is. xlvi. 1, 2),
or destroyed (1 Mace. v. 68, x. 84); the fniit-trees
were cut down, and the fields spoiled by over-
ipreading them with stones (2 K. iii. 19, 25); and
the horses were lamed (2 Sam. viii. 4; Josh. xi. 6,
y). If the war was carried on simply for the pur
pose of plunder or supremacy, these extreme meas
ures would hardly be carried into execution; the
conqueror would restrict himself to rifling the treas-
'Jries (1 K. xiv. 26 ; 2 K xiv. 14, xxiv. 13), or
levying contributions (2 K. xviii. 14).
The Mosaic Ijaw mitigated to a certain extent
the severity of the ancient usages towards the con
quered. With the exception of the Canaanites,
who were delivered over to the ban of extermina
tion by the express command of God, it was for
bidden fo the Israelites to put to death any others
han ma.es bearing arms: the women and children
»ere to be kept alive (Deut. xx. 13, 14). In a
similar spirit of humanity the Jews were prohib
ited from felling fruit-trees for the purpose of mak
ing siege-norks (Deut. xx. 19). The Law further

WASHING HANDS AND PBET 3485
restricted the power of the conqueror over females,
and secured to them humane treatment (Deut. xxi.
10-14). The majority of the savage acts recordeij
.as having been practiced by the Jews were either
iu retaliation for some gross provocation, aa in
stanced in the cases of Adoni-bezek (Judg. i. 6,
7), and of David's treatment of the Ammonites
(2 Sam. X. 2-4, xii. 31; 1 Chr. xx. 3); or else
they were done by lawless usurpers, as in Mena-
hem's treatment of the women of Tiphsah (2 K.
XV. 16). The Jewish kings generally appear to
have obtained credit for clemency (1 K. xx. 31).
The conquerors celebrated their success by the
erection of monumental stones (1 Sam. vii. 12;
2 Sam. viii. 13, where, instead of "gat him a
name," we should read "set up a memoi-ial^^), by
hanging up trophies iu their public buildings (1
Sam. xxi. 9, xxxi. 10; 2 K. xi. 10), and by tri
umphal songs and dances, in which the whole
population took part (Ex. xv. 1-21 ; Judg. v. ; 1
Sam. xviii. 6-8 ; 2 Sam. xxii. ; Jud. xvi. 2-17 ; 1
Mace. iv. 24). The death of a hero was com
memorated by a dirge (2 Sam. i. 17-27; 2 Chr.
xxxv. 25), or by a national mourning (2 Sam. iiL
31), The fallen warriors were duly buried (1 K.
xi. 15), their arms being deposited in the grave
beside them (Ez. xxxii. 27), while the enemies'
corpses were exposed to the beasts of prey (1 Sara.
xvii. 44; Jer. xxv. 33). The IsraeUtes were di
rected to undergo the purification imposed on those
who had touched a corpse, before they entered the
precincts of the camp or the sanctuary (Num. xxxi.
19). The disposal of the spoil has already been
described under Booty. W. L. B.
* WARDROBE, 2 K. xxU. 14, where, as
rendered in the margin, the Hebrew signifies '* gar
ments." The vestments of the priests are prob
ably meant, said there to have beeu under the care
of Shallum. The same notice occurs in 2 Chr.
xxxiv. 22. [See Vestey, Amer. ed.] H.
* WARES. [Commerce; Merchant.]
WASHING THE HANDS AND FEET.
The particular attention paid by the Jews to the
cleansing of the hands and feet, as compared with
other parts of the body, originated in the social
usages of the East. As knives and forks were dis
pensed with in eating, it was absolutely necessary
that the hand, which was thrust into tbe common
dish, should be scrupulously clean; and again, as
sandals were ineffectual against the dust and heat
of an eastern climate, washing the feet on enter
ing a house was an act both of respect to the com
pany and of refreshment to the traveller. Tlie
former of these usages was transformed by the
Pharisees of the New Testament age into a matter
of ritual observance (Mark vii. 3), and special rules
were laid down as to the times and manner of its
performance. The neglect of these rules by our
Lord and his disciples drew down upon Him the
hostility of that sect (Matt. xv. 2; Luke xi. 38).
Whether the expression TcvyiJ.^ used by St. Mark
has reference to any special regulation may per
haps be doubtful ; the senses " oft " (A. V. ), and
"diligently" (Alford), have been assigned to it,
but it may possibly signify "with the fist," as
though it were necessary to close the one hand,
which had already been cleansed, before it was
applied to the unclean one. This sense appeara
preferable to the other interpretations of a similar
character; such as " up to the wrist" (Lightfoot); .
"up to the elbow" (Theophylact); "having cloned

3486 WASH POT
the hand " which is undergoing the washing (Grot. ;
Scalig. ). The Pharisaical regulations on this sub
ject are embodied in a treatise of the Mishnah,
entitled Yadaim, from which it appears that the
ablution was confined to the hand (2, § 3), and that
great care was needed to secure perfect purity in
the water used. The ordinary, as distinct from the
ceremonial, washing of hands before meals is still
universally prevalent in eastern countries (Lane, i.
190; Burckhardt's Notes, i. 63).
Washing the feet did not rise to the dignity of
a ritual observance, except in connection with the
services of the sanctuary (Ex. xxx. 19, 21). It
held a high place, however, among the rites of
hospitality. Immediately that a guest presented
himself at the tent-door, it was usual to ofler the
necessary materials for washing the feet (Gen. xviii.
4, xix. 2, xxiv. 32, xliii. 24; Judg. xix. 21; comp.
Hom. Od. iv. 49). It was a yet more compU
mentary act, betokening equally humility and affec
tion, if the host actually performed tbe office for
his guest (1 Sam. xxv. 41; Luke vii. 38, 44; John
xiii. 5-14; 1 Tim. v. 10). Such a token of hos
pitality is still occasionally exhibited in the East,
either by the host, or by his deputy (Robinson's
Bid. Res. il 229; Jowett's Res. pp. 78, 79). The
feefc were again washed before retiring to bed
(Cant V. 3). A symbohcal significance is attached
in John xiii. 10 to washing tbe feet as compared
with bathing the whole body, the former being
partial {j/iirTw), the latter complete (Aouw), the for
mer oft-repeated in the course of the day, the latter
done once for all; whence they are adduced to
illustrate tlie distinction between occasional sin and
a general state of sinfulness. After being washed,
tbe feet were on festive occasions anointed (Luke
vii. 38; John xii. 3). The indignity attached to
the act of washing another's feet, appears to have
been extended to the vessel used (Ps. Ix. 8).
W. L. B.
* WASHPOT. [See the article above.]
WATCHES OF NIGHT (n^OtTW: ^^f-
KaK-ff). The Jews, like the Greeks arid' Romans,
divided the night into military watches instead of
hours, each watch representing tbe, period for
which sentinels or pickets remained on duty. The
proper Jewish reckoning recognized only tbree such
watches, entitled the first or "beginning of the
watcbes"« (Lam. ii. 19), the middle watch'' (Judg.
vii. 19), and the morning watch': (Ex. xiv. 24;
1 Sam. xi. 11). These would last respectively from
sunset to 10 p. m. ; from 10 p. m. to 2 a. m. ; and
from 2 A. M . to sunrise. It has been contended
by Lightfoot {Sor. Beb. ia Matt. xiv. 25) that the
Jews really reckoned four watches, three only of
which were in the dead of the night, the fourth

b njiD'^nn rrptvK
'' Yet being an ofiering to "bring iniquity to re
membrance " (ver. 15), ib is ceremonially rated as a
" sin offering ; " hence no oil is to be mixed with the
meal before burning it, nor any frankinceuse to be
placed upon it when burnt, which same rule was ap
plied to "Bin ofierings" generally (Lev. v. 11). With
meat offerings, on the contrary, the mixture of oil and
the imposition of frankincense were prescribed (ii. 1.
. I, 7, 14. 15).
/ I'robably not the * water of separation " for puri-

WATER OF JEALOUSY
being in the morning. This, however, is rendered
improbable by the use of the term " middle," and
is opposed to Rabbinical authority (Mishnali, Be-
rach. c. 1, § 1; Klimchi, on Ps. kiii. 7; Rashi
on Judg. vii. 19). Subsequently to the establish
ment of the Roman supremacy, the number of
watches was increased to four, which were described
either according to their numerical order, as in the
case ofthe "fourth watch" (Matt. xiv. 25; comp.
Joseph. Ant. v. 6, § 5), or by the terms " even,
midnight, cock-crowing, and morning " (Mark xiiL
35). These terminated respectively at 9 p. m.,
midnight, 3 a. m., and 6 A. m, (Conformably to
this, the guard of soldiers was divided into four
relays (Acts xii. 4), showing that the Roman
regime was followed in Herod's army. Watchmen
appear to have patrolled the streets of the Jewish
towns (Cant. iii. 3, v. 7; Ps. cxxvii. l,d where for
" waketii " we should substitute " watcheth; " Ps.
cxxx. 6). W. L, B.
* WATCHMAN. [Watches of Night.]
WATER OF JEALOUSY (Num. v
11-31), 0*^"]^^ '^p, "waters of bitterness,"
sometimes with C^"]*l^T2n added, as "causing
a curse " 0^fc|?j SSwp rod iX^ypov; Philo, ii. 310,
¦n-ffroy 4\4yxov). The ritual prescribed consisted
in the husband's bringing the woman before the
priest, and the essential part of it is unquestion*
ably the oath, to which the " water " was sub
sidiary, symbolical, and ministerial. With her he
was to bring the tenth part of an ephah of barley-
meal as an offering. Perhaps the whole is to be
regarded from a judicial point of view, and this
offeriug " in the light of a court-fee.'^ God him
self was suddenly invoked to judge, and his pres
ence recognized by throwing a handful of the
barley-meal on the blazing alfcar in the course of
the rite. In the firsfc instance, however, the priest
" set her before the Lord " with the offering m
her hand. The Mishnah {Sotah) prescribes that
she be clothed in -black with a rope girdle around
her waist; and from the direction that the priest
" shall uncover her head " (ver. 18), it would seem
she came in veiled, probably also in black. As she
stood holding the offering, so the priest stood hold
ing an earthen vessel of holy water/ mixed with
the dust from the floor of the sanctuary, and de
claring her free from ail evil consequences if inno
cent, solemnly devoted her in the name of Jehovah
to be " a curse and an oath among her people," if
guilty, further describing the exact consequences
ascribed to the operation of the water in the " mem
bers" which she had "yielded as servants to un
cleanness " ff (vv. 21, 22,27; comp. Rom. vi. 19
and Theodoret, Qucest. x. in Num.). He then

fication, mixed with the ashes of the red heifer, ft;
as its ceremonial property was to defile tbe pure and
to purify the unclean (Num. xix. 21) who touched it,
it could hardly be used in a rite the object of which
was to establish tbe innocence of the upright or dis
cover the guilt of the sinner, without the symbolism
jarring. Perhaps water from the laver of the sanc
tuary is intended.
9 The words n^DD, V^'D?^, H^??, rendered
in the A. V. by the word " rot," rather indicate, ac
cording to Gesen j. v. 753, to " become or mak«
lean." Michaelis thought ovarian dropsy was intended
by the symptoms. Josephus says* tou re aKeAou.

WATER OF JEALOUSY
^ wrote these curses in a book, and blotted them
out with the bitter water," and, havmg thrown,
probably at this stage of fche proceedings, the hand
ful of meal on the altar, "caused the woman to
drink" the potion thus drugged, she moreover
answering to the words of his imprecation, "Amen,
Ameo." Josephus adds, if tlie suspicion was un-
fouuded, she obtained concepfcion; if true, she died
infamously. This accords with the sacred text, if
she "be clean, then shall she be free and shall con
ceive seed""^ (ver. 28;, words which seem to mean
that when restored to her husband's affection she
should be blessed with fruitfulness; or, that if con-
i«ption had taken place before her appearance, it
would have its proper issue in child-bearing, which,
if she had been unfaithful, would be intercepted by
the operation of the curse. It may be supposed
that a husband would not be forward to publish
his suspicions of his own injury, unless there were
Bymptoms of apparent couception,<> aud a risk of a
child by anofcher being presented to him as his
own. In this case fche woman's natural apprehen
sions regarding her own gestation would operate
very strongly to make her shrink from the potion,
if guilty. For plainly, the effect of such a cere
monial on the nervous system of one so circum
stanced, might easily go far to imperil her life, even
without the precise symptoras ascribed to the water.
Meanwhile the rule would operate beneficially for
the woman, if innocent, who would be during this
interval under the protection of the court to which
the husband had himself appealed, and so far secure
agamst any violent consequence of his jealousy,
which had thus found a veut recognized by law.
Further, by thus interposing a period of probation
the fierceness of conjugal jealousy might cool. On
comparing this argument with the further restric
tions laid down in the treatise Sotah tending to
Umit fche applicafcion of this rite, there seems grave
reason to doubt whether recourse was ever had to
ifc in fact. [Adultery.] The custom of writing
on a parchment words cabalistic or medical relating
to a particular case, and then washing them off,
and giving the pafcient the water of this ablution
to drmk, has descended among oriental supei'sfci-
tions to the present day, and a sick Arab would
probably thmk this the most natural way of " tak
ing " a prescription. See, on the general subject,
Groddeck de vttt. Hebr. purgat. casiitatis in Ugol.
Thesaur. (Winer). The custom of such an ordeal
was probably traditional in Moses' tirae, and by
fencing it round with the wholesome awe inspired
by the solemnity of the prescribed ritual, the law
giver would deprive it to a great extenfc of its bar
barous tendency, and would probably restrain the
husband from some of the ferocious extremities to
whieh he might otherwise be driven by a sudden
fit of jealousy, so powerful in the oriental mind.
On the whole it is to be t.aken, like the permission
to divorce hy a written instrument, rather as the

WAVE-OFFERING

3487

tKiretrovTO^ avr^, Kal •riji' KOtKiav vdepov KarakapL^dvov'
ros {Ant. iii. 11, § 6).
a This is somewhat supported by the rendering in
the A. T. of the words ntyQn3 «b SIHl, v. 13,
oy "neither she be taken with the manner,'^'' the ital-
'vized words being added as explanatory, without any
to corrrapond in the original, and pointing to the
«idden cessation of "the manner" or "custom of
women " {Gen. xviii. 11, xxxi. 35), ('. e.. the menstrual
dux, suggesting, in the case of a woman not past the

mitigation of a custom ordinarily harsh, and as a
barrier placed in the way of uncalculating vindio-
tiveness. Viewing the regulations concerning mat
rimony as a whole, we shall find the ^ame principle
animating them in all their parts — that of pro
viding a legal channel for the course of natural
feelings where irrepressible, but at the same time
of surrounding their outlet with institutions apt to
mitigate their intensity, and so assisting the grad
ual formation of a gentler temper in the bosom of
the nation. The precept was given " because of fche
hardness of their hearts," bufc wifch the design and
the tendency of softening them. (See some re
marks in Spencer, de Leg. Hebr.) H. H.
WATER OF SEPARATION. [Purifi
cation.] * WATERCOURSE. [Conduit.]
* WATERING WITH THB FOOT.
[Garden; Foot, Watering with the.]
* WATER -POT. [Pot; Weights and
Measures.] * WATER-SPOUT. [Gutter, Amer. ed.]
WAVE-OFFERING (nD13;^, «a wav
ing," from ?113, "to wave," ^y^ T\^^2T^
n*in^, "a waving before Jehovah"). This rite,
together with that of " heaving " or " raising " the
offering, was an inseparable accompaniment of
peace-offerings. In such the right shoulder, con
sidered the choicest part of the victim, was to be
" heaved," and viewed as holy to tbe Lord, only
eaten therefore by the priest ; the breast was to be
"waved," and eaten by the worshipper. On the
second day of tbe Passover a sheaf of com, in the
green ear, was to be waved, accompanied by the
sacrifice of an unblemished lamb of the first year,
from the performance of which ceremony the days
till Pentecost were to be counted. When the feast
arrived, two loaves, the first-fruits of the ripe com,
were to be offered with a burnt-offering, a sin-offer
ing, and two lambs of the firsfc year for a peace-
offering. These likewise were to be waved..
The Scriptural notices of these rites are to be
found in Ex. xxix. 24, 27; Lev. vii. 30, 34, vni. 27,
ix. 21, X. 14, 15, xxiii. 10, 15, 20; Num. vi. 20,
xviii. 11, 18, 26-29, etc.
We find also the word HDISn applied in Ex.
xxxviii. 24 to the gold offered by the people for the
furniture of the sanctuary. It is there called
nQ13nn DHT. it may have been waved when
presented, but it seems not impossible that HDISn
had acquired a secondary sense so as to denote
" free-will offering." In either case we musfc sup
pose fche ceremony of waving to have been known to
aud practiced by the Israelites before the giving of
tbe Law.

age of child-bearing, that conception had taken place.
If this be the sense of the original, the suspicions of
the husband would be so iar based upon a fact. It
seems, however, also possible that the words may
be an extension of the sense of those immediately
preceding, HB '|'*H 1?), when tbe connected tenoi
would be, " and there be no witness against her, and
she be not taken," i. e. taken in the fact : comp. John
viii. 4, avTfj -ij yu»^ KaruK-^^Bri en-avTO^oipv uotxe^o*
p.ivri.

3488 WAY
It seems not quite certain from Ex. xxix. 26, 27,
whether the waving was performed by the priest or
by the worshipper with the fornjer's assistance.
The Rabbinical tradition represents it aa done by
the worshipper, the priest supporting his hands
from below.
In conjecturing the meaning of thia rite, regard
must be had, in the first instance, to the kind of
sacrifice to which it belonged. It waa the accom
paniment of peace-offerings. These not only, like
the other sacrifices, acknowledged God's greatness
and his right over the creature, but they witnessed
to a ratified covenant, an established communion
between God and man. While the sin-offering
merely removed defilement, while the burnt-offer
ing gave entirely over to God of his own, the
victim being wholly consumed, the peace-offering,
as establishing relations between God and the wor-
ahipper, was participated in by the latter, who ate,
as we have seen, of the breast that waa waved.
The Rabbis explain the heaving of the shoulder as
an acknowledgment that God has his throne in the
heaven, the waving of the hreaat that He is present
in every quarter of the earth. The one rite testified
to his eternal majesty on high, the other to his
beiug among and with his people.
It is not said in Lev. xxiii. 10-14, that a peace-
offeriug accompanied the wave-sheaf of the Pass
over. On the contrary, the only bloody sacrifice
mentioned in connection with it is styled a burnt-
offering. When, however, we consider that every
where else the rite of waving belongs to a peace-
offering, and that besides a sin and a burnt-offering,
there was one in connection with the wave-loaves
of Pentecost (Lev. xxiii. 19), we shall be wary of
concluding that there was none in the present case.
The significance of these rites seems considerable.
The name of the mouth Abib, in which the Pass
over was kept, means the month of the green ear
of corn, the month in which the great produce of
the earth has come to the birth. In that month
the nation of Israel came to the birth ; each suc
ceeding Passover was the keeping of the nation's
birthday. Beautifully and naturally, therefore,
were the two births — that of the people into
national life ; that of their needful sustenance into
yearly life — combined in the Passover. All first-
fruits were holy to God : the first-born of men, the
first-produce of the earth. Both principles were
recognized in the Passover. When six weeks after,
the harvest had ripened, the first-fruits of ita ma
tured 'produce were similarly to be dedicated to
God. Both were waved, the rite which attested
the Divine presence and working all around us
being surely most appropriate aud significant in
their case. F. G.
WAY. This word has now in ordinary parlance
BO entirely forsaken its original sense (except in
combination, as in " highway," " causeway " ) and
is so uniformly employed in the secondary or meta
phorical sense of a " custom " or " manner," that
it is diflicult to remember that in the Bible it most
frequently signifies an actual road or track. Our
translators have employed it as the equivalent of
no less than eighteen distinct Hebrew terms. Of
these, several had the same secondary sense which
the word " way " has with ua. Two others (HnS

WEASEL

u This is more obscure in the A. V. even lhan the
others : " Come along by the plain of Meonenim."

and 3''n3) are employed only by the poets, and
are commonly rendered " path " in the A. V. But
the term which most frequently occuis, and in the
majority of cases signifies (though it also is now
and then uaed metaphorically) an actual road, is
"ry^^, derec, connected with the German treten
and the English " tread." It may be truly said
that there is hardly a single passage in which this
word occurs which would not be made clearer aud
more real if " road to " were substituted for '' way
of." Thus Gen. xvi. 7, " the spring on the road
to Shur; " Num. xiv. 25, "the road to the Red
Sea; " 1 Sam. vi. 12, " the road to Bethshemesh; "
Judg. ix. 37, " the road to the oak " of Meonenim j "
2 K. xi. 19, "the road to the gate." It turns that
which is a mere general expression into a substan
tial reality. And so in like manner with the word
dS6s in the New Testament, which is almost in
variably translated " way." Mark x. 32, " They
were on the road going up to Jerusalem ; " Matt. xx.
17, " and Jesus took the twelve disciples apart in
the road " — out of the crowd of pilgrims who,
like themselves, were bound for the Passover.
There is one use of both derec and idis which
must not be passed over, namely, in the sense of a
religious course. In the Old Test, this occurs but
rarely, perhaps twice: namely in Amos viii. 14,
tbe manner of Beersheba," where the prophet ia
probably alluding to some idolatrous rites then
practiced there ; and again in Ps. cxxxix. 24, " look
if there be any evil way," any idolatrous practices,
" in me, and lead me in the everlasting way."
But in the Acts of the Apostles 6S6s, "the way,"
"the road," is the received, almost technical, t«m
for the new religion which Paul first resisted and
afterwards supported. See Acts ix. 2, xix. 9, 2S,
xxii. 4, xxiv. 14, 22. In each of these the word
"that" is an interpolation of our translators, and
should have heen put into ItaUcs, as it is in xxiv. 22
The religion of Islam is spoken of in the Koran
as " the path (et iarik, iv. 66), and " the right
path " (i. 5 ; iv. 174). Gesenius ( Thes. p. 353) has
collected examples of the same expression in other
languages and religions. 6-
* WEALTH is used in the A. V. in some
passages (Ezr. ix. 12; Esth. x. 3; ICor. ». 24) in
its old sense of " weal " or " welfare." A.
* WEALTHY is used in the ^. V., Jer. xlix.
31, in the sense of " prosperous," " at ease " ; and
in Pa. Ixvi. 12 it has a similar meaning.
[Wealth.] A.
WEANING. [Abraham; Bauqoei,
Child.] WEAPONS. [Arms.]
WEASEL (lyn, chdled: 70X11: musiela)
occurs only in Lev. xi. 29, in the list of unclean
animals. According to the old versions and the
Talmud, the Heb. clidled denotes " a weasel" (see
Lewysohn, Zool. des Talm. p. 91, and Buxtorf, Lex.
V. Bab. et Talm. p. 756); but if the word is iden-
tical with the Arabic chuM ( Jj-a.) and the Syriac
chuldo (Jj-^Q.*/), as Bochart (Hieroz. ii. 435)
and others have endeavored to show, there is no
doubt that " a mole ' ' is the animal indicated. Ge
senius (Thes. p. 474), however, has the followiiig
very true observation : " Satis constat animaliuni
nomina perseepe in hac lingua hoc, in alia cognata

WEAVING
iliud, id vero simile, animal signifipai-e." He pre
fers to render the term by " Weasel."
Moles are common enough in Palestine ; Hassel
quist (Trav. p. 120), spealting of the country be
tween Jaffa and Rama, says he had never seen in
any phuje the ground so cast up by moles as in
these plams. There was scarce a yard's length
between each mole-hill. It is not improbable that
both the Talpa euripxa and the T. cceca, the
blind mole of which Aristotle speaks (Bist. Anim.
L 8, § 3), occur in Palestine, though we have no
definite information on this point. The family of
ifustelidcB also is doubtless well represented. Per
haps it is better to give to the Heb. term the same
signification which the cognate Arabic and Syriao
have, and understand a, " mole " to be denoted by
it [Mole.] W. H.
WEAVING (2TM). The art of weaving ap
pears to he coeval with the first dawning of civil
ization. In what country, or by whora it was in
vented, we know not: but we find it practiced with
great skill by the Egyptians at a very early period,
and hence the invention was not unnaturally attribu
ted to them (Plin. vii. 57). The "vestures of fine
linen " such as Joseph wore (Gen. xii. 42), were the
product ot Egyptian looms, and their quality, as at
tested by existing specimens, is pronounced to be
not inferior to the finest cambric of modern times
(Wilkinson, ii. 75). The Israelites were probably
acquainted with tbe process before their sojourn in
Egypfc; but ifc was undoubtedly there fchat they at
tained the proficiency which enabled them to exe
cute the hangings of the Tabernacle (Ex. xxxv. 35 ;
1 Chr. iv. 21 ), and other artistic textures. At a
later period the Egyptians were still famed for their
manufactures of " fine ' (i. e. haclded) flax and of
chii-i," rendered in the A. V. " networks," but
more probably a white material either of linen or
cotton (Is. xix. 9). From them the Tyrians pro
cured the "fine linen with broidered work " for the
sails of their vessels (Ez. xxvii. 7), the handsome
character of which may be inferred frora the repre-
seoCations of similar sails in fche Egyptiau paintings
(Wilkinson, ii. 131, 167). Weaving was carried on
m Egypt, generally, but not universally, by men
(Herod, ii. 35; comp. Wilkinson, ii. 84). TMs was
the case also among the Jews about the time of the
Exodus (1 Chr. iv. 21), but in later times it uauaUy
fell to the lot of the females to supply the household
with clothing (1 Sam. ii. 19; 2 K. xxiii. 7), and an
industrious housewife would produce a surplus for
sale to others (Prov. xxxi. 13," 19, 24).
The character of the loom and the process of
weaving can only be inferred from incidental notices.
The Egyptian loom was usually upright, and the
weaver stood at his work. The cloth was fixed
eometimes at the top, sometimes at the bottom, so
that the remark of Herodotua (ii. 85), that the
Egyptians, contrary to the uaual practice, pressed
the woof downwards, must be received with reser-
fation (Wilkinson, ii. 85). That a similar variety
rf usage prevaUed among the Jews, may be inferred

WEAVING

348C

i^DD ; BO called firom its resemblance fco a
ik>ughmaa'8 yoke.
^ ilD3p. This term is otherwise understood of
Ihe warji,' aa in tho LXX. and the Tulgate (Gesen.
Xhti. p. 890).

from the remark of St. John (xix. 23), that tho
seamless coat was woven " from the top" (e/c ru
&vii)6ev). Tunics of thb kind were designated b;^
the Roman rectee, implying that they were mad.
at an upright loom at which the weaver stood tf
his work, thrusting the woof upwards (Plin. viii.
74). The raodern Arabs use a procumliient loom
raised above the ground by short legs (Burckhardt'/
Notes, i. 67). The Bible does not notice the loom
itself, but speaks of the beam 6 to which the warj
was attached (1 Sam. xvii. 7; 2 Sam. xxi. 19):
and of the pin <¦ to which the cloth was fixed, and
on which it was rolled (Judg. xvi. 14). We have
also notice of the shuttle,'' which is described by a
term significant of the act of weaving (Job vil. 6);
the thrum e or threads which attached the web to
the beam (Is. xxxviii. 12, margin) ; and the web <t
itself (Judg. xvi. 14; A. V. "beam"). Whether
the two terms in Lev. xiii. 48, rendered " warp "/
and " woof," ff really mean these, admits of doubt,
inasmuch as it is not easy to see how the one could
be affected with leprosy without the other : perhaps
the terms refer to certain kinds of texture (Knobel,
in lac). The shuttle is occasionally dispensed
with, the woof beiug passed through with the hand
(Robinson's Bibl. lies. i. 169). The speed with
which the weaver used his shuttle, and the decisive
raanner in which he separated tbe web from the
thrum when his work was done, supplied vivid
images, the forraer of the speedy passage of life
(Job vii. 6), the latter of suddeu death (Is. xxxviii.
12). The textures produced by the Jewish weavers
were very various. The coarser kinds, such as
tent-cloth, sackcloth, and the " hairy garments "
of the poor were made of goat's or camel's hair
(Ex. xxvi. 7; Matt. iii. 4). Wool was extensively
used for ordinary clothing (Lev. xiii. 47; Prov.
xxvii. 26, xxxi. 13; Ez. xxvii. 18), while fi)r finer
work flax was used, varying in quality, and pro
ducing the different textures described in the Bible
as " linen " and " fine linen." The mixture of
wool aud flax in cloth intended for a garment was
interdicted (Lev. xix. 19; Deut. xxii. 11). With
regaid to the ornamental kinds of work, the terms
rilcmah, " needlework," and ma'dseh chosheb, " the
work of the cunning workman,'' have been already
discussed under the head of Embkoidereb, to the
effect that both kinds were produced in the loom,
and that the flistincfcion between them lay in the
addition of a device or pattern in the latter, the
rilcmah consisting simply of a variegated stuff
without a pattern. We may further notice the
termsj (1.) shdbats'' and tnshbits' applied fco the
robes of the priest (Ex. xxviii. 4 S9), and eguify-
ing iesselatai (A. V. "broidered"), »'. e. with
depressions probably of a square shape worked iu
it, similar to the texture described by the Romans
under the term scutulitus (Plin. viii. 73; Juv. ii.
97); this was produced in the loom, as it is ex
pressly said to be the work of the weaver (Ex.
xxxix. 27). (2.) Moshzar'' (A.V. "twined''),
applied to the fine linen out of which the curtains

d 5"1H. The same word describes both the
and the shuttle.
e nb?. / ^¦^?7. ff 3ns.

3490

WEB

of the Tabernacle and the sacerdotal vestments were
made (Ex. xxvi. 1, xxviii. 6, etc.) ; in this texture
each thread consisted of several finer threads twisted
together, as is described to have been the case with
the famed corselet of Amasis (Herod, iii. 47). (3.)
Mishbeisoih zahdb " (A. V. " of wrought gold "),
textures in which gold thread was interwoven (Ps.
xiv. 13). The Babylonians were particularly skill
ful in this branch of weaving, and embroidered
groups of men or animals on the robes (Plin. viii.
74; Layard, Nin. ii. 413); the "goodly Baby
lonish garment " secreted by Achan was probably
of this character (Josh. vii. 21). The sacerdotal
vestments are said to have been woven in one piece
wifchout the intervention of any needlework to join
the seams (Joseph. Ant. iii. 7, § 4). The " coat
without seam " (^iriiv &p^cupos'': worn by Jesus
at the time of his crucifixion (John xix. 23), was
probably of a sacerdotal character in thisiespect,
but made of a less costly material (Carpzov, Appar.
p. 72). W. L. B.
* WEB. [WEAVING ]
* WEDDING. This topic has been ex
haustively treated under the head of Marriage
(iii. 1793-1807), to which the reader is referred.
In this relation, the Canticles may be entitled to
special recognition, as a sacred book portraying,
according to almost every theory of its interpreta
tion, the sacredness of wedded love — there being a
general agreement that its two principal personages
were wedded, or solemnly betrothed, and that the
theme of the song is chaste, connubial love. This
view is fatal to the hypothesis advanced in a pre
ceding article [Shulamite, iv. p. 3021], that
" the object of Solomon's passion " was a lovely
Sbunammite girl, who figured in tbe history of the
royal family (1 K. i. 3, 4, ii. 17, 21), one of the
court-beauties of his day. The conjecture is fur
ther discountenanced by the allusions (Cant. iii.
6, viii. 5) 'to the bridal procession and the bride
coming up from " the wilderness " (nS'l^n), the
term by which the sacred writers generally desig
nate the southern desert. It is still further dis
credited by her allusions to her foreign extraction;
and the deprecatory appeal to the daughters of
Jerusalem (Cant. i. 5, 6), quite out of place on
the lips of a native Jewess, of the courfc circle,
would well befit a dark-skinned daughter of Egypt,
or of one of the desert tribes. S. W.
* WEDGE. [Mines, iii. 1939 b.]
WEEK (Stttt?, or V'p.W, from V^i^,
"seven," a heptad of anything, but particularly
used for a period of seven days : t^Sofids ' septi-
mana). We have also, and much oftener, n3?3t27,
or CD'' nrntr.
Whatever controversies exist respecting the ori
gin of the week, there can be none about the great
antiquity, on particular occasions at least, among
the Shemitic races, of measuring time by a period
of seven days. This has been thoughfc to be im
plied in the phrase respecting the sacrifices of Cain
and Abel (Gen. iv. 3), " in process of time," liter
ally " at the end of days.'' It is to be traced in
the nawative of the subsidence of the Flood (Gen.
/iii. 10), " and he stayed yet other seven days; "
«nd we tnd it recognized by the Syrian Laban

» anv msatra
T T J ; •

WEEK
(Gen. xxix. 27), "fulfill her week." It is needless
to say that this division of time is a marked feature
of the Mosaic Law, and one into whieh the whole
year was parted, the Sabbath snfBciently 8howuii>
that. The week of seven daya was also made the
key to a scale of seven, running through the Sab
batical years up to that of jubilee. [See Sab-
RATH) Sabhatical Year; and Jubilee, Yeab
OP.] The origin of this division of time, is a matter
which has given birth to much spechlation. Itg
antiquity is so great, its observance so wide-spread
and it occupies so important a place in sacred
things, that it has been very generally thrown back
as far as the creation of man, who on thia suppo
sition was told from the very first to divide his
time on the model of the Creator's order of workmg
and resting. The week and the Sabbath are, if
this be so, as old as man himself; and we need not
seek for reasons either in the human mind or the
facts with which that mind comes in contact, for
the adoption of such a division of time, since it is
to be referred neither t^ man's thoughts nor to
man's will. A purely theological ground is thus
established for the week and for the sacredness of
the nuraber seven. They who embrace this view
support it by a reference to the six days' creation
and the Divine rest on the seventh, which they
consider to have been made known to man from
the very first, and by an appeal to the exceeding
prevalence of the hebdomadal division of time fix)m
the earliest age . — an argument the force of which
is considered to be enhanced hy the alleged absence
of any natural ground for it.
To all this, however, it may be objected that we
are quite in tbe dark as to when the record of the
six days' creation was made known, that as human
language is used and human apprehensions are
addressed in that record, so the week being already
kuown, the perfection of the Divine work and
Sabbath may well have been set forth under the
figure of one, the existing division of time mould
ing the document, instead of the document giving
bu-th to the division; that old and wide-spread as
is the recognition of tbat division, it is not uni
versal; that the nations which knew not of it
were too iraportant to allow the argument flum
its prevalency to stand; aud that so far from its
being without ground in nature, it is the most
obvious and convenient way of dividing the month.
Each of these points must now be briefly consid
ered : —
1st. That the week rests on a theological ground
may be cheerfully acknowledged by hoth sides; but
nothing is determined by such acknowledgment as
to the original cause of adopting this division of
time. The records of creation and the fourth com
mandment give no doubt the ultimate and there
fore the deepest ground of the weekly division,
bufc it does not therefore follow that it was not
adopted for lower reasons before either was known.
Whether the week gave its sacredness to the
number seven, or whether the ascendency of that
number helped to determine the dimensions of tbe
week, it is irapossible to say. The latter fact, the
ancient ascendency of the number seven, raight
rest on divers grounds. The planets, according
to the astronomy of those times, were seven m
number; so are the notes of the diatonic scale;
so also many other things naturally attracthig
observation. 2d'y. The prevalence of the weeMy division wm

WEEK
indeed very great, but a nearer approach to univer-
gality is required to render it an argument for the
view in aid of which it is appealed to. It was
adopted by all the Shemitic races, and, in the later
period of theu: history afc least, by the Egyptians.
Across the Atlantic we find it, or a division all but
identical wifch it, among the Peruvians. It also
obtains now with the Hindoos, but ifcs antiquity
among thera is matter of quesfcion. It is possible
that it was introduced into India by fche Arabs and
Mohammedans. So in China we find it, but whether
universally or only among the Buddhists admits of
doubt. (See, for both, Priaulx'a Quxstiones Mo-
snicce, a work with many of the results of which
ffe may be well expected to quarrel, but which
deserves, in respect nofc only of curiou.^ learning, but
of the vigorous and valuable thought with which it
ia impr^nated, to be far more known than it is.)
On the other hand, there is no reason for thinking
the week known till a later period either to Greeks
or Romans.
3dly. So far from the week being a division of
time without ground in nature, there was much
to recommend its adoption. Where the days were
named from planetary deities, as among first the
Assyrians and Chaldees, and then fche Eigyptians,
there of course each period of seven days would
constitute a whole, and that whole might come to
be recognized by nafcions that disregarded or
rejected the practice which had shaped and deter-
mmed it. But further, the week is a most natural
and nearly an exact quadriparfcition of the month,
so that the quarters of the moon may easily have
suggested it.
It is beside the purpose of this article to trace
the hebdomadal division among other nafcions than
the Hebrews. The week of the Bible is thafc with
which we have to do. Even if it were proved that
the planetary week of the Egyptians, as sketched
by Dion Cassius {Hist. Rom. xxxvii. 18), exisfced
at or before the time of the Exodus, the children
of Israel did not copy that. Their week was
simply determined by the Sabbath ; and there is
no evidence of any other day, wifch them, having
either had a name assigned to it, or any particular
associations bound up with it. The days seemed
to have been distinguished merely by the ordinal
numerals, counted from the Sabbath. We shall
have indeed to return fco the Egyptian planetary
week at a later stage of our inquiry, but our first
and main business, as we have already said, is with
the week of the Bible.
We have seen in Gen. xxix. 27, thafc it was
Itnown to the ancient Syrians, and tbe injunction
to Jacob, "fulfill her week," indicates that it was
in use as a fixed terra for great festive celebrations.
The most probable exposition of the passage is, that
Ijaban tells Jacob to fulfill Leah's toeek, the proper
period of the nuptial festivities in connection with
his marriage to her, and then he may have Rachel
also (comp. Judg. xiv.). And so too for funeral
observance, as iu the case of the obsequies of
Jacob, Joseph " made a mourning for his father
seven days" (Gen. 1. 10). But neither of these
instances, any more than Noah's procedure in the
irk, go further than showing the custom of ob-
Jendng «, term of seven days for any observance
of importance. They do not prove that the
whole year, or the whole month, was thus divided
*t all times, and without regard to remarkable
jvents. In £xodua of course the week comes into very

WEEK

3491

distinct manifestation. Two of the great feasts —
the Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles — are
prolonged for seven days after that ot their initiation
(Exod. xii. 15-20, etc.), a custom whioh remains
in the Christian Church, in the rituals of whicb the
remembrances and topics of the great festivals are
prolonged till what is technically called the octave.
Although the Feast of Pentecost lasted but one day,
yet the time for its observance was to be courted
by weeks from the Passover, whence one of its
titles, " the Feast of Weeks."
The division by seven was, as we have seen, ex
panded so as to make the seventh raonth and the
seventh year Sabbatical. To whatever extent the
laws enforcing this may have been neglected before
the Captivity, their efifect, when studied, must have
been to render the words 3?'12££7, e$Sop.dt, week,
capable of meaning a seven of years almost as
naturally as a seven of days. Indeed the generality
of the word would have this etfect at any rate.
Hence their use to denote the latter in prophecy,
more especially in that of Daniel, is not mere arbi
trary symbolism, but the employment of a not un
familiar and easily underetood language. This is not
the place to discuss schemes of prophetic interpre
tation, nor do we propose giving our opinion of any
such, but it is connected with our subject to re
mark that, whatever be the merits of that whieh in
Daniel and the Apocalypse understands a year by a
day, it cannot be set aside as forced and unnatural.
Whether days were or were not intended to be thus
understood in the places in question, their being so
would have been a congruous, and we may say
logical attendant on the scheme which counts weel^
of years, and both would have been a natural com
putation to minds familiar and occupied with the
law of the Sabbatical year.
In the N. T. we of course find such clear recog
nition of and familiarity with tbe week as needs
scarcely be dwelt on. Sacred as the division was,
and stamped deep on tbe minds and customs oif
God's people, it now received additional solemnity
firora our Lord's last earthly Passover gathering up
his work of life into a week.
Hence tbe Cliristian Church, frora the very first,
was farailiar with tbe week. St. Paul's language
(1 Cor. xvi. 2, Kara /ilav tra^pdrmv) shows this.
We cannot conclude from it that such a division of
time was observed by the inhabitants of Corinth
generally; for they to whom he was writing,
though doubtless the majority of them were Gen
tiles, yet knew the Lord's day, and most probably
the Jewish Sabbath. But though we can infer no
more than this from the place in question, it it
clear that if not by this time yet very soon after,
the whole Roman world had adopted tbe hebdom
adal division. Dion Cassius, who wrote in the 2d
century, speaks of it as botb universal and recent
in his time. He represents it as coming from
Egypt, and gives two schemes, by one or other of
which he considers tbat tbe planetary names of the
different days were fixed (Dion Cassius, xxvii. 18).
Tbose names, or corresponding ones, have perpetu
ated theraselves over Cliristendom, though no asso
ciations of any kind are now connected with them,
except in so far as the whimsical conscience of some
has quarrelled with their Pagan origin, and led to
an attempt at their disuse. It would be interest
ing, though foreign to our present purpose, to in
quire into the origin of this planetary week. A
deeply-learned paper iu the Philolosicai Museum,

3492 WEEKS, FEAST OP
by the late Archdeacon Hare,* gives the credit of
its invention to the Chaldees. Dion Cassius was
however pretty sure to have been right in tracing
ifcs adoption by the Roman world to an Egyptian
origin. Ifc is very striking to reflect that while
Christendom was in its cradle, the law by which
she was to divide her fcime came without collusion
wifch her into universal observance, thus making
fchings ready for her fco impose on mankind thafc
weelc on which all Chrisfcian life has been shaped —
that week grounded on no worship of planetary
deities nor dictated by the mere wish to quadri
partite the month,, but based on the earliest lesson
of revelation, and proposing to man his Maker's
model as that whereby to regulate his working and
his rest — that week which once indeed, in modem
times it has been attempted to abolish, because it
was attempted to abolish the whole Christian faifch,
but which has kept, as we are sure it ever will keep,
its ground, being bound up wifch that other, and
sharing therefore in that other's invincibility and
perpetuity. F. G.
WEEKS, FEAST OF- [Pentecost.]
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
L WEIGHTS.
IntrodvrCiion. — It will be well to explain briefly
the method of inquiry which led to tbe conclusidns
stated in this article, the subject being intricate,
and the conclusions in many main particulars dif
ferent from any at which other investigators have
arrived. The disagreement of the opinions respect
ing ancient weights that have been formed on the
evidence of fche Gre€!k and Lafcin writers shows the
importance of giving the firsfc place to the evidence
of monuments. The evidence of fche Bible is clear,
except in the case of one passage, but it requires a
monumental commentary. The general principle
of the present inquiry was to give the evidence of
the monuments the preference on all doubtful
points, and to compare it with thafc of literature,
so as to ascertain fche purport of statements which
otherwise appeared to be explicable in two, or even
three,- diflferent ways. Thus, if a certain talent is
said to be equal to so many Attic drachms, these
are usuaUy explained to be drachms on the old, or
Commercial standard, or on Solon's reduced stand
ard, or again on the further reduced standard equal
to that of Roman denarii of the early emperors ; but
if we ^certain from we^hts or coins fche weight of
the talent in question, we can decide with what
standard it is compared, unless the text is hope
lessly corrupt.
Besides this general principle, it will be necessary
to b^tr in mind the foUowing postulates.
1. All ancient Greek systems of weighfc were de
rived, either directly or indirectly, from au eastern
source. 2. AU the older systems of ancient Greece and
Persia, the .-Eginetan, the Attic, the Babylonian,
and the Euboic, are divisible either by 6,000, or by
3,S00. 3. The 6,000th or 3,600th part of the talent is a
divisor of aU higher weights and coins, and a mul
tiple of aU lower weights and coins, excepfc its fcwo
thirds. 4. Coins are always somewhat below the stand-
tfd weighfc.
5. The statements of ancient writers as to the

a Philolog. Mus. vol. 1.

WEIGHTS AND MEASUEES
relation of difl'erent systems are to be taken eithei
as indicating original or current relation. When a
set of statements shows a special study of metrol
ogy we must infer original relation; isolated state
ments may rafcher be fchought to indicate current
relation. AU fche sfcatements of a writer, which are
not borrowed, probably indicate either the one oi
the ofcher kind of relation.
6. The sfcafcements of ancient wrifcers ai'e to be
taken in their seemingly obvious sense, or discaided
altogether as incorrect or uninteUigible.
7. When a certain number of drachms or other
denominations of one metal are said to correspond
fco a certain number of drachms or other ^enomina.
tions of another metal, it must not be assumed that
the system is fche same in bofch cases.
Some of these postulates may seem somewhat
sfcricfc, bufc it must be recoUected that some, if not
all, of the systems to be considered have a mutual
relation that is very apt to lead the inquirer to
visionary results if he does nofc use great caution m
his investigations.
The information respecting the Hebrew weights
thafc is contained in direct statements necessitates
an examination of the systems used by, or known
to, the Greeks as late as Alexander's time. We
begin with such an examination, then state the di
rect data for fche determination of the Hebrew sj*-
fcem or systems, and finally endeavor to eflfect that
determination, adding a comparative view of aU our
main results.
I. Early Greek Talents. — Three principsd sys
tems were used by the Greeks before the time of
Alexander, — those of the .^ginetan, the Attic, and
the Euboic talents.
1. The -^ginetan talent is stated to have con
tained 60 minae, and 6,000 drachms. The follow
ing points are incontestably established on the evi
dence of ancient writers. Its drachm was heavier
than fche Atfcic, by which, when unquaUfied, we
mean tbe drachm of fcbe fuU monetary st^dard,
weighing aboufc 67.5 grains Troy. PoUni stata
that it contained 10,000 Attic drachms and 100
Attic minae. Aulus Gellius, referring to the time
of Demosthenes, speaks of a talent being equal to
10,000 drachms, and, to leave no doubt, says they
would be the same number of denarii, which in his
own time were equal to current reduced Attic
drachms, the terms drachms and denarii bemg fchm
used interchangeably. In accordance with these
sfcafcements, we find a monetary system to have
been in use in Macedonia and Thrace, of which the
drachm weighs about 110 gra., in very nearly the
proportion required fco the Attic (6: 10:: 67.5:
112.5). The silver coins of -^gina, however, and of many
ancient Greek cities, foUow a lower standard, of
which the drachm has an average maximum weight
of about 96 grs. The famous Cyziceue staters of
electrum appear to follow the same standard as the
coins of jEgina, for they weigh about 240 grs., and
are said to have been equal in value to 28 Attic
drachms of silver, a daric, of 129 grs., beiug equal
to 20 such drachms, which would give the Cyzi-
cenes (20 : 129 : : 28: 180) three fourths of gold, the
very proportion assigned to the composition of elec
trum by Pliny. If we may infer fchat the silver
was nofc counted in the value, the Cyzicenes would
be equal to low didrachms of ^ina. The drachm
obtained from the silver coins of ^gina has very
nearly tbe weight, 92.3 grs., tbat Boeckh assigni
to that of Athens before Solon's reduction, of which

WEIGHTS AND MEASUEES

3493

the system continued in use afterwards as the
Commercial talent. The coins of Athens give a
standard, 67.5 grs., for the Solonian drachm, tliat
does not allow, taking that standard for the basis
of computation, a higher weight for the ante-So-
Ionian drachm than about that computed by
Boeckh. An examination of JMr. Burgon's weights from
Athens, in the British Museum, has, however, in
duced us to infer a higher standard in both cases.
These weights bear inscriptions which prove their
denominations, and that they follow two systems.
One weighing 9,980 grs. troy has the inscription
MNA ArOP (lira, aymaiost), another weighing
7,171, simply MNA. We have therefore two sys
tems evidently in the relation of the Commercial
Attic, and Solonian Attic (9,980: 7,171; : 138.88:
99.7 instead of 100), a conclusion borne out by the

fuller data given a little later {§ I. 2). The lower
weight is distinguished by AEMO on a weight of
3,482 (X 2 = 6,964) grs., and by q^^q on one
of 884 (X 8 = 7,072) : its mina was therefore called
^fioaia. The identity of these two systems, the
lUarket and the Popular, with the Commercial and
Solonian of Athens, is therefore evident, and we
thus obtain a higher standard for both Attic tal
ents. From the correct relation of the weights of
the two minse given above, we may compute the
drachms of the two talents at about 99.8 and 71.7
grs. The heavier standard of the two Attic sys
tems afforded by these weights reduces the difficulty
that is occasioned by the difference of the two
.^ginetan standards.
We thus obtain the following principal standardi
of the JG^netan weight.

A. — TABLE OS MR. BURGON'S WEIGHTS FROM ATHENS.
All these weights are of lead, except Nos. 15 and 38, which are of bronze.

No.

Weight, Srs.
Troy.

Inscription.

Type.

Con
di tion.c

Value, Attic I
Com-
mercial.6 del

jxcess or
iciency.

Value, Attic
Solonian.'

Excess or
deficiency.

1

9,980

MNA ArOP

Dolphin.

A

Mina

2

9,790

Id.
D
(Mina)
-190
8
7,171
MNA
Id.
A
Mina
4
7,048
Id.
d
(Mina)
-123
5
4,424
Diota
B
J MINA?
-356.6
6
3,874
Tortoise
B
1 MINA ?
+ 288.5
7
3,482
AEMO
Id.i
B
Mina
-103.5
8
3,461
Turtle
B
iMina
-124.5
9
3,218
TETAPT
Tortoise
A? or D?
JMINA
-367.5
10
2,959
Half diota
a
J. MINA?
-1- 90.6
11
2,866
MO
Turtle
B
¦ MINA ?
- 3.4
12
2,210
AEMO
Half diota
C
i ¦ MINA
. MINA
-180.3
13
1,872
Half turtle
B
-1- 79.2
14
1,770
EMrJfMAP
Half tortoise
B
MINA
- 22.7
li
1,698
Crescent
B?
1 Mina?
-298
.
.
16
1,648
B
IMina?
-348
.
17
1,603
n M
B » or D?
iMina?
-393
18
1,348
B
• •
A
2 deca-
drachms.
-' 86.2
19
1,231
MO
Quarter diota ^
B
A MINA ?
+ 35.8
20
1,172
AH
Crescent
B
^ MINA ?
- 23.1
21
1,171
Crescent
B
ii MINA?
- 24.1
22
1^082
Half Turtle*
B
IMina?
+ 84
i Mina?
-113.1
23
1,045
'aemo
Crescent
E
10
J. Mina?
-150.1
24
988
AEMO
Diota in wreath *
B
1 Mina?
1 Mina
1 Mina
+ 91.6
25
928.5
AEVIO
Owl, A. in field*
0
-j- 32.1
26
924
Half crescent and
B
,
-(- 27.6
star
27
915.5
.
D?
1 Mina
i Mina
1 Mina
-1- 19.1
28
910.5
B
4- lil
29
901
Quarter diota
B
+ ^J
30
889
A . . 0
,
d
j Mina
1 Mina
J Mina
i Mina
- ^.3
31
884
AB OrAO
,
C?
- 12,3
32
869
Rose
C?
- 27.3
33
859
AEMO
Uncertain obj. in
d
,
- 37.3
wreath*
34
845
Half crescent
B
1 MinaT
- 51.3
36
766.5
A
D?
4 didracbms
-41.9
36
641.5
B
8 drachms?
- 32.1
37
527.5
T
B
1 of J mina ?
^-28'.6
38
460
B?
5 drachms ?
-49
6 drachms?
-)- 19.7
39
411
B
4 drachms ?
-1-11.8
6 drachms?
- 19.2
10
388
B?
4 drachms ?
-11.2
5 drachms?
-f- 29.4
' Conntermark, tripod. 2 Countermark, prow. » Turtle, headless ? 1 Countermark.
' Explanation of signs : A, Scarcely injured. B, A little weight lost. C, More than a little lost. D, Much
ireight lost, d, Much corroded. E, Very much weight lost. When two signs are given, the former ia the
nore probable. « The weight of the Commercial Attic mina is here assumed to be about 9,980 grs. ' The
rdght ot the Solonian Attic mina is here assumed to be about 7,171 grs. The heavier talent is indicated by
»pltal letters.
3494

WEIGHTS AND MEASTJEKS

a. The Macedonian talent, or .£ginetan of the
writers, weighing about 660,000 grs., containing 60
minse and 6,000 drachms.
0. The Commercial talent of Athens, used for
the coins of .^gina, weighing, as a monetary talent,
never more than about 576,000 grs., reduced from
a weight-talent of about 598,800, and divided info
the same principal parts as the preceding.
It may be objected to this opinion, that the coins
of ./Egina should rather give us the true JEginetan
standard than tbose of Macedonia, but it may be
replied, that we know from literature and monu
ments of but two Greek systems heavier than the
ordinary or later Attic, and that the heavier of
fchese systems Is sometimes called J^lginetan, the
lighter, which beai's two other names, never.
2. The Attic talent, when simply thus desig
nated, is the standard weight introduced by Solon,
which stood to the older or Commercial talent in
ths relation of 100 to 138 8-9. Its average mari-
mum weight, as derived from the coins of Athens
and the evidence of ancient writers, gives a drachm
of about 67.5 grs. ; but Mr. Burgon's weights, as
already shown, enable us to raise this sum to 71.7.
Those weights have also enabled us to made a very
curious discovery. We have already seen that two
minse, the Market and the Popular, are recognized
in them, one weight, having, the inscription MNA
ArOP (fim ayopaiosl), weighing 9,980 grs., and
another, inscribed MNA (/ivoESTj/ioirla]), weighing
7,171 grs., these being in almost exactly the rela
tion of the Commercial and ordinary Attic min£e
Sri/j.ia'iai. There is no indication of any third
system, but certain of the marks of value prove
that the lower system had two talents, the heavier
of which was double the weight of the ordinary
talent. No. 9 has the inscription TETAPT, " the
quarter,'' and weighs 3,218 grs., giving a unit of
12,872 grs.; No. 14, inscribed J™^, the "half-
I B ' I ETAP'
quarter," weighs 1,770 grs., giving a unit of 14,-
160 grs. We thus obtain a mina twice that of

Solon's reduction. The probable reason for the
use of this larger Solonian talent will be shown in
a later place (§ IV.). These weights are of about
the date of the Peloponnesiau War. (See Table
A.) From these data it appears tbat the Attic talent
weighed about 430.260 grs. by the weights, and
tbat the coins give a talent of about 405,000 gis.
the latter being apparently the weight to whidi
the talent was reduced after a time, and the maxi
mum weight at which it is reckoned by ancient
writers. It gradually lost weight in the coinage,
until the drachm fell to about 57 grs. or less; thns
coming to be equivalent to, or a little lighter than,
the denarius of the early Caesars. It is imporhmt,
when examining the statements of ancient writen,
to consider whether the full monetary weight o(
the drachm, mina, or talent, or the weight after
this last reduction, is intended. There are cases,
as in the comparison of a talent fallen into disuse,
where the value in Attic drachms or denarii so de
scribed is evidently used with reference to the fiiU
Attic monetary weight.
3. The Euboic talent, though used in Greece, is
also said to have been used in Persia, and there
can be no doubt of its eastern origin. We there
fore reserve the discussion of it for the next section
(§ n., 2).
II. Foreign Talents of the same Period. — Two
foreign systems of the same period, besides the He
brew, are mentioned by ancient writers, the Baby
lonian talent and the Euboic, which Herodotus re
lates to have been used by the Persians of his time
respectively for the weighing of theu: silver and gold
paid in tribute.
1. The Babylonian talent may be determmed
from existing weights found by Mr. Layard at
Nineveh. These are in the forms of lions and ducks,
and are all upon the same system, although ths
same denominations sometimes weigh in the pnH
portion of 2 to 1. On account of their great im
portance we insert a table, specifying their weights,

B. — TABLE OF WEIGHTS FROM NINEVEH.
Two weights in the series are omitted in this table ; one is a large duck representing the same weight Bf
No. 1, but much injured ; the other is a small lion, of which the weight is doubtful, as it cannot be decided
whether it was adjusted with one or two rings. I

Wo.

Form and

Phoenician

Cuneiform

Marks

Con

Weight.

Computed

Division of

Material.

Inscription.

Inscription.

of Value.

dition.!

Grs. Troy.

Weight.

Gt. T.

Lsr. T.

1

Duck stone

XXX Manehs

A

233,300

239,760

1

2

(( t{

X Manehs
B
77,600
79,920
. .
3
« ((
B
15,000
15,984
4
Lion bronze
XV Manehs
B
230,460
239,760
J
6
« «
\' Manehs
V Manehs
B
77,820
79,920
1
6
« «
III Manehs
III Manehs
C
44,196
47,952
7
tt tt
II Manehs
II Manehs
A
30,744
31,968
3
tt tt
II Manehs
II Manehs
B
29,796
Id.
30
•
9
tt ft
II Manehs
B
14,604
15,984
k_
10
tt tt
A
15,984
Id.
11
tt tt
Maneh
Maneh
B
14,724
Id.
k
12
tt tt
B
10,272
?
13
tt tt
Maneh
Maneh
B
7.224
7,992
1
14
tt tt
Maneh
Maneh
B
7,404
Id.
16
tt tt
B
3,708
3,996
".
16
tt It
Fifth
B
3,060
3.196
JM
17
tt tt
Quarter
B
3.648
3,998
^U
¦ •
18
Duck stone
IIIIII
C
2,904
3,196
¦ •
19
tt tt
IIIIII
B
2,748
Id.
20
tt tt
luiiin
B
1,968
2,131
_^'.
A i,. Well preserved. B, Somewhat injured. C, Much injured.
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

3495

Inscriptions, and degree of preservation. (See Ta^
hb B, previous page.)
From these data we may safely draw the follow
ing inferences.
The weights represent a double system, of which
the heavier talent contained two of the lighter tal
ents. The heavier talent contained 60 manehs. The
maneh was divided into thirtieths and sixtieths.
We conclude the units having these respective re
lations to the maneh of the heavy talent to be divis
ions of it, because in the case of the first a thirti
eth is a more hkely division than a fifteenth, which
it would be if assigned to tbe lighter talent, and
liecause, in the case df the second, eight sixtieths is
a more likely division than eight thirtieths.
The Ughter talent contained 60 manehs. Accord
ing to Dr. Hincks, the maneh of the lighter talent
was divided into sixtieths, and these again into
thirtieths. The sixtieth is so important a division
iu any Babylonian system, tbat there can be no
doubt that Dr. Hiucks is right in assigning it to
this talent, and moreover its weight is a value of
great consequence in tbe Babylonian systera as well
as in one derived from it. Besides, the sixtieth
bears a different name from the sixtieth of the
heavier talent, so that there must have been a six
tieth in each, unless, but this we have shown to be
unlikely, the latter belongs to the lighter talent,
whioh would then bave had a sixtieth and thirtieth.
The following table exhibits our results.
Heavier Talent. q^_ Troy.
^ Maneh 266.4
2 Js- Maneh 632.8
60 30 Maneh 16,984
3,600 1,800 60 Talent 969,040
Lighter Talent.
^ of ^^ Maneh 4.44
30 -A- Maneh 133.2
1,800 60 Maneh 7,992
108,000 3,600 60 Talent 479,620
Certain low subdivisions of the lighter talent may
lie determined from smaller weights, in the British
Museum, from Babylonia or Assyria, not found
with those last described. These are, with one ex
ception, ducks, and have the following weights,
which we compare with the multiples of the small
est subdivision of the lighter talent.
Smaller Babylonian or Assyrian Thirtieths of Sixtieth
Weights. of Maneli.
Grs. Troy. ITnit, 4.44 f,'},1E'°|,f
1. Duck, marked n, wt. 329 80. 355.2 320
I ;; g^} 30.133.2 120
4 « 100 25. Ill 100
6. " 87+ 22. 97.6 88
6. Weight like short 1 gg jl. 93.2 84
stopper. J
7. Duck. 80-1- 20. 88.8 80
8. « 40- 10. 44.4 40
9. « 34- 8. 36 5 82
10. " 19 6. 22.2 20
Before comparing the evidence of the coins which
we may suppose to have been struck according to
ihe Babylonian talent, it will be well to ascertain
whether the higher or lower talent was iu use, or
whether both were, in the period of the Persian
Boios. Herodotus speaks of the Babylonian talent as not
P*atly exceeding the Euboic, which has been com- j

puted to be equivalent to the Commercial Attic, but
more reasonably as nearly the sarae as the ordinary
Attic. Pollux makes the Babylonian talent equal
to 7,000 Attic drachms. Taking the Attic drachm
at 67.5 grs., the standard probably used by Pollux,
the Babylonian talent would weigh 472,500, which
is very near the weight of the lighter talent. .£lian
says that the Babylonian talent was equal to 72
Attic minse, which, on tbe standard of 67.5 to the
drachm, gives a sura of 486,000. We may there
fore suppose that the lighter talent was generally,
if not universally, in use in the time of the Psrsiau
coins. Herodotus relates that the king of Persia received
the silver tribute of the satrapies according to tha
Babvlonian talent, but the gold, according to the
Euboic. We may therefore infer that the silver
coinage of the Persian monarchy was then adjusted
to the former, the gold coinage to the latter, if there
was a coinage in both metals so early. The oldest
coins, both gold and silver, of the Persian mon
archy, are of the time of Herodotus, if not a little
earlier; and there are still more ancient pieces, in
both metals, of tbe same weights as Persian gold
and silver coins, which are found at or near Sardes,
and can scarcely be doubted to be tbe coinage of
Crcesus, or of another Lydian king of the Oth cen
tury. The larger silver coins of the Persian mon
archy, and those of the satraps, are of the following
denominations and weights : — Grs. Troy.
Piece of three sigli  253.5
Piece of two sigli  169
Siglos  84.6
The only denomination of which we know thi,
name is the siglos, whicb, as having the sarae type
as the Daric, appears to be the oldest Persian silver
coin. It is the ninetieth part of the maneh of the
lighter talent, and the 5,400th of that talent. The
piece of three sigli is the thirtieth part of that
maneh, and the 1,800th of the taient. If there
were any doubt as to these coins being struck upon
the Babylonian standard, it would be removed in
the next part of our inquiry, in which we shall
show that the relation of gold and silver occasioned
these divisions.
2. The Euboic talent, though bearing a Greek
name, is rightly held to have been originally an
eastern system. As it was used to weigh the gold
sent as tribute to the king of Persia, we may infer
that it was the standard of the Persian gold money;
and it is reasonable to suppose that the coinage of
Euboea was upon its standard. If our result as to
the talent, when tested by the coins of Pei-sia and
Eubcea, confirms this inference and supposition, it
may be considered sound.
We must now discuss the celebrated passage of
Herodotus on the tribute of the Persian satrapies.
He there states that the Babylonian talent con
tained 70 Euboic minse (iii. 89). He specifies the
amount of silver paid in Babylonian talents by each
province, and then gives the sum of the silver ac
cording to the Euboic standard, reduces the gold
paid to its equivalent in silver, reckoning the former
at thirteen tinies the value of the latter, and lastly
gives the sum total. His statements may be thus
tabulated : —

Sun of items, EquivalcntinE.T. Equivalent Difi'erence.
silver. at70miD£E = B. T. stated.
7,740 B. T. = 9,030 E. T, 9,540 E. T, -I-BIO

3496Gold tribute.
360 B. T.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

Equivalent at 13 to 1.
4,680 E. T. Id

Total . . 13,710 E. T
Total stated 14,560

Difference . -f 850

14,22014,660 -1-340

It is impossible to explain this double en'or in
any satisfactory manner. It is, however, evident
that in the time of Herodotus there was some such
relation between the Babylonian and Euboic talents
as that of 11.66 to 10. This is so near 12 to 10
that it may be inquired whether ancient writers
speak of any relative value of gold to silver about
this tirae that would make talents in this propor
tion easy for exchange, and whether, if such a pro
portion is stated, it is confirmed by the Persian
coins. The relative value of 13 to 1, stated by Herod
otus, is very nearly 12 to 1, and seems as though
it had heen the result of some change, such as
might have been occasioned by the exhaustion of
the surface-gold in Asia Minor, or a more careful
working of the Greek silver mines. The relative
value 12 to 1 is mentioned by Plato (Hipparcli.).
About Plato's time the relation was, however, 10 to
1. He is therefore speaking of an earlier period.
Supposing that the proportion of the Babylonian
and Euboic talents was 12 to 10, and that it was
based upon a '•"'.-itive value of 12 to 1, what light
do the Persian coins throw upon the theory? If
we take the chief or only Persian gold coin, the
Daric, assuming its weight to be 129 grs., and
multiply it by 12, we obtain tbe product 1.548. If
we divide this product as follows, we obtain as
aliquot parts the weights of all the principal and
heavier Persian sHver coins : —

1,548 .

6 =:

-i- 18 =

258 three sigli.
172 two sigli.

On these grounds we may suppose that the
Euboic talent was to the Babylonian as 60 to
72, or 5 to 6. Taking the Babylonian maneh
at 7,992 grs., we obtain 399,600 for the Euboic
talent. This result is most remarkably confirmed by
an ancient bronze weight in the form of «. lion
discovered at Abydos in the Troad, and bearing
In Phosnician characters the following inscription :
NSD3 n SnnS bapb IIDDM, "Approved,"
or " found correct on the part of the satrap who is
appointed over the silver^" or " raoney." It weighs
396,000 grs., and is supposed to have lost one or
two pounds' weight. It has been thought to be a
weight of 50 Babylonian minie, but it is most un
likely that there should have been such a division
of the talent, and still raore that a weight should
have been made of that division without any dis
tinctive Inscription. If, however, the Euboic talent
was to the Babylonian in the proportion of 5 to 6,
50 Babylonian minse would correspond to a Euboic
talent, and this weight would be a talent of that
standard. We have calculated the Euboic talent
at 399,600 grs., this weight is 396,000, or 3,600
deficient, but this is explained by the supposed
loss of one (5,760) or two (11,520) pounds
weight." We have now to test our result by the Persian
gold money, and the coins of Eubcea.
a Since this was written we have aacertained that
ll. de Vogii^ has supposed this lion to be a Eubo.c

The principal, if not the only, Persian gold com
is the Daric, weighing about 129 grs. This we
have seen, was the standard coin, according to
which the silver money was adjusted. Its double
in actual weight is found in the silver coinage, but
its equivalent is wanting, as though for the sake of
distinction. The double is the thirtieth of the
maneh of the lighter or' monetary Babylonian
taJent, of which the Daric is the sixtieth, the latter
being, in our opinion, a known division. The
weight of the sixtieth is, it should be obseived
about 133.2 grs., somewhat in excess of the weight
of the Daric, but ancient coins are always struck
below their nominal weight. The Daric was thus
the 3,600th part of the Babylonian talent. It is
nowhere stated how the Euboic talent was divided,
but if we suppose it to have contained 50 minst,
then the Daric would have been the sixtieth of the
mina, but if 100 minse, the thirtieth. In any case
it would have been tbe 3,000th part of the talent
As the 6,000th was the chief division of the .^gm-
etan and Attic monetary talents, and the 3,000th
of the Hebrew talent according to which the sacred
tribute was paid, and as an Egyptian talent con
tained 6,000 such units, no other principal division
of the chief talents, save that of the Bahylouiui
into 3,600, being known, this is exactly what we
should expect.
The coinage of Eubcea has hitherto been the
great obstacle to the discovery of the Euboic talent.
For the present we speak only of the silver corns,
for tbe only gold coin we know is later than the
earliest notices of the talent, and it must therefore
have been in Greece originally, as &r as money
was concerned, a silver talent. The coins give the
following denominations, of which we state the
average highest weights and the assumed true
weights, compared with the assumed true weights
of the coins of Athens : —

Corns 0? EOBtEA.

Coins of

weight. 121

Assumed true Assnmed true
weight. weight
258 Tetradrachm 270
129 Didrachm 135

64.5

Drachm 67.6
Tetrobolon 45

It must be remarked that the first Euliolc
denomination is known to us only fi'om two very
early coins of Eretria, in the British Museum,
which may possibly be Attic, struck during a
time of Athenian supremacy, for they are of
about the weight of very heavy Attic tetia-
drachms. It wUl be perceived that though the weights of
all denominations, except the third in the Euboic
list, are very near the Attic, the system of division
is evidently different. The thbd Eubole denomi
nation is identical with the Persian siglos, and indi
cates the Persian origin of the system. I'he second
piece is, however, identical with the Daric. It
would seera that the Persian gold and silver systems
of division were here combined; and this might
perfectly have been done, as the Daric, though a
division of the gold talent, is also a division of the
silver talent. As we have noticed, the Daric is
omitted in the Persian silver coinage for some
fecial reason. The relation of the Persian and
Greek systems may be thus stated : —

talent (Rewu Arctiiologique, n. s. Jan. 1862). See also
Archaologieal Journal, 1860, Sept. pp. 199, 200.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

Peraian sliver, Persian gold, Greclt Euboic.
Babylonian. Euboic. Actual weight. Assumed.

3497

846

268

129

121

129

85

86

63

64.6

43

43

The standard weights of Persian silver coins are
here assumed from the highest average weight of
the siglos. We hold that the coins of Corinth
probably follow the Euboic system.
The only gold coin of Euboea known to us has
the extr^rdinary weight of 49.4 grs. It is of
Carystus, and probably in date a httle before Alex
ander's time. It may be upon a system for gold
money derived from the Euboic, exactly as tbe
Euboic was derived from the Babylonian, but it is
not safe to reason upon a single coin.
3. The talents of Egypt have hitherto forraed a
most unsatisfactory subject. We coramence our
inquu7 by stating all certain data.
The gold and silver coins of tbe Ptolemies follow
the same standard as the silver coins of the kings
of Macedon to Philip II. inclusive, which are on the
full jEginetan weight. The copper coins have been
thought to follow the same standard, but this is an
error. The ancient Egyptians are known to have had
two weights, the MeN or UTeN, containing ten
smaller weights bearing the narae KeT, as M.
Chabas has proved. The former name, if rightly
read MeN, is a maneh or mina, the latter, accord
mg to the Copts, was a drachm or didrachm
fKJ'l" : KITC, CKJTe, S. drachma, di
drachma, the last form not being known to have
the second signification). A weight, inscribed
" Five KeT," and weighing 698 grs., has been dis
covered. It probably originally weighed about 700
(Revue Archeologique, a. s.). We can thus de
termine the KeT to have weighed about 140 grs.,
and the MeN or UTeN about 1,400. An exam
ination of the copper coins of the Ptolemies has led
us to the interesting discovery that they follow this
standard and sj'stem. The following are all the
heavier denominations of the copper coins of the
earUer Ptolemies, and the corresponding weights:
the coins vary much in weight, but they clearly in
dicate their standard and their denominations : —
.Egyptian Copper Corns, and Weights.
Coins. Weights.
Drs.
A cir. 1400. MeN, or UTeN (Maneh?)
B cir. 700. 6 KeT.
1 cir. 280. (2 KeT).
Dtitt, 140. KeT.
E cu;. 70. (J KeT),
We must therefore conclude that the gold and
silver standard of the Ptolemies was dififerent from
the copper standard, the latter being that of the
ancient Egyptians. The two talents, if calcukted
from the coins, which ui the gold and silver are
helow the ftill weight, are in the proportion of
abont 10 (gold and silver) to 13 (copper); or, if
calculated from the higher correct standard of the
gold and silver system, in the proportion of about
10 to 12.7 : we shall speak as to the exchange in a
later place (§ III.).
It may be observed that the difficulty of explain
ing the statements of ancient writers as to the
Egyptian, Alexandrian, or Ptolemaic talent or tal-
220 ,

ents, probably arises from the use of two systems
which could be easily confounded, at least in their
lower divisions.
4. The Carthaginian talent may not be as old as
the period before Alexander, to which we limit our
inquiry, yet it reaches so nearly to that period that
it cannot be here oraitted. Those silver coins of
the Carthaginians which do not follow the Attic
standard seera to be struck upon the standard of
tbe Persian coins, the Babylonian talent. The only
clew we have, however, to the systera is afforded
by a bronze weight inscribed TT2T2 7ptt7D,
and weighing 321 grarames = 4,956.5 grs. (Dr.
Levy in Zeitschrift d. Deutsch. morgenl. Gesellsch.
xiv. p. 710). This sum is divisible by the weights
of all the chief Carthaginian silver coins, except the
'' decadrachm," but only as sevenths, a system
ot division we do not know to have obtained in
any ancient talent. The Carthaginian gold coins
seem also to be divisions of this mina on a different
principle. III. The Hebrem Talent or Talents and Divi^om.
— The data we have obtained enable us to examine
the stateraents respecting the Hebrew weights
with some expectation of determining this diffi
cult question. The evidence may be thus stated.
1. A talent of silver is raentioned in Exodus,
which contained 3,000 shekels, distinguished as
" the holy shekel," or " shekel of the sanctuary."
The number of Israelite raen who paid the ransom
of half a shekel apiece was 603,550, and the sum
paid was 100 talents and 1,775 shekels of silver
(Ex. xxx. 13, 15, xxxviii. 25-28), whence we easily
discover that the talent of silver contained 3,000
shekels (603,550 -=- 2 = 301,775 shekels — 1,775 =
300,000 •<- 100 talents = 3,000 shekels to the tal
ent). 2. A gold maneh is spoken of, and, in a parallel
passage, shekels are mentioned, three manehs being
represented by 300 shekels, a maneh therefore con
taining 100 shekels of gold.
3. Josephus states that the Hebrew talent of gold
contained 100 minse (Xuxfla hx xpuaov ....
aTaO/jibv ix^^^^- p-vas iKar6v, hs 'E0pa7oi /j.fu
Kahovcri Kiyxapes, eh Se tV 'EAAi/i'irt^i' yue-
ra^aW6fj.evQV yKuao'ay aTifiaiyei rdhaj/Tov.
Ant. iii. 6, § 7).
4. Josephus states that the Hebrew mina of
gold was equal to two libra and a half (Sok^c
6\off<pvp-ii\aTav Xfivariv, iK jivwu rpiaicoalwii
¦Kenonjfi4vi\v. 7] Se fjiya irap^ ritiii' iaxu^i ^irpas
dvo Kal %iJ.i(TV. Ant. xiv. 7, § 1). Taking the
Roman pound at 5,050 grs., the maneh of gold
would weigh about 12,625 grs.
6. Epiphanius estimates the Hebrew talent at
125 Eoman pounds, which, at the value given
aljove, are equal to about 631,250 grs.
6. A diflScult'passage in Ezekiel seems to speak
of a maneh of 50 or 60 shekels: "And the shekel
[shall be] twenty gerabs ; twenty shekels, five and
twenty shekels, fifteen shekels, shall be your maneh "
(xiv. 12). The ordinary text of the LXX. gives a
series of small sums as the Hebrew, though differ
ing in the numbers, but the Alex, and Vat. MSS
have 50 for 15 (eiKOffi o^oKoi, irej/re aiKKoi,
irevre Kal ffiKKoi Se/ca, Ka\ Trerr-fiKovTa aiKKot
il fiva ^a-rai u/uv). The meaning would be,
either that there were to be three manehs, respect
ively containing 20, 25, and 15 shekels, or the
like, or else that a sura is intended by these num
bers (20 -I- 25 4- 15) = 60, or possibly 50. But it

3498

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

must be rememberea that this is a prophetical

7. Josephus inakes the gold shekel a Daric (Ani..
iii. 8, § 10).
From these data it may reasonably be inferred, (1)
that the Hebrew gold talent contained 100 manehs,
each of which again contained 100 shekels of gold,
and, basing the calculation on the stated value
of the maneh, weighed about 1,262,500 grs., or,
basing the calculation on the correspondence of the
gold shekel to the Daric, weighed about 1,290,000
grs. (129X100x100), the latter being probably
nearer the true value, as the 2^ librse may be sup
posed tobe a round sum; and (2) thatthe silver
talent contained 3,000 shekels, and is probably the
talent spoken of by Epiphanius as equal to 125 Ro
man pounds, or 631,250 grs., which would give a
shekel of 210.4 grains. It is to be observed that,
taking the estimate of Josephus as the basis for cal
culating the maneh of the former talent, and that
of Epiphanius for calculating the latter, their rela
tion is exactly 2 to 1, 50 manehs at 2| pounds,
making 125 pounds. It is therefore reasonable to
suppose tbat two talents of the same system are
referred to, and that the gold talent was exactly
double the silver talent.
let us now examine the Jewish coins.
1. The shekels and half-shekels of silver, if we
take an average of the heavier specimens of the
Maccabean issue, give the weight of the forraer as
about 220 grs. A talent of 3,000 such shekels
would weigh about 660,000 grs. This result agrees
very nearly with the weight of the talent given
by Epiphanius.
2. The copper coins are generally without any
indications of value. The two heaviest denomina
tions of the Maccabean issue, however, bear the
naraes "half" O^n), and "quarter" (3?''3"l).
M. de Saulcy gives the weights of three " halves "
as, respectively, 251.6 grs. (16.3 grammes), 236.2
(15.3), and 219.2 (14.2). In Mr. Wigau's collec
tion are two "quarters," weighing, respectively,
145.2 grs. and 118.9 grs.; the former being, appar
ently, the one "quarter" of which M. de Saulcy
gives the weight as 142. (9.2 grammes). We are
unable to adtl the weights of any more specimens.
There is a smaller coin of the same period, wbich
has an average weight, according to M. de Saulcy,
of 81.8 grs. (5.3 grammes). If this be the third
of the " half," it would give the weight of the
latter at 245.4 grs. As this may be thought to
be slender evidence, especially so far as the larger
coins are concerned, it is important to observe
that it is confirmed by the later coins. From the
copper coins raentioned above, we can draw up the
foUowing scheme, comparing thera with the silver
coins.

Copper Coins.

SavKE Coins.

Average Supposed
wi'^t. weight. 110

Average Supposed
weight, weight.
Half 2^.4 28) Shekel
Quarter 132.0 126 Half-shekel 110
(Sixth) 81.8 83.3 (Third) 73.3
It is evident frora this list that the copper "half"
and "quarter" are half and quarter shekels, and
are nearly in the relation to the silver like denomi
nations of 2 to 1. But this relation is not exact,
and it is therefore necessary to ascertain further,
whether the standard of 'the silver talent can be
raisefl, if not, whether the gold talent can be raore
than twice the weight of the silver, and, should

this explanation be impossible, whether there is any
ground for supposing a third talent with a sheke
heavier than two shekels of silver.
The silver shekel of 220 grs. gives a talent of
660,000 grs. : this is the same as the .^ginetan
which appears to be of Phosnician origin. There'
is no evidence of its ever having had a lugher shekel
or didrachra.
The double talent of 1,320,000 grs., gives a D&.
rie of 132 grs., which is only 1 gr. and a small
fraction helow the standard obtained from the Bab
ylonian talent.
The possibility of a separate talent for copper de.
pends upon the relations of the three metals.
The relation of gold to silver in the time of He
rodotus was 1 : 13. The early relation upon which
the systems of weights and coins used by the Per- '
sian state were founded was 1 : 12. Under the
Ptolemies it was 1 : 126. The two Hebrew talents
if that of gold were exactly double that of silver
would have been easy for exchange in the relation
of 1 : 12, 1 talent of gold corresponding to 24 talents
of silver. The relation of silver to copper can be
best conjectured from the Ptolemaic system. If
the Hebrews derived this relation from any neigh
boring state, Egypt is as likely to have influenced
them as Syria; for the silver coinage of Egypt was
essentially the same as that of the Hebrews, and
that of Syria was different. Besides, the relation
of silver and copper must have been very nearly the
sarae in Syria and Palestine as in I^ypt during the
period in which the Jewish coinage had its origin,
on account of the large commerce between those
countries. It has, we venture to think, heen satis
factorily shown by Letronne that the relation ot
silver to copper under the Ptolemies was 1 : 60, a
mina of silver corresponding to a talent of copper.
It has, however, been supposed that the drachm of
copper was of the same weight as that of gold and
silver, an opinion which we have proved to be in
correct in an earlier part of this article (§ II. 3).
An important question now arises. Is the talent
of copper, when spoken of in relation to that of sil
ver, a talent of weight or a taJent of account? — in
other words. Is it of 6,000 actual drachms of 140
grs. each, or of 6,000 drachms of account of about
110 grs. or a little less? This question seems to
be answered in favor of the former of the two re
plies by the facts, (1) that the copper coins being
struck upon the old Egyptian weight, it is incred
ible that so politic a prince as the first Ptolemy
should have introduced a double system of reckon
ing, which would have given offense and occasioned
confusion; (2) that the ancient Egyptian name of
the monetary unit becanie that of the drachm, as is
shown by its being retained with the sense dracbm
and didrachm by the Copts (§ II. 3); and bad
there been two didrachms of copper, that on the
Egyptian system would probably have retained the
native name. We are of opinion, therefore, that
the Egyptian copper talent was of 6,000 copper
drachms of the weight of 140 grs. each. But tiiis
solution still leaves a difficulty. We know that the
relation of silver to copper was 1 : 60 in drachms,
though 1 : 78 or 80 in weight. In a modern state
the actual relation would force itself into the posi
tion ot the official relation, and 1 : 60 would become
1 : 78 or 80 ; but this was not nf cessarily the case
in an ancient country in so pecuUar a condition aa
Egypt. Alexandria and a few other towns were
Greek, the rest of tbe country purely Egyptian;
and it is quite possible that, while the gold aud

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

3499

lilver coinage was current in the Greek towns, the
Kgyptians may have refused to take anything but
copper on their own standard. The issue of copper
coins above their value would have been a sacrifice
to the exchequer, if given in exchange for gold or
lilver, rough or coined ; but they might have been
exclusively paid out for salaries and small expendi
ture, and would have given an enormous profit to
the government, if repaid in sraall taxes. Suppos
uig that a village paid a silver mina in taxes col
lected fixim small proprietors, if they had only cop
per the government would receive in excess 180,000
gis., or not much less than a fifth of the whole
amount. No one who is conversant with the
East m the present day will deny the possibility of
such a state of things in Egypt under the Ptole
mies. Our decision raay be aided by the results
ot the two theories upon the relations of the
metals.Nominal relation A/ 1 = Ai 12.5 = JE 60
(Stater) (Mina) (Talent)
Af 1 = .«; 760
aelation in weight Af 1 = .^ 12.5 — " ( '^^
Af 1 =

: X\

It must he remembered that, in endeavoring to
determine whicb of these two relations is the cor
rect one, we must be guided by the evidence of an
tiquity, not by the mathematical proportions of the
resulte, for we are now not dealing with coins, but
with relations only originally in direct connection
with systems ot coinage.
Letronne gives the relation of silver to copper
among the Komans, at the* end of the Third Punic
War, as 1: 112, reduced from 1: 83.3, both rauch
higher values of the forraer raetal than 1:60. It
is therefore reasonable to suppose that the relation
ot 1:80 is that which prevailed in Egypt under
the Ptolemies, and so at the tirae at which the
first Jewish coins were struck, that of Simon the
Maccahee. We may therefore suppose that the Hebrew
talents of silver and copper were exchangeable in
the proportion of about 1 : 80, and, as we have
seen that the coins show that their shekels were of
the relative weight 1 : 2+, we may take as the
basis ot our computation the supposition that 50
shekels of silver were equal to a talent of copper,
or 100 = 1 talent double the former. We pre
fer the former relation as that of the Egyptian
system.220X60=11,000 grs. X60=660,000-i-1600=440^2=220 X!0 770,000 613 3 256 6
X72 792,000 628 264
X76 826,000 650 276
X80 880,000 686.6 293.3
Of these results, the first is too low, and the
fourth and fifth too high, the second and third
agreeing with our approximative estimate of the
shekel and half-shekel of copper. It is, however,
possible that the fourth result may be the true one,
W some coins give very nearly this standard.
Which is the right systera can only be inferred
from the effect on the exchange, although it must
be remembered that very awkward exchanges of
silver and copper may have obtained wherever cop
per was not an important metal. Thus at Athens
8 pieces of brass went to the obolus, and 7 lepta
to the piece of brass. The former relation would

be easy of computation, the latter very inconven
ient. Among the Jews, the copper coinage was of
raore importance: at first of accurate fabric and
not very varying weight, afterwards the only coin
age. Its relation to the silver money, and after
wards to the li^yptian and PhtKuician currency ot
tlie same weight, must therefore have been correct.
On this ground, we should prefer the relation of
silver to copper 1 : 72, giving a talent of 792,000
grs., or nearly twice the Euboic. The agreement
is remarkable, but may be fortuitous.
Our theory of the Hebrew coinage would be as
follows : —
Gold . . Shekel or Daric (foreign) 129 grs.
Silver . Shekel 220, Half-shekel 110.
Copper . Half (-shtikel) 264, Quarier (-shekel) 132,
(Sixth-shekel) 88.
We can now consider the weights.
The gold talent contained 100 manehs, and 10,-
000 shekels.
The silver talent contained 3,000 shekels, 6,000
bekas, and 60,000 gerahs.
The copper talent probably contained 1,500
shekels. The " holy shekel," or "shekel of the sanctu
ary" (trrrpn ^P.t^), is spoken of both of the
gold (Ex. xxxviii. 24) and silver (25) talents of the
time ot the Exodus. We also read of " the king's
weight " ("n^I^n 15N, 2 Sam. xiv. 26). But
there is no reason for supposing different systems
to be meant.
The significations of the names of the Hebrew
weights must be here stated.
The talent ("133) means " a circle," or
" globe," probably " an aggregate sum."
The shekel ( /^tI7) signifies simply " a weight."
The beka (^|22) or half-shekel, signifies " a
division," or " half."
The "quarter-shekel" PRH? 575"!!) is once
mentioned (1 Sam. ix. 8).
The gerah (mS) signifies " a grain," or
" bean." IV. The Bistory and Belaiions of the Princi
pal Ancient Talents. — It is necessary to add a
view of the history and relations of the talents we
have discussed in order to show what light our the
ories throw upon these matters. The inquiry must
be prefaced by a list of the talents : —
A. Eastern Talents.
Hebrew gold . 1,320,000 Hebrew silver . 660,000
Babylonian 1 . . ^ Babylonian lesser j ^jg g^c
1 . . (Sliver) J

(silver)
Egyptian .

.840,000

Persian gold 399,600
Hebrew copper ? .792,000 ?
B. Greek Talents.
JBginetan  660,000
Attic Commercial . . ... 598,800
Attic Commercial, lowered . 558,900
Attic Solonian, double . . . 860,520
Attic Solonian, ordinary  430,260
Attic Solonian, lowered  406,000
Euboic  387,00O^-
We omit the talent of the coins of .lEgina, aa a
mere monetary variety of the .fflginetan, throug)"
the Attic Commercial.

WEIGHTS AND MEASUEES

3500
We take the Hebrew to be the oldest system of
weight. Apart from the evidence from its relation
to the othCT systems, this may be almost proved by
our finding it to obtain in Greece, in Phoenicia, and
in Judsea, ss the oldest Greek and Phcenician
system, and as the Jewish system. As the Jewish
system, it must have been of far greater antiquity
than the date of the earliest coin struck upon it.
The weight according to which the ransom was first
paid must have been retained as the fixed legal
standard. It may seem surprising, when we re
member the general tendency of money to depreci
ate, of wbich such instances as those of the Athen
ian silver and the Ii)nglish gold will occur to the
reader, that this system should have been preserved,
by any but the Hebrews, at its full weight, from
the time of the Exodus to that of the earliest Greek
coins upon the ^ginetan standard, a period proba^
bly of not much less than a thousand yeare ; but we
may cite the case of the solidus of the Roman and
Byzantine emperors, whieh retained its weight from
its origination under Constantine the Great until
the fall of Constantinople, and its purity from the
time of Constantine until that of Alexius Comne-
nus ; and again the long celebrity of the sequin of
Venice and the florin of Venice for their exact
weight. It must be remembered, moreover, that
in Phoenicia, and originally in Greece, this system
was that of the great trading nation of antiquity,
who would have had the same interest as the Ve
netians and Florentines in maintaining the full
monetary standard. There is a remarkable evi
dence in favor of the antiquity of this weight in
the circumstance that, after it had been depreciated
in the coins of the kings and cities of Macedon, it
was restored, in the silver money of Philip II., to
its full monetary standard.
The Hebrew system had two talents for the
precious metals in the relation of 2: 1. The gold
talent, apparently not used elsewhere, confcained
100 manehs, each of which contained again 100
shekels, there being thus 10,000 of these units,
weighing about 132 grs. each, in the talent.
The silver talent also known as the iEginefcan
contained 3,000 shekels, weighing about 220 grs.
each. One gold talent appears to have been equal
to 24 of these. The reason for making the talent
of gold twice that of silver was probably raerely
for the sake of distinction.
The Babylonian talent, like the Hebrew, con
sisted of two systems, in the relation of 2 to 1,
upon one standard. It appears to have been formed
from the Hebrew by reducing the number of units
frora 10,000 to 7,200. The system was altered by
the maneh being raised so as to contain 120 instead
of 100 units, and the talent lowered so as to con
tain 60 instead of 100 raanehs. Tt is possible that
this talent was originally of silver, as the exchange,
in their comraon unit, with the Hebrew gold, in
the relation of 1 : 12, would be easy, 6 units of
tbe gold talent passing for 72 of the silver, so that
10 gold units would be equal to a silver maneh,
which may explain the reason of the change in
the division of the talent.
The derivation, from the lighter Babylonian tal
ent, of the Euboic talent, is e£^^ily ascertained.
Their relation is that of 6 : 5, so that the whole
alents could be readily exchanged in the relation
of 12 : 1 ; and the units being coramon, their ex-
•shange would be even more easy.
The Egyptian talent cannot be traced to any
other. Either it is an independimt system, or,

perhaps it is the oldest talent and p^%nt of th$
rest. The Hebrew copper talent is equally ob
scure. Perhaps it is the double of the Pereian
gold talent.
The ^ginetan t^nt, as we have seen, was the
same as the leaser or silver Hebrew talent. Ita m-
troduction into Greece was doubtless due to the
Phcenicians. The Attic Commercial was a degra
dation of this talent, and was itself further de-
graded to form the Attic Solonian. The .^^netan
talent thus had five successive standards (1, Orig
inal .^ginetan; 2, Attic Commercial; 3, Id. low
ered; 4, Attic Solonian; 5, Id. lowered) in the
following relation ; —

n.

m. IV.

6. : 5.44 : 5. : 3.9 : 3.6
6. : 4.3
6. : 4.3
The first change was probably simply a degra
dation. The second may have been due to the
influence of a Grseeo-Asiatic talent of Cyzicus or
Phocsea, of which the stater contained about 180
grs. of gold, although weighing, through the addi
tion of 60 grs. of silver, about 240 grs., thus im
plying a talent in the relation to the ^ginetan of
about 5: 6. Solon's change has been hitherto an
unresolved enigma. The relation of the two Attic
talents is so awkward that scarcely any division is
coraraon to them in weight, as may be inferred
from the data in the table of Athenian weights
that we have given. Had the heavier talent been
divided into quarters, and the lighter into thirds,
this would not have been the case. The reason of
Solon's change is therefore to be looked for in the
influence of some other talent. It haa been sup
posed that this talent was the Euboic, but this
theory is destroyed by our discovery that the Attic
standard of the old^t coins is below the weight-
standard of about the time of the Peloponnesian
War, and thus that the reduction of Solon did not
bring the weights down to the Euboic standard.
If we look elsewhere we see that the heavier Solo
nian weight is almost the same in standard as the
Egyptian, the didrachm of the former exceeding
the unit of the latter by no more than about 3 grs.
This explanation is almost proved to be the true
one by the remarkable fact that the Attic Solonian
talent, apparently unlike all other Greek talents,
had a double talent, which would give a dracbm
instead of a didrachm, equivalent to tiie Egyptian
unit. At the time of Solon nothing would be more
likely than such an Egyptian influence as this ex
planation implies. The commercial relations of
Egypt and Greece, through Naucratis, were then
active; and the tradition or myth of the Egyptian
origin of the Athenians was probably never stronger.
The degradation of the Attic Solonian talent was no
doubt effected by the infiuence of the Euboic, with
the standard of which its lower standard ia probably
identical. The principal authorities upon this subject are :
Boeckh's Metrologische Untersuchungen ; Momm-
sen's Geschichte des Romischen Miinzioesem ; and
Hussey's Ancient Weights. Don V. Vazquea
Queipo's Essai sur les Sysiemes Meiriques et Men-
etaires des Anciens Peuples also contains much
information. The writer must express his obliga.
tions to Mr. de Salis, Mr. Vaux, and Mr. E
Wigan, and more especiaUy to his colleagues Mr
Madden and Mr. Coxe, for valuable assistance. R.S.P.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

3501

n. SlfiASUKBS.
The most iraportant topic to be discussed in
wnnection with the subject of the Hebrew measures
is theu: relative and absolute value. Another topic,
of secondary importance perhaps, but possessing an
independent interest of its own, demands a few
prefatory remarks, namely, the origin of these
measures, and their relation to those of surround
ing countries. The raeasures of length are chiefly
derived from the members of the human body,
which are happily adapted to the purpose frora the
circumstance thafc they exhibit certain definite pro
portions relatively to each other. It is unneces-
gary to assume that a sysfcem founded on such a
basis was the invention of any single nation: it
would naturally be adopted by all in a rude state
of society. Ne^'ertheless, the particular parts of
the body selected for the purpose may form more
or less a connecting link between the systems of
various nations. It will be observed in the sequel
thafc fche Hebrews restricted themselves to the fore
arm, to the exclusion of the foot and also of the
pace, as a proper measure of length. The adop
tion of foreign naraes is also worthy of reraark, as
showing a probability that the measures themselves
were borrowed. Hence the occurrence of words of
Egyptian extraction, such as hin and ephah, and
probably ammah (for "cubit"), inclines us to seek
for the origin of the Hebrew scales bofch of length
and capacity in that quarter. The measures of
capacity, which have no such natural standard as
those of leugth, would more probably be settled by
conventional usage, and the existence of similar
raeasures, or of a similar scale of measures in dif
ferent nations, would furnish a strong probability
of their having been derived fix)m some comraon
source. Thus the coincidence of the Hebrew bath
being subdivided into 72 logs, and the Athenian
metretis into 72 xestee, can hardly be the resulfc of
chance; and, if fchere further exists a correspond
ence between the ratios fchat the weights bear to
the measures, there would be still further evidence
of a comraon origin. Boeckh, who has gone fully
into this subject in his Metrologische Unter'such-
ungen, traces back the whole systera of weights
and measures prevalent among fche civilized nafcions
of antiquity fco Babylon (p. 39). The scanty in
formation we possess relative fco the Hebrew weights
and measures as a connected sysfcem, precludes the
possibility of our assigning a definite place to it in
ancient metrology. The names already referred to
lead to the inference that Egypt rather than Baby
lonia Wiis the quarter whence it was derived, and the
identity of the Hebrew with the Athenian scales
for liquids furnishes strong evidence that these had
a community of origin. Ifc is imporfcanfc, however,
fco observe in connection with this subject, that an
identity of ratios does i;ot involve an identity of
absolute quantities, a distinction which very possi
bly escaped the notice of early writers, who were
not unnaturally led to identify the raeasures in
-heir absolute values, because fchey held the sarae
relative positions in the several scales.

5?a:jM.

6 nQD.

c mt.

"^ nS)N. This term is generally referred to a
Coptic origin, being derived from a word, make or
waki, signifying the " fore-arm," which with the ar
ticle prefixed becomes ammaJii (Boeckh, p. 265). Qe-
'erius, however, refers it to t*ie Hebrew word signify-

We divide the Hebrew measures into two classes.
according as they refer fco length or capacity, and
subdivide each of these classes into two, the former
into measures of lengfch and distance, the latter into
liquid and dry measures.
1. Measures of lengfch.
(1. ) The denominations referring to length were
derived for the mosfc part from the arm and hand.
We may notice the following four as derived frora
this source: (a.) The etsba,<^ or finger's breadth".
mentioned only in Jer. Iii. 21. (6.) The tephach,^
or hand breadth (Ex. xxv. 25; 1 K. vii. 26; 2
Chr. iv. 5), applied metaphorically to a short period
of time in Ps. xxxix. 5. {c.) The zereth,^ or span,
the distance between the extremities of the thumb
and the Uttle finger in fche extended hand (Ex. xxviii.
16; 1 Sam. xvii. 4; Ez. xliii. 13), applied gener
ally to describe any small measure in Is. xj 12.
(d) Tbe ammah,^ or cubit, the distance from the
elbow to the extremity of the middle finger. Thia
occurs very frequently in the Bible in relation to
buildings, such as fche Ark (Gen. vi. 15), fche Tab
ernacle (Ex. xxvi., xxvii.), and fche Temple (1 K.
vi. 2; Ez. xl., xii.), as well as in relation to man's
stature (1 Sam. xvii. 4; Matt. vi. 27), and other
objects (Esth. v. 14; Zech. v. 2). In addition to
fche above we may notice : {e. ) The gdmed,^ lit. a
rod, applied to Eglon's dirk (Judg. iii. 16). Ita
length is uncertain, but it probably fell below the
cubifc, wifch which ifc is idenfcified in the A. V. {f)
The kdneh,f or reed (compare our word "cane")
for measuring buildings on a large scale (Ez. d
5-8, xii. 8, xiii. 16-19).
Little information is furnished by fche Bible itself
as to fche relative or absolute lengths described under
the above terms. Wifch the exception of the notice
fchat the reed equals six cubits (Ez. xl. 5), we have
no intimation that the measures were combined in
anything like a scale. We should indeed infer
the reverse, from the circumstance that Jeremiah
speaks of "four fingers," where according to the
scale, he would have said " a hand breadth; " that
in the description of Groliath's heighfc (1 Sam. xvii.
4), fche expression " six cubifcs and a span," is used
instead of " six cubits and a half; " and that Ezekiel
mentions " span " and " half a cubit " in close jux
taposition (xliii. 13, 17), as fchough tbey bore no re
lation to each other either in the ordinary or the
long cubit. Thafc the denominations held a certain
ratio to each other, arising out of the proportions
of the members in the body, could hardly escape
notice; but it does not follow that they were ever
worked up into an artificial scale. The most im
portant conclusion to be drawn from the Biblical
notices, is fco the effect that fche cubit, which may be
regarded as the standard measure, was of varying
lengfch, and fchafc, in order fco secure accuracy, it
was necessary fco define the kind of cubit intended,
the result being thafc the other denominations, if
combined in a scale, would vary in Uke ratio. Thus
in Deut. iii. 11, the cubit is specified fco be " after
the cubit of a man; " in 2 Chr. iii. 3, "after the
first," or rafcher "after fche olderff raeasure; " and
in Ez. xii. 8, "a greafc cubit," or literally "a cubit
ing " mother," as though the fore-arm were in some
sense the " mother of the arm " {Thes. p. UO).

ipb.

/n^ij.

s Tliat the expression nSltUST applies to priority
of time, as well as of order, is clear from many paa-
saaes, as 0. g., 2 K. xvii. 34 ; Bar. iii. 12 ; Has;, ii. S

3502

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

JO the joint," whioh is further defined in xl. 5, to
be " a cubit and an hand-breadth." These expres-
lions involve one of the most knotty paints of
Hebrew archseolcgy, namely, the number and the
respective lengths of the Scriptural cubits. That
there was more than one cubit, is clear ; but whether
there were three, or only two, is not so clear. We
shall have occasion to refer to this topic again;
for t'he present we shall confine ourselves to the
consideration of the expressions themselves. A
cubit "after the cubit of a man," implies the ex
istence of another cubit, which was either longer or
shorter than it, and from analogy it may be taken
for granted that this second cubit would be the
longer of the two. But what is meant by the
^^ammdh of a man?" Is it the cubitus in the
anatomical sense of the term, in other words,
the bone of the fore-arm between the elbow and
the wrist ? or is it the full cubit in the ordinary
sense of the term, from the elbow to the extremity
of the middle finger? What, again, are we to
understand by Ezekiel's expression, "cubit to the
'oint?" The term atstsil,a is explained by Gese
nius (Thes. p. 144) of the knucicles, and not of the
" armholes," as in the A. V. of Jer. xxxviii. 12,
where our translators have omitted all reference to
the word yadeca, which follows it. A " cubit to
the knuckles " would imply the space from the
elbow to the knuckles, and as this cubit exceeded
by a hand-breadth the ordinary cubit, we should
infer that it was contradistinguished from the cubit
that reached only to the wrist. The meaning of
the word is, however, contested : Hitzig gives it the
sense of a connecting waU ( Coram, on Jer.). Stur-
mius (Sciagr. p. 94) understands it of the edge of
the walls, and others in the sense of a wing of a
building (Rosenmiiller, Scliol. in Jer.). Michaelis
on tbe other hand understands it of the knuckles
(Supplem. p. 119), and so does Saalschiitz (Archaol.
ii. 165). The expressions now discussed, taken
together, certainly favor the idea that the cubit
of the Bible did not come up to the full length of
the cubit of other countries. A further question
remains to be discussed, namely, whether more than
two cubits were in vogue among the Hebrews. It
is generally conceded that the "former" or " older"
measure of 2 Chr. iii. 3, was the Mosaic or legal
cubit, and that the modern measure, the existence
of which is implied in that designation, was some
what larger. Further, the cubit " after the cubit
of a man " of Deut. iii. 11, is held to be a com-
mon measure in contradistinction to the Mosaic
one, and to have fallen below this latter in point
of length. In this case, we should have three
cubits — the common, the Mosaic or old measure,
and the new measure. We turn to Ezekiel and
find a distinction of another character, namely, a
long and a short cubit. Now, it bas been urged
by many writers, and we think with good reason,
that Ezekiel would not be likely to adopt any other
than the old orthodox Mosaic standard for the
measurements of his ideal temple. If so, his long
cubit would be identified with the old measure,
and his short cubit with the one " after the cnbit
of a man," and the new measure of 2 Chr. iii. 3
would represent a still longer cubit than Ezekiel's
long one. Other explanations of the prophet's
language have, however, beeu offered, it has been

1 ^S'SI.
b Knobel assumes that there were steps, and that

sometimes assumed that, while living in Chaldsea
he and his countrymen had adopted the long Baby
lonian cubit (Jahn, Archaol. § 113); but in this
case his short cubit could not have belonged to the
same country, hiasmuch as the diiference between
these two amounted to only three fingers (Herod.
i. 178). -4gain, it has been explained that his
short cubit was the ordinary Chaldaean measure,
and the long one the Mosaic measure (Rosenmuller
in Ez. xl. 5); but this is unlikely on account ofthe
respective lengths of the Babylonian and the Mosaic
cubits, to which we shall hereafter refer. Inde
pendently of these objections, we think that the
passages previously discussed (Deut. iii. 11 ; 2 Chr.
iii. 3) imply the existence of three cubits. It re
mains to be inquired whether from the Bible itself
we can extract any information as to the length
of the Mosaic or legal cubit. The notices of the
height of the altar and of the height of the lavers
in the Temple are of importance in this respect.
In the former case three Cubits is specified (Ex.
xxvii. 1), with a direct prohibition against tbe use
of steps (Ex. XX. 26); in the latter, the height of
the base on which the laver was placed was three
cubits (1 K. vii. 27). If we adopt the ordinary
length of the cubit (say 20 inches), the heighte
of the altar and of the base would be 5 feet But
it would be extremely inconvenient, if not im
possible, to minister at an altar, or to use a laver
placed at such a height. In order to meet tbis
diificulty without any alteration of the length of
the cubit, it must be assumed '' that an inclined
plane led up to it, as was the case with the loitier
altar of the Temple (Mishn. Midd. 3, §§ 1, 3).
But such a contrivance is contrary to the spirit of
the text; and, even if suited to the altar, would be
wholly needless for the lavers. Hence Saalschiita
infers that the cubit did not exceed a Prussian foot,
which is less than an English ioat- (Archaol. ii.
167). The other instances adduced by him are not
so much to the point. The molten sea was not
designed for the purpose of bathing (though this
impression is conveyed by 2 Chr. iv. 6 as given in
the A. v.), and therefore no conclusion can be
drawn from the depth of the water in it. The
height of Og, as inferred from the length of hia
bedstead (9 cubits, Deut. iii. 11), and the height
of Goliath (6 cubits and a span, 1 Sam. xvii. 4),
are not inconsistent with the idea of a cubit about
18 inches long, if credit can be given to other
recorded instances of extraordinary stature (Plin.
vii. 2, 16 ; Herod, i. 68 ; Joseph. Ant. xviii. 4, §
5). At the same time the rendering of the LXX.
in 1 Sam. xvii. 4, which is followed by Josephus
(Ant. vi. 9, § 1), and which reduces the number
of cubits to four, suggests either an error in the
Hebrew text, or a considerable increase iu the
length of the cubit in later times.
The foregoing examination of Biblical notices
has tended to the conclusion that the cubit of early
times fell far below the length u»ually assigned to
it ; but these notices are so scanty and arabigooui
that this conclusion is by no means decisive. We
now turn to collateral sources of information, which
we will follow out as far as possible in chrono
logical order. The earliest and most reliable testi
mony as to the length of the cubit is suppUed bj
the existing specimens of old Egyptiau measures.

the prohibition in Ex xx. 26 emanates from an authoi
who wrote in ignorance of the previous directions
(Comm. on Ex. xxvii. 1).

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

3503

Several of these have been discovered in tombs,
carrying us back at allevents to 1700 B. c, while
the Nilometer at Elephantine exhibits the length
of the cubit in the time of. the Roman emperors.
No great difference is exhibited in these measures,
the longest being estimated at about 21 inches,
and the shortest at about 20^, or exactly 20.4729
inches (Wilkinson, Anc. Eg. ii. 258). They are
divided into 28 digits, and in this respect contrast
with the Mosaic cubit, which, according to Rab
binical authorities, was divided into 24 digits.
There is some difficulty in reconciling this dis
crepancy with the almost certain fact of the deri
vation of the cubit fixim Egypt. It has been
generally surmised that the Egyptian cubit wus of
more than one length, and that the sepulchral
raeasures exhibit the shorter as well as the longer
by special marks. Wilkinson denies the existence
of more than one cubit (Anc. Eg. ii. 257-259),
apparently on the ground that the total lengths of
the measures do not materially vary. It may be
conceded that the measures are intended to repre
sent the same length, the variation being simply
the result of mechanical inaccuraey ; but this does
not decide the question of the double cubit, which
rather turns on the peculiarities of notation ob
servable on these measures. For a full discussion
of this point we must refer the reader to Thenius's
essay in the Theologische Studien und Kritiken for
1846, pp. 297-342. Our limits will permit only a
brief statement of the facts of the case, and of the
views expressed in reference to them. The most
¦ perfect of the Egyptian cubit measures are those
preserved in the Turin and Louvre Museums. These
are unequally divided into two parts, the one on
the right hand containing 15, and the other, 13
digits. In the former part the digits are sub
divided into aliquot parts from 1 to _L., reckoning
fi:om right to left. In the latter part the digits
are marked on the lower edge in the Turin, and on
the upper edge in the Louvre measure. In the
Turin measure the three left-hand digits exceed the
others in size, and have marks over them indicating
either fingers or the numerals 1, 2, 3. The four
left-hand digits are also marked off from the rest
by a double sti*oke, and are further distinguished by
hieroglyphic marks supposed to indicate that they
are digits of the old measure. There are also
special marks between the 6th and 7th, and be
tween the 10th and llth digits of the left-hand
portion. In the Louvre cubit two digits are marked
off on the lower edge by lines running in a shght
ly transverse direction, thus producing a greater
length than is given on the upper side. It has
been found that each of the three above specified
digits in the Turin measure ^ Jj of the whole
length, less these three digits; or, to put it in
another form, the four left-hand digits ^ 4- of the
•25 right-hand digits: also that each of the two
digits m the Louvre measure = J- of the whole
length, less these two digits; and further, that
twice the left half of either measure = the whole
length of the Louvre measure, less the two digits.
Most writers on the subject agree in the conclusion
'iat the measures contain a combination of two, if
jot three, kinds of cubit. Great difference of
opinion, however, is manifested as to particulars.

Thenius makes the difference between the roya'
and old cubits to be no more than two digits, the
average length of the latter being 484.289" mil
limetres, or 19.066 inches, as compared with
523.524 millimetres, or 20.611 inches aud 523
millimetres, or 20.591 inches, the lengths of the
Turin and Louvre measures respectively. He ac
counts for the additional two digits as originating
in the practice of placing the two fingers crossways
at the end of the arm and hand used in measuring,
so as to mark the spot up to which the cloth or
other article has been measured. He further finds,
in the notation of the Turin measure, indications
of a third or ordinary cubit 23 digits in length.
Another explanation is that the old cubit consisted
of 24 old or 25 new digits, and that its length was
462 milUmetres, or 18.189 inches; and again,
others put the old cubit at 24 new digits, as
marked on the measures. The relative proportions
of the two would be, on these several hypotheses,
as 28 : 26, as 28 : 25, and as 28 : 24.
The use of more than one cubit appears to have
also prevailed in Babylon, for Herodotus states
that the "royal" exceeded the "moderate" cubit
(irrixos fidrpios) by three digits (i. 178). The
appellation "royal," if borrowed from the Baby
lonians, Would itself imply the existence of another;
but it is by no raeans certain that this other was
the " moderate " cubit mentioned in the text. The
majority of critics think that Herodotus is tbere
speaking of the ordinary Greek cubit (Boeckh, p.
214), though the opposite view is affirmed by
Grote Ul his notice of Boeckh's work ( Class. Mus.
i. 28). Even if the Greek cubit be understood, a
fiirther difficulty arises out of the uncertainty
whether Herodotus is speaking of digits as they
stood on the Greek or on the Babylonian measure
In the one case the proportions of the two would
be as 8 : 7, in the other case as 9 : 8. Boeckh
adopts the Babylonian digits (without good reason,
we think), and estimates the Babylonian royal cubit
at 234.2743 Paris Unes, or 20.806 inches (p. 219).
A greater length would be assigned to it according
to the data furnished by M. Oppert, as stated in
Rawlinson's Herod, i. 315; for if the cubit and
foot stood in the ratio of 5 : 3, and if the latter
contained 15 digits, and had a length of 315 milU-
metres, then the length of the ordinary cubit
would be 525 milUmetres, and of the royal cubit,
assuming, with Mr. Grote, that the cubits in each
case were Babylonian, 588 millimetres, or 23.149
inches. Reverting to the Hebrew measures, we should be
disposed to identify the new measure impUed in
2 Chr. iii. 3 with the full Egyptian cubit; the
" old " measure and Ezekiel's cubit with the lesser
one, either of 26 or 24 digits; and the " cubit of a
man " with the thfrd one of which Thenius speaks.
Boeckh, however, identifies the Mosaic measure
with the fuU Egyptian cubit, and accounts for the
difference in the number of digita on the hypothesis
that the Hebrews substituted a division into 24
for that into 28 digits, the size of the digits being
of course increased (pp. 266, 267). With regard
to the Babylonian measure, it seems highly im
probable that either the ordinary or the royai oubit
could be identified with F^zekiel's short eubit (ag

" The precise amount of 484.289 is obtained by
taking the mean of the four following amounts : ^
of 623.524, the total length of the Turin measure, =
466.130; twice the left-hand division of the same

measure, = 480.792 ; the length of the 26 digits on
the Louvre measure, = 486.-375 ; and twice the left.
hand division of the same, = 483.860.

3504

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

Rosenmuller thinks), seeing that its length on either
of the computations above offered exceeded that of
the Egyptian cubit.
In the Mishnah the Mosaic cubit is defined to be
one of six palms ( Celim, p. 17, § 10). It is termed
the moderate " cubit, and is distinguished from a
lesser cubit of five palms on the one side ( Celim,
ibid.), and on the other side from a larger one,
consisting, according to Bartenora (in Cel. 17, §
9), of six palms and a digit. The palm consisted,
aecording to Maimonides (ibid.), of four digits;
and the digit, according to Arias Montanus (Ani.
p. 113), of four barleycorns. This gives 144 bar
leycorns as the length of the cubit, which accords
with the number assigned to the cubitus Justus et
mediooris of the Arabians (Boeckh, p. 246). The
length of the Mosaic cubit, as computed by The
nius (after several trials with the specified nuraber
of barleycorns of middUng size, placed side by
side), is 214.512 Paris Unes, or 19.0515 inches
(St. u. Kr. p. 110). It seems hardly possible to
arrive at any very exact conclusion by this mode
of calculation. Eiseuschmid estimated 144 barley
corns as equal to 238.35 Paris lines (Boeckh, p.
269), perhaps from having used larger grains than
the average. The writer of the article on " Weights
and Measures " in the Penny Cyclopaidia (xviii.
198) gives, as the result of his own experience,
that 38 average grains make up 5 inches, in which
case 144 =: 18.947 inches ; while the length of the
Arabian cubit referred to is computed at 213.058
Paris lines (Boeckh, p. 247). The Talmudists state
that the Mosaic cubit was used for the edifice of
the Tabernacle and Temple, and the lesser cubit
for the vessels thereof.* This was probably a fic
tion; for the authorities were not agreed among
themselves as to the extent to which the lesser
cubit was used, some of thera restricting it to the
golden altar, and parts of the brazen altar (Mish
nah, Cel. p. 17, § 10). But this distinction, ficti
tious as it may have been, shows that the cubits
were not regarded in the Ught of sacred and pro
fane, as stated in works on Hebrew archaeology.
Another distinction, adopted by the Rabbinists in
reference to the palm, , would tend to show that
they did not rigidly adhere to any definite length
of cubit: for they recognized two kinds of palms,
one wherein the fingers lay loosely open, which
they denominated a smiling palm ; the other
wherein the fingers were closely compressed, and
styled the grieving palm (Carpzov, Appar. pp.
674, 676).
The conclusions to be drawn from the foregoing
considerations are not of the decisive character that
we would wish. For while the collateral evidence
derived from the practice of the adjacent countries
and from later Jewish authorities favors the idea
that the BibUcal cubit varied but Uttle from the
length usuaUy assigned to that measure, the evi
dence of the I3ihle itself is in favor of one consid er-
al)ly shorter. This evidence is, however, of so un
certain a character, turtiing on points of criticism
and on brief notices, that we can hardly venture to
adopt it as our standard. We accept, therefore,
6 Hence tliey were denominated ^"^^^H H^Nj
oubit of the building," and D'' -3(1 M, "cubit

with reservation, the estimate (f Thenius, and fi«ni
the cubit we estimate the absolute length of tht
other denominations according to the proportions
existing between the members of the body, the cubit
equaUng the two spans (compare Ex. xxv. 3, 10,
with Joseph. Ant. iii. 6, §§ 6, 6), the span three
palms, and the palm four digits. Inches.

Digit

4

Pahn

12

3

24

6

144

36

Span 2
12

Cubit .

Keed

. 19.0516
. 114.3090

If the vessels.''
e The term

occurs in the A. V. as the

Land and area were measured either by the cubit
(Num. xxxv. 4, 5; Ez. xL 27) or by the reed (Ez.
xUi. 20, xliii. 17, xiv. 2, xlviii. 20; Rev. xxi. 16).
There is no indication in the Bible of the use of a
square measure by the Jews." Whenever they
wished to define the size of a plot, they specified
its length and breadth, even if it were a perfect
square, as in Ez. xlviu. 16. The difficulty of de
fining an area by these means is experienced in the
interpretation of Num. xxxv. 4, 5, where the
suburbs of the Levitica] cities are described as reach
ing outward from the waU of the city 1,000 cubits
round about, and at the same time 2,000 cubits on
each side from without the city. We can hardly
understand these two measurements otherwise than
as applying, the one to the width, the other to the
external boundary of the suburb, the measurements
being taken respectively perpendicular and parallel
to the city waUs. But in this case it is necessary
to understand the words rendered " irom without
the city," in ver. 5, as meaning to the exclimon of
the city, so that the length of the city wall should
be added in each case to the 2,000 cubits. The re
sult would be that the size of the areas would vary,
and that where the city walls were unequal hi
length, the sides of the suburb would be also un
equal. For instance, if the city waU was 500 cubits
long, then the side of the suburb would be 2,500
cubits; if the city waU were 1,000 cubits, then the
side ofthe suburb wnuld be 3,000 cubits. Assi'm-
ing the existence of two towns, 500 and 1,000 cubite
square, the area of the suburb would in the former
case = 6,000,000 square cnbits, and wojUd he 24
times the size of the town ; while in the latter case
the suburb would be 8,000,000 square cubits, and
only 8 times the size of the t"wn. This explana
tion is not wholly satisfactory, on account of the
disproportion of the suburbs as compared with the
towns ; nevertheless any other explanation only ex-
aggerates this disproportion. Keil, in his comment
on Josh. xiv. 4, assumes that the city wall was in
all cases to be regarded as 1 ;000 cubits long, which
with the 1,000 cubits outside the wall, and measured
in the same direction as the wall, would make up
the 2,000 cubits, and would give to the side of the
suburb in every case a length of 3,000 cubits. The
objection to this view is that there is no evidence as
to an uniform length of the city waUs, and that the
suburb might have been more conveniently de
scribed as 3,000 cubits on each side. All ambiguity
equivalent for maanah (HS^.D) in 1 Sam. xiv. M
and for tzemed (102) in Is. v. 10. The latter term
also occurs in the passage first quoted, and would with
more consistency be rendered acre instead of " yoke.'
It means such an amount of land as a yoke of oxeL
would plough in a day. Madnah mefos a fanmc.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

3505

ffouid hare been avoided if the size of the suburb
had been deoided either by alMolute or relative
acreage; in other words, if it were to consist in all
cases of a certain fixed acreage outside the waUs, or
if it were made to vary in a certain ratio to the size
of the town. As the text stands, neither of these
methods can be deduced from it.
(2.) The measures of distance noticed in the Old
Testament are the three following: (a.) The
tsa'ad," or pace (2 Sam. vi. 13), answering gener
ally to our yard, (b.) The Cibraih hadrets,<> ren
dered in the A. V. " a Uttle way " or " a little piece
of ground " (Gen. xxxv. 16, xlviii. 7; 2 K. v. 19).
The expression appears to Indicate some definite
distance, but we are unable to state with precision
what that distance was. The LXX. retains the
Hebrew word iu the forra Xa$padd, as though it
were the name of a place, adding in Geu. xlvUi. 7
the words tcari rhf iirTrSSpofiOi', which is thus a
second translation of the expression. If a certain
distance was intended by this translation, it would
be either the ordinary length of a race-course, or
such a distance as a horse could travel without be
ing over-fatigued, in other words, a stage. But it
probably means a locality, either a race-course itself,
as in 3 Maco. iv. 11, or the space outside the town
walls where the race-course was usually to be found.
The LXX. give it again in Gen. xlviii. 7 as the
equivalent for Ephrath. The Syriac aud Persian
versions render cibrath by parasang, a weU-known
Persian measure, genemlly estimated at 30 stades
(Herod, u. 6, v. 53), or from Z^ to 4 English miles,
but sometimes at a larger araount, even up to 60
stades (Strab. xi. 518). The only conclusion to be
drawn frora the Bible is that the cibrath did not
exceed and probably equaled the distance between
Bethlehem and Rachel's burial-place, which is tra
ditionally identified with a spot 1^ mile north of
the town. (C.) The derec ydni,'^ or mahdlac ydm,it
a day's journey, which was the most usual method
of calcuLiting distances in travelling (Gen. xxx. 36,
xxxi. 23; Ex. Ui. 18, v. 3; Num. x. 33, xi. 31,
xxxiu. 8; Deut. i. 2; IK. xix. 4; 2 K. iii. 9; Jon.
in. 3; 1 Mace. v. 24, vu. 45; Tob. vi. 1), though
but one instance of it occurs in the New Testament
(Luke ii. 44). The distance indicated by it was
naturally fluctuating according to tii& circumstances
of the traveller or of the country through which he
passed. Herodotus variously estimates it at 200
and 150 stades (iv. 101, v. 53); Marinus (ap. Ptol.
i. 11) at 150 and 172 stades; Pausanias (x. 33,
§ 2) at 150 stades; Strabo (i. 35) at from 250 to
300 stades; and Vegetius (De Be Mil. i. 11) at
from 20 to 24 miles for the Roman array. The
ordinary day's journey among the Jews was 30
railes; but when they travelled in companies only
10 miles; NeapoUs formed the first stage out of
Jerusalem, according to the former, and Beeroth
iccording to the latter computation (Lightfoot,
Exerc. in Luc. ii. 44). It is impossible to as-
lign any distinct length to the day's journey:
Jahn's estimate of 33 miles, 172 yards, and 4 feet,
is based upon tlie false assumption that it bore some
Ixed iiatio to the other measures of length.
In the Apocrypha and New Testament we meet

"1??.
« ffl"' ?[11.
ton

d nv "iibrp.
/ ^rdSiov,
h MCKiov,

with the following additional measures: (rf.) Tht
Sabbath-day's journey,^ already discussed in
separate article, (e.) The s(ac?ion,/or "furfong,'
a Greek measure introduced into Asia subsequently
to Alexander's conquest, and hence first mentioned
in the Apocrypha (2 Mace. xi. 5, xu. 9, 17, 29), and
subsequently in the New Testaraent (Luke xxiv.
13; John vi. 19, xi. 18; Rev. xiv. 20, xxi. 16).
Both the name and the length of the stade were
borrowed frora the foot-race course at Olympia. It
equaled 600 Greek feet (Herod, ii. 149), or 125
Konian paces (PUn. ii. 23), or 606| feet of our
measure. It thus faUs below the furlong by 63^
feet. The distances between Jerusalem and the
places Bethany, Janinia, and Scythopolis, are given
with tolerable exactness at 15 stades (John xi. 18),
240 stades (2 Mace. xii. 9), and 600 stades (2 Mace.
xii. 29). In 2 Mace. xi. 5 there is an evident error,
either of the author or of the text, in respect to the
position of Bethsura, which is given as only 5 stades
from Jerusalera. The Talmudists describe the stade
under the term res,ff and regarded it as equal to
625 feet and 125 paces (Carpzov, Appar. p. 679).
(f.) The MUe,^ a Roman measure, equalling 1,00C
Roman pac&i, 8 stades, and 1,618 EngUsh yards
[Mile]. 2. Measures of capacity.
The measures of capacity for Uquids were: (a.;
The log» (Lev. xiv. 10, etc.), the narae originally
signifying a " basin." (b.) The bin,* a name of
Egyptian origin, frequently noticed in the Bible
(Ex. xxix. 40, xxx. 24; Num. xv. 4, 7, 9; Ez. iv.
11, etc.). (c.) The bath,^ the name meaning
" measured," the largest of the liquid raeasures (1
K. vii. 26, 38; 2 Chr. ii. 10; Ezr. vu. 22; Is. v.
10). With regard to the relative values of these
measures we learn nothing frora the Bible, but we
gather from Josephus (Ant. iii. 8, § 3) that the
bath contained 6 bins (for the bath equaled 72
xestce or 12 choes, and the hin 2 ckoes), and from
the Rabbinists that the hin contained 12 logs
(Carpzov, Appar. p. 685). The relative valuej
therefore stand thus : —
Log 12 I Hin I
72 I 6 I Eath
The dry measure contained the following denom
inations: (a.) The cab,"" mentioned only in 2 K.
vi. 25, the name meaning Uterally hollow or con ¦
cave, (b.) The omer, » mentioned ouly in Ex. xvi.
16-36. The sarae measure is elsewhere termed
issdrdn,o as being the tenth part of an ephah
(corap. Ex. xvi. 36), whence in the A. V. " tenth
deal" (Lev. xiv. 10, xxiii. 13; Num. xv. 4, etc.).
The word omer implies a heap, and secondarily a
sheaf, (c.) The siah,P or " measure," this being
the etymological nieaning of the terra, and appro
priately appUed to it, inasmuch as it was the or
dinary measure for household purposes (Gen. xviii.
6; 1 Sam. xxv. 18; 2 K, vii. 1, 16). The Greek
equivalent occurs in Matt. xiii. 33 ; Luke xiii. 21.
The seah was otherwise termed shdlish,Q as being
the third part of an ephah (Is. xl. 12; Ps. Ixxx. 5).
(rf.) The ephah,'- a word of Egyptian origin, and

i a'b. * rn-
P T^'i^^ i trdrav.

in?.
« tt;'<bt£?.

3506

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

of frequent recurrence in the Bible (Ex. xvi. 36 ;
Lev. V. 11, vi. 20; Num. v. 15, xxviu. 5; Judg. vi.
19; Ruth ii. 17; 1 Sam. i. 24, xvu. 17; Ez. xiv.
11, 13, xlvi. 5, 7, 11, 14). (e.) The lethec," or
" half-homer," literally meaning what is p&ivred
out : it occurs only in Hos. iii. 2. (f.) The homer,'
meaning heap (Lev. xxvii. 16; Num. xi- 32; Is. v.
10; Ez. xiv. 13). It is elsewhere termed cor,"
from the circular vessel in which it was measured
(1 K. iv. 22, v. 11; 2, Chr. ii. 10, xxvii. 5; Ezr.
vii. 22 ; Ez. xiv. 14). The Greek equivalent occurs
in Luke xvi. 7.
The relative proportions of the dry measures are
to a certain extent expressed in the names issdron,
meaning a tenth, and shdlish, a third. In addition
we have the Biblical statement that the omer is the
tenth part of the ephah (Ex. xvi. 36), and that the
ephah was the tenth part of a homer, and con-e-
gpouded to the hath in liquid measure (Ez. xiv. 11).
The Rabbinists supplement this by stating that the
ephah contauied three seahs, and the seah six cabs
(Carpzov, p. 683). We are thus enabled to draw
out the foUowing scale of relative values : —
Cab

1?

Omer

6'

3i

Seah

18

10

8

Ephah

180

100

30

10 1 Homer

The above scale is constructed, it will be ob
served, on a combination of deciraal and duodecimal
ratios, the former prevailing in respect to the omer,
ephah, and homer, the latter in respect to the cab,
seah, and ephah. In the liquid measure the duo
decimal ratio alone appears, and hence there is a
fair presumption that this was the original, as it
was undoubtedly the most general, priueiple on
whioh the scales of antiquity were framed (Boeckh,
p. 38). Whether the decimal division was intro
duced from some other system, or whether it was
the result of local usage, there is no evidence to
show. The absolute values of the liquid and dry meas
ures form the subject of a single inquiry, inasmuch
as the two scales have a measure of equal value,
namely, the bath and the ephah (Ez. xiv. 11); if
either of these can be fixed, the conversion of tbe
other denominations info their respective values
readily follows. Unfortunately the data for deter
mining the value of the bath or ephah are both
scanty and conflicting. Attempts have been made
to deduce the value of the bath from a comparison
of the dimensions and the contents of the molten
sea as given in 1 K. vii. 23-26. If these particu
lars had been given with greater accuracy and full
ness, they would have furnished a sound basis for
a calculation ; but, as the matter now stands, un
certainty attends every statement. The diameter
is given as 10 cubits, and the circumference a& 30
cubits, the diameter being stated to be " from one
brim io the other." Assuming that the vessel was
circular, the proportions of the diameter and cir
cumference are not sufficiently exact for mathemat
ical purposes, nor are we aiile to decide whether
the diameter was measured from the internal or the
external edge of the vesseL The shape of the ves
sel has been variously conceived to be circular and
polygonal, cyUndrical and hemispherical, with per
pendicular and with bulging sides. The contents

1 ilp^lKOffiii.

are given as 2,000 baths in 1 K. vil. 26, and 3,00C
baths in 2 Chr. iv. 6, the latter being probably a
corrupt text. Lastly, the length of the cubit ia
undefined, and hence every estimate is attended
with suspicion. The conclusions drawn have been
widely different, as might be expected. If it be
assumed that the form of the vessel was cylindrical
(as the description primd facie seems to imply)
that its clear diameter was 10 cubits of the value
of 19.0515 English inches each, and that its full
contents were 2,000 baths, then the value of the
bath would be 4.8965 gaUons ; for the contents of
the vessel would equal 2,715,638 cubic inches, or
9,793 gallons. If, however, the statement of Jose
phus (Ant. viii. 3, § 5), as to the hemispherical
form of the vessel, be adopted, then the estimate
would be reduced. Saigey, as quoted by Boeckh
(p. 261), ou this hypothesis calculates the value
of the bath at 18.086 French Utres, or 3.9807
English gaUons. If, fiirther, we adopt Saalschiitz's
view as to the length of the cubit, which he puts
at 15 Dresden inches at the highest, the value of
the bath will be further reduced, according te hia
calculation, to lOi Prussian quarts, or 2.6057
English gaUons ; while at his lower estimate of the
cubit at 12 inches, its value would be little more
than one half of this amount (Archdol. ii. 171).
On the other hand, if the vessel bulged, and if the
diameter and circumference were measured at the
neck or narrowest part of it, space might be found
for 2,000 or even 3,000 baths of greater value than
any of the above estimates. It is therefore hope
less to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion from
this source. Nevertheless we think the calculations
are not without their use, as furnishing a certain
amount of presumptive evidence. For, setting
aside the theory that the vessel bulged consid
erably, fbr which the text furnishes no evidence
whatever, all the other computations agree in one
point, namely, that the bath feU far below the value
placed on it by Josephus, and by modem writers
on Hebrew archaeology generaUy, according to
whom the bath measures between 8 and 9 English
gallons. We turn to the statements of Josephus and
other early writers. The former states that the
bath equals 72 xestw (Ant. viii. 2, § 9), that the
hin equals 2 Attic choes (iUd. in. 8, §§ 3, 9, § 4),
that the seah equals 1^ ItaHan nwdii (ibid. ix. 4,
§5), that the cor equals 10 Attic medimni (ibid.
XV. 9, § 2), and that the issaron or omer equals 7
Attic cotyke (ibid. iii. 6, § 6). It may further be
implied trom Ant. ix. 4, § 4, as compared with 2
K. vi. 25, that he regarded the cab as equal to 4
xestes. Now, in order to reduce these statements
to consistency, it must be assumed that in Ani.
XV. 9, § 2, he has confused the medimnus with the
metrites, and in Ant. iii. 6, § 6, the cotyU with
the xestes. Such errors throw doubt on his other
statements, and tend to the conclusion that Jose
phus was not really familiar with the Greek meas
ures. This impression is supported by his apparent
ignorance of the term metretis, which he should
have used not only in the passage above noticed,
but also in viii. 2, § 9, where he would naturaUy
have substituted it for 72 xesta, assuming that
these were Attic xeslte. Nevertheless his testimonj
must be taken as decisively in favor of the iden
tity of the Hebrew bath with the Attic metritis.

0 ~i»n.

' 13 : icopoci

¦WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
Jerome (in Matt. xiii. 33) affirms that the seah
equals ij nuidii, and (in Ez. xiv. 11) that the cor
squals 30 modii, — statements that are glaringly
inconsistent, inasmuch as there were 30 seahs in
tbe cor. The statemente of Epiphanius in his
treatise De Mensiwis are equally remarkable for
inconsistency. He states (ii. 177) that the cor
equals 30 modii: on this assumption the bath
would equal 51 sextarii, but he gives only 50 (p.
178): the seah would equal 1 modius, but he gives
U modii (p. 178 ), or, according to his estimate of
17 sextarii to the modius, 2i^ sexiaHi, though
elsewhere he assigns 56 sextarii as ite value (p.
182): the omer would be 5J)y sextarii, but he
gives 7i (p. 182), implying 45 modii to the cor:
and, lastly, the ephah is identified with the Egyp
tian artaie (p. 182), which was either 4^ or 3A
uiodii, according as it was in the old or the new
measure, though according to his estimate of the
cor it would only equal 3 modii. Little reliance
can be placed on statemente so loosely raade, and
the question arises whether the identification of the
bath with the metrites did not arise out of the cir
cumstance tbat the two measures held the same
relative position in the scales, each being subdi
vided into 72 parts, aud, again, whether the assign
ment of 30 modii to the cor did not arise out
of there being 30 seahs in it. The discrepancies
can only be explained on the assumption that a
wide margin was allowed for a long measure,
amounting to an increase of 50 per cent. This
appears to have been the case from the definitions
of the seah or aaTov given by Hesychius, fiiSios
yefuov, ^ovv, %v ^/j.ta-u fidSiov ^lTaKiK6y, and
again by Suidas, ^itiov vTrepwerrKyipai^^vov, uis
flmi fiiSiov evd Kal Vifuavi/. Assuraing, however,
that Josephus was right in identifying the bath
with the metritis, its value would be, according to
Boeckh's estimate of the latter (pp. 261, 278),
1993.6 Paris cubic inches, or 8.7053 English gal
lons, but according to the estiraate of Bertheau
(Gesch. p. 73) 1,985.77 Paris cubic inches, or
8.6696 EngUsh gallons.
The Rabbinists furnish data of a different kind
for calculating the value of the Hebrew measures.
They estimated the log to be equal to six hen eggs,
the cubic contente of whioh were ascertained by
measuring the amount of water they displaced
(Maimonides, in Cel. 17, § 10). On this basis
I'henius estimated the log at 14.088 Paris cubic
inches, or .06147 EngUsh gallon, and the bJith at
1,014.39 Paris cubic inches, or 4.4286 gaUons (St.
u. Kr. pp. 101, 121). Again, the log of water is
said te have weighed 108 Egyptian drachmse,*' each
equalUng 61 barleycorns (Maimonides, in Beah, 3,
§ 6, ed. Guisius.). Thenius fiuds^ that 6,688 bar
leycorns fiU about the same space as 6 hen eggs
(St. u. Kr. p. 112). And again, a log is said to
fill a vessel 4 digite long, 4 broad, and 2J, high
(Maimonides, in Prcef. Menachoth). This vessel
wonld contain 21.6 cubic inches, or .07754 gallon.
The conclusion arrived at from these data would
agree tolerably weU with the ffrst estimate formed
on the notices of the molten sea.

u In the table the weight of the log is given as 104
drachms ; but in this case the contents of the log are
supposed to be wine. The relative weights of water
»nd wine were as 27 ; SS.
^ McTfn^rq?. c Xomf.
^ He'imi!.

WELL 350?
As we are unable to decide between Josephus
and the Rabbinists, we give a double estimate of
the various denominations, adopting Bertheau'
estimate of the metrites : —
(Josephus.) (Rabbinists.)
Gallons. Gallons.
Homer or Cor . . 86.696 or 44.286
Ephah or Bath . . 8.6696 or 4.4286
Seah  2.8898 or 1.4762
Hin  1.4449 or .7381
Omer  8669 or .4428
Cab  4816 or .246
Log  1204 or .0615
In the New Testament we have notices of the
following foreign raeasures: (a.) The metretest'
(John U. 6; A. V. " firkin "),for Uquids. (b.) The
chcenix e (Rev. vi. 6; A. V. " measure "), for dry
goods, (c.) The xestes,'^ applied, however, not ta
the particular measure so named by the Greeks,
but to any small vessel, such as a cup (Mark vii.
4, 8; A. V. "pot"), (d.) The modius, similarly
appUed to describe any vessel of moderate dimen
sions (Matt. V. 15; Mark iv. 21; Luke xi. 33;
A. V. "bushel"); though properly meaning a Ro
raan measure, amounting to about a peck.
The value of the Attic metritis has been already
stated to be 8.6696 gallons, and consequently the
amount of liquid in six stone jars, containing on
the average 24 metret<B each, would exceed 110
gaUons (John ii. 6). Very possibly, however, the
Greek term represente the Hebrew bath, and if the
bath be taken at the lower estimate assigned to it,
the araount would be reduced to about 60 gaUons.
Even this amount far exceeds the requiremente for
the purposes of legal purification, the tendency of
Pharisaical refinement being to reduce the amount
of water to a minimura, so that a quarter of a log
would suffice for a person (Mishnah, Tad. 1, § 1)
The question is one simply of archseologieal interest
as iUustrating the customs of the Jews, and does
not affect the character of the miracle with which
it is counected. The clicenix was -^ of an Attic
medimnus, and contained nearly a quart. It rep
resented the usual amount of corn for a day's food,
and hence a chcenix for a penny, or denarius,
which usuaUy purchased a bushel (Cic. 'Verr. iii.
81), indicated a great scarcity (Rev. vi. 6).
With regard to the use of fair measures, various
precepts are expressed in the Mosaic law and other
parts of the Bible (Lev. xix. 35, 36; Deut. xxv
14, 15; Prov. xx. 10; Ez. xiv. 10), and in ah
probabiUty standard measures were kept in the
Temple, as was usual in the other civilized coun
tries of antiquity (Boeckh, p. 12).
The works chiefly referred to in the present
article are the following: Boeckh, Metrologische
Untersuchungen, 1838; Classical Museum, vol.
\.; Theologische Studien und Kritiken for 1846;
Mishnah, ed. Surenhusius; Wilkinson, Ancient
Egyptians, 2 vols. 1854; Epiphanius, Opera, 2
vols., ed. Petavius. W. L. B.
WELL.'' The difference between a well (Biir'i
and a cistern (Bor) [Cistern], consists chiefly in

e 1. "IN3 : ij>p6ap: putms; in four places "pit."
2. ~l'l3 : ^oic/cos : cirtOTia; usually "pit." [Va.
3. V^a- usually "fountain." [TOTOIAIH 1
4. I'ipC [FoDHTiDj; SpRiKa.J

3508 WELL
the use of the former word to denote a receptacle
for water spruiging up freshly from the ground,
while the latter usually denotes a reservoir for rain
water (Gen. xxvi. 19^ 32; Prov. v. 15; John iv^
The special necessity of a supply of water (Judg.
i. 15) m a hot climate has always involved among
Eastern nations questions of prop'erty of the highest
importance, and sometimes given rise to serious
contention. To give a name to a well denoted a
right of property, and to stop or destroy one once
dug was a milit.ary expedient, a mark of conquest,
or an encroachment on territorial right claimed or
existing in its neighborhood. Thus the well Beer
sheba was opened, and its possession attested with
special formality by Abraham (Gen. xxi. 30, 31).
In fche hope of expelling Isaac from their neighbor
hood, the Philistines stopped up the wells which
had been dug in Abraham's time and called by his
name, an encroachment which was stoutly resisted
bythe followers of Isaac (Gren. xxvi. 15-33; see
also 2 K. iii. 19; 2 Chr. xxvi. 10; Burckhardt,
Notes, ii. 185, 194, 20-t, 276). The Kuran notices
abandoned wells as signs of desertion (Sur. xxii.).
To acquire wells which thej had not themselves
dug, was one of the marks of favor foretold to
the Hebrews on their entrance into Canaan (Deut.
vi. 11). To possess one is noticed as a mark of
independence (Prov, v. 15), and to abstain from the
use of wells belonging to others, a disclaimer of
interference with their property (Num. xx. 17, 19,
xxi. 22). Similar rights of possession, actual and
hereditary, exist among the Arabs of the present
day. Wells, Burckhardt says, in the interior of the
Desert, are exclusive property, either of a whole
tribe, or of individuals whose ancestors dug the
wells. If a well be the property of a tribe, the
tents are pitched near it, whenever rain-water be
comes scarce in the desert ; and no other Arabs are
then permitted to water their camels. But if the
well belongs to an individual, he receives presents
fi"om all strange tribes who pass or encamp at the
well, and refresh their camels with the water of it-
The property of such a well is never alienated;
and the Arabs say, that the possessor is sure to be
fortunate, as all who drink of the water bestow on
him their benedictions {Notes on Bed. i. 228, 229 ;
comp. Rum. xxi. 17, 18, and Judg. i. 15).
It is thus easy to understand how wells have
become in many cases links in the history and
landmarks in the topography both of Palestine and
of the Arabian Peninsula. The well once dug in
the rocky soil of Palestine might be filled with earth
or stones, but with difficulty destroyed, and thus
the wells of Beer-sheba, and the well near Ndbulus^
caUed Jacob's well, are among the most undoubted
witnesses of those transactions of sacred history in
which they have borne, so to speak, a prominent
part. On the other hand, the wells dug in the
sandy soil of the Arabian valleys, easily destroyed,

a * The A.V. does not always observe the proper dis
tinction between " well " and " fountain " or " spring."
Thus it renders the same word (1'*V) " well " in
Judg. vii. 1; Neh. ii. 13, etc., and "fountain "in
Qen. xvi. 7 ; Num. xxxiii. 9, etc. There is another
inconsistency in the A. V., which is a source of con
tusion. Our translators sometimes transfer the first
oart of fhe compound expression, as '* .En-rogel,"
* En-shomeeh," " .En-tappua^," etc., and sometimes
translate ifc, a^ " Well of Harod," « Dragon WeU," etc.

WELL
bat easily renewed, often mark, by their read]
supply, the stations at which the Hebrew pilgrime
slaked their thirst, or, as at Marah, were" disap
pointed by the bitterness of the water. In liko
manner the stations of the Mohammedan pilgrims
from Cairo and Damascus to Mecca (the Hadj
route) are marked by the weUa (Kobinson, i. 66
69, 204, 205, ii. 283 ; Burckhardt, Sy?ia, pp. 318*
472, 474; App. III. 656, 660: Shaw, Trav. Bu\
Niebuhr, Descrip. de fAr,, pp. 347, 348; Wellsted
Trav. ii. 40, 43, 64, 457, App.). '
Wells in Palestine are usually excavated from
the solid limestone rock, sometimes with steps to
descend into them (Gen. xxiv. 16; Burckhardt,
Spin, p. 232; Col. Ch. Chron. 1858, p. 470).
The brims are furnished with a curb or low wall
of stone, bearing marks of high antiquity in the
furrows worn by the ropes us^ in drawing water
(Rob. i. 204). Tbis curb, as well as the stone
cover, which is also very usual, agrees with the
du'ections of the Law, as explained by Philo and
Josephus, namely, as a protection against accident
(Ex. xxi. 33; Joseph. Ant. iv. 8, § 37; Philo, De
Spec. Leg. iii. 27, ii. 324, ed. Mangey; Maundrell,
in E. Trav. 435).* It was on a curb of this sort
that our Lord sat when He conversed with the
woman of Samaria (John iv. 6), and it was this,
the usual stone cover, which the woman placed on
the mouth of the well at Bahurim (2 Sam. xviL
19), where A. V. weakens the sense by omittmg
the article." Sometimes the wells are covered
with cupolas raised on pillars (Burckhardt, App. Y.
p. 665).
The usual methods for raising water are the fol
lowing : (1. ) The rope and bucket, or water-skin
(Gen. xxiv. 14-20; John iv. 11). When the well
is deep the rope is either drawn over the curb by
the man or woman, who pulls it out to the dis
tance of its full length, or by an ass or ox employed
in the same way for the same purpose. Sometimes
a pulley or wheel is fixed over the well to assist
the work (Robinson, i. 204, ii. 248; Niebuhr,
Des<yr. de VAr. 137, pi. 15; Col Ck. Chron. 1859,
p. 350; Chardin, 1%. iv. 98; Wellsted, Trao. L
280). (2.) The sakiyeh, or Persian wheel. This
consists of a vertical wheel furnished with a set of
buckets or earthen jars, attached to a cord passing
over tJie wheel, which descend empty and return
full as the wheel revolves. On the axis of the
wheel revolves a second wheel, parallel to it, with
cogs which turn a third wheel set horizontally at a
sufficient height from the ground to allow tha
animal used in turning it to pass under. One or
two cows or bulls are yoked to a pole which passes
through the axis of this wheel, and as they travel
round it turn the whole machine (Num. xxiv. 7;
Lane, Mod. Eg. ii. 163; Niebuhr, Voy. i. 120;
Col. Ch. Chron. 1859, p. 352; Shaw, pp. 291, 408).
(3.) A modification of the last method, by which
a man, sitting opposite to a wheel furnished with

& * Mr. E. H. Palmer, in passing from Smai to
Nakhl, went up the Wady Biydr, of which he says:
" This wady is so called from the wells {Bi-ror) whioh
exist near its head, and which, in their form and us^
remarkably illustrate the passage in Genesis xxix.
7-9 : * Till they roll the stone from the well's mouth
then we water the sheep.' '^ { Quart. Statem. Pal. Ex
Fund, No. T. p. 257.) S- ^•
^ tjD^H: TO emKoX: fiii-a: velamen.

WELL IS HIM
buckets, turns it by drawing with his hands one
set of spokes prolonged beyond its circumference,
and pushing another set from him with his feet
(Niebuhr, Voy. i. p. 120, pi. 15; Robinson, ii. 22,
iii. 89). (4.) A method very common, both in
ancient and modern Egypt, is the shadoof, a sim
ple contrivance consisting of a lever moving on a
pivot, which is loaded at one end with a lump of
clay or some other weight, and has at the other a
bowl or bucket. This is let down into the water,
and, when raised, emptied into a receptacle above
(ISiebubr, Voy. i. 120; Lane, M. E. ii. 163; "Wil
kinson, A. E. i. 35, 72, ii. 4).
Wells are usually furnished with troughs of wood
or stone," into which fhe water is .emptied for the
use of persons or animals coming to the wells. In
modern times an old stone sarcophagus is often
used for this purpose. The bucket is very com
monly of skin (Burckhardt, Syria, p. 63 ; Robinson,
i. 204, ii. 21, 315, iii. 35, 89, 109, 134; Lord
Lindsay, Triv. pp. 235, 23T; Wilkinson, A. E.
1. Ci Gen. xxiv. 20; Ex. ii. 16).

WHALE

350£

Ancient Egyptiau machine for raising water, identical
with the shadoof of the present day. (Wilkinson.)
Unless machinery is used, which is commonly
worked by men, women are usually the water-
carriers. They carry home their water-jars on
theh heads (Lindsay, p. 236). Great contentions
often occur at the wells, and they are often, among
Bedouins, favorite places for attack by enemies
(Ex. ii. 16, 17; Judg. v. 11; 2 Sam. xxiii. 15, 16;
Burckhardt, Syria, p. 63; Notes on Bed. i. 228;
Col. Ch. Chron. 1859, p. 473; Lane, M. E. i. 252;
Robinson, iii. 153). H. W. P.
* WELL IS HIM, Ecclus. xxv. 8, 9 (A. V.),
ftxhibits a curious remnant of the old use of " him "
M a dative, = " to him." Compare " Woe is me,"
luid the examples from Chaucer ( Cant. Tales, 2,111,
16,.362) cited in Eastwood and Wright's Bible
Word Book, p. 524. A.
* WELL OP JACOB. [Shechem, p.
3957 f.]
* WELL-SPRING. [Fountain; Well.]
WHALE. As to the signification of the He
brew terms tan (]fl or ]ri and tannin, 1''3ri),
lariously rendered in the A. V. by " dragon,"

nptt? : n-OTiffT^fitoi' : canalis.

" whale," " serpent," " sea-monster," see Dr.vgon.
It remains for us in this article to consider the
transaction recorded in the book of Jonah, of that
prophet having been swallowed by some " great
fish" (Vnaa'l), which in Matt. xii. 40 is
called KrJTOs. rendered in our version by " whale."
Much criticism has been expended on the Scrip
tural account of Jonah being swallowed by a large
fish ; it has been variously understood as a literal
transaction, as an entire fiction or an allegory, as a
poetical mythus or a parable. With regard to the
remarks of those writers who ground their objec
tions upon the denial of miracle, it is obvious that
this is not the place for discussion; the question
of Jonah in the fish's belly will, share the same
fate as any other miracle recorded in the Old Te»-
tament. The reader will find in Rosenmiiller's Prolegom
ena several attempts by various writers to explain
the Scriptural narrative, none of which, however,
have anything to recommend them, unless it be in
some cases the ingenuity of the authors, such as
for instance that of Godfrey Less, who supposed
that the " fish " was no animal at all, but a ship
with the figure of a fish painted on the stem, into
which Jonah was received after he had been cast
out of his own vessel! Equally curious is the ex
planation of G. C. Anton, who endeavored to solve
the difficulty, by supposing that just as tbe prophet
was thrown into the water, the dead carcase of
some large fish floated by, into the belly of which
he contrived to get, and that thus he was drifted
to the shore! The opinion of Rosenmiiller, that
the whole account is founded on the Phoenician
fable of Hercules devoured by a sea-monster sent
by Neptune (Lycophron, Cassand. 33), although
sanctioned by Gesenius, Winer, Ewald, and other
German writers, is opposed to aU sound principles
of Biblical exegesis. It will be our purpose to
consider what portion of the occurrence partakes
of a natuial, and what of a miraculous nature.
In the first place then, it is necessary to observe,
that the Greeek word iciJTos, used by St. Matthew,
is not restricted in its meaning to " a whale," or
any Cetacean ; like the Latin cete or cetus, it may
denote any sear.monster, either " a whale," or "a
shark," or " a seal," or " a tunny of enormous
size " (see Athen. p. 303 B, ed. Dindorf ; Odys.
xii. 97, iv. 446, 452; II. xx. 147). Although two
or three species of whale are found in the Mediter
ranean Sea, yet the "great fish" that swallowed
the prophet, cannot properly be identified with any
Cetacean, for, although the sperm whale ( Calodon
macrocephalus) has a gullet sufficiently large to
admit the body of a man, yet it can hardly be the
fish intended; as the natural food of cetaceans
consists of small animals, such as medusse and
Crustacea. Nor, again, can we agree with Bishop Jebb (Sa
cred Literature, pp. 178, 179), that the Koi\ia of
the Greek Testament denotes the back portion of a
whale's mouth, in the cavity of .which the prophet
was concealed ; for the whole passage in Jonah is
clearly opposed to such an interpretation.
The only fish, then, capable of swallowing a
man would be a large specimen of the White Shark
(Carcharias vulgaris), that dreaded enemy of
sailors, and the most voracious of the family of
Squalidte. This shark, whioh sometimes attains
the length of thirty feet, is quite able to swallow a
man whole. Some commentators are skeptical nn

35iu

WHEAT

this point. It would, however, be easy to quote
passages jrom the writings of authors and travellers
in proof of this assertion ; we confine ourselves to
two or three extracts. The shark " has a large
gullet, and in the belly of it are sometimes found
the bodies of men half eaten, sometimes whole and
entire " (Nature Displayed, iii. p. 140). But lest
the Abb^ Pluche should not be considered sufficient
authority, we give a quotation from Mr. Couch's
recent publication, A Bistory of the Fishes of the
British Islands. Speaking of white sharks, this
author, who has paid much attention tr ^he habits
of fish, states that " they usually cut asunder any
object of considerable size and thus swallow it;
but if they find a difficulty in doing this, there is no
hesitation in passing into the stomach even what is
of enormous bulk ; and the formation of the jaws
and throat render this a matter of but little diffi
culty." Ruysch says that the whole body of a man
in armor (linicafus), has been found in the stomach
of a white shark ; and Captain King, in his Survey
of Australia, says he had caught one which could
have swallowed a man with the greatest ease.
Blumenbach mentions that a whole horse has been
found in a shark, aud Captain Basil Hall reports
the taking of one in which, besides other things,
he found the whole skin of a bui&lo which a short
time before had been thrown overboard from his
ship (i. p. 27). Dr. Baird of the British Museum
(Cyclop, qf Nat. Sciences, p. 514), says that in
the river Hooghly below Calcutta, he had seen a
white shark swallow a bullock's head and horns
entire, and he speaks also of a shark's mouth being
" sufficiently wide to receive the body of a man."
Wherever therefore the Tarshish, to which Jonah's
ship was bound, was situated, whether in Spain, or
in Cilicia, or in Ceylon, it is certain that the com
mon white shark might have been seen on the
voyage. The C. vulgaris is not uncommon in the
Mediterranean; it occurs, as Forskal (Descript.
Animal, p. 20) assures us, in the Arabian Gulf,
and is common also in the Indian Ocean. So far
for the natural portion of the subject. But how
Jonah could have been swallowed whole unhurt, or
how he could have existed for any time in the
shark's belly, it is impossible to explain by simply
natural causes. Certainly the preservation of
Jonah in a fish's belly is not more remarkable
thau that of the three children in the midst
of Nebuchadnezzar's " burning fiery furnace."
[Jonah, Amer. ed.]
Naturalists have recorded that sharks have the
nabit of throwing up again whole and alive the
prey they have seized (see Couch's Hist, of Fishes,
i. p. 33). " I have heard," says Mr. Darwin,
trom Dr. Allen of Forres, that he haa frequently
found a diodon floating alive and distended in the
stomach of a shark; and that on several occa^
sions he has known it eat its way out, not only
through the coats of the stomach, but through the
Bides of the monster which has been tbmt killed."
W.H.
WHEAT. The well-known valuable cereal,
cultivated from the earliest times, and frequently
mentioned in the Bible. In the A. V. the Heb.
words bar (12 or "12), ddgdn (p'^), rtphoth
{niQ"'")), are occasionally transUiled " wheat ;
but there is no doubt that the proper name of this
jereal, as distinguished from "barley," "spelt,"
»tc., is chiudh (H^n : Chald. r^^Hi eft'ntin).

WHEAT
Aa to the forraer Hebrew terms, see under Coss
The first mention of wheat occurs in Geu. xxx. 14
in the account of Jacob's sojourn with Laban in
Mesopotamia, Much has been written ou the sub
ject of the origin of wheat, and the question appears
to be still undecided. It is said that the Triticuin
vulgare has been found wild hi some parts of
Persia and Siberia, apparently removed from the
infiuence of cultivation ( EngUsh Cyclop, art. " Trit-
icum '¦ ). Again, from the experiments of M. Esprit
Fabre of Agde it would seem that the numerous
varieties of cultivated wheat are merely improved
transformations of JEgilops ovata (Joumai of tht

Egyptian Wheat.
Royal AgricuU. Soc., No. xxxiii. pp. 167-180).
M. Fabre's experiments, however, have not been
deemed conclusive by some botanists (see an inter
esting paper by the late Prof. Henfrey in No. xii.
of the Joumai quoted above). Egypt in ancient
times was celebrated for the growth of its wheat;
the best quality, according to Pliny (Nat. Bist
xviii. 7), was grown in the Thebaid; it was all
bearded, and the same varieties, Su- 6. Wilkinson
writes (Anc. Egypt, ii. 39, ed. 1854), '; existed
in ancient as in modem times, among which may
be mentioned the seven-eared quality described in
Pharaoh's dream " (Gen. xii. 22). This is the so-
called mummy-wheat, which, it has been said, haa
germinated after the lapse of thousands of years,
but it is uow known that the whole thing was a
fraud. Babylonia was also noted for tbe excellenM
of its wheat and other cereals. " In grain," sayi

WHEEL
Herodotus (i. 193), " it will yield commonly two
bundred fold, and at its greatest production as
much as three hundred fold. The blades of the
wheat and barley plants are often four fingers
broad." But this is a great exaggeration. (See
also Theophrastus, Bist. Plant, viii. 7.) Modern
writers, as Chesney and Rich, bear testimony to
the groat fertility ot Mesopotamia. Syria and
Palestine produced wheat of fine quality and in
large quantities (Ps. cxlvii. 14, Ixxxi. 16, etc.).
There appear to be two or tbree kinds of wheat at
present grown in Palestine, the Triticum vulgare
(var. hybenium), the T. spelta [see Rye], and
another variety of bearded wheat which appears to
be the same as the Egyptian kind, the T. compos-
Hum. In tbe parable of the sower our Lord alludes
tn grams of wheat which in good ground produce a
hundred fold (Matt. xiii. 8). " The return of a
hundred for one," says Trench, " is not unheard
of in the East, though always raentioned as some
thing extraordinary." Laborde says, " There is to
be found at Kerek a species of hundred wheat which
justifies the text of the Bible against the charges
of exaggeration of which it has been the object."
The common Triticum vulgare will sometimes
produce one hundred grains in the ear. Wheat is
reaped towards the end of April, in May, aud in
June, according to the differences of soil and posi
tion; it was sown either broadcast, aud theu
ploughed in or trampled in by cattle (Is. xxxii. 20),
or hi rows, if we rightly understand Is. xxviii. 25,
which seems to imply that the seeds were planted
apart in order to insure larger and fuller ears.
The wheat w.as put into tbe ground in the winter,
and some time after the barley; in the Egyptian
plague of hail, consequently, the barley suffered,
but the wheat had not appeared, and so escaped
injury. Wheat was ground into flour ; the finest
quaUties were expressed by the term " fat of kid
neys of wheat," niSn nVbs abn (Deut.
xxxii. 14). Unripe ears are sometimes cut off from
the stalks, roasted in an oven, mashed and boiled,
and eaten by the modern Egyptians (Sonnini,
Trim.). Rosenmiiller (Botany of the Bible, p.
80), with good reason, conjectures that this dish,
which the Arabs call Fer'ik, is the same as the
geres carmel (7P"^3 tt?^.2) of Lev. ii. 14 and
2 K. iv. 42. The Heb. word Kali (''bp. Lev. ii.
14) denotes, it is probable, roasted ears of corn,
Btill used as food in the East. An "ear of
com" was called SAt6Adfe(A'(n73t£7), the word
vhich betrayed the Ephraimites (Judg. xii. 1, 6),
who were unable to give the sound oish. The cu
rious expression in Prov. xxvii. 22, " though thou
shouldest bray a fool in a mortar araong wheat
with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart
from him," appears to point to the custom of mix
ing the grains of inferior cereals with wheat; the
meaning will then be, " Let a fool be ever so much
in the company of wise men, yet he will continue
a fool." Maurer (Comment. 1. c.) simply explains
the passage thus : " Quomodocunque tractaveris
stultuni nou patietur se emendari." [Compare
ttticles Corn; Agriculturk; Barley.]
W. H.
•WHEEL. [Cart; Laver; Well.]
• WHEN AS, Matt. i. 18 (A. V.), is simply
= » when," as often in old English writers. A.
•WHIP. [Cord; Goad; SoonKOiNO.J

WIDO\\

3511

* WHIRLPOOL, as the raargmal rendering
of " leviathan " in Job xii. 1, is not used in its pres
ent sense, but denotes a kind of whale. See the quo
tations from Holland's Pliny, xi. 37, ix. 3, 4, in East
wood and Wright's B'dile Word-Book, p. 330. A.
WHIRLWIND (nSTO; rnVX?). The
Hebrew terms sUphdh and se'ardh convey the
notion of a violent wind or hurricane, the former be
cause such a wind sweeps away every object it en
counters, the latter because the objects so swept
away are tvssed about and agitated. In addition to
this, Gesenius gives a similar sense to galg.al,a in
Ps. bcxvii. 18 (A.V. "heaven ") and Ez. x. 13
(A. V. "wheel"). Generally, however, this last
term expresses one of the effects of such a storm
in roZ^m^ along chaff, stubble, or such light articles
( Thes. p. 288). It does not appear that auy of the
above terms express the specific notion of a whirl-
wind, i. e. a gale moving violently round on its own
axis — and there is no warrant for the use of the
word in the A. V. of 2 K. ii. 11. The most vio
lent winds in Palestine come from the east ; and the
passage in .Job xxxvii. 9, which in the A. V. reads,
" Out of the south cometh the whirlwind," should
rather be rendered, " Ont of his chamber," ete.
The whirlwind is frequently used as a metaphor of
violent and sweeping destruction. Cyrus's invasion
of Babylonia is compared to a southerly gale coraing
out of the wilderness of Arabia (Is. xxi. 1; comp.
Knobel, in loc), the effects of which are most prej
udicial in that country. Similar aUusions occur
in Ps. Iviii. 9; Prov. i. 27, x. 25; Is. 'xl. 24; Dan.
xi. 40. W. h. B.
* WHITE. [CoLOBS, 1.]
* WHITE STONE. [Stones, 8.]
* WHOT (Deut. ix. 19), appears hi the edition
of 1611, subsequently changed to " hot." H.
WIDOW (naabS : x'lipa'- vidua). Under
the Mosaic dispensation no legal provision was made
for the raaintenance of widows. They were left de
pendent partly on the affection of relations, raore
especially of the eldest son, whose birthright, or
extra share of the property, iraposed such a duty
upon him, and partly on the privileges accorded to
other distressed cksses, such as a participation in
the triennial third tithe (Deut. xiv. 29, xxvi. 12),
in leashig (Deut. xxiv. 19-21), and in religious
feasts (Deut. xvi. 11, 14). In the spirit of these
regulations a portion of the spoil taken in war was
assigned to them (2 Mace. viii. 28, 30). A special
prohibition was laid against taking a widow's gar
ments in pledge (Deut. xxiv. 17), and this was
practically extended to other necessaries (Job xxiv.
3). In addition to these specific regulations, tha
widow was commended to the care of the commu
nity (Ex. xxii. 22; Deut. xxvii. 19; Is. i. 17; Jer.
vii. 6, xxii. 3; Zech. vii. 10), and any neglect or
oppression was strongly reprobated (Job xxii. 9,
xxiv. 21; Ps. xciv. 6; Is. x. 2; Ez. xxii. 7; Mai.
iii. 5; Ecclus. xxxv. 14, 15; Bar. vi. 38 [or Epist.
of Jer. 38] ; Matt, xxiii. 14). In times of danger
widows were permitted to deposit their property in
the treasury of the Temple (2 Mace. iii. 10).
With regard to the remarriage of widows, the only
restriction imposed by the Mosaic law bad reference
to the contingency of oue being left childless, ir

.bab2

3512

WIDOW

which case the brother of the deceased husband had
a right to marry the widow (Deut. xxv. 5, 6 ; Matt.
xxii. 23-30). [Marriage.] The high-priest was
prohibited from marrying a widow, and in the ideal
polity of the prophet Ezekiel the prohibition is ex
tended to the ordinary priests (Ez. xliv. 22).
In the Apostolic Church the widows were sus
tained at the public expense, the relief being daily
administered in kind, under the superintendence of
officers appointed for this special purpose (Acts vi.
1-6). Particular directions are given by St. Paul as
to the class of persons entitled to such public raain
tenance (1 Tim. V. 3-16). He would confine it to
the " widow indeed " (^ Sutus x^po)) whom he
defines to be one who is left alone hi the world
(/iefioyajpevq), without any relations or Christian
friends responsible for her support (w. 3-5, 16).
Poverty combined with friendlessness thus formed
the main criterion of eligibility for public support ;
out at the same time the character of the widow —
her piety and trustfulness — was to be taken into
account (ver. 5). Out of the body of such widows
a certain number were to be enrolled (KaraKe-
yetrOto; A.V. "taken into the number"), the
qualifications for such enrollment being (1) that
they were not under sixty years of age; (2) that
they had" been '-the wife of one man," probably
meaning but once married; and (3) that they had
led useful and charitable lives (vv. 9, 10). The ob
ject of the enrollment is by no means obvious. If
we were to forra our opinion solely on the qualifi
cations abovfr expressed, we should conclude that
the enrolled widows formed an ecclesiastical order,
having duties identical with or analogous to those
of the deaconesses of the early Church. For why,
if the object were of an eleemosynary character,
should the younger or twice-married widows be ex
cluded? The weight of modern criticism is un
doubtedly in favor of the view that the enrolled
widows held such an official position in the Church
(Alford, De Wette, Lange, eto., in 1 Tim. v. 9, 10).
But we can perceive no ground for isolating the pas
sage relating to the enrolled widows from the con
text, or for distinguishing these from the '* widows
indeed " referred to in the preceding and succeed
ing verses. If the passage be read as a whole, then
the impression derived from it will be that the en
rollment was for an eleemosynary purpose, and that
the main condition of enrollment was, as before,
poverty. The very argument which has been ad
duced in favor of the opposite view, in reality
equally favors this one; for why should unmarried
or young women be excluded from an ecclesiastical
order? The practice of the early Church proves
that they were not excluded. The author of the
Apostolical Constitutions lays down the rule that
virgins should be generally, and widows only excep-
Uonally, appointed to the office of deaconess (vi.
17, § 4) ; and though the directions given to Tira.
othy were frequently taken as a model for the ap.
pointment of deaconesses, yet there was great di
versity of practice in this respect (Bingham's Ant. ii,
22, §§ 2-6). On the other hand, the restrictions
contained in the Apostolic directions are not incon
sistent with the eleemosynary view, if we assume,
as is very possible, that the enrolled widows formed
I permanent charge on the public funds, and en
joyed certain privileges by reason of their long pre-
rfous services, while the remainder, who were
younger, and might very possibly remari-y, would
be regarded in the light of temporary and casual
recipients. But while we thus believe that the

WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING
primary object of the enrollment was simply to en
force a more methodical administration of thq
Church funds, it is easy to understand how the
order of widows would obtain a quasi-o^cial posi
tion in the Church. Having already served a vol
untary diaconate, and having exhibited their self-
control by refraining from a second marriage, they
would naturally be looked up to as models of piety
to their sex, and would belong to the class whence
deaconesses would he chiefly drawn. Hence we
find the term " widow " (x'iipa) used hy early
writers in an extended sense, to signify the adoption
of the conditions by which widows, enroUed as
such, were bound for the future. I'hus Ignatius
speaks of " virgins who were called widows " (ttbo-
Bevovs Ths Ksyofievas x^P"^i ^P- ^ Smyj-n.
13); and TertulUan records the case of a virgin
who was placed on the roll of widows (tn viduatu)
while yet under twenty years of age (De Vel. Virg.
9). It is a further question in what respect these
virgins were caUed "widows." The annotations
on Ignatius regard the term as strictly equivalent
to " deaconess " (Patres Apos. ii. 441, ed. Jacob-
son), but there is evidently another sense in whioh
it may be used, namely, as betokening celibacy, and
such we beUeve to have been its meaning, inasmuch
as the abstract term xvp^^O" ^^ ^^^ ^° ^^^ seuae of
continence, or unmari-ied state, in the ApostoHcal
Constitutions (wapBivos p.ii ipepovaa tV ly velr
rriTt xitp^iay; Scopov ^x^uca xiipeias, iii. 1, §§ 1,
2). We are not therefore disposed to identify the
widows of the Bible either with the deaconesses or
with the TrpeaPinriSes of the early Church, fi-om
each of which classes they are distinguished in the
work last quoted (ii. 67, § 8, viu. 13, § 4). The
order of widows (t^ xW-^^^^ existed as a separate
institution, contemporaneously wifh these offices,
apparently for the same eleemosynary purpose for
which it was originaUy instituted (Const. Apos. iii.
1, § 1, iv. 5, § 1). W. L. B.
WIFE. [Divorce; Marriage.]
WILD BEASTS. [Beasts.]
* WILDERNESS OF SIN. [Sm, Wn,
DERNESS OF.]
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDER
ING. The historical magnitude of the Exodus aa
an event, including in that name not only the exit
from Egypt, but the passage of the sea and desert,
and the entry into Canaan, and the strange scenery
in which it was enacted, no less than the miraculous
agency sustained throughout forty years, has giveii
to this locaUty an interest which is heightened, if
possible, by the constant retrospect taken by the
great Teacher of the New Testament and his Apos
tles, of this gprtion of the history of the race of
Israel, as fuU of spiritual lessons necessary for tbe
Christian Church throughout aU ages. Hence thia
region, whioh physically is, and has probably beeu
for three thousand years or more, Uttle else than a
barren waste, has derived a moral grandeur and ob
tained a reverential homage which has spread with
the diffusion of Christianity. Indeed, te Christian,
Jew, aud Moslem it is aUke holy ground. The
raystery which hangs over by far the greater num
ber of localities, assigned to events even of first-rate
magnitude, rather inflames than aUays the eager
ness for identification ; and the result has been a
larger array of tourists than has probably ever pene
trated any other country of equal difficulty. Burck
hardt, Niebuhr, Seetzen, Laborde and Liriajit,
Riippell, Raumer, Russegger, Lepsius, Henniker-

WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING

3513

W'-.Ilat^'d, Fazakcrley, and Miss Martineau, arc con
spicuous amongst those who have contributed since
tiie cloae of the last century to deepen, to vivify,
and to correct our impressions, besides the earlier
works of Monconjs in the 17th century, and Has
selquist and Pococke in the 18th ; whilst Wilson,
Stewart, Bartlett, Bonar, OHn, Bertou, Robinson,
and Stanley have added a rich detail of illustration,
reaching to the present day. And thus it is at
length " possible by the internal evidence of the
country itself to lay down, not indeed the actual
route ofthe Israelites in every stage, but in almost
all cases the main alternatives between which we
must choose, and in some cases the very spots
themselves." Yet with all the material which now
lies at the disposal of the topographical critic, there
is often a real poverty of evidence where there seems
to be an abundance; and the single lines of infor
mation do not weave up into a fabric of clear knowl
edge. " Hitherto no one traveller has traversed
more than one, or at most two routes of the Desert,
and thus the determination of these questions has
been obscured ; first, by the tendency of every one
to raake the Israelites follow his own track ; and
secondly, by his inability to institute a just com
parison between the facilities or difficulties which
attend the routes which he has not seen. This ob
scurity will always exist till some competent traveller
has explored the whole Peninsula. When this has
been fairly done, there is little doubt that some of
the most important topographical questions now at
issue will be set at rest " (Stanley, S. ^ P. 33).
I. The uncertainties commence from the very
starting-point of the route of the Wandering. It
is impossible to fix the point at which in ''the
wilderness of Etham" (Num. xxxiii. 6, 7) Israel,
now a nation of freemen, emerged from that sea
into which they had passed as a nation of slaves.
liut, slippery as is the physical ground for any fix
ture of the miracle to a particular spot, we may
yet admire the grandeur and vigor of the image
of baptism which Christianity has appropriated
Irom those waters. There their freedom was won ;
" not of themselves, it was the gift of God," whose
presence visibly preceded; and therefore St. Paul
says, "they were baptized in the cloud," and not
only " in the sea." The fact that from "Etham
in the edge of the wilderness," their path struck
across the sea (Ex. xiii. 20), and from the sea into
the same wilderness of Etham, seems to indicate
the upper end of the furthest tongue of the Gulf
of Suez as the point of crossing, for here, as is
probable, rather than lower down the same, the
district on either side would for a short distance
on both shores have the same narae. There seems
reason also to think that this gulf had then, as
also al Ezion-Geber [Ezion-geber], a further ex
tension northward than at present, owing to the
land having upheaved its level. This action seems

« See a pampblet by Charles T. Beke, Ph. D., "A
Pew Words with Bishop Colenso," pp. 4, 5.
^ Compare the use of the same word, of a multi
tude of men or catUe (io Joel i. 18), to express ii/
onopi'tf elvai, without reference to egress or direction
of courae, merely for want of food.
c Jusephus {Ant. ii. 15, § 3) speaks of the obstruc
tion of precipitous and impassable mountains, but
when we consider his extravagant language of the
height of the buildings of the Temple,, it is likely that
much- more, wheu speaking in general terms of a spot
80 distant, such expressions may be set down as sim
ply rhetorical. 221

to have been from early times the predominant one,
and traces of it have recently been observed.** Thug
it is probable, as a result of the same agency, tbat
the sea was even then shallow, and the sudden
action of a tidal sea in the cul-de-sac of a narrow
and shallow gulf is well known. Our own Solway
Firth is a familiar example of the rise and rush of
water, surprising, at times, especially when com
bined with the action of a strong wind, even those
habitually cognizant of its powCT. Similarly by
merely venturing, it seems, below high-water mark,
our own King John lost his bags;age, regalia, and
treasures in the estuary of The \Vash. Pharaoh^s
exclamation, "they are entangled (D'^ppD)'' in the
land," merely expresses the perplexity in which
such a multitude, having, from whatever cause, no
way of escape, would find themselves. "The wil
derness hath sliut them in," refers merely, it ia
probable, to his security in the belief that, having
reached the flat of the waste, they were completely
at the mercy of a chariot force, like his, and rather
excludes than implies the notion of mountains.'^
The direction of the wind is "easfc" in the He
brew (Cirj n^"12), but in the LXX. "south"
iv6T<^)i in Ex. xiv. 21. On a local question the
probable authority of the latter, executed in Egypt
near the spot, is somewhat enhanced above its ordi
nary value. The furthest tongue of the gulf, now
supposed dry, narrows to a strait some way below,
i. e. south of its northern extremity, as given in
Laborde's map {Commentary on Exod.) and then
widens again.*' In such a narrow pass the action
of the water would be strongest when " the sea
returned," and here a wind anywhere between E.
:uid S. S. E., to judge from that map, would pro
duce nearly the same effect; only the more nearly
due E. the more it would meet the sea at right
angles.* The probability is certainly that Pharaoh,
seeing his bondmen, now all but within his clutch,
yet escaping from it, would in the darkness of
night, especially as he had spurned calmer coun
sels and remonstrances before, pursue with head ¦
long rashness, even although, to a sober judgment
guided by experience, the risk was plain. There
is a resemblance in the names Migdol and the
"ancient 'Magdolum,' twelve miles S. of Pelu
sium, and undoubtedly described as 'Migdol' by
Jeremiah and Ezekiel" (Jer. xliv. 1, xlvi. 14; Ez.
xxix. 10, xxx. 6; S. ^ P. p. 37), also between the
same and the modern Maktabt, " a gentle slope
tlirough the hills" towards Suez; and Pi-Hahiroth
perhaps is 'Ajriid. The " wilderness of Etham "
probably lay on either side adjacent to the now
dry trough of the northern end of the gulf. Dr.
Stewart {Tent and Khan, p. 64) thinks the name
Etham traceable in the Wady Ahtki, ou the Ara
bian shore, but this and the preceding 'AJriid are
d Dp. Stanley {S. ^ P. p. 36) thinks that this sup
posed extension " depends on arguments which have
uot yet been thoroughly explored."
e If the wind were direct S. it would at some points
favor the notion that " the passage was not a transit
but a short circuit, returning again to the Egyptian
shore, and then pursuing their way round the head
of the gulf," an explanation favored " by earlier Chris
tian commentators, and by almost all the Rabbinical
writers" {S. ^ P. p. 36). The lauding-place would
on this view be considerably north of the point of
entering the Sea.

3514

WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING

of doubtful identity. The probability Seems on
the whole to favor the notion that the crossing lay
to the N. of the Jebel 'Afakah, which lies on the
Egyptian side S. of Suez, and therefore neither
the ^ Ayun Musa,^ nor, much less, the Hummam
Pharaun, further down on the eastern shore —
each of which places, as well as several others,
claims in local legend to be the spot of landing —
will suit. Still, these places, or either of them,
may be the region where " Israel saw the Egyptians
dead upon the sea-shore" (Kx. xiv. 30). The
crossing place from the Egyptian Wady Tawdrtk
to the ""Ayun Mixsa has been supported, however,
by Wilson, Olin, Dr. Stewart {Tt^ni ami Khan, p.
56), and others. The notion of Muktala being
Migdol will best suit the previous view of the more
northerly passage. The "wilderness of Shur,"
into which the Israelites "went out" from the
Red Sea, appears to be the eastern and southeastern
continuation of that of Etham, for both in Ex. xv.
22, and in Nura. xxxiii. 8, they are recorded to
have " gone three days in the wilderness," indicated
respectively in the two passages as that of Shur
and that of Etham. From the expression in Ex.
xiii. 20, " Etham, the edge of the wilderness," the
habitable region would seem to have ended at that
place. Josephus {Ant. vi. 7, § 3) seems to identify
Pelusium with Shur (comp. 1 Sam. xv. 7); but
probably he merely uses the former term in an
approximate sense, as a land-mark well known to
his readers; since Shur is described as "over
against, or before Egypt" (Gen. xxv. 18), being
perhaps the same as Sihor, similarly spoken of in
Josh. xiii. 3 ; Jer. ii. 18. When so described, we
may understand " Egypt " to be taken in a strict
sense as excluding Goshen and the Arabian nome.
[Goshen.] Shur "before Egypt," whatever the
name may have meant, must probably be viewed
as lying eastward of a line drawn from Suez to
Pelusium; and the wilderness named from it or
from Etham, extended three days' journey (for the
Israelites) from the head of the gulf, if not more.
It is evident that, viewed from Egypt, the wilder
ness might easily take its name from the last out
post of the habitable region, whether town or
viUage, whereas in other aspects it might have a
name of its own, from some land-mark lying in it.
Thus the Egyptians may have known it as con
nected with Etham, and the desert inhabitants as
belonging to Shur; while from his residence in
Egypt and sojourn with Jethro, both names may
have been familiar to Moses. However this may

J A warm spring, the temperature of which is given
by Mr. Hamilton {Sinai, the Hedjaz and Soudan, p. 14)
as being 83° Fahrenheit. " Robinson found the water
here salt, and yielding a hard deposit, yefc the Arabs
called these springs ' sweet : ' there are several of
them" (Seetzen, Reisen, iii. pt. iii. 431) The Hum
mam (" warm baths ") Pharaiin are similar springs,
lying a little W. of S. from Wady Useit, on the coast
close to whose edge rises the precipitous Jtbel Hum-
m&m, so called from them, and here intercepting the
path along the shore. The Rev. R. S. Tyrwhitt, who
made the desert journey in February, 1863, says that
there may be a warm spring out of the twelve or
thirteen which form the ''Ay^n M^a, but that fche
water of the larger well is cold, and that he drank
ofit. b North of this Umit lies the most southern wady
which has beeu fixed upon by any considerable num
ber of authorities for Elim, from which the departure
vaa taken into the wildernesa of Sin. Seetsen, but

be, from Suez eastward, the large desert tract,
stretching as far east as thu Ghor and Mount Seir
L e. from 329 40' to 35° 10' E. long., begins!
The 31st paraUel of latitude, nearly traversing el-
'Arish., the ** River of Egypt," on the Mediterra
nean, and the southernmost extremity of the Dead
Sea, may be taken roughly to represent its north-
em limit, where it reaily mergra imperceptibly into
the " south country " of Judah. It is scarcely
called iu Scripture by any one general name, but
the "wildemess of Paran " most nearly approxi
mates to such a designation, though lost, short of
the Egyptian or western Umit, in 'the wUdemew
of Shur, and perhaps, although not certainly, cur
tailed eastward by that of Zin. On the south side
of the ei-Tih range, a broad angular band runs
across the peninsula with its apex tumed south
ward, and pointing towards the central block of
granite mountains. This is a tract of sand known
as the Debbet er-Ramleh or Ramlah, but which
name is omitted in Kiepert's map. The long hor
izontal range and the sandy plain together form
a natural feature in marked contrast with the py
ramidal configuration of the southern or Sinaitic
region. The " wUdemess of Sinai " lies of course
in that southern region, in that part which, al
though generaUy elevated,, is overhung hy higher
peaks. How far this wildemess extended is un
certain. The IsraeUtes only traversed the north-
westem region of it. The " wilderness of Siu "
was their passage into it from the more pleasant
district of coast wadies with water-springs, which
succeeded to the first-traversed wildemess of Shur
or Etham, where no water was found. Sin may
probably be identified with the coast strip, now
known as el-Kaa, reaching from a little above the
Jebel Feiran, or as nearly as possible on the 29th
paraUel of latitude,'' down to and beyond Tur on
the Red Sea. They seem to have only dipped into
the "Sin" region at its northern extremity, and
to have at once moved from the coast towards the
N. W. upon Sinai (Ex. xv. 22-27, xri. 1; Num.
xxxiii. 8-11). It is often impossible to assign a
distinct track to this vast body — a nation swarm
ing on the march. The fact of many, perhaps
most, of the ordinary avenues being incapable of
containing more than a fraction of them, would
often have compelled them to appropriate all or
several of the modes of access to particular points,
between the probabilities of which the judgment of
travellers is balanced.<J Down the coast, however,
from Etham or the Suez region southwards, the

he alone, suggests that Elim is to he found in a warm
spring in a northerly direction from Tfrr, at a very
slight distance, which waters the extensive date-palm
plantations there. If this were so, Tiir itself would
have certainly been included in the radius of the
camp ; but it is unlikely that they went so far south.
c It may be worth while to notice that the same
observations apply to the battle in Rephidim with
Amalek To look about for a battle-field large enough
to give sufficient space for two hosts worthy of repre
senting Israel and Amalek, and to rqect all sites
where this possibility is not obvious, is an unsafe
method of criticiam. The moat reticulated mass of
wadies in the whole peninsula, if deemed worth fight
ing for, would form a battle-ground for all practical
purposes, though not properly a "field" of battle,
and the battle might decisively settle supremacy
within certain limits, although no regular method of
warfare might be applicable, and the numbers actually
engaged might be inconsiderable. It wonld perhap*

WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING

361.5

K>urse is broad and open, and there the track would
be more definite and united. Before going into
the further details of this question, a glance may
be taken at the general configuration of the el-TVi
region, computed at 40 parasangs, or about 140
miles, in length, and the same in breadth, by Jak&t,
the famous geographer of Hamah (Seetzen, Reisen,
Ui. 47). Eor a description of the rock desert of
Sinai, in which nature has cast, as it were, a pyra
mid of granite, culminating at Um ShnumeVj
9,300 feet above sea-level, but cloven and sulcated
in every direction by wadies into minor blocks, see
Sinai. II. The twin gulfs of Suez and 'Akabah, into
which the Red Sea separates, embrace the Penin
sula on its \y. and E. sides respectively. One or
other of thera is in sight from almost all the sum
mits of the Sinaitic cluster, and from the highest
points both branches. The eastern coast of the
Gulf of Suez is strewn with sheUs, and with the
forests of submarine vegetation which possibly ga\ e
the whole sea its Hebrew appellation of the " Sea
of Weeds." The " huge trunks " of its " trees of
curai may be seen even on the dry shore; " while
at Tur, cabins are formed of madrepores gathered
from it, and the debris of conchylia lie thickly
heaped on the beach." Similar " coralUne forests "
are described {S. ^ P. p. 83) as marking the coast
of tbe Gulf of 'Akabah. The northern portion of
the whole Peninsula is a plateau botmded south
wards by the range of et- Tih, which droops across
it on the map with a curve soraewhat like that of a
slack chain, whose points of suspension are, west
wards, Suez, and eastward, but further south, some
"sandstone cliffs, which shut off " & this region
from the Gulf of 'Akabah. The northwestern
member of this chain converges with the shore of
the Gulf of Suez, tUl the two run nearly paraUel.
Its eastem member throws off several fragments
of long and short ridges towards the Gulf of
'Akabah and the northern plateau called frora it
et^TVi. The Jebel Dtlldl (Burckhardt, Dkelel) is
the most southerly of the continuations of this
eastern member (Seetzen, Reisen, iii. pt. iii. 413).
The greatest elevation in the et-Tili range is
attained a little W. of the meridian 34°, near its
most southerly point; it is here 4,654 feet above
the Mediterranean. From this point the watershed
of the plateau runs obUquely between N. and E.
towards Hebron; westward of which Une, and
northward frora the westerly member of Jebel
e(-Tih, the whole wady-system is drained by the
great Wady eVA-rish, along a gradual slope to the
Mediterranean. The shorter and much steeper
slope eastward partly converges into the large ducts
of wadies Fikreh and el-Jeib, entering the Dead
Sea's southwestern angle through the southern
wall of the Ghor, and partly finds an outlet nearly
parallel, but further to the S., by the Wady Jerafeh
into the 'Arabah. The great depression of the
Dead Sea (1,300 feet below the Mediterranean)
explains the greater steepness of this eastern slope.

resemble somewhat more closely a street fight for the
tnastery of a town.
a Stanley, S. ^ P. p. 6 : namilton, Sinai, the Hed
jaz, and. Soudan, p. 14
6 Stanley, S. ^ P. p. 8.
c Sratzen, who crossed fchis route 6 hours to the E.
'f this station, says that tliis nad, and not the range
3t et'Tth, is the political division of the country, all
the country to the S. of the road being reckoned as

In crossing this plateau, Seetzen found that nun
and wind had worked depressions in parts of it*
flat, which contained a few shmbs or isolated
bushes. This flat rose here and there in heights
steep on one side, composed of white chalk with
frequent lumps of flint embedded (iii. 48). The
plateau has a central point in the station <= Khan
Nakhl, so named from the date-trees which once
adorned its wady, but which have all disappeared.
This point is nearly equidistant from Suez west
ward, 'Akabah eastward, ePAr^ish northward, and
the foot of Jebel Musa southward. It Ues half a
mile N. of the " Hadj-route," between Suez and
'Akabah, which traverses "a boundless flat, dreary
and desolate " {ibid. 56), and is 1,494'' feet above
the Mediterranean — neaj-ly on the same meridian
as the highest point before assigned to et-Tih. On
this meridian also liea Um Shaumer farther south,
the highest point of the entire Peninsula, having
an elevation of 9,300 feet, or liearly double that of
et-Tih. A Uttle to the W. of the same meridian
Ues ePAi-ish, and the southern cape, Ras Mo
hammed, is situated about 34° 17'. Thus the
parallel 31°, and the meridian 34°, form important
axes of the whole region of the Peninsula. A fuU
description of the wilderness of et- Tih is given by
Dr. Robinson (i. 177, 178, 199), together with a
memorandum of the travellers who explored it
previously to himself.
On the eastern edge of the plateau to the N. of
the et-TVi range, which is raised terrace-wise by a
step from the level of the Ghor, rises a singular
second, or, reckoning that level itseU, a third pla
teau, superimposed on the general surface of the
et-Tih region. These Russegger {Map) distin
guishes as three terraces in the chalk ridges. Dr.
Kruse, in his Anmerkungen on Seetzen's travels
(iii. pt. ui. 410), remarks that the Jebel ei^TiJi is
the montes nigri, or p^Kaves of Ptolemy, in whose
view that range descends to the extreme southern
point of the Penhisula, thus including of course the
Sinaitic region. This confusion arose from a want
of distinct conception of geographical details. The
name seems to have been obtained from the dark,
or even black color, which is observable in parts
(see p. 3516, note d).
The Hadj-route from Suez to 'Akabah, crossing
the Peninsula in a direction a little S. of E., may
stand for the chord of the arc of the et- Tih range,
the length of which latter is about 120 milea. This
slope, descending northwards upon the Mediten-a-
nean, is of limestone {S. f P. p. 7), covered with
coarse gravel interspersed with black flints and
drift (Russegger's Map). But its desolation has
not always been so extreme, oxen, asses, and sheep
having once grazed in parts of it where now
only the camel is found. Three passes through
the et-Tih range are mentioned by Robinson (i.
123; comp. 561-563, App. ^x\i.) — er-Rdkiiith,
the western; el-Mureikhy, the eastem; and tl-
Wiirsali, between the two. These aU meet S- of
Ruhaibeh (Rehoboth, Gen. xxvi. 22?), in about N.

the Tftr, and that northwards aa appertaining to
Syria {Reisen, in. 410. 411, comp. p. 58). His course
lay between the route from Hebron to 'Akabah, an4
that from Hebron to Suez. He went straight south
wards to Feir&n; a route which no traveller haM
followed since.
d This measurement is a mean between that giveii
in Stanley (map, S. Sf P. p- 5), and Russegger's est*.
mate, as ^ven by Seetzea (jR«wen,iii. pt. Ui. 411).

3516

WILDERNESS OP THE WANDERING

lat. 31° 5', E. long. 34° 42', and thence diverge
towards Hebron and Gaza. The eastern °- is noted
by Russegger as 4,853 feet ^ above sea-level. Seet-
Ben took the ei-Tih range for the " Mount Seir,"
passed on the way from Sinai (Horeb, Deut. i. 2)
to Kadesh Barnea by the Israelites {Reisen, ni. 28 ;
comp. ibid. Kruse's Anmerkungen, pt. iii. 417).
It would form a conspicuous object on the left to
the Israelites, going south eastwards near the coast
ofthe GuU.of Suez. Seetzen, proceeding towards
Suez, i. e. in the opposite direction, mentions a
high sandy plain {Reisen, iii. Ill), apparently
near Wady QhUi Undei, whence its steep southern
face was visible in a white streak stretching west
wards and eastwards. Dr. Stanley {S. ^ P. p. 7)
says, " However much the other mountains of the
Peninsula vary hi form or height, the mountains
of the Tih are always aUke — always faithful to
their tabular outline and blanched desolation." '^
They appear Uke "along Umestone waU." This
traveller saw them, however, only " from a dis
tance " {iind. and note 2). Seetzen, who crossed
them, going from Hebron to Sinai, says of the
view frora the highest ridge of the lower mountain-
line: " What a landscape was that I looked down
upon! On all sides the most frightful wilderness
extended out of sight in every direction, without
tree, shrub, or speck of green. It was au alterna
tion of flats and hiUs, for the most part black as
night, only the naked rock walls on the hummocks
and heights showed patches of dazzling whiteness '^
.... a striking image of our globe, when, through
Phaeton's carelessness, the sun came too near to
it" {Reisen, iii. 50). Similarly, describing the
scenery of the Wady eUBidra, by which he passed
the ei-Tih range (see note a below), he says: " On
the S. side rose a considerable range, desolate,
craggy, and naked. AU was limestone, chalk, and
flint. The chalk cUffs gave the steep offset of the
Tih range on its S- side the aspect of a snow
•mountain'''' (p. 62).
The other routes which traverse the Penmsula
are, that from Hebron to Suez along the maritime
plain, at a distance of from 10 to 30 mUes from
the sea, passing el-'Arish ; that from Suez to Tur
along the coast of the Gulf of Suez through the
Kda , and that from 'Akabah, near Ezion-geber,
ascending the western wall of the 'Arabah through
the Wady el-Jeib, by several passes, not far from
the southern extremity of the Dead Sea, towards
Hebron, in a course here nearly N. W., then again
N.e A modern mountain road has been partially
constructed by Abbas Pasha iu the pass of the
Wady Bebrdn, leading from the coast of the Gulf
of Suez towards the convent commonly called St.

« Seetzen probably took thia eastern pass, which
leads out into the Wady Berak (Seetzen, M Biara,
called also El Schdide, Rgise^i, iii. pt. iii. 411, Kruse's
Anmerkungen, comp. iii. 62). He, however, shortly
before crossing the range, came upon ^' a fiat hill
yielding wholesome pasture for camels, considerable
numbers (Haufen) of which are met witli here, also
two herds of goats and some sheep " (iii. 60) ; uot
strictly confirming the previous statemeut, which is
Dr. Robinson's.
l> It is not easy to reconcile this statement with the
figure (4,645 ft.) given by Dr. Stanley (S. ^ P., map,
p. 5) apparently as the extreme height of the moun
tain El-Odjme (Stanley, J. Edime), since we mighfc
expect that the pa.ss would be somewhat lower than
the highest point, instead of higher Ou this moun-
tun, see p. 3534, note a.

Catharine's. The ascent from the trough of the
'Arabah (which is steeper-sided at its N. W. ex
tremity than elsewhere) towards the general pla
teau is by the pass el-KhHrdi; by which the level
of that broad surface is attained. The smaller
plateau rests obliquely upon the latter, abutting on
the Dead Sea at Masada, where its side and that
of the lower floor converge, and is reached by
ascending through the higher Nukb es-Siifa. Its
face, corresponding to the southem face of the TVi
plateau, looks considerably to the W. of S., owing
to this obUquity, and is deUneated like a well-
defined mountain wall in Kiepert's map. having at
the S. E. angle a bold buttress in the Jebel M&hk-
rah, and, at the S. W. another in the Jebel *Ardif
en-Nakah, which stands out apparently in the
wilderness Uke a, promontory at sea. From the
former mountain, its most southerly point, at about
30° 20' N. L., this plateau extends northward a
little east, tiU it merges in the southern slope of
Judaea, but at about 30° 60' N. lat., is cut nearly
through by the Wady Fikreh, trenching its area
eastward, and not quite raeeting the Wady Mar
red}, which has its declivity apparently toward the
Wady ePAinsh westward. The face of moun
tain waU mentioned above may probably be " the
mountain of the Amorites," or this whole higher
plateau may be so (Deut. i. 7, 19, 20). A Ime
drawn northwards from Ras Mohammed passes a
Uttle to the W. of 'Ardif en-Nakah. A more
precise description of some parts of this plateau has
been given under Kadesh.
On the whole, except in the Debbet er-Ramkh,
sand is rare in the Peninsula. There is Uttle or
none on the sea-shore, and the plain eLKaa on the
S. W. coast is gravelly rather than sandy (5. ^
P. p. 8). Of sandstone on the edges of the granitio
central mass there is no lack./ It is chiefly found
between the chalk and limestone of et-7Vi and the
southern rocky triangle of Sinai. Thus the Jebel
Dillal is of sandstone, in tall vertical cUffi, forming
tbe boundary of er-Ramleh on the east side, and
similar steep sandstone cliflfe are visible in the same
plain, lying on its N. and N. W. sides (Seetzen,
iii. 66; comp. pt. iii. 413). In the Wady Mo-
katteb " the soft surface of these sandstone cliffi
offered ready tablets " to the unknown wayfarers
who wrote the " Sinaitic inscriptions." This stone
gives in some parts a strong red hue to the nearer
landscape, and softens into shades of the subtlest
delicacy in the distance. Where the surface haa
been broken away, or fretted and eaten by the
action of water, these hues are most vivid {S. 4" ¦^¦
pp. 10-12). It has been supposed that the Egyp
tians worked the Umestone of el-TVi, and that that

c Seetzen (iii. 56) remarks that " the slope of the
et- Tih range shows an equal wildness '' to that of the
desert on its northern side.
d Comp. Dr. Stanley's description of the march
down the Wady Tayibeh " befcween vast cMSa white on
the one side, and on the other of a black calcined
color (5. i^ P. p. 69).
« Nearly following this tracfc in the opposite direc
tion, t. e. to the S. E., Seetzen went from Hebron to
Mddara (al. Madura/i^ or Modera), passing by Maon,
el-Kirmel (the " Carmel " of Nabal's pasture-ground in
1 Sam. xxT. 2), and Aritr {Reisen, iii. 10-18).
/ A remarkable sandstone mountain on the S. W.
plain near the sea is the Jebel Nak^s (" bell "), said to
be so called from the ringing sound made by the sand
pouring over its cliffs (Stewart, T. §* E. p. 886, comp
I Russegger, Reisen, iu. 277).

WILDERNESS OP THE WANDERING

3517

iiaterial, as found in the pyramids, was there
auarried. The hardness of the granite in the Jebel
U-Tur has been emphatically noticed by travellers.
Thus, in constructing recently the mountain road
for Abbas Fasha, " the rocks " were found " obsti
nately to resist even the gunpowder's blast," and
the sharp glass-like edges of the granite soon wear
away the workmen's shoes and cripple their feet
(Hamilton, Sinai, ihe Hcdjnz^ and Soudan, p. 17).
Similarly, Laborde says ( Comm. on Num. xxxiii.
36): "In my journey across that country (from
I^ypt, through Sinai to the Ghor), I haji carried
from Clairo two pair of shoes; they were cut, and
my feet came throui^h; when I arrived at 'Akabah,
luckily I found in the magazines of that fortress
two other pair to replace them. On my return to
Sinai, I was barefoot again. Hussein then pro
cured me sandals half an inch thick, which, on my
arrival iu Cairo, themselves were reduced to noth
ing, though they had well preserved my feet."
Seetzen noticed oa Mount St. Catherine that the
granite was *' fine-graiued and very firm " (Ui. 90).
For the area of greatest relief in the surface of the
whole Peninsula, see Sinai, §§ 1, 2, 3. The name
Jebel et-Tur includes the whole cluster of moun
tains from el-Fureid on the N. to Um Shaumer
on the S., and from Musa and ed-Deir on the E.
to Hutn'r and Serbdl on the W., including St.
Catherine, nearly S. W. of Musa. By " Sinai "
is generally underetood the J/usrv plateau, between
the Wady Ledjd (Stanley, Map) and the Wady
Shueib on its western and northeaatern flanks,
and bounded northwestward by the Wady er-
Raheh, aud southeastward by the Wady Sebdyeh
{S^aiyeh, Stanley, ibid.). The Arabs give the
name of Tiir — properly meaning a high mountain
(Stanley, S. <f P. p. 8) — to the whole region
south of the Hadj-route from Suez to "Akabah as
far as Rds-Mohammed (see above, p. 3515, note c).
The name of Tur is also emphatically given to the
cultivable region lying S. W. of the Jebel et- Tur.
Its fine and rich date-palm plantation Ues a good
way southwards down the Gulf of Suez. Here
opens on the sea the most fertile wady now to be
found in the Peninsula (Burckhardt, ^?-a6. ii. 362 ;
Wellsted, ii. 9), receiving all the waters which flow
down the range of Sinai westward " (Stanley, S.
4- P. p. 19).
IU. A raost important general question, after
settling the outline of this " wilderness," is the ex
tent to which it capable of supporting animal and
human life, especially when taxed by the consump
tion of such flocks and herds as the Israelites took
with them froih Egypt, and probably — though we
know not to what extent this last was supplied by
the manna — by the demand made on its resources

o The following positions by East longitude from
Paris are given in Seetzen, iii. pt. iii., Anmerk. 414 : —
Suez, 29^ 57/ 30", Berghaus.
'Akabiih, 28^ 45', Niebuhr ; but 28o 55^ by ofchers.
Convent St. Catherine, 28" 36^ 40// 5"/, Seetzen
and Zach ; but 31° 37' 54" by RuppeU. *
Sinai, 28° 46'.
Ras Mohammed, 27° 43^ 24".
Bat there must be gi-ave errors in the figures, since
Sum is placed furthest to the east of all the places
oamed, whereus it lies furthest to the west ; also 'Aka
bah Ues an t ntire degree, by Kiepert's map, to the east
of the Couveat. whereas it is here put at less than 9' ;
iud Ras Mohammed, which lies further to the east
than all these except 'Akabah, is placed to the west
of them all

by a host of from 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 souls.«
In answer to this question, "much," it has been
observed {S. ^ P. p. 24), " may be allowed for
the spread of the tribes of Israel far and wide
through the whole Peninsula, and also for the coit-
stant means of support from their own flocks and
herds. S9methnig, too, might be elicited frora the
undoubted fact that a population nearly, if not
quite, equal to the whole permanent population of
the Peninsula does actually pass through the desert-
in the caravan of the 5,000 African pilgrims, on
their way to Mecca. Bufc, amongst these consid
erations, it is important to observe what indications
there raay be of the mounfcains of Sinai having ever
been able to furnish greater resources than at pres
enfc. 'I'hese indications are well summed up by
Ritter {Sinai, pp. 926, 927). There is no doubt
that the vegetation of the wadies has considerably
decreased. In part, this would be an inevitable
effect of the violence of the winter torrents. The
trunks of palm-trees washed up on the shore of the
Dead Sea, from which the living tree has now for
many centuries disappeared, show what may have
been the devastation produced among those moun
tains where the floods, especially in earlier times,
must have been violent to it degree unknown in
Palestine; whilst the peculiar cause — the impreg
nation of salt — which has preserved the vestigea
of the older vegetation there, has here, of course,
no existence. The traces of such a destruction
were pointed out to Burckhardt {Arab. p. 538) on
fche easfcern side of Mount Sinai, as having oo-
curred within half a century before his visit; also
to WeUsted (ii. 16), as having occurred near Tur
in 1832. In part, the sarae result has followed
frora the reckless waste of the Bedouin tribes —
reckless in destroying and careless in replenish
ing. A fire, it pipe, lit under a grove of deserfc
trees, may clear away the vegetation of a whole
valley. " The acacia-trees*^ have been of late years ruth
lessly destroyed by the Bedouins for the sake of
charcoal," which forms " the chief, perhaps it mighfc
be said the only traffic of the Peninsula" {S. <f
P. p. 24). Thus, the clearance of this tree in the
mountains where ifc abounded once, and ifcs decrease
in the neighbor groups in which it exists still,
is accounted for, since the monks appear to have
aided the devastation. Vegetation, where main
tained, nourishes water and keeps aUve its own life;
aud no attempts to produce vegetation anywhere in
this deserfc seem to have failed. " The gardens at
the wells of Moses, under the French and English
agents from Suez, and the gardens in the valleys of
Jebd Musa, under the care of the Greek monks ot
the Convent of St. Catherine," '^ are conspicuous

b Dr. Stanley {S. ^ P. p. 24, note 1), following
Ewald ( G''5c/i/c/ife, ii. 61, 253, 259, 2d ed.), says, " the
most recent and the most criticq,! investigation of thia
(the Israelitish) history inclines to adopt the numbers
of 600,000 (males of the warlike age) as authentic."
c Dr. Stanley (p. 25) thinks the ark and wooden
utensils of the Tabernacle were of this timber. Seet
zen (iii. 109} saw no trees nearly big enough for such
service, and tliinks it more probable fchat the material
was obtamed by parchase from travelling caravans ;
but it is not clear whether he thinks that the tree
{Mimosa Nilotica) is in this wilderness below its usual
size, or that not this but something else is the "Shifr-
tim-wood " of the A. V.
d So called, but the proper name appears to be t^
ayCas fteTo/ioptiiwiTewff, i. «• the Transfiguration of oin

S518

WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING

Kxamples {ibid, p 26). Besides, a traveller in the
16th century calls the Wady er-Raheh in front of
the Convent, now entirely bare, "a vast green
plain." " In this wildemess, too, abode Amalek,
"the first of the nations," powerful enough seri
ously to imperil the passage of the Israelites
through it, and importantly contributing to subse
quent history under the monarchy. Besides whom
we have " king Arad the Canaanite, who dwelt in
the south," I. e. apparently on the terrace of moun
tain overhanging the Gh«r near Masada on the
Dead Sea, in a region now wholly desolate. If his
people were identical with the Amorites or Canaan
ites of Num. xiv. 43 ; Deut. i. 44, then, besides the
Amalekites of Ex. xvii. 8, we have one other host
within the Umits of what is now desert, who fought
with Israel on equal or superior terms; and, if they
are not identical, we have iwo such (Num. xiv. 40-
45, xxi. 1, xxxiu. 40; Deut. i. 43, 44). These
must have been " something raore than a mere
handful of Bedouins. The Egyptian copper-mines,
monuments, and hieroglyphics in Surdbii el~Kha-
dim and the Wady MUghdra, imply a degree of
intercourse between Egypt and the Peninsula " in a
period probably older than the Exodus, " of which
aU other traces have long ceased. The ruined
cities of YAom in the mountains east of the *Ara^
bah, and the remains and history of Petra itself,
indicate a trafiic and a population in these remote
regions which now is alraost inconceivable" {S.
4- P. p. 26). Even the 6th and 7th centuries
A. D. showed traces of habitation, some of which
still remain in ruined cells and gardens, etc., far
exceeding the tale told by present facts. Seetzen,
in what is perhaps as arid and desolate a region as
any in the whole desert, asked his guide to men
tion all the neighboring places whose names he
knew. He received a list of sixty-three places in
the neighborhood of MadHrah, Petra, and \Aka-
bah, and of twelve more in the Ghor es-Saphia, of
which total of seventy-five all save twelve are now
abandoned to the desert, and have retained noth
ing save their naraes — "a proof," he remarks,
" that in very early ages this I'egion was extremely
populous, and that the furious rage with which the
Arabs, both before and after the age of Moharamed,
assailed the Greek emperors, was able to convert
into a waste this blooming region, extending from
the Umit of the Hedjaz to the neighborhood of Da
mascus" {Reisen, Ui. 17, 18).
Thus the same traveller in the same journey
(from Hebron to MadHrah) entered a wady called
eUJemen, where was no trace of water save moist
spots in the sand, but on making a hole with the
hand it was quickly full of water, good and drink
able {ibid. p. 13). The same, if saved in a cistern,
and served out by sluices, might probably have
clothed the bare wady with verdure. This is con
firmed by his remark {ibid. p. 83), that a blooming
vegetation shows itself in this climate wherever
there is water; as well as by the example of the
tank sjsteni as practiced in Hindostan. He also

Lord, represented in the great mosaic of Justinian, in
the apse of its church, probably of his age. as is also
the name (Tyrwhitt). The transfer of the body of St.
Catherine thither from Egypt by angels is only one of
the local legends ; hut its association appears to have
predominated with travellers (Seetzen, iii. pt. iU. 414.
115). o Monconys quoted by Stanley, S. ^ P.
b Seetzen gj^eaks iu one place of a few shell-fish he-

notices thafc there are quicksands in many spcts ol
the Debbet er-Ramleh, which it is diflicult to un
derstand, unless as caused by accumulations of
water {ibid. p. 67). Similarly in the desert Wadu
eUKudeis between Hebron and Sinai, he found a
spot of quicksand with sparse shrubs growing in it
{Und. p. 48).
Now the question is surely a pertinent one, ag
compared with that of the subsistence of the flocks
and herds of the Israelites during their wanderings
how the sixty-three perished communities named
by Seetzen's guide can have supported themselves?
It is pretty cerfcain that fish cannot live in tha
Dead Sea,* nor is there any reason for thinkmg
that these extinct towns or viUages were in any
large proportion near enough to its waters to avail
themselves of its resources, even if such existed.
To suppose that the country could ever have sup
ported extensive coverts for game is to assume the
most diflicult of aU solutions of the question. The
creatures that find shelter about the rocks, as hares,
antelopes, gazeUes, jerboas, and the lizards that
burrow in the sand {el-Dsubh), alluded to by thig
traveUer in several places (iii. 67, comp. pt. iii. 415-
442, and Laborde, Comm. on Num. xxxiii. 42), are
far too few, to judge from appearances, to do more
than eke out a subsistence, the staple of which nmst
have been otherwise suppUed ; and the same remark
will apply to such casual windfalls as swarms of
edible locusts, ur flights of quails. Nor can tbe
memory of these places be probably connected with
the distant period when Petra, the commercial me
tropolis of the Nabathseans, enjoyed the carrying
trade between the Levant and E^ypt westwards,
and the rich communities further east. There ig
least of aU reason for supposing that by the produce
of mines, or by asphalt gathered from the Dead
Sea, or by any other native commodities, they can
ever have enjoyed a commerce of their own. We
are thrown back, then, upon the supposition that
they must in sonie way have supported themselves
from the produce of the soil. And the produce for
which it is most adapted is either that of the date-
palm, cr that to which eailier parallels point, as
those of Jethro and the Kenites, and of the various
communities in the southerij border of Judah
(Num. xxxiv. 4, 5; Josh. xv. 3, 4; 1 Sam. xxi.
27-31), namely, that of pasturage for flocks and
herds, a possibility which seeras solely to depend on
adequately husbanding the water supplied by the
rains. This taUies wifch the use of the word
^3^73, for "wildemess," ¦/. e. "a wide, open
space, with or without actual pasture, the country
of the nomads, as distinguished from that of the
agricultural and settled people " (S. 4" ^' ?• 486,
A}^. § 9).c There seems however to be implied
in the name a capacity for pasturage, whethw ac
tuaUy reaUzed or not. Tliis corresponds, too, with
the " thin," or rather " transparent coating of veg
etation," seen to clothe the greater part of the Si
naitic wilderness in the present day {ibid. pp. 16,

ing seen along its southern shore. Compare Stanley,
A'. ^ P. p. 293. ISea, the Salt.]
c The word Midbar has been examined undei tbe
head of Desebt (vol. i. p. 591). The Writer of that
article has nothing to add to it, except to caU at
tention to the use of the term in Jer. ii. 2, whew
the prophet in two words gives an exact definition
of a Midbar: "a land not sown" — that is, left tff
nature.

WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING

3519

li), and which furnishes an initial minimum from
ivhich human fostering hands might extend the
pmspect of possible resources up to a point as far
Lu excess of present facts as were the numbers of
the Israelitish host above the 6,000 Bedouins com
puted now to form the population of the desert.
As regards the date-palm, Hasselquist speaks as
though it alone afforded the means of life to some
existing Arab communities. Hamilton (Sinai, etc.,
p. 17) says that in his path by the Wady Hebran,
towards the modern Sinai, " small clumps of un
cultivated date-trees rise between the granite walls
of the pass, wherever the winter torrents have left
sufficient detritus for their nourishmeut." And
again, after describing the pass of the Convent, he
continues, " beneath lies a veritable chaos, through
which uow trickles a slander thread of water, where
iu winter rushes down a boiling torrent " " (ibid.
p. 19). It is hardly too much to affirm that the
resources of the desert, under a careful economy of
nature's bounty, might be, to its present' nieans of
subsistence, as that winter torrent's volume to that
summer streamlet's slender thread. In the Wady
Hebran this traveller found "a natural bath,"
formed in the granite by the ^Ain Hebran, called
"the Christians' pool " (ibid. p. 17). Two thirds
of the way up the Jebel Miisa he came upon " a
frozen streamlet" (ibid. p. 30)j and Seetzen, 'On
the 14th of April, found snow lying about in shel
tered clefts of the Jebel Caiharin, where the rays
ofthe sun could not penetrate (iii. 92). Hamilton
encountered on the Jebel Miisa si thunder-storm,
with "heavy rain" (Sinai, etc., p. 16). There
seems on the whole no deficiency of precipitation.
Indeed, the geographical situation would rather be
speak a copious supply. Any southerly wind must
bring a fair amount of watery vapor from the Red
Sea, or from one of its expanding arms, which em
brace the peninsula on either side, like the blades
of a forfex ; while at no greater distance than 140
miles northward roll the waters of the Mediterra
nean, supplying, we may suppose, their quota, which
the much lower ranges of the Till and Odjme can
not effectually intercept. Nor is there any such
shelter from rain-clouds on either of the Gulfs of
Suez and 'Akabah, as the long line of mountains
on the eastern flank of Egypt, which screens the
rain supply of the former from reaching the valley
ofthe Nile. On the contrary, the conformation of
the Peninsula, with the high wedge of granitic
mountains at its core, would rather receive and
condense the vapore from either gulf, and precipi
tate their bounty over the lower faces of mountain
and troughs of wady, interposed between it and the
nea. It is much fo be regretted that the low intel
lectual condition of the monks ' forbids any reason
able hope of adequate meteorological observations to
check these merely probable arguments with reli
able statements of fact; but in the absence of any

<» There is no mistaking the enormous amount of
•aia which must tall on the desert and run off use-
.Msly iuto the sea. In February all the wadies had
evidently had strong torrents down, and all across
them from hillside to hillside. The whole surface of
wide valleys was marked and ribbed like the bed of a
stony and sandy stream in England. The great plain
of Mur/cha/i was intersected in all directions by these
torrents, draining the mountains about DIu/cb Badera.
Bo all the wadie.^, wherever there was a decided fall.
Jdl^or Macdonald (engaged at preseut in superin tend
ing the working of a turquoise bed at Siirabil el-Kha-
*m) said that after a sudden storm in the hills tn the

such register, it seems only fair to take reasonable
probabilities fully into view. Yet some significant
facts are not wanting to redeem in some degree
these probabilities from the ground of mere hypoth
esis. "In two of tbe great wadies" whioh break
the wilderness on the coast of the Gulf of Suez,
" GhHrHndel, and Useit, with its continuation of the
Wady Tayibeh, tracts of vegetation are to be found
in considerable luxuriance." The wadies leading
down from the^Sinai range to the Gulf of 'Akabah
" furnish the same testimony, in a still greater de
gree," as stated liy Euppell, Miss Martineau, Dr.
Robinson, and Burckhardt. " In three spots, how
ever, in the desert .... this vegetation is brought
by the concurrence of the general cSnfiguration of
the country to a still higher pitch. By far the
most remarkable collection of springs is that which
renders the clusters of the Jebel Miisa the chief
resort of the Bedouin tribes during the summer
heats. Four abundant sources, in the mountains
immediately above the Convent of St. Catherine
must always have made that region one of the most
frequented of the desert. . . . Oases (analogous to
that of Ammon in the western desert of the Nile)
are to be found wherever the waters from the dif
ferent wadies or hills, whether frora winter streams
or from such living springs as have just been de
scribed, converge to a comm^.ii reservoir. One such
oasis in the Sinaitic desert seeuiS to be the palm-
grove of ELWddy at Tur, described by Burck
hardt 35 so thick that he could hardly find his way
through it (S. <^ P. p. 19, note 1; see Burckh.
Arab. ii. 362). The other and the more impor
tant is the Wady Feirdn, high up in the table
land of Sinai itself (S. cf P. pp. 18, 19)." Now,
what nature has done in these favored spots might
surely be seconded ^ in others by an ample popula
tion, familiarized, to some extent, by their sojourn
in Egypt with the most advanced agricultural ex
perience of the then world, and guided by an able
leader who knew the country, and found in his
wife's family others who knew it even better than
he (Num. x. 31). It is thus supposable that the
language of Ps. cvii. 35-38, is based on no mere
pious imagery, but on actual fact: "He turneth
the wilderness into a standing water, and dry
ground into water-springs. And there He maketh
the hungry to dwell, that they may prepare a city
for habitation ; and sow the fields and plant vine
yards, which raay yield firuits of increase. He
blesseth tbem so that they are multiplied greatly;
and suffereth not their cattle to decrease." And
thus we may find an approximate basis of reality
for the enhanced poetic images of Isaiah (xii. 19,
lv. 13). Palestine itself affords abundant tokens of
the resources of nature so husbanded, as in the ar
tificial " terraces of whioh there are still traces to
the very summits " of the mountains, and some of
which still, in the Jordan valley, " are occupied by
N., he had from two to three feet of water running
furiously through his tents for three hours, in Wady
Miigliira. Common industry in digging tanks would
make all the wadies " blossom as the rose " (Tyr
whitt). b See Dr. Stanley's estimate of the inmates of the
convent (S. ^ P. pp- 65, 56).
c Nay, It is possible that such works had already
to some extent been undertaken on account of the
mining colonies which certainly then existed at Wady
MTighara and SHrabit nl-KhO'iim, and were probably
supported on the produce of the country, not sent on
camels ftom Egypt (Tyrwhitt).

3520

WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING

masses of vegetation " {S. f P. pp. 138, 297).
In favored spots wild luxuriance testifies to the ex
tent of the national resources, as in the wadiea of
the coast, and in the plain of Jericho, where " far
and wide extends the green circle of tangled thick
ets, in the midst of which are the hovels of the
modern village, beside which stood, in ancient times,
fche great city of Jericho'* {ibid. p. 306). From
this plain alone, a correspondent of the British
Consul at JafKi asserts that he could feed the whole
population of modern Syria {Cotton Supply Re
porter, June 14, 18f)2). But a plantation re
deemed frora the wilderness is ever in the position
of a besieged city; when once the defense of the
human garris»ii is withdrawn, the fertility stimu
lated by its agency must obviously perish by the
invasion of the wild. And thus we may probably
suppose that, from numberless tracts, thus tempo
rarily rescued from barrenness, in situations only
moderately favorable, the traces of verdure have
vanished, and the desert has reclaimed its own; or
that there the soil only betrays its latent capacity
by an unprofitable dampness of the sand.
Seetzen, on the route from Hebron to Sinai, after
describing an "immense flinty plain," the " drear
iest and most desolate solitude," observes that, "as
soon as the rainy season is over and the warm
weather sets in, the pits (of rain-water) dry up, and
it becomes uninhabitable," as " there are no brooks
or springs here " (iii. 55, 56). Dr. Stewart {The
Tent and the Khan, pp. 14, 15) says of the Wady
Ahtki, which he would identify with Etham (Ex.
xiii. 20; Num. xxxiii.' 6), "sand hills of consider
able height separate it frora tlie sea, and prevent
the winter raius from running ofi^ rapidly. A con
siderable deposit of rich alluvial loam is the result,
averaging from 2 to 4 inches in thickness, by sow
ing upon whicli immediately after the raius the Be
douins could certainly reup a profitable harvest;. but
they affect to despise all agricultural labop. ....
Yet," he adds, "the region never could have sup
plied food by its owu natural vegetation for so great
a multitude of flocks and herbs as followed in the
train of the Israelites." This seems rather a pre
cipitate sentence; for one can hardly tell what its
improved condition under ancient civilization may
have yielded, from merely seeing what it now is,
after being overrun for centuries by hordes of con
temptuous Bedouins. Still, as regards the general
question, we are not informed what numbers of cat
tle followed the Israelites out of Egypt. We only
know that " flocks and herds " went with them,
were forbidden to graze "before the mount"
(Sinai), and shared tlie fortunes of the desert with
their owners. It further appears that, at the end
ofthe forty years* wandering, two tribes and a half
were tlie chief, perhaps the only, cattle-masters.
And, when we consiler how greatly the long and
Bore bondage of Egypt must have interfered with
vheir favorite pureuit during the eighty years of
Moses' life before the Exodus, it seems reasonable
to think that in the otiier tribes only a few would
have possessed cattle on leaving Egypt. The notion
of a people " scattered abroad throughout all the
land of I'^gvpt" (Ex. v. 12) in pursuit of wholly
different and absorbing labor, being able generally
lo maintain their wealth as sheep-masters is ob
viously absurd. It is therefore supposable that
Reuben, Gad, and a portion of Manasseh had, by
remoteness of local position, or other favorable cir-
iumstances to us unknown, escaped the oppressive
oonaequences to their flocks and herds which must

have generally prevailed. We are not told that the
lambs at the first passover were obtained from the
flock of each family, but ouly that they were bidden
to " draw out and take a lamb for au house ''  a
direction quite consistent in many, perhaps in most
cases, with purchase. Hence it is probable that
these two tribes and a half may have heen the chief
cattle-masters first as well as last. If they had
enough cattle to find their pursuit in tending them
and the others had not, economy would dictate a
transfer; and the whole multitude of cattle would
probably fare better by such an arrangement than
by one which left a few head scattered up and down
in the families of different tribes. Nor is there
any reason to think that the whole of the forty
years' sojourn was spent in such locomotion as
marks the more continuous portion of the narrative.
The great gap in the record of events left by the
statement of Deut. i. 4(i, " Ye abode in Kadesh
many days,'* may be filled up by the suppoaition
of quarters established in a favorable site, and the
great bulk of the whole time may have been really
passed in such stationary encampments. And
here, if two tribes and a half only were occupied in
tending cattle, some resource of labor, to avoid the
embarrassing temptations of idleness in a host so
large and so disposed to murmur, would be, in a
human sense, necessary. Nor can any so probable
an occupation be assigned to the remaining nine
and a half tribes, as that of drawing from the wil
derness whatever contributions it might be made
to afford. From what they had seen in Egypt, the
work of irrigation would be familiar to them, and
frora the prospect before them in Palestine the
practice would at some time become necessary:
thus there were on the whole the soundest reasons
for not allowing their experience, if possible, to
lapse. And, irrigation being supposed, there is
little, if any, difficulty in supposing its results: to
the spontaneousness of which ample testimony,
frora various travellers, has been cited above. At
any rate it is unwise to decide the question df the
possible resources of the desert from the condition
to which the apathy and fastidiousness of the Be
douins have reduced it in modern tinies. On this
view, while the purely pastoral tribes would retam
their habits unimpaired, the remainder would ac
quire some slight probation in those works of the
field which were to form the staple industry of their
future country. But, if any one still insists that
the produce of the desert, however supposably im
proved, could never have yielded support for atf
" the flocks and herds " — utterly indefinite as theif
number is — which were carried thither; this need
not invalidate the present argument, rauch less be
deemed inconsistent with the Scriptural narrative.
There is nothing in the latter to forbid our suppos
ing that the cattle perished in tlie wildemess by
hundreds or by thousands. Even if tbe words of
Ps. cvii. 38 be taken in a sense literally historical.
they need mean no more than that, by the time
they reached the borders of Palestine, the number
so lost had, by a change of favorable circumstances,
been replaced, perhaps even by capture from the
enemy, over whom God, and not their, own sword,
¦had giveu them the victory. All that is contended
for is, that the resources of the wilder.iess were
doubtless utilized to the utmost, and that the flockn
and herds, so far as they have survived, were so
kept alive. What those resources might amount
to, is perhaps nearly as indefinite an inquiry as
what was the number of the cattle. The diflBcultj

WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING

3521

would '* find its level " by the diminution of the
latter till it fell within the limits of the former; and
in this balanced state we must be content to leave
bhe question.
Nor ought it to be left out of view, in consider
ing any arguments regarding the possible change
in the character of the wilderness, that Egyptian
policy certainly lay, on the whole, in favor of ex
tending the desolation to their own frontier on the
Suez side; for thus they would gain the surest pro
tection against invasion on their most exposed
border; and as Egypt rather aimed at the develop
ment of a high internal civilization than an exten
sion of influence by foreign conquest, such a desert
frontier would be to Egypt a cheap defense. Thus
we may assume that the Pharaohs, at any rate after
the rise of the Assyrian empire, would discern their
interest and would act upon it, and that the felling
of wood and stopping of wells, and the obUteration,
v?herever possible, of oases, would systematically
make the Peninsula untenable to a hostile army de-
acending fiom the N. E. or the N.
IV. It remains to trace, so far as possible, the
track pursued by the host, bearing in mind the
limitation before stated, that a. variety of converg
ing or pai-allel routes raust often have been required
to^illow of the passage of so great a number. As
suming the passage of the Red Sea to have been
effected at some spot N. of the now extreme end of
the Gulf of Suez, they would march from their
point of landing a little to the E. of S. Here they
were in the wilderness of Shur, and in it " they
went three days and found no water." The next
point, mentioned is Marah. The 'Ain eUHaiodra
has been thought by most travellers since Burck
hardt's time to be JMarah. Between it and the
^Ayun Miisa the plain is alternately gravelly, stony,
and aand}', while under the range of Jtbel War-
dan (a branch of tt-T'ih ) chalk and flints are found.
There is no water on the direct line of route
(Eobinson, i. 87-98). Hawdra stands in the lime
and gypsum region which lines the eastern shore
of the Gulf of Suez at its northern extremity.
Seetzen {Reisen, iii. 117) describes the water as
salt, with purgative qualities; but adds that his
Bedouins and their camels drank of it. He argues,
from its inconsiderable size, thafc it could nofc be the
Marah of Moses. This, however, seems an incon
clusive reason. [Mauah.] It would not be too
near the point of landing assumed, as above, to be
to the N. of the 'Ayun Musa, nor even, as Dr.
Stewart argues (p. 55), too near for a landing at
the 'AyHn Miisa itself," when we consider the in-
aurabrances which would delay the host, and, espe
cially whilst they were new to the desert, prevent

rapid marches. But the whole region appears to
abound in brackish or bitter springs (Seetzen, ibid
iii. 117, &c. ; Anmerk. 430). For instance, about
1| hour nearer Suez than the Wady GhUmndel
(which Lepsius took for Marah, but which Niebuhr
and Robinson regard as more probably Ehm), Seet
zen {ibid. iii. 113, 114) found a Wady^ Tal, with
a salt spring and a salt crust on the surface of its
bed, the same, he thinks, as the spot where Niebuhr
speaks of finding rock-salt. 'I'his corresponds in
general proximity with Marah. The neighboring
region is described as a low plain girt with liraestone
hills, or more rarely chalk. For the consideration of
the miracle of sweetening the waters, see iMaram.
On this first section of their desert-march, Dr. Stan
ley {S, 4 P* p- 37) remarks, " There can be no
dispute as to the general track of the Israelifces after
the passage (of the Red Sea). If they were to
enter the mountains at all, they must continue in
the route of all travellers, between the sea and the
table-land of the 2Vi, till they entered the low hills
of GhHrUndel. According to the view taken of tho
scene of the passage, Jlarah may either be at ^ the
springs of Moses,' or else at IJawdra or Ghw^wi-
deV'' He adds in a note, "Dr. Graul, however,
was told .... of a spring near Tih el-Amdra,
right {i. e. south) of IJawdra, so bitter that neither
men nor camels could drink of it. From hence
the road goes straight to Wady GhUmndel.'''' Seet
zen also inclines to view favorably the identification
of eUAmdra with Marah. He gives it the title of
a " wady,"' and precisely on this ground rejects the
pretensions of eLHawdra as being no "wady," but
only a brook; c whereas, from the statement " they
encamped" at Marah, Marah must, he argues,
have been a wady.*^' It seems certain, however,
that Wadij Ghurundel — whether it be Marah, aa
Lepsius and (although doubtfully) Seetzen thought,
or Elim as Niebuhr, Robinson, and Kruse — must
have lain on the line of march, and almost equally
certain that it furnished a camping stsftion. In
this wady Seetzen found more trees, shrubs, and
bushes than he anywhere else saw in his journey
from Sinai to Suez. He particularizes several date-
palms and many tamarisks, and notes that the
largest quantity of the vegetable manna, now to be
found anywhere in the Peninsula, is gathered here
(iii. 116) from the leaves of the last-named tree,
which here grows " with gnarled boughs and hoary
head ; the wild acacia, tangled by its desert growth
into a thicket, also shoots out its gray foliage and
white blossoms over the desert " (Stanley, S. ^
P. p. 68). The " scenery " in this region becomes
"a succession of watercourses"* {ibid.); and the
Wady Tayibeh, connected with Ghlrifndel by

o Dr. Aitoun, quoted by Dr. Stewart (/. c), it seems,
deDies this.
b In the Wady TUl were found date-palms, wild
trunkless taniarisks, and the white-flowering broom ;
ilBo a small, sappy growth, scarce a hand high, called
d Szemm/Ut by the Bedouins, which, when -dried, is
pounded hy them, and mixed with wheat for bread.
U has a saltish-sour taste, and is a useful salad herb,
beloDpng to the* order Mesembryanthemum, Linn.
(Seetzen, ibid.).
c Yet ho apparently allows as possible that Marah
may be fouud in a brook obt^frved by .Fiirer a little to
the N. of GkuTundtl (ill. 117).
^ There is, however, a renittrkable difference between
the indication ot lociility given by Set- tzen to this wady,
md the position ascribed to the Tik el-Amdra, as

above. Sox Seetzen (or rather Dr. Kruse, commenting
on his journal) says, Robiosoa passed the wady two
hours nearer Suez than Hawara, and therefore so far
to the north, not south, of it {Reistn, iii. pt. iii. 430
431). Hence it is possible that the Tih and the Wady
el-Amdra may be distinct localitiea, and the common
name result from the common property of a briny or
bitter spring. Kiepert's map (in Robinson, toI. i.)
gives the two oames Amd^a and Hawara close to
gether, the former a little, but less than a mile, to the
north. e So Dr. Kruse notices that Dr. Robinson's Arabs
who camped in Ghurundel found, at half an hour's
distance from fcheir camping ground, a flowing brook
and copious foujtains, such as they hitherto nowhere
found in the Peninsula (Seetzen, iii. pt. iii. 430)

3522

WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING

Useit,^ is so named from the goodly water and
regetatiou which it contains. These three wadies
encompass on three sides the Jebel Hummam ; the
sea, which it precipitously overhangs, being on the
fourth. To judge from the configuration as given
in the maps, there seems no reason why all three
should not have comiiined to form Elim, or at any
rate, as Dr. Stanley {ibid.) suggests, two of them.
Only, from Num. xxxiii. 9, 10, as Elim appears
tiot to have been on the sea, we must suppose that
the encampment, if It extended into three wadies,
stopped short of their seaward extremities. The
Israelitish host would scarcely find in all three more
than adequate ground for their encampment. Be
yond {i. e. to the S. E. of Ghurundel), the ridges
and spurs of limestone mountain push down to the
sea, across the path along the plain (Robinson, i.
70, and Map).
This portion of the question may be summed up
by presenting in a tabular form, the views of some
leading travellers or annotators, on the site of
Elim: —

Wady

Wady

Some warm springs

Ghurundel.

UseU.

northofr&r, whieh
feed the rich date-

Niebuhr, One or

Laborde

plantations of fche

Robinson, both,

"possibly,

' convent there,

Kruee. Stanley.

Kobinson

Seetzen.

(By Lepsius

(i. 72).

identified

with Marah.)

Dr. Kruse {Anmerk. p. 418) singularly takes the
words of Ex. XV. 27, " they encamped there (in
Elim) by the waters,'''' as meaning " by the sea; "
whereas, from Num. xxxiii. 9, 10, it appears they
did not reach the sea till a stage further, although
their distance frora ifc previously had been but
small. From Elim, the next stage brought the people
again to the sea. This fact, and the enviable posi
tion in respect of water supply, and consequent
great fertility, enjoyed by Tur on t,he coasfc, would
make it seem probable that Tiir was the locality
intended; but as it lies more than seventy miles,
in a straight line, from the nearest probably assign
able spot for Elim, such a distance makes it a
highly improbable site for the next encampment.
The probable view is that their seaside camp was
fixed much nearer to the group of wadies viewed ae
embracing Elim, perhaps in the lower part of the
Wady Tayibeh, which appears to have a point of
juncture with the coast (Stanley, S. 4" -P- p- 38).
The account in Ex. xvi. knows nothing of this en
campment by the sea, but brings the host afc once
iuto " the wilderness of Sin ; " bufc we must bear
in mind the general purpose of recording, nofc the
people's history so much as God's dealings with
them, and the former rather as illustrative of the
a Robinson (i. 69) says that near this wady hot sul-
jrhureouB springs were visited by Niebuhr, aud are de-
Bcribed by Russegger.
b He calU it the Wilderness of Sir, but this is plainly
a misprint for Sin.
e His map, however, omits the name el-K&a. Rob
inson thinks the wilderness of Sin is the maritime
plain southeast of Murkh&h, but uot certainly inolud-
Vng the latter.
d gieetzen thought that Dophkah might possibly be
retraced in the name of a place in this region, el-Tob-
iacha (Kruse). For Alush there is no conjecture.
€ Seetzen compares it to tbe round bead» obtained
latter, and subordinate thereto. The evident de
sign however, in Num. xxxiii. being, to place on
record their itinerary, this latter is to be esteemed
as the locus classicus on any topographical ques
tions, as compared with othera having a less special
relation to the track. The " wildemess of Sm " ig
an appellation no doubt representing some natunl
feature, and none more probably than the alluvial
plain, which, lying at the- edge of the sea, about
the spot we now regard them as having reached,
begins to assume a significant appearance. The
modern name for this is eUKda, identified by
Seetzen b with this wilderness (iii. pt. iii. 412).
Dr. Stanley <^ calls el Kda, at its initial point, " the
plain of Murkhah,^' and thinks it is probably this
wilderness. Lower down the coast this pUin ex-
panda into the broadest in the Peninsula, and some
where in the still northern portion of it we must
doubtless plaoe the " Dophkali " '^ aud " Alush " of
Num. xxxiii. 12-14.
In the wilderness of Sin occurred the first mur
muring for food, and the first fall of manna. The
modem confection sold under that name is tbe ex
udation collected from the leaves of the tamarisk
tree ( Tamarisk Orientalis, Linn., Arab, tarfa, Heb.
vtyW) only in the Sinaitic valleys, and in no great
abundance.fi If it results from the punctures m^e
in the leaf by an insect (the Coccus mannipaiiu,
Ehrenberg) in the course of June, July, and Au
gust, this will not suit the time of the people's
entering the region "on the fifteenth day of the
second month after " their departure from Egypt
(Ex. xvi. 1-8). It is said to keep as a hardened
syrup for years (Laborde, Comment. Geogr. on
Ex. xvi. 13, 14), and thus does not answer to the
more striking characteristics described in Ex. xvi.
14-26. [Manna.] Seetzen thought that the
gum Arabic, an exudation of the acacia, was the
real manna of the Israelites; i. e. Seetzen regards
the statement of " bread from heaven " as a fic
tion {Reisen, iii. 75-79). A caravan of a thousand
persons is said by Hasselquist ( Voyages, etc., Ma~
teria Mtdica, p. 298, transl. ed. 1766) to have
subsisted solely on this substance for two months.
In the same passage of Ex. (v. 13) quails ar@ first
mentioned. In most portions of ihe earlier route it is more
important to show the track than to fix the sta
tions ; and such an indication only can be looked
for where nothing beyond the name of the latter is
recorded. Supposing now that the alluvial plain,
where it first begins to broaden to a significant size,
is " fche wilderness of Sin," all further questions,
till we come to Sinai, turn on the situation assigned
to Rephidim. If, as seems most likely, Kephidim
be found at Feirdn [Rephidim], it becomes almost
certain that the track of the host lay to the north
of Serbdl/ «¦ magnificent five-peaked mountain,
from the mastich ; and says it is used as a purgative
in Upper Egypt, and that'it is supposed to be brought
out by tbe great eflect of heat on a sandy soil, siaoi
in Syria and elsewhere tbis tree has not tbe product.
- / Dr. Stanley notices that possibly, viewing Gh^r-
Undei (or Useit, which lies beyond it, from Sues) as
Elim, the host may have gone to the latter (the ,fw-
ther point), and then have turned back to the lower
part of Ghurundel, and there pitched by the "Bed
Sea." Then, he further remarks, it waa open to them
to take a northern course for Sinai {Jebel JMfl«o),
avoiding Serbal and Feiran altogether (S. §" P. p. 88)-
But all this, he adds, seems " not Ulcely." That roott
WILDERNESS OF THB WANDERING

3523

ffhich iotne have thought to be Sinai, and wliich
pecr'mes first visible at the plain of Murkhah.
[Sisai.] The Taliernaclo was not yet set up, nor
Ihe order of march organized, as Bubsequently
(Kiim. X. 13, Ac), hence the words "track" or
"route," as indicating a line, can only be taken in
the most wide and general sense. The road slowly
rises between the coast and Feiran, which has an
elevation of just half the highest peak of the whole
cluster. Feiran must have been gained by some
road striking off from the sea-coast, like the Wady
ifoknUeb, which is now the usual route from Cairo
thither, perhaps by several parallel or converging
lines- Those who reject Feiidii for Rephidim will
liave the onus of accoimting for such a fruitful and
blooming spot as, fr(>m its position, it must always
have been, being left out of the route, and of find
ing some other site for Kephidim. Possibly Tiir
itself might be Rephidim, but then uot one of the
sites generally discussed for Sinai will suit. It
leems better then to take Feiran, or the adjacent
valley of es-Sheykh in connection with it, for Rephi
dim. The water may have been produced in one,
and the battle have taken place in the other, of
these contiguous localities ; and the most direct way
of reachhig them from el-Murkhdh (the " wilder
ness of Sin") will be through the wadies SlieUah
and Mokalieb. Dr. Stanley, who suggests the road
by the S. of Serbdl, through Wady Hebran "
(Kobinson, i. 95), as also a possible route to Sinai
(S. ^ P. p. SS, 4), and designates it " the south
ern " one, omits to propose any alternative station
for Kephidim; as he also does in the case of "the
iiorthern " route being accepted. That route has
been already mentioned (page 3522, notey), but is
of too reraote a probability to require being here
taken into view. The Wady Mokatteb, the " writ
ten," as its name imports, contains tbe largest
number of inscriptions known as the Sinaitic. They
are scratched on the friable surface of the sand
stone masses which dot the valley on either side,
lome so high as to have plainly not been executed
without mechanical aid and great deliberation.
They are described or noticed by Dr. Robinson,
Burckhardt, Laborde, Seetzen. and others, but
.specially by Dr. Stanley (S. ^ P. pp. 57-62). [See
on this subject Sinai, p. 3053, notes c and d.]
V. Besides the .various suggestions regarding
Horeb and Sinai given imder Sl.NAi, one occurs in
Dr. Kruse's Anmerkungen on Seetzen, which is
worth recording here. Seetzen approached the
J^el Miisa from the N., a little W., by a route
which seeras to have brought him into the region
through whioh Dr. Robinson approached it from
the N. W. On this Dr. Kruse remarks, " Horeb
lay in the plain of Kephidim .... a day's march
short of (wr) Sinai, on a dry plain, which was
extensive enough for a camping ground, with a rock

passes by SirllUt et-KhaclXm to the Jebel Miisa. Kob-
msou, v?ho went by this way, oonjectured that el-KIiiz-
dim was a place of pilgrimage to tbe ancient Egyp
tians, and might have been the object of Moses'
proposed journey of ''three days inlo the wilderness "
(i. 79). The best account of this locality by far,
which the present contributor has met with, is that in
the MS. referrBd to at the end of this article. The
writer dwells especially on the immense remains of
Dining operations, refuse of fUel, metal, etc., to be
leen there ; also ou the entrenched camp at Mii^hllra,
IlKoveied recently by Major Macdonald, evidently a
fork of great labor and of capacity for a large garrison.
<" Throijgh the wilderness of Kda (from its north-

fountain struck by Moses from the rock. Thii
distance just hits the plain es-Slieb (Selieb, Kie
pert's Map), which Robinson entered before reach
ing the foremost ridge of Sinai, and suits the
peaked mountain eUOrf, in the highest point of
this plain. That this plain, too, is large enough
for fighting in (as mentioned Ex. xvii. 9), is plain
from Robinson's statement (i. 141) of a combat
between two tribes whieh took place there soma
years before his visit. Robinson, from this rocky
peak, whioh I took for Horeb, in 1^ hour reached
the spring Gurbeh, probably the one the opening
of which was ascribed to Moses, and thence in
another hour came to tbe steep pass Nakb Hamy,
to mount which he took 2i hours, and in 2^ hours
more, crossing the plain er-Raheh, arrived at the
convent at the foot of Sinai. Seetzen's Arabs gave
the name of OrrUie ^ to a mountain reached before
ascending the pass, no doubt the same as Robin
son's el- Or/" and the Horeb of Holy Writ " (Beisen,
iii. pt. iii. 422; comp. 414). He seeks to recon
cile this with Ex. xxxiii. 6, which describes the
people, penitent after their disobedience in the
matter of the golden calf, as " stripping themselves
of their ornaments by tlie Mouni Horeb,^^ by sup
posing that they were by Moses led back again c
from Sinai, where God had appeared to him, and
immediately below which they had encamped, to
Horeb in the plain of Rephidim. But this must
have been a day's journey backward, and of such a
retrograde movement the itinerary in Num. xxxiii.
14, 15, 16, has no trace. On the contrary, it says,
" they removed from the desert of Sinai and pitched
in Kibroth Hattaavah." Now, although they
stayed a year in the wilderness of Sinai (Ex. xix.
1; Num. X. 11, 12), and need not be supposed to
have had but one camping station all the time, yet
Rephidim clearly appears to lie without the limits
of that wilderness (Ex. xvii. 1, xix. 1, 2; Num.
xxxiii. 15), and a return thither, being a departure
from those limits, might therefore, we should ex
pect, he noticed, if it took place ; even though all
the shiftings of the camp within the wilderness of
Sinai might not be set down in the itinerary.
Under Sl«Ai an attempt is made to reconcile the
" rocli in Horeb " at Rephidim with a " Mouni
Horeb " (the same, in fact, as Sinai, though with
a relative difiference of view), by regarding " Horeb "
as a designation descriptive of ths ground, applica
ble, through similarity of local features, to either.
If this be not admitted, we may perhaps regard the
Wady es-Sheykh, a cresce it concave southwards,
whose western hom joins Wady Feirdn, and whose
eastern finds a southeastern continuation in the
plain er-Raheh (leading up to Jebel Musa, the
probable Sinai), as the Horeb proper. This con
tains a rock called traditionally the " seat of Moses "
(Schubert, Reisen, ii. 356). Aod this is to some

ern border) to the opening of Wndy Hebr&n into it ia
54 hours' journey. The manna tttmarisk is found
there ; and some birds, called by Dr. Kruse *' WUsten-
hiihnem," which be appears to think might be the
quails of Scripture. Seetzen in his journal plainly
sets dowu the " quails " as being wholly a mistake for
locusts (Reisen. iii. pt. iii. 413, romp. 80).
b « Two hardly distinguishable mountains on either
Bide of the way (from the Wndy Beilzmiin) were
named Orribe and Freusch " (Reisen, iii. 69).
e He thinks the reason why they were thus coun
termanded was because " Uoreb " was better sopplied
with water, but he does not show that the " spring
Gurbeh " adequately meets this condition (ibid. 4221

3524

WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING

Extent confirmed by the fact that the wady which
continues the plain er-Rdhek to the N. W., form
ing with the latter a slightly obtuse angle, resumes
the name of es-Sheykh. U we may suppose the
name " Horeb," though properly applied to the
crescent Wady es-Sheykh, which joins Feirdn, to
have had such an extension as would embrace
er-Jidheh, then the "rock in Horeb'* might be a
day's journey from the " Mount (of) Horeb." "
This view, it may be observed, does not exclude
that just referred to under Sijiai, but merely
removes it from resting on the sense there proposed
for "Horeb" (^j''f^)) as a local appellative, to
more general grounds.
But whatever may be the case with other sacred
localities, the identification of Sinai itself will
probably never be free from obscurity. We seem
to have adequate information regarding all the
eminent mountains within tlie narrow compass to
which our choice is reduced, and of all the impor-
• tant passes. Nor is it likely that any fresh clew
of trustworthy local tradition wdl be unraveled, or
any new light thrown on the text of the Scriptural
statements. Somewhere in the granitic nucleus
of lofty mountain crests the answer, doubtless, lies.*
For the grounds on which a slight preponderance
of probability rests in favor of the Jebel Musa,<^
see Sinai. But even that preponderance mainly
rests ou the view that the numbers ascribed in our
present text to the host of Israel are trustworthy.
If further criticism should make this more doubt
ful than it now is, that will have the probable
e^ct of making the question more vague rather
than more clear than it is at present. " This
degree of uncertainty is a great safeguard for the
real reverence due to the place. As it is, you may
rest ou your general conviction and be thankful "
{S. 4" P' p- 76). The tradition which has conse
crated the Jebel Musa can, we know, be traced to
its source in a late year. It has the taint of mod
ernism and the detective witness of the older tra
dition of Serbal. Dr. Stanley thinks it " doubtful
whether the scene of the giving of the Law, as
we now conceive it, ever entered into the minds
of those who fixed the traditional site. The con
secrated peak of the Jehel Musa was probably
revered simply as the spot where Moses saw the
vision of God, without reference to any more gen
eral event " {S. f P- P- 76 ), and this is likely to
have been equally true of Serbdl before it. The
Eastern mind seized on the spot as one of devout
contemplation by the one retired saint; the Western
searches for a scene which will bring the people
perceptibly into the region of that Presence which
the saint beheld.
Certain vivid impressions left on the minds of

travellers seem to bespeak such remarkable Aaturet
for the rocks of this cluster, and they are generally
so replete with interest, that a few leading details ot
the aspect of the principal mountains may find place
here. Approaching the granitic nucleus from the
N. side, Seetzen found himself " ever between two
high, wild, and naked cliffs of granite." All possi
ble forms of mountains blended in the view of the
group, conical and pointed, truncated, serrated, and
rounded {Reisen, iii. 69, 67). Immediately previ
ous to this he had been upon the perpendicular
sandstone cliffs, which in eUDilldl bounded the
sandy plain er-Ramleh on the eastern, whilst simi
lar steep sandstone cliffs lay on the N. aud N. W.
On a nearer view small bright quartz-grit ( Qum-Zr
kiesel), of whitish-yellow and reddish hue, wa^
observed in the coarse-grained sandstone. Dr.
Stanley, approaching from the N. W., from Wad^
Shell&l, through wadies Sidri and Feirdn, found
the rocks of various orders more or less inter
changed and intermixed. In the first, « red tops
resting on dark-green bases closed the prospect in
front," doubtless both of granite. Contrast with
this the description of Jebel Musa, as seen from
Mount St. Catherine {ihid. 77). "the redt/isA gran
ite of its lower mass, ending in the gray grem
granite of the peak itself." Wady Sidri lies
" between red granite mountains descending pre
cipitously on the sands," but just in the midit of
it the granite is exchanged for sandstone, which
last forms the rock-tablets of the Wady Mokatteb,
lying in the way to Wady Feirdn. This last is
full of •' endless windings," and here " b^an the
curious sight of the mountains, streak^ from bead
to foot, as if with boiling streams of dark red mat
ter poured over them, the igneous fluid squirted
upwards as they were heaved from the ground."
'' The colors tell their own story, of chalk
and limestone and sandstone and granite." besides
these, " huge cones of white clay and sand are at
intervals planted along these mighty watercourses
(the now dry wadies), apparently the original allu
vial deposit of some tremendous antediluvian tor
rent, left there to stiffen into sandstone " {ib. 71).
The Wady Feirdn is bounded southwards by the
Jebel Nediyeh aud the Jebel Serbdl, which extend
westwards to the maritime plain, and eastward
to the Sinaitic group, and on whose further or
southern side lies the widest part. of eUKda, previ
ously noticed as the " wilderness of Sm." Seet
zen remarks that Jebel Ftirdnis not an individual
mountain, but, like Sinai, a conspicuous group
{Reisen, iii. 107; comp. pt. iii. 413).
Serbdl rises from a lower level than the Sinaitic ,
group, and so stands out more fully. Dr. Stewart's
account of its summit confirms that of Burckhtrdt
The former mounted from the northern side a

u The expression DTIH "^^p In Ex. xxxiii. 6
way probably be, like the expression D^TT' vSH "^n,
iii. 1, and thafc of m^H** "inS. Josh. xxi. 11, etc.,
two nouDB in regimeu, tho " mount q/" Horeb."
b The Tabula Pei/tingeriana gives in the interior
of the Sinaitic peninsula a wildemess indicated as
"desertuiD ubi xl. annos erraverunt filii Israelis
ducente Moyse," and marks therein a three-peaked
mountain, with the words, " hie legem, acceperunt in
monte Syna." Dr. Kruse thinks the "three peaks "
tfaean Sinai (i. e. the Jebel Mtisa), As:. Epistemd and
4he Jebel Hum''r (Seetzen, Rnsen, iii. pt. iii. 421).
c Dr. Kruse says, <' This highest S. £. point of Sioai

is indisputably the ^ mountain of the Lord ' of Holy
Writ, the modern Mount St. Catherine. The N- W
part of Sinai is, however, now named Oiorif by the
monks, nofc by the Arabs, probably in order to com
bine Horeb with Sioai, by which namj they deoote
tbe mosfc southeasterly point. The * plain ' or * wil
derness ' of Sinai can be nothing else than the high
plain situated on the northern steep declivity sur
rounded by the three before-named peaks of Sinai, the
opposite plateau of Jebel Fureid, and B. and W. some
low ridges. It is now called the plain Rdheh, and is,
according to Robinson's meaj^urement, quite large
enough to hold two millions of Israelites, who here
eueamped together" {ibid. 422).

WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING

3525

narrow plateau at the top of the easternmost peak.
A block of gray granite crowns it, and several con
tiguous blocks form one or two grottoes, and a cir
cle of loose stones rests in the narrow plateau at the
top {The Tent and the Khan, pp. 1J7, 118). The
" five peaks," to which " in most points of view it
is reducible, at first sight appear inaccessible, but
are divided by steep ravines filled with fragments
of fallen granite." Dr. Stanley mounted "over
smooth blocks of granite to the top of the third or
central peak," amid which " innumerable shrubs,
like sage or thyme, grew to the very summit."
Here, too, his ascent was assisted by loose stones
arranged by human hands. The peak divides into
» two eminences," on " the highest of which, as on
the hack of some petrified tortoise, you stand, and
overlook the whole Peninsula" {S. 4' P- pp- 71, 72).
Kussegger says " the stone of the peak of Serbdl is
porphyry" {Reisen, iii. 276). Dr. Stewart men
tions the extensive view from its summit of the
mountains " which arise from the western shore
of the Gulf of 'Akabah," seen in the N. E., and
of the Sinaitic range, " closely packed " with the
intermediate Jebel Wateidh, " forming the most
confused mass of mountain tops that can be imag
ined" (pp. 114, 115), His description of the ascent
of the eastern peak is formidable. He felt a rarity
of the air, and often had to climb or crawl flat on
the breast. It was like " the ascent of a glacier,
only of smooth granite, instead of ice.'* At a
quarter of an hour from the summit he also " found
a stair of blocks of granite, laid one above another
on the surface of the smooth slippery rock" (p.
113). On the northern summit are visible the re
mains of a building, " granite fragments cemented
with lime and mortar," and " close beside it three
of those mysterious inscriptions," implying "that
this summit was frequented by unknown pilgrims
who used those characters " {S. 4" P- ?• 72).
The approach to Jebel Musa from the W". is
only practicable on foot. It lies through Wady
Solam and the NUkb Hdwk, " Pass of the Wind," «
whose stair of rock leads to the second or higher
stage of the great mountain labyrinth. Elsewhere
this pass would be a roaring torrent. It is amidst
masses of rock a thread of a stream just visible, and
here and there forming clear pools, shrouded in
palms, or leaving its clew to be traced only by
rushes. From the head of this pass the cliff-front
of Sinai comes in sight through "a long continued
plain between two precipitous mountain ranges of
black and jeUow granite." This is the often-men
tioned plain er-Rdheh. Deep gorges enter it on
each side, and the convent and its gardens close
the view. The ascent of Jebel Miisa, which con
tains "high valleys with abundant springs," is by
1 long flight of rude steps winding through crags
of granite. The cave and chapel "of Klias" are
passed on the slope of the ascent, and the sumrait is
marked by the ruiiis of a mosque and of a Christian
church. But Strauss adds, "the 'Mount of

o By this pass Dr. Stanley was himself conducted
thither, sending his camels round by the Wady es-
Sheykh from Feira7i, " the more accessible though more
circuitous route iuto the central upland." By this
latter he supposes the great bulk of the host of Israel
Kiay have reached er-Raheh and Sinai, while "the
chiefs of the people would mount " by the same pass
which he took (S. ^ P. p. 42).
^ Dr. Stewart {ub. sup. 122) says, « Ghebel Musa, the
Hinal of monkish tradifciona. is neither visible from the
Qhebel (i. e. Elis) Sufsltfeh,'nor from any other point

Moses ' rose in the south higher and higher still "
and the point of this, Jebel Musa, eighty feet in
diameter, is distant two hours and more from tho
plain below {Sinai and Golgotha, p. 116). The Ras
Sufsafeh seems a small, steep, and high mountahi,
which is interposed between the slope of Jebel Miisa
and the plain; and, from its position, surveys both
the openings of es-Sheykh N. E. and of er-Rdheh *
N. W., which converge at its foot. Opposite to it,
across the plain, is tlie Jebel Fureid, whose peak is
cloven asunder, and the taller summit is again shat
tered and rent, and strewn, as by an earthquake,
with its own frdgments. The aspect of the plain
between Jebel Fureid, which here forms a salient
angle, wedging southwards, and the Ras SUfsdfehj
is described as being, iu conjunction with these
mountains, wonderfully suggestive, both by its
grandeur and its suitableness for the giving and
the receiving of the Law. " That such a plain
should exist at all iu front of such a cliff is so re
markable a coincidence with the sacred narrative,
as to furnish a strong internal argument, not merely
of its identity with the scene, tut of tbe scene itself
having been described by an eye-witness" {S. 4' P-
pp. 42, 43). The character of the Sinaitic granite
is described by Seetzen {Reisen, iii. 86) as being
(1) flesh-red with glass-colored quartz and black
mica, and (2) grayish-white with abundance ofthe
sarae mica. He adds that the first kind is larger-
grained and handsomer than the second. Hamilton
speaks of " long ridges of arid rock surrounding him
in chaotic confusion on every side," and " the sharp
broken peaks of granite far and near as all equally
desolate " {Sinai, ihe Hedjaz, and Soudan, p. 31).
This view of " granite peaks," so thickly and wildly
set as to forra "a labyrinth " to the eye, was what
chiefly impressed Dr. Stanley in the view from the
top of Jebel Musa {S. cf P. p. 77). There the
weather-beaten rocks are full of curious fissures and
holes (p. 46), the surface being "a granite mass
cloven into deep gullies and basins " (p. 76). Over
the whole mountain the imagination of votaries has
stamped the rock with tokens of miracle. The
dendrites ^ were viewed as memorials of the Burn
ing Bush. In one part of the mountain is shown
the impress of Moses' back, as he hid liimself from
the presence of God {ib. 30); in another the hoof-
print of Mohammed*s mule; in the plain below, a
rude hollow between contiguous blocks of stone
passes for the mould of the head of the Golden Calf;
while in the valley of the Leja, which runs, parallel
to and overhung by the Jebtl Musd's greatest
length, into er-Rdheh, close to Ras Sufsafeh, the
famous " Stone of Moses " is shown — *' a detached
mass from ten to fifteen feet high, intersected with
wide slits or cracks .... with the stone between
them worn away, as if by the dropping of water from
the crack immediately above." This distinctness
of the mass of the stone lends itself to the belief of
the Kabbis, that this "rock followed" the Israelites
through the wilderness, which would not be the
in the plain of er-RaJieh." Tbis seems confirmed by tha
argument of S. ^ P. pp. 43, 44, that Moses, descend
ing from the Jebel MUsa, would not be able to see what
was going on in the plain till he emerged upon it, the
height of Sufihfeh effectuaUy intercepting the view.
c These have become scarce oa this mountain ; Seet
zen {Reisen, iii. 86) expressly meations that he observed
none. They are now found abundantly in the couree
of constructing Abbas Pasha's mountain road (Stewart,
r. ^ Z.pp.l32, 134).

WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING

case with the non-detached off-set of some larger
cliff. The Koran also contains reference to "the
rock with the twelve mouths for the twelve tribes
of Israel," i. e. the aforesaid cracks in the stone,
into which the Bedouins thrust grass as they mut
ter their praj^ers before it. Bishop Clayton ac
cepted it as genuine, so did Whiston the translator
of Josephus ; " but it is a mere lusus naturte ; and
there is another fragment, " less conspicuous," in
the same valley, " with precisely similar marks."
In the pass of the Wady es-Sheykh is another
stone, called the " Seat of Moses," described by
Laborde (S. <} P. pp. 45-48, and notes). Seetzen
»dds, some paces beyond the " Stone of Moses "
several springs, copious for a region so poor in
water, have their source from under blocks of
granite, one of which is as big as this " Stone of
Moses." These springs gu.sh into a very small
dike, and thence are conducted by a canal to sup
ply water to a little fruit-garden  Their
water is pure and very good. On this canal, sev-
eral'paces below the basin, lies a considerably bigger
block of granite than the " Stone of Moses," " and
the canal runs round so close to its side as to be
half-concealed by it" (Reisen, iii. 95). He seems
to argue that this appearance and half-concealment
may have been made use of by Moses to procure
belief in his having produced the water miracu
lously, which existed before. But this is wholly
inconsistent, as hideed is any view of this being the
actual " rock in Horeb," with his view of Rephidim
as situated at el-fJessuik, the western extremity of
the Wady Feirdn. Equally at variance with the
Scriptural narrative is the claim of a hole in er-
Rdheh, below Rds Sifsafeh, to be " the Pit of
Korah," whose story belongs to another and far
later stage of the march.
On Mount St. Catherine the principal interest
lies in the panorama of the whole Peninsula which
it commands, embraced by the converging horns of
the Red Sea, and the complete way in which it
overlooks the Jebel Musa, which, as seen from it,
is by no means conspicuous, being about 1,000 feet
lower. Seetzen mounted by a path strewn with
stones and blocks, having nowhere any steps, like
those mentioned as existing at Serbdl, and remarks
that jasper and porphyry chiefly constitute the
mountain. He reached the highest point in three
hours, including intervals of rest, by a hard, steep
path, with toilsome clambering; but tbe actual
time of ascending was only 1 1 hours. The date-
palm plantation of Tur is said to be visible from
the top; but tbe haze prevailing at the time pre
vented this traveller from verifying it (Reisen, iii.
89-93). "The rock of the highest point of this
mountain swells into the form of a human body,
its arras swathed I'.ke that of a mummy, but head
less — the counterpnrt, as it is alleged, of the corpse
of the beheaded Ivgptian saint  Not im
probably this grota-ique figure furnishes not merely
the Illustration, but the origin, of the story" of St.
Catherine's body being transported to the spot, after
martyrdom, from Kgypt by angelic hands (S. ^
P. p. 45).
The remaining principal mountain is named vari-

a See his note on Ant. iii. 1, § 7.
b Dr. SbiDley verified the possibility of the fact, and
Jisproved its miraculous character by examining the
ravine above tbe Convent, through which, when the
imi g<-iiDS the necessary altitude, a ray would reach
the nliapel (S. 4- P. p 46).

ously ed-Deir, "the Convent;" "Bestin," fam
St Episteme, the first abbess of the nunnery.
" Solab," from " the Cross," which stands on ita
summit; and the " Mount of the Burning Bush "'
from a legend that a sunbeam shoots down sup
posed miraculously, on one day in the year, through
the moiiuiziu into the chapel of the " Buriiine
Bush " ' (so called) in the convent (ib. p. 78). . In
the pass of the Convent rocks arise on every side
in long succession, fantastically colored, gray, red
blue, bright yellow, and bronze, sometimes strangely
marked with white lines of quartz or black bandi
of basalt; huge blocks worn into fantastic shapes
.... interrupt the narrow track, which successive
ages have worn along the face of the precipice, or
hanging overhead, threaten to overwhelm the
traveller . in their fall. The wady which coiitams
this pass is called by the name of Shu^eib — a cor
ruption of Hobab, the name of the father-m-hv ot
Moses (ib. pp. 32, 33). At the foot ofa mountain
near the convent Seetzen noticed " a range of rocks
of black horn-porphyry, of hornblende, and black
jasper, and between their scrolls or volutes white
quartz." The gardens, as has been noticed, are in
sight from the approach through er-Raheh. Seet
zen enlarges on their beauty, enhanced, of course, by
the savage wild about them ; " indeed a blooming
vegetation appears in this climate wherever there
is water" (Reisen, iii. 70, 73, 87). These proved
capabilities of the soil are of interest in reference to
the Mosaic and to every period. As regards the
Convent, the reader may be referred to Dr. Stan
ley's animated description of its character, the
policy of its founder, and the quaUty of its inmates
(<S. <f P. pp. 51-56). This traveller took three hows
in the ascent. " In the recesses between the peaks
was a ruined Bedouin village. On the highest level
was a small natural basin, thickly covered vith
shrubs of myrrh — of all the spots of the kind that
1 saw, the best suited for the feeding of Jethro's
flocks Ul the seclusion of the mountain " (ib. p. 78).
He thought the prospect, however, from its summit
inferior in various ways to any of the other views
from the neighboring mountains, Serbdl, St. Cath
erine, Jebel Musa or Rds Sufsifeh.
The rocks, on leaving Sinai on the east for 'Aia-
bah, are curiously intermingled, somewhat as in the
opposite margin of the wadies Sidri and Mokatt^.
Wady Seyal contains "hills of a conical shape,
curiously slanting across each other, and ffith aa
appearance of serpentine and l)asalt. The wady
.... then mounted a short rocky pass — of hills
capped with sandstone — and entered on a plain of
deep sand — the first we had encountered — over
which were scattered isolated clumps of sandstone,
with occasional chalk .... At the close of this
plain, an isolated rock, its high tiers rising out of
lower tiers, like a castle." Here " the levd ranges
of et- Tih rose in front." And soon after, on strik
ing down, apparently, northeastwards, "a sandy
desert, amidst fantastic sandstone rocks, mixed
with lilac and dull green, as if of tufa," succeeded.
After this came a desert strewn with " fragmenta
of the Tih," i. e. limestone, but " presently," in
the " Wady Chizdleh," <= which turns at first

c Here Dr. Stanley quitted tho track puraucd by Dt
Robinson, which from the Convent he had hltliertc
followed ; the latier continuing in a N. E. direcHon
through WaiJy Sumghy to the western shore of tha
Gulf of 'Akabah, the former turning ms^hvaxis by

WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING

3527

nearly due northward, and then deflects westward,
the "high granite rocks " reappeared; and in the
Wttiiy d-'Ain, •' the rocks rise, red granite or black
basalt, occasionally tipped as if with castles of sand
stone to the height of about 1,000 feet .... and
finally open on the sea. At the mouth of the pass
are many traces of flood — trees torn down, and
strewed along the saud " (ib. pp. 80, 81).
VI. We now pass on to resume the attempt to
trace the progress of the Israelites. Their sojourn
of a year in the neighborhood of Mount Sinai was
an eventful one. The statements of the Scriptural
narrative which relate to the receiving of the two
Tables, the Golden Calf, Moses' vision of God, and
the visit of Jethro, are too well known to need
special mention here; but besides these, it is certain
from Num. iii. 4, that before they quitted the wil
derness of Sinai, the Israelites were thrown into
mourning by the untimely death of Aaron's two
sons, Nadab and Abihu. This event is probably
connected with the setting up of the Tabernacle and
the eukindUng of that holy fire, the sanctity of
which their death avenged. That it has a deter
minate chronological relation with the promulga
tions which from time to time were made in that
wilderness, is proved by an edict in Lev. xvi., being
fixed as subsequent to it (Lew x., comp. xvi. 1).
The only other fact of history contained in Levit
icus is the punishment of tbe son of mixed parent
age for blasphemy (xxiv. 10-14). Of course the
consecration of Aaron and his sons is mentioned
early in the book in connection with the laws re-
kiting to their ofiice (viii., ix.). In the same wil
derness region the people were numbered, and the
exchange of the Levites against the firstborn was
effected; these last, since their delivery when God
smote tbose of Egypt, having incurred the obliga
tion of sanctity to him. The offerings of the princes
of Israel were here also received. The last incident
mentioned before the wilderness of Sinai was quitted
for that of Paran is the intended departure of
Hobab the Kenite, wbich it seems he abandoned at
Moses' urgency. They now quitted the Sinaitic
region for that of Paran, in which they went three
days without finding a permanent encampment, al
though teniporary halts must of course have been
daily made (Num. i., ix. 15-23; x. 13, 33; xi.
36; xii. 16). A glance at Kiepert's, or any map
showing the region in detail, will prove that here a
choice of two main routes begins, in order to cross
the intervening space between Sinai and Canaan,
which they certainly approached in the first in
stance on the southern, and not on the eastern side.
Here the higher plateau surmounting the Tih
region would almost certainly, assuming the main
features of the wilderness to have been then as they
are uow, have compelled them to turn its western
side nearly by the route by which Seetzen came in
the opposite direction from Hebron to Sinai, or to
turn it on the east by going up the 'Arabah, or be
tween the 'Arabah and the higher plateau. Over
Its southeni face there is no pass, and hence the
roads from Sinai, and those from Petra towards
Gaza and Hebron, all converge into one of two

the Wady Ghlzaleh, as above, immediately after paas-
ng the '/Im el-Hidlierah.
" Seetzen supposes that what are called quails in
Dcripturo were really locusts {Reisen, iii. 80); an
9plniou which Coquerel (Laborde, Comm. Geogr. Ex.
«vi. 18) appears to have shared. But surely locusts,
M edible, are tcr ¦lell known in Scripture to make the

trunk-lines of route (Robinson, i. 147, 151, 152, ii
186). Taberali and Kibroth-Hattaavah, both seem
to belong to the same encampment where Israel
abode for at least a month (xi. 20), being names
given to it from the two events which happened there.
[Tabekah, Kibroth - Hattaavah, Quails.]
These stations seem from Xuni. x. 11-13, 33-36, to
have lain in the wilderness of Paran ; but possibly
the passage x. 11-13 should come after that 33-36,
and the " three days' journey " of ver. 33 lie still
m the wilderness of Sinai; and even Taberah and
Hazeroth, reached in xi., xii., also there. Thus
they would reach Paran only in xii. 16, and x. 12
would be either misplaced or mentioned by antici
pation only. One reason for thinking that they did
not strike northwards across the Tih range froja
Sinai, is Moses' question when they murmur,
" Shall all the fish of the sea be gathered together
for them, to suffice them?" which is natural
enough if they were rapidly nearing the Gulf of
'Akabah, but strange if they were posting towards
the inland heart of the desert. Again the quails a
are brought by "a wind from the sea " (Num. xi.
22, 31); and various travellers (Burckhardt, Schu
bert, Stanley) testify to tbe occurrence of vast
flights of birds in this precise region between Sinai
and 'Akabah, Again, Hazeroth, the next station
after these, is coupled with Dizahab, which last
seems undoubtedly the Dahab on the shore of that
gulf (Deut. i. 1, and Robinson, ii. 187, note). Thia
makes a seaward position likely for Hazeroth. And
as Taberah, previously reached, was three days'
journey or more from the wilderness of Sinai, they
had probably advanced that distance towards the N.
E. and 'Akabah ; and the distance required for this ¦
will bring us so near el-HiJidherah (the spot which
Dr. Kobinson thought represented Hazeroth in fact
as it seems to do in name), that it may be accepted
as a highly probable site. Thus they were now not
far from the coast of the Gulf of 'Akabah. A spot
which seems almost certain to attract their course
was the Wady eP.iin, being t/ie water, the spring,
of that region of the desert, which would have
drawn around it such " nomadic settlements as are
implied in the name of Hazeroth, and such as that
of Israel must have been " (S. if P. p. 82). Dr.
Robinson remarks, that if this be so, this settles the
course to Kadesh as being up the 'Arabah, and not
across the plateau of et- Tili.i> Dr. Stanley thinks
this identification a " faint probabiUty," and the
more uncertain as regards identity, " as the name
Hazeroth is one of the least likely to be attached
to any permanent or natural feature of the desert,"
meaning "simply the inclosures, such as may still
be seen in the Bedouin villages, hardly less transi
tory than tents" (S. tf P. pp. 81, 82). We rely,
however, rather on the combination of the various
circumstances mentioned above than on the name.
The Wady Hudherdh and Wady el-' Ain appear to
run nearly parallel to each other, from S. W. t4>
N. E., nearly from the eastern extremity of the
Wady es-Sheykh, and their N. E. extremity comes
nearly to the coast, m.arking about a midway dis
tance between the Jebel Miisa and 'Akabah. In

confusion possible. Mr. Tyrwhitt says that quails, or
small partridges, which he supposes rather meant, ai'e,
as far as he saw, more common in the desert than lo
custs. & BobinsoD, «6. sup.; comp. Stewart, T. and _A
p. 115.

3528

WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING

Hazeroth the people tarried seven days, if not more
(Num. xi. 35, xii.), during the exclusion of Miriam
from the camp while leprous. The next permanent
encampment brought them into the wilderness of
Paran, and here the local commentator's greatest
difficulty begins.
For we have not merely to contend with the fact
that time has changed the desert's face in many
parts, and obliterated old names for new; but we
have beyond this, great obscurity and perplexity in
the narrative. The task is, first, to adjust the un
certainties of the record inter se, and then to try
and make the resultant probability square with the
main historical and physical facts, so far as the
latter can be supposed to remain unaltered. Be
sides the more or less discontinuous form in which
the sacred narrative meets us in Exodus, a small
portion of Leviticus, and the greater part of Num
bers, we have iu Num. xxxiii. what purports at
first sight to be a complete skeleton route so far as
regards nomenclature; and we further find in
Deuteronomy a review of the leading events of the
wandering, or some of them, without following the
order of occurrence, and chiefly in the way of allu
sion expanded and dwelt upon. Thus the authority
is of a threefold character. And as, in the main
narrative, .whole years are often sunk as uneventful,
so in the itinerary of Num. xxxiii., on a near view
great chasms occur, which require, where all else
bespeaks a severe uniformity of method, to be
somehow accounted for. But, beyond the ques
tions opened by either authority in itself, we have
difficulties of apparent incongruity between them ;
such as the omission in Kxodus of Dophka and
Alush, aud of the encampment by the Eed Sea;
and, incomparably greater, that of the fact of a visit
to Kadesh being recorded in Num. xiii. 26, and
again in xx. 1, while the itinerary mentions the
name of Kadesh only once. These difficulties
resolve themselves into two main questions. Did
Israel visit Kadesh once, or twice ? And where is
it now to be looked for ?
Before attempting these difficulties individually,
it may be as well to suggest a caution against
certain erroneous general views, whieh often appear
to govern the considerations of desert topography.
One is, that the Israelites journeyed, wherever they
could, in nearly a straight line, or took at any rate
the shortest cuts between point and point. This
has led some delineators of maps to simply register
the file of names in Num. xxxiii. 16-36 from
Sinai in rectilinear sequence to Kedesh, wherever
they may happen to fix its site, then turn the line
backward from Kadash to Ezion-geber, and then
either to Kadesh again, or to Mount Hor, and
thence again, and here correctly, down the 'Arabah
southwards and round the southeastern angle of
Edom, with a sweep northwards towards Moab.
[n drawing a map of the Wanderings, we should
mark as approximately or probably ascertained the
stations from Etham to Hazeroth, after which no
track should be attempted, but the end of the line
should lose itself in the blank space; and out of the
same blank space it raight on tiie western side of
the 'Arabah be similarly resumed and traced down

u He speaks of certain stations as *^ plac^es entre
le mont Sinai et Gades, espace qui ne comporte pas
plus de onze journt^es selon Taffirmatioa bien positive
de Deut^ronome " (i. 1). He then proceeds to argue,
'^ Ces dix-sept stations r^unies aux trois que nous
renons d'examiner, en ferment vingt ; 11 y a done

the 'Aj'abah, etc., as before described. AU the
sites of intervening stations, as beiug either plainly
conjectural merely, or lacking any due authority
should simply be marked in the margin, save that
Moserah may be put close to Mount Hor, and
Ezion-geber further S. in the 'Arabah [Ezion-
geber], from which to the brook Zered and
onwards to the plains of Moab, the ambiguities lie
in narrow ground, and a probable light breaks ou
the route and its stations.
Another common error is, that of supposing that
from station to station, in Nura. xxxiii., always
represents a day's march merely, whereas it is
plain from a comparison of two passages iu Ex.
(xv. 22), and Num. (x. 33), that on two occasions
three days formed the period of transition between
station and station, and therefore, that not day's
marches, but intervals of an indefinite number of
days between permanent encampments, are intended
by that itinerary ; and as it is equally clear irom
Num. ix. 22, that the ground may have been
occupied for " two days, or a month, or a year,"
we may suppose that the occupations of a longer
period only may be marked in the itinerary. And
thus the difficulty of apparent chasms in its enu
meration, for instance the greatest, between Ezion-
geber and Kadesh (xxxiii. 35-37) altogether van
ishes. An example of the error, consequent on n^lect-
ing to notice this, may be seen in Laborde's map
of the Wanderings, in his Commentary on Exodus
and Numbers, in which the stations named in
Num. xxxiii. 18-34 are closely crowded, but be
tween those of ver. 35 and those of ver. 37 a large
void follows, and between those of ver. 37 and those
of ver. 39 a still larger one, both of which, since on
referring to the text of his Commentary « we find
that the intervals all represent day's marches, are
plainly impossible.
Omitting, then, for the present all consideration
of the previous intervals after Hazeroth, some sug
gestions concei'uing the nomenclature and possible
sites of which will be found in articles under their
respective names, the primary question, did the
people visit Kadesh twice, or once only, demands to
be considered.
We read in Num. x. 11, 12, that "on the
twentieth day of the second month of the secoud
year .... tlie children of Israel took their jour
neys out of the wilderness of Sinai, and the cloud
rested in the wilderness of Paran.'''' The latter
statement is probably to be viewed as made by
anticipation ; as we find that, after quitting Kib
roth-Hattaavah and Hazeroth, " the people pitched
in the wilderness of Paran " (Num. xii. 16). Here
the grand pause wis made while tbe spies, " seut,"
it is again impressed upon us (xiii. 3), "from the
wildemess of Paran," searched the land for "forty
days," and returned " to Moses and to Aaron, and
to all the congregation .... unto ihe zoUdei-ness
of Paran io Kadesh." This is the fii-st. mention
of Kadesh in the narrative of the Wanderings
(vv. 25, 26). It may here be observed that an
inaccuracy occurs in the rendering of Moses' direc
tions to the spies in the A. V. of xiii- 17,

neuf stations .... dont on ne sait que fiiire." The
statement quoted from Deuteronomy, wLethcr genuine
or au annotation that lias crept into tlie text, merely
states the distance aa ordinarily known and travelleui
and need not indicate that the Israehtes croflsed it at
that rate of progress.

WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING

3529

"ijet you up by this way southioard'^ (35.33),
where " by the South,'** i. e. by the border lying in
that direction from Palestine, is intended, as is fur
ther plain from ver. 22, " And they ascended by the
south and came to Hebron," i. e. they went mn^tk-
ioard.<^ From cousiderations adduced under Ka-
i)K3H, it seems that Kadesh probably means firstly,
a region of the desert spoken of as having a rela
tion, sometimes with the wilderness of Paran, and
sometimes with that of Zin (comp. vers. 21, 26);
and secondly, a distinct city within that desert
limit. Now all the conditions of the narrative of
the departure and return of the spies, and of the
consequent despondency, murmuring, and penal
sentence of wandering, will be satisfied by sup
posing that the name " Kadesh " here means the
region merely. It is observable, also, that Kadesh
ia not naraed as the place of departure, but only as
that of return. From Paran is the start; but from
Zin (both regions in the desert) the search com
mences. And this agrees with the political geogra
phy of the southern bolder, to which the wilderness
of Zin is always reckoned as pertaining,'' whereas
that of Paran always lies outside the promised
land. Natural features of elevation, depression,
and slope, '^ are the only tokens to which we can
reasonably trust in deciding where the Paran wil
derness ends, and that of Zin begins. It has been
proposed under Kadesh to regard part of the
'Arabah, including all the low ground at the south
ern and southwestern extremity of the Dead Sea,
as the wilderness of Zin. [Zin.J Then the broad
lower northeastern plateau, including both its
slopes as described above, will be defined as the
Paran wilderness proper. If we assume the higher
superimposed plateau, described above, to bear the
name of "Kadesh" as a desert district, and its
southwestern raountain wall to be " the mountain
of the Amorites," then the Parau wilderness, so
iar as synonymous with Kadesh, will mean most
naturally the region where that mountain wall from
Jebel 'AMIf en-Nakah to Jebel Mukhrah, and
perhaps thence northward along the other side of
the angle of the highest plateau, overhangs the
lower terrace of the Tih. Moses identifies the
coming " to Kadesh Barnea " ^ with the coming to
'* the raountain of the Amorites ' ' (Deut. i. 1 9, 20 ),
whence the spies were also despatched (vv. 22,
23), which is said to have been from " Paran " in
Num. xiii. 3. Suppose the spies' actual start to
have been made from somewhere on the watershed
of the two slopes of ei-Tih, the spies' best way
then would have been by the Wady el-Jerafeh
into and so up the 'Arabah: this would be begin
ning " from the wilderness of Zin," as is said in
Num. xiii. 21. Then, most naturally, by his
dtfection to thera, "go up hito the mountain ^^
(Num. xiii, 17), which he represents as acted on in

* Tiie word for « southward " would be HS^S)
M found in Ez. xl. 24 ; Josh. xvii. 9, 10. The word
3p|l appears to mean the " dry " country, and hence
to become the appellative for the region on the south
of Judah aud Simeon where springs were scarce ; see
The Negeb by Rev. E. Wilton, pref. viii.
b Num. xxxiv. 4 ; Josh. xv. 3.
*! For some good remarks on the level of the deserfc
and the slope between the south country, Dead Sea,
and the 'Arabah, see Robinson, i. 687.
<* For "Barnea," as perhaps a Horite proper name,
•» Kadesh, note 6. 222

Deut. i. 24, " and they turned and went up into
the mount-ain," he meant them to mount the
higher plateau, supposed the region Kadesh. By
their "turning " in order to do so, it may be in
ferred that their course was not direct to their
object, as indeed has been supposed in taking them
along the 'Arabah and again up its western side by
the passes el-Khurdr and es-SHfd (Zephath).e By
these passes they must have left Zin or the 'Arabah,
there being no choice. During the forty days of
their absence, we may suppose the host to have
moved from the watershed into the Kadesh-Parau
region, and not at this period of their wanderings
to have touched the city Kadesh at all. This is
quite consistent with, if it be not even confirmed
by, the words of the murmurers in xiv. 2, 3,
"Would God , we had died in this wilderness I
And wherefore hath the Lord brought us unto
this land;" and throughout the denunciation
which follows, evidently <fii the sarae spot, the
words "the wilderness," and "this wilderness,"
often recur, but frora first to last there is no men
tion of a " city."
Now, iu Deut. i. 19, where these proceedings
pass in review before Moses, in his words to the
people, there is, strictly speaking, no need to men
tion Kadesh at all, for the people were all the time
in the wilderness of Paran. Yet this last is so wide
a term, reaching almost from the 'Arabah to near
the Egyptian frontier, that Moses might naturally
use some more precise designation of the quarter
he meant. He accordingly marks it by the prox
imity of Kadesh. Thus, the spies' return to " the
wilderness of Paran to Kadesh " means to that part
of the lower plateau where it is adjacent to the
higher, and probably the eastern side of it. I'he
expression " from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza '"
is decisive of an eastern site for the former (Josh.
X. 41).
Here, as is plain both from Num. xiv. 40-45 and
from Deut. i. 41-44, followed the wayward attempt
of the host to win their way, in spite of their sen
tence of prohibition, to the " hill " (Num. xiv.
40-45, Deut. i. 41-44) or "mountain" of the
Amalekites and Canaanites, or Amorites, and their
humiliating defeat. They were repulsed in trying
to force the pass at Hormah (or Zephath, Judg. i.
17), aud the region of that defeat is called " Seii*,"
showing that the place was also known by its Horite
name ; and here perhaps the remnant of the Horites
were allowed to dwell by the Edomites, to whose
border this territory, in the message of Num. xx.
16, is ascribed. [Kadesh.] Here, frora the
notice in Num. xiv. 25, that these "Amalekites
and Canaanites dwelt in ihe valley,'' we may sup
pose that their dwelling was where they would find
pasture for their flocks, in the Wady el-Fikreh and
others tributary to el-Jeib, and that they took post

€ Mr. Wilton {Negeb, pp. 12, 198-202), following Row
lands (in WilUams), makes Zephath es-Sebata on the
northern side of the high broad plateau, supposed hero
to be the " mountain of the Amorites." On this view
the Israelites must already have won thafc eminence
from which ifc was clearly the intention of the AmDritea
to repel them ; and must, when defeated, have been
driven up hill from a position occupied in the plain
below. The position es-Siifa is on the S. side of the
high ground, and has probably always been the pass
by whioh to mount it. For all this, see Mr. Wilton's
owu map, or any one which shows hoth es~Sebata and
eS'SUfa.

3530

WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING

in the " mountain " or " hill," as barring the way
of the Israelites' advance. So the spies had gone
by looses' direction " this way, by the South (not
'southward,' as shown above), up into the moun
tain;" and this sarae way, "the way of the
spies," " through the passes of el-Khurdr and
es-Safd, was the approach to the city Kadesh
also. Here, then, the penal portion of the wanderings
commences, and the great bulk of it, comprising a
period of nearly thirty-eight years, passes over
between this defeat in Num. xiv., and the resump
tion of local notices in Num. xx., where again the
names of " Zin " and " Kadesh " are the &-st that
meet us.
The only events recorded during this period
(and these are interspersed with sundry promulga
tions of the Ceremonial Law), are the execution
of the offender who gathered sticks on the Sab
bath (Num. XV. 32-36^ the rebeUion of Korah
(xvi.), and, closely connected with it. the adjudg
ment of the preeminence to Aaron's house with
their kindred tribe, solemnly confirmed by the
judicial miracle of the rod that blossomed. This
seems to have been followed by a more rigid separa
tion between Eevi and the other tribes, as regards
the approach to the Tabernacle, than had been
practically recognized before (xvii., xviii. 22; comp.
xvi. 40).
We gather, then, from Deut. i. 46, that the
greater part, perhaps the whole, of this period of
nearly thirty-eight years, if so we may interpret
the "many days" there spoken of, was passed in
Kadesh, — the region, that is, not the city ; in
which, of course, the camp may have been shifted
at convenience, under direction, any number of
times. But Num. xx. 1 brings us to a new point
of departure. The people have grown old, or
rather again young, in their wandering* Here,
then, we are at " the desert of Zin, in the first
month," with the "people abiding in Kadesh."
By the sequel, " Miriam died there, and was buried
there," a more precise definition of locaUty now
seems intended; which is further confirmed by the
subsequent message from the same place to the
king of Edom, " Behold, we are in Kadesh, a city
in the uttermost of thy border" (v. 16). This,
then, must be supposed to coincide with the en
campment, recorded as taking place " in the wU-

« Our A. V. here seems to have viewed D'^'^nMH • T -:t
aa if derived from ^H^]^, " to spy." Gesen. renders it
" regions," and the LXX. makes it a proper name,
'AffopctV. It is not elsewhere found. Now the verb
"1?1JT1 occurs in the passage where the spies are pent
forth, Num. xiii., xiv., which gives a presumption in
favor of the A. V.
*" More properly " the Canaanitish king of Arad."
c He " took some of" the Israelites "prisoners."
It is possible the nameMosera,or plur. Moseroth, may
recall this fact ; the word nD")D (found only in
the plur.) meaning "bonds" or "fetters." This
would accord with the suggestion of the text that
Aaron's burial gave Arad the opportunity for his raid ;
for Mosera must have been near Mount Hor, where
that burial took place. It is possible that the destruc
tion of these cities may not have really taken place
till the entry into Canaan under Joshua (Josh. xii. 14 ;
¦itidg. i. 17) and may be meationed in Num. xxi. 2, S,
by anticipation only as a subsequent fulfillment of the
row recorded a& then made. It is obvious to suggest

demess of Zin, which is Kadesh," regiatered in the
ithierary (xxxiii. 36). We see then why, in that
register of specific camping-spots, there was no
necessity for any previous mention of " Kadesh;"
because the earlier notice in the narrative, where
that name occurs, introduces it not as an individual
encampment, but only as a region, within which
perpetual changes of encampment went on for the
greater part of thirty-eijjht years. We also see
that they came twice to Kadesh the region, if tlie
city Kadesh lay in it, and once to Kadesh the city;
but once only to Kadesh the region, if the city lay
without it. We are not told how the Israelitci
came into possession of the city Kadesh, nor who
were its previous occupants. The probabihty i«
that these last were a remnant of the Horites, who
after their expulsion by Edom from Mount Seir
[Edom] may have here retained their last hold on
the territory between Edom and the Canaanitish
Amorites of " the South." Probably Israel took
it by force of arms, which m%y have induced the
attack of " Arad the Canaanite," ^ who would theu
feel his border immediately threatened (Num.
xxxni. 40; comp. xxi. 1). This warUke expbitof
Israel may, perhaps, be alluded to in Judges v. 4
as the occasion when Jehovah " went out of Seir "
and " marched out of the field of Edom " to give
his people victory. The attack of Arad, however,
though with some shght success at first, only
brought defeat upon himself and destruction upon
his cities (xxi. 3)." We learn from xxxiii. 36 only
that Israel marched without permanent halt from
Ezion-geber upon Kadesh. This sudden activity
after their long period of desultory aud purposeless
wandering may have alarmed King Arad. The
itinerary takes here another stride from Kadesh to
Mount Hor- There their being engaged with the
burial of Aaron raay have given Arad his fancied
opportunity of assaulting the rear df their march,
he descending from the north whilst they also were
facing southwards. In direct connection with these
events we come upon a singular passage in Deuter
onomy (x. 6, 7), a scrap of narrative imbedded in
Moses' recital of events at Horeb long previous.**
This contains a short list of names of localities, on
comparing which with the itinerary, we get some
clew to the line of march from the region Kadesh
to Ezion-geber southwards.
We find at the part of their route in whiclr

that Modern is the Mosera of Deut. x. 6, and so Mr.
Wilton {The Negeb, p. 28, etc.) has suggested, wishing
to identify it with Mount Hor. But the received site fot
Mouut Hor is the least doubtful of all in the Exodus.
Josephus clearly identifies it as we do ; and there is a
strong improbability in a Jewish tradition fixing it in
Edomifcish or in Nabathsean territory, unless tbe testi
mony in its favor had been overpowering. Modeia
might perhaps be the hill called " Siu " (Zin?) men
tioned by Josephus as that in which Miriim was
buried {Ant. iv. 4, §§ 6, 7).
d A somewhat s'imilar fragment of narrative, but
relating to what perhaps took place duriog the time
of the allocution to the people between tbe paragraphs
of which it occurs, is found in Deut. iv. 41-43; and
indeed the mention of Aaron's death, with the date and
his age, and of the attack of Arad, both of which had
been detailed before, is hardly less ofa deviation from
the dry enumeration of stations in the itinerary itself
(Num. xxxiii. 38, 39). But it would be foreign to our
present purpose to enter on the critical questioni
which these passages suggest. We assume tbeir gen
uineness, and suppose them displaced.

WILDERNESS OF THB WANDERING

3531

Aaron's death took place, that stations named
' 13eeroth of the children of Jaakan, Mosera (where
Aaron died), Gudgodah, and Jotbath," were suc-
sessively passed through; and from Num. xxxiii.
38, we find that " Aaron went up into Mount
Hor .... and died there in the fortieth year
.... in the first day of the fifth month." As
suming for Mount Hor the traditional site over
hanging the 'Arabah, which they very soon after

this quitted, Mosera must bave been close to it,
probably in the 'Arabah itself. Now the stations
which in the itinerary come next before Faion-
geber, and which were passed in the strictly penal
wandering which commenced from the region Ka
desh, have names so closely similar thst we cannoi
doubt we are here on the sarae ground. Their
order is, however, slightly changed, standing in the
two passages as foUows : —

Conjectural Srrs.
(a.) ^Ain Hasb, N. W. in the 'Arabah.
(1.) Kusheibeh, mouth of the Wady Abu,
near the foot of Mount Hor.
^.) 'Jm Ghilrundel.
(8,) Wady el-Ghudhagidh.
(4.) Confluence of Wady el-Adhbeh with
el-Jerafeh.

Num. xxxiii. 30-35.
(a.) (Hashmonah.)
(1.) Moseroth.
(2.) Bene-Jaakan.a
(3.) Hor-hagidgad.
(4.) Jotbathah.(ICbronah.)
(Ezion-geber.)

Dedt. i. 6, 7.
(1.) Beeroth ofthe cbUdren
of Jaakan.
(2.) Mosera.
(8.) Gudgodah.
(4.) Jotbath.&

Now in Nura. xx. 14, 16, 22-29, the narrative
conducts us from Kadesh the ciiy, reached in or
shortly before " the fortieth year," to Mount Hor,
where Aaron died, a pirriion of which route is
accordingly that given in Deut. x. 6, 7; whereas
the parallel column from Nura. xxxiii. gives sub-
stiantially the same route as pursued in the early
part of the penal wandering, when fulfiUing the
command given in the region Kadesh, " turn you,
get you into the wilderness by the way of the Red
Sea" (Num. xiv. 25; Deut. i. 40), whieh com
mand we further learn from Deut. ii. 1 was strictly
acted on, and which a march towards Ezion-geber
would exactly fulfiU.
These half-obliterated footsteps in the desert may
eeeni to indicate a direction only in which Kadesh
the cityc lay. Widely different localities, frora
Petra eastward to el-Khdlesah on the northwest,
and westward to near the Jebel Hellak, have been
assigned by difierent writers. The best way is to
acknowledge that our research has not yet grasped
the materials for a decision, and to be content with
some such attempt as that under Kadesh, to fix
it approximately only, until more undoubted tokens
are obtained. The portion of the arc of a circle
with es-SUfa for its centre, and a day's journey — ¦
about fifteen miles — for its radius, will not take
in el-Khdlesah, nor Petra,'' and the former narae
seems to be traceable, with a slight metathesis,
much more probably in Chesil^ than in Kadesh./
The highest plateau is marked with the ruins of
Aboda, and on the inferior one, sorae miles S. W.
of the defile of the Wady el-Fikreh stands a round
conical hUl of limestone, mixed with sand, named
Madarah (Modura, or Modera), at a short day's
jouraey from the southern end of the Dead Sea.
Seetzen, who visited it, had had his curiosity raised
by a Bedouin legend of a village having beeu
destroyed by Allah and buried under that hill for
the wickedness of its people; and that, as a further

a See Jaaeait and Bene Jaakan for the name.
(aakan was the grandson of Seir (1 Chr. i. 42 ; comp.
Jen. xiv. C, xxxvi. 27).
b Dr. Robinson, judging from his visit, thinks that
these stations could not have lain to the S. of Mount
^or, as that region ia too poor in water to contain any
fluch place as Jotbath in Deut. x. 7, and corresponds
rather to the description given in Num. xxi. 4-6 (ii.
175). He thinks that ''Ain ct- Tayibeh is either Beeroth,
Bene Jaakan, or Moseroth, and Wady el-GhUdhdlgidh
lotbath(t6irf.). <^ Laborde {Comment, on Num. xxxiii. 36) places
Kadesh the city " prfes des sources d'Embasch au fond

attestation, human skulls were found on the ground
around it. This statement he resolved by visiting
the spot into a simple natural phenomenon of some
curious rounded stones, or pebbles, which abound
in the neighborhood. He thought it a legend of
Sodom ; and it might, with equal likelihood, have
been referred to the catastrophe of Korah (Seetaeu
Reise?!, iii. 13), which, if our sites for Kadesh the
region and Paran are correct, should have occurred
in the neighborhood, were it not far more probable
that the physical appearance of the round pebbles
having once given rise to the story of the skuUs,
the legend was easily generated to account for
them. The mountains on the west of the 'Arabah must
have been always poor in water, and forra a dreary
contrast to the rich springs of the eastern side in
Mount Seir. Erom the cliff front of this last,
Mount Hor stands out prominently (Robinson, ii,
174-180). It has been suggested [HoR Hagid-
gad] that the narae Ha-gidgad, or Gudgodah, maj
possibly be retraced in the Wady el-Ghudhdghidh,
which has a confluence with the Wady eUJerafeh.
This latter runs into the 'Arabah on the west side.
That point of confluence, as laid down in Kiepert's
map (Kobinson, Bibl. Res. i.), is about fifteen miles
from the 'Arabah's nearest point, and about forty
or forty-five from the top of Mount Hor. On the
whole it seems Hkely enough that the narae of tbis
wady may really represent that of this station,
although the latter may have lain nearer the 'Ara
bah than the wady now reaches, and this conjectu
ral identification has been adopted above. Jotbath,
or Jotbatha,J7 is described as " a land of rivers of
waters" (Deut. x. 7); and may stand for any con
fluence of wadies in suflScient force to justify that
character. It should certainly be in the southem
portion of the 'Arabah, or a little to the west of the
same. The probabilities of the whole march from Sinai,

de Ouadi Djerafi " {Wady el-Jerafeh). Dr. Robinson
thought ^Ain el-Weibeh-wa-s Kadesh, the city, or, as ht
calls it. Kadesh Barnea (see Map, vol. i., end). Dr.
Stanley remarks that there is no cliff (2?7D) there.
See his remarks quoted under Eadesh.
d Robinson puts es-SUfa at about two days'* journey
from the foot of Mount Hor, ii. 180, 181.
e As suggested in Williams's Holy City^ 5. 464.
/ The northern Kadesh, .'c Kedesh, in Naphtali
has the very same consonants in its modem Arabic
name as in the Hebrew.
g A writer in the Joumai of Sae. Lit. AprU, 1860

3532

WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING

then, seem to stand as foUows: They proceeded
towards the N. E. to the ^Ain el-H&dherdJi (Haze
roth), and thence quitted the maritime region,
striking directly northwards to el-Ain, and thence
by a route whoUy unknown, perhaps a little to
the E. of N. across the lower eastern spurs of the
et-Tih range, descending the upper course of the
Wady el-Jerafeh, until the southeastern angle
of the higher plateau confronted them at the Jebel
el-Makhrah. Hence, after dispatching the spies,
they moved perhaps into the 'Arabah, or along its
western overhanging hills, to meet their return.
Then foUowed the disastrous attempt at or near
es-SUfa (Zephath), and the penal wandering in the
\vUderness of Kadesh, with a track wholly unde
termined, save in the last half dozen stations to
i'Lzion^eber inclusively, as showu just above. They
then marched on Kadesh the city, probably up the
'Arabah by these same stations, took it, and sent
from there the message to Edom. The refusal
with which it was met forced them to retrace the
'Arabah once raore, and meanwhile Aaron died.
Thus the same stations (Deut. x. 6, 7) were passed
f^aia, with the slight variation just noticed, proba
bly caused by the command to resort to Mount
Hor which that death occasioned." Thence, after
reaching 'Akabah, and turning northeastward, they
passed by a nearly straight line towards the eastern
border of Moab.
Of the stations in the Ust from Rithmah to
Mithcah, both inclusive, nothing is known. The
latter, with the few preceding it, probably belong
to the wilderness of Kadesh ; but no line can be
assigned to the route beyond the indications of
the situation of that wilderness given above. In
the sequel to the burial of Aaron, and the refusal
of Edom to permit Israel to " pass through his
border" b (which refusal raay perhaps have been
received at Mount Hor (Moserah), though the
message which it answered was sent from the city
K^esh), occurred the necessity, consequent upon
this refusal, of the people's " compassing the land
of Edom " (Num. xxi. 4), when they were much
" discouraged because of the way," ^ and where the
consequent murmuring was rebuked by the visita
tion of the "fiery serpents" (v. 5, 6). There is
near Elath a promontory known as the Rds Um
HayCj " the mother of serpents," which seem to

connects this name with DtD, "good," from the
goodness of the water supply. This is not unlikely ;
but his view of the name n^Tii^, as from the same

•j -o .-

root as the Arabic jtj A.& ^Adhbeh, ia very doubt
ful, the £. (Heb. ^) being probably radical. How
ever, if el-^Adhbth be, aa he avers, a region of abundant
water, the place m&y correspond with Jotbath, though
the name do not. His map places it about 17 miles
N. W. of the modern extremity of tbe Gulf of 'Aka
bah — i. e. on the western side of the 'Arabah. His
general view of the route to and from Kadesh, and
ispecially of the site of Sinai and Mount Hor, is inad-
uiissible. See further towards the end of this article.
Burckhardt's map gives another watery spot with
palm-trees in the 'Arabah itself, not far from its
southern end, which might also suit for Jotbath.
a Hengstenberg {Authenticity of the Pent. ii. 356)
has another explanation of the deranged order of the
stations enumerated just above, based on the suppo
sition that in the two passages (Num. xxxiii. 30-
Deut. X. 6, 7) the march proceeded in two opposite
directions ; but this woul l obviously require a reverse

abound in the region adjacent; and, if ne may
suppose this the scene of that judgment, the event
would be thus connected with the Une of march
rounding the southern border of Mount Seir, laid
down in Deut. ii. 8, as being " through the way
of the plain {i. e. the 'Arabah) fi^ra Elath and
from Ezion-geber," whence " turning northward,"
having " compassed that mountain (Mount Seir)
long enough," they " passed by the way of the
wilderness of Moab " (v. 3, 8).
Sorae permanent encampment, perhaps repre
sented by Zalmonah in Num. xxxiii. 41, 42, seems
here to have taken place, to judge from the urgent
expression of Moses to the people in Deut. n. 13:
^' Now rise up, said I, and get you over the brook
Zered," which lay further N. a little E., beuig
probably the Wctdy el-Ahsy (Robinson, ii. 157).
[Zkked.] The delay caused by the plague cf ser
pents raay be the probable account of this apparent
urgency, which would on this view have taken
place at Zalmonah ; and as we have connected the
scene of that plague with the neighborhood of
Elath, so, if we suppose Zalmonah ^ to have lain
in the Wady lihm, which has its junction with the
'Arabah close to 'Akabah, the raodern site of Elath,
thie wiU harmonize the various indications, and
form a suitable point of departure for the last stage
of the wandering, which ends at the brook Zered
(v. 14). Dr. Stanley, who passed through 'Akabah,
thus describes the spot- in question {S. ^ P. pp.84,
85): " 'Akabah is a wretched viUage shrouded in a
palm-grove at the north end of the gulf, gathered
round a fortress buUt for the protection of the
Mecca pilgrimage. . . . This is the whole object
of the present existence of 'Akabah, which stands
on the site of the ancient Elath, — ' the Palm-
Trees,' so called from the grove. Its situation,
however, is very striking, looking down the beauti
ful gulf, with its jagged ranges on each side. On
the west is tlie great black pass, down wbich the
pilgrimage descends, and from which 'Akabah
(' the Pass ') derives its name; on the north opens
the wide plain, or Desert VaUey, whoUy different in
character from anything we have seen, stiU called,
as it was in the days of Moses, ' the 'Arabah.'
Down this came the Israelites on their return from
Kadesh, and through a gap up the eastern hiUa
they finaUy turned off" to Moab  This is the

order of all the stations, and not the derangement of
two merely. Von Raumer thought that the line of
march threaded the 'Arabah thrice through, and,
making allowance for the mistake of giving it each
time a nearly rectilinear direction, he is not far
wrong. b Dr. Robinson thinks that by the " King's High
way " the Wady Ghuweir, opening a thoroughfare
into the heart of the Edomitish territory was meant
(ii, 157), Though the passage through Edom was
refused, the burial of the most sacred person of a kin
dred people may have been aUuwed, especially if
Mount Hor was already, as Dr. Stanley suggests, a
local sanctuary of the region {S. ^ P. pp. 97, 98).
c The way up the 'Arabah was toUsome, and is ao
at this day. Dr. Robinson calls it "a still more
frightful desert " than the Sinaitic (ii. 184). The pass
at the head of the Gulf of "Akabah towards et- Tih '^ is
famous for its difficulty, and for the destruction which
it causes to animals of burden " (i. 175). Only two
travellers, Laborde ana Bertou, have accomplished (or
recorded their accomplishment of) the entire length
of the 'Arabah.
d Von Raumer identifies it with Ma&n, a few min
utes to the E. of Petra.

WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING

Wady Ithn, which turns the eastern range of the
'Arabah  It is still one of the regular roads
lo Petra, and in ancient times seeras to have been
the main approach from Elath or 'Akabah 
The only published account of it is that of Laborde.
These mountains appear to be granite, tiU, as we
advance northward, we reach the entrance of the
Wady TvJ)al, where, for the first time, red sand
stone appears in the mountains, rising, as in the
Wady ePAin, architecture-wise, above gray gran
ite." Three stations, Punon," Oboth, and Ije-Abarim,
were passed between this locality and the brook or
laUey of Zered (Num. xxi. 10-12, comp. xxxiii.
43, 44), which last name does not occur in the
itinerary, as neither do those of " the brooks of
Arnon," Beer, Mattanah, Nahaliel, and Baraoth,
aU named in Num. xxi. 14-20; but the interval
between ^e-Abarim and Nebo, which last cor
responds probably (see Deut. xxxiv. 1) with the
Pisgah b of xxi. 20, is filled by two stations merely,
named Dibon-gad and Almon-diblathaim, from
whence we may infer that in these two only were
permanent halts made. [Dibon-GAD; Aomon-
DIBLATHAIM.] In this stage of their progress
occurred the "digging" of the "weU" by "the
princes," the successive victories over Sihon and
Og, and, lastly, the famous episodes of Balaam and
Phinehas, and the final numbering of the people,
followed by the chastisement of the Midianites
(Num. xxi. 17, xxii.-xxvi., xxxi, 1-12 ; comp.
Deut. U. 24-37, iii. 1-17).
(Jne passage remains in which, although the
event recorded belongs to the close of Moses' life,
relating to his last words in the plain of Moab,
and as such Ues beyond the scope of this article,
several names of places yet occur which are iden
tical with some herein considered, and it remains
to be seen in what sense those places are connected
with the scene of that event. The passage in
question is Deut. i. 1, where Moses is said to have
spoken " on this side Jordan in the wilderness, in
the plain over against the Red Sea, between Paran
and Tophel, and Laban and Hazeroth and Diza
hab."*^ The words "on this side" might here

a Punon is spoken of by Jerome (Reland, p. 592) as
'^ Quondam civitas principum Edom nunc viculus in
deserto, ubi terum metalla damnatorum suppliciis
effodiuntur inter civitatem Petram et Zdaram."
Athanas. Epist. ad Sotit. Vitam Asentes, speaks of the
condemnation of a person to tbe mines of Phseno,
where he would only Uve a few days. Winer says.
Seetzen took Kalaat Phenan for Punon, referring to
Monad. Corresp. xvii. 137. Laborde {Comment, ou
Num. xxxiii. 42) thinks that the place named by
Jerome and Athanasius cannot be Punon, which he
irays lay S. E. of Petra. He adds that Burckhardt
And Von Raumer took Tufileh for Punon. He places
Oboth "dans les decombres de Butaieh {Butdhy, Rob-
Insun), laissant ainsi Maan a droite."
6 Dr. Stewart (T. ^ X. p 386) says, "The river Ar
non empties itself into the Dead Sea, and between them
rises the lofty Gebel Atarous, which ia believed to be
the Nebo or Pisgah of Scripture." He justifies this
"iorn its being the highest mountain ou the Moabitish
border, and from the hot spring Callirhoe being sit
uated at ite base, which seems to correspond with the
Ashdoth (" springs " or " streams ") of Pisgah of Deut.
Iv. 49. Ue adds that "Moses could have seen the
and of Israel from that mountain." The Arnon is,
without doubt, the Wady el-MoJeb. Ar of Moab is
ireopolis, Rabbath-Moab, now Rabba. [AB-MoAsand
ISHON.I

8533
mislead, meaning, as shown by the LXX. render
ing, irepaVi "across" or "beyond," i. e. on tha
E. side. This is a passage in which it is of little
use to examine the question by the aid of maps,
since the more accurate they are, the more probably
will they tend to confuse our view of it. The
words seem to forget that the Gulf of 'Akabah pre
sents its end to the end of the 'Arabah (" plain "),
and to assume that it presents the length of ita
coast, on which Dizahab {Dahab) lies. This length
of coast is regarded, then, as opposite to the 'Ara
bah; and thus the 'Arabah, in which Moses spoke,
is defined by " Paran and Tophel," lying on oppo
site edges of the Dead Sea, or rather of the whole
depression in which it lies, which is in fact the
'Arabah continued northward. Paran here is per
haps the El Paran to which Cbedorlaomer came in
Gen. xiv. 6 [Paran], and probably Tophel is the
well-known TUfileh to the N. N. E. of Petra; and
similarly the Red Sea, " over against " which it is
spoken of as lying, is defined by Dizahab on its
coast, and Hazeroth near the same. The intro
duction of " Laban " is less clear, but probably
means, from its etymology, " the white," i. e. the
chalk and limestone region, which in the mountain-
range of Tih, comes into view from the Edomitish
mobntains (Stanley, S. cf P. p. 87), and was
probably named, from that point of view, by the
paler contrast which it there offered to the rich
and varied hues of the sandstones and granites of
Mount Seir, which formed their own immediate
foreground. A writer in the Journo.l of Sac. Lit., AprU.
1860, on Sinai, Kadesh, and Mount Hoi; pro
pounds an entirely original view of these sites, in
conflict with every known tradition and hithertc
accepted theory.*^ For instance, JosephUs identi
fies Mount Hor with Petra and Kerek; Jerome
and Kosmas point to Serbdl in the granitic moun
tain region as Sinai; but this writer sets aside
I Josephus' testimony as a wholly corrupt tradition,
' invented by the Rabbis in their prejudice against
the Idumaeans, in whose territory between Eleu
theropolis, Petra, and Elath (see Jerome on Obad.),
he asserts they aU lay. [Edomites.] Kadesh

c Via niiiys -isnaa pi^n in???
3nT ''^^ are the words of the Heb. text, from whioh
thi^LXx! "offerB some divergencies, being as follows ;
Trepav TOv 'lopSavov ev rjj eprjlita Trpos SvirfMus rrKifirior
TTJS kpvQpa'; eaXacrtrq? avaliiirov '^apav To^dA., Kal Ao^ov
Kul Ai\i>v Kal KiLTo-XRVirei. Tbe phrase ?l^Z"Dj if
" Red Sea," be, as the LXX. confirms, the true meaning,
is here abridged into V]^D. The word n3n5?3 was
possibly differently read by the LXX. (query, 3"^^3,
as if "the evenihg " were="the west," Sva-p^ai),
whilst 9apav Toifi6\ looks as though it were meant for
one compound name ; and tbe two last names are trans
lated, Hazeroth being — " inclosures," and Di-zahab —
" the golden." N. B Hazeroth elsewhere is repre
sented by 'Acmpue (Num. xi. 35, xii. 16).
d Some incidental errors of this writer, though un
important, may assist in forming an estimate of hia
work. Thus he identifies Petra witb Bozrah, the for
mer being the capital of the later Nabatliieans, the lat-
ter that of the Edom of tbe prophetic period and lo
cally distinct. Again he says, " Of all tho people in
the un' verse, the race most detested by the Jeivs wen

3534

WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING

the city, and perhaps Kadesh Barnea, did so lie,
and possibly Klusa, now el-Khdlesah, may retain
a trace qf "Kadesh," several types of which no
menclature are to be found in the region lying
thence southward [Kadesh] ; but el-Khdlesah Ues
too far N. and W. to be the Kadesh Barnea to
which Israel came "by the way of the spies," and
which is clearly in far closer connection with Ze
phath {es-SUfa) than el-Khdlesah could be. On
the contrary, there seems great reason for thinking
that, had so well-known and historical a place as
Elusa been the spot of any great event in the his
tory of the Exodus, the tradition would probably
have been traceable in some form or other, whereas
there is not a trace of any. Kadesh, again, lay
" in the uttermost of the border " of Edom. Now,
although that border may not have lain solely E.
of the 'Arabah, it is utterly inconsistent with
known facts to extend it to Elusa ; for then the en
emies encountered > in Hormah would have been
Edomites, whereas they were Amalekites, Canaan
ites, and Amorites; and Israel, in forcing the pass,
would have been doing wbat we know they entirely
abstained from — attempting violence to the terri
tory of Edom. The " designs " which this writer
attributes to the "Rabbis,'* as regards the period
up to Josephus' time, are gratuitous imputations;
nor does he cite any authorities for this or any
other statement. Nor was there any such feeUng
against the Idumaeans as he supposes." They an
nexed part of the territory of Judah and Simeon
during the Captivity, and were subsequently, by
the warlike Maccabees, annexed themselves, received
circumcision and the Law, by which an Edomite
might, " in the third generation," enter the con
gregation of Israel (Deut. xxiu. 8), so that by the
New Testament period they must have been fully
recognized. The Jews proper, indeed, still speak
oT them as "foreigners," but to them as having
the place of kinsmen, a common share in Jerusa
lem, and care of its sanctity as their " metropolis ; "
and Josephus expressly testifies that they kept the
Jewish feasts there {Ant. xvii. 10, § 2; comp. B.
J. iv. 4, §§ 4, 5). The zealots and the party of
order both appealed to their patriotism, somewhat
as in our KebeUion both parties appealed to the Scots.
It remains to notice the natural history of the
vrilderness which we have been considering. A
number of the animals of . the Sinaitic region have

the Idumseans." That race has generally been
thought, on good authority, to be the Samaritans.
o Some feeling of rivalry there no doubt was ; but
this writer vastly exaggerates it, in supposing that the
.Jewish llJLbbis purposely obUterated genuine tradi
tions, which referred these sites to Idumsean territory
— that of a circumcised and vanquished race who had
accepted the place of " proselytes of the covenant " —
in order to transfer them to what waa then the terri
tory of the purely Gentile and often hostile Nabathse
ans. Surely a transfer the other way would have been
far more likely. Above all, what reason is there for
thinking that tbe Kabbis of the period busied them
selves with such points at all? Zeal for sites is the
growth of a later age. There is no proof that they
ever cared enough for Mount Hor to falsify for the
sake of it. As regards Jebel Odjme being Sinai, the
writer seems to have formed a false conception of
Odjme, wbich be draws a^ a prominent mountain
boss in the range of TJi, taking that range for Horeb,
and the prominent mountain for Sinai. The best
maps show that it had no such predominance. They
jive it {e. g. Kiepert's) as a distinct but less clearly

been mentioned. [Sinai.] The domestic cattir
of the Bedouins wiU of course he found, but camels
more numerously in the drier tracts of et-Tih.
Schubert {Reiten, u. 354) speaks of Sinai as not
being frequented by any of the larger beasts ol
prey, nor even by jackals. The Uou has become
very rare, but is not absolutely unknown in the re
gion {Negeb, pp. 46, 47). Foxes and hyenas, Kitter
(xiv. 333) says, are rare, but Mr. Tyrwhitt men
tions hyenas as common in the Wady Mughara ;
and Ritter {ibid.), on the authority of Burckhardt,-
ascribes to the region a creature which appears to
be a cross between a leopard and a wolf, both of
which are rare in the Peninsula, but by whidt
probably a hyena is to be understood. A leopard-
skin was obtained by Burckhardt on Sinai, and a
fine leopard is stated by Mr. Tyrwhitt to have been
seen by some of his party in their ascent of Um
Shaumer in 1862. Schubert continues his list in
the hp'ax Syriacus, the ibex,* seen at TUfUeh in
flocks of forty or fifty together, and a pair of whose
horns, seen by Burckhardt {Asab. pp. 405, 406) at
Kerek., measured 3^ feet in length, the webr,c the
shrew-mouse, and a creature which he calls the
"spring-maus " ^ {Mus jaculus or jerboa?), also a
canis famelicus, or desert-fox, and a Uzard known
as the Agama Sinaiiica, which may possibly be
identical with one of those described below. Harea
and jerboas are found in Wady Feirdn. Schubert
quotes {ibid, note) Ruppell as having found specie
mens of helix and of coccinella in this wildemess;
for the former comp. ForskAl, Icones Rei-um Na-
tur. Tab. xvi. Schubert saw a fine eagle in the
same region, besides catching specimens of thrushi
with stonechat and other song-birds, and speaks of
the warbUng of the birds as being audible from the
mimosa bush. Clouds of birds of passage were
visible in the Wady Murrah. Near the same
tract of wildemess Dr. Stanley saw " the sky dark
ened by the flights of innumerable birds, which
proved to be large red-legged cranes, 3 feet iu
height, with black and white wings, measuring 7
feet from tip to tip " {S. <f P. p. 82). At Tlfi-
Jileh crows abound. On Serbdl Dr. Stewart saw
the red-legged partridge ( Tent and Khan, p. 117;
comp. Burckhardt, Syria, p. 534); and the bh^
" katta,'* in some parts of the Peninsula, comes
in such numbers that boys sometimes knock over
three or four at a single throw of a stick.* Bas-

defined and apparently lower range, falling back into
the northern plateau in a N. W. direction from abont
the most southerly point of tbe Tih ; which, from aU
the statements regarding it, is a low, horizontal range
of limestone, with no such prominent central point
whatever. Russegger describes particularly the mo^n^
ing by the wall-like partition of "Edjme" to the pla
teau of Edjme itself. " The height," he says, " whiot
we had here to mount is in no wise considerable,^'
and adds, " we had now arrived at the plateau " (iW-
sen, iii. 60, 61).
b Mr. Tyrwhitt commends tbe flesh of the ibex u
superior to any of the deer tribe that he had ever
eaten. c Or Uabr, ^,, " feU similis sine caudS he>
bipbagus monticola caro incolis edulis " (Forsk&l, D*-
scrip:. Anim. v.).
d Seetzen (iii. 41) saw boles in the earth, made, ho
thought, by mice, in going from Hebron to Madara.
e Probably these birds have furnished a story to
PHny, oftheir settling by night on the yards o* shipf
I in such vast numbers as to sink them (H. A. JS )•

WILDERNESS OF THB WANDERING

3535

lelquist, who saw it here and in Egypt, calls it a
partridge, smaller than ours, and of a grayish
color (p. 20-1). Kitter (xiv. 333) adds linnets (?),
ducks, prairie-bii'da, heath-cocks, larks, a specimen
of finch, besides another small bird, probably red
breast or chaffinch, the varieties of falcon known as
the brachydactylus and the niger, and, of courae,
on the coast, sea-swallows, and mews. Flocks of
blue rock pigeons were repeatedly seen by Mr.
Tyrwhitt. Seetzen, going from Hebron to Madara, raakes
mention of the following animals, whose names
were mentioned by his guides, though he does not
say that any of them were seen by himself: wolf,
porcupine, wild-cat, ounce, mole, wild ass, and thi«e
not easily to be identified, the Sellek, dog-shaped,«
the Anasch, which devours the gazelle, and the
Ikkajib, said to be small and in shape like a hedge
hog. Seetzen's list in this locality also includes
certain reptiles, of which such as can be identiHed
are explained in the notes: el-Melledsha, Umm
tl'Szleiman, el-Lidscha or Leja,^ eUHarraba or
Birba," Dscherrar or Jarrdreh,'t el-Ddb, other
wise Dude,'^ el-ilanne oi Hanan,/ el^Liffed ; and
among birds the partridge, duck, stork, eagle,!?
vultm-e (er-RaMiam), crow (el-Grab), kite (Hi-
ddyeh),^ and an unknown bird called by him l/ni-
Salet. His guides told him of ostriches as seen
near Bteidha on the way from Hebron to Sinai,
and he saw a nightingale, but it seems at no great
distance to the south of Hebron. The same writer
also mentions the edible lizard, el-Dsob, as fre
quently found in most parts of the wilderness, and
his third volume has an appendix on zoology, par
ticularly describing, and often with illustrations,
many reptiles and serpents of Egypt and Arabia,
without, however, pointing out such as are peculiar
to the wilderness. Among these are thirteen vari
eties of lizard, twenty-one of serpent, and seven of
frog, besides fifteen of Nile-fish. Laborde speaks
of serpents, scorpions, and black-scaled lizards,
which perforate the sand, as found on the eastern
border of Edom near TUfileh (Comm. on Num.
xxjiii. 42). The MS. of Mr. Tyrwhitt speaks of
starting " a large sand-colored lizard, about 3 feet
long, exactly like a crocodile, with the same bandy
look about his fore-legs, the elbows turning out
enormously." He is described as covered not only
u With this compare the mention by Burckhardt
(up. Ritter, xiv. 333) of a great wild-dog spoken of by
the Bedouins, and thought by Bitter to be perhaps the
lame as the Derban of the Hedjaz desert.
' LsIlJ, rana (Preyfag).
" Wj^, chameeleon (Fr.). Mr. Tyrwhitt speaks
rf one of these as seen by him at the entrance of
Wady es-Sheykh ou the route from Suez to Sinai by
Siirafift el-Khad'tm. which appeared green in shade
nd yellow in sunshine.
Sm,.^, scorpionum parvorum species, Scorpio
femina (Fr.).
S ^ 0 >
' v_/.ia, Lacerla .SSgypti (Fr.); and t>«45, "a
*^TOi ; " but this difference of signification seems to

" in scales, but in a regular armi r, which rattled
quite loudly as he ran." He " got up before the
dromedary, and vanished into a hole among some
retem." This occurred at the head of the Wady
Mokatteb. Hasselquist (p. 220) gives a Lacerta
Scincus, " the Seine," aa found in Arabia Petrsea,
near the Eed Sea, as well as in Upper Egypt.
which he says is much used by the inhabitants of
tbe East as an aphrodisiac, the flesh of the animal
being given in powder, and broth made of the re
cent flesh. He also mentions the edible locust,
Gryllus Arabicus, which appears to be common in
the wilderness, as in other parts of Arabia, givintr
an account of the preparation of it in food (pp. 230-
233). Burckhardt names a cape not far from
'Akabah, Rds Um Haye, from the number of se.--
peuts which abound there, and accordingly applied
to this region the description of the " fiery ser
pents " >¦ in Num. xxi. 4-9. Schubert (ii. 362)
remarked the first serpents in going from Suez and
Sinai to Petra, near el-f-Iudherdh ,• be describes
tbem as speckled. Burckhardt (Syria, pp. 499,
502) saw tracks of serpents, two inches thick, in the
sand. According to Kiippell, serpents elsewhere in
the Peninsula are rare. He names two poisonous
kinds, Cerastes and Scytalis (Ritter, xiv. 329). The
scorpion has given his name to the " Ascent of
Scorpions," which was part of the boundary of Ju
dah on the side of the southern desert. Wady es-
Zuwdrah in that region swarmed with them; and
De Saulcy says, " you cannot turn over a single
pebble in the IVedjd (a branch wady) without find
ing one under it" (De Saulcy, i. 629, quoted in
Negeb, p. 51).
The reader who is curious about the fish, mol-
lusca,* etc., of the Gulf of Suez should consult
Schubert (ii. 263, note, 298, note, and for the plants
of the same coast, 294, note). For a description of
the coral-banks of the Red Sea, see Ritter (xiv. 476
f.), who remarks that theae formations rise from
the coast-edge always in longitudinal extension
parallel to its line, bespeaking a fundamental con
nection with the upheaval of the whole stretch ol
shore from S. E. to N. W. A fish which Seetzen
calls the Alum may be mentioned as furnishing to
the Bedouins the fish-skin sandals of which they
are fond. Ritter (xiv. 327) thinks that fish may
have contributed materially to the sustenance of the
show that they cannot represent one and the same
animal, as Seetzen's t«xt would seem to intend.
f , V ^1 '"¦^ J scarahaus. 0 d^Lifrj aquila,
I Mr. Wilton {Negeb, p. 51) interprets " flying," ap
plied (Is. xxx. 6) to the serpent of tbe South, ka
" making great springs ; " and " fiery " as either de
noting a sensation caused by the bite, or else '^ red-
colored ; " since such are said to have been found by
several fcravellers whom he cites in the region between
the Dead and Red Seas.
* A number of these are delineated in ForskSI'a
Icones Rerum Nat. among the later plates : see also
his Vermes, iv., CoraiHa Maris Rubri {ibid.). Also in
Russegger's atlas some specimens of the same classeE
are engraved. Schubert (ii 370) remarks that most
of the fish found in the Gulf of 'Akabah belong to the
tribes known as Acanthurus and Cheetodon (Hassel
quist, p. 223. ) He saw a large turtle asleep and bask
ing on the shore near the castle of 'Akabah, which he
ineffectually tried to capture.

3536

WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING

Israelites in the desert (Num. xi. 22), as they are
now dried and salted for sale in Cairo or at the
Convent of St. Catherine. In a brook near the foot
of Serbdl, Schubert saw some varieties of elaphrus^
dyticus, colymbetes, gyrfnus, and other water insects
{Reise, ii. 302, note).
As regards the vegetation of the desert, the most
frequently found trees are the date-palm {Ph^nix
ddciylifera), the desert acacia, and the tamarisk.
The palms are almost always dwarf, as described in
S. ^ P. p. 20, but sometimes the " dom " palm is
seen, as on the shore of the Gulf of 'Akabah (Schu
bert, ii. 370; comp. Robinson, i. 161). Hassel
quist, speaking of the date-palm's powers of suste
nance, says that some of the poorer families in Upper
Egypt live on nothing else, the very stones being
ground into a provender for the dromedary. This
tree is often found in tufts of a dozen or more to
gether, the dead and living boughs interlacing over
head, the dead and living roots intertwiiiiug below,
and thus forming a canopy in the desert. The
date-palms in Wady Tur are said to be all num
bered and registered. The acacia is the Mimosa
Nilotica, and this forms the most common vegeta
tion of tbe wilderness. Its Arabic name is es-
Seydl ( JLaaw), and it is generally supposed to
have furnished the *' Shittim wood " for the Taber
nacle (Forskal, Desci\ Plant. Cent. vi. No. 90;
Celsii Hierob. i. 498 f. ; Ritter, xiv. 335 f.).
[Shittah-tree.] It is armed with fearful thorns,
which sometimes tear the packages on the camels'
backs, and of course would severely lacerate man or
beast. The gum arabic is gathered from this tree,
on which account it is also called the Acacia gum-
mifera. Other tamarisks, beside the mamiifera,
mentioned above, are found in the desert. Grass
is comparatively rare, but its quantity varies with
the season. Robinson, on finding some in Wady
Sumghy, N. E. from Sinai, near the Gulf of 'Aka^
bah, remarks that it was the first his party had
seen since leaving the Nile. The terebinth {Pis-
Uichia terebinthus, Arab. Butm) « is well known in
the wadies about Beer-sheba, but in the actual wil
derness it hardly occurs. For a full description of
it see Robinson, ii. 222,223, and notes, also i. 208;
and comp. Cels. Hlerobot. i. 34. The "broom,"
of the variety known as retem (Heb. and Arab.),
rendered in the A. V. by "juniper," is a genuine
desert plant; it is described (Robinson, i. 203, and
nate) as the largest and most conspicuous shrub
therein, having very bitter root-s, and yielding a
quantity of excellent charcoal, which is the staple,
if one may so say, of the desert. The following
are mentioned by Schubert (ii. 352, 354)'' as found
a Seetsea met with it (iii. 47) at about 1 hour to the
W. of Wady el-'' Ain, between Hebron and Sinai ; but
fche mention of small cornfields in the same neighbor
hood shows that the spot has the character of an oasis.
b Schubert's floral catalogue is unusually rich. He
travelled with an e.«ipecial view to the natural history
of the regions visited. His -tracks extend from Cairo
through Suez, Ayuu Musa, and Tor. by way of Serbal,
to Sinai, thence to Mount Hor and Petra ; thence by
Madara and Hebron to Jerusalem : as well as in the
northern region of Palestine and Syria. His book
should be consulted by all students of this bmnch of
the subject.
'• Both these arc found in cultivated grounds only.
d Shown in Forsklira Icones Rer. Natur, tab. xi.,
vbere several kinds of zygophyllum are delineated.
e Probably the same as iihe retem raentioned above.

within the limits of the wilderness : Mespilus Aan
onia, Colutea haleppica, Atraphaxia spinosa, Kphe-
dra alaba, Cytisus uniflorus, and a Cynoraoriiim n
highly interesting variety, compared by Schubert
to a well known Maltese one. To these he adds
in a note {ibid.) : Dactylis memphitica, Gagea
reticulata, Rumex vesicarius, Artemisia Judaica
Leyssera discoidea, Santolina fragrantissima, Seri-
ola, Lindenbergia Sinaica, Lamium amplexicaule,c
Stachys affinis. Sisymbrium iris, Anchusa Milleri,
Asperugo procumbens, Omphalodes intermedia,
Dsemia cordata. Reseda canesceus, and pruinosa,
Reaumuria vermiculata, Fumai-ia parviflora, Hyp&-
coum pendulum, Cleome trinervis, ^rua tomen-
tosa, Malva Honbezey, Fagonia,^ Zygophyllum
coccineum,'^ Astragalus Fresenii, Genista mono-
sperma.e Schubert (ii. 357) also mentions, as found
near Abu Suiceir, N. E. of Sinai, a kind of sage,
and of what is probably goat's-rue, also (note, ib^.)
a iine variety of Astragalus, together with Linaria,
Ijotus, Cynosurus echinatus, Bromus tectorum, and
(p. 365) two varieties of Fergularia, the procera
and the tomentosa.
In the S. W. region of the Dead Sea grows the
singular tree of the apples of Sodom, the Ascle^m
gigantea f of botanists. Dr. Robinson, who gives
a full description ofit (i. 522, 523), says it might be
taken for a gigantic species of the milk-weed or
silkweed found in the northern regions of the U. S.
He condemns the notion of Hasselquist (pp. 285,
287, 288) as an error, that the fruit of the Solanum
melongela when punctured by a tenthredo, resulted
in the Sodom apple, retaining the skin uninjured,
but wholly changed to dust withiu {ihid. p. 524).
It is the ' Osher of the Arabs. Robinson also men
tions willows, hollyhocks, and hawthorns in the Si
naitic region, from the first of which the Rds Suf
safeh, "willow-head," takes its name (i. 106, 109;
Stanley, S, cf P. p. 17). He saw hyssop {jddeli)
in abundance, and thyme {zd'ter), and in the
Wady Feirdn the colocynth, the kirdhy or W-
dee,o a green thorny plant with a yellow flower;
and in or near the 'Arabah, the juniper i^arar),
the oleander {difleh), and another shrub like it, the
zukndm, as also the plant el-Ghudah, resembling
the retem, but larger (i. 83, 110; ii. 119, endnote,
124, 126). He also describes the GhUrkhUd, which
has been suggested as possibly the " tree " cast by
Moses into the waters of Marah (Ex. xv. 25). It
grows in saline regions of intense heat, bearing a
small red berry, very juicy, and slightly acidulous.
Being constantly found amongst brackish pools, the
bane and antidote " would thus, on the above
supposition, be side by side, but as the fruit ripens
in June, it could not have been ready for its sup-

/ Many varieties otjlsc^ep'fl^, especially (the Cordata^
are given by Forsk&l {Descr. Plant. Cent. ii. 49-51}- A
writer in the English Cydopced. of Nat. Hist, support*
the view of Hasselquist. whieh Dr. Kobinson condenans,
calling this tree a Solanum, and ascribing to a ten
thredo the phenomenon which occurs in its fruit. [See
ViKB OP Sodom.]

'is^r^

arboris rarse nomen in deserto cres-

centic ci^us flores flaviores sunt quam planta
[ VM\« {wars, memecylon tinctorium) appellata"
(Freytag). For this and most of the notes on tli»
Arabic names of plants and anims-hi, tb< preeeu*
writer is indebted to Mr. E. S. Poole.

WILDERNESS OP THE WANDERING

3537

posed use in the early days of the Exodus (Robin
ion, i. 66-69). He adds in a note that Forslca
gives it (Flor. jEg. Arab. p. Ixvi.), as the Pega-
mm retusmn, but that it is more correctly the Ni-
traria tridentata of Desfontaines (Fkrra Atlant. i,
372). The mountain Um Shaumer takes its name
from the fennel found upon it, as perhaps may Ser
idt from the se)', myrrh, which "creeps over its
ledges up to the very summit," — a plant noticed
by Dr. Stanley as "thickly covering" with its
"shrubs" the "natural basin " which surmounts
ed-Deir, and as seen in the Wady Seyal, N. E.
from Sinai (S. cf P. pp. 17, 78-80). Dr. Stanley
also notices the wild thorn, from which the Wady
Sidn takes its name, the fig-tree which entitles
another wady the " Father of Fig-trees " (Abii
Hamad), and in the Wady Seyal, "a yellow flow
ering shrub called abeithiran, and a blue thorny
plant called silleh." Again, northeastwards in
Wady ePAin were seen " rushes, the large-leaved
plant called eslier," and further down the " lasaf,
or caper plaut, springing from the clefts." Seet
zen's mesembryanthemum, described above, page
3521, note b, is noticed by Forskal, who adds that
uo herb is more common in sandy desert localities
than the second, the nodijlorum, called in Arabic
the ghasul (Jj^uuLa). Hasselquist speaks of a
mesemb, which he calls the ".fig-marigold," as
found m the ruins of Alexandria; its agreeable
BaUish-aromatic flavor, and its use by the Egyp
tians in salads, accord closely with Seetzen's de
scription. Seetzen gives also Arabic names of two
plants, one called ickedum by the guides, described
as of the size of heath with blue flowers : the other
named Subbh-el-dich, found to the north of Wady
ePAin, which had a club-shaped sappy root, ranged
a foot high above the earth, having scales instead
of leaves, and covered, when he saw it, with large,
golden flowers clinging close together, till it seemed
like a httle ninepin (Kegel). Somewhat to the
south of this he observed the " rose of Jericho "
growing in the dreariest and most desolate solitude,
and which appears always to be dead (Reisen, iii.
46, ,54). In the region about Madara he also
found what he calls " Christ's-thorn," Arab, el-
Aussitcii, and an anonymous plant with leaves
broader than a tulip, perhaps the esher mentioned
above. The following list of plants between Hebron
and Madara is also given by Seetzen, having prob
ably been written down by hira from hearing them
pronounced by his Bedouin guides, and some ac
cordmgly it has not been possible to identify with
any known names, — eUKhiirrdy, mentioned in
the previous column, note e ; el-Bureid, a hyacinth,
wliose small pear-shaped bulb is eaten raw by (she
Bedouins, el-Aiia," el-Dschei-ra, eUSphdra (or
Zafrd?],l> eUErbian, el-Gdime, Schekera (or
8hakooreeyeh),c el-Metndn, described as a small

¦"^;

f^ nomen arboris crescentis iu arenis,
lore saligneo, fructu ziziphino amaro, radicibus ram-
ilisgue rubrla, cujus recentiore fructu vescuntur ea-
tueli, eortice autem coria conclonantur " (Freyt.). Ifc
rows to a man's height, with a flower like the Salia:
.Egyptittca, but smaller, with a fruit like the ji^^abe,
ind the root red.
.^.^ 0 -
' »'wi3, rula sykeitr'is (Freyt,\

shrub, el-Hmim, el-Schillueh, possibly the same as
that called silleh, as above, by Dr. Stanley, el-
Khdla. (or Khal),<t el-HandeguJe (or Handakook) •
el-J.iddemina, el-Hadddd, KaU, Addon eLHammdi
(or 'Addn el-Bimdr)./ Some more rare plants,
precious on account of their products, are the fol
lowing: Balsamum Aaronis, or nux behen, called
by the Arabs Festuck el- Ban, from which an oil is
extracted having no perfume of its own, but scented
at pleasure with jessamine or other odoriferous leaf,
etc., to make a choice unguent. It is found in
Mount Sinai and tipper Egypt: Cucurbita Ldge-
naria, Arab. Charrah, found in Egypt and the
deserts of Arabia, wherever the mountains are cov
ered with rich soil. The tree producing the famous
balsam called " of Mecca," is found many days'
journey from that place in Arabia Petraea. Lin-
nteus, after some hesitation, decided that it was a
species of Amyris. The olibanum frankincense Is
mentioned by Hasselquist as a product of the des
ert ; but the producing tree appears to be the same
as that which yields the gum arabic, namely, the
Mimosa nilotica, mentioned above. The same
writer mentions the Schoemnthus officinalis, " cam
el's hay," as growing plentifully in the deserts of
both tbe Arabias, and regards it as undoubtedly
one of the precious, aromatic, and sweet plants,
which the Queen of Sheba gave to Solomon (Has
selquist, pp. 256, 288, 296, 297; comp. pp. 250, 251,
300). Fuller details on the facts of natural history
of the region will be found in the writers referred
to, and some additional authorities may be found
in Sprengel, Historia Rei Herb. vol. ii.
Besides these, the cultivation of the ground by
the Sinaitic monks has enriched their domain with
the choicest fruit-trees, and with a variety of other
trees. The produce of the former is famed in the
markets of Cairo. The cypresses of the Convent
are visible far away among the mountains, and
there is a single conspicuous one near the "cave of
Elias " on Jebel Miisa. Besides, they have tbe
silver and the common poplar, with other trees, for
timber or ornament. The apricot, apple, pear,
quince, almond, walnut, pomegranate, ohve, vine,
citron, orange, corneUan cherry, and two fruits
named in the Arabic schelluk and bargik, have
been successfuUy naturalized there (Robinson, i.
94 ; Seetzen, iii. 70, &c. ; Hasselquist, p. 425 ; S. if-
P. p. 52). Dr. Stanley views these as mostly intro
duced from Europe; Hasselquist on the contrary
views them as being the originals whence the finest
varieties we have in Europe were first brought.
Certainly nearly all the above trees are common
enough in the gardens of Palestine and Dama.scug.
[The present writer wishes to acknowledge the
kindness of the Rev. R. S. Tyrwhitt of Oxford, in
allowing him a sight of a valuable MS. read by
that traveller before the Alpine Club. It is ex
pected to be published in the Journal of that body,

° 20\ftjCw cichorium ; intyhus (ForskiM, Flor
J^ypt. ap. Preyt.). Succory or endive. CoBdrilla
(MS. notes).
d A\ ^ nomen plantse regionis Nedjid pecuUaria
cui est iloB ; caulis exiguus ; Laser ; Buta (freyt.).
J ^ « -
¦-¦- VA 1 ^j Lotus-plant (Freyt.). Distinct,
It should seem, ftom the lote-tree, or nubk fa specias
of the bird's-foot trefoil ?). Melilot (MS. no' «8).
/ Comfrey (MS. notes).

3538 WILL
but wa£ not in print when this paper went to press.
The references to Mr. Tyrwhitt in the preceding
article, either relate to fhat MS., or to his own re
marks upon the article itself, which he inspected
whilst in the proof sheet] H. H.
* The desert of ei-Tih, which is so thoroughly
treated in this article, is Leing traversed at the
present time (1870), under the auspices of the Pal
estine Exploration Fund, by Mr. E. H. Palmer,
-wh ) fias had large experience as an eastern traveller,
and is familiar with the Arabic language ; aided by
Mr. C. v. Tyrwhitt Drake, of the University of
Cambridge, who is making observations as a natu
ralist. Two letters have been published from Mr.
Palmer ( Quart. Statement of ihe Fid. Expl. Fund,
No. v. pp. 254-259), dated at Natchl, the point from
which his exploration of the interior region of the
Tih coramences. His investigations, if completed,
promise to throw light on difEcult, obscure, and un
known points, relating to this deeply interesting
tract. Compare addition to Sinai, Amer. ed.
S. W.
* An addition to the present article, giving tlie
important results of the exploration referred to, has
been expected frora the Rev. F. W. Holland, mem
ber of the Royal Geog. Society. Should it be re
ceived in season, it will appear at the end of this
volume. A.
* WILL is often used in the A. V. of the N.
T. in such a way that the force of the original is
lost or obscured to the common reader, who takes
it as merely the sign of the future tense, though it
really represents QeKu or ^oiiXofjiat, " to desire,"
" to will," "to purpose." Thus "Herod mill kill
thee" (Luke xiii. 31) means "Herod desires (or
designs) U> kill thee " (BeKei ae arroKTeivai).
" The lusts of your father ye ivilt do " (fleAere
TroUiv, John viii. 44) — better " ye love to do " (Al
ford), or " ye are ready to do " (Noyes). " I loill
put you in reraerabrance" (Jude 5, ^oi>\o/j.ai, etc.),
should be " I loish to remind you " (Noyes). For
other examples, see Matt. v. 40, xi. 14, 27, xvi. 24,
25, XX. 26, 27; Mark viii. 34, 35, x. 43, 44; Luke
Ix. 23, 24, X. 22; John v. 40, vii. 17, ix. 27; Rom.
xiii. 3; 1 Cor. xiv. 35; 1 Tim. v. 11; 2 Tim. iii.
12; Rev. xi. 5. A.
WILLOWS (D''2n5i 'arahim, only in pi. :
Irea', (with ^nj) Siyvov K\d5ovs iK xe'/^(^f$^ov,
KAiives iyvov: salices), undoubtedly the correct
rendering of the above Hebrew term, as is proved
by the old versions and the kindred Arabic gharab
(^_}-.i). Willows are mentioned in Lev. xxiii. 40,
among the trees whose branches were to be used in
fche construction of booths afc fche Feasfc of Taber
nacles ; in Job xl. 22, as a tree which gave shade to
Behemoth ("the hippopotamus"); in Is. xliv. 4,
wbere it is said that Israel's offspring should spring
up " as willows by the water-courses ; " in the psalm
(cxxxvii. 2) which so beautifully represents Israel's
sorrow during the time of the Captivity in Babylon,
— " we hanged our harps upon the willows in the
midst thereof." With respect to the tree upon
which the captive Israelites hung their harps, there
can be nn doubt that the weeping-willow (Salix
BabyUmica) is intended. This tree grows abun
dantly on the banks of the Euphrates, in other parts
of Asia ae in Palestine (Strand's Flora Pakeil. No.
566), and also in North Africa. Bochart haa en
deavored to show (Phaleg, i. cap. viii. ) that country

WILLOWS, BROOK OF THE
is spoken of, iu Is. xv. 7, as " the Valley of Wil.
Iowa." This, however, is very doubtful. Sprengel
(Hist. Rei Herb. i. 18, 270) seems to restrict the
'drab fco the Salix BabyUmica; but there can
scarcely be a doubt that the term is generic, and in
cludes other species of the large family of Saliai,
which is probably well represented in Palestine and
the Bible lands, such as the Salix alba, S. vimtnaiis
(osier), S. JEgyptiaca, which latter plant Sprengel
idenfcifies with the safsdf (oLiai.o) of Abul'-
fadh, cited by Celsius (Hierob. ii. 108), which
word is probably the same as fche TsaphtsapMh
(riQSpS) of Ezekiel (xvii. 5), a narae in Arabia
for a "willow." Burckhardfc (Syria, p. 644|
mentions a fountain called 'Ain Safsdf (^j.a*
oL<flA.<o), " the Willow Fountain " (Catafago,
Arabic Dictionary, p. 1061). Eauwolf (quoted in
SaiZ. Bot. p. 274) thus speaks of the safidf-
"These trees are of various sizes; the stems,
branches, and twigs are long, thin, soft, and of a
pale yellow, and have some resemblance to those tff
the birch ; the leaves are like those of the common
willow; on the boughs grow here and there shoots
of a span long, as on the wild fig-trees of Cyprus,
and these put forth in spring tender downy blos
soms like those of the poplar; the blossoms are
pale colored, and of a delicious fragrance ; the na
tives pull them in great quantities, and distill from
them a cordial which is much esteemed." Hassel
quist (Trav. p. 449), under fche name of calaf, ap
parenfcly speaks ofthe same tree; and Forskal' (Be-
script. Plant, p. Ixxvi. ) identifies it with the Salix
-Xgyplia^a, wbUe he considers the sn/sr!/ to be the
S. BabyUmica. Frora these discrepancies it seems
that tbe Arabic words are used indefinitely for wil
lows of different kinds.
" The children of Israel," says Lady Callcott
(Scripture Herbal, p. 533), " still present willows
annually in their synagogues, bound up with palm
and myrtle, and accompanied with a citron." In
this country, as is well known, sprigs ot mllow-
blossoms, under the name of " palms," are often
carried in the hand, or borne on some part of the
dress, by men and boys on Palm Sunday.
Before the Babylonish Captivity the willow was
always associated with feelings of joyful prosperity.
" It is remarkable," as Mr. Johns ( The Forest
Trees of Britain, ii. 240) truly says, "for havilig
been in different ages embleniatieal of two direcllj
opposite feelings, at one time being associated with
the palm, at another with the cypress." After the
Captivity, however, this tree became Uie emblem of
sorrow, and is frequently thus alluded to in the
poetry of our own country ; and " there can be no
doubt," as Mr. Johns continues, " that the dedica
tion of fche tree to sorrow is to be traced to the
pathetic passage in the Pgalms."
Various uses were no doubt made of willows by
the ancient Hebrews, although there does not ap
pear to be any definite allusion to them. 'The
Egyptians used " flat baskets of wickerwork, similar
to those made in Cairo at the present day" (Wil
kinson, Anc. Fgpt. i. 43). Herodotus (i. 194)
speaks of boats at Babylon whose framework was rf
willow; such ooraole-ehaped boats are lepresentM
in fche Nineveh sculptures (see Rawlinson's ffa-o*-
olus, vol. i. p. 268) W. H.
WILLOWS, THE BROOK OF THE

WILLOWS, BROOK OF THE
(D''3'!p5?!7 ^n3: 71 tpdpay^ "ApajSos: torrens
lalieam). A wady mentioned by Isaiah (xv. 7) in
his dirge over Moab. His language implies that
it was one of the boundaries of the country — prob-
uhly, as Gesenius (Jesaia, i. 532) observes, the
Bouthern one. It is possibly identical with a wady
mentioned by Amos (vi. 14) as the then recognized
louthern limit of fche northern kingdom " (Fiirst,
flandwb. ; EvVald, Propheten). This latter appears
in the A. V. as " the river of the wilderness "
(nniSn 3 : 6 x^^t'-i-ph^ I'dn' Svanav ¦ torrens
deserti).' Widely as they difler in the A. V., it
will be observed that the names are all but identi-
eal in the original, the only difference being that it
J plural in Isaiah and singular in Amos. In the
latter it is ha-Arabah, the same name which is else
where almost exclusively used for the Valley of the
Jordan, the Giior of moderu Arabs. If the two
are regarded as identical, and the latter as the ac
curate form of the name, then it is probable that
the Waxh/ eUAhsy is intended, which breaks down
fchrough the southern part of the mountains of
Moab into the so-caUed Ghdr es-Safieh, at the
lower.end of the lake, and appears (though our in-
foFmation as to that locality is very scanty) to form
a natural barrier between the districts of Kerak
aud Jebal (Burckhardt, Syria, Aug. 7). This is
not improbably also the brook Zered (nachal-
Zered'^ of the earlier history.
Should, however, the Nachal ha-Arabim be ren
dered "the Willow-torrent," — which has the sup
port of Gesenius (Jesaia) and Pusey ( Comm. on
Amos, vi. 14), — then it is worthy of remark that
the name Wady Sufsdf, " Willow Wady," is still
attached to a pajrt of the main branch of the ravine
whieh descends from Kerak to the north end of the
peninsula of the Dead Sea (Irby, May d\. Either
of these positions would agree with the require
ments of eifcher passage.
The Targum Pseudojonathan translates the name
Zered by " osiers," or " baskets."
The Eev. Mr. Wilton, in his work on The
Negeb, or South Country of Scripture, endeavors
to identify the Nachal ha-Arabah of Amos with
the Wady eU/eib, which forms the main drain by
which the waters of the present Wady Arabah (the
great tract .between Jebel Sherah and the moun
tains of et-TVi) are discharged into the Ohdr es-
Safak at the southern end of the Dead Sea. (This
important wady was first described by Dr. Robin-
Boa, and an account of it will be found in this work
under the head of Arabah, vol. i. p. 135 4.) This
is certainly ingenious, but cannot be accepted as
more than a mere conjecture, without a single con
sideration in its favor beyond the magnitude of the
jVady el-Jeib, and fche consequent probability that
it would be mentioned by the Prophet.''

WINDOW

3539

P Amos is speaking of the northern kingdom only,
not of the whole nation, which excludes the interpre
tation of tho LXX., t. e., probablj- the Wady el-Arish,
and also (if it were not precluded by other reasons)
that of Qesenius, the Kidron.
* It is surely iucautious (to say the least) to speak
If a mere coujecfcure, such as this, in terms as positive
lad unhesilafcing as if it were a certain and indispu-
•able identification — " Amos is the only saored writer
who mentions the Wady el-Jeib ; which he didnes as
Ihe southern limit of Palestine .... The minute ac-
turacy of the Prophet in speaking of it as the ' nachal
¦f the Arabah ' " (Negeb, etc., pp. 34 ^i\. It has not>

Over this name Jerome takes a singular flight
in his Commentary on Is. xv. 7, connecting it with
the Orebim (A. V. "ravens ") who fed Elijah dur
ing his seclusion : " Pro salicibus in Hebneo leg-
iraus Arubim quod potest et Arabes intelligi et legi
Orbim ; id est villa in finibus eorum sita cujus a
plerisque accolse in Monte Oreb Elise prsebuisse ali-
menta dicuntur  " The whole passage is a
curious mixture of topographical confusion and
what would now be denounced as rationalism. G.
WILLS. The subject of testamentary disposi
tion is of course intimately connected with that of
inheritance, and little need be added here to what
will be found above. [Heik, vol. ii. p. 1034 f.]
Under a system of close inheritance hke that of the
Jews, the scope for bequest in respect of laud was
limited by the right of redemption and general re
entry in the Jubilee year. [Jubilee; Vows.]
But the Law does not forbid bequests by will of
such hmited interest in land as was consistent witb
those rights. The case of houses in walled towns
was different, and there can be no doubt that they
must, in tact, have frequently been bequeathed by
will (Lev. xxv. 30). Two instances are recorded in
the 0. T. under the Law, of testamentary disposi
tion: (1) effected in the case of Ahithophel (2 Sam.
xvii. 23); (2) recommended in the case of Hezekiah
(2K. XX. 1; Is. xxxviii. 1); and it may be remarked
in both, that the word " set ^ in order," marg.
" give charge concerning," agrees with the Arabic
word " command," which also means " make a
will " (Michaehs, Law of Moses, art. 80, vol. i. p.
430, ed. Smith). Various directions concerning
wills wil] be found in the Mishna, which imply dis
position of land (Baba Bathr. viii. 6, 7).
H. W. P.
WIMPLE (nnSlpD). An old Enghsh word
for hood or veil, representing the Hebrew mitptt-
chatk in Is. iii. 22. The same Hebrew word ia
translated " veil " in Ruth iii. 15, but it signifies
rather a kind of shawl or mantle (Schreeder, De
Vesiitu MiMer. Hebr. c. 16). [Dress, i. 622 o.]
W. L. B.
WINDOW (I'lVri; Chal. "13: evpls). The
window of an oriental house consists generally of
an aperture (as the word clialton implies) closed in
with lattice-work, named in Hebrew by the terms
drubbdh it (Eccl. xii. 3, A. V. " window ; " Hos.
xiii. 3, A. V. " chimney "), chdrakHme (Cant, ii
9), and eshnab f (Judg. v. 28; Prov. vii. 6, A. V.
" casement"), the two former signifying the inter
laced work of the lattice, and the third the coolness
produced by the free current of air through it.
Glass has been introduced into Egypt in modem
times as a protection against the cold of winter,
but lattice-work is still the usual, and with thj

even the supporfc that it was in the Prophet's native
district. Amos was no " prophet of the Negeb." H«
belonged to the pasture-grounds of Tekoa, not ten
miles from Jerusalem, and all his work seems to have
lain in Bethel and the northern kingdom There ia
not one tittle of evidence that he ever set foot in the
Negeb. or knew anything of it. Such statements as
these are calculated only to damage and retard the
too-faltering progress of Scripture topography.
« njS : irriKKopM : dispono. HSJ? inRabb.. »
wUl (Ges! p. 1155).

3540

WINDS

poor fche only confcrivance for closing fche window
(Lane's .I/oi/. F.,g. 1. 29). When fche lafctice-work
was open, there appears to have been nothing in
early times to prevent a person fi-om falling through
the aperture (Acts xx. 9). The windows generally
look into the inner court of the house, but in every
bouse one or more look into the street, and hence
it is possible for a person to observe the approach
of another without being himself observed (Judg.
v. 28; 2 Sam. vi. 16; Prov. vii. 6; Cant. ii. 9). In
Egypt these outer windows generally project over
the doorway (Lane, i. 27; Carne's Letters, i. 94).
When houses abut on the town wall ifc is nofc un
usual for them to have projecting windows sur
mounting the wall and looking into the country as
represented in Conybeare and Howson's 67. Paul,
i. 124. Through such a window the spies escaped
from Jericho (Josh. ii. 15) and St. Paul from
Damascus " (2 Cor. xi. 33). W. L. B.
WINDS (n^n). That the Hebrews recognized
fche existence of four prevailing winds as issuing,
broadly speaking, from the four cardinal points,
north, south, east, and west, may be inferred from
their custom of using the expression " four winds "
as equivalent to the " four quarters " of the hemi
sphere (Ez. xxxvii. 9; Dan. viii. 8; Zech. ii. 6;
Matt. xxiv. 31). The con-espondence of the two
ideas is expressly stated in Jer. xlix. 36. The
north wind, or, as it was usually called " the
north," * was naturally fche coldest of the four
(Ecclus, xUii. 20), and its presence is hence invoked
as favorable to vegetation in Cant. iv. 16. It is
further described in Prov. xxv. 23, as bringing (A.
V. "driveth away " in text; "bringeth forth " in
marg.) rain; in this case we musfc uudersfcand the
northwest wind, which may bring rain, but was
certainly not regarded as decidedly rainy. The
difficulty connected with this passage has led to the
proposal of a wholly diff'erent eense for the term
izdphini, namely hidden pUice. The northwest
wind prevails from fche autumnal equinox to the
beginning of November, and the north wind from
June to the equinox (vide Raumer's Paldst. p. 79).
The east wind e crosses the sandy wastes of Arabia
Deserta before reaching Palestine, and was hence
termed "the wind of the wildemess " (Job i. 19;
Jer. xiii. 24). It ie remarkably dry and penetrati-
ing, and has all fche effecfcs of the sirocco on vegeta
tion (Ez. xvii. 10, xix- 12; Hos. xiii. 15; Jon. iv.
8). It also blows with violence, and is hence sup
posed to be used generally for any violent wind (Job
xxvii. 21, xxxviii. 24; Ps. xlviii. 7; Is. xxvii. 8;
Ez. xxvii. 26). It is probably in this sense that it
Is used in Ex. xiv. 21, though the east, or at all
events the northeast wind would be the one adapted
to efiTecfc the phenomenon described, namely, the
partition of the waters towards the north and south,
60 that they stood as a wall on the right hand and
on the left (Kobinson, Bibl. Res. i. 57). In this as in
many other passages, fche LXX. gives fche " south"
wind (v6tos^, as the equivalent for the Greek

" * A few steps to the left of Bab-es-Shurkeh, one of
the eastern gates of Dama.icus, are two or three win
dows in the external face of tbe wall, said to open into
houses on the inside of the city. If Saul was let down
through such a window (which belongs equally to the
fiouse and the wall) the interchange of the two ex
pressions becomes still more natural. Tbe Apostle
iscaped " t.hrough the wall " (as stated in Acts), and
tu st&ted in the Epistle to the Corinthians} he escaped

WINDS
/cadim. Nor is this wholly incorrecfc, for in Egypt,
where the LXX. was composed, the south wind haa
the same characteristics that the east has ui Pales
tine. The Greek translators appear to have felt the
difficulfcy of rendering kddim in Gen. xU. 6, 23 27
because tbe parching effects of the east wind with
which the inhabitants of Palestine ire familiar are
not attributable to that wind in Egj'pt, but either
to the south wind, called in that country the kha-
mdseen, or fco fchafc known as fche samoom, which
comes fi-om fche southeast or south-southeast
(Lane's Mod. Kg. i. 22, 23). It is certainly pos
sible that in Lower Egypt the east wind may be
more parching than elsewhere in that counfcry, but
there is no more difficulty in assigning to the term
kddim the secondary sense oi parching, in this pas
sage, thau that of violent in the others before quoted.
As such at all events the LXX. treated the term
both here and in several other passages, where it is
rendered kausbn (Kaiaau, Ut. the bumei'). In
James i. 11, the A. V. erroneously understands this
expression of the burning heat of the sun. In Pal
estine the east wind prevails from February to
June (vide Raumer, p. 79). The south wind,'' which
traverses the Afabian peninsula before reaching
Palestine, raust necessarily be extremely hot (Job
xxxvii. 17 ; Luke xii. 56) ; but the rarity of the
notices leads to the inference that it seldom blew
frora that quarter (Ps. Ixxviii. 26; Cant. iv. 16j
tjiclus. xliii. 16): and even when it does blow, it
does not carry the samoom into Palestine *i(»df,»
although Robinson experienced the effects of tbig
scourge not far south of Beer-sheba (Res. i. 196).
In Egypt the south wind (khanuheen) prevails in
the spring, a portion of which in the months of
April and May is termed el-khamdseen from that
circumstance (Lane, i. 22). The west and south
west winds reach Palestine loaded with moisture
gathered from the Mediterranean (Robinson, i. 429),
" and are hence expressively termed by the Arahi
fathers of the rain " (mde Raumer, p. 79). The
Uttle cloud "like a man's hand" that rose out ot
the west, was recognized by Elijah as a presage of
the coming downfaU (1 K. xviu. 44), and the
same token is adduced by our Lord as one of the
ordinary signs of the weafcher (Luke xu. 54).
Westerly winds prevail in Palestine from Novembei
to February.
In addition to fche four regular winds, we have
nofcice in the Bible of the local squalls (\ai\ai^\
Mark iv. 37; Luke viii. 23) to which the Sea of
Gennesareth was liable in consequence of its prox
imity to high ground, and which were sufficiently
violent to endanger boats (Matt. viii. 24; John vi.
18). The gales which occasionally visit Palestine
are noticed under the head of Whirlwind. In
the narrative of St.- Paul's voyage we meet with the
Greek term lips (\l\fi) fco describe the southwest
wind; the Latin Coi-us or Caurus (xupos)i the
northwest wind (Acts xxvii. 12); and eiponKiSm
(a term of uncertain origin, perhaps a corrup
tion of GhpoKxfKtav, which appears in some MSS.

at tbe same time " through a window through the
waU." H.
' l"iD2. " D''i|7. " D'-nj; in'ri-
e The term xilaph&li (nD^bT) in Ps. xi. 6 (A '
" horrible "-) has been occasionaUV understood as refer
ring to the samoom (Olshausen, in loc. ; Gesen. TIks.
p. 418) ; but it may equally well be rendered " utatllr
ful " or " avenging '* (Hengstenberg, in toe.}.

WINE
[namely. Vat. Sin. and Alex.]), a wind of a very vio-
jent character (Tvd>avm6s) coming from E. N. E.
(Acta xxvn. 14; Conyb, and Hows. St. Paul, ii.
402). [KUROCLVDO.N.]
The metaphorical aUusions to the winds are very
numerous; the east whid, in particular, was re
garded as the symbol of nothingness (Job xv. 2;
Hoa- xii. 1), and of the wasting destruction of war
(Jer. xvui. 17), and, still raore, of fche effects of
Divine vengeance (Is. xxvii. 8), in which sense,
however, general references to violent wind are also
employed (Ps. ciii. 16; Is. Ixiv. 6; Jer. iv. 11).
Wmd is further used as an image of speed (Ps. civ.
4, "He maketh his angels winds;" Heb. i. 7),
and of transitoriness (-lob vii. 7; I's. Ixxviii. 39).
lastly, the wind is frequently adduced as a witness
of the Creator's power (Job xxviii. 25; Ps. cxxxv.
7; Eccl. xi. 5; Jer. x. 13; Prov. xxx. 4; Am. iv.
13), and as representing the operations of the Holy
Spirit (John iii. 8; Acts u. 2), whose name
inievaa) represents a gentle wind. W. L. B.
WINE. The manufacture of wine is carried
lack in the Bible to the age of Noah (Gen. ix. 20,
21), to whom the discovery of the process is appar
ently, thoU:;h not explicitly, attributed. The
natural history and culture of the vine is described
uuder a separate head. [Vine.] The only other
plant whose fruit is noticed as having been con
verted into wine was the pomegranate (Cant. viii.
2). In Palestine the vintage takes place in Sep
tember, and is celebrated with great rejoicings (Rob
inson, BibL.Res. i. 431, ii. 81). The ripe fruit was
gathered in baskets (Jer. vi. 9), as represented in
%yptiaii paintings (Wilkinson, i. 41-45), and was
carried to the wine-press. It was then placed in
the upper one of the two vats or receptacles of
which the wine-press was formed [Wia'k-phess],
and was subjected to the process of " treading,"
which has prevailed in aU ages in Oriental and
South-European countries (Neh. xiii. 15; Job xxiv.
11; Is. xvi. 10; Jer. xxv. 30, xlviii. 33; Am. ix.
13; Eev. xix. 15). A certain amount of juice
exuded from the ripe fruit from its own pressure
before the treading commenced. This appears to
have been kept separate from the rest of the juice,
and to have formed the gleukos or "sweet wine"
noticed in Acts n. 13. The first drops of juice
that reached the lower vat were termed the dema,
or "tear," and formed the first-fruits of the vintage
(arapx"! \rii/ov, LXX.) which were to be pre-
ienled to Jehovah (Ex. xxii. 29). The " treading "
waa effected by one or more men, according to the
size of the vat, and, if the Jews adopted the same
arrangements as the Egyptians, the treaders were
assisted in the operation by ropes fixed to the roof
of tbe wine-press, as represented in Wilkinson's
Anc. Eg. i. 46. They encouraged one another by
shouts and cries (Is. xvi. 9, 10 ; Jer. xxv. 30, xlviii.
33). Their legs and garments were dyed red with
the juice (Gen. xlix. 11; Is. Ixiu. 2, 3). The ex
pressed juice escaped by an aperture into the lower
vat, or was at once collected in vessels. A hand-
press was occasionally used in Egypt (Wi'ikinson, i.
45), but we have no notice of such an instrument
in the Bible. As to the subsequent treatment of
the wine, we have but httle information. Some-
limes it was preserved in its unfermented state, and

WINE

35 il

drunk as must, but more generally it was bottled
off" after fermentation, and, if it were designed to I e
kept for some time, a certain amount of lees wai
added to give it body (Is. xxv. 6). The wine con
sequently required to be " refined " or straineJ pre
viously to being brought to table (Is. xxv. G).

^wwwwwwww 1 1 ////t/tt//inii/i'ii//irr

° • The word translated " oil " when " wine aud
lU" or "com, wine, and oil "are spoken of in con-
iunoljon is not shemen (]J2t»), but yitshdr (171'$''),

Egyptian Wine-press, from Wilkinson.
The produce of the wine-press was described in
the Hebrew language by a variety of terms, indi.;-
ative either of the quality or of the use of the
liquid. These terms have of late years been sul>-
jected to a rigorous examination with a view to
show that Scripture disapproves, or, at all events,
does not speak with approval, of the use of fer
mented liquor. In order to estabhsh this position
it has been found necessary, in all cases where the
substance is coupled with terms of commendation,
to explain them as meaning either unfermented
wine or fruit, and to restrict the notices of fer
mented wine to passages of a condemnatory char
acter. We question whether the critics who have
adopted these views have not driven their argu
ments beyond their fair conclusions. It may at
once be conceded that tbe Hebrew terms translated
wine " refer occasionally to an unfermented
liquor; but inasmuch as there ai'e frequent allu
sions to intoxication in the Bible, it is clear that
fermented liquors were also in common use. It
may also be conceded that the Bible occasionally
speaks in terms of strong condemnation of the
effects of wine ; but it is an open question whether
in these cases the condcnmation is not rather di
rected against intoxication and excess, than against
the substance which is the occasion of the excess.
The term of chief importance in connection with
this subject is tirosh, which is undoubtedly spoken
of with approval, inasmuch as it is frequently
classed with ddgdn and shemen, in the triplet
" corn, wine, and oil," as the special gifts of Prov
idence " This has been made the subject of a
special discussion in a pamphlet entitled Tirosh lc
Tayin by Dr. Lee;, the object being to prove that
it nieans not wine but fruit. An examination of
the Hebrew terms is therefore unavoidable, but we
desire to carry it out simply as a matter of Biblical
criticism, and without reference to the topic which
has called forth the discussion.

which, according to Gesenius, " seems to differ frora
s/iemen as tirdsh from yayin." Shemen i« never asso
elated with tlrSsh. A.

8542

WINE

The most general term for wine is yfiyin,^ which
is undoubtedly connected with the Greek oJpos-, the
Latin umwrn, and our ** wine." It has hitherto
l>een the current opinion that the Indo-European
languages borrowed the term from the Hebrews.
The reverse, however, appears to be the case (Re
nan, Lang. Sem. i. 207): the word belongs to the
Indo-European languages, and may be referred
either to the root loe, "to weave," whence come
viere^ vimen, vitis, vitta (Pott, Etym. Foj'sch. i.
120, 230), or to the root man, " to love " (Kuhn,
Zeitschr. f. vergl. Sprachf. i. 191, 192). The
word being a borrowed one, no conclusion can .be
drawn from etymological considerations as to its
use in the Hebrew language. Tirdsh & is referred
to the root yarash, •* to get possession of," and is
applied, according to Gesenius {Thes. p. 633), to
wine on account of its inebriating qualities, whereby
it gets possession of the brain ; but, according to
Bythner, as quoted by Lees ( Tirosh, p. 52), to the
vine as being a possession {Kar' e^ox'hv) i" ^-^^
eyes of the Hebrews. Neither of these explana
tions is wholly satisfactory, but the second is less
so than the first, inasmuch as it would be difficult
to prove that the Hebrews attached such pre
eminent value to the vine as to place it on a par
with landed property, which is designated by the
cognate terms yeru^hshdh and mordshdh. Nor do
we see that any valuable conclusion could be drawn
from tbis latter derivation; for, assuming its cor
rectness, the question would still arise whether it
was on account ofthe natural or the manufactured
product that such store was set on the vine.
^Asis<^ is derived from a word signifying "to
tread," and therefore refers to the method Ijy
which the juice was expressed from the fruit. It
would very properly refer to new wine as being
recently trodden out, but not necessarily to unfer
mented wine. It occurs but five times in the
Bible (Cant. viii. 2; Is. xlix. 26; Joel i. 5, iii. 18;
Ara. ix. 13). Sobc^^ is derived from a root signi
fying to " soak " or "drink to excess." The cog
nate verb and participle are constantly used in the
latter sense (Ueut. xxi. 20; Prov. xxiii. 20, 21;
Is. Ivi. 12; Nah. i. 10). The connection between
sobe and the Latin sdpa, applied to a decoction of
must (Kitto's Cycl. b. v. Wine), appears doubtful:
the latter was regarded as a true Latin word by
Pliny (xiv. 11). Sobe occure but thrice (Is. i 22;
Hos. iv. 18; Nah. i. 10). Chemer^ (Deut. xxxii.
14), in the Chaldee chamar (Ezr. vi, 9, vii. 22)
and chamra (Dan. v. 1 ff.), conveys the notion of
foaming or ebullition., and may equally well apply
to the process of fermentation or to the frothing
of liquid freshly poured out, in which latter case it
might be used of an unfermented liquid. Mesecf
(Ps. IxxF. S*, niezegQ (Cant. vii. 2), and niim&dc ^
(Prov. xxiii. 30; Is. Ixv. 11), are connected ety
mologicaUy with misceo and " mix," and imply a
mixture of wine with some other substance: no
conclusion can be drawn from the word itself as to
the quality of the wine, whether fermented or
unfernjeiited, or as to the nature of the substance
introduced, whether spices or water. We may
further notice shecar^^ a generic term applied to all
fermented liquors except wine [Deink, Stkong] ;

o ^«i>.

b w'n^Pi.

c D'^py.

* p"n.

I ncp'^tt'^. m D'Hist

d N3D.

' "i^O-

^ 'np??-

n Otfos.

o TAdiitos. plMcepa.

» 3T.P.

» 'TTDJ20.

•¦ -1327. T ••

« "Ofos.

r KsKepaa/jLevos oKpaTOS.

WINE
chimetz,k a weak sour wine, ordinarily termed
vinegar [Viitegae] ; dshishah,l rendered « flagon
of wine " in the A. V. (2 Sam. xvi. 1 ; 1 Chr. xvi.
3; Cant, ii. 5; Hos. iii. 1), bnt really meaning
a cake of pressed raisins; and shemdrim,"' prop.
erly meaning fche " lees " or dregs of wme, but m
Is. xxv. 6 transferred to wine that had been kept
on the lees for the purpose of increasing its body.
In the New Testament we meet with the following
terms : oinos,ii answering to yayin as the general
designation of wine; gleukos," properly sweet wim
(Acts ii. 13); sikera,P a Grecized form of the
Hebrew siiecdr ; and oxos,l vinegar. In Eev. xiv.
10 we meet with a singular expression,'' Uterally
meaning mixed unmixed, evidently referring to the
custom of mingUiig wine: the two terms cannot
be used together in their Uteral sense, and hence
the former has been explained as meaning " poured
out " (De Wette in I. c).
From the terms themselves we pass on to an
examination of such passages as seem to elucidate
theu- meaning. Both yayin and tirosh are occa
sionally connected with expressions that would
apply properly to a fruit ; the former, for instance,
with verbs significanfc of gathering (Jer. xl. 10, 12),
and groicing (Ps. civ. 14, 15) ; the latter with gnlk-
ering (Is. Ixii. 9, A. V. " brought it together"),
treading (Mic. vi. 15), and withering (Is. xxiv. 7;
Joel i. 10). So again the former is used in Num.
vi. 4 to define the particular kind of tree whose
products were forbidden to fche Nazarite, namely,
the " pendulous shoot of the vine; " and the latter
in Judg. ix. 13, to denote the product of the rine.
It should be observed, however, that in most, if not
aU, the passages where these and similar expressions
occur, there is something fco denote that the fruit is
regarded not simply as fruit, but as the raw mate
rial oufc of which wine is manufactured. Thus,
for instance, in Ps. civ. 15 and Judg. ix. 13 the
cheering effects of the product are noticed, and that
these are more suitable to the idea of wine than of
fruit seems self-evident : in one passage indeed the
A. V. connects the expression '*make cheerful"
with bread (Zech. ix. 17), but this is a mere mis
translation, the true sense of the expression there
used being to nouiish or make to grow. So, again,
the treading of the grape in Mic. vi. 15 is in itself
conclusive as to, the pregnant sense in which the
terra tirdsh is used, even if it were not subsequently
impUed thafc fcbe effect of the treading was in the'
ordinary course of things to produce the yayin
which was to be drunk. In Is. Ixii. 9 the object
of tbe gathering is clearly conveyed by the notice
of diinki^ig. In Is. xxiv. 7 the iirdsh, which
withers, is paralleled with yayin in the two follow
ing verses. And lastly, in Is. Ixv. 8 the nature of
the tirosh, which is said to be found in the cluster
of the grapes, is not obscurely indicated by the sub
sequent eulogium, " a blessing is in it." Thatthe
terms " vine " and " wine " should be thus inter
changed in poetical language calls for no explansr
tion. We can no more infer from such instances
that tbe Hebrew terms mean grapeS as ft'uit,
than we could infer the same of the Latm mnm
because in some two or three passages (Plaut. Trin,
ii. 4, 125; Varr. de L. L. iv. 17; Cato, R. B.

WINE
p. 147) the term is transferred to the grape out of
nhich wine is made.
The question whether either of the above terms
ordinarily signified a solid substance would be at
ance settled b;^ a reference to the maimer in which
they were consumed. With regard to ynyin we
are not aware of a single passage which couples it
with the act of eating.<^ AVith regard to tirdsh
the case is somewhat different, inasmuch as tliat
terra generally follows " corn," in the triplet " corn,
wine, and oil," and hence the terra applied to the
consumption of corn is carried on, in accordance
with the grammatical figure zeugma, to the other
merabers ofthe clause, as in Deut. xii. 17. In the
only passage where tlie act of consuming tirdsh
alone is noticed (Is. Ixii. 8, 9), the verb is shdthdh,^
which constantly indicates theactof drinking (c. g.
Gen.ix. 21, xxiv. 22; Ex. vii. 21; Ruth ii. y), and
is the general term combuied with deal in the joint
act of " eating and drinking " (e. g. 1 Sam. xxx.
16; Job i. 4; Eccl. ii. 24). We can find no con
firmation for the sense of sucking assigned to the
term by Dr. I-£es {Tirosh., p. 61): the passage
quoted in support of that sense (i*s. Ixxv. 8) implies
at all events a kind of sucking allied to drinking
rather than to eating, if indeed the sense of drink
ing be not the more coiTect rendering of the term.
All ai'gument has been drawn against the usual
sense assigned to tirdsh, from the circumstance that
it'is generally coimected with " corn," and therefore
impUes an edible rather than a drinkable substance.
The very opposite conclusion may, however, be
drawn from this circumstance; for it may be rea
sonably urged that in any enumeration of the mate
rials needed fpr man's support, " meat and drink "
would be specified, rather than sevei'al kinds of the
former and none of the latter.
There are, moreover, passages which seem to
imply the actual manufacture of firosh by the same
process by which wine was ordinarily made. For,
not to insist on the probability that the " bringing
together," noticed in Is. Ixii. 9, would not appro
priately apply to the collecting of the fruit in the
wine-vat, we have notice of the " treading " in con
nection with tirosh in Mic. vi. 15, and again of the
''overflowing" and the "bursting out" of the
ih'6sh in the vessels or lower vat {yekeb; btroK-^-
viQv), which received the must from the proper
press (Prov. iii. 10; Joel ii. 24).
Lastly, we have intimations of the eflfect pro
duced by an excessive use of yayin and tirdsh. To
fche former are attributed the " darkly flashing eye "
(Gen. xlix. 12; A. V. " red," but see Gesen. Thes.
Append, p. 89), the unbridled tongue (Prov. xx. 1;
Is. xxviii. 7); the excitement of the spirit (Prov.
xxxi. 6; Is, V. II; Zech. ix. 15, x. 7), the enchained
affections of its votaries (Hos. iv. 11 ), the perverted
judgment (Prov. xxxi. 5; Is. xxviii. 7), the indecent
exposure (Hab. ii. 15, 16), and the sickness resulting
from the heat (chem&h, A. V. " bottles ") of wine
(Hos. vii. 5). The allusions to the effects of tirosh
are confined to a single passage, but this a most
lecisive one, namely, itlos. iv. 11, " Whoredom and
ffiue {yayin), and new wine {tirosh) take away the
neart,'' where iirdsh appears as the climax of en
grossing influence, in imraediate connection with
yayin.

WINE

3548

The impression produced on the mind by a gen
eral review of the above notices is, that both yayiti
and tirdsh in their ordinary and popular acceptation
referred to fermented, intoxicating wine. In the
condemnatory passages no exception is made in
favor of any other kind of liquid passing under
the same name but not invested with the same
dangerous quaUties. Nor again in these passages
is there any decisive condemnation of the substance
itself, which would enforce the conclusion that else
where an unfermented liquid must be understood.
The condemnation must be understood of excessive
use in any case: for even where this is not expressed,
it is implied: and therefore the instances of wine
being drunk without any reproof of the act, may
with as great a probability imply the moderate uec
of an intoxicating beverage, as the use of an unin-
toxicating one.
The notices of fermentation are not very decisive.
A certain araount of fermentation is implied in the
distension of the leather bottles when new wine waa
placed in them, and which was liable to burst ok'
bottles. [Bottle.] It has been suggested that
the object of placing the wine in bottles was to pre
vent fermentation, but that in " the case of old
bottles fermentation might ensue from their being
impregnated with the fermenting substance " ( Ti-
rosh, p. 65). This is not inconsistent with the
statement in Matt. ix. 17, but it detracts frora the
spirit ofthe comparison which implies tbe presence
of a strong, expansive, penetrating principle. It is,
however, inconsistent with Job xxxii. 19, where the
distension is described as occurring even in new
bottles. It is very likely that new wine was pre
served in the state of must by placing it in jars or
bottles, and then burying it in the earth. But ve
should be inclined to understand the passages above
quoted as referring to wine drawn off before the
fermentation was complete, either for immediate
use, or for the purpose of forming it hito sweet wine
after the raanner described by the Geoponic writers
(vii. 19) [Diet, of Attt. "Yinum"]. The pres
ence of the gas-bubble, or as the Hebrews termed
it, " the eye " that sparkled in the cup (Prov. xxiii.
31), was one of the tokens of fermentation having
taken place, and the same effect was very possibly
implied in the name khemer.
The remaining terms call for but few remarks.
There can be no question that asis means wine, and
in this case it is observable that it forms parfc of a
Divine promise (Joel iii. 18; Am. ix. 13) very much
as tirosh occurs elsewhere, though other notices
imply thafc it was the occasion of excess (Is. xlix.
26; Joel i. 5). Two out of the three passages in
which sobe occurs (Is. i. 22; Nah. i. 10) imply a
liquor that would be spoiled or wounded (the
expression in Is. i. 22, mahul, A. V. " mixed," ia
supposed to convey the same idea as the Latin
castrare applied to wine in Plin. xix. 19) by the
application of water; we think the passages quoted
favor the idea of strength rather than sweetness
being the characteristic of sdbe. The term occurs
in Hos. iv. 18, in the sense of a debauch, and the
verb accompanying it has no connection with the
notion of acidity, but would more properly be ren
dered " is past." The mingling implied in the
term mesek may have been designed either to

<* An apparent instance occurs iu Is. lv. 1, where
the "buy and eat '' nas been supposed to refer to the
¦*bny wine and milk" which follows {JSrosh, p. 94).
Sut the term rendered " buy " properly means " to

buy grain," and hence expresses in itself the anb
stance to be eaten.
& nntt.\

3544 WINE
increase, or to diminish the strength of the wine,
according as spices or water formed the ingredient
that was added. The notices chiefly favor the
forraer. view; for mingled liquor was prepared for
high festivals (Prov. ix. 2, 5), and occasions of
excess (Prov. xxiii. 30; Is. v. 22). A cup "full
mixed." waa emblematic of severe punishment (Ps.
Ixxv. 8). At the same time strength was not the
sjle object sought : the wine " mingled with
myrrh " given to Jesus, was designed to deaden
pain (Mark xv. 23), and the spiced pomegranate
wine prepared by the bride (Cant. viii. 2) may well
have been of a mild character. Both the Greeks
and Romans were in the habit of flavoring their
wines with spices, and such preparations were
described by the former as wine 6| apafidroov
KaTaa-KevaC^fxevos (Athen. i. p. 31 e), and by the
latter as aromatiies (Plin. xiv. 19, § 5). The
authority of the Mishna raay be cited in favor both
of water and of spices, the former being noticed in
Berach. 7, § 5; Pesach. 7, § 13, and the latter in
Schen. 2, § 1. In the New Testament the char
acter of the " sweet wine," noticed in Acts ii. 13,
calls for some little remark. It could not be new
wine in the proper sense of the term, inasmuch as
about eight months must have elapsed between the
vintage and the feast of Pentecost. It might have
been applied, just as mustum was by the Romans,
to wine that had been preserved for about a year in
an unfermented state (Cato, R. R. c. 120). But
the explanations of the ancient lexicographers
rather lead us to infer that its luscious qualities
were due, not to its being recently made, but to its
being produced frora the very purest juice of the
grape; for both in Hesychius and the Etyinologi-
cum Magnum the term yAeG/cos is explained to be
the juice that flowed spontaneously from the grape
before the treading commenced. The name itself,
therefore, is not conclusive as to its being an unfer
mented liquor, while the context implies the re
verse: for St. Peter would hardly have offered a
serious defense to an accusation that was not seri
ously made; and yet if the sweet wine in question
were not intoxicating, the accusation could only
have been ironical.
As considemble stress is laid upon the quality
of sweetness, as distinguished from strength, sup
posed to be implied in the Hebrew terms mesek
and sdbe, we may observe that the usual terra for
the inspissated juice of the grape, which was char
acterized more especially by sweetness, was debash,<^
rendered in the A. V. "honey" (Gen. xliii. 11;
Ez. xxvii. 17). This was prepared by hoiUng it
down either to a third of its original bulk, in which
case it was termed sapa by the Latins, and ei|/7?/ia
or a-ipaiov by the Greeks, or else to half its bulk,
in which case it was termed defrutum (Plin. xiv.
11). Both the substance and the name, under the
form of dibs, are in common use in Syria at the
present day. We may further notice a less artifi
cial mode of producing a sweet liquor from the
grape, namely, by pressing the juice directly into
the cup, as described in Gen. xl. 11. And, lastly,
there appears to have been a beverage, also of a
sweet character, produced by macerating grapes,
and hence termed the " liquor " 6 of grapes
(Num. vi. 3). These latter preparations are al
lowed in the Koran (xvi. 69) as substitutes for wine.
There can be little doubt that the wines of Pal-

t£??'7.

T : .

WINE
estine varied in quality, and were named after thf
localities in which they were made. VVe have no
notices, however, to this eifect. The only wines ol
which we have special notice, belonged to Syria:
these were the wine of Helbon, a valley near Da.
mascu.s, which in ancient times was prized at Tyre
(Ez. xxvii. 18) and by the Persian monarchs
(Strab. XV. p. 7.35), as it still is by the residents
of Damascus (Porter, Damascus, i. 333); and
the wine of Lebanon, famed for its aroma (Hos
xiv. 7).
With regard to the uses of wine in private life
there is little to reraark. It was produced on oc
casions of ordinary hospitality (Gen. xiv. 38), and
at festivals, such as marriages (John ii. 3). The
monuments of ancient Egypt furnish abundant evi
dence that the people of that country, both male
and female, indulged liberally in the use of wine
(Wilkinson, i. 52, 53). It has been inferred from
a passage in Plutarch (de Isid. 6 ) that no wine was
drunk in Egypt before the reign of Psammetichus,
and this passage has been quoted in illustration of
Gen. xl. 11. The meaning of the author seems
rather to be that the kings subsequently to Psam
metichus did not restrict themselves to the quan
tity of wine prescribed to them by reason of their
sacerdotal office (Diod. i. 70). The cultivation of
the vine was incompatible with the conditions of a
nomad life, and it was probably on this account
that Jonadab, wishing to perpetuate that kind of
Ufe among his posterity, prohibited the use of
wine to them (Jer. xxxv. 6). The case is exactly
parallel to that of the Nabathseans, who abstamed
from wine on purely pohtical grounds (Diod. xix.
94). Under the Mosaic Law wine formed the usual
drink-otfering that accompanied the daily sacrifice
(Ex. xxix, 40), the presentation of the first-fruits
(Lev. xxiii. 13), and other offerings (Num. xv. 5).
It appears from Num. itxviii. 7 that strong drink
might be substituted for it on these occasions.
Tithe was to be paid of wine (tirdsh) as of other
products, and this was to be consumed " before the
Lord," meaning within the precincts of the Temple,
or "perhaps, as may be inferred from Lev. vii. 16, at
the place where the Temple was situated (Deut. xii.
17, 18). The priest was also to receive first-fruits
of wine (tirosh), as of other articles (Deut. xviii.
4; comp. Ex. xxii. 29): and a promise of plenty
was attached to the faithful payment of these dues
(Prov. ill. '9, 10). The priests were prohibited
from the use of wine and strong drink before per
forming the services ofthe Temple (Lev. x. 9), and
the place which this prohibition holds in the nar
rative favors the presumption that the offense of
Nadab and Abihu was committed under the influ
ence of liquor. Ezekiel repeats the prohibition as
far as wine is concerned (ILz. xliv. 21). The Naz
arite was prohibited from the use of wine, or strong
drink, or even the juice of grapes during the con
tinuance of his vow (Num. vi. 3); but the adoption
of that vow was a voluntary act. The use of wine
at the paschal feast was not enjoined by the Law;
but had become an established custom, at aU events
in the postr-Babylonian period. The cup waa handed
round four times according to the ritual prescribed
in the Mishna (Pesach. 10, § 1), the third cup
fieing designated the " cup of blessing ' (1 Cor.
X. 16), because grace was then said (Pesach- 10,
§ 7). [Passovee.] The contents of the cup are •
specifically described by our Lord as " the fl'uit "
(yevi/riiia) of the vine (Matt. xxvi. 29; Mark xiv.

WISDOM OF SOLOMON 3546
to describe the whole arrangement by the term
gath, as denoting the most important portion of it;
but, with the exception of proper nanies in which
the word appears, such as Gath, Gath-rimmou,
Gath-hepher, ana Gittaim, the term yekeb ia ap
plied to it (Judg. vii. 25; Zech. xiv. 10). The
same term is also applied to the produce of the
wine-press (Num. xviii. 27, 30 ; Deut. xv. 14 ; 2 K.
vi. 27; Hos. ix. 2). The term pHrdh, as used in
Hag. ii. 16, probably refers to the contents ofa
wine-vat,« rather than to the press or vat itself.
The two vats were usually dug or hewn out of the
solid rock (Is. v. 2, margin; Matt. xxi. 33). An
cient wine-presses, so constructed, are still to be
seen in Palestine, one of which is thus described by
Robinson : '- Advantage had been taken of a ledge
of rock : on the upper side a shallow vat had been
dug out, eight feet square, rind fifteen inches deep
Two feet lower down another smaller vat was ex
cavated, four feet square by three feet deep. The
grapes were trodden in the shallow upper vat, and
the juice drawn off by a hole at the bottom (still
remaining) into the lower vat " (Bibl. Res. iii. 13T
603). The wine-presses were thus permanent, and
were sufficiently well known to serve as indications
of certain localities (Judg. vii. 25; Zech. xiv. 10).
The upper receptacle (gath) was large enough to
admit of threshing being carried on in (not " by,"
as in A. V.) it, as was done by Gideon for the
sake of conceiUment (Judg. vi. 11). [Fat.] W. L. B.
WINNOWING-. [Ageicdltuee.]
* WINTiiitv [Palestine, iii. 2317 ff. ; Ag-
EICULTCKE.] WISDOM OF JESUS, SON OF SI
EACH. [Ecclesiasticus.]
WISDOM, THE, OF SOLOMON. So
(/)ia ^aKufjitav', ^oipia l.oKofjMvros', later, ^ 2,o
thia'. Liber Sap'ientice; Sapientia Salomonis;
Sophia Salomonis. The title ^oipia was alao ap
plied to the Book of Proverbs, as by Melito ap. Eu
seb. H. E. iv. 26 (napoi/ii'ai ^ Kol ri Sofia; see
Vales, or Routh ad he), and also to Ecclesiasticus,
as Epiphanius (adv. heer. Ixxvi. p. 941, 4p rats 2o-
^iais, So\oiiavT6s re ij>l]pii ual vlou Sipi^x'' f™™
which considerable confusion has arisen.
1. Text. — The Book of Wisdom is preserved in
Greek and Latin texts, and iu subsidiary transla
tions into Syriac, Arabic, and Armenian. Of these
latter, the Armenian is said to be the most impor
tant; the Syriac and Arabic Versions being para
phrastic and inaccurate (Grimm, Finl. § 10). The
Greek text, which, as will appear afterwards, is un
doubtedly the original, offers no remarkable fea
tures. The variations in the .MSS. are confined
within narrow limits, and are not such as to sug
gest the idea of distinct early recensions; nor is
there any appearance of serious corruptions anterioi
to existing Greek authorities. The Old Latin
Version, wbich was left untouched by Jerome
(Prcef. in Liber Sal., In eo Ubro qui a plerisque
Sapientia Salomonis inscribitur . . . calamo
temperavi; tantummodo canonicas Scripturas
emendare desiderans, et studium meum certis ma
gis quam' dubiis commendare), is in the main a
close and faithful rendering of the Greek, though
it contains some additions to the original text, such
as are characteristic of the old version generally.
Matt. xxi. 33, inroKiviov (properly the vat under  . 
the press) is substituted for \nv6s, as given in o The LXX. renders the term by ^erfnrnij, tn.
M»rk »i. 1. It would, moreover, appear natural I Greek measure etiuivalent to the Hebrew hatii.
223

WINE-FAT
25: Luke xxii. 18), and in the Mishna simply as
wine. The wine was mixed with warm water on
these occasions, as implied in the notice of the
warming kettle (Pesach. 7, § 13). Hence in the
early Christian Church it was usual to mix the sac
ramental wine with water, a custom as old, at all
events, as Justin Martyr's time (Apol. i. 65). The
Pastoral Epistles contain directions aa to the mod
erate use of wine on the part of all holding office in
the Church ; as that they should not be itdpoivoi
(1 Tun. iii. 3 ; A. V. " given to wine " ), meaning
insolent and violent under the influence of wine;
"not giveu to much wine" (1 Tim. iii. 8); "not
enslaved to much wine" (Tit. ii. 3). The term
inifi\eos in 1 Tim. iii. 2 (A. V. "sober"),
expresses general vigilance and circumspection
(Schleusner, Lex. s. v.; Alford, in loc). St. Paul
advises Timothy himself to be no longer a habitual
water-drinker, but to take a little wine for his
health's sake (1 Tim. v. 23). No very satisfactory
reason can be assigned for the place which this in
junction holds in the epistle, unless it were intended
to correct any possible misapprehension as to the
preceding words, " Keep thyself pure." The pre
cepts above quoted, as well as others to the sarae
effect addressed to the disciples generally (Rom. xiii,
13; Gal. v. 21; 1 Pet. iv. 3), show the extent to
which intemperance prevailed in ancient times, and
the extreme danger to which the Church waa sub
jected from this quarter. W. L. B.
* On the Bible names of wine and its use in the
East, see articles by W. G. Schauffler in the Bibl.
Repos. for Oct. 1836 ; L. Mayer, Amer. Bibl. Re
pos. for Oct. 1839 ; and T. Laurie, Bibl. Sacra for
Jan. 1869. The view of Dr. F. R. Lees, referred
to above, is set forth in his articles Wine, Fruits,
and Drink, Strong, in the first edition (1845) of
Kitto's Cycl. of Bibl. Lit, also in his Essays, Hist.
and Oiit. on the Temperance Question, r.x>nd. 1853
(including Tirosh lo Yayin), and very fully in the
Temperance Bible- Commentary by Dr. F. R. Lees
and the Rev. Dawson Burns, Lond. 1868, Amer.
ed., with Preface by Dr. Tayler Lewis, N. Y. 1870.
They are adopted in the main by Professor G. C.
M. Douglas, art. Wine in Fairbairn's Jmp. Bible
Did., but are warmly controverted by Isaac Jen-
mngs, ai't. Wine in the 3d ed. of Kitto's Cycl. of
Bibl Lit. (1866). A.
* WINE-FAT. [Wi.ne-Peess.]
WINE-PRESS (nS; lap.';.; TTViB). From
the scanty notices contained in the Bible we gather
that the wine-presses of the Jews consisted of two
receptacles or vats placed at different elevations, in
the upper one of which the grapes were trodden,
while the lower one received the expressed juice.
The two vats are mentioned together only in Joel
iii. 13: " The press (gath) is full: the fats (yeke-
bim) overflow " — the upper vat being full of fruit,
the lower one overflowing with the must. Yekeb
is similarly applied in Joel ii. 24, and probably in
Prov. iii. 10, where the verb rendered "burst out""
in the A. V. may bear the more general sen.se of
'^abound" (Gesen. Thes. p. 1130). Gath is also
strictly applied to the upper vat in Neh. xiii. 15,
Lam. 1. 15, and Is. Ixiii. 2, with pArdh in a paral
lel sense in the following verse. Elsewhere yekeb
is not strictly applied ; for in Job xxiv. 11, and Jer.
xlviii. 33, it refers to the upper vat, just aa in

3546

WISDOM, THE, OF SOLOMON

Examples of these additions are found — i. 15, /?^-
Justitia autem moi'iis est acquisiiio ;' ii. 8, Nullum
pratum sit quod non periranseat luxuria nostra ;
ii. 17, et sciemus quas erunt novissima illius ; vi. 1,
Melior esi sapientia quam vires, et vir prudens
quam fortis. And the construction of the paral
lelism in the two first cases suggests the belief that
there, at least, the Latin reading may be correct.
But other additions point to a different conclusion:
vi. 23, diligiie lumen sapientioe omnes qui prceestis
populis; viii. 11, et fades principum mirabuniur
me ; ix. 19, quicunque placuerunt tibi domine a
principio ; xi. 5, a defecfione poius sui, et in eis
cum abundarent filii Israel IcBtaii sunt.
The chief Greek MSS. in which the book is con
tained are the Codex Sinaiticus (S), the Cod.
Alexandrinus (A), the Cod. Vaticanus (B), and
the Cod. Ephraemi rescr. (C). The entire text
is preserved in the three former; in the latter, only
considerable fragments: viii. 5-xi. 10; xiv. 19-xvii.
18;. xviii. 24-xix. 22.
Sabatier used four Latin MSS. of the higher
class for his edition : *' Corbeienses duos, unum San-
germanensem, et alium S. Theodorici ad Remos,"
of which he professes to give almost a complete
(but certainly not a literal) collation. The varia
tions are not generally important; but patristic
quotations show that in early times very considera
ble differences of text existed. An important MS.
of the book in the Brit. Mus. Egerton, 1046, Ssec.
viii. has not yet been examined.
2. Contents. — The book has been variously
divided ; but it seems to fall most naturally into
two great divisions: (1) i.-ix.; (2) x.-xix. The
first contains the doctrine of Wisdom in its moral
and intellectual aspects; the second, the doctrine
of Wisdora as shown in history. Each of these
parts is again capable of subdivision. The first
part contains the praise of Wisdom as the source
of immortality in contrast with the teaching of
sensualists (i.-v.); and next the praise of Wisdom
as the guide of practical and intellectual life, the
.stay of princes, and the interpreter of the universe
(vi.-ix.). The second part, again, follows the
action of Wisdom summarily, as preservhig God's
servants from Adam to Moses (x. 1-xi. 4), and
more particularly in the punishment of the Egyp
tians and Canaanites (xi. 5-16, xi. 17-xii.). This
punishment is traced to its origin in idolatry,
which, in its rise and progress, presents the false
substitute for Revelation (xiii., xiv.). And in the
last section (xv.-xix.) the history of the Exodus is
used to iUustrate in detail the contrasted fortunes
of the people of God and idolaters. The whole
argument may be presented in a tabular form in
the following shape : —
\. — Ch. i.-ix. The doctrine of Wisdom in iis
^iriiual, intellectual, and moral aspects.
(a.) i.-v. Wisdom the giver of happiness and
immortality.
The conditions of wisdom (i. 1-11).
Uprightness of thought (1-6).
Uprightness of word (6-11). •
The origin of death (i. 12-ii. 24).
Sin (in fact) by man's free will (i, 12-16).
The reasoning of the sensualist (ii. 1-20).
Sin (in source) by the envy of the devil
(21-24).
The godly and wicked in life (as mortal), (iii,
1-iv.).

In chastisements (iii, 1-10).
In the results of life (iii. ll-iv. 6).
In length of life (7-20).
The godly and wicked after death (v.).
The judgment of conscience (1-14),
The judgment of God —
On the godly (15, 16).
On the wicked (17-23).
(j8.) vi.-ix. Wisdom the guide of life.
Wisdom the guide of princes (vi. 1-21)
The responsibility of power (1-11).
Wisdom soon found (12-16).
Wisdom the source of true sovereignly
(17-21).
The character and realm of wisdom.
Open to all (vi. 22-vii. 7).
Pervading all creation (vii. 8-viii. 1).
Swaying all life (viii. 2-17).
Wisdora the gift of God (viii. 17-ix.).
Prayer for wisdom (ix.).
IL — Ch. x.-xix. The doctnne of Wisdom in ita
historical aspects.
(a.) Wisdom a power to save and chastise.
Wisdom seen in the guidance of God's people
from Adam to Moses (x.~xi. 4).
Wisdom seen in the punishment of God's ene
mies (xi. 5-xii.).
The Egyptians (xi. 5-xii. 1).
The Canaanites (xii. 2-18),
The lesson of mercy and judgment (19-
27).
(j3.) The growth of idolatry the opposite to
wisdom.
The worship of nature (xiii. 1-9).
The worship of images (xiii. 10-xiv, 13).
, The worship of deified men (xiv. 14-21).
The moral effects of idolatry (xiv. 22-31).
{y.) The contrast between true worshippers and
idolaters (xv.-xix.).
The general contrast (xv. 1-17).
The special contrast at the Exodus —
The action of beasts (xv. 18-x\i. 13).
The action of the forces of nature —
water, fire (xvi. 14-29).
The symbolic darkness (xvii.-xviii, 4).
The action of death (xviii. 5-25).
The powers of nature changed in their
working to save and destroy (xix. 1-
21).
Conclusion (xix. 21).
The subdivisions are by no means sharply defined,
though it is not difficult to trace the main current
of thought. Each section contains the preparation
for that which follows, just as in the classic trilogy
the close of one play shadowed forth the subject
of the next. Thus in ii. 24 b, iv. 20, ix. 18, etc.,
the fresh idea is enunciated, which is subsequently
developed at length. In this way the whole boolt
is intimately bound together, and the chiuses whicb
appear at first sight to be idle repetitions of thought
really spring from the elaborateness of its structure.
3. Unity and Integrity. — It follows from what
has been said that the book forms a complete and
harmonious whole. But the distinct treatment of
the subject, theoretically and historically, in two
parts, has given occasion from time to time for
maintauaing that it is the lyo^k of two or more
authors. C. F. Houbigant {Pivlegg. ad Sap. ei
Eccles. 1777) supposed that the first nhie chapters
were the work of Solomon, and that the translator
of the Hebrew origtnal (probably) added the latei

WISDOM, THE, OF SOLOMON

3547

chapters. Eichhom {Einl, in d. Apoc. 1795),
rightly feeling that some historical illustrations of
the action of wisdom were required by the close of
:h. ix., fixed the end of the original book at ch. xi,
1. Nachtigall {Das Buch Weish. 1799) devised a
far more artificial theory, and imagined that he
could trace in the book the records of (so to speak)
an antiphonic "Praise of Wisdom," delivered in
three sittings of the sacred schools by two com
panies of doctors. Bretschneider (1804-5), fol
lowing out the simpler hypothesis, found three
different writings in the book, of which he attrib
uted the first part (i. 1-vi. 8) to a Palestinian Jew
of the time of Antiochus Epiph., the second (vi.
9-x.) to a philosophic Alexandrine Jew of the
time of our l^ord, and the third (xii.-xix.) to
a contemporary, but uneducated Jew, who wrote
under the influence of the rudest national preju
dices. The eleventh chapter was, as he supposed,
added by the compiler who brought the three chief
parts together. Bertholdt {Einleitung, 1815) fell
back upon a modification of the earliest division.
He included cc. i.-xii. in the original book,
which he regarded as essentially philosophical,
while the later addition (xiii.-xix.) is, in his judg
ment, predominantly theological. It is needless to
enter in detail into the arguments by which these
various opinioi^ were maintained, but when taken
together, they furnish an instructive example of the
course of subjective criticism . The true refutation
of the one hypothesis which they have in common
— the divided authorship of the book — is found in
the substantial harmony and connection of its
parts, iu the presence of the same general tone and
manner of thought throughout it, and yet more in
the essential uniformity of style and language which
it presents, though both are necessarily modified in
Bonie degree by the subject-matter of the different sec
tions. (For a detailed examination of the arguments
of the " Separatists," see Grimm, Exeg. Handb.
§ 4; and Bauermeister, Comm. in lib. Sap. 3 ff.)
Some, however, admitting the unity of the book,
have questioned its integrity. Eichhorn imagined
that it was left imperfect by its author {hint. p.
148); Grotius, apparently, that it waa mutilated
by some accident of time (Videtur hie liber esse
K6Kovpos)', and others have .been found, in later
times, to support each opinion. Yet it is obvious
that the scope of the argument is fully satisfied by
the investigation of the providential history of the
Jews up to the time of the occupation of Canaan,
and the last verse furnishes a complete epilogue to
the treatise, which Grimm compares, not inaptly,
with the last words of 3 Mace.
The idea that the book has been interpolated by
a Christian hand (Grotius, Gratz) is as httle worthy
of consideration as the idea that it is incomplete.
The passages which have been btought forward in
support of this opinion (ii. 12-20, 24, iii. 13, 14,
xiv. 7; comp. Homilies, p. 174, ed. 1850) lose all
their force, if fairly interpreted.
4. Style and Language. — The hterary charac
ter ofthe book is most'remarkable and interesting.
In the richness and freedom of its vocabulary it
most closely resembles the fourth book of Macca^
bees, but it is superior to that fine declamation,
both iu power and variety of diction. No existing
work represents perhaps raore completely the style
<rf composition which would be produced by the
sophistic schools of rhetoric; and in the artificial
balancing of words, and the frequent niceties of
ttrangement and rhythm, it is impossible not to be

reminded of the exquisite story of Prodicus (Xen
Memorab. ii. 1, 21), and of the subtle refinements
of Protagoras in the dialogue which bears his namft
It follows as a necessary consequence that the effect
of different parts of the book is very unequal. The
florid redundancy and restless straining after effect.
which may be not unsuited to vivid intellectual
pictures, is wholly alien from the philosophic con
templation of history. Thus the forced contrasts
and fantastic exaggerations in the description of the
Egyptian plagues cannot but displease; while it is
equally impossible not to admire the lyrical force
of the language of the sensualist (ii. 1 ff.), and of
the picture of future judgment (v. 15 ff.). The
magnificent description of Wisdom (vii. 22-viii. 1)
must rank among the noblest passages of human
eloquence, and it would be perhaps impossible to
point out any piece of equal length in the remains
of classical antiquity more pregnant with noble
thought, or more rich in expressive phraseology.
It may be placed beside the Hymn of Cleanthes or
the visions of Plato, and it will not lose its power
to charm and move. Examples of strange or new
words may be found almost on every page. Such
are avaTrohi(Tp.6s., irptor6iT\aa-Tos, eiSexOeia, oye-
pcoxia, irdCetv, aKrjKiStoTOSj ^€/j.$aa/j.6s, ^€vi-
rela', others belong characteristically to later Greek,
as 5ia&o{>\ioi/, avravaKXaaBat, aSidwTaTOs, eSpd-
^eic, e|aA.Aos, airepiairao'TOs, etc.; others, again,
to the language of phUosophy, S/j-oioTraOr]^, (^airt-
k6s, 7rpoi>0eo"Tai'ai, etc. ; and others to the LXX.,
Xepa-So), bKoKavTOfia, etc. No class of writings
and no mode of combination appear to be unfa
miliar to the writer. Some of the phrases which
he adopts are singularly happy, as Kardxpeos
oLjxaprias (i- 4), a.Ka^ou^v^o'QaL Trarepa de6v (ii-
16), iKids aQavatrias irKrjprjs (iii- 4), etc. ; and
not less so some of tbe short and weighty sen
tences in which he gathers up the truth on which
he is dweUing: vi. 19, acpdapaia iyyvs ehai
TTOie? deov, xi. 26, (peidr) 5e irdvrcov 'drt aa iari
Sea-TTOTa <p i\6^vx^- '^^^ numerous arti
ficial resources with which the book abounds are
'a less pleasing mark of labor bestowed upon its
composition. Thus, in i. 1, we have ayaTrrja-aTi
.... (ppovrfO'aTe . . . '. ev ayad6T7]Ti Kal iv
aKK6r7\Tij .... ^riT-^a-are ; v. 22, irorap-o)
. . . . a.iroT6p.(as\ xiii. 11, trepte^vaep ev/xa6as
.... Kal Tex^Vd'dp.Gvos evTrpeird>s ^ xix. 21,
T7}KThu eijr7}KT0V' The arrangement of the words
is equally artificial, but generally more effective.
and often very subtle and forcible; vii. 29, eart
yap oSttj (^ a'o<{>ia) evirpeTreaTepa 7}\iou Kal
virep naffav ^ffrpav Beffiv. tpwrl (TuyKpiPOfievr)
eupiffKeTui Trporepa. tovto p.ev yap SiaSex^Tui
vv^, a'0<plas 5e oOk avTiax^^^ KaKia.
The language of the Old Latin translation is also
itself full of interest. It presents, in great pro
fusion, the characteristic provincialisms which else
where mark the eariiest African version of tVe
Scriptures. [Comp. Vulgate, § 43.J Such arc
the substantives exterminium,refrigerium ; pr<ecla^
riias, medietas, nimieias, nativitas, supervacuitas ;
subitatio ; assistrix, doctrix, electrix ; immemoraiio
{ap.v7}a-ia); incolatus ; the adjectives contemptibilis,
inejfugibilis, odibilis ; incoinquinaius, inauxillaUis,
indisciplinatus, insensatus, insimulaius {hvvird-
KpiTOs)', fumigabundus J- the verbs angustiare,
mansueiare, improperare ; and the phrases impos-
sibilis immittere, pariibus {=partim), innumerabiUt
honestns, providentics (pi.).
5. OHginal Language. — The characteriatica of

3548

WISDOM, THE, OP SOLOMON

the language, which have been just noticed, are so
marked that no doubt could ever have been raised
as to the originality of the Greek text, if it had not
been that the book was once supposed to be the
work of Solomon. It was assumed (so far rightly)
that if the traditional title were correct, the book
must have been written in Hebrew; and the belief
which was thus based upon a false opinion as to
the authorship, survived, at least partially, for
some time after that opinion was abandoned. Yet
as it must be obvious, even on a superficial exam
ination, that the style and language of the book
show conclusively that it could not have been the
work of Solomon, so it appears with equal cer
tainty that the freedom of the Greek diction was
checked by no Aramaic text. This was well stated
by Jerome, who says, " Fertur, et iravdpeTos Jesu
filii Sirach liber, et alius }l/€uBewlypa(pos qui Sa
pientia Salomonis inscribitur . . . Secundus apud
Hebrseos nusquam est, quia et ipse stylus Gr^cara
eloquentiam redolet" {Prcef. in Libr. Salom.);
and it seems superfluous to add any further argu
ment to those which must spring frora the reading
of any one chapter. It is, however, interesting on
other grounds to observe that the book contains
unequivocal traces of the use of the LXX. where
it differs from the Hebrew: ii. 12, 4u€dpe6awp.ev
T hy diKaiov o t i 3 v or xpV f^"^ o s i] fj.7 v
4a-Ti (Is. iii. 10); xv. 10, a-Trodhs r} kapdia
avTtov (Is. xliv. 20); and this not in direct quota
tions, where it is conceivable that a Greek trans
lator might have felt justified in adopting the ren
dering of the version with which he was familiar,
but where the words of the LXX. are inwrought
into the text itself. But while the original lan
guage of the book may be regarded as certainly
determined by internal evidence, great doubt hangs
over the date and place of its composition; and it
will be necessary to examine some of the doctrinal
peculiarities which it presents before any attempt
is made to determine these points with approximate
accuracy. 6. Doctrinal Character. — The theological teach
ing of the book offers, in many respects, the nearest
approach to the language and doctrines of Greek
philosophy which is found in any Jewish writing
up to the time of Philo. There is much in the
views which it gives of the world, of man, and of
the Divine Nature, which springs rather from the
combination or conflict of Hebrew and Greek
thought than from the independent development of
Hebrew thought alone. Thus, in speaking of the
almighty power of God, the writer describes Him as
" having created the universe out of matter with
out form " (/cTtfTOiTa Thv K6a'pov 4 ^ a p. 6 p (f> o v
^Ktjs, xi. 17), adopting the very phrase of the
Platonists, which is found also in Philo {.De Vict,
Offer. § 13), to describe the preexisting matter out
of which tbe world was made, and (like Philo, De
Mund. Op. § 5) evidently implying that this inde-

o- The famous passage, ii. 12-20, has been very fre
quently regarded, both in early and modern times, as
a prophecy of the Passion of Christ, " the child of
God." It ia quoted in this sense by TettuUian (orf-y.
Marc iii. 22), Cyprian {Testim. ii. 14), Hippolytus
(jDem adAi. Jud. 9), Origen {Horn. vi. in Ex. 1.), and
many later Fathers, and Romish interpreters have
generally followed their opinion. It seems obvious,
however, that the passage contains no individual ref-
arence ; and the coincidences which exist between the
language and details in the Gospeh ftre due pari'v to

terminate matter was itself uncreated. Whaterei
attempts may be made to bring this statement intc
harmony with the doctrine of an absolute primal
creation,' it is evident that it derives its form from
Greece. Scarcely less distinctly heathen is the con
ception which is presented of the body as a mere
weight and clog to the soul (ix. 15 ; contrast 2 Cor.
v. 1-4); and we must refer to some extra- Judaic
source for the remarkable doctrine of the preexist-
ence of souls, which finds unmistakable expression
in viii. 20. The form, indeed, in which this doc
trine is enunciated differs alike from that given hy
Plato and by Philo, but it is no less foreign to the
pure Hebrew mode of thought. It is more in ac
cordance with the language of the 0. T. that tho
writer represents tbe Spirit of God as filling (i. 7)
and inspiring all things (xii. 1), but even here tbe
idea of "a soul of the world " seems to influence
his thoughts ; and the same remark applies to the
doctrine of the Divine Providence {wpdvota, xiv. ;{,
xvii. 2; comp. Grimm, ad Zoc), and of the four
cardinal virtues (viii. 7, a<a(ppo(r{)vri, <pp6v'nais, Sc
KaioffivT}, avSpeia), which, in form at least, show
the effect of Stoic teaching. There is, on the other
hand, no trace of the characteristic Christian doc
trine of a resurrection of the body; and the future
triumph of the good is entirely unconnected with
any revehition of a personal Messiah « (iii. 7, 8, v.
16; comp. Grimm on i. 12, iii. 7, fbr a good view
of the eschatology of the book). The identification
of the tempter (Gen. iii.), directly or indirectly,
with the devil, as the bringer " of death into the
world " (ii. 23, 24), is the most remarkable develop
ment of Biblical doctrine which the book contains;
and this pregnant passage, when combined with the
earlier declaration as to the action of man's free
will in the taking of evil to himself (L 12-16), is a
noble example of the living power of the Divine
teaching of the 0. T. in the face of other influences.
It is also in this point tbat the Pseudo-Solomon
differs most widely from Philo, who recognizes no
such evil power in the world, though the doctrine
must have been well known at Alexandria (comp.
Gfrorer, Philo, etc. ii. 238).^ The subsequent de
liverance of Adam from his transgression (i^eiXaro
auThv 4k wapaTTTtofiaTOS iBiov) is attributed to
Wisdom ; and it appears that we must understaid
by this, not the scheme of Divine Providence, but
that wisdom, given by God to man, which is im
mortality (viii. 17). Generally, too, it may be ob
served that, as in the cognate books, Proverbs and
Ecclesiastes, there are few traces of the recognition
of the suifuhiess even of the wise man in his
wisdom, which forms, in the P^ms and the
Prophets, the basis of the Christian doctrine of the
atonement (yet comp. xv. 2). With regard to the
interpretation of the 0. T., it is worthy of notice
that a typical significance is assumed to underlie
the historic details (xvi. 1, xviii. 4, 5, etc.); and
in one most remarkable passage (xviii. 24) the high-

the O. T. passages on which it is based, and partly to
the concurrence of each typical form of reproach and
suffering in the Lord's Passion.
b There is also considerable difference between the
sketch of the rise of idolatry m Philo, De Monardu
§ 1-5, are that given in Wisd. xiii., xiv. Other diffe^
ences are pointed out by Eichhom, EM. 172 fi. A
trace of the cabbalistic use of numbers is pointed oul
by Ewald in the twenty-on^ attributes of Wisdom (vii
22, 23).

WISDOM, THE, OP SOLOMON

3549

priestly dress is expressly described as presenting an
[mage of tho Divine glory in creation and in the
patriarchal covenant — an explanation which is
found, in the main, both in Philo {De Vita Mos.
§ 12) and Josephus {Ant. iii. 7, § 7), as well as in
later writers (comp. also xvi. 6, § 7). In connec
tion with the 0. T. Scriptures, the book, as a
whole, may be regarded as carrying on one step
further the great problem of life contained in Ec
clesiastes and Job; while it differs from both for
mally by the admixture of Greek elements, and doc-
tnnally hy ihi supreme prominence given to the
idea of immortality as the vindication of Divine
justice (comp. below, § 9).
7. The Doctrine uf Wisdom — It would be im
possible to trace here in detail the progressive de
velopment of the doctrine of Wisdom, as a Divine
Power standing in some sense between the Creator
and creation, yet without some idea of this history
no correct opinion can be formed on the position
which the book of the Pseudo-Solomon occupies in
Jewish literature. The foundation of the doctrine
is to be found in the book of Proverbs, where (viii.)
Wisdom {KhokmaJi) is represented as present with
God before (viii. 22) and during the creation ofthe
world. So far it appears only as a principle regu
lating the action of the Creator, though even in this
way it establishes a close connection between the
world, as the outward expression of Wisdom, and
Godv Moreover, by the personification of Wisdom,
and the relation of Wisdom to men (viii. 31), a
preparation is made for the extension of tlie doc
trine. This appears, after a long interval, in Ec
clesiasticus. In the great description of Wisdom
given in that book (xxiv.), Wisdom is represented
as a creation of God (xxiv. 9), penetrating the
whole universe (4-6), and taking up her special
abode with the chosen people (8-12). Her personal
existence and providential function are thus dis
tinctly brought out. In the Book of Wisdom the
conception gains yet further completeness. In this.
Wisdom is identified with the Spirit of God (ix.
17)— an identification half implied in Ecclus. xxiv,
3 — which brooded over the elements of the un
formed world (ix. 9), and inspired the prophets
(vii. 7, 27). She is the power which unites (i. 7)
and directs all tliings (viii. 1). By her, in especial,
men have fellowship with God (xiL 1); and her
action is not confined to any period, for "in all
ao;es entering into holy souls, she maketh them
friends of God and prophets " (vii. 27). So also
her working, in the providential history of Grod's
pecple, is traced at length (x.); and her power is
declared to reach beyond the world of man into
thatof spirits (viL 23).
, The conception of Wisdom, however boldly per-
Bonified, yet leaves a wide chasm between the world
and the Creator. Wisdom answers to the idea of
a spirit vivifying and uniting all things in all time,
as distiivguished from any special outward revela
tion of the Divine Person. Thus at the same time
that the doctiTne of Wisdom was gradually coii-
Btructed, the correlative doctrine of the Divine
Word wa*? also reduced to a definite shape. The
Word {Memra), the Divine expression, as it was
iinderstood in Palestine, furnished the exact com
plement to Wiadora, the Divine thought; but the
ambiguity of the (Jreek Logos {sermo, ratio) intro-
Juced considerable confusion into the later treat
ment of the two ideas. Broadly, however, it may
M said that the Word properly represented the
inediative element in the action of God, Wisdom

the mediative element of his omnipresence. Thus,
according to the later distinction of Philo, Wisdom
corresponds to the immanent Word {Adyos 4v5i^
d€T0s)f while the Word, strictly speaking, was de
fined as enunciative {A6yos Trpo<poptK6s). Both
ideas are included in the language of the propheti,
and both found a natural development in Palestine
and Egypt. The one prepared men for the reveUr-
tion of the Son of God, the other for the revelation
of the Holy Spirit.
The book of the Pseudo-Solomon, which gives
the most complete view of Divine Wisdom, contains
only two. passages in which the Word is invested
with the attributes of personal action (xvi. 12, xviii.
15 ; ix. 1 is of different character). These, however,
are sufficient to indicate that the two powers were
distinguished by the writer; and it has been com
monly argued that the superior prominence given
in the book to the conception of Wisdom is an in
dication of a date anterior to Philo. Nor is this
conclusion unreasonable, if it is probably established
on independent grounds that the book is of Alex
andrine origin. But it is no less important to ob
serve that the doctrine of Wisdom in itself is no
proof of this. There is notiiing in the direct teach
ing on this subject which might not have arisen in
Palestine, and it is necessary that we should recur
to the more special traits of Alexandrine thought
in the book which have been noticed before (§ 6)
for the primary evidence of its Alexandrine origin;
aud starting from this there appears to be, as far as
can be judged from the imperfect materials at our
command, a greater affinity in the form of the doc
trine on wisdom to the teaching of Alexandria than
to that of Palestine (comp. Ewald, Gesch. iv. 548
ff. ; Welte, Einl. 161 ff., has some good criticisms
on many supposed traces of Alexandrine doctrine in
the book, but errs in denying all).
The doctrine of the Divine Wisdom passes by a
transition, often imperceptible, to that of human
wisdom, which is derived from it. This embraces
not only the whole range of moral and spiritual
virtues, but also the various branches of physical
knowledge. [Comp. Philosophy.] In this aspect
the enumeration of the great forms of natural
science in vii. 17-20 (viii. 8), offers a most in
structive subject of comparison with the correspond
ing passages in 1 K. iv. 32-34. In addition ^to the
subjects on which Solomon wi'ote (Songs, Proverbs:
Plants, Beasts, Fowls, Creeping Things, Fishes),
Cosmology, Meteorology, Astronomy, Psychology,
and even the elements of the philosophy of history
(viii. 8), are included among the gifts of Wisdom.
So far then the thoughtful Jew had already at the
Christian era penetrated into the domain of specu
lation and inquiry, into each province, it would
seem, which was then recognized, without abandon
ing the simple faith of his nation. The fact itself
is most significant; and the whole book may be
quoted as furnishing an important corrective to the
later Roman descriptions of the Jews, which were
drawn fi-om the people when they had been almost
uncivilized by the excitement of the last desperate
struggle for national existence. (For detailed refer
ences to the chief authorities on tbe history of the
Jewish doctrine of Wisdom, see Philosophy;
adding Bruch, IHe Weisheilslehre der Hebrder,
1851..) 8. Place and Date of Writing. — Without claim
ing for the internal indications of the origin of the
book a decisive force, it seems most reasonable to
believe on these grounds that it was compcsed at

3550

WISDOM, THE. OF SOLOMON

Alexandria some tirae before the time of Philo (cir.
120-80 B. c). This opinion in the main, though
the conjectural date varies from 150-50 b. c. or
even beyond these limits, is held by Heydenreich,
Gfrorer, Bauermeister, Ewald, Bruch, and Grimm ;
and other features in the book go far to confirm it.
Without entering into the question of the extent of
the Hellenistic element at Jerusalem in the last
century b. c., it may be safely affirmed that there
is not the slightest evidence for the existence there
of so wide an acquaintance with Greek modes of
thought, and so complete a command of the re
sources of the Greek language, as is shown in the
book of Wisdom. Alexandria was the only place
wbere Judaism and Philosophy, both of the east
and west, came into natural and close connection.
It appears further that the mode in which Egyptian
idolatry is spoken of, must be due in some degree
to the influence of present and Uving antagonism,
and not to the contemplation of past history. This
is particularly evident in the great force laid upon
the details of the Egyptian animal worship (xv. 18,
etc ) ; and the description of the condition of the
Jewish settlers in Egypt (xix. 14-16) applies better
to colonists fixed at Alexandria on the conditions
of equality by the first Ptolemies, than to the im
mediate descendants of Jacob. It may, indeed, be
said justly, that the local coloring of the latter part
of the book is conclusive as to the place of its com
position. But all the guesses which have been
made as to its authorship are absolutely valueless.
The earliest was that mentioned by Jerome, which
assigned it to Philo {Prcef. in Lib. Sal. " Nonnulli
scriptorum veterum hunc esse Judiei Philonis affirm
ant "). There can be no doubt that the later and
fiimous Philo was intended by this designation,
though Jerome in his account of him makes no ref
erence to the belief {De mr. illustr. xi.). Many
later writers, including Luther and Gerhard,
adopted this view; but the variations in teaching,
which have been already noticed, effectually prove
that it is unfounded. Others, therefore, have im
agined that the name was correct, but that the
elder Philo was intended by it (G. Wemsdorff, and
in a modified form Huet and Bellarmin). But of
this elder Jewish Philo it is simply known that he
wrote a poem on Jerusalem." Lutterbeck suggested
Aristobulus. [Aristobulus.] Eichhorn, Zeller,
Jost, and several others supposed that the author
was one of the TherapeutEe, but here the positive
evidence against the conjecture is stronger, for the
book contains no trace of the ascetic discipline
which was of the essence of tbe Therapeutic teach
ing. The ophiion of some later critics that the
book is of Christian origin (Kirschbaum, C. H.
Weissc), or even definitely the work of Apollos
(Noack), is still more perverse; for not only does it
not contain the slightest trace ofthe three cardinal
truths of Christianity, the Incarnation, the Atone
ment, tlie Kesurrection of the body, but it even
leaves no room for them by the general tenor of its
teaching.''

a Tbe conjecture of J. Faber, that the book was
written by Zerubbabel, wbo rightly assumed the char
acter of a second Solomon, is only worth mentioning
as a specimen of misplaced ingenuity (comp. Welte,
Eint. p. 191 ff.). 'ugustine himself corrected the mis
take by whieh hb d.ttributed it to Jesus tlie son of
Sirach. 6 I'r. TregeUes has given a new turn to this opinion
6y supposing that the book may have been written by

9, Histw-y. — The history of the book ia ex
tremely obscure. There is no trace ofthe use ofit
before the Christian era, but this could not be
otherwise if the view which has been given of ita
date be correct. It is perhaps more surprising that
Philo does not (as it seems) show any knowledge
of it, and it is not unlikely that if his writings are
carefully examined with this object, some allusions
to it may be found which have hitherto escaped ob
servation. On the other hand, it can scarcely be
doubted that St. Paul, if not other of the Apo^Hc
writers, was familiar with its language, though he
makes no definite quotation from it (the supposed
reference in Luke xi. 49 to Wisd. ii. 12-14, is
wholly unfounded). Thus we have striking paral
lels itl Rom. ix. 21 to AVisd. xv. 7; in Rom. ix. 23
to Wisd. xii. 20; in Eph. vi. 13-17 to Wisd. v.
17-19 (the heavenly armor), etc. The coincidences
in thought or language which occur in other books
of the N. T., if they stood alone, would be insuffi
cient to establish a direct connection between them
and the Book of Wisdom ; and even in the case of
St. Paul, it may be questioned whether his ac
quaintance with the book may not have been gained
rather orally than by direct study. The same re
mark applies to a coincidence of language in the
epistle of Clement to the Corinthians pointed out
by Grimm {Ad Cm', i. 27; Wisd. xi. 22, xii, 12);
so that the first clear references to the book occur
not earlier than the close of the second centlfty.
According to Eusebius {H, E. v. 26), Irenseus
made use of it (and of the Ep. to the Hebrews) in
a lost work, and in a passage of his great work
{adv. H<m\ iv, 38, 3), Irenseus silently adopts a
characteristic clause fi'om it (Wisd. vi. 19, oupdap'
ffia de 4yyhs elvai woieT deov). From the timeol
Clement of Alexandria the book is constantly quoted
as an inspired work of Solomon, or as " Scripture,"
even by those Fathers who denied its assumed au
thorship, and it gained a place in the Canon (to
gether with the other Apocryphal books) at the
Council of Carthage, cir. 397 A. d. (for detailed
references see Canon, vol. i. pp. 364, 366). From
this time its history is the same as that of the
other Apocryphal books up to the period of the
Reformation. In the controversies which arose
then its intrinsic excellence commanded the admi
ration of those who refused it a place among the
canonical books (so Luther ap. Grimm, § 2). Fel-
lican directly affirmed its inspiration (Grimm, I. c);
and it is quoted as Scripture hi both the books of
Homilies (pp. 98-99 ; 174, ed. 1850). In later
times the various estimates which have been formed
of the book have been influenced by controversial
prejudices. In England, like the rest of the Apoc
rypha, it has been most strangely neglected, though
it furnishes several lessons for Church Festivals.
It seems, indeed, impossible to study the book dis
passionately, and not feel that it forras one of the
last links in the chain of providential connection
between the Old and New Covenants. How far it
falls short of Christian truth, or rather how com-

a Christian (otherwise unknown) named Philo In
support of this he suggests an ingenious conjectural
emendation of a corrupt passage of the Muratorian
Canon. Where the Latin text reads el Sapiintia ab
amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta, he imagines
the original Greek may have read, ical 19 So0«i SoXo-
juwi^oy VTTO *iAo)yos (for vtto i^iAwvl . . -Or again,
that Jeroine so misread the passage {Journal afrtnloL
1855, p. 87 ff.).

WISE MEN
pletely silent it is on the essential doctrines of
Christianity, has bten already seen j and yet Chris
tianity offers the only complete solution to the
problems which it raises in its teaching on the im
mortality of man, on future judgment, on the cath-
oUcity of the divine Church, and the speciality of
Revelation. It would not be easy to find elsewhere
nny pre-Christian view of religion equally wide,
sustained, and definite. The writer seems to have
looited to the east and west, to tlie philosophy of
Persia and Greece, and to have gathered from both
what they contained of Divine truth, and yet to
have clung with no less zeal than his fathers to that
central revelation which God made first to Moses,
aod then carried on by the 0. T. prophets. Thus
in some sense the book becomes a landmark by
which we may partially fix the natural limits of the
development of Jewish doctrine when brought into
contact with heathen doctrine, and measure the
aspirations which were thus raised before their
great fulfillment. The teaching of the book upon
immortality has left ineffaceable traces upon the
language of Christendom. The noble phrase which
speaks of a " hope full of immortality " (Wisd. iii.
4), can never be lost; and in mediteval art few
symbols are more striking than that which repre
sents in outward form that " the souls of the right
eous are in the hand of God " (Wisd. iii. I).
Other passages less familiar are scarcely less beai.-
tiful when seen in the light of Christianity, as xv.
3, " To know Thee (0 God) is perfect righteous
ness ; yea, to know Thy power is the root of im
mortality " (comp. viii. 13, 17; St. John xvii. 3),
or xi. 26, " Thou sparest all : for they are thine,
0 Lord, thou lover of souls " (comp. xii. 16); and
many detached expressions anticipate the language
of the Apostles (iii. 9, ^dpis koI eXeos] iii. 14,
Tijs Triareuis xapis euKeKT^ ; xi. 23, irapopas a/xap-
HjfMTa avQp^TKiiv €ty p.eT6.voiav', xvi. 7, 5(i (re
thv navToiv frarripa).
10. Commentaries. — ¦ Tlje earliest commentary
which remains is that of Rabanus Maurus (t 856 ),
who undertook the work, as he says in his preface,
because he was not acquainted with any complete
exposition of the book. It is uncertain from his
language whether the homilies of Augustine and
Ambrose existed in his time ; at least they have
now been long lost. Of the Eoman Catholic com
mentaries the most important are those of Lorinus
(t 1634), Corn, a Lapide (f 1637), Maldonatus
(t 1583), Calmet (t 1757), J. A. Schmid (1858).
Of other commentaries, the chief are those by Gro
tius (t 1646), Heydenreich, Bauermeister (1828),
and Grimm (1837). The last-mentioned scholar
has also published a new and admirable commentary
in the Kurzijef. Exeg. Handb. zu d. Apok. 1860,
which contains ample references to earlier writers,
and only errs by excess of fullness. The EngUsh
commentary of R. Arnald (t 1756) is extremely dif
fuse, but includes much illustrative matter, and
shows a regard for tha variations of MSS. and
versions which was most unusual at the time. A
(ood English edition, however, is still to be de
sired. B. F. W.
* WISE MEN, Matt. u. 1. [Magi; Stae
»p THE Wise Men.]
• WIST =" knew" (Ex. xvi. 15; Mark ix.
>). It is from the A.-S. witan, in Germ, viissen.
See Wit, Wot. H.
• WIT, from the \,-S. witan = " to know "

WITNESS

3551

(Gen. xxiv. 21; Ex. ii. 4). Hence, '' to do to unt"
(2 Cor. viii. 1) is " to cause to know." H.
WITCH, WITCHCRAETS. [Magic]
* WITHERED HAND. [Medicine, voL
iii. p. 1866.]
WITNESS." Among people with whom writ
ing is not common, the evidence of a transaction is
given by some tangible memorial or significant cere
mony. Abraham gave seven ewe-lambs to Abime
lech as an evidence of his property in the well of
Beer-sheba. Jacob raised a heap of stones, " the
heap of witness," as a boundary-mark between him
self and Laban (Gen. xxi. 30, xxxi. 47, 52). The
tribes of Reuben and Gad raised an " altar," de
signed expressly not for sacrifice, but as a witness
to the covenant between themselves and the rest of
the nation ; Joshua set up a stone as an evidence
of the allegiance promised by Israel to Grod ; " for,"
he said, "it hath heard all the words of the Lord "
(Josh. xxii. 10, 26, 34, xxiv. 26, 27). So also a
pillar is mentioned by Isaiah as " a witness to the
Lord of Hosts in the land of Egypt " (Is. xix. 19,
20). Thus also the sacred ark and its contents are
called " the Testimony " (Ex. xvi. 33, 34, xxv. 16,
xxxvui. 21; Num. i. 50, 53, ix. 15, x. 11, xvii. 7,
8, xviii. 2; Heb. ix. 4).
Thus also symbolical usages, in ratification of
contracts or completed arrangements, as the cere-
;nony of shoe-loosing (Deut. xxv. 9, 10; Ruth iv.
7, 8), the ordeal prescribed in the case of a sus
pected wife, with which raay be compared the
ordeal of the Styx (Num. v. 17-31; Class. Mus.
vi. 386). The Bedouin Arabs practice a fiery
ordeal in certain cases by way of compurgation
(Burckhardt, Noia, i, 121 ; Layard, Nin. ami
Bab. p. 305). The ceremony also appointed at
the oblation of first-fruits may be mentioned as
partaking of the same character (Deut. xxvi. 4).
[Fihst-Fkuits.] But written evidence was by no means unknown
to the Jews. Divorce was to be proved by a writ
ten document (Deut. xxiv. 1, 3), whereas among
Bedouins and Mussulmans in general a spoken sen -
tence is sufficient (Burckhardt, Notes, i. 110; Sale,
Koimi, c. 33, p. 348 ; Lane, Mod. Eg. i. 136, 236).
In civil contracts, at least in later times, docu
mentary evidence was required and carefully pre
served (Is. viii. 16; Jer. xxxii. 10-16).
On the whole the Law was very careful to pro
vide and enforce evidence for all its infractions and
all transactions, bearing on them : e. g. the memo
rial stones of Jordan and of Ebal (Deut. xxvii. 2 •
4; Josh. iv. 9, viii. 30); the fringes on garments
(Num. XV. 39, 40); the boundary-stones of prop
erty (Deut. xix. 14, xxvii. 17; Prov. xxii. 28); the
" broad plates " made from the censers of the Ko-
raliites (Num. xvi. 38); above all, the Ark of Tes
timony itself: all these are instances of the care
taken by the Legislator to perpetuate evidence of
the facts on which the legislation was founded, and
by which it was supported (Deut. vi. 20-25).
Appeal to the same principle is also repeatedly
made in the case of prophecies as a test of their
authenticity (Deut. xviii. 22 ; Jer. xxviii. 9, 16, 17 ;
John iii. 11, v. 36, x. 38, xiv. 11; Luke xxiv. 48;
Actsi. 3, ii. 32, iii. 15, &a.).
Among special provisions of tbe Law with re-
spect to evidence are the following : —

a *73?, mV f- : juapTvs : testis : used bcth t
persons and things.

3552

WIZARD

1. Two witnesses at least are required to estab
lish any charge (Num. xxxv. 30; Deut. xvii. 6,
xix. 16; 1 K. xxi. 13: John viii. 17; 2 Cor. xiii.
1; Heb. x. 28); and a like principle is laid down
by St. Paul as a rule of procedure in certain cases
in the Christian Church (1 Tim. v. 19).
2. In the case of the suspected wife, evidence
besides the husband's was desired, though not de
manded (Num. y. 13).
3. The witness who withheld the truth was cen
sured (Lev. V. 1).
4. False witness was punished witb the punish
ment due to the offense which it sought to estab
hsh. [Oaths.]
5. Slanderous reports and of&cious witness are
discouraged (Ex. xx. 16, xxiii. 1; Lev. xix. 16, 18;
Deut. xix. 16-21; Prov. xxiv. 28).
6. The witnesses were the first executioners
(Deut. xiii. 9, xvii. 7; Acts vii. 58).
7. In case of an animal left in charge and torn
by wild beasts, the keeper was to bring the carcase
in proof of the fact and disproof of his own crimi
nality (Ex. xxii. 13).
8. According to Josephus, women and slaves
were not admitted to bear testimony (Ant. iv. 8,
§ 15). To these exceptions the Mishna adds idiots,
deaf, bhnd, and dumb persons, persons of infamous
character, and some others, ten in all (Selden, de
Synedr. ii. 13, 11; Otho, Lex. Rabb. p. 653).
The high-priest was not bound to give evidence in
any case except one affecting the king (ibid.). Va
rious refinements on the quality of evidence and
the manner of taking it are given in the Mishna
(Sanhedr. iv. 5, v. 2, 3; Maccoth, i. 1, 9; Sheb.
iii. 10, iv. 1, V. 1). In criminal cases evidence
was required to be oral; in pecuniary, written evi
dence was allowed (Otho, Lex. Rabb. p. 653).
In the N. T. the original notion of a witness is
exhibited in the special form of one who attests his
belief in the Gospel by personal suffering. So St.
Stephen is styled Ijy St. Paul (Acts xxii. 20), and
the "faithful Antipas" (Rev. ii. 13). St. John
also speaks of himself and of others as witnesses in
this sense (Eev. i. 9, vi. 9, xi. 3, xx. 4). See also
Heb. xi. and xii. 1, in which passage a number of
persons are mentioned, belonging both to 0. T. and
N. T. who bore witness to the truth by personal
endurance; and to this passage may be added, as
bearing on the same view of the term " witness,"
Dan. iii. 21, vi. 16 ; 1 Mace. i. 60, 63 ; 2 Mace.
vi. 18, 19. Hence it is that the use of the eccle
siastical term " Martyr " has arisen, of which co
pious illustration may be seen in Suicer, Thes. vol.
ii. p. 310, &o. [Maktyr, Amer. ed.]
H. W. P.
WIZARD. [Magic]
* WOE WORTH (Ez. xxx. 2) is equivalent
to " woe be," i. e. to the day of which the prophet
speaks. Worth, from the Anglo-Saxon, means
" to be " or " become," like werden in German. H.
WOLF (3Sl», zieb: Aukos: lupus). There
can be little doubt that the wolf of Palestine is the
common Canis lupus, and that tills is the animal
so frequently mentioned in the Bible, though it is
true that we lack precise information with regard to
the Canidce of Palestine. Hemprich and Ehrenberg
have described a few species, as, for instance, the
Canis Syriacus and the C ( Vulpes) Nihticus (see
figures in art. Fox, i. 840 f.); and Col. Hamilton
Sn'ith mentions, under the name of derboun, a

WOMEN
species of black wolf, as occurring in Aiibia and
Southern Syria; but nothing definite seems to be
known of this animal. Wolves were doubtless fai
more common in Biblical times than they are now
though they are occasionally seen by modem trav
ellers (see Kitto's Physical History of Palestine,
p. 364, and Russell's Nat. Hist, of Aleppo, ii. 184);
" the wolf seldom ventures so near the city as the
fox, but is sometimes seen at a distance by the
sportsmen among the hilly grounds in the neigh
borhood; and the villages, as well as the herds
often suffer from them. It is called deeb m Arabic
and is common all over Syria."
The following are the Scriptural allusions to the
wolf: Its ferocity is mentioned in Gen. xlix. 27 ¦
Ez. xxii. 27; Hab. i. 8; Matt. vii. 15: its noc
turnal babbits, in Jer. v, 6; Zeph. iii. 3; Hab. i. 8:
its attacking sheep and lambs, John x. 12; Matt.
X. 16; Luke x. 3. Isaiah (xi. 6, Ixv. 25) foretells
the peaceful reign of the Messiah under the meta
phor of a wolf dwelling with a lamb ; cruel perse
cutors are compared with wolves (Matt. x. 16 ; Acts
XX. 29).
Wolves, like many other animals, are subject to
variation in color; the common color is gray with
a tinting of fawn and long black hairs ; the variety
most freC[uent in Southem Europe and the Pyrenees
is black; the wolf of Asia Minor is more tawny
than those of the coramon color.
The people of Nubia and Egypt apply the terra
dieb to the Canis anthus, Fr. Cuv. (see RUppell's
Atlas zu der Reise im Nordlichen Afiica, p. 46);
this, however, is a jackal, and seems to be the
Lupus Syriacus, which Hemp, and Ehrenb. noticed
in Syria, and identical with the " Egyptian wolf"
figured by Ham. Smith in Kitto's Cycl.
W. H.
WOMEN. The position of women in the
Hebrew commonwealth contrasts favorably with
that which in the present day is assigned to them
generally in eastern countries. The social equality
of 'the two sexes is most fully implied in the history
of the original creation of the woman, as well as in
the name assigned to her by the man, which dif
fered from his own only in its feminine termination
(Gen. ii. 18-23). This narrative is hence efiect-
ively appealed to as' supplying an argument for
enforcing the duties of the husband towards the
wife (Eph. V. 28-31). Many usages of early tinies
interfered with the preservation of this theoretical
equality : we may instance the existence of polyg
amy, the autocratic powers vested in the head of the
family under the patriarchal system, and the treat
ment of captives. Nevertheless a high tone was
maintained generally on this subject by the Mosaic
Law, and, as far as we have the means of judging,
by the force of public opinion.
The most salient point of contrast in the usages
of ancient as compared with modern oriental society
was the large amount of liberty enjoyed by women.
Instead of Tieing immured in a harem, or appear
ing in public with tbe face covered, the wives and
maidens of ancient times mingled freely and openly
with the other sex in the duties and amenities of
ordinary life. Rebekah travelled ou a camel wifh
her face unveiled, until she came into the presence
of her affianced (Gen. xxiv. 64, 65). Jacob saluted
Rachel, with a kiss in the presence of the shepherds
(Gen. xxix. 11). Each of these maidens was en
gaged in active employment, the former in fetching
water from the well, the latter in tending her flock.
Sarah wore no veil in Egypt, and yet this fia'med

WOMEN
no ground for supposing her to be married (Gen.
jii. 14-19). An outrage on a maiden in the open
field was visited with the severest punishment
(Dent. xxii. 25-27), proving that it was not deemed
improper for her to go about unprotected. Further
than this, woraen plaj-ed no inconsiderable part in
pubhc celebrations: Miriam headed » band of
women who commemorated with song and dance
the overthrow of the Egyptians (Ex. xv. 20, 21);
Jephthah's daughter gave her father a triumphal
reception (Judg. xi. 34); the maidens of Shiloh
danced publicly in the vineyards at tbe yearly feast
(Judg. xxi. 21); and the women feted Saul and
David, on their return from the defeat of the Phi
listines, with singing and dancing (1 Sam. xviii. 6,
7). The odes of Deborah (.Tudg. v.) and of Han
nah (1 Sara. ii. 1, etc.) exhibit a degree of intel
lectual cultivation which is in itself a proof of the
position of the sex in that period. Women also
occasionally held public offices, particularly that of
prophetess or inspired teacher, as instanced in
Miriam (Ex. xv. 20), Huldah (2 K. xxii. 14),
Noadiah (Neh. vi. 14), Anna (Luke ii. 36), aud
above all Deborah, who appHed her prophetical gift
to the administration of public affaire, and was so
entitled to be styled a "judge" (Judg. iv. 4).
The active part taken by Jezebel in the government
of Israel (1 K. xviii. 13, xxi. 26), and the usurpa
tion of the throne of Judah by Athaliah (2 K- xi.
3), further attest the latitude allowed to women in
public life.
The manageraent of household affairs devolved
mainly on the women. They brought the water
from the well (Gen. xxiv. 15; 1 Sam. ix. 11),
attended to the flocks (Gen. xxix. 6, etc.; Ex. ii.
16), prepared the meals (Gen. xviii. 6; 2 Sam. xiii.
8), and occupied their leisure hours in spinning
(Ex. xxxv. 26; Prov. xxxi. 19) and making clothes,
either for the use of the family (1 Sam. ii. 19 ;
Prov. xxxi. 21), for sale (Prov. xxxi. 14, 24), or
for charity (Acts ix. 39). The value of a virtuous
and active housewife forms a frequent topic in the
book of Proverbs (xi. 16, xii. 4, xiv. 1, xxxi. 10,
etc.). Her influence was of course proportionably
great; and, where there was no second wife, she
controlled the arrangements of the bouse, to the
extent of inviting or receiving guests on her own
motion (Judg. iv. 18; 1 Sam. xxv. 18, etc.; 2 K.
iv. 8, etc.). The effect of polygamy was to transfer
female influence from the wives to the mother, as
is incidentally shown in the application of the term
geMreh (hterally meaning powerful) to the queen
mother (1 K. ii. 19, xv. 13; 2 K. x. 13, xxiv. 12;
Jer. xiii. 18, xxix. 2). Polygamy also necessitated
a separate establishment for the wives collectively,
or for each individually. Thus in the palace of
the Persian monarch there was a " house of the
women" (Esth. ii. 9) which was guarded by
eunuchs (ii. 3); in Solomon's palace the harem
was connected with, but separate frora, the rest of
the building (1 K. vii. 8); and on journeys each
wife had her separate tent (Gen. xxxi. 33). In
such cases it is probable that the females took their
meals apart from the nwles (Esth. i. 9); but we
have no reason to conclude tliat the separate system
prevailed general! c among tbe .lews. The women
were present at festivals, either as attendants on
the guests (John xii. 2), or as themselves guests
(Job i. 4; .John ii. 3); and hence there is good
p'ound for concluding tbat on ordinary occasions
llso they joinrj the males at meals, though therr is
10 positive testimony to that effect.

WOOLEN

3553

Further information on the subject of this arti
ele is given under the heads Deaconess, Dress,
Hair, Marriage, Slave, Veil, and \V idow.
W. L. B.
WOOD. [Forest.]
* WOOF. [Weaving.]
WOOL ("IP|; W. Wool was an article
of the highest value araong the Jews, as the staple
material for the manufacture of clothing (Lev, xiii
47 ; Deut. xxii. 11 ; Job xxxi. 20 ; Prov. xxxi. 13 ;
Ez. xxxiv. 3 ; Hos. ii. 5 ). Both the Hebrew terms,
tsemer and gez, imply the act of shearing, the dis
tinction between them being that the latter refers
to the " fleece " (Deut. xviii. 4; Job xxxi. 20), as
proved by the use of the cognate gizzah, in Judg.
vi. 37-40, in conjunction with tsemer, in the sense
of " a fleece of wool." The importance of wool is
incidentally shown by the notice that Mesha's
tribute was paid in a certain number of rams " with
the wool " (2 K. iii. 4), as w^ell as by its being
specified among the first-fruits to be offered to the
priests (Deut. xviii. 4). The wool of Damascus
was highly prized in the mart of Tyre (Ez. xxvii.
18 ) ; and is compared in the LXX. to the wool of
Miletus (epia Ik t/li\riTou), the fame of which was
widely spread in the ancient world (Plin. viii. 73;
Virg. Georg. iii. 306, iv. 334). Wool is occasion
ally cited as an image of purity and brilliancy (Is.
i. 18; Dan. vii. 9; Eev. i. 14), and the flakes of
snow are appropriat.ely likened to it (Ps. cxlvii. 16).
The art of dyeing it was understood by the Jewa
(Mishna, Shah. 1, § 6). W. L. B.
WOOLEN (LINEN and). Among the laws
against unnatural mixtures is found one to this
effect : " A garment of mixtures [^.?^1??')
shaatnez] sball not come upon thee " (Lev. xix.
19 ) ; or, as it is expressed in Deut. xxii. 11, *' thou
shalt not wear shaatnez, wool and flax together."
Our version, by the help of the latter passage, has
rendered the strange word shaatnez in the former,
"of linen and woolen; " while in Deut. it is trans
lated " a garment of divers sorts." In the Vulgate
the difficulty is avoided ; and k/^StjAos, " spuri
ous " or " counterfeit," th^ rendering of the LXX.,
is wanting in precision. In the Targum of Onkelos
the same word remains with a slight modification
to adapt it to the Chaldee; but in the Peshito-
Syriac of Lev. it is rendered by an adjective,
" motley," and in Deut. a " motley gai-ment," cor
responding in some degree to the Samaritan ver
sion, which has "spotted like a leopard." Two
things only appear to be certain about shaatnez —
that it is a foreign word, and that its origin haa
not at present been traced. Its signification is
sufficiently defined in Deut. xxii. 11. The deriva
tion given in the Mishna (Ciliiim, ix. 8), which
makes it a compound of three words, signifying
"carded, spun, and twisted," is in keeping with
Kabbinical etymologies generally. Other etymolo
gies are proposed by Bochai' (Hieroz. pt. i. b. 2,
c. 45), Simonis (Lex. Heb. and Pfeifft;r (Dub.
Vex. cent. 2, loo. xi.). The last-mentioned writer
defended the Egyptian origin of the word, but hia
knowledge of Coptic, according to Jablonski, ex
tended not much beyond the letters, and Uttle
value, therefore, is to be attached to the solution
which he proposed for the difficulty. Jabloi.'ski
himself favors the suggestion of I'oi-ster, that 4
garment of linen and woolen was called by tha
Egyptians sliontnes, and that this word was iKU*

3554

WORD, THE

rowed by the Hebrews, and written by them in the
form shaatnez { Opusc. i. 294).
The reason given by Josephus {Ant. i^ 8, § 11)
for the law which prohibited the wearing a garment
woven of linen and woolen is, that such were worn
by the priests alone (see Mishna, Cilaim, ix. 1).
Of this kind were the girdle {of which Josephus
says the warp was entirely linen, Ani. iii. 7, § 2),
ephod, and breastplate (Braunius, de Vest. Sac.
Hebi'. pp. 110, IU) of the high-priest, and the
l^irdle of the common priests (Maimonides, C&U
Hammikdash, cviii.). Spencer conjectured that
the use of woolen and linen inwoven in the same
garment prevailed amongst the ancient Zabii, and
was associated with their idolatrous ceremonies
{De leg. Heb. ii. 33, § 3); but that it was per
mitted to the Hebrew priests, because with them it
could give rise to no suspicion of idolatry. Mai
monides found in the books of the Zabil that
"the priests of the idolaters clothed themselves
with robes of linen and woolen mixed together"
(Townley, Reasons ofthe Laws of Moses, p. 207).
13y" wool" the Talmudists understood the wool
of sheep (Mishna, Cilaim, ix. 1). It is evident
from Zeph. i. 8, that the adoption of a particular
dress was an indication of idolatrous tendencies,
and there may be therefore some truth in the
explanation of Maimonides. W. A. W.
* WORD, THE {6 \6yos: verbum), John 1 1,
14. This term is employed by St. John in a manner
peculiar to himself among the sacred writers, but
in such a manner as suggests that among those for
whom he immediately wrote, it was already asso
ciated with a meaning or meanings somewhat anal
ogous to that which he designed to convey by it.
That this was in general the case, there is abun
dant evidence; but to determine precisely the vari
ous shades of meaning attached to it in different
quarters by those who lived at the time of the
Evangelist or not long before, and to show pre
cisely in what relation his own employment of it
stood to existing usage, are among the most diffi
cult problems in the history of religious thought.
The idea of a distinction between the hidden and
the manifested Deity, between God as He is in him
self and as He makes himself known in creation
and revelation, seems to have been early entertained
among the Jews, and was naturaUy suggested by
many of the representations of the Old Testament,
such, e. g. as that of the Angel of Jehovah, Ex.
xxiii. 20, 21, and elsewhere, the divine manifesta
tion to Moses, Ex. xxxiii. 20-23, and the passage
in which Wisdom is introduced as speaking, Prov.
viii., particularly vv. 2-3-31.
In the apocryphal l)ooks of Ecclesiasticus (xxiv.
3, 4, 8, 9) and the Wisdom of Solomon (vii. 22-
27, ix. 4, 9), both works of Alexandrine origin, the
conception presented in the passage last referred to
is developed in such a way as strongly to favor the
supposition of a design to indicate a personal being
as the medium of the divine communication with
the world, and in a special manner (Ecclus.) with
Israel. [W^ispo^r op Solomon, § 7.] But the
most prorainent form among those in which the
idea of the self-revealing God was wont to be ex
pressed among the Jews subsequently to the Cap-

WORD, THE
tivity, seems to have originated in what w&j the
standing representation of the divine agency em
ployed in the 0. T. The earliest statement in re
lation to this subject is " God said. Let there be
light, and there was light," Geu. i. 3. In a simi
lar manner not only is the whole work of origmal
creation elsewhere ascribed to the word of God (Ps.
xxxiii. 6, 9), but it is his word that maintains the
course of nature and accomplishes the purposes ol
Providence (Ps. cvii. 20, cxfvii. 15, 18 j Is. lv. 11).
Nowhere however in the 0. T. does the use of the
term exceed the limits of bold personification. Pre
cisely at what period it began to be employed ui
Jewish theology as designating a distinct personal
ity it is impossible to ascertain. The 'earUest in
stance of what is even apparently such a use occurs
in Wisd. Sol. xviii. 15, 16. Speaking of the de
struction of the first-born in Egypt, the writer aaya,
"Thine almighty word {d vavToSvvap.65 aov
\6yos) leaped down from heaven, out of thy royal
throne, as a fierce man of war into the midst of a
land of destruction, bearing thine unfeigned com
mandment (rr/v avvir6KpiTov 4inTay^v trov ^i-
pwy) as a sharp sword." Here, whatever interpre
tation we may put upon the passage, the distinc
tion manifestly made between " thine almighty
word " and the "unfeigned commandment" inter
poses a serious difficulty in the way of the explana
tion resorted to by Grimm {Exeg. Handb. in loc),
that the whole is to be resolved into a " rhetorico-
poetical personification of the divme will and agency
in the infliction of punishment." This representa
tion, however, it should be added, is wholly with
out a parallel, either in the same or in any nearly
contemporary work. The passages Wisd. Sol. ix.
1, xvi. 12, 26; Ecclus. xUii. 26, xlviii. 3, 5 —
comp. -2 Pet. iii. 5, 7; Heb. xi. 3 — exhibit noth
ing essentially diflTerent from the usage of the 0.
T., and the same is true of those passages iu the
book of Enoch where "the word" is spoken of
(e. g. xiv. 24, xci. 1, cii. 1; see Hilgenfeld, /We
jud. Apokalyptih, p. 105, note 2). The passage in
Enoch xc 38, is probably corrupt; see Dillmann
in loc.
Among the Jews of Palestine the fact of the
early prevalence of some conception of the Word
as a distinct hypostasis has been by many very
confidently inferred from the Targums or Chaldee
paraphrases of portions of the 0. T. These writ
ings, although their claims to antiquity have been
of late years considerably reduced [Versions, Aw-
ciEMT (Targum)], doubtless represent long-stand
ing Jewish tradition, and it is among their most re
markable characteristic features that whenever God
is spoken of in the Heb. especially as interposing
in the aflfairs of raen, the expression "^^T W^Q^D,
Memrd da-YSyd (sometimes M"l^il^, Dibburd),
" the word of Jehovah," is very commonly substi
tuted for the proper divine name." But there are
no data from which we may gather the exact form
of thought which lay at the foundation of the usage,
and the employment of it was plainly determined
by no settled rule. Most, if not all the passages in
which the expressions above cited occur may be ex
plained by a reference to the principle suggested on

a * Intercbanged occasioually with other expres-
sionB, such as *''^"T W^H"^, YUkara da- YSySL, rmD^tt?
t: - T t:' t : • :
^yZi SfiSchint&h da-YSy&, "the majesty or glory of

Jehovah." The statement sometimes made that ilM
^n W")TP''^, " word of Jehovah," is in the Titf-
gums expressly Identified with tbe Messiah can hardly
be sustained. D S* T<

WORD, THE
f. 3404 b of this work (comp. pp. 3406 b, 3418 a),
uaraely, the repugnance of the writers to bring the
Divine Being into too close contact, as it were, with
man. Comp. SfiECiiiNAH. .
The writings of Philo, the Jew of Alexandria,
who flourished in the former half of the first cen
tury, present the earliest approximation to a defi
nite doctrme of the Word. His system, if system
it may be called, is a singular combination of Pyth-
agoreanism, Platonism, Stoicism, and the Emana-
tionism of the East with the doctrines of the 0.
T. Scriptures. Of this system the doctrine of the
liOgos ° has been styled the central point, and it is
often presented here in terms which bear a striking
resemblance to the representations of St. John, al-
thongh quite commonly a careful examination shows
that the resemblance lies iu the expression rather
than m tbe thought.^ That the Logos-doctruie of
St. John is in some way connected with that of
philo, admits of no reasonable doubt. But the
manifold incongruities,'^ not to say self-contradic
tions, to be found in the viTitings of the latter, the
extraordinary latitude which he manifestly allows
himself in his representations, and above aU, the
wide contrast presented by his whole style of think
ing to that exhibited in the Fourth Gospel,^ forbid
us to believe that the author of that Gospel can
have been indebted to the Alexandrian philosopher
for any fundamental element of doctrine.
Whatever raay have been the connection between
the doctrine of the Logos as found in the writings of
St. John, and the use that had been already made of
the term in various quartex-s, it is very evident that
in its essential features that doctrine was something
ffhoUy new to the world. It involved the revela
tion of a fact for which language furnished no en-
\hely adequate expression. In such a case there
are two courses open to the writer. He must either
invent a new terra to designate the new thought to
be conveyed, or he raust appropriate a term already
employed in a sense somewhat related to that he

WORD, THE

3555

a * The selection of tbis term by Philo was doubt
less determined by a reference to the peculiar use of
it in the 0. T. above aUuded to. In accordance with
the usage of Plato, from whom his conception of the
Ii<^03 in its main features was derived, vovi was the
expression whicb, but for this consideration, he would
naturally have employed. D. S. T.
b * Thus the Logos is represented as the Son of
Ood {De Prof. c. 20, Opp. i. 562 ed Mang.), the eldest
Son, the first-begotten, 7^peo¦^uTaTos vtos, Trpwrdyovos
(De Conf. Ling. cc. 14. 28, i. 414, 427 ; De Agric. c.
12, i. 308 ; De Somn. lib. i. c. 37, i. 653) ; the image
of God, cEkuc fleou {De Qpif. Mundi, e. 8, i. 6; De
Conf. Ling. c. 20, i. 419 ; De Somn. lib. i. c. 41, i.
656, and often elsewhere; his "eternal image," De
Conf. Lin%. c. 28, i. 427) ; the instrument by which
the world was made, opyavov 8l ofi 6 Koo-jaos Karea-Kev-
a<T6r) {De Cherub, c. 35, i. 162, where note Philo's dis
tinction between to ui^' o5,Tb e^oS, to &l' oZ, and to fit'
0, as denoting respectively the primary or efficient
cauae, the material, the instrument or intermediate
^nt, and the end or final cause ; comp. Legg. Al-
w|". lib. iii. c. 31, i 108, (tkio. 9eov 6 \6yo^ avTCv ia-nv,
p Koflairep opya.v<a TrpooTfpijcrajw.ei'O? e/eocrjitOTroiei , also
Dfi Migr, Abr. c. 1, i. 437 ; De Monarch,, lib. ii. c. 5,
God's vicegerent, vnapxo^, upon whom all

i.

hings depend {De Agric. c. 12,"i."308 ; De Somn. lib.
I. 0. 41, 1. 656) ; the interpreter of God, ipixijveits or
Jiro^^TTj? Scou {Legg. AUeg. Ub. iii. c. 74, i. 128;
Quod Dp.<is sit immut. c. 29, i. 293; De Nom. Mitt.
c- 8, i. 6811 ; the light, 0w? {De Somn. lib. i. c. 13, i.
^); the fountain of wiidora, o-o^ias m^yif, from

wishes to express, and he must indicate in sorao
way the limitations or enlargements of significance
that are necessary to make it an adequate exponent
of his meaning. The ktter course is adopted by
St. John, in accordance with the common practice
of the sacred writers. In the term Logos and its
Chaldee equivalents, as employed by the Jews of
Palestine and Egypt, he finds the nearest approx
imation to such an expression as he needs in order
to set forth his own conception of tbe being that
has become incarnate in Jesus Christ. Bub the
term is employed in a great variety of ways, at
best indefinitely, and when most definitely, always
in a sense raore or less diverse from that which it
is his object to convey. The necessity is thus Md
upon him, in appropriating this term to his own
purpose, to guard carefuUy against beinj; misunder
stood, and to make explicit statements in respect to
those points where the term, as comraonly employed,
is Ukely either to fall short of fuUy conveying his
own idea, or to suggest sorae erroneous conception
of it. Accordingly, in announcing, by way of in
troduction to his Gospel, the doctrine of the Word,
as that apparently which lies at the foundation of
the whole history he is about to give, he first of all
declares, with manifest reference to Gen- i. 1, " Io
the beginning was ('Ee apxv ^v) the Word."
Here, as in the opening of his first epistle, is dis
tinctly brought to view the great fact of the uncre
ated, and therefore the eternal, existence of the
Logos. Next foUows a statement of the intimate
relation which the Logos sustains to God {koL 6
\6yos ^v trphs Thv (de6v)t and notwithstanding
the distinction ' thus implied, it is immediately
added, " the Word was God." Then as if to guard
against the misapprehension being entertained that
the distinction indicated as existing in the divine
nature had originated in time, there ia subjoined
the affirmation " The same was in the beginning
with God." To pursue further the account given
of the Word in the sublime prologue of the Evan-

whieh those who draw obtain everlasting life, ftuT/i*
atfitov {De Prof. c. 18, i. 560) ; the intercessor for man,
tKcTTjs TOU Ovr\rov, and mediator between God and the
world, separating and yet connecting both {Quis Re
rum Div. Hceres, c. 42, i. 501 f.) ; high-priest, apx'^"
peiJs, free from all sin {De Prof. cc. 20, 21, i. 562 f. ;
De Somn. lib. i. c. 37, i. 653), and perhaps advocate
or paraclete, irapa.KkqTO'; {De Ma^e, lib. iii. c. 14, ii.
155), but iu this passage some understand the term
to be applied to the world as " the son of God ; " comp.
Mangey's note. The Logos is also called by Philo 0eo9,
"God," or rather, "a divine being," tha term being
used by him in a lower sense {De Somn. lib. i. c, 38,
i. 656, comp. Legg. AUeg. lib. iii. c. 73, i. 128 ; fievre-
pos 9e6s, "a second God," Fragm. ap. Euseb. PrtBp,
Ev. vii. 12, Opp. ii. 625). D. S. T.
e * A single illustration of these incongruitiM may
suffice. While Philo expressly identifies the Logos
with the Wisdom of God (Legg. AUeg. lib. i. c. 19,
Opp. i. 56, and elsewhere), he also represents Wisdom
a.s the spouse of God {De Ebnetate, c. 8, i- 361)and the
mother of the Logos {De Prof. o. 20, i. 562). D S. T.
d * In illustration of the radical difference between
the religious system of Philo and that of St. John, it
needs only to be stated that the idea of a personal
Messiah finds no place in his writings, and his idea ol
the creation precludes the necessity of such a Messiah
Contrast too his conception of God as a being devcid
of aU quahties {Quod Dem sit immut. c. 11, Opp. i.
281) with such passages as John iii. 16, xvi. 27 ; X
John iv. 8. n- S. T. ^

3556

WORD, THE

gellst, would raake it necessary to trench too much
UDon the province of the coramentator. The main
purpose of this article is to point oat in general the
probable relation of St. John's doctrine upon this
subject to the previous history of the employment
of the term, and to show in what manner it may be
supposed that his own representations have been
affected by existing tendencies of thought. While
in the view above presented of the way in which
his own special usage of the terra was probably de
termined, nothing has been said of its fitness in its
more ordinary acceptations for the purpose to which
he applies it, we are under no necessity of suppos
ing that in his selection of it, he had no regard to
its more common- significance, whether in the lan
guage of philosophy or in that of every-day life, as
contributing to make it suitable for his purpose.
It is, in particular, far from improbable that the
import of xSyos as being preeminently the revela
tion of thought may have been distinctly in his
mind, as raost highly fit to be associated with Him
who is The Truth revealed.'^
The explanation of 6 \6yos as = 6 \4yoiiv, and
likewise that adopted by Beza, Tittmann, and
others, as = ^ \ey6pevoSj or d iirayy€\6els, ihe
promised one, are wholly unsustained by nsage.
Nor is there any valid foundation for supposing, as
many do, that the term was adopted by St. John
on the ground of its being specially suited, in cer
tain of its acceptations, to express the idea of the
Divine Reason. It should be added, however, that
not only was the Evangelist furnished through the
already prevailing conceptions of the Word, with
the most suitable expression of his great idea, but
he was thus enabled to avail himself of whatever
there was of truth connected with past speculations
upon the subject, and to show how his own doctrine
effectuaUy met the diflB.culties which had been felt
so long, and which attempts had been so variously
made to meet. It was as if he had said to those
of his readers whom he more Immediately had in
view, What you have vainly sought to find, and
what you may think that in your conception of
the Word, you have found, I make known to you
in the history of Jesus Christ.
Indeed, it is not in his presentation of the doc
trine of the Word alone, that we find the indica^
tions of such a design. In aU his vsritings we are
met by the recurrence of peculiar phrases and rep
resentations (raany of them often repeated), which
stand connected in such a manner with systems of
error that came to their fuU development only in a
subsequent age, that we are enabled both to discern
the germs of those systems as already in bemg in
his own time, and to trace their origin in preceding
thought, at '^he same time that we are caUed to
note the admirable skiU with which the inspired
writer, without resorting to the form of polemics,
effectually guards the truth against assault, and
turns the dangers which threaten it into a source
of strength. D. S. T.
* Many works relating to the subject of this ar
ticle are referred to uitder John, Gospel of, vol.
ii. p. 1439. Among the writers there named,
Liicke and Dorner, Niedner and Bueher, Stuart
and Norton, are particularly worthy of consultation.
Of the commentators on the Gospel of John, be-

« • The supposition entertained by many, that, in
jbe designation The Word, as understood with some
Kfrrence to its common acceptation, it is intended to
pet forth ao inward relation of the Divine Being to

WORD, THE
sides Liicke, the following are perhaps the most m-
structive in reference to the doctrine of the Logos:
Grotius, Le Clerc (on John i. 1-18 in his Latin
translation of Hammond, i. 391 W., 2d ed.; comp.
his Epist. CHi. vii.-ix.), Whitby, Wetstein, Pau
lus, K-uinoel (who gives a detailed view of the ear
lier literature), Tholuck, De Wette, Meyer, and
Bauragarten -CJrusius. Out of the host of other
writers who have treated of this subject, the follow
ing may be selected as worthy of notice: C. San-
dius. Diss, de \6ycf), appended to his Interp. Par.
adoxce in Quat. Kvang., Cosraop. [Amst.], 1670,
pp. 259-303. Joh. Saubert, Diss, de Voce Arf-yoj
nd Joh. i. 1, Altorf., 1687, reprinted in Menthen's
Thesaurus (supplementary to the Critici Sacri), ii.
347-362. (P. Allix,) Judgment ofthe Ancient Jew
ish Church against the UnitaHans, I^ond. 1699, 2d
ed. 1821 (untrustworthy). (Souverain,) Le Plaion-
isme devoile, Cologne, 1700 ; Eng. trans., PlaUmsm
Unveiled, n. p. 1700; German translation by J. F.
C. Loffler, Versuch Ub. d. Platonlsmus d. Kh'chm-
vater, 2^ Aufl., 1792, with an Appendix by the
translator. Paulus, Die Gottheii als Lehrer durch
Werke u. Worie, Job. i. 1-18, in his MemorabU.
vin. 94-198 (1796); see also his Commentar (1812).
Keil, De ASyip, in his Opusc. Acad. (1821), pp.
483-531. F. G. Siiskind, Ktwas ijh. d. neuerea
Ansichten der Sielle Joh. i. 1-14, in his Mag. f.
christi Dogm. u. Moral, a.. 1-91 (1803). Ber
tholdt, Chiistologia Judceoi-um, etc. Erl. 1813, pp.
104-134 (uncritical). C. W. Upham, Letters on
the Logos, Bost. 1828. Baumlein, Versuch die
Bedeuiung des johan. Logos aus den Religumssys-
iemen des Orients zu entwickeln, Tiib. 1828.
(Baumlein now confesses, Com. iib. d. Ev. d. Joh.,
p. 23, that his representations in this work were
drawn from unreliable sources — the Oupnek'hat
and Kleuker's Zendavesta.) E. Burton, Inquiry
into ihe Heresies of the Apostolic Age (Bampton
Lectures), I^ct. vii. Oxf. 1829. J. Pye Smith,
Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, 5th ed. Edin.
1859, i. 341-350 (Chaldee Targums), 363-386
(Philo), and elsewhere; comp. W. Hincks'a Revim
of this work' in the Monthly Repos. for 1831, re
printed separately, I^ond. 1832. J. F. Denham,
On the Doctrine of the Logos, in Kitto's Jovm.
of Sac. JJt. for Jan. 1849; ni. 107-135 {su
perficial and inaccurate). James Strong, two arts.
in the Meth. Qua7\ Rev. for July and Oct. 1851.
G- F- Simmons, Six Sermons, Bost. 1856, pp. 31-
60. M. Nicolas, Des Doctrines religieuses des
Juifs, etc., Par. 1860, pp. 143-215; comp. art. m
Chi'isi. Exam, for Jan. 1863, on The Palestinian
WiH'd, founded on Nicolas, and erroneously iden
tifying the Logos of Philo with the Memra of the
Targums. A. Lamson, Church of ihe First Three
Centuries, 2d ed. Bost. 1865, p. 58 W. H. L. Han
sel, art Philosophy (Greek), in Kitto's Cycl. oJ
Bibl. Lit, 3d ed., iii. 620-531. Liddon, Tht Di
vinity of our Lord (Bampton I^ci 1866), 2d ed.
1868, p. 59 flf., 226 fF. Jos. Langen (Cath.), Dat
Judenthum in Paldstina ziir Zeit Christi (1866),
pp. 248-281. L. T. Schulze, Vom Menschensohn
u. vom IjOgos, Gotha, 1867 (dogmatic).
On the use of ao<f>iay \6yos, a>id irvevfia ayiop
in the Apocrypha, see Brctsclmeider, Sysiem. Der-
stellung d. Dogm. u. s. w. d. apoc?: Schri 'ten d.

Himself, " the principle," aa Tholuck expresses it,
" through which God is revealed to Ilimeelf," would, if
admitted, make the declaration nugatory, " Tlw Word
was with God." D 3- T.

WORD, THB
A. T., Leipz. 1805, pp. 191-275, where there are
full references to the older hterature; see also the
works referred to under Apoouypha, i. 125 f.,
milding Bruch's Weisheiis-Lehre der Hebraer
(1851), p. 283 fF., 341 «., and the works of Gfrorer
and Diihne to be mentioned below.
On Philo's doctrine of the Logos one may fur
ther consult the following essays : Cudworth's /«-
leUectual System of the Universe, ch. iv. § 36,
with the elaborate note of iVEosheim in his Latin
translation of the work, 2d ed., i. 828 ff. (vol. ii.
p. 320 ff. of Harrison's ed. of Cudworth). J. B.
Carpzov, He \6ya) Philmiis non Johanneo, Helnist.
1749, in opposition to Mangey (Pref. to Philo), re
printed as lib. vii. of the Phikmiana prefixed to
hia Sacrce Exerc. in Kp. ad Hebr. (1750), pp.
cvii.-clxiiii. E. H. Stahl, Enlimirf des Philo-
nischen Lehrhegriff^s, in Eichhorn's Allgem. Bib
lioth. iv. 785-890 (1792). Csesar Morgan, Investi-
tjniim of ilie Trinity cf Plato and Philo Judjxus
(1795), reprhited Cambr. (Eng.), 1853. J. Bry
ant, Sentiments of Philo Judetis [sic] concerning
the \oyos, or Wwd if God, Cambr. (Eng.), 1797.
'.irossmann, Qutss/itmum Philonearum Partie. I.,
II., Lips. \82i), 4to. (Taluable; purports to give
;ijl the piissages in which the word h6yos occurs in
i*liilo.) Gfrorer, Philo u. die j'iid.~alex. Theosu-
phie, 2 Abth. Stuttg. 1831, also 1835 (Theil L of his
Krit. Gesch. d. Urchristenthums). Liicke praises
the anonymous reviews of Grossmann and Gfrorer
iu the Leipzig Litt.-Zeiiung for 1831, Nr. 124-126,
and 1832, Nr. 253-256. J. G. Miiller character
izes Gfriirer as " oft oberilachlich und breit." Nor
ton, Statement of Reasons, etc. (1833), 2d ed.
Bost. 1856, pp. 314-349. Dabne, Gesch. Dar
stellung d. jiid.-alex. Religions-PIiilos., 2 Abtl^.
Halle, 1834. (One of the most thorough works on
the subject; comp. Baur's review in the Jahrb. f.
urns. Kriiik, Nov. 1835, pp. 737-792.) Kitter,
Gesch. d. Phihs. iv. 418 ft: (1834), or iv. 407 ff.
Eng. trans. Semiscb, Justin der Mdrtyrer, ii.
267 ff. (1842), or ii. 165-207, Ryland's trans. A.
Franck, La Kabbale, Par. 1843, pp. 293-338.
'Keferstein, Philo's Lehre von den gbUlichen Mit-
teiwesen, Leipz. 1846. (" Eine griindliche und
eingehende Arbeit " — J. G. Miiller.) Steinhart,
irt. Philo in Pauly's Real-Encycl. v. 1499-1516
(1848). M. Wolff (Kabbin), Die pliilmische Phi-
losophie, 2e Ausg., Gothenb. 1858. Hagenbach,
Hist, of Doctrines, First Per., § 40, Eng. trans.
from 4th Germ, ed., N. Y. 1861. Dollinger,
Heiikntimm u. Judenthum (1867), pp. 838-848, or
ii. 398 ff., Eng. trans. J. G. Miiller, art. Philo in
Herzog's Real-Encyk. xi. 578-603 (1859). B.
Jowett, St. Paul and Philo, in his Epistles of St.
Paul, 2d ed., Lond. 1859, i. 448-514. Zeller's,
Phihs. d. Griechen, ill. 601-631 (1852). (Excel
lent; I have not the 2d ed. (1868) at hand.)
Hoelemann, De Evang. Joannei Introiiu (1855),
op. 33-52. Graetz, Gesch. d. Juden, iii. 303 ff.
v2e Aufl. 1863). Ewald, Gesch. d. Volkes fsrael,
3e Ausg. vi. 282 ff. (1868). See also the arts.
iLEXANDEiA and Philosophy in this Dic-
ionary. The passages relied on in proof that the Targum-

<* * The student should be on his guard against
the luistranslations which he will find, in various
Kliters, of the Targums on Ps. ex. 1, Is. xiii. 1, Gen.
»i. 22, xxviii. 20, xlix. 18, and Is. xvi. 1. Ihe
•hraaena^a or it DIP IQ N-ia"'a, " a " or

WORM 3557
ists regarded the Memrd da-Veyd, " Word of Je
hovah," as a being or subsistence distinct from
God, the medium of his revelations tc man, will ba
found in the works of Allix, Bertholdt, J. P. Smith,
and Langen, as referred to above, also in Gfrijrer's
Jahrhundert des Heils (1838), i. 307-318, aud th?
Introductions to Etheriilge's Trans, of the Tar
gums on ihe Pentateuch, 2 vols. Lond. 1862-65.
In opposition to this view, which appears to be
wholly untenable, see the valuable Diss, of Saubert,
ubi supra, p. 351 ff.; Lightfoot, Hn: Hebr. on
John i. 1; J. G. Carpzov, Crit. Sac. V. T. (1748),
p. 479 ff. ; Siiskind, ubi supr. p. 16 tf. ; Paulus,
Comm. iib. d. Ev. d. Joh. (1812), pp. 8-18, cor
recting his earher representations in the Memorab.
viii. 141 ff.; E. X. (= G.) Bengel, Opusc. Acad.
(1834), p. 398 ff.; Burton, 5am/i(. Led. (1829),
p. 221; Noyes in the Chrisl. Exam, for May,
1836, p. 233 f.; Stuart in the Bibl Sacra for Jan.
1850, p. 20ff.; and Bucher (Cath.), Des Apost.
Johannes Lehre vom Logos (1856), pp. 108-132,
who discusses the matter pretty thoroughly. See also
Levy's Chald. Wiirterb. iib. d. Targ. ii. 32 (1808).
Some of the writers referred to above find the
.Memra hypostasized in the later Targums, though
not the earlier; but there seems to be no good
ground for the distinction. The prize-essay of
S. Maybaum, D'le Aniliropomwphien u. Anihro.
popaih'ien bei Onkelos u. d. spdtern Targumitn
mit besond. Beriicks'icht. der Aasdriicke Memrr,
Jekira u. Schechiniha, Bresl. 1870, 1 have not yet
seen. The older literature of the subject is given
in Wolf's Bibl. Hebr. ii. 1185 ff. That the
Memra is identified by the Targumists with the
Messiah has been maintained by some, not only
without any plausible reason, but in opposition to
tbe clearest passages; see the Jerusalem Targ. on
Ex. xii. 42; Pseudo-Jonathan on Deut. xxx. 4*
aud Jonathan ben Uzziei on Is. xiii. l.«
On the Angel of Jehovah in the Old Test, see
the references under Angels, vol. i. p. 98. Both
on this subject, and on tbe use of the terms She-
chinah and Metatron in the later Jewish writings,
the reader is particularly recommended to consult
Dr. Noyes's review of Hengstenberg in the Christ.
Examiner for May and July, 1836. On the later
Jewish notions generally, see the literature under
the art. Messiah. A.
WO KM, the representative in the A. V. of the
Hebrew words Sds, Rimmdh, and ToWdh, Told,
or Toldatli, occurs in numerous passages in the
Bible. The first-named term, Sds (OO : ^^s r
tinea) occurs only in Is. li. 8, "For the 'ash
{U)V) shall eat tbem up like a garment, and the
sds shall eat them like wooh" The word probably
denotes some particular species of moth, whose
larva is injurious to wool, while perhaps the former
name is the more general one for any of the
destructive tinecs or " clothes moths." For fur
ther information on the subject the reader ia
referred to Moth.
2. Rimmdh {TlfZH : oKtihTj^, aii^is, cairpfa:
vermis, puiredo, tinea). The manna that the dis-

" the word from before the Lord " (Gen. xx. 3, Num.
xxiii. 4, comp. Etheridge, i. 17, ii. 16) may also m islead ,
but note the similar use with DSHS, pUhgam, Jer. i
2, Ez. i. 3, etc., and see, for other' illustrations of the
idiom, Targ. on Is. Iix. 1, and Qfm. i. 27 (Jerufl. \ A

3558

WORM

obedient Israelites kept till the morning of a week
day " bred worms " (?"'S vin), and stank (Ex.
xvi. 20); while of that kept over the Sabbath and
gathered the night before, it is said that " it did
not stink, neither was there any worm (n3"1)
therein.'' The Hebrew word is connected with the
root DS'H "to be putrid "' (see Gesenius, Thes.
h. v.), and points evidently to various kinds of
maggots, and the larvie of insects which feed on
putrefying animal matter rather than to earth
worms; the words in the original are clearly used
indiscriminately to denote either true annelida, or
the larval condition of various in.sects. Thus, as
may be seen above, rimmdh and tole'ah are both
used to express the maggot or caterpillar, whatever
it might have been that consumed the bad manna
in the wilderness of Sin. Job, under his heavy
afHiction, exclaims, "My iiesh is clothed with
rimmdh" (w'li. 5; see also xvii. 14); there is no
reason to doubt that the expression is to be under
stood literally; a person in Job's condition would
very probably suffer from entozoa of some kind.
In Job xxi. 20, xxiv. 20, there is au allusion to
worms (insect larvae) feeding on the dead bodies
of the buried; our translators in the well-known
passage (xix. 26) — "And though after my skin
worms destroy this body " — have rather over-
interpreted the words of the original, " My akin
shall have been consumed." "
The patriarch uses both rimmdh and tole'ah
(nV,7^^), in ch. xxv. 6, where he compares the
estate of man to a rimmdh, and the son of man to
a tdle'dh. This latter word, in one or other of its
fbrms (see above), is applied in Deut. xxviii. 39
to some kinds of larvae destructive to the vines:
" Thou shalt plant vineyards .... but shalt not
gather the grapes, for the toldath shall eat them.''
Various kinds of insects attack the vine, amongst
which one of the most destructive is the Tortrix
viiisana, the little caterpillar of which eats off the
inner parts of tbe blossoms, the clusters of which it
binds together by spinning a web around them.
The " worm " which is said to have destroyed
Jonah's gourd was a toldath (Jonah iv. 7). Mi
chaelis (Suppl. p. 2189) quotes Kumphius aa assert
ing that there is a kmd of black caterpillar, which,
during sultry rainy weather, does actually strip the
plant of its leaves in a single night. In Is. Ixvi. 24
allusion is made to maggots feeding on the dead
bodies of the slain in battle. The words of the
prophet are applied by our Lord (Mark ix. 44, 46,
48 ) metaphorically to the stings of a guilty con
science in the world of departed spirits.
The death' of Herod Agrippa I. was caused by
worms (aKaiKi\ic6^puTos, Acts xii. 23); according
to Josephus (Ant. xix. 8), his death took place five
days alter his departure from tlie theatre. It ia
curious that the Jewish historian makes no mention
jf worms in the case of Agrippa, though he ex
pressly notes it in that of Herod the Great (Ant.
xvii. 6, § 5). A similar death was that of Antiochus
Epiphanes (2 Mace. ix. 9; see also Eusebius, Eccl.
Hist. viii. 16 ; and Lucian Pseudomant. i.p. 904 ;
sorapare Wetstein on Acts xii. 23). Whether the
worms were the cause or the result of the disease
\i an immaterial question. The " Angel of the

¦WOKSHIPPER
Lord struck Herod " with some disease, the igaiM
of which was fatal, and the loathsome spectacle of
which could not fail to have had a marked humiliat
ing effect on his proud heart. W. H.
WORMWOOD (n:Sb, hdnSh: mKpIa,
XO^^, bSiivri, and amyxt) : aniaritudo aisynthium).
The correct translation of fhe Heb. word occurs
frequently in the Bible, and generally in a meta
phorical sense, as in Deut. xxix. 18, where of the
idolatrous Israelites it is said, " Lest there be among
you a root that beareth wormwood " (see also Prov.
V. 4). In Jer. ix. 15, xxiii. 15; Lam. iii. 16, l^,
wormwood is symbolical of bitter calamity and sor
row ; unrighteous judges are said to " turn judg
ment to wormwood" (Am. v. 7). The Orientals
typified sorrows, cruelties, and calamities of any
kind by plants of a poisonous or bitter nature.
[Gall, i. 861.] The name of the star which at
the sound of the third angel's trumpet fell upon
the rivers, was called Worniword ("Aif/ivdos; Eev.
viii. 11). Kitto (Phys. Hist, of Palestine, p. 215)
enumerates four kinds of wormwood as found in
Palestine — Artemisia nilotica, A. Judaica, A.
fruticosa, and A. dnerea. Kauwolf speaks of
some kind of wormwood under the name of Absin
thium santonicum Judaicum, and says it is very .
common in Palestine ; this is perhaps the Artemisia
Judaica. The Hebrew Ladnah is doubtless generic,
and denotes several species of Artemisia (Celsiug,
Hierob. i. p. 480 ; Kosenmiiller, Bibl. Bot. p. 116).
W.H.
•WORSHIP (derived from worth, and the
termination ship) originally = u:w(/(i«ess, became
used to denote the honor or reverence of which one
was regarded as worthy, and, aa a verb, signified t«
pay such honor or reverence; the word not being
originally restricted, as now, to religious worship.
Thus Wycliffe tranalatea Matt. xix. 19, " Worschgi
thi fadir and thi modir," and in the maiTiage service
of the Church of England the bridegroom says to the
bride " with my body I thee vxn'sliip." The noun
" worship " is ao used in the A. V. Josh. v. 14; Luke
xiv. 10 i and the verb occurs in Matt, xviii. 26 and
often elsewhere as the rendering of upoaKwia when
it denotes the civil reverence or homage expressed
by the oriental custom of prostration. [Adora
tion; Altar; Pkayer; Pkiest; Saceikicz,
etc.] A.
WORSHIPPER. A transkUon of the Greek
word 'veuK6pos, used once only. Acts xix. 35; in
the margin " Temple-keeper." The neocoivs was
originally an attendant in a temple, probablj en
trusted with its charge (Eurip. Ion, 115, 121, ed.
Dind.; Plato, Leg. vi. 7, Bekk.; Theodoret, Hist.
Eccl. iii. 14, 16; Pollux, i. 14; Phih, De Prov.
Sac. 6, ii. 237; Hesychius explains, it hy i jh
vabv Koa-fiuv, Kopeiv yap rh aaipeiv, Suidas,
Kotr/iHv Kal ehTpeirl^inv, d\?.' o\r)C i aapav, ei.
Gaisf. p. 2579). The divine honors paid in later
Greek tinies to eminent persons even in their life
time, were imitated and exaggerated by the Romans
under the empire, especially in Asia (Plut. ijis.
23; Appian, Mithr. 76; Dion Cass. xxxi. 6). The
term neocoros became thus appUed to cities orcom-
niunities which undertook the worship of particular
emperors even in their lifetime; but there is no
trace of the special title being appUed to any citJ

« The Hebrew is, nNnsi?? ^"12? "inwi,
i. e., " And alter that they shall have consumed ttii's

my skin," or, as Davidson renders It, "Yea, 'l^'J^
skin, when this (body) ia destroyed" (Inltod. U. I- »
p. 227).

WOT AND WOTTETH
before the time of Augustus. The first occurrence
of the term in connection with Ephesus is on coins
of the age of Nero (A. d. 54-68), a time which
would sufficiently agree with its use in the account
of the riot there, probably in 55 or 56. In later
times the title appears with the numerical adjuncts
Sis, Tp^* =i"d even T€Tpa.Kis. A coin of Nero's time
bears on one side 'E^etr/wv veaK6peav, and on the
reverse a figure of the temple of Artemis (Mionnet,
Jnsci: iii. 93; Eckhel, Doctr. Vet. Num. ii. 520).
The ancient veneration of Artemis and her temple
on the part of the city of Kphesus, which procured
for it the title of vecoKSpos ttjs 'Apre/iiSoy, is too
well known to need illustration : but in later times
it seems probable that with the term v€(t)K6pos the
pi-actice of Neucorism became reserved almost ex
clusively for the veneration paid to Koman emperors,
towards whom m:iny other cities also of Asia
Minor are mentioned as Neocorists, e. g. Nicome-
dia, Perinthus, Sardis, Smyrna, Magnesia (Herod.
i. 26; Strabo, xiv. 640; Aristid. Or. xiii. 775, ed.
Dind.; Mionnet, /nscr. iii. 97, Nos. 281, 285;
Eckhel, De Num. ii. 520, 521; Boeckh, yrascr.
2617,2618, 2622, 2054,2957, 2990, 2992, 2993;
Krause, De Civ. Ntocoris ; Hofmaim, Lex. * Neo-
cwos')- H.W. P.
?WOT and WOTTETH occur repeatedly in
the A. V. (Gen. xxi. 26, xxxix. 8, xliv. 15; Exod.
xxxii. 1, etc.) as forms of the indicative present of
the old verb to wit^U> " know." [Wist; Wit.] A.
WRESTLING. [Games.]
WRITING. It is proposed in the present
article to treat, not of writing in general, its origin,
the people by whom and the manner in which it
was discovered, but simply with reference to the
Hebrew race to give such indications of their ac
quaiutance with the art as are to be derived from
their books, to discuss the origin and formation of
their alphabet, and the subsequent development of
the present square character, and to combine with
this discussion an account, so far as can be ascer
tained, of the material appliances which they made
use of in writing, and the extent to which the prac
tice prevailed ani6ng the people.
It is a remarkable fact that although, with re
spect to other arts, as for instance those of music
and metal working, the Hebrews have assigned the
honor of their discovery to the heroes of a remote
antiquity, there is no trace or tradition whatever of
the origin of letters, a discovery many tinies more
remarkable and important than either of these.
Throughout the book of Genesis there is not a
single allusion, direct or indirect, either to the
practice or to the existence of writing. The word
ins, cd(/m6, "to write," does not once occur;
none of its derivatives are used ; and "^SD, sepher^
" a book," is found only in a single passage (Gen.
V. 1), and there not in a connection which involves
the supposition that the art of writing was known
at the time to which it refers. The signet of Judah
(Gen, xxxviii. 18, 25) which had probably some de
vice engraven upon it, and Pharaoh's ring (Gen.
xh. 42) with which Joseph was invested, have been
appealed to as indicating a knowledge quite con
sistent with the exratence of writing. But as there
ifl nothing to show that the devices upon these
rings,- supposing thera to exist, were written char-
«tfirs, or m fact anything more than emblemat
ical figures, they cannot be considered as throwing

WRITING

3559

much light upon the question. That the Egyp
tians in the time of Joseph wtre acquainted with
writing of a certain kind there ia other evidence to
prove, but there is nothing to show that up to this
period the knowledge extended to the Hebrew
iiimily. At the same time there is no evidence
against it. The instance brought forward by Heng
stenberg to prove that " signets commonly bore al
phabetic writings," is by no means ao decisive as
he would have it appear. It is Ex. xxxix. 30:
" And they made the plate of the holy crown of
pure gold, and wrote upon it a writing of the en
gravings of a signet, ' HoUness to the Lord.' "
That ia, this inscription was engraved upon the
plate as the device is engraved upon a signet, in in
taglio; and the expression has reference to ths
manner of engraving, and not to the figures, en
graved, and therefore cannot be appealed to as prov
ing the exiatence of alphabetic characters upon
Judah's signet or Pharaoh's ring. Writing is first
distinctly mentioned in Ex. xvii. 14, and the con
nection clearly implies that it waa not then em
ployed for the first time, but was scfamiliar as to
be usefl for historic records. Moses is commanded
to preserve the memory of Amalek's onslaught in
the desert by committing it to writing. " And Je
hovah said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial
in the book (not ' a book,' as in the A. V.), and
reheai-se it in the ears of Joshua." It is clear that
some special book is here referred to, perhaps, as
Aben Ezra suggests, the book of tbe wars of Je
hovah, or the book of Jashar, or one of the many
documents of the ancient Hebrews which have long
aince perished. Or it may bave been the book in
which Moses wrote the words of Jehovah (Ex. xxiv.
4), that is the laws contained in chapters xx. -xxiii.
Tbe tables of the testimony are said to be " written
by the finger of God " (Ex. xxxi. 18) on both sides,
and " the writing was the writing of God, graven
upon the tables " (Ex. xxxii. ]6). It is not clear
whether the passage in Ex. xxxiv. 28 impUes that
the second tables were written by Moses or by God
himself. The engraving of the gema of the high-
priest's breastplate with the names of the children
of Israel (Ex. xxv4ii. 11), and the inscription upon
the mitre (Ex. xxxix. 30) have to do more with the
art of the engraver than of the writer, but both
imply the existence of alphabetic characters. The
next aUusion is not ao clear. The Israelites were
forbidden, in imitation of the idolatrous nationa, to
put any " brand " (Ut. " writing of burning " ) upon
themselves. The figures thus branded upon the
skin might have been alphabetical characters, but
they were more probably emblematical devices,
symbolizing some object of worship, for the root
SnS, cdthab (to write), is applied to picture-draw
ing (Judg. viii. 14), to mapping out a country
(Josh, xviii. 8), and to plan-drawing (1 Chr. xxviii.
19). The curses against the adulteress were writt«n
by the priest "in the book," as before; and blotted
out with water (Num. v. 23). This proceeding,
though principally distinguished by its symbolical
character, involves the use of some kind of ink, and
of a material on which the curses were written
whicli would nol be destroyed by water. Tbe writ
ing on door-poats and gates, aUuded to in Deut.
vi. 9, xi. 20, though perhaps to be taken figura
tively rather than literaUy, impUes certainly an
acquaintance with the art and the use of alphabetic
characters. Hitherto, however, nothing has been
said of the apjiUcation of writina to the purpose.^

8560

WRITING

of ordinary life, or of the knowledge of the art
among the common people. Up to this point such
knowledge is only attributed to Moses and the
priests. From Deut. xxiv. 1, 3, however, it would
appear that it was extended to others. A man who
wished to be separated from his wife for her infidel
ity, could relieve himself by a summary process.
" Let him write her a bill OPP, sephei; " a book ")
of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send
her out of his house." It is not absolutely neces
sary to infer from this that the art of writing was
an accomplishment possessed by every Hebrew citi
zen, though there is no mention of a third party ;
and it is more than probable that these " bills of
divorcement," though apparently so informal, were
the .work of professional scribes. It was enjoined
as one of the duties of the king (Deut. xvii. 18),
that he should transcribe the book of the Law for
his own private study, and we shall find hereafter
in the history that distinct allusions to writing
occur in the case of several kings. The remaining
instances in the Pentateuch are the writing of laws
upon stone covered with plaster, upon which while
soft the inscription was cut (Deut- xxvii. 3, 8), the
writing of the song of Moses (Deut. xxxi. 24), and
of the Law in a book which was placed in the side
of the ark (Deut. xxxi. 26). One of the first acts
of Joshua on entering the Promised Land was to
inscribe a copy of the 1-^w on the stones of the
Altar on Mount Ebal (Josh. viii. 32). The survey
of the country was drawn out in a book (Josh, xviii.
8). In the time of the Judges we first meet with
the professional scribe ("^DD, sopher), in his im
portant capacity as marshal of the host of warriors
(Judg. V. 14), with his staff (A. V. "pen") of
oflBce.' Ewald {Poet. Biich. i. 129) regards sopher
in this passage as equivalent to t^DtZ?, shophet,
*• judge," and certainly the context implies the high
rank which the art of writing conferred upon its
possessor. Later on in the history we read of
Samuel writing in "the book " the manner of the
kingdom (1 Sam. x. 25); but it is not till the reign
of David that we hear for the first time of writing
being used for the purposes of ordinary communi
cation. The letter (ht. " book ") which contained
Uriah's death-warrant was written by David, and
must have been intended for the eye of Joab alone;
who was therefore able to read writing, and prob
ably to write himself, though his message to the
king, conveying tbe intelligence of Uriah's death,
was a verbal one (2 Sam. xi. 14, 15). If we ex
amine the instances in which writing is mentioned
in connection with individuals, we shall find that
in all cases the writers were men of superior position.
In the Pentateuch the knowledge ofthe art is attrib
uted to Moses, Joshua, and the priest alone. Sam
uel, who was educated by the high-priest, is men-
Honed as one of the earliest historians (1 C)hr. xxix.
29), as well as Nathan the prophet (2 Chr. ix. 29),
Shemaiah the prophet, Iddo the seer (2 Chr. xii.
15, xiii. 22), and Jehu the son of Hanani (2 Chr.
XX. 34). Letters were written by Jezebel in the
name of Ahab and sealed with his seal (1 K. xxi.
8, 9, 11); by Jehu (2 K. x. 6); by Hezekiah (2
Chr. xxx. 1); by Rabshakeh the Assyrian general
(2 Chr. xxxii. 17); by the Persian satraps (Ezr. iv.
6, 7, 8); by Sanballat (Neh. vi. 5), Tobiah (Neh.
vi. 19), Haman (Esth. viii. 5), Mordecai and Es
ther (Esth. ix. 29). The prophet Elijah wrote to
Ahab (2 Chr. xxi. 12) ; Isaiah wrote some of the

WRITING
history of his tune (2 Chr. xxvi. 22); Jeremiah
committed his prophecies to writing (Jer. li. 60)
sometimes by the help of Baruch the scribe (Jer!
xxxvi. 4, 32); and the false prophet, Sheniaiah the
Nehelamite, endeavored to undermine Jeremiah's
influence by the letters which he wrote to the high-
priest (Jer. xxix. 25). In la. xxix. 11, 12, thereis
clearly a distinction drawn between the man who
was able to read, and the man who was not, and it
seems a natural inference from what has been said
that the accomplishments of reading and writing
were not widely spread araong the people^ when
we find that they are universally attributed to those
of high rank or education, kings, priests, prophets,
and professional scribes.
In addition to these instances in which writing
is directly mentioned, an indirect allusion to it-8
early existence is supposed to be found in the
name of certain oflficers of the Hebrews in Egypt,
D'^'l^tC', shoterim, LXX. ypa/xpaTeTs (Ex. v. 6,
A. V. " officers " ). The root of this word has been
sought in the Arabic y^Mj, satara, "to write,*'
and its original meaning is believed to be " writers,"
or "scribes; " an explanation adopted by Gesenius
in his Lexicon Hebraicum and Thesaurus, though
he rejected it in his Geschichte der JTebraischen
Sprache und Schrift. In the name Kirjath-Sfc.
pher (Booktown, Josh. xv. 15) the indication of a
knowledge of writing among the Phcenicians is
more distinct. Hitzig conjectures that the town
may have derived ite narue from the discovery of
the art, for the Hittites, a Canaanitish race, inhab
ited that region, and the term Hittite may posai
bly have its root in the Arabic JcL^, chatia, " to
write." The Hebrews, then, a branch of the great She
mitic family, being in possession of the art of writ
ing, according to their own historical records, at a
very early period, the further questions arise, what
character they made use of, and whence they ob
tained it. It is scarcely possible in the present
day to believe that, two centuries since, learned
men of sober judgment seriously maintained, al
most as an article of faith, that the square charac
ter, as it is known to us, with the vowel points and
accente, was a direct revelation from heaven, and
that the commandmente were written by the finger
of God upon the tables of stone in that character.
Such, however, was really the case. But recent
investigations have shown that, so far from the
square chai-acter having any claim to such a reraote
antiquity and such an august parentage, it is of
coraparatively modem date, and has been formed
from a more ancient type by a gradual process of
development, the steps of which will be indicated
hereafter, so far as they can be safely ascertained.
What then was this ancient type? Most probably
the Phcenician, To the Phoenicians, the daring
seamen, and adventurous colonizers of the ancient
world, tradition assigned the honor of the invention
of letters (Plin. v. 12). This tradition may heoi
no value as direct evidence, but as it probably orig
inated with the Greeks, it shows that, to them at
least, the Phcenicians were the inventors of letters.
and that these were introduced into Europe by
meansof that intercourse with Phoenicia which a
impUed in the legend of Cadmus, the man of the
East. The Phoenician companions of this hero,

WRITING
according to Herodotus (v. 58), taught the Greeks
many accomplishments, and among others the use
of letters, which hitherto they had not possessed.
So Lucan, Phurs. iii. 220: —
" Fboenices primi, famae si credimus, ausi
Mausuram rudibus vocem signaxe figuris."
Pliny (vii. 56) was of opinion that letters were
of Assyrian origin, but he mentions as a belief held
by others that they were discovered among the
Ij^yptians by Mercury, or that the Syrians had the
honor of the invention. The last-mentioned theory
is that given by Diodorus Siculus (v. 74), who says
that the Syrians invented letters, and from thera
the Phoenicians, having learned them, transferred
them to the Greeks. On the other hand, accord
hig to Tacitus {Ann. xi. 14), Iilgypt was believed
to be the source whence the Phoenicians derived
their knowledge. Be this as it mg,y, the voice of
tnidition represents the Phoenicians as the dissem
inators, if not tbe inventors of the alphabet.
Whether it came vo them from an Aramaean or
Egyptian source can at best be but the subject of
conjecture. It may, however, be reasonably in
ferred that the ancient Hebrews derived from, or
shared with, the Phoenicians the knowledge of writ
ing and the use of letters. The two nations spoke
languages of the same Shemitic faraily ; they were
brought into close contact by geographical position :
all circumstances combine to render it probable
that the ancient Hebrew alphabet was the common
possession both of Hebrews and Phcenicians, and
this probability is strengthened by the results of
modern investigation into the Phoenician inscrip
tions which have of late years been brought to
light. The names of the Hebrew letters indicate
that they must have been the invention of a Shem
itic people, and that they were moreover a pas-
tpral people may be inferred frora the sarae evidence.
Such nanies as Aleph (an ox), Girael (a carael),
learned (an ox-goad), are most naturally explained
by this hypothesis, which necessarily excludes the
seafaring Phoenicians frora any claim to their in
vention. If, as has been conjectured, they took
the first idea of writing from the Egyptians, they
would at least have given to the signs which th^
invented the naraes of objecte with which they
themselves were faraiHar. So far irom this being
the case, the letters of the Hebrew alphabet contain
no trace whatever of ships or seafaring matters : on
the contrary, they point distinctly to an inland and
pastoral people. The Shemitic and Egyptian al
phabets have this principle in comraon, that the
object whose narae is given to a letter was taken
originally to indicate the letter which begins the
name; but this fact alone is insufficient to show
that the Sheraitic races boiTOwed their alphabet
from Egypt, or that the principle thus held in
common may not have been the possession of other
nations of a still earlier date than the Egyptians.
"The phonetic use of hieroglyphics," says Mr.
Kenrick, "would naturally suggest to a practieal
people, such as the Phoenicians were, a simplifica
tion of the cumbrous system of the Egyptians, by
dispensing altogether with the pictorial and sym
bolical use, and assigning one character to each
sound, instead of the multitude of homophones
which made the reading of the hieroglyphics so dif
ficult; the residence of the ' Plioeniciiin shepherds,'
the Hyksos, in Egypt might afford an opportunity
for this adaptation, or it might be brought about
by commercial intercourse. We cannot, however,
224

WRITING

3561

trace such a resemblance between the earliest Phoe
nician alphabet known to us, and the phonetic
characters of Egypt, as to give any certainty to
this conclusion" {Phcenieia, pp. 164, 165).
Perhaps all that can be inferred from the tradi
tion that letters carae to the Greeks from the Phoe
nicians, but that they were the invention of the
Egyptians, is that the Egyptians possessed an al
phabet before the Phcenicians. Wahl, De AVette,
and Kopp are inclined to a Babylonian origin, un
derstanding the 2upoi of Diodorus and the Syn of
Pliny of the Babylonians. But Ge.senius has shown
this to be untenable, because (1) Pliny distinctly
mentions both Syri and Assyrti, and by no me;ins
confounds them; ^nd (2) because the inscription
on the seal-stone, on which Kopp based his theory,
is nothing more than Phoenician, and that not of
the oldest form, but inclining to the somewhat later
Aramaic character. This seal-stone or brick con
tained, besides a cuneiform inscription, sorae
Shemitic characters which were deciphered by
Kopp, and were placed by him at the head of his
most ancient alphabets {Bilder und Schrifien, ii.
154). Gesenius, however, read thera with a very
different result. He himself argues for a Phceni
cian origin of the alphabet, in opposition to a
Babylonian or Aramsean, on the following grounds:
1. That the names of the letters are Phoenician,
and not Syrian. Several of the names are found
alike in the Hebrew and Aramaic dialecte: as for
instance, beih, gimel, sain, nun, ain, resh, shin,
but others are not found in Syriac at all, at least
not in the same sense. Aleph, in Syriac signifies
"a thousand," not "an ox;" daleth is not "a
door," and for this, as well as for vau, yod, mem,
pe, koph, and tau, different words are used. The
Greek forms of the naraes of the letters are some
what in favor of an Aramaic origin, but there is no
proof that they came in this shape from the East,
and that they~were not so modified by the Greeka
themselves. 2. It is not probable that the Aramaic
dialect was the language of the inventors ; for thp
letters ** 1 2? M, which to them were certainly con
sonants, had become so weak in the Aramaic that
they could scarcely any longer appear as such, and
could not have been expressed by signs by an in
ventor who spoke a dialect of this kind. 3. If
the Phcenician letters are pictorial, as there seems
reason to beHeve, there is no model, among the old
Babylonian discoverers of writhig, after which they
could have been formed; while, on the other hand-
it is extremely probable that the Phcenicians, from
their extended commerce, especially with Egypt,
adopted an imitation of the Egyptian phonetic
hieroglyphics, though they took neither the figures
nor the naraes from this source. The names of
some of the letters lead us to a nomad pastoral
people, rich in herds: ale2}h (an ox), gimel (a
camel), lamed (an ox-goad), beth (a tent), daleth
(a tent-door), vau (a tent-peg), cheth (a hurdle oi
pen). It is a little remarkable that Gesenius did
not see that this very fact militates strongly against
the Phoenician origin of the letters, and points, as
has been observed above, rather to a pastoral than
a seafaring people as their inventors. But whether
or not the Phoenicians were the inventors of the
Shemitic alphabet, there can be no doubt of their
just claim to being its chief disseminators; and
with this understanding we may accept the geneal
ogy of alphabete as given by Gesenius. and eiihil*-
ited in the accompanying table.

3562

WRITING

WBITtNa

ic. Gk

Phoenician. I

Anc. Greek.

Ano. Persian. Numidian. Anc. Hebrew. Anc. Aramsesji.

Etruscan.Umbrian. Oscan.
Bamnito.

Roman. Later Greek.
Runic I

Celti- Coptic. Gothic. Slavonian.
berian.

Samaritan. Palmyrene.

Heb. squaro
cbaracur.

Sassanid-writing. Estrangelo Sabian.
I and Nest-orian.

Armenian ?
Whatever minor differences may exist between
Ihe ancient and more modern Shemitic alphabets,
they have two chief characteristics in common:
(1.) That they contain only consonante and the
three principal long vowels, S, 1, '^ [which must
have been cpnsonants originally. — W. H. W.] ;
the other vowels being represented by signs above,
below, or in the middle of letters, or being omiited
altogether. (2.) That they are written frora right
to left. The Ethiopic, being perhaps a non-Shem-
itic alphabet, ia an exception to this rule, as is
the cuneiform character in which sorae Sheraitic
inscriptions are found. The same peculiarity of
Egyptian writing was reraarked by Herodotus. No
instance of what is called bov,strop'tedon writing — -
that is in a direction from right to left, and from
left to right in alternate lines — is found in Shem
itic monuments.
The old Shemitic alphabete may be divided into
two principal classes: (1.) The Phcenician, as it
exists {a) in the inscriptions in Cyprus, Malta,
Carpentras, and the coins of Phoenicia and her
colonies. It is distinguished by an absence of
vowels, and by sometimes having the words divided
and sometimes no' {b.) In the inscriptions on
.fewish coins. (c In the Phoenicio-Egyptian
writing, with three vowel signs, deciphered by
Caylus on the mummy bandages. Erom (a) are
derived {d), the Samaritan character, 'and (c), the
Greek. (2.) The Hebrew-Chaldee character; to
which belong {a), the Hebrew square character;
{b), the Palmyrene, which has some traces of a
cursive hand; (c), the Estrangelo, or ancient Syr
iac; and {d), the ancient Arabic or Cufic. The
oldest Arabic writing (the Himyaritic) was per
haps the same as the ancient Hebrew or Phoe
nician.'' It remains no\v to consider which of all these
was the alphabet originally used hy the ancient
Hebrews. In considering this question it will on
many accounts be more convenient to begin with
the common square character, which is more fa-

a * Schroder {PliUnizische Sprache, pp. 77, 78) di
vides tbe Phoenicia!] remains into four palseographical
classes. The first, which be makes provisionally, as
he bad no monument to put in it, is the original
Archaic Phoenician used with little alteration up to
the seventh century before Christ. To this class, we
may say, belongs the Moabite monument of King
Mesha, first given to the public by M. Ganneau in
January, 1870. The second class is tbe Eastern Phoe
nician, sxtenrliog from the seventli or sixth century

Curie.
Nisihi.

Peshito. Uiguric, or
Old Turkish.

miliar, and vfhich from this familiarity is moie
constantly associated with the Hebrew languajre
and writing. In the Talmud (Sanh. foi. 21, 22)
this character is called 3?3nQ 3n3, "square
writing," or n''"1WS 30?, " Assyrian writ
ing; " the latter appellation being given became,
according to the tradition, it came up with the
IsraeUtes from Assyria. Under the term Assyria
are included Chaldsea and Babylonia in the \pider
sense; for it is clear tbat in ancient writers the
names Assyrian and Chaldiean are apphed indif
ferently to the same characters. The letters of the
inscription on the torab of Sardanapalus are called
Chaldsean (Atheu. xii. 529) and Assyrian (Athen.
xii. 469 ; Arrian, Exp. Ahx. ii. 5, § 4). Again,
the Assyrian writing on the pillars erected by
Darius at the Bosporos (Her. iv. 87), is called by
Strabo Persian (xv. 502). Another derivation
for the epithet iT'^^tffN, ashshuriih, as applied
to this writing, has been suggested by Eabbi Judah
the Holy, who derives it from n^t^SB, mfasJ-
shereth, " blessed ; " the term being applied to it
because it was employed in writing the sacred
books. Another etymology (from "^t^M, cLshm;
to be straight), given by the Hebrew grammarian
Abraham de Balmis, describes it as the straight,
perpendicular writing, so making tie epithet equiv
alent to that which we apply to it in caUing it the
square character. Hupfeld, starting from the same
root, explains the Talmudic designation as merely
a technical term used to denote the more modern
writing, and as opposed to V^"'; raats, " broken,"
by which the ancient character is described.* Ac
cording to him it signifies that which is firm,
strong, protected .and supported sa with forts an'l
walls, referring perhaps to the horizontal strokes
on which the letters rest as on a foundation.
In this view he compares it wiih the Ethiopic
character, which is called in Arabic tXXiwS)

B. 0. until the time of Christ, and called hy M. de
Vogiie the " Sidonian." The third class is tho Car
thaginian, and tbe fourth the New Pnoio of the time
of the Roman domination of North Africa and Spam.
W. H, W.
i * Probably the Talmud of Venice is right Id
printing this word yVl instead of ^V"!, fr""" '
root ^^'^, " to cut, engrave." W. H W

WRITING
¦'supported." It must be confessed that none of
Ihese explanations are so satisfactory as to be un
hesitatingly accepted. The only fact to be derived
from the word ri'^'H^ti^M is that it is the source
of the whole Talmudic tradition of the Babylonian
origin of the square character. This tradition is
Biubodied in the following passages from the Jeru-
Balem and Babylonian Talmuds : " It is a tradi
tion: R. Jose says Ezra was fit to have the Law
s;iven by his hand, but that the age of Moses pre
vented it; yet though it was not given by his
hand, the writing and the language were; the
writing was written in the Syriac tongue, and in
terpreted in the Syriac tongue (Ezr. iv. 7), and
they could not read the writing (Dan. v. 8); from
hence it is learned that it was given on the same
day. R. Nathan says the Law was given in broken
characters (V^*^» raats), and agrees with R. Jose
but Rab (i. e. E. Judah the Holy) says that the
Law was given in the Assyrian {i. e. the square)
character, and when they sinned it was turned into
the broken character, and when they were worthy,
in the days of Ezra, it was turned to them again
in the Assyrian character, according to Zech. ix.
12. It is a tradition: K. Simeon 'ben Eleazar says,
ou the account of R. Eleazar ben Parta, who also
says, on the account of Eliezer Hammodai, the Law
was written in the Assyrian character" (Talm.
Jerus. Megillah, foi. 71, 72, 73). But the story, as
beat known, is told in the Babylonian Talmud:
" Mar Zutra, or as others Mar Ukba, says, at first
the Law was given to Israel in the Hebrew (^^Dl?,
i. e. the Samaritan) writing and the holy tongue;
and again it was given to them, in the days of
Ezra, in the Assyrian writing and the Syrian
tongue. They chose for the Israelites the Assyrian
.writing and the holy tongue, and left to the Idintw
the Hebrew writing and the Syrian tongue. Who
are the Idiotce ? E. Chasda says, the Cutheans
(or Samaritans). What is the Hebrew wTiting?
R. Chasda says, the Libonaah writing " {Sanhed.
foi. 21, 2; 22, 1). The Libonaah writing is ex
plained by R. Solomon to mean the large charac
ters in which the Jews wrote their amulets and
memzoth. The broken character mentioned above
can only apply to the Samaritan alphabet, or one
very similar to it. In this character are written,
not only manuscripts of the Samaritan Pentateuch,
varying in age from the 13th to the 16th century,
but also other works in Samaritan and Arabic.
The Samaritans themselves call it Hehreio vyriting,
in contradistinction to the square character, which
they call the writing of Ezra. It has no vowel
points, but a diacritical mark called Marheiono is
employed, and words and sentences are divided.
A form of character more ancient than the Samari
tan, though closely resembling it, is found on the
coins struck under Simon Maccabseus, cir. b. c.
142. Of this WTiting Gesenius remarks (art. Pa-
Idographie in Ersch and Gruber's Encyclopddie)
that it was most probably employed, even in manu
scripts, during the whole lifetime of the Hebrew
Wguage, and was gradually displaced by the square
character about the birth of Christ, An examina
tion of tbe characters on the Maccabsean coins
shows that they bear an extremely close resem
blance to those of the Phoenician inscriptions, and
p many cases are all but identical with them.
The figures of thn'e characters (T, ID, D) do not
•ccur, and that of D is doubtful.

WRITING

3563

In order to explain the Talmudic story above
given, and the relation between the square char
acter and that of the coins, different theories have
been constructed. Sorae held that the square char
acter was sacred, and used by the priests, while
the character on the coins was for the purposes of
ordinary life. The younger Buxtorf ( De Lit, HeW.
Gen. Ant.) maintained that the square alphabet
was the oldest and the original alphabet of the
Hebrews, and that before the Captivity the Sa
maritan character had existed side by side with it;
that during the Captivity the priests and more
learned part of the people cultivated the square or
sacred character, while those who were left in
Palestine adhered, to the common writing. Ezra
brought the former back with hira, and it was
hence called Assyrian or Chaldsean. The other
was used principally by the Samaritans, though
occasionally by the Jews themselves, as is shown
by the characters on the Maccabaean coins. This
opinion found raany supporters, and a singular
turn was given to it by Morinus {De Lingua Pri-
mcBva, p. 271) and Loescher {De Causis Ling.
Hebr. pp. 207, 208), who maintained that the char
acters on the coins were a kind of tachygraphic
writing formed from the square character. Hart-
mann {Ling. Einl. p. 28, (fee.) also upheld the
existence of a twofold character, the sacred and
profane. The favorers of this hypothesis of a
double alphabet had some analogies to which they
could appeal for support. The Egyptians had a
twofold, or even a threefold character. The cunei
form writing of the ancient Persians and Medes
was perhaps a sacred character for monuments, the
Zend being used for ordinary life. The Arabs,
Persians, and Turks, employ different characters
according as they require them for letters, poems,
or historical writings. But analogy is not proof,
and therefore the passage in Is. viii. 1 has been
appealed to as contauiing a direct allusion to the
ordinary writing as opposed to the sacred charac
ter. But it is evident, upon examination, that the
writing there referred to is that of a perfectly
legible character, such as an ordinary unskilled
man might read. Irenaeus {Adv. Hceres, ii. 24 j,
indeed, speaks of sacerdotal letters, but his infor
mation is not to be relied on. In fact the sole
ground for the hypothesis lies in the fact that the
only specimens of the Hebrew writing of common
life are not in the usual character of the manu
scripts. If this supposition of the coexistence of
a twofold alphabet be abandoned as untenable, we
must either substitute for it a second hypothesis,
that the square character was the exclusive posses
sion of the kingdom of Judah, and that the Sa
maritan was used in the northern kingdom, or that
the two alphabets were successive and not con
temporary. Against the fornier hypothesis stands
the fact that the coins on which the so-called
Samaritan character occurs were struck at Jeru
salem, and the names Hebrew and Assyrian, as
applied to the two alphabets, would still be unac
counted for. There remains then the hypothesis
that the square character and the vnriting of the
coins succeeded each other in point of time, and
that the one graduaUy took the place of the other,
just as in Arabic the Nischi writing has displaced
the older Cufic character, and in Syriac the Es
trangelo has given place to that at present in use
But did the square character precede the charactei
on the coins, or was the reverse the case? Accord
ing to sorae of the doctors of the Palnud {Sanh.

3564

WRITING

foi. 21, 2; 22, 1), in the passage above quoted, the
Law was given to the Israelites in the Hebrew char
acter and the holy tongue. It was given again
in the days of Ezra in the Assyrian character and
the Aranijean tongue. By the ''Hebrew" char
acter is to be understood what is elsewhere called
the " broken " writing, which is what is commonly
called Samaritan ; and 'by the Assyrian writing is
to be understood the square character. But Rabbi
Judah the Holy, who adopted a different etymology
for the word n*'"11t2?M (Assyrian), says that the
Law was first given in this square character, but
that afterwards, when the people sinned, it was
changed into the broken vyriting, which again, upon
their repentance in the days of Ezra, was converted
into the square character. In both these cases it
is evident that the tradition is entirely built upon
the etymology of the word ashshHrith, and varies
according to the different conceptions formed of its
meaning: consequently it is of but slight value as
direct testimony. The varying character of the
tradition shows moreover that it was framed after
the true meaning of the narae had become lost.
Origen (on Ez. ix. 4) says that in the ancient
alphabet the tau had the form of a cross, and
{Hexapla, i. 86, Montfaucon) that in some MSS.
of the LXX. the word mrT** was written in an
cient Hebrew characters, not with those in use in
his day, " for they say that Ezra used other [let
ters] after the Captivity." Jerome, following
Origen, gives out as certain what his predecessor
only mentioned as a report, and the tradition in
his hands assumes a. different aspect. *' It is cer
tain," he says, " that Ezra the scribe and doctor
of the law, after the taking of Jerusalem and the
restoration of the Teraple under Zerubbabel, dis
covered other letters which we now use: whereas
up to that time the characters of the Samaritans
and Hebrews were the same. . . And the tetra
grammaton name of the Lord we find in the present
day written in ancient letters in certain Greek
rolls" {Prol. Gal. in Libr. Reg.). The testimony
of Origen with regard to the form of tau under
goes a similar modification. " In the ancient He
brew lettei-s, which the Samaritans use to this day,
the last letter, tau, has the forra of a cross."
Again, in another passage {Ep. 136 ad Marcell.
ii. 704, Ep. 14, ed. Martianay) Jerome remarks
that the ineffable name mn"^, being misunder
stood by the Greeks when they met with it in
their books, was read by them pipi, i. e. nilll-
It has been inferred from this that the ancient
characters, to which both Jerome and Origen refer
in the first-quoted passages, were the square char
acters, because in them alone, and not in the Sa
maritan, does any resemblance between mrT^ and
nini exist. There is nothing, however, to show
that Jerome contemplated the same case in the two
passages. In the one he expressly mentions the
"ancient characters," and evidently as an excep
tional instance, for they were only found in " cer
tain rolls; " in the other he appears to speak of an
occurrence by no raeans uncommon. Again, it is
Jerome, and uot Origen, who is responsible for the
assertion that in the Samaritan alphabet the Tau

a * These remarks need modification if we take ag
our standard of comparison some lately discovered
and quite old Samaritan inscriptions, such as tbe
fragment of a copy of the Decalogue built into a

WRITING
has the form of a cross. Origen raerely says this
is the case in the ancient or original {apyalots)
Hebrew characters, and his assertion is true of the
writing ou the Maccabaean coins, and of the an
cient and even the more modem Phoenician, but
not of the alphabet known tx) us as the Samari
tan. It seems clear, therefore, that Jerome's lan-*
guage on this point cannot be regarded as strictly
accurate. There are many arguments which go to show
that the Samaritan character is older than the
square Hebrew. One of these is derived from the
existence of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which, ac
cording to some writers, must date at least from
the time of the separation of the two kingdoms,
the northern kingdom retaining the ancient writing
which was once common to both. But there ia no
evidence for the existence of the Samaritan Penta
teuch before the Captivity, and the opinion which
now most commonly prevails is that the Saraaritana
received it first in the Jlaccabjean period, and with
it the Jewish writing (Havernick, Einl. i. 290).
The question is still far from being decided, and
while it remains in this condition the arguments
derived from the Samaritan Pentateuch cannot be
allowed to have much weight. Hupfeld {Stud, und
Krit. 1830, ii. 279, <fec.) contends that the common
theory, that the Samaritans received their writing
frora the ancient Israelitish tinies, but maintain^
it more faithfully than the Jews, is improbable,
because the Samaritans were a mixed race, entirely
different from the ancient Israelites, and had, like
their language, a preponderating Aramaic element;
consequently, if they had had a character pecuhar
to themselves, independently of their sacred book,
it would rather have been Aramaic. He argues
that the Samaritans received their present writing
with their Pentalieuch from the Jews, because the
Samaritan character differs iu several important
particulars from that on the Phoenician monu
ments, but coincides in all characteristic deviations
with the ancient Hebrew on the Maccabaean coins.
These deviations are — (1) the horizontal strokes in
beih, mem, and nun, which have no parallel on
the Phoenician monuments: (2) the angular heads
of beth, daleth, and especiaUy 'om, which last
never occurs in an angular form in Phcenician:
(3) the entirely different forms of tsctde and vau,
as well as of zain and saviech, which are not
found on the Maccabsean coins. In the Samaritan
letters aleph, cheth, lamed, shin^ there is a closer
relationship with the forms of the old Hebrew: the
only marked deviation is in the form of tau.^ To
these considerations Hupfeld adds the traditions of
Origen and Jerome and the Talraud already given,
and the fact that the Samaritans have preserved
their letters unchanged, a circumstance which is
intelUgible on the supposition that these lettera
were regarded by them with superstitious reverence
as a sacred character which had come to them from
without, and which, in the absence of any earlier
indigenous tradition of writing, necessarily became
a lifeless permanent type.
The names ofthe letters, and the correspondence
of their forms to their names in the Phoenician
and Phoenicio-Samaritan alphabets, supply another
argument for the superior antiquity of this to tha
Hebrew square character: c. g. ^Aln (an eye),
Mohammedai -posque, of wbich Rosen gives a figure
^Zeitsck. d. Deutsch. Morg. Ges. xiii. 2781 Here, toa-
trary to Hupfeld, the tau is a simplf cnpsa, being
precisely the old Phoenician form. W H. W.

WRITING
Irhich on the coins and Phoenician monuments has
the form o ; Resh (a head ), q." On the other hand,
the names Vau (a nail or peg), Zain (a weapon),
Caph (the hollow, hand), correspond to their forms
better in the square character: this, however, at
most, would only prove that both are derived from
the same original alpliabet in which the corre
spondence between the shape and name of each let^
ter was more complete. Again, we trace the Phoe
nician alphabet much further back than the square
character. The famous inscription on the sarcopli-
agus of Eshmunazar, found at Sidon in 1855, is
referred by the Due de Luynes to the sixth century
B- c. The date of the inscription at Marseilles is
mort uncertain. Some would place it before the
fouLdation of the Greek colony there, B. c. 600.
Thfcre is reason to beUeve, bowever, tbat it is much
more recent. Besides these we have the inscrip
tions at Sigajum and Amyclae in the ancient Greek
character, which is akin to the Phcenician. On the
other hand, the Hebrseo-Chaldee character is not
found on historic monuments before the birth of
Christ. A consideration of the various readings
which have arisen from the interchange of similar
characters in tiie present text leads, as raight natu
rally be expected, to results which are rather favor
able to the square character, for in tbis alone are
the manuscripts written which have come down to
us. The following examples are given, with one
exception, by Gesenius : — ¦
(a.) In the square alphabet are confounded —
a and 3. n''33t:7, Neh. xu. 14 = n''23'J?,
Neh. xii. 3; """lit, 1 Chr. ix.
15 = *T:2T, Neh. xi. 17.
1 and \ IPVX Gen. xlvi. 27 = IPV^ 1
Chr. i. 42.
2andD. nillS, 1 K. vii. 40 = m-|''D,
2 Chr. iv. 11.
3 and n. n3t»n, Ps. xviu. 12 =n'-)wn,
2 Sam. xxii. 12.
'i and 1. t^Va, Ps. xxxi. 3 = ^]^^S¦D, Ps.
kxi. 3.
(b.) In both alphabets are confounded —
T aud n. nS'^l, 1 Chr. i. 6 = nsn, Gen.
X. 3; a>^ll, 1 Chr. i. 7 =
t3''31-), Gen. ^. 4; ^S^, Lev.
xi. 14=nS1, Deut. xiv. 13;
NTI, Ps. xviii. ll = Nn>i1,
2 Sam. xxii. 11.
(c.) In the Phoenician alone — ¦
a and 1. 2bn, 2 Sam. xxiii. 29 = ibPI,
1 Chr. xi. 30.
'' and ti7, whence probably I^V, Josh. xxi. 16
= yj)V,l Chr. vi. 44.
3andD. 1-1^3, 1 Chr. xi. 37 = ''-lS'S,
2 Sam. xxiii. 35.
(d.) In neither —

WRITING

3565

" • No sort of dependence can be put on this argu-
aent. The olde.''t Resk has a triangular, and not a
round head, and the gradual development of the
Heb'^w square characters is evident enough from

3 and "). Din3, Neh. vii. 7 = D*irn, Ezr.
ii. 2.
3 and n. ]r[n, Num. xxvi. 35 =nnn,
1 Chr. vu. 20. linn, 1 Chr.
vi. 7C [61] = m>3n, Josh, xxi
32.
The third class of these readings seems to point
to a period when the Hebrews used the Phoenician
character, and a comparison of the Phcenician
alphabet and the Hebrew coin-writing shows that
the examples of which Gesenius makes a fourth
class, might really be included under the third: for
in these some forms of 3 and n, as well as of D
and n, are by no means unlike. This circum
stance takes away some of the importance which
the above results otherwise give to the square char
acter. Indeed, after writing his Hebrdische Sprache
und Schrifij Gesenius himself appears to have
modified some of the conclusions at which he ar
rived hi that work, and instead of maintaining that
the square character, or one essentially similar to
it, was in use hi the time of the LXX., and that
the Maccabees retained the old character for their
coins, as the Arabs retained the Cufic some centu
ries after the introduction of the Nischi, he con
cludes as most probable, in his article Paldographie
(in Krsch and Gruber's Encycl.), that the ancient
Hebrew was first changed for the square character
about the birth of Christ. A comparison of the
Phosnician with the square alphabet shows that the
latter could not be the immediate development of
the former, and that it could not have been formed
gradually from it at some period subsequent to the
time of the Maccabees. The essential difference
of some characters, and the similarity of others,
render it probable that the two alphabets are both
descended from one more ancient than either, of
which each has retained some peculiarities. This
more ancient form, Hupfeld {Hebrdische Gram
matik, § 7) maintains, is the original alphabet
invented by the Babylonians, and extended by the
Phoenicians. From this the square character was
developed by three stages.
1. In its oldest form it appears on Phcenician
monuments, stones, and coins. The number of the
inscriptions containing Phcenician writing was 77,
greater and smaller, in the time of Gesenius, but it
has since been increased by the discovery of the
famous sarcophagus of Eshmunazar king of Sidon,
and the excavations which have still raore recently
been made in the neighborhood of Carthage have
brought to light many others whicli are now in the
British Museum. Tho.se descrilied by Gesenius
were found at Athens (three bilingual), at Malta
(four, one of which is bilingual), in Cyprus, araong
the ruins of Kitiura (thirty-three), in Sicily, in the
ruins of Carthage (twelve), and in the regions of
Cai-thage and Numidia. They belong for the most
part to the period between Alexander and the age
of Augustus. A Punic inscription on the arch of
Septimius Severus brings down the Phcpnician
character as late as the beginning of the third cen
tury after Christ. Besides these inscriptions on
stone, there are a number of coins bearing Phoeni-

paleeographical data, without considering the rasem-
blance they may be imagined to Vwir to the moining
of their names. W. U. W,

3566

WRITING

cian characters, of which those found in Cilicia are
the most ancient, and belong to the times of the
Persian domination. The character on all these is
essentially the same. In its best form it is found
on the Sicilian, Jlaltese, Cyprian, and Carthaginian
inscriptions. On the Cicilian coins it is perhaps raost
original, degenerating on the later coins of Phoenicia,
Spain, and the neighboring islands, and becoming
almost a cursive character in the monuments of Nu
midia and the African provinces. There are no
final letters, and no divisions of words. The char
acteristics of the Phoenician alphabet as it is thus
discovered are, that it is purely consonantal; that
it consists of twenty-two letters written from right
to left, aud is distinguished by strong perpendicu
lar strokes, and the closed heads of the letters ; that
the names and order of the letters were the same
as in the Hebrew alphabet, as may be inferred
from the names of the Greek letters which came
immediately from Phoenicia; and that originally
the alphabet was pictorial, the letters representing
figures. This last position has been strongly op
posed by Wuttke {Zettsch. d. D. M. G. xi. 75,
etc.), who maintains that the ancient Phoenician
alphabet contains no traces of a pictorial character,
and that the letters are simply combinations of
strokes. It is irapossible here "to give his argu
ments, and the reader is referred for further infor
mation to his article. This ancient Phoenician
chai'acter in its earliest form was probably, saj's
Hupfeld, adopted by the Hebrews from the Canaan
ites, and used by them during the whole period of
the living language till shortly before the birth of
Christ. Closely allied with it are the chai-acters on
the Maccabsean coins, and the Samaritan alphabet.
2. While the old writing remained so almost
unchanged among the Phoenicians hnd Samaritans,
it was undergoing a gradual transformation among
its original inventors, the Aramaeans, especially
those of the West. This transformation was effected
by opening the heads of the letters, and by bending
the perpendicular stroke into a horizontal one,
which in the cursive character served for a connect
ing stroke, and in the inscriptions on stone for a
basis or foundation for the lettei's- The character
in this form is found in the earliest stage on the
stone of Carpentras, where the letters 37, D, "1, *!,
have open beads; and later in the inscriptions on
the ruins of Palmyra, where the characters are dis
tinguished by the open heads degenerating some
times to a point, and by horizontal connecting
strokes. Besides the stone of Carpentras, the older
form of the modified Aramaean character is found
on some fragments of papyrus found in Egypt, and
preserved in the Library at Turin, and in the Mu
seum of the Duke of Blacas. Plates of these are
given in Gesenius' Monumenta Phcenieia (tab.
28-33), They belong to the time of the later
Ptolemies, and are written in an Aramaic dialect.
The inscription on the Carpentras stone was the
work of heathen scribes, probably, as Dr. Levy
suggests {Ztitscli. d. D. M. G. xi. 67), tbe Baby
lonian colonists of Egypt; the writing ofthe papyri
he attiibutes to Jews. The inscription on the vase
of the Serapeum at ]\Iemphis is placed by the Due
de Luynes and M. Mariette in the 4th century
B. c. In the Blacas fragments the heads of the
letters lit, 1, "^, have fallen away altogether. In
the forms of H, H, 3, we see the origin of the
figures of the square character. The final forms

WRITING
of Caph and Nun occur for the first' time. Tht
Palmyrene writing represents a later stage, and
belongs principally to the second and third centu
ries after Christ, the time of the greatest prosperity
of Palmyra. The oldest inscription belongs to the
year 396 of the Greeks (a. d. 84), and the latest
to the year 569 (a. d. 257). The vn-iting was not
confined to Palmyra, for an inscription in the same
character was found at Abilene. The Palmyrene
inscriptions are fifteen in nuraber: ten bilingual, in
S}Tiac and Greek, and Syriac and Latin. Two aie
preserved at Rome, four at Oxford. Those at Rome
differ from the rest, iu having lost the heads of the
letters H, *T, "1, i?, while the forms ofthe *^, D, H,
are like the Phoenician. Of the cursive Asayiian
writing, which appears to be allied to the Arara&aii,
Mr. Layard remarks, " On monuments and remains
purely Syrian, or such as cannot be traced to a
foreign people, only one form of character has been
discovered, and it so closely resembles the cureive
of Assyria, that there can be little doubt as to tha
identity of the origin of the two. If, therefore, the
inhabitants of Syria, whether Phoenicians or others,
were the inventors of letters, and those letters were
such as exist upon the earliest monuments of that
country, the cursive character of the Assyrians may
have been as ancient as the cuneiform. However
that may be, this hieratic character has not yet
been found in Assyria on remains of a very early
epoch, and it would seem probable that simple per
pendicular and horizontal lines preceded rounded
forras, being better suited to letters carved on stone
tablets or rocks. At Nimroud the cursive writing
was found on part of an alabaster vase, and od
fragments of pottery, taken out of the rubbish
covering the ruins. On the alabaster vase it ac
companied an inscription in the cuneiform charac^
ter, containing the narae of the Khorsabad king, to
whose reign it is evident, from several circum
stances, the vase must be attributed. It has also
been found on Babylonian bricks of the time of
Nebuchadnezzar" {Nin. ii. pp. 165, 166). M.
Fresnel discovered at Kasr some fifty fragments of
pottery covered with this cursive character in ink.
These, too, are said to be of the age of Nebuchad
nezzar {Journ. Asiai. July 1853, p. 77). Dr. Levy
{Zeiisch. d. D. M. G. ix. 465) maintains, in
accordance with the Talmudic tradition, that the
Jews acquired this cursive writing in Babylon, and
brought it back with them after the Captivity
together with the Chaldee language, and that it
gradually displaced the older alphabet, of which
remain iu the forms of the final letters.

3. While this modification was taking phice in
the Aramaic letters, a similar process of change
was going on in the old character among the Jews.
We already find indications of this in the IMacca-
bsean coins, where the straight strokes of some let
ters are broken. The AraniMic character, too, had
apparently an influence upon the Hebrew, propor
tioned to the influence exercised by the Aramaic
dialect upon tbe Hebrew language. The heads of
the lettei-s still left in the Palmyrene character are
removed, the position and leni^th of several oblique
strokes are altered (as in H, H, X 2)- ^^ '°3*' ^^
character of a cursive hand by the separation of
the several letters, and the stiff ornaments which
they received at the hands of calligraphers, and thua
became an angular, uniform, broken character, from
which it receives its name square (^|1^P ^V • ''

WRITING
lu the letters S, 2, 3, 3, D, 3, D, V, S, H, the
/Egypto-Araniaio appears the older, and the Pal
myrene most resembles the square character. In
others, on the contrary, as H, tS, p, "1, the square
character is closely allied to the forms in the blacas
fragments j and in some, as ^, T^, 1, T, '^,W, both
the older alphabets agree with tbe square character.
So far as regards the development of the square
character from the Ai'anisean, as it appears on the
Btone of Carpentras and the ruins of Palmyra, Hup
feld and Gesenius are substantially agreed, but they
differ widely on another and very important point.
Gesenius is disposed to allow some weight to the
tradition as preserved in the Talmud, Origen, and
Jerome, that the Hebrews at some period adopted
1 character different from their own. The Chaldee
square alphabet he considers as originaUy of Ara
maic origin, but transferred to tbe Hebrew lan
guage. To this conclusioa he appears to be drawn
by the name Assyrian applied in the Talmud to
the square character, which he infers was probably
the ancient character of Assyria. If this were the
case, it is remarlcable that no trace of it should be
found on the Assyrian monuments ; and, in the ab
sence of other evidence, it is unsafe to build a
theory upon a name, the interpretation of which
ia uncertain. The change of alphabet from the
Phcenician to the Aramaean, and the development
of the Syriac from the Aramsan, Gesenius regards
ta two distinct circumstances, which took place at
different tinies, and were separated by a consider
able interval. The formation of the square charac
ter he mahitains cannot be put earlier than the
second century after Christ. Hupfeld, on the other
hand, with more show of reason, rejects altogether
the theory of an abrupt change of character, because
he doubts whether any instance can be shown of a
simple exchange of alphabets in the case of a people
who have already a tradition of writing. The an
cient letters were in use in the time of the Macca
bees, and from that period writing did not cease,
but was rather more practiced in the transcrip
tion of the sacred books. Besides, on comparing
the Palmyrene with the square character, it is clear
that the former has been altered and developed,
a result which would have been impossible in the
case of a communication from without which over
whelmed all tradition and spontaneity. The case
of the Samaritans, on the other hand, is that of a
people who received an alphabet entire, which they
regarded as sacred in consequence of its associa
tion with their sacred book, and wbich they there
fore retained unaltered with superstitious fidelity.
Moreover, in the old Hebrew writing on the coins
we see already a tendency to several important al
terations, as, for exaraple, in the open heads of 3
and "1, and the base lines of 3, 3, J3, 3 ; and
raany letters, as H, are derived rather from the
Min-character than from the Palmyrene, while C3
Uld p are entirely Phoenician. Finally, Hupfeld
>dds, " It is in the highest degree improbable — nay,
ilmost inconceivable — that the Jews, in the fervor
>f their then enthusiasm for their sacred books,

WRITING

3567

» Another link between the Palmyrene and the
•quare character Is supplied by the writing on some
rf the UabyloQian bowls, described by Mr. Layard

should, consciously and without apparent reason,
have adopted a foreign character, and abandoned the
ancient writing of their fathers."
Assuming, then, as approximately true, that the
square character of the Hebrews was tbe natural
result of a gradual process of development, and
that it was not adopted in its present shape from
without, but became what it is by an internal or
ganic change, we have further to consider at what
time it acquired its present form. Kopp (Bilder
und Schriften, ii. 177) places it as late as the 4th
century after Christ; but he appears to be guided
to his conclusion chiefly by the fact that tbe Pal
myrene character, to which it is most nearly allied,
extended into the 3d century. It is evident, how
ever, from several considerations, that in the 4th
century the square character was substantially the
same as it is to tbis day, and had for some time
been so. The descriptions of the forms of the let
ters in the Talmud and Jerome coincide most ex
actly with tbe present; for both are acquainted
with fiuMl letters, and describe as similar those let
ters which resemble each other in the modern al
phabet, as, for instance, 3 and 3, T and 1, T\
and n, 1 and ^, T and "], Q and D. The calli
graphic ornaments which were employed in the
writing of the synagogue rolls, as tbe tagyin on
the letters V ^ ^ 3 t2 3 ti7, the point in the
broken headline of PT ( O ), and many other pre
scriptions for the orthography of the Torah are
found in the Talmud, and show that Hebrew cal
ligraphy, under the powerful protection of minute
laws observed with superstitious reverence, bad long
received its full development, and was become a
fixed unalterable type, as it has remained ever since.
The change of character, moreover, not only in the
time of Jerome and tbe Talmud, but even as early
as Origen, was an event already long pas.sed, and
so old and involved in the darkness of fable as to be
attributed in tbe common legend to Ezra, or by
most of the Talmudists to (iod Himself. The very
obscurity which surrounds the meaning of tbe terms
^'yT and iT'^lti^S as applied to the old and new
writing respectively, is another proof that in the
time of tbe Talmudists the square character had
become permanent, and that tbe history of the
changes through which it had passed bad been lost.
In the Mishna (Shabb. xii. 5) the case is mentioned
of two Zains (TT) being written for Cheth (H),
which could only be true of the square character.
The often-quoted passage, Matt. v. 18, which is
generally brought forward as a proof that tbe square
character must have been in existence in the time of
Christ, who mentions itara, or yod, as the smallest
letter of the alphabet, proves at least that the old
Hebrew or Phoenician character was no longer in
use, but that the Palmyrene character, or one very
much like it, had been introduced. Frora these
circumstances we may uifer, witb Hupfeld (Stail.
und Krit. 18.30, ii. 288), that Whiston's conjecture
is approximately true; namely, that about the first
or second century after Christ the square character
assumed its preseut form ; though in a question in
volved in so much uncertai[ity, it is impossible ta
pronounce with great positiveness."
(Mn. and Bab. p. 509), which Dr. hevj (Zrilsch . I. B.
M. ff.) assigns to the 7th century A. ]). [See the pla(6
in Schrader's ed. of De '"itte's Einl. (1869). — i .]

3568

WRITING

Next to the scattered hints as to the shape of the
Hebrew letters whjch we find in the writings of
Jerome, the raost direct evidence on this point is
Lupplied by the so-called Alphabelum Jesuiiartim,
which is found in a MS. (Codex Marchalianus, now
lost) of the LXX. of Lam. ii. It is the work of a
Greek scribe, imperfectly acquainted with, or more
probably entirely ignorant of Hebrew, who copied
slavishly the letters which were before him. In
this alphabet H is written n; "^ and T are of nearly
equal length, the latter being distinguished by two
dots; P is raade like p, and H hke H. 1'he let
ters on the two Abraxas gems in his possession were
thought by Montfaucon {Prcelim. ad Hex. Orig.
i. 22, 23) to have been Hebrew; but as they have
not been fairly deciphered, nothing can be inferred
from thera. Other instances of the occurrence of
the Hebrew alphabet written by ignorant scribes
are fonnd in a Codex of the New Testaraent, of
which an account is given by Treschow {Tent.
descr. Cod. Vet. aliquot Gr. N. T.), and three
have been edited from Greek and Latin MSS. in
the Nouveau Traite Diplomatique published by the
Benedictines. To these, as to the Alphabeium
Jesuitaimm, Kennicott justly attrilaites no value
{Dissert. Gen. p. 69 note). The same may be said
of the Hebrew writing of a monk, taken from the
work of Rabanus Maurus, De inventione linguai-um.
The Jews themselves recognize a double character
in the writing of their synagogue rolls. The earlier
ofthese is called the Tarn writing (^HD DH) as
some suppose, from Tam, the grandson of Rashi,
who flourished in the 12th century, and is thought
to be the inventor; or, according to others, from
the perfect form of the letters, the epithet Tam
being then taken as a significant epithet of the
square character, in which sense the expression
nXSin nn'^inS, cethUiah thammah, occurs in the
Talmud {Shabbaih, fob 103 b). Phylacteries writ
ten in this character were hence called Tam tephil-
lin. The letters have fine pointed corners and per
pendicular taggin (P^H), or little strokes attached
to the seven letters V^^3tD^t£?. The Tam writ>
ing is chiefly found in German synagogue rolls, and
probably also in those of the Polish Jews. The
Welsh writing (DHD 127^11), to which the Jews
assign a later date than to the other, usually occurs
in the synagogue rolls and other manuscripts of the
Spanish and eastern Jews. The figures of the let
ters are rounder than in the Tam writing, and the
Inggin, or crown-like ornaraents, terminate in a
thick point. But besides these two fornis of writ
ing, which are not essentially distinct, there are
minor dififerences observable in the manuscripts of
ditferent countries. The Spanish character is the
most regular and simple, and is for the most part
large and bold, forming a true square character.
The German is more sloping and compressed, with
pointed corners; but finer than the Spanish. Be
tween these the French and Italian character is in
termediate, and is hence called by Kennicott {Diss.
Gen. p. 71) character intermedins. It is for the
most part rather smaller than the others, and the
a * Dr. Donaldson's conjectures are at best rather
fanciful. His seconl class does not consist of " tbree
mutes." Even if H can be called such, "1 is no mute

WBITING
forms of the lettera are rounder (Eichhom, Eird ii
37-41; Tychsen, Tentamen de var. ad. Hebr. V.
T. MSS. generibus, p. 264; Bellermuin. De un
pcdcBOg. H^r. p. 43).
The Alphabet. — The oldest evidence on the sub
ject of the Hebrew alphabet is derived from the al
phabetical psalms and poems; Pss. xxv., xxxiv.
xxxvii., cxi., cxii., cxix., cxiv.; Prov. xxxi. 10-31;
Lam. i.-iv. From these we ascertain that the num
ber of the letters was twenty- two, as at present.
The Arabic alphabet originally consisted of the
same number. Irenseus {Adv. Hcer. ii. 24) says
that the ancient sacred letters were ten in number.
It has been argued by raany that the alphabet of
the Phoenicians at first consisted only of sixteen let
ters, or according to Hug of fifteen, T, tO, 3, D
D, K being omitted. The legend as Told by Pliny
(vii. 56) is as follows. Cadmus brought with him
into Greece sixteen lettere; at the time of the Tro
jan war Palamedes added four others, 0, H, 4» X
and Siraonides of Melos four raore, Z, H, ¦*¦, fl.
Aristotle recognized eighteen letters of the original
alphabet, A B PAEZIKAMNOnPSTT*,
to which 0 and X were added by Epicharmus
(corap. Tac. Ann. xi. 14). By Isidore of Seville
(Orig. i. 3) it is said there were seventeen. But
in the oldest story of Cadmus, as told by Herodotus
(v. 58) and Diodorus (v. 24), nothing is said of
the number of the letters. Recent investigations,
however, have rendered it probable that at first the
Shemitic alphabet consisted of but sixteen letters.
It is true that no extant monuments illustrate the
period when the alphabet was thus curtailed, but
as the theory is based upon an organic arrangement
first proposed by Lepsius, it may be briefly noticed.
Dr. Donaldson {New Cratylus, p. 171, 3d ed.) says,
•' Besides the mutes and breathings, the Hebrew
alphabet, as it now stands, has four sibilants, t, D,
^, W, Now it is quite clear that all these four
sibilants could not have existed in the oldest state
of the alphabet. Indeed we have positive evidenie
that the Ephraimites could not pronounce t£7, but
substituted for it the simpler articulation D
(Judges xii. 6). We consider it quite certain, that
at the first there was only one sibilant, namely this
D, or samech. Finally, to reduce the Shemitic al
phabet to its oldest form, we must omit caph, which
is only a softened form of kiiphy the liquid resh, and
the semivowel jod., which are of more recent intro
duction. . . The reraaining 16 letters appear in
the following order: M, 3, 2, *1, H, \ PI, tO, 7,
X3, 3, D, Vy ?D, p, n. If we examine this order
more minutely, we shall see that it is not arbitrary
or accidental, but strictly organic according to the
Shemitic articulation. We have four classes, each
consisting of 4 letters: the first and second classes
consist each of 3 mutes preceded by a breathing,
the third of the 3 Hquids and the sibilant, which per
haps closed the oldest alphabet of all, and the fourth
contains the three supernumerary mutes preceded
by a breathing." « The original 16 letters of the
Greek alphabet, corresponding to those of tha

and never was, so far as we know. Why fonr sIW
lants " could not have existed in the oldest state ofthe
alphabet " it would be difficult to shos? ,If (he Ian
guagu was developed sufficiently, at th*> dme tJie al-

WRITING
Shemitic, are thus given by Dr. Donaldson (ibid.
p. 175).

321BTA

n

into

baa

D

¦E

F H 0

AMN

S

5? Qpn
o|n9 T

" In the Greek alphabet, as it is now given in
the grammars, F and Q are omitted, and ten other
characters added to these." The Shemitic Tsade
(2) became seta (0, Caph (3) became kappa («),
ind Yod{'') became iota (i). Resh (~l) was adopted
and called rlio (p), and Sdv, which was used by
the Dorians for 2,7y/ia (Her. i. 1.39), is only an
other form of Zain (T). Shin (E7) or Sin (C£7)
is the original of |r, which from some cause or
other has changed places with crTyfta, the Shemitic
Samech, just as ^to has been transferred from its
position. In like manner .IJem became av, and
Nun became vi. With the remaining Greek let
ters we have nothuig to do, as they do not appear
to have heen Shemitic in origin, and will therefore
proceed to consider the Hebrew alphabet as known
to us.With regard to the arrangement of the letters,
our chief sources of information are as before the
alphabetical acrostics in the Psalms and Lamenta
tions. In these poems some irreguhirities in the
arrangement of the alphabet are observable. For
instance, in Lam. ii., iii., iv., 3 stands before 3? :
m Ps. xxxvii. 1* stands before D, and V is want
ing: in Pss. XXV., xxxiv. 1 is omitted, and in both
there is a final verse after n beginning with D.
Hence Q has been compared with the Greek ip,
aud the transposition of 57 and S has been ex
plained from the interchange of these letters in
Aramaic. But as there are other iiTegularities in
the alphabetical psalms, no stress can be laid upon
these points. We find, for example, in Ps. xxv.
two verses beginning with M, while 3 is omitted ;
in Ps xxxiv. two begin with 1, and so on.
The names of the letters are given in the LXX.
of the Lamentations as found in the Vatican MS.
as printed by Mai, and in the Codex Friderico-Au
gustanus, published by Tischendorf. Both these
ancient witnesses prove, if proof were wanting,
that in the 4th century after Christ the Hebrew
letters were known by the same names as at the
present day. These nanies all denote sensible ob-
iects which had a resemblance to the original form
of the letters, preserved partly in the square alpha
bet, partly in tlie Phcenician, and partly perhaps in
the alphabet frora which both were derived.
The following are the letters of the Hebrew al
phabet in their present shape, with their names
and the meanings of these names, so far as they
can be ascertained with any degree of probability.
N, Aleph P^bs = f^bs, an ox (comp. Plut.
Symp. Qiuest. ix.' 2, § 3). In the old
Phoenician forms of this letter can still be

phaliet -nas adopted, to distinguish the sounds, the
llphabet must have represented the current pronun-
.liation. The language, and even its literature, prob-
'Wy, had reached considerable development before
llphabetic characters were derjved from older hiero-
llyphic or syllabic forms. The oldes', inscriptions show

WRITING 3669
traced some resemblance to an ox-head,
^ Beth. n"'2=n"'_3, a house. The figure
in the square character corresponds more to
its name, while tbe Ethiopic (\ has greater
resemblance to a tent. (jr. /S^ra (B).
3, Gimel. b^''5 = ba3, a camel. The an
cient form is supposed to represent the head
and neck of this animal. In Phcenician it
is ~|, and in Ethiopic '^, which wheu
tumed round became the Greek yd/ji/xa
(=ydfi\a), T. Geseuius holds that tho
earliest form -^ represented the camel's
hump.
1, Daleth. iT^'^= rQ'^,, a door. The sig
nificance of the name is seen in the older
form ^ , whence the Greek SeAra, A, a
tentnloor. [The simple triangle of the
Greek A is a yet older form found in the
Moabite Inscription, and still more resem
bles a tent-door. — W. H. W.]
n, 3e. Nn, without any probable derivation ;
perhaps corrupted, or merely a technical
term. Ewald says it is the same as the
Arabic 5»JS. a hole, fissure. Hupfeld con
nects it with the interjection SH, "lo!"
The corresponding Greek letter is E, which
is the Phoenician ^ turned from left to
right.
1, Vau. 11, a hook or tent-peg; the same as
the old Greek Sai ( f), the form of which
resembles the Phoenician .<^. [But the
old Phffiuician 1 is Y and not K', and
corresponds in shape with the Greek T, with
which it also corresponds in sound. The
Greek T has been supposed to be a late ad
dition to the Greek alphabet, but it is found
in the oldest inscriptions," and its shape
shows it to have been borrowed, with tha
other Phcenician characters, from the East-
— W. H. W.]
T, Zain. y^X, probably = M.*/, zaino, a
weapon, sword (Ps. xliv. 7) : omitting the
final letter, it was also called ''T, zai (Mish.
Shabb. xii. 5). It appeal's to be the same
as the ancient Greek Sav. [The same ic
name, perhaps; but the oldest form oi
Cnra, as found in the inscriptions from
Halicarnassus and Teos, is ^, the same
as the most antique Zain. — W. H. W.]
n, Cheth. jT'n, a fence, inclosure (= Arab.
iajL=>, from JsLs», Syr. ¦^'^•>^, to
surround). Comp. the Phoeii. ^. Cheth
is the Greek ^ra (H)-

all the letters (D happejis to be missing in the great
Moabite Inscription), and they are all present in thi*
alphabet received by the GreeKs. W. H. W.
a * Kirchhoff's Studien zur Gesch. d. ^iet-h. Alplia.
bets in the Abhandl. of the Berlin Acad., 1863, p. 265
W. H. W.

S570

WRITING

WRITING

IS, Tet. 12''W, a snake, or rjip, a basket.
The Greek efiTa.
'', Tod. l'V=T, a hand. The form of the
letter was perhaps originally longer, as in
the Greek I (larra). The Phoenician ( fTT )
and Samaritan ( [tf ) figures have a kind of
distant resemblance to three fingers. In
Ethiopic the name of the letter is yaman,
the right hand. [But these are neither
the oldest Phcenician nor Samaritan forms.
The archaic Yod, 2, had but two "fin
gers." — W. H. W.]
3, Caph. ^3, the hollow of the hand. The
Greek Kciirvra (tc) is the old Phoenician form
(a) reversed.
7, Lamed. 1X37, a cudgel or ox-goad (comp.
Judg. iii. 31). The Greek Aa/ij8Sa (A);
Phoenician, ^ ^. [In the Moabite stone
and other very old inscriptions, the lower
part of the Lamed is curved. — A.]
23, Mem. D''B=D1D, water, as it is com
monly explained, with reference to the Sa
maritan ^. In the old alphabets it is >7,
in which Gesenius sees the figure of a tri
dent, and so possibly the symbol of the sea.
The Greek ^D corresponds to the old word
in, " water," Job ix. 30. [The oldest
form of Mem, as M. de Vogii^ shows, is
not >7 but "y ; and resembles waves more
than a trident. — W. H. W.]
3, Nun. I^ti, a fish, in Chaldee, Arabic, and
Syriac. In almost all Phoenician alphabets
the figure ia "j. On the Maltese inscrip
tions it is nearly straight, and corresponds
to its name. The Greek vv is derived
from it.
D, Samech. TyBD, a prop, from TISD, to
support; perhaps, says Gesenius, the same
as the Syriac h ^^ro, s'moco, a triclin
ium. But this interpretation is solely
founded on the rounded form of the letter
in the square alphabet; and he has in an
other place (Mon. Ptmn. p. 83) shown how
this has come from the old Phoenician,
which has no likeness to a triclinium, or to
anything else save a flash of lightning strik
ing a church spire. The Greek tr'iyfia is
undoubtedly derived from Samech, as its
form is from the Phoenician character, al
though its place in tbe Greek alphabet is
accupied by jr. [Tlie name of aiypa
seems to be derived from Sumekli, but its
shape from that of Shin. Samekli agrees
in its earliest form with that of |i, which
occupies its place in the alphabet. The
oldest form of the Greek E which has been
preserved is ^, which comes very near to
the Samekh, dp, which in this antique
form is presented to us for tbe first time in
the Moabite Inscription. — W. H. W.]
S, 'Ain. Xl'Sf an eye; in the Phoenician and

Greek alphabets O. Originally it had two
powers, as in Arabic, and was represented
in the LXX. by r, or a simple breathmg.
r, Pe. NS= ns, a mouth. The Greek m i«
from ^5, the construct form of H^l.
2, Tsade. ''"T^ or ''"T2, a fish-hook or prong,
for spearing the larger fish. Others explain
it as a nose, or an owl. One of the Pha-
njcian forms is \'. From Tsade is derived
the Greek QfiTa.
p, Kyih. ^l^pj perhaps the same as the Ar
abic ;_sj' the back of the head. Gese-
nius origmally explained it as equivalent to
the Chaldee H'^p, the eye of a needle, or
the hole for the handle of an axe. Hitzig
rendered it " ear," and others *' a pole."
The old Hebrew form (P), inverted ^, be
came the Greek Kiirna ( ^ ); and tho
form ( 9 )i which occurs on the ancient
Syraousan coins [and in the Moabite In
scription — • W. H. W.], suggests the origin
of the Homan Q.
"1, Resh. 27''"^, a head (comp. Aram. tT^
^t£7Sn). The Phoenician ^ when turned
round became the Greek p, the name of
which, ftSo, is corruptfid from Resh.
t£7, Shin l^tZ? I Compare )tt?, a tooth, sometimes
& & > used for a jagged promontory.
ti? Sin. '}"'E7 J The letters 117 and tI7 were prob
ably at first one letter, and afterwards be
came distinguished by the diacritic point,
which was known to Jerome, and called by
him accentus ( Qiuest. Hebr. in (Jen. ii. 23;
Am. viii. 12). In Ps. cxix. 161-168,_3nd
Lam. iii. 61-63, they are used promiscu
ously, and in l^am. iv. 21 E? is put for 07.
The narrative in Judg. xii. 6 points to a
difference of dialect, marked by the differ
ence in sound of these two lettera. The
Greek p is derived from Shin, as vv Imm
Nun. [The name of the Greek fi raay be
corrupted from that of Shin ; but its shape,
as we have seen, is from that of Samech,
whose place it occupies. So olyfia, with
the name of Samech, has the pUice and
form of Shin, both being represented, by
W in the earliest alphabets. — W. H. W.]
n, Tau. W, a mark or sign (Ez.ix.4); prob
ably a sign iu the shape of a cross, such aa
cattle were marked with. This significa
tion corresponds to the shapes of the old
Hebrew letter on couis -\-, X, from ""
former of which comes the (jreek rad (T).
In the mystical interpretation of the alphabet
given by Eusebius (Prcep. Evang. i. 5) it is evi
dent that Tsade was called Tsedek, and ^qpA was
caUed Kol. The Polish Jews still call the formei
Tsadek. Divisions of Words. — Hebrew was ongmaUj
written, like most ancient languages, withont any
divisions between the words." In most Greek m-

• At first Eight it appears strangb tbat the wcrds in ancient manuscripts should be thus run togethei a«

WRITING
tcriptions there are no such divisions, though in
several of the oldest, as the Eugubine Tables and
the Sigsean inscription, there are one or two, while
others have as many as three points which serve
this purpose. The same is the case with the Phce
nician inscriptions. Most have no divisions of
words at all, but others have a point, except where
the words are closely connected." The cuneiform
character has the same point, as well as the Samar
itan, and in Cufic the words are separated by
spaces, .IS in the Arani8eo-Eg\ptiaii writing. Tlie
various readings in the LXX. show that, at the
time this version was made, in the Hebrew MSS.
which the translators used the words were written
hi a continuous series.'' The modern synagogue
rolls and the MSS. of the Samaritan Pentateuch
have no vowel-points, but the words are divided,
and the Samaritan in this respect differs but little
from the Hebrew. ,
Final Letlei s, etc. — In addiiion to the letters
above described, we find in all Hebrew MSS. and
prmted books the forms "f, Q, ), f\, y, which are
the shapes assumed by the letters D, D, 3, Q, 2,
when they occur at the end of words. Their in
vention was clearly due to an endeavor to render
reading more easy by distinguishing one word from
another, but tbey are of comparatively modern date.
The various readings of tbe LXX. show, as has
been already said, that that version was made at a
time when the divisions of words were not marked,
and consequently at this time there could be no
final letters. Gesenius at first maintained that on
the Palmyrene inscriptions there were neither final
letters nor divisions of words, but he afterw:irds ad
mitted, though with a little exhibition of temper,
that the final Nun was found there, after his error
had been pointed out by Kopp (Bild. u. Schr. ii.
132; Ges. Mon. Phcen. p. 82). In the Aramseo-
Egyptian writing both final Caph, and final Nnn
occur, as may be seen in tlie Blacas fragments given
by Gesenius. The five final letters *' are mentioned
in Bereshith Rabba (parash. i. foi. 1, 4), and in
both Talmuds; in the one (T. Bab. Sabbat, foi.
104, 1) they are said to be used by the seers or
prophets, and in the other (T. Hieros. Megillah,
foi. 71, 4) to be an Halacah or tradition of Moses
fixim Sinai; yea, by an ancient writer (Pirke Eli
ezer, c. 48) they are said to be known by Abra
ham " (Gill, Dissertation concerning ihe Antiquity

succession of continuous lines. Yet in fact our mode
of separating the worcis is the artificial one, and the
other is tbe natural oue, in reducing oral discourse to
written. Spoken speech ia an unbroken current. It
18 not the ear at ail, except as slightly aided by some
iDtODation of the voice, but the mind whicb separates
the speech into words, and thus apprehends the mean
ing of what is uttered. The speaker runs together
different words in the same manner as he runs to
gether different syllables of the same word. The old
method therefore simply adjusted tbe eye to the ear,
•ind so made the discourse appear on parchment or
stone very much as it sounded from the tongue of
the speaker. H.
1 * The words are separated by points in some of
Ihe most ancient Phoenician inscriptions, as in the
second from Citium, that from Tucca, the bilingual of
Sardinia, and notably so in the oldest of all, the Mo-
sbite Inscription, which alao separates sentences by a
serpondicular line. W. H. W.
'' • And yet these cases are so rare, that, after
fflreful comparison, I find but six or eight in the flve
books of Moses, and even theso generaUy require a

WRITING 357J
of the Heb. Language, etc., p. 69). The final Mem
in the middle of the word n3~lDb (Is. ix. 6) ia
mentioned in both Talmuds (Talm. Bab. Sanhe
drin, foi. 94, 1; Talm. Jer. Sanh. foi. 27, 4), and
by Jerome (in loc). In another passage Jerome
(Prol. ad Libr. Reg.) speaks ofthe final letters aa
if ot equal antiquity with the rest of the alphabet.
The similarity of shape between final .1/cin (D)and
Samech (D) is indicated by the dictum of Rab
Chasda, as given in the Babylonian Talmud (Me-
gittnh, c. 1; Shabbiith, foi. 104, 1), tbat "Mem
and Samech, which were on the Tables (of the Law)
stood by a miracle." It was a tradition among
the .lews that the letters on the tables of stone given
to Moses were cut through the stone, so as to he
legible on both sides; hence tbe miracle by which
Mem and Samech kept their place. The final letters
were also known to Epipbanius (De Mens, et Pon-
deiibus, § 4). In our present copies of the Hebrew
Bible there are instances in which final letters occur
in the middle of words (see Is. ix. 6, as above),
and, on tbe contrary, at tbe end of words the ordi
nary fornis of the letters are employed (Neh. ii. 13;
Job xxxviii. 1); but these are only to be regarded
as clerical errors, wliich in some MSS. are corrected.
On the ancient Phcenician inscriptions, just as in
tbe Greek uncial MSS. the letters of a word were
divided at the end of a line without any indication
being given of such division, but in Hebrew MSS.
a twofold course has been adopted in this case. H
at the end of a line the scribe found that he had
not space for the complete word, he either wrote
as many letters as he could of this word, but left
them unpointed, and put the complete word in the
next line, or he made use of what are called ex
tended letters, literas dilaiabiles (as ^^, PI, and
the like), in order to fill up the superabundant
space. In the former case, in order to indicate that
the word at the end of the line was incomplete, the
last of the unpouited letters was left unfinished, or
a sign was placed after them, resembling sometimes
an inverted 3, and sometimes like H, V, or S3. If
tbe space left at the end of tbe line is inconsiderable
it is either filled up by the first letter of the next
word, or by any letter whatever, or by an arbitrary
mark. In some cases, where the space is too small
for one or two consonants, the scribe wrote the

slight variation in the letters, so that not much can
be deduced on the subject. These cases are Gen. vii.
11, Dntrr for ci'' nbV -, Gen. XX. 16, ib3
. ; -.- T T ...
nn33 for r.n^b") bis ; Gen. xi. 17. nbsn
; - - T  ; T 's .
bp's for b?wn bisa ; Num. xxih. 10, ia^
n^D for "IQpa-T; Num. xxiv. 22, ]|'? ~li''2b
naiV for na-ni? VP "l^^b; Deut. xxvi. 5,
T : T r - '.'at -. T : ' *
las'; D"1N for Tn'H ""aTSl; Deut. xxxiii. 2,
apparently t£71j? nh?"] DnriSI for nHSl
tt?lp nh2"ipi and perhaps Deut. xxxii. 8, ""J?
b.M -)£»« or bW -)£»"' "'33 for bw-jb^ "'33 i
cf. Dent, xxxiii. 2, where mtTM seems to have
been read for ri^ t£7M, Theso are also specimenn
T
of the scores of cases where the vowels were differ
ently read. W. H W.

3572

WRITING

excluded letters in a smaller form ou the margin
above the line (Eichhorn, Einl. ii. 57-59). That
abbreviatvms were employed in the ancient Hebrew
writing is shown by the inscriptions on the Macca
bsean coins. In MSS. tbe frequently recurring
words are represented by writing some of their let
ters only, as '~iW^ or 'NntC'' for bS"lE7'', and a
frequently recurring phrase by the first letters of its
words with the mark of abbreviation ; as H b D
for "non Dbi^b •'s, :;^ or i"i for mn\
which is also written '' or * \ The greater and
smaller letters which occur in the middle of words
(comp. Ps. Ixxx. 16 ; Gen. ii. 4), the suspended let
ters (Judg. xviii. 30; Ps. Ixxx. 14), and the in
verted letters (Num. x. 35), are transferred from
the MSS. of the Masoretes, and have all received
at the hands of the Jews an allegorical explanation.
In Judg. xviii. 30 the suspended Nun in the word
"Manasseh," without which the name is "Moses,"
is said to be "inserted in order to conceal the dis
grace which the idolatry of his grandson conferred
upon the great lawgiver. Similarly the small 3
in the word ntHSSb, " to weep for her " (Gen.
xxiii. 2), is explained by Baal Hatturim as indicat
ing that Abraham wept little, because Sarah was
an old woman-
Numbers were indicated either by letters or
figures. The latter are found on Phcenician coins,
on the sareophagus of Eshmunazar, on the Pal
myrene inscriptions, and probably also in the Ara-
mseo-Egyptian writing. On the other hand, letters
are found used as numerals on the Maccabsean
coins, and among the Arabs, and their early adop
tion for the same purpose among the Greeks mp,y
have been due to the Phoenicians. It is not too
much to conjecture from these analogies that figures
and letters representing numbers may have been
employed by the ancient Hebrews. It is even pos-
Bible that many discrepancies in numbers may be
explained in this way. For instance, in 1 Sam. vi.
19, for 60,070 the Syriac has 5,070; in 1 K. iv. 26
[v. 6] Solomon had 40,000 horses, while in the
parallel passage of 2 Chr. ix. 25 he has only 4,000 ;
according to 2 Sam. x. 18, David destroyed 700
chariots of the Syrians, while in 1 Chr. xix. 18,
the number is increased to 7,000. If figures were
in use such discrepancies are easily intelligible. On
tbe other hand, the se»e» years of famine in 2 Sam.
xxiv. 13, may be reconciled with tlie iJiree of 1 Chr.
xxi. 12 and the LXX. by supposing that a scribe,
writing the square character, mistook 5 (= 3) for
T ( = 7). Again, in 2 Chr. xxi. 20, Jehoram dies
at the age of 40, leaving a .son, Ahaziah, who was
42 (2 Chr. xxii. 2). In the parallel passage of
2 K. viii. 26 Ahaziah is only 22, so that the scribe
probably read 3a instead of 33. On the whole,
Gesenius concludes, the preponderance would be in
favor ot the letters, but he deprecates any attempt
to explain by this means the enormous numbers we
meet with in the descriptions of armies and wealth,
and the variations of the Samaritan and LXX. from
the Hebrew text in Gen. v.
Vowelr-jmnis and Diacritical Marks. — It is im
possible here to discuss fully the origin and antiq
uity of the vowel-pouits antl other marks which are
tiuud in the writing of Hebrew MSS. The mo»t

WRITING
that can be done will be to giv* a Bummaiy ol
results, and to refer the reader tc the sources ol
fuller information. Alniost all the learned Jewa
of the Middle Ages maintained the equal antiquitj
of the vowels and consonants, or at least the intro
duction of the fornier by Ezra and the men of the
Great Synagogue. The only exceptions to this uni
formity of opinion are some few hints of Aben Ezra
and a doubtful passage of the book Cozri. ITie
same view was adopted by the Christian writers
Eaymund Martini (cir. 1278), Perez de Valentin
(cir. 1430), and Nicholas de Lyra, and these aie
foUowed by Luther, Calvin, and Pellicanus. The
modem date of the vowel-points was first arguml
by Elias Levita, followed on the same side hy
CappeUus, who was opposed by the younger Bux
torf. Later defenders of their antiquity have been
GUI, James Robertson, and Tychsen. Others, like
Hottinger, Prideaux, Schultens, J. D. Michaelis.
and Eichhorn, have adopted an intermediate view,
that the Hebrews had some few ancient vowel-pomts,
which they attached to ambiguous words. " The
dispute about the antiquity and origin of the He
brew vowels commenced at a very early date; for
whUe Mar-Nartronai H.,_ Gaon in Sura (859-869),
prohibited to provide the copies of the Law witi
vowels, because these signs had not been communi
cated on Mount Sinai, but had only been introduced
by the sages to assist the reader; the Karaites
allowed no scroU of the Pentateuch to be used in
the synagogue, unless it was furnished with vowels
and accents, because they considered them as a
divine revelation, which, like the language and the
letter, was already given to Adam, or certainly to
Moses " (Dr. Kahsch, Heb. Gr. ii. 65). No vowel-
points are to be found on any of the Jewish coins,
or in the Palmyrene inscriptions, and they are want
ing in all the relics of Phoenician writing. Some
of the Maltese inscriptions were once thought by
Gesenius to have marks of this kind ( Gesch. der
Hebr. Spr. p. 184), but subsequent examination
led him to the conclusion tbat the Phcenician mon
uments have not a vestige of vowel-points. The
same was the case originally in the Estrangelo
and Cufic alphabets. A single example of a dia
critical mark occurs for the first time on one of the
Carthaginian inscriptions (Gesen. Mon. Phten. pp.
56, 179). It appears to correspond to the diacrit-.
ical mai-k which we meet with in Syriac writing,
and which is no doubt first aUuded to by Ephraem
Syrus (on Gen. xxxvi. 24, Ojip. i. 184). The age
of this mark in Syriac is uncertain, but it is most
nearly connected with the marhetonw of the Samar
itans, which is used to distinguish words whieh
have the same consonants, but a different pronun
ciation and meaning. The firet certain uidication
of vowel-points in a Shemitio language is in the
Arabic. Three were introduced by All, son of Abu-
Thalleb, who died A. H. 40. The Sabian writing
also has three vowel points, but ifs age is uncertaui.
Five vowel-points and several reading marks were
introduced into tbe Syriac writing by Theophilus
and Jacob of lidessa. The present Arabic system
of punctuation originated with the introduction of
the Nischi character by Ebii Mokla, who died a ri.
939. On the whole, taking into consideration the
nature and analogies of the kindred Shemitic lan
guages, and the Jewish tradition that the vowels
were ouly transmitted orally by Moses, and were
afterwards reduced fo signs and fixed by Ezra and
the Great Synagogue, the preponderance of evidence
goes to show that Hebrew was written withoul

WRITING
rowels or diacritical niai'ks aU the time that it waa
4 living language. The fact that the synagogue
rolls are written without points, and that a strong
traditional prescription against tbeir being pointed
exists, is in favor of tbe later origin of the vowel
marks The following passages from the Old Tes
tament, quoted by Gesenius, tend to the same con
clusion. In Gen. xix. 37, the name Moab (3Mia),
is explained as if it were 3Sa, " from a father,"
in which case all trace not only of vocalization, but
of the Quiescent letter has disappeared. In Gen.
xxxi. 47, l^b?- Gilead is made to take its name
frora *TV7ij "heap of witness," and Gen. 1. 11,
an'$p b^N = nn^a b3K. so aUo in 2 k.
isii.9, "l?bri Ipw M3*5, appears in the parallel
narrative of 2 Chr. xxxiv. 16 as HS f^W N3»T
"lOBn, wliich could not have happened if the
chronicler had had a pointed text before him. Upon
examining the version of the LXX. it is equally
clear that the translators must have written from
an unpointed text. It is objected to this that
the viTo^ \€y6p.€va are correctly explained, and
tbat they also distinguish between words which
have the same consonants but different vowel-points,
and even between those which are written and pro
nounced ahke. On the other hand they frequently
confuse words which have the same consonanii
but different vowels. The passages which Gesenius
quotes (Gesch. d. Heb. Spr. § 50) would necessarily
be explained from the context, and we must besides
thia take into consideration that in the ambiguous
cases there were in aU probability traditional in
terpretations. The proper names afford a more
accurate test. On examining these, we find that
they sometimes have entirely different vowels, and
sometimes are pointed according to an entirely dif-
- fereut system, analogous to the Arabic and Syriac,
but varying from the Masoretic. Examples of an
entirely different vocaUzation are, "^.TiaM, A./jia9i,
l^i?J> Uxrav, H7-' ^opSavTis, '^^''S, Moaox,
"'3'^I.Q, MapSoxctios, rr^b?"!, Po/ieAios,
n!^5??, Soipomas, "'3?P, :So$oxai, etc. That
the punctuation foUowed by the LXX. was essen
tially distinct from that of.the Masoretes is evident
fiom the foUowing examples. Moving sheva at the
beginning of words is generally represented by o;
as in 2aiu)vn\, ^aSacod, ZaSouXaV. .seldom by e,
us in BeAiaA, XepovSi/j.; hehfe 1 or "" by o or u,
as ^oSojxa, IZoKofjoav, Tofioppa, ZopOjSajSeA, ipu\i-
iTTiei/i, etc. Pathach is represented by € ; as MeA-
Xio-eSex, iie<j>ea\ei/i, EAiaa^ee. Pathach fur-
timm=f; e. g. none, TeA/Soue, ©eKwe, Zavae.
Other examples might be multiplied. We find in-
ataiices to the same effect in the fragments of the
other Greek versions, and in Josephus. The agree-
nieot of the Targums with the present punctuation
might be supposed to supply an argument in favor
of the antiquity of the latter, but it might equally
w appealed to to show that the translation of the
Targums embodied the traditional pronunciation
which was fixed in writing by the punctuators. The
TiJmud has Hkewise been appealed to in support of
Hie antiquity of the modern points; but its utter-
vuces on this sutaect are extremely dark and diffi-

WRITING

3573

cult to understand. They have respect oi the ona
hand to those passages in wbich the sense of a text
is disputed, in so far as it depends upon a different
pronunciation ; for instance, whether in Cant. i. 2,
we should read tJ'*!"''^ or 'Jl^?'^^ i in Ex. xxi. 8,
¦•1132 or "n?2; in Lev. x. 25, D1J73E7 or
D";i73U7; in Is. Uv. 13, n^2 or Has. A
Rabbinic legend makes Joab kiU his teacher, be
cause in Ex. xvu. 14 he had taught him to read
~13T for "^.3.^. The last passage shows at least,
that the Talmudists thought the text in David's
time was unpointed, and , the others prove that the
punctuation could not have been fixed as it must
have been if the vowel-points had been written.
But in addition to these instances, which are sup
posed to involve the existence of vowel-points, there
are certain terms mentioned in the Talmud, wliich
are interpreted as referring directly to tbe vowel
signs and accents themselves. Thus in the treatise
Berachoth (foi. 62, 3) we find the phrase inyC
min, ia'dme thorah, which is thought to denote
uot only the distinctive accents and those which
mark the tone, but also the vowel-points. Hupfeld,
however, has shown tbat in aU probabUity the term
D3Jt3, ta'am, denotes nothing more than a logical
sentence, and that consequently D^'aiJtD plO^D,
pisiik 14' dmim, (Nedarim, foi. 37, 1), is simply a
division of a sentence, and has nothing whatever to
do either with the tone or the vowels (Stud. u. Krit.
1830, ii. 567). The word ia''0, siindn (Gr. o-tj-
aeiov) which occurs in the Talmud (Nedarim, foi.
53), and which is explained by Rashi to signify the
same as Tlp3, nikkud, " a point," has been also
appealed to as an evidence of the existence of the
yowel-points at the time the Talmud was com
posed, but its true meaning is rather that of a mne
monic sign made use of to retain tlie memory of
what was handed down by oral tradition. The
oldest Biblical critics, the collectors of the Keri and
Cethib, have left no trace of vowel-points : all their
notes have reference to the consonants. It is now
admitted that Jerome knew nothing of the present
vowel-points and their names. He expressly says
that the Hebrews very rarely had vowels, by which
he means the letters V, ^, \ H, H, in the middle
of words ; and that the consonants were pronounced
differently according to the pleasure of the reader
and the province in which 'he lived (Epist. ad
Evagr. 125). The term accentus, which he there
uses, appears to denote as well the pronunciation oi
the vowels as the nice distinctions of certain con
sonantal sounds, and has no connection whatever
with accents in the niodern sense of the word. The
remarks which Jerome makes as to tbe possibUity
of reading the same Hebrew consonants differently,
according to the different vowels which were affixed
to them, is an additional proof that iu bis day the
vowel-points were not written (see his Comm. in
Hos. xiii. 3; Hab. iii. 5). Hupfeld concludes tbat
the present system of pronunciation had not com
menced in tho 6th century, that it belonged to a
new epoch in Jewish literature, the Masoretic in
opposition to the Talmudic, and that, taking into
consideration tbat the Syrians and Arabs, among
whom the Jews Uved, had akeady made a bogin-

8574

WRITING

ning in punctuation, there is the highest probabil
ity that the Hebrew system of points is not indig
enous, bufc transmitted or suggested from without
i^Siud. u. Krit. 1830, ii. 589). On such a question
it is impossible to pronounce with absolute certainty,
but the above conclusion has been arrived at by one
of the first Hebrew scholars of Europe, who haa
devoted especial attention to the subject, and to
whose opinion all deference is due.
*' According to a statement on a scroll of the
Law, which may have been in Susa from the eighth
century, Moses the Punctator (Hannakdan) was
the first who, in order to faciUtate the reading of
the Scriptures for his pupils, added vowels to the
consonants, a practice in which he was followed by
his son Judah, the Corrector or Reviser (Hamma-
giah). These were the beginnings of a full system
of Hebrew points, the completion of which has, by
tradition, been associated with the name of the
Karaite Acha of Irak, living in the first half of the
sixth century, and which comprised the vowels and
accents, dagesh and rapheh, keri and kethiv. It
was, from its loQal origin, called the Babylonian or
Assyrian system. Almost simultaneously with
these endeavors, the scholars of Palestine, especially
of Tiberias, worked in the same direction, and here
Eabbi Mocha, a disciple of Anan the Karaite, and
his son Moses, fixed another system of vocalization
(about 570), distinguished as that of Tiberias,
which marks still more minutely and accurately the
various shades and niceties of tone and pronuncia
tion, and which was ultimately adopted by all the
Jews. For though tbe Karaites, with their char
acteristic tenacity, and their antagonism to the
Eabbanites, clung for some time to the older signs,
because they had used them before their secession
from the Talmudical sects, they were, at last, in
957, induced to abandon them in favor of those
adopted in Palestine. Now the Babylonian signs,
besides differing from those of Tiberias in shape,
are chiefly reraarkalile by being almost uniformly
placed above the letters. There still exist some
manuscripts which exhibit them, and many more
would probably have been preseiTed had not, in
later times, the habit prevailed of substituting in
old codices the signs of Tiberias for those of Baby
lonia" (Dr. Kalisch, Hebr. Gram. ii. 63, 6^).'^
From the sixth century downwards the traces of
punctuation become more and more distinct. The
Masorah mentions by name two vowels, kamets
and pathach (Kalisch, p. 66). The collation of
the Palestinian and Babylonian readings (Sth cent.)
refers at leasfc in two passives to the mappik in He
(Eichhom, J^inl. l 274); but the collation set on
foot by Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali (cir. a. d.
1034) has to do exclusively with vowels and read
ing-marks, and their existence is presupposed in
the Arabic of Saadias and the A'eneto-Greek ver
sion, and by all the Jewish grammarians from the
llth century onvrards.
It now remains to say a few words on the
accents. Their especial properties and the laws
by which they are regulated properly belong to the
department of Hebrew grammar, and full informa
tion on these points will be found in the works of
Sesenius, Hupfeld, Ewald, and Kalisch. The object

a For further information on the Babylonian sys
tem of punctuation, see l*insker"s Einleitung in die
Bahytoiusck- Hibraische Funlctationssystem, just pub
lished at Virnna (1863).

WKITDiTG
of the accents is twofold, 1. They serve to marl
the tone syllable, and at the same time to show ths
relation of each word to the sentence: hence they
are called D^'D^tp, as marking the sense. 2.
They indicate the modulation of the tone accord
ing to which the Old Testament was recited in
the synagogues, and were hence called rih3''33,
" The manner of recitation was diflferent for tlie
Pentateuch, the prophets, and the metrical booka
(Job, the Proverbs, and the Psahns): old modea
of cantillation of the Pentateuch and the ^phets
(in the liaphtaroth) have been preserved m the
German and Portuguese synagogues; both differ
indeed, considerably, yet manifestly show a com
mon character, and are almosfc like the same com
position sung in two different keys; while the
chanting of the metrical books, not being eniploved
in the public worship, has long been losfc " (Kalisch,
p. 84). Several raodern invesfcigators have decided
that the use of the accents for guiding the public
recitations is anterior to their use as marking' the
tone of words and syntactical construction of sen
tences. The great number of the accents is in
favor of this hypothesis, since one sign alone would
have been sufficient to mark the tone, and the log
ical relation of the diflferent parts of a sentence
could have been indicated by a much smaller num
ber. Gesenius, on the other hand, is inclined to
think that the accents at first served to mark the
tone and the sense {Gesch. p. 221). The whole
question is one of mere conjecture. The advocates
for the antiquity of the accents would carry them
back as far as the time of the ancient Temple ser
vice. The Gemara {Nedarim,io\. 37, 2; MegiUcdi,
c. i. foi. 3) makes the Levites recite according to
the accents even in the days of Nehemiah.
Writing MaieHals, etc. — The oldest docu
ments which contain the writing of a Shemitic race,
are probably the bricks of Nineveh and Babylon
on which are impressed the cuneiform Assyrian
inscriptions. Inscribed bricks are mentioned b}
Pliny (vii. 56) as used for astronomical observsr
tions by the Babylonians. There is, however, do
evidence that they were ever employed by the He
brews,* who certainly at a very early period prac
ticed the more diflficult but not more durable
method of writing on stone (Ex. xxiv. 12, xxxi. 18,
xxxii. 15, xxxiv. 1, 28; Deut. a. 1, xxvii. 1; Josh.
viii. 32), on which inscriptions were cut with an
iron graver (Job xix. 24; Jer. xvii. 1). They
were moreover acquainted with the art of engmving
upon metal (Ex. xxviii. 36) and gems (Ex. xxviii.
9). Wood was used upon some occasions (Num.
xvii. 3; comp. Hom. 11. vii. 175), and writing tab
lets of box-wood are* mentioned in 2 Esdr. xiv. 24.
The " lead," to which allusion is made in Job xix.
24, is supposed to have been poured when melted
into the cavities of the stone made by the letters
of an inscription, in order to render it durable,*^
and does not appear ever to have been used by the
Hebrews as a writing material, hke the p^a/jToi
p.o\u^Bivoi at Thebes, on which were written
Hesiod's Woi-ks and Days (Paus. ix. 31, § 4,
comp. Plin. xiii. 21). Inscriptions and documents
which were intended to be permanent were written

b The case of Ezekiel (iv. 1) is evidently aa excep
tion. c Copper was used for the same purpose. M. Bc tta
found tracep of it in letters on the pavement slabs of
Khorsabad (Layard, Nin. iii, 188).

WRITING
on tablota of brass (1 Mace. viii. 22, xiv. 27), but
&vm the manner in which they are mentioned it is
dear that tlieir use was exceptional. It is most
probable that the most ancient as well as the most
common material which the Hebrews used for
writing was dressed skin in some form or other.
We know that the dressing of skins was practiced
bythe Hebrews (Ex. xxv. 6; Lev. xiii. 48), and
they may have acquired the knowledge of the art
frpm the Egyptians, among whom it had attained
great perfection, the leather-cutters constituting
one of the principal subdivisions of the third caste.
The fineness of tbe leather, says Sir G. Wilkinson,
» employed for making the straps placed across the
bodies of mummies, discovered at Thebes, and the
beauty of the figures stamped upon them, satisfac
torily prove the skill of ' the leather-cutters,' and
the antiquity of embossing : some of these bearing
the nanies of kings who ruled Egypt about the
period of the Exodus, or 3,300 years ago " (Anc.
Eg. iii. 155). Perhaps the Hebrews may have
borrowed, among their other acquirements, the use
of papyrus from the Egyptians, but of this we have
no positive evidence. Papyri are found of the most
remote Pharaonic age (Wilkinson, Anc. Eg. iii.
148), so that Pliny is undoubtedly in error when
he says that the papyrus was not used as a writing
material before the time of Alexander the Great
(xiii. 21). He probably intended to indicate that
this was the date of its introduction to Europe.

WRITING

3575

Ancient Writing Materials.
In the Bible the only allusions to the use of papyrus
are in 2 John 12, where ^aprns occurs, which
refers especially to papyrus paper, and 3 Mace. iv.
20, where jfapr-iipia is found in the same sense.
In Josephus (Ant. iii. 11, § 0) tlie trial of adultery
is made by writing the name of God on a skin, and
the 70 men who were sent to Ptolemy from Jeru
salem by the high-priest Eleazar, to translate the
Law into Greek, took with them the skins on which
the Law was written in golden characters (Ant. xii.
2, § 10). The oldest Persi.an annals were written
on skins (Diod. Sic. ii. 32), and these appear to
have been most frequently used by tbe Shemitic
races if not peculiar to tbem." Of tbe byssus
which was used iu India before the time of Alex
ander (Strabo xv. p. 717), and the palm-leaves
mentioned by Pliny (vii. 23), there is no trace
imong the Hebrews, although we know that the
arabs wrote their earliest copies of the Koran upon

" The word for " book," "IQD, sipher, is from a
wot, 1DD, stphar, " to scrape, shave," and indi-
ncUy points t» ihe use of skin as a writing mate-

the roughest materials, as stones, the shoulder-
bones of sheep, and palm-leaves (De Sacy, Mem.
de I' Acad, des Inscript. 1. p. 307). Hendotus,
after telling us that the lonians learnt the art of
writing from the Phcenicians, adds that tbey called
their books skins (rks SlfiKous SiipSdpas), because
they made use of sheep-skins and goat-skins when
short of paper ($iS\os}. Among the Cyprians, a
writing-master was called Siipdepd\oi(l>os. Parch
ment was used for the MSS. of the Pentateuch in
the time of Josephus, and the ne/ifipdvai of 2 Tim
iv. 13 were skins of parchment. It was one of the
provisions in the Talraud tbat the Law should Ijc
written on the skins of clean animals, tame or wild,
or even of clean birds. There are tbree kinds of
skins distinguished, on which the roll of the Pen ¦
tateuch may be written; 1. ^717, keleph (Meg.
ii. 2; SAoJJ. viii. 3); 2. D1t2D1D3n = 8ixo(T-
t6s or Si'JeffTos; and 3. ^"'^Sj givU. The last
is made of the undivided skin, after the hair is
removed and it haa been properly dressed. For
the other two the skin was split. The part with
the hairy side was called keleph, and was used for
the lephillin or phyhicteries ; and upon the other
( D311) the mezuzoth were written (Maimonides,
Hilc. Tephil.). The skins when written upon were
formed into rolls (m b^Kl, megilloth ; Ps. xl. 7
(8); comp Is. xxxiv. 4; Jer. xxxvi. 14; Ez. ii. 9:
Zech. V. 1). They were rolled upon one or two
sticks and fastened with a thread, the ends of which
were sealed (Is. xxix. 11; Dan. xii. 4; Eev. v. 1,
etc.). Hence the words 773, gdlal (etXiaaeiv),
to roll up (Is. xxxiv. 4; Rev. vi. 14), and E^'^IB,
paras (avawrvaa-eiv), to unroll (2 K. xix. 14;
Luke iv. 17), are used of the closing and opening
of a book. The rolls \\ ere generally written on one
side only, except in Ez. ii. 10; Rev. ». 1. They
were divided into columns (mnv^, deldlhoth,
lit. "doors," A. V. "leaves," Jer. xxxvi. 23); tbe
upper margin was to be not less than three fingers
broad, the lower not less than four ; and a spare
of two fingers' breadth was to be left between every
two columns (Waehner, Ant. Ebraior. vol. i. sect.
1, cap. xiv. § 337). In the Herculaneum rolls the
columns are two fingers broad, and in the MSS. in
the library at Stutticart there are tbree columns on
each side, each three inches broad, with an inch
space between tbe columns, and margins of three
inches wide (l..eyrer in Herzog's Encykl. " Schrift-
zeiohen "). The case in which the rolls were kept
was called Teixos or e-i)Krt, Talmudic TfTlS, cerec,
or H3"15, cared. But besides skins, which were
used for the more permanent kinds of "writing,
tablets of wood covered with wax (Luke i. 63,
TricnKi'Sia) served for tbe ordinary purposes of life-
Several of these were fastened together and formed
volumes (mam,= tomos). They were written
upon with a pointed style (tO^, 'et, Job xix. 24),
sometimes of iron (Ps. xiv. 1 (2); Jer. viii. 8, xvli.
1). For harder materials a graver (tSTlUi cherct,
Ex. xxxii. 4; Is. viii. 1) was employed: the hard
point was called 17:5?, tsipporen (Jer. xvii. 1).
For parchment or skins a reed was used (3 John
13: 3 Mace. iv. 20) and according to some the

3576

WRITING

Law was to be written with nothing else (Waehner,
§ 334). The ink, V^,' deyd (Jer. xxxvi. 18), lit
erally " black," like the Greek /ie^av (2 Cor. iii.
3; 2 John 12; 3 John 13), was to be of lamp
black dissolved in gall juice, though sometimes a
mixture of gall juice and vitriol was allowable
(Waehner, § 335). It was carried in an inkstand
(nSDrr nP|7, ke.ieth hassophSr), which was
suspended at the girdle (Ez. ix. 2, 3 ), as is done at
the present day in the East. The modern scribes
" have an apparatus consisting of a metal or ebony
tube for their reed pens, with a cup or bulb of the
same material, attached to the upper end, for the
ink. This they thrust through the girdle, and
carry with them at all times " (Thomson, The
Land and the Book, p. 131). Such a case, foi"
holding pens, ink, aud other materials for writing
is called in the Mishna 1^7^ 'i2> kalmdrin, or
Tl''"?P7l2) kalmarydn (calamarium ; Mishn.
Celim, ii. 7; Mikv.x. 1) while pri3T1W, terontek
(Mish. Celim, xvi. 8), is a case for carrying pens,
penknife, style, and other implements of the writer's
art. To professional scribes there are allusious in
Ps. xiv. 1 [2] ; Ezr. vii. 6 ; 2 Esdr. xiv. 24. In
the language of the Talmud these are called
l'^'^^27i Idbldrtn, which is a modification of the
Lat. libellarii (Talm. Shabb. foi. 16, 1).
For the literature of this subject, see especially
Gesenius, Geschichte der hebrdischen Sprache und
Schrift, 1815; Lehrgebaude der hebr. Sprache,
1817; Monumenta Pliir.nicia, 1837; Art. Pald
ographie in Ersch and Gruber's AUg. Encycl. :
Hupfeld, Ausfillirl'iche hebrdische Grammatik,
1841, and his articles in the Studien und Kritiken,
1830, Band 2 : A. T. [G.] Hoffmann, Grammatica
Syriaca, 1827: A. G. Hoffmann, Art. Hebrdische
SchHft in Ersch and Gruber: Fiirst, Lehrgebdude
der aramdisc/ien Idiome, 1835: Ewald, Ausfiihr-
liches Lehrbucli der hebr. Sprache ; Saalschiitz,
Forschungen im Gebiete der liebraisch-dgypt-
ischen Archaohgie, 1838; besides other works,
which have been referred to in the course of tbis
article. W. A. W.
* This may be a suitable place to speak of the
miiting on the Moabite stone recently discovered
on the east of the Dead Sea. In August, 1868,
the Eev. F. Klein, connected with the Cliurch
Missionary Society in Jerusalem, met with this
monumental stone at Dhibdn, the ancient Dibon
(1i^"T) on a journey from Es-Sali to Kerak, a
region seldom visited by Europeans and still com
paratively unknown. He copied a small part of
the inscription and took measurements, which show
the stone to have been about 3 feet 9 inches long,
2 feet 4 'inches in breadth, and 1 foot 2 inches
thick. It was in alniost perfect preservation, lying
with the inscription uppermost, and was a basaltic
Btone, exceedingly heavy. No inscription was on
the bottom of the side, which was perfectly smooth,
and without marks. But unfortunately, before the
stone could be properly examined, owing to the
unwillingness of the Ar.ibs to give it up, it was
broken into fragments by cold water having been
thrown upon it after it had been heated by fire.
We are indebted mainly to the efforts of Capt.
Warren, and the French vice-consul at Jerusalem,
M. Ganneau, for impressions or squeezes taken of
Ihc main block and some of the recovered parts,

WRITING
from which we learn the character and importance
of this interesting monument. The investigations
are not yet complete, but are supposed to establish
the following results. (1.) The stone is undoubt.
edly the oldest Shemitic monument yet found. (2."
It is stated by Mr. Deutsch, of the British Mu
seum, that the characters appear older " than many
of the Assyrian bi-lingual cylinders in the British
Museum, the date of which is, at the very least,
as old as the ninth century, E. c." (3.) The stone
chronicles the achievements of one Mesha, king
of the Moabites. Now it was about this time
(namely, 900 B. c), that Mesha lived, against
whom Jehoram and Jehoshaphat fought (2 K. iii.
4ff.). [Mesha.] (4.) Tiie inscription is fullof
well-known Biblical names, such as Beth-Bamoth,
Beth-Baal-Meon, Horonaim, and Dibon. (5.) Men
tion is frequently made of Israel, a rival power,
and of Chemosh, the national God of Moab. (6.)
It is invaluable to the student of alphabets. Nearly
the whole of the Greek alphabet is found here, not
merely similar to the Phoenician shape, but aa
identical with it as can well be.
Some of the words, and even lines, it should be
added, are too illegible to be clearly deciphered;
some parts of the stone remain (if still existing)
to be examined, and interpretei-s differ somewhat
in the reading of portions of the text in their
possession. One value of the discovery is its con
firming the Scripture intimations (1 Sam. vii. 12
and XV. 12), tbat the inhabitants of Palestine, like
those of Egypt and Assyria, had monumental
records, and it encourages the hope that hy per
severance still others may be found. (For fuller
details see Quart. Statement of the Pai. Exphr.
Fund, Nos. iv. and v.)
Among the best accounts of this stone is un
questionably that of Prof. Schlottniann, Die Sieges-
sdule Mesa's Konigs der Moabiter; ein Beiiriu/
zur hebrdischen Alterthumshmde (Halle, 1870),
supplemented by an art. in the Zeitschr. d. D. M.
Gesellschaft, 1870, p. 253 ff. Jie gives at length
the details of its discovery, and shows the impos
sibility of any collusion or fraud on the part of
the Arabs. He presents a German translation of
tbe epigraph, supplying in brackets the missing or
illegible words, on conjectural grounds of course,
and gives tbe same in Hebrew, for the sake of com
paring the cognate dialects. It is remarkable that
no word occurs in the Moabite fragment of which
the root does not exist in the Hebrew Biblical text.
It reads in this respect, as M. de Vogii4 remarks,
almost like a page from the Hebrew Scriptures.
Prof. Schlottniann points out various important
connections between this document and the Biblical
history. Prof. G. Rawlinson, on "tlie Moabite
Stone" (Contemp. Rev. Aug. 1870, pp. 97-112),
dwells particularly on "the palseographical value
of tbe discovery." He argues, among other points,
that the more primitive forms of the letters on
" the stone " resemble the objects from which they
are named much more strikingly than the later
forms, and therefore confirm tbe theory of the
pictorial origin of alphabetic writing. He finds
evidence, .also, in the closer resemblance between
these more primitive figures and tbe earliest Greek
letters, that the Greeks borrowed the art of writing
from the Phoenicians at a much earlier date than
many have assigned to that event. Letters, ac
cording to this view, were not necessarily unknown
to tbe Greeks iu the time of Homer and Hesiod.
The Pentateuch and other oldest parts of tbe He-

WRITING
Drew Scriptures were not improbably written at first
in characters like those represented on the Moabite
stone. Essays on the Moabite stone, with translations
of the inscription, have also been published by
MM. Ganneau, de Vogii^, Sachs, Derenbourg,
Noldeke, Neubauer, Haug, Geiger, and others,
aud in this country by the Rev. W. H. Ward
(Proceedings of the Amer. Oriental Society for
May, 1870), to whom we are indebted for the
palaoographical supplements to the present article.
Mr. Ward's essay is to appear, enlarged, in the
BibL Sacra for Oct. 1870. H.
* The last few years have seen the study of the
history of writing advanced considerably by the
labors of Osiander, Geiger, Levy, Lauth, Brugsch,
Kirchhoff, Lenormant, de Vogii^, and others.
Scores of new and important inscriptions in vari
ous languages, of which the most important is
that of King Mesha of Moab, found the present
year in the ancient Dibon, bave been discovered
and seized upon by eager students.
The general result of these investigations has
been to magnify the importance aud to extend tbe
swayof the old Canaanite or Phosnician alphabet,
and to indicate more clearly to us its original
characters. It is not improbable that every style
of script now in use, with the exception of the
Chinese and Japanese, is the lineal descendant
of the letters of Cadmus.
Whether the three systems of picture-writing,
the Egyptian, the Central American, and the
Chmese; the two alphabetic systems of tbe an
cient Persians and the Phoenicians, and the mixed
system of Assyria had all a common origin, as
Geiger maintains, in the valley of tbe Euphrates,
it is as yet impossible to decide. In order to ex
press thought to the eye, pictures would first be
eraployed. These pictures would next stand for
the first syllable of the words which they had
represented, and finally for the first vocal elements
of those syllables. Such, no doubt, was the his
tory of tbe Shemitic alphabet. The nanies of the
letters seem to point to a hieroglyphic period, as
they all signify objects of which pictures could be
drawn. Theu the fact that the Shemitic alphabet
has no vowels points to a period when the vowel
system of the language was less developed, and
when each written consonant caiVied its own vowel
ffith it, as in the syllabic system of ancient As
syria. We know of two modern cases, one of the
Cherokee Indian Sequoya or Guest, and the other
of Doalu Bukere in Africa, in which savages, hav
ing gained some inkling of the civilized method
of representing fractions of words by arbitrary
signs, have themselves invented an alphabet. It
is a suggestive fact tbat in both of these cases the
system which they hit upon was syllabic. Sequoya
ill 1823 had devised an alphabet composed of two
liiiiidred syllables, which lie afterwards reduced to
cishty-five. Such was probably the original syl
labic character of the Shemitio alphabet, consisting
of consonants followed by tbe primitive vowel a.
Uad the alphabet originally been formed by making
an ultimate analysis of sounds it would be difficult
to expUin the fact that the vowels, the most prom
inent elements in such an analysis, are all absent.
It is now generally admitted that the Phcenician
or Shemitio alphabet was derived from the Egyp
tian hieratic characters (Brugsch, Zeitschr. f.
Stenographic, 1864, p. 70 ff., and in his Bildung
«¦ Eniw. d. Schrift, Berl. 1868. F. I.enormant,
225

WRITING 3577
Sa?- la prop, de I'alph. phen.. Par. 1866. Lauth,
Ueber d. dgypi. Urspi-ung uns. Buchstaben u. Zif-
fern, in the Sitzungsb. d. bair. Akad. d. Wiss.,
1867, ii. 84-124. G. Ebers, Agyptenu. d. Bucher
Mose's, Leipz. 1868, pp. 147-151. Schroder, Die
phoniz. Sprache, HaUe, 1869, p. 76. E. Schrader,
in De Wette's EinL in d. Biicher d. A. T., 8 ¦
Aufi., 1869, p. 189). Taking as our basis for com
parison on the one hand the most archaic Phmni-
cian forms as given on gems and seals and OYi the
Jloabite Inscription, and on the other the most
ancient hieratic characters as found on the papyrus
Prisse, a manuscript ot the twelfth dynasty, and so
older than the Hyksos, we find that in at least
half of the Phoenician letters there is an evident
resemblance to the corresponding hieratic. In the
Phoenician, as in the Hebrew, D.ileth and Resh are
almost identical. The same is true in the hieratic
writing. In these two letters, and in Lamed, Nun,
and Shin, the resemblance is quite striking. Prob
ably tbe adaptation of the Egyptian characters to
the use of the Phoenician or Canaanite language.
was due to the large Shemitio colony which occu
pied tbe Delta of the Nile even before the Hyksos
invasion; although some have given the credit to
the Hyksos conquerors, and others even to the
Israelites, although their condition in Egypt was
certainly not favorable to literary pursuits.
Tbe names of the letters are pure Shemitic and
not Egyptian. This shows that although hieratic
characters were borrowed, the Egyptian names
were not taken with them. In selecting these
nanies it is probable that the simplest and most
familiar objects were chosen which happened tc
have names beginning with the desired letter
In most cases it is useless to try to find in the
characters any resemblance to the objects whose
names they bear. Thus in the Egyptian hiero
glyphic Lamed is a lion. This in the hieratic is
reduced to a conventional form which was adopted
almost exactly into the Phoenician alphabet, but
with a change of name from " lion " to TS^,
'¦ an ox-goad," which it does not resemble at all in
shape. The most we can say is that the selection
of common visible objects for names of the letters
is in imitation of the Egyptian picture-writing, and
in a few cases it may have been possible, as in
n|?^, a door, and 3"'S5, water, to find words
beginning with the requisite letter wbich agreed iu
sense with the shape of the letters.
We can be approximately certain of the origina
form of the Phoenician letters. By far the most
important monument for this purpose is the Moab
ite column of Mesha, belongiiig to the first half of
the ninth century before Christ. Next in impor
tance to this are the inscriptions on some weights
found in Assyria by Layard, and which are nearly
as old. Beside these are quite a number of seaU
and gems of extreme antiquity. The later Phoeni
cian monuments are counted by hundreds, and one
of tbem, the great Sidonian inscription, is of con
siderable paliEographical value. De VogiiiS con
cludes as tbe result of his study of these remain.'"
tbat the alphabet in its archaic form was chara»-
terized by the prevalence of sharp angles (Journal
Asiatique, 1867, p. 171). The zigzag shape of Mem
and Shin is a certain proof of the antiquity of the
monument that contains them. A few letters, nota
bly Zayinand Tsade, retained their sharp angles to a
late period. Of this original form we do not pos-^ipss

3578

WRITING

a single pure example, unless it be a single scara^
baeus, bearing the legend u7W/, "belonging to
Shallum," which may be as old as the time of Da
vid. In the Moabite Inscription these sharp angles
are generally preserved, although Lamed has lost its
angle to the right, and Beih, Kaph, Mem, Nun,
and Pe, curve their first stroke somewhat to the left.
Ayin, which means "an eye," may have been
originally circular, as we here find it, and the sarae
may have been the case with Vau and Koph, both
of which have rounded heads on the Moabite stone.
We here first find Daleth the simple Greek Delia, A,
and quite distinguishable fi'om Resh ; and Samekh
identical with the earliest Greek |r as found in the
Corcyra inscriptions of the forty-fifth Olympiad.
P'roni this archaic Phceniciani of which Lenormant
gives the characters so far as they were then known
{Revue Archeologique, 1867), were derived the
Greek letters of which we have specimens as old as
the ninth century before Christ, written so exactly
in the Phoenician character, and still turned to the
left, that Prof. F. Hitzig {Zeitschr. d. D. M. G.
1858, p. 273) has tried to translate, as if Phoeni
cian, the inscription from Shera, cut under the
picture of a fish, " [Ttj^wi' eypa(pe jtte."
The first stage in the modification of the original
Phoenician character was the substitution of trans
verse bars for the original zigzags, first in Mem
and afterwards iu Shin. At the same time the
letters show more cuitcs, and in the Aramaean
dialects all the zigzags disappear; and the heads
of Beth, Dnleth, and Resh, which were at first closed
and triangular, are opened at the top. From the
Aramaean character by gradual changes was derived
the Palmyrene and the modern square Hebrew.
This is hardly the place to give the genealogy of
any other than the square Hebrew of all the alpha
bets that are descendants of the old Shemitic. For
the Greek, reference may be made to the elaborate
alphabets of Greece, Asia Minor, and the Ionian
Islands given by KirchhoflT {Stud, zur Gesch. d.
griech. Alphabets, in the Abh. d. Akad. d. Wiss.
zu Berlin, 1863). For the Latin Mommsen has
done a similar service. Weber, following Prinsep,
makes it not improbable {Zeitschr. d. D. M. G. x.
389 ff.) that the Sanskrit had a similar origin, car
rying with it all the alphabets of India, Burmah,
.lava, and Thibet. His argument, however, is by
no means universally accepted as conclusive. The
Zend and Pehlevi alphabets are of Shemitic origin,
as Spiegel shows in his Gram, der Huzwaresch-
spi'ache, pp. 26, 34 ff. Klaproth has remarked
that the Mongolian, Tunj^usian, and Manchu alpha
bets are from the Syrian; though modified, it is
true, by the perpendrcular columnar arrangement
uf the Chinese. Add to these the Samaritan,
Kthiopic, and Syriac; the Arabic, with its chamc-
tiTS modified or unmodified as accepted by Turks,
Persians, iMalays, Hindostanees, Berbers, and Tou-
areks; still further remember that the Cyrillian
and Glagolitic alphabets of Bulgaria and Russia,
and the Gothic of Ulphilas, were of Shemitic origin
through the Greek, and those of the rest of the
civilized world through the Latin ; and we have
the Chinese left as the only living WTitten language
whose alphabet is not Uneally descended from that
of Cadmus. To the literature referred to above,
add M. A. Levy, Phonizische Studien, 4 Hefte, Bresl.
1856-70; Siegelu. Gemme?!, ibid. 1869 ; Die pal-
myren. .Inschrifien, in Zeitschr. d. D. M. G., 1864,
p. 65 ff. W. H. W.

YEAR

X.

XAN'THICUS. [Month, iii 2007.]

Y.
YARN (ni|?^ ; SIpD). The notice of yarc
is contained in an extremely obscure passage ic
1 K. X. 28 (2 Chr. i. 16): "Solomon had horses
brought out of Egypt, and linen yam ; the king's
merchants received the linen yarn at a price." The
LXX. gives CK @eKov4f implying an original read
ing of ^1plnZ3 ; the Vulg. has de Coa, which is
merely a Latinized form of the original. The He
brew Received Text is questionable, from the cir
cumstance that the second mikveh has its final
vowel lengthened as though it were in the status
construcius. The probability is that the term does
refer to some entrepot of Egyptian commerce,
but whether Tekoah, as in the LXX., or Coa, as in
the "Vulg., is doubtful. Gesenius ( Thes. p. 1202)
gives the sense of " number" as applying equally
to the merchants and the horses: "A band rf
the king's merchants bought a drove (of horses) at
a price; " but the verbal arrangement in 2 Chr. ifl
opposed to this rendering. Thenius {Exeg. Hdb.
on 1 K. X. 28) combines this sense with the former,
giving to the first mikveh the sense " from Tekoah,"
to the second the sense of " drove." Bertheau
{Exeg. Hdb. on 2 Chr. i. 16) and Fiirst {Lex. s.v.)
side with the Vulgate, and suppose the place called
Coa to have been on the Egyptian frontier : " The
king's merchants from Coa {i. c. stationed at Coa)
took the horses from Coa at a price." The sense
adopted in the A. V. is derived from Jewish in
terpreters. W. L. B.
YEAR (n3ty : iros- annus), the highest or
dinary division of time. The Hebrew name is
identical with the root nDt^j " he or it repeated,
did the second time ; " with which are cognate the
ordinal numeral "'St^, "second," and the cardi
nal, t3^5P) "two." The meaning is therefore
thought to be " an iteration," by Gesenius, who
compares the' Latin annus, properly a circle. Ge-
senius also compares the Arabic Jj-^j whieh he'
says signifies "a circle, year." It signifies "a
year," but not " a circle," though sometimesi
meaning "around:" its root is yL^ "it be
came altered or changed, it shifted, passed, revolved
and passed, or became complete" (on Mr. Lane'i
authority). The ancient Egyptian REXP, "»
year," seems to reserable annus ; for in Coptic ow
of the forms of its equivalect, OOAJ-llJ; thi
Bashmuric p^JULIlJ; ^^^llIUj is identical
with the Sahidic p^llT\5; "a handle, rmg,"
P^JUinei, "rmgs." The sense of the He
brew might either be a recurring period, or a cir»
ele of seasons, or else a period circling through the
seasons. The first sense is agreeable with any
period of time ; the second, with the Egyptian

YEAR
¦'primitive year," which, by the use of tropical
leasons as divisions of the " Vague Year," is shown
U) have been tropical in reality or intention ; the
thhd agrees witb all " wandering years."
I. Years, properly so called.
Two 3'ears were known to, and apparently used
by, the Hebrews.
1. A year of 360 days, containing twelve months
of thirty days each, is indicated by certain passages
in the prophetical Scriptures. The time, times,
and a half, of Daniel (vii. 25, xii. 7), where "time"
(Ch. T^S. Heb. ^ylQ) means "year," evi
dently represent the same period as the 42 months
(Rev. xi. 2) and 1,260 days of the Eevelation (xi. 3,
iii. 6), for 360 X 3.5 = 1,260, and 30 X 42=1,260.
This year perfectly corresponds to the Egyptian
vague year, without the five intercalary days. It
appears to have heen in use in Noah's time, or at
least in the time of the writer of the narrative of the
Flood, for in that narrative the interval from the
17th day of the 2d rnonth to the 17th day of the
7th of the same year appears to be stated to be a
period of 150 days (Gen. vii. 11, 24, viii. 3, 4, comp.
13), and, as the 1st, 2d, 7th, and 10th mouths of
one year are mentioned (viii. 13, 14, vii. 11, viii. 4,
5), the Ist day of the 10th month of this year being
separated from the 1st day of tbe 1st month of tbe
next year by an interval of at least 54 days (viii.
5, 6, 10, 12, 13), we can only infer tt. year of 12
months. Ideler disputes the former inference,
arguing that as tbe water first began to sink after
150 days (and then had been 15 cubits above all
high mountains), it must have sunk for some days
ere the Ark could have rested on Ararat, so that
the second date must have beeu more than 150
days later than the first (Handbuch, i. 69, 70, 478,
479). This argument depends upon the meaning
of the expression " high niomitains," and upon the
height of "the mountains of Ararat," upon whicb
the Ark rested (Gen. viii. 4), and we are certainly
justified by Shemitic usage, if we do not consider
the usual inference of the great height attained by
the Flood to be a necessary one ( Genesis of ihe
Earih and of Mun, 2d ed. pp. 97, 98). The ex
act correspondence of tbe interval mentioned to 5
months of 30 days each, and the use of a year of
360 days, or 12 such months, by tbe prophets, the
latter fact overlooked by Ideler, favor the idea tbat
such a year is here meant, unless indeed one iden
tical with the Egyptian vague year, of 12 months
of 30 days and 5 intercalary days. Tbe settle
ment of this question depends upon the nature and
hishiry of these years, and our information on the
latter subject is not sufficiently certain to enable us
to do more than hazard a conjecture.
A year of 360 days is the rudest known. It is
formed of 12 spurious lunar months, and was
probably the parent of the lunar year of 354 days,
and the vague year of 365. That it should have
continued any time in use would be surprising
were it not for the convenient length of the months.
The Hebrew year, from the time of the Exodus, as
we shall see, was evidently lunar, though in some
manner rendered virtually solar, and we may there
fore infer that the lunar year is as old as the date
of the Exodus. As the Hebrew year was not an
Egyptian year, and as nothing is said of its being
new, save in its time of commencement, it was per
haps earlier in use among the Israelites, and either
brought into Egypt by them or borrowed from
Shemite settlers.

YEAR

357S

The vague year was certainly in use in Egypt in
as remote an age as the earlier part of tbe Xlltb
dynasty (b. o. cir. 2000), and there can be no rea
sonable doubt that it was there used at the time
of the building of tbe Great Pyramid (b. c. cir.
2350). The intercalary days seem to be of Egyp
tian institution, for each of them was dedicated to
one of the great gods, as though tbe innovation had
been thus made permanent by the priests, and per
haps rendered popular as a series of days of feast
ing and rejoicing. The addition would, however,
date from a very early period, that of the finaJ
settlement of the Egyptian religion.
As the lunar year and the vague year run up
parallel to so early a period as that of the li^xodus,
and the former seems to have been then Shemite,
the latter 'then, and for several centuries earlier,
Egyptian, and probably of Egyptian origin, we
may reasonably conjecture that the former origi
nated from a year of 360 days in Asia, the latter
from the same year in Africa, this primitive year
having been used by the Noachians before their
dispersion. 2. The year used by the Hebrews from tbe time
of the Exodus may be said to have been then insti
tuted, since a current month, Abib, on the 14th
day of which the first Passover was kept, was then
made the first month of the year. Tbe essential
characteristics of tbis year can be clearly deter
mined, though we cannot fix those of any single
year. It was essentially solar, for the offerings of
productions of the earth, first-fruits, harvest-prod
uce, and ingathered fruits, were fixed to certain
days of the year, two of which were in the periods
of great feasts, tbe third itself a feast reckoned from
one of the former days. It seems evident that the
year was made .to depend upon these times, and it
may be observed that such a calendar would tend
to cause thankfulness for God's good gifts, and
would put in the background the great luminaries
which the heathen worshipped in Egypt and in
Canaan. Though the year was thus essentially
solar, it is certain that the months were lunar, each
commencing with a new moon. There must there
fore have been some method of adjustment. The
fii-st point to be decided is how the commencement
of each year was fixed. On the 16th day of Abib
ripe ears of corn were to be ofi'ered as first-fruits
of the harvest (Lev. ii. 14, xxiii. 10, 11): this was
the day on which the sickle was begun to be put
to the corn (Deut. xvi. 9), and no doubt Josephus
is right in stating that until the offering of first-
fruits bad been made no harvest-work was to be
begun (Ant. iii. 10, § 5). He also states tbat ears
of barley were offered (ibid.). That this was the
case, and tbat the ears were the earliest rijie, is
evident from the following circumstauces. The
reaping of barley commenced the harvest (2 Sam.
xxi. 9), that of wheat following, apparently with
out any considerable interval (Ruth ii. 23). On
the day of Pentecost thanksgiving was ofi'ered for
the harvest, and it was therefore called the " Feast
of Harvest." It was reckoned fi-om the com
mencement of the harvest, on the 16th day of the
1st month. The 50 days must include the whole
time of the harvest of both wheat and oarley
throughout Palestine. According to the observa
tions of modern travellers, barley is ripe, in the
warmest parts of Palestine, in the first days of
AprU. The barley-harvest therefore begins about
half J month or less after the vernal equinoi.
Each year, if solar, would thus begin at about that

3580

YEAR

squinox, when the earliest ears of barley must be
ripe. As, however, the months were lunar, the
sommencement of the year must have been fixed
by a new moon near this pohit of time. The new
moon must have been that which fell about or next
after the equinox, not more than a few days beibre,
on account of the offering of first-fruits. Ideler,
whose observations on this matter we have thus far
followed, supposes that the new moon was chosen
by observation of the forwardness of the barley-
crops in the warmer parts of the country {Hand
buch, i. 490). But such a method would have
caused confusion on account of the different times
of the harvest in different parts of Palestine ; and
in the period of the Judges there would often have
been two separate commencements of the year in
regions divided by hostile tribes, and in each of
which, the Israelite population led an existence
almost independent of any other branch. It is
more likely that the Hebrews would have deter
mined their new year's day by the observation of
heliacal or other star-risings or settings known to
mark the right time of the solar year. By such a
method the beginning of any year could have been
fixed a year before, either to one day, or, suppos
ing the month - commencements were fixed by
actual observation, within a day or two. And we
need not doubt that the Israelites were well ac
quainted with such means of marking the periods
of a solar year. In the ancient Song of Deborah
we read how "They fought from heaven; the stars
in their courses fought against Sisera. The river
of Kishon swept them away, that ancient river, the
river Kishon " (Judg. v. 20, 21). The stars that
marked the times of rain are thus connected with
the swelling of the river iu which the fugitive
Canaanites perished. So too we read how the Lord
demanded of Job, " Canst thou bind the sweet in
fluences of Cimah, or loose the bands of Cesil? "
(Job xxxviii. 31). "The best and most fertilizing
of the rains," in Palestine and the neighboring
lands, save Egypt, '• fall when the Pleiades set at
dawn (not exactly heliacally), at the end of au
tumn; rani scarcely ever falling at the opposite
season, when Scorpio sets at dawn." That Cimah
signifies the Pleiades does not admit of reasonable
doubt, and Cesil, as opposite to it, would be Scor
pio, being identified with Cor Scorpionis by Aben
Ezra. These explanations we take from the arti
cle Famine [vol. i. p. 810 b, and note]. There
fore it cannot be questioned that the IsraeUtes,
even during the troubled time of the Judges, were
well acquainted with the method of determining
the seasons of the solar year by observing the stars.
Not alone was this the practice of the civilized
Egyptians, but, at all times of which we know their
history, of the Arabs, and also of the Greeks in the
time of Hesiod, while yet their material civilization
and science were rudimentary. It has always been
the custom of pastoral and scattered peoples, rather
than of the dwellers in cities ; and if the Es^yptians
be thought to form an exception, it must be recol
lected that they used it at a period not remote
from that at; wbich their civilization came from the
nlain of Shinar.
It follows, from the determination of the proper
new moon of the first month, whether by observa
tion of a stellar phenomenon, or of the forwardness
if the crops, that the method of intercalation can
jnly have been that in use after the Captivity, the
addition of a thirteenth month whenever the twelfth
ended too long before the equinox for the offering

YEAR
of the first-fruits to be made at the time fixed
This method is in accordance with the permission
granted to postpone the celebration of the Passover
for one month in the case of any one who wai
legally unclean, or journeying at a distance (Num.
ix. 9-13); and there is a historical instance iu the
case of Hezekiah of such a postponement, for both
reasons, of the national celebration (2 Chr. xxx.
1-3, 15). Such a practice as that of an intercala
tion varying in occurrence is contrary to western
usage; but the like prevails in all Muslim countries
in a far more inconvenient form in the case of the
coramencement of every month. The day is deter
mined by actual observation of the new moon, and
thus a day is frequently unexpectedly added to or
deducted from a month at orie place, and months
commence on different days at different towns in
the same country. The Hebrew intercalation, if
determined by stellar phenomena, would not be Ua
ble to a hke uncertainty, though such may have
been the case with the actual day of the new moon.
The later Jews had two commencements of the
year, whence it is commonly but inaccurately said
that they had two years, the sacred year and the
civil. We, prefer to speak of the sacred and civil
reckonings. Ideler admits tbat these reckonings
obtained at the time of the Second Temple. The
sacred reckoning was that instituted at the Exodus,
according to which the first month was Abib: by
the civil reckoning the first month was the seventh.
The interval between the two commencements waa
thus exactly half a year. It has been supposed
that the institution at the time of the Exodus was a
change of commencement, not the introduction ofa
new year, and that thenceforward the year had two
beginnings, respectively at about the vernal and the
autumnal equinoxes. The former supposition is a
hypothesis, the latter may almost be proved. The
strongest point of evidence as to two beginnings of
the year from the time of the Exodus, straugeh
unnoticed in this relation by Ideler, is the circum
stance that the sabbatical and jubilee years com
menced in the 7th month, and no doubt on the
10th day of the 7th raonth, the Day of Atonement
(Lev. xxv. 9, 10), and as this year immediately fol
lowed a sabbatical year, the latter must have begun
in the same manner. Both were full years, and
therefore must have commenced on the first day
The jubilee year was proclaimed on the first day of
the month, the Day of Atonement standing in the
same relation to its beginning, and perhaps to tbe
civil beginning of the year, as did the Passover to
the sacred beginning. This would be the most
convenient, if not the necessary commencement of
a year of total cessation from the labors of agricul-
ture, as a year so commencing would comprise the
whole round of such occupations in regular sequence
from seed-time to harvest, and from harvest to vint
age and gathering of fruit. The command as to
both years, apart from the mention of the Day of
Atonement, clearly shows this, unless we sui)pose,
but this is surely unwarrantable, that the iiyunction
in the two places in which it occurs follows the reg
ular order of the seasons of agriculture (Ex. xxiii.
10, 11; Lev. xxv. 3, 4, 11), but that this was not
intended to apply in the case of the observance.
Two expressions, used with reference to the tmie
of the Feast of Ingathering on the 15th day of the
7th mouth, must be here noticed. This feast ia
spoken of as HDt^n HM^S, « in the going out"
or "end of the year" (Ex. xxiii. 16), and ai

YEAR
HDT^n n?^p^, " [at] the change of the year
(xxxiv. 22), the latter a vague expression, as far as
we can understand it, but quite consistent with the
¦jiher, whether indicating the turning-point of a
natural year, or the half of the year by the sacred
reckoning. The Eabbins use the term nD'1pi|l
to des^nate the commencement of each of the four
seasons into which they divide the year {Handbuch,
i. 650, 551). Our view is confirmed by the simi
larity of the 1st and 7th months as to their observ
ances, the one containing the Feast of Unleavened
Bread from the 15th to the 21st inclusive; the
other, that of Tabernacles, from the 15th to the
22d. Evidence in the same direction is found in
the special sanctification of the 1st day of the 7th
month, which in the blowing of trumpets resembles
tbe proclamation of the jubilee year on the Day of
.-Vtonement. We therefore hold that from the time
ofthe Exodus there were two beginnings of the year,
ffith the 1st of the 1st and the 1st of the 7th
month, the former being the sacred reckoning, the
latter, used for the operations of agriculture, the
civil reckoning. In Egypt, in the present day, the
Mushnis use the lunar year for their religious ob
servances, and for ordinary affairs, except those of
agriculture, which they regulate by the Coptic
Julian year.
We must here notice the theories of the deriva-
tion'of the Hebrew year from the Egyptian vague
year, as they are connected with the tropical point
or pomts, and agricultural phenomena, by which
the former was regulated. The vague year was
comraonly used by the Egyptians; and from it only,
if from an Egyptian year, is the Hebrew lively to
have been derived. Two theories ha\'e been formed
connecting the two years at the Exodus.
(1.) Some hold that Abib, the first month of the
Hebrew year by the sacred reckoning, was the Egyp
tian Epiphi, called in Coptic GIlHni; and in Ara-
bic, by the modem Egyptians, ^,_>aj|, Abeeb, or
Ebeeb, the llth month of the vague year. The
similarity of sound is remarkable, but it must be
remembered that the Egyptian name is derived
from that of the goddess of the month, PEP-T or
APAP-T ( ? ) " whereas the Hebrew name has the
sense of " an ear of corn, a green ear," and is derived
from tbe unused root ^5^> traceable in DS, " ver-
dure," 3M, Chaldee, " fruit," i^t, "green fodder."
Moreover, the Egyptian P is rarely, if ever, repre
sented by the Hebrew H, and the converse is nofc
common. Still stronger evidence is afforded by the
fact that we find in Egyptian the root AB, " a nose
gay," which is evidently related to Abib and its cog
nates. Supposing, however, that the Hebrew calen-
a The names ofthe Egyptian months, derived from
their divinities, are alone known to us in Greek and
Coptic forms. These forms are shown by the names
ofthe divinities given in the sculptures of the ceiling
of the Rameseum of Bl-Kurneh to be corrupt; bnt
'n several cases they are traceable. The foUowing
«e certain: 1. ©(id, OCUOVT, divinity TEET
(Thoth), as well aa a goddess. 2. nau<^i, Jl^CWIlSj
PTBH, t. e. PAPTEH, belonging to Ptah. '6. 'ABvp,
^ettjpj HATHAE. 9. Hax^i', m^^^Siy

YEAR

3581

dar was formed by fibting the Egyptian Epiphi as tht
first month, what would be the chronological result?
The latest date to which the Exodus is assigned i?
abont B. c. 1320. In tho Julian year b. c. 132C
the month Epiphi of the Egyptian vague year com
menced May 16, 44 days after the day of the vernal
equinox, April 2, very near which the Hebrew year
must have begun. Thus at the latest date of the
Exodus, there is an interval of a month and a half
between the beginning of the Hebrew year and
Epiphi 1. This interval represents about 180 years,
through which the vague year would retrograde in
the Julian until the commencement of Epiphi cor
responded to the vernal equinox, and no method can
reduce it below 100. It is possible to efiect thus
much by conjecturing that the month Abib began
somewhat after this tropical point, though the pre
cise details of the state of the crops at the time of
the plagues, as compared with the phenomena of
agriculture in Lower Egypt at the present day,
make half a mouth an extreme extension. At the
time of the plague of hail, the barley was in the ear
and was smitten with the flax, but the wheat was
not sufficiently forward to be destroyed (Ex. ix. 31,
32). In Lower Egypt, at the present day, this
would be the case about the end of February and
beginuing of March. The Exodus cannofc have
taken place many days after the plague of hail, so
that it musfc have occurred about or a little after
the time of the vernal equinox, and thus Abib can
not possibly have begun much after that tropical
point: half a month is therefore excessive. We
have thus carefully examined the evidence as to the
supposed derivation of Abib from Epiphi, because
it has been carelessly taken for granted, and more
carelessly alleged in support of the latest date of
the Exodus.
(2.) We have founded an argument for the date
of the Exodus upon another comparison of the He
brew year and the vague year. We have seen
that the sacred commencement of the Hebrew year
was afc the new moon about or next after, but not
much before, the vernal equinox: the civil com
mencement must usually have been at the new moon
nearest the autumnal equinox. At the earliest date
of the Exodus computed by morJern chronologera,
about the middle of the 17th century b. c., the
Egyptian vague year commenced at or about the
latter time. The Hebrew year, reckoned from the
civil commencement, and the vague year, therefore,
then nearly or exactly coincided. We have already
seen that the Hebrews in Egypt, if they used a
foreign year, must be supposed to have used the
vague year. It is worth while to inquure whether a
vague year of this time would further suit the char
acteristics of the first Hebrew year. It would be
necessary that the 14th day of Abib, on which fell
tbe full moon of the Passover of the Exodus, should
correspond to the 14th of Pbanienoth, in a vague
year commencing about the autumnal equinox. A

KHUNS, i. e PAKHTJNS. 11. "E^t.^i, eiXHIlJ,
PEP-T, or APAP-T. The names of months are there
fore, in their corrupt forms, either derived from tha
names of divinities, or the same as those names. The
name of the goddess of Epiphi is written PT TEE, or
PT, " twice." As T is the feminine termination, the
root appears to be P, " twice,'^ thus PEP-T or APAP-Tj
the latter being Lepsius's reading. (See J^psiua
Denkmaler, abth. iii- bl. 170, 171, Chron. d. M^. i.
141, and Poole, Hora Mgyptiaca, pp. 7-9, 14, 13
18.)

3.582

YEAR

full moun fell on the 14th of Phamenoth, or Thurs
day, April 21, B. c. 1652, of a vague year commenc
ing on the day of the autumnal equinox, Oct. 10,
B. c. 1653. A full moon would not fall on the same
day of the vague year within a shorter interval than
twenty-five years, and the triple near coincidence of
new moon, vague year, and autumnal equinox, would
not recur in less than 1,500 vague years (Enc.
Brit. Sth ed. Egypt, p. 458). This date of the
.Exodus, is. C. 1652, is only four years earlier than
Hales's, n. c. 1648. In confirmation of this early
date, it must be added that in aJist of confederates
defeated by Thothmes HI. at Megiddo in the 23d
year of his reign, are certain names that we believe
can only refer to Israelite tribes. The date of this
king's accession cannot be later than about B. c.
1460, and his 23d year cannot therefore be later
than about E. c. 1440.'' Were the Israelites then
(ettled in Palestine, no date of the Exodus but the
longest would be tenable. [Chkonology.]
II. Divisions of the Year. — 1. Seasons. Two
seasons are mentioned in the Bible, V^f2j "sum
mer," and HTin, " winter." The former properly
means the time of cutting fruits, the latter, that of
gathering fruits ; they are therefore originally rather
summer and autumn than summer and winter.
But that they signify ordinarily the two grand di
visions of the year, the warm and cold seasons, 'S
evident from their use for the whole year in the ex
pression ^"|in1 y^Jli " summer and winter " (Ps.
Ixxiv. 17; Zech. xiv. 8, perhaps Gen. viii. 22), and
from the mention of " the winter house " (Jer. xxxvi.
22) and " the summer house " (Am. iii. 15, where
both are mentioned together). Probably ^"^H,
when used without reference to the year (as in Job
xxix. 4), retains its original signitication. In the
promise to Noah, after the Flood, the following re
markable passage occurs : " While the earth re
maineth, seed time and harvest, and cold and heat,
and sunmier and winter, and day and night shall
not cease" (Gen. viii. 22), Here "seed-time,"
ynT, and " harvest," *l^^p, are evidently the
agricultural seasons. It seems unreasonable to
suppose that they mean winter and summer, as the
beginnings of the periods of sowing and of harvest
are not separated by six months, and they do not
last for six months each, or nearly so long a time.
The phrase " cold and heat," DfTl "Hp, probably
indicates the great alternations of temperature.
The whole passage indeed speaks of the alternations
of nature, whether of productions, temperature, the
seasons, or light and darkness. As we have seen
the year was probably then a wandering one, and
therefore the passage is not likely to refer to it, but
to natural phenomena alone. [Seasons; Chko
nology. J
2. Months. — The Hebrew months, from the
time of the Kxodus, were lunar. The year appears
ordinarily to have contained twelve, but, when in
tercalation was necessary, a thirteenth. The older
year contained twelve months of thirty days each.
[Month; Ciihoxology.]
3. Weeks. — The Hebrews, from the time of the
mstitution of tbe Sabbath, whether at or before the
ExoduH, reckoned by weeks, but, as no lunar year

YOKE
could have contained a number of weeks without a
fractional excess, this reckoning was virtually inde.
pendent of the year as with the Muslims. [Week;
Sabbath; Cheonology.]
4. Festivals, Holy Days, and Fasts. — The
Feast of the Passover was held on the 14th day of
the 1st month. The Feast of Unleavened Bread
lasted 7 days; from the 15th to the 21st, inclusive,
of the same month. Its first and last days were
kept as sabbaths. The Feast of Weeks, or Pen
tecost, was celebrated on the day which ended seven
weeks counted from the 16th of the 1st month,
that day being excluded. It was called tte ¦' Feast
of Harvest," and " Day of First-fruits." The Feast
of Trumpets (lit. " of the sound of the trumpet")
was kept as a sabbath on the 1st day of the 7th
month. The Day of Atonement (lit. " of Atone
ments ") was a fast, held the 10th day of the 7th
month. The " Feast of Tabernacles," or " Feast
of Gathering," was celebrated from the 15th to the
22d day, inclusive, of the 7th month. Additions
made long after the giving of the Law, and not
known to be of higher than priestly authority, are
the Feast of Purim, commemorating the defeat of
Haman's plot; the Feast of the Dedication, re
cording the cleansing and re-dedication of the
Temple by Judas Maccabaeus ; and four tasts.
III. Sacred Years. — 1. The Sabbatical year,
n^J3tjE?n n^W, "thefaIlowyear,"or, posslWy,
" year of remission," or ntSDB!? alone, kept every
seventh year, was commanded to be observed as a
year of rest from the labors of agriculture, and of
remission of debts. Two Sabbatical years are re
corded, commencing and current, B. o. 164-3 and
136-5. [Sabbatical Year; Chronology.]
2. The Jubilee year, b^l'n ri3B7, " the year
of the trumpet," or V^l'' alone, a like year,
which immediately followed every seventh Sabbat*
ical year. It has been disputed whether the Jubi
lee year was every 49th or 50th: the former ia
more probable. [Jubilee; Chronology.] K. S. P.
* YELLOW. [Colors.]
* YER = e»e, in the A. V. ed. 1611. Num.
xi. 33, xiv. 11. H.
YOKE. 1. A well-knovm implement of hiu-
bandry, described in the Hebrew language by the
terms mbt,'' ni6lah,e and 'dl,<t the two fornier specif
ically applying to the bows of wood out of which
it was constructed, and the last to the application
(binding) of the article to the neck of the ox. The
expressions are combined hi Lev. xxvi. 13 and Ez-
xxxiv. 27, with the meaning, " bands of the yoke."
The term " yoke " is frequently used metaphor
ically for subjectiim (e. g. 1 K. xii. 4, 9-11 ; Is. ix.
4; Jer. v. 5): hence an " iron yoke" represents an
unusually galling bondage (Deut. xxviii. 48; Jer.
xxviii. 13). 2. A pair of oxen, so termed as being
yoked together (1 Sam. xi. 7; 1 K. xix. 19, 21)-
The Hebrew term, 1zemed,e is also applied to asses
(Judg. xix. 10) and mules (2 K. v. 17), and even
to a couple of riders (Is. xxi. 7). 3. The term
tzemed is also applied to a certain amount of land,
equivalent to that which a couple of oxen could
plough in a day (Is. v. 10; A. V. "acre"), cor

a Tho writer's paper on this subject not having yet
been published, he. roust refer to the abstract in the
ithenami, No. 1847, Mar. 21, 1863.

airs. " ntaijs. d b's. ' T??.

YOKE-FELLOW
responding to the Latin jugum (VaiTo, R. R. i.
10). The lerm stands in this sense in 1 Sam.
xiv. 14 (A. T. " yoke"); but the text is doubtful,
iiid the rendering of the LXX. suggests tbat the
true reading would refer to the instruments {iu
KdvAa^i) wherewith the slaughter was effected.
[Oxen.] W. L. B.
* YOKE-FELLOW. The interest of this
word lies in the question whether the Greek word
{(r6^vye or a-vv^vye) is correctly so rendered, Phil.
iv. 3, or should be taken as a proper name, Syzygvs
or Synzygus. If as in the A. V. it has the appel
lative force, it must be a man who is meant and
not a woman: for the accompanying adjective
{yvijffie) has properly three terminations, and is
here masculine, and hence though the noun maybe
maaculme or feminine, the Apostle's wife is not to be
thought of, as some strangely imagine, in opposition
also to the manifest inference from 1 Cor. vii. 8
that Paul was never married (^-yo/tos). Some
suppose Luke to be intended, who from the omis
sion of his name in Phil. i. 1 appears not to have
been at Rome when Paul wrote the letter; and
others that it was Epaphroditus, who was at the
Apostle's side at the moment, and was thus abruptly
addressed (epwri Kai ae). These and similar ex
planations presuppose a knowledge of personal rela
tions on the part of the readers rendering the allu
sion obvious to them though utterly obscure to us.
We think the best view after all to be that of
Meyer {Br. an die Philipper, in loc), Laurent
{Neutest. Studien, pp. 1.34-137), and others, that
Syzygus or Synzygus is a proper name, borne by
one who had been associated with Paul in Chris
tian labors, who was at Philippi when the Apostle
wrote the letter, and was well known there as
deserving the encomium which this appeal to him
implies. Paul nowhere else uses this word {o-6^vyos)
of any one of his official associates, not using it in
fact in any other passage. It is found here in the
midst of other proper names (vv. 2, 3); and the
attributive "genuine " {yvi}a'ie) corresponds finely
and significantly to the appellative sense of such a
name. That such an alliteration is not foreign to
Paul's manner, see Philem., vv. 10, 11. The name,
it is true, does not appear anywhere else; but many
other names also are found only in single instances,
and'certainly many names must have been in use
among the ancients which have not been trans
mitted at all. Paul himself repeatedly mentions
peraoDs in his epistles who are named only once,
and a catalogue of names might be made out from
the Acts of the Apostles, of those whose whole his
tory for us Ues in a single passage. H.

ZAANA'IM, THE PLAIN OF (I'lbs
^.=??2 ; Bpvs irKeoveKTovuTcav', Alex. 5. ava-
vavofievav'. Vallis qu£e vacatur Sennim) ; or,
more accurately, " the oak by Zaannaim," such
being probably the meaning of the word elon.
[Plain, iii, 2547 6.] A tree — probably a sacred
tree — mentioned as marking the spot near which
Ueber th* Kenite was encamped when Sisera took
'efuge in his tent (Judg. iv. 11). Its situation is
iefined as " near Kedesh," i. e. Kedesh-Naphtali,
.he name of which still lingers on the high ground,
aoith of Safed, and west of the Lake of el-Huleh,

ZAAVAN

358S

usually identified with the Waters cf Merom. The
Targum gives as the equivalent of the name, mishor
agganiya, " the plain of the swamp," and in tht
well-known passage of the Talmud (Megillah Je
msh. i.) which contains a list of several of the
towns of Galilee with their then identifications, the
equivalent for "Elon (or Aijalon) be-Zaannaim" is
Agniya hak-kodesh. Agne appears to signify a
swamp, and can hardly refer to anything but the
marsh which borders the lake of Huleh on the north
side, and which was probably more extensive in the
time of Deborah than it now is [JIekoji]. On the
other hand. Professor Stanley has pointed out (Jeic
ish Church, p. 324; Ijtcaliiies, p. 197) how appro
priate a situation for this memorable tree is afforded
by "a green plain .... studded with massive
terebinths," which adjoins on the south the plain
containing the remains of Kedesh. The whole of
this upland country is more or less rich in tere
binths. One such, larger than usual, and bearing
the name of Sejar em-Messiah, is marked on the
map of Van de Velde as 6 miles N. W. of Kedes.
These two suggestions — of the ancient Jewish and
the modern Christian student — may be left side
by side to await the result of future investigation.
In favor of the former is the slight argument to be
drawn from the early date of the interpretation,
and the fact that the basin of the Huleh is still the
favorite camping-ground of Bedouins. In favor
of the latter is the instinct of the observer and the
abundance of trees in the neighborhood.
1^0 name answering to either Zaannaim or Agne
has yet been encountered.
The Keri, or correction, of Judg. iv. 11, substi
tutes Zaanaiinim for Zaanaim, and the same form
is found in Josh. xix. 33. This correction the lex
icographers adopt as the more accui-ate form of the
name. It appears to be dei-ived (if a Hebrew word)
from a root signifying to load beasts as nomads do
when they change their places of residence (Gesen.
Thes. p. 1177). Such a meaning agrees well with
the habits of the Kenites. But nothing can be
more uncertain than such explanations of topo
graphical names — most to be distrusted when
most plausible. G.
ZA'ANAN" (py^ [rich in herds:] Sevvaap:
[Comp. Satvdv:] in exilu). A place named by
Micah (i. 11) in his address to the towns of the
Shefelah. This senteuce, like others of the same
passage, contains a play of words founded on the
meaning (or on a possible meaning) of the name
Zaanan, as derived from yatsah, to go forth : —
" The inhabitress of Tsaanan came not forth."
The division of the passage shown in the LXX.
and A. V., by which Zaanan is connected with,
Beth-ezel, ifi now generally recognized as inac
curate. It is thus given by Dr. Pusey, in his
Commentary : " The inhabitant of Zaanan came
not forth. The mourning of Beth-ezel shall take
from you its standing." So also Ewald, De Wette,
and Zuiiz.
Zaanan is doubtless identical with Zenan. G.
* ZAANAN'NIM (a''???? : Beaeiiiiv ,
Vat. -eiv ; Alex. Bea-evavip.; Comp. '^eevavipi.
Saananim), Josh. xix. 33. [Zaanaim.] A.
ZA'AVAN Cl"!?! [disquieted:] : ZovKap.,
Alex. IwuKap., loiaxav- Zavtin). A Horite chief,
son of Ezer the sou of Seir (Gen. xxxvi. 27; 1 Ciy

3684

ZABAD

i. 421. The LXX. appear to have read ^pV.
In 1 Chr. the A. V. has Zavan.
ZA'BAD O^l [gift,present]:Za$4d,Za$4T;
Alex. ZojSaT in 1 Chr. xi.: Zabad: short for
(T^^T^T : see Zebadiah, Zabdi, Zabdiel, Zebedee,
" God hath given him ").
L Son of Nathan, son of Attai, son of Ahlai,
Sheshan's daughter (1 Chr. ii. 31-37), and hence
called son of Ahlai (1 Chr. xi. 41). He wa^ one
of David's mighty men, hut none of his deeds have
beeu recorded. The chief interest connected with
him is his genealogy, which is of considerable im
portance in a chronological point of view, and as
throwing incidental light upon the structure of the
book of Chronicles, and the historical value of the
genealogies in it. Thus in 1 Chr. ii. 26-41, we
have the following pedigree, the generations pre
ceding Jerahmeel being prefixed; —
(1.) Judah. (13.) Nathan.
(2.) Pharez. (14.) Zabad.
(3.) Hezron. (15-) Ephlal.
(4.) Jerahmeel. (16.) Obed.
(5.) Onam. (17.) Jehu.
(6.) Shammai. (18.) Azariah.
(7.) Nadab. (19.) Helez.
(8.) Appaim. (20.) Eleasah.
(9.) Ishi. (21.) Sisamai.
(10.) Sheshan. (22.) Shallum.
(11.) Ahlai, his ) = Jarha the (23.) Jekamiah.
daughter J Egyptian.
(12.) Attai. (24.) Elishama.
Here, then, is a genealogy of twenty-four gen
erations, commencing with the patriarch, and ter
minating we know not, at first si^bt, where; but as
we happen to know, from the history, where Zabad
the son of Ahlai lived, we are at least sure of this
fact, that the fourteenth generation brings us to
the time of David ; and that this is about the cor
rect number we are also sure, because out of seven
other perfect genealogies, covering the same inter
val of time, four have the same number {four
teen), two haveffieen, and David's own has eleven.
[Geneal. of Jesus Chiust, i. 886-]
But it also happens that another person in the
line IS an historical personage, whom we know
to have lived during the usurpation of Athaliah,
namely, Azariah the son {i. e. grandson) of Obed
(2 Chr. xxiii. 1). [Azariah, 13.] He yiSiS fourth
after Zabad, while Jehoram, Athaliah's husband,
was sixth after David — a perfectly satisfactory cor
respondence when we take into account that Zabad «
may probably have been considerably younger than
David^, and that the early marriages of the kings
have a constant tendency to increase the number
of generations in the royal line. Again, the last
name in the line is the sixth after Azariah ; but
Hezekiah was the sixth king after Athaliah, and we
know that many of the genealogies were written
out by " the men of Hezekiah," and therefore of
course came down to his time [Becher i. 259]
(see 1 Chr. iv. 41; Prov. xxv. 1). So that we
may conclude, with great probability, both that
this genealof^y ends in the time of Hezekiah, and
that all its links are perfect.
One other point of importance remains to be
joticed, namely, that Zabad is called, after his

a He does not appear in the list in 2 Sam. xxiv.
ind may therefore be presumed to bave heeu added
0) the latter part of David's reign.

ZABADEANS
great-grandmother, the founder of his house, $<m
of Ahlai. For that Ahlai was the name of She
shan's daughter is certain from 1 Chr. ii. 31; and
it is also certain, from vv. 35, 36, that from her
njarriage with Jarha descended, in the third gen
eration, Zabad. It is therefore as certain as such
matters can be, that Zabad the son of Ahlai, Da
vid's mighty man, was so called from Ahlai hia
female ancestor. The case is analogous to that
of Joab, and Abishai, and Asahel, who are always
called sons of Zeruiah, Zeruiah, like Ahlai, having
married a foreigner. Or if any one thinks there is
a difference between a man being called the son of
his mother, and the son of his great-grandmother,
a more exact parallel may be found in Gen. xxv.
4, xxxvi. 12, 13, 16, 17, where the descendants of
Keturah, and of the wives of Ksau, in the third
and fourth generation, are called " the sons of Ke
turah," *' the sons of Adah " and " of Bashemath "
respectively. 2. (ZajSaS; [Vat.] Alex. Za^ed.) An Ephraim
ite, if the text of 1 Chr. vii. 21 is correct. [See
SHUTHrp;LAH.] 3. (Zaj8e5; [Vat. Za$e\(] Alex. Za$eB.) Son
of Shimeath, an Ammonitess, an assassin who,
with Jehozabad, slew king Joash, according to 2
Chr. xxiv. 26; but in 2 K. xii. 21, his name is
written, probably more correctly, Jozachar [JozA-
chak]. He was one of the domestic servants of
the palace, and apparently the agent of a powerfid
conspiracy (2 Chr. xxv. 3; 2 K. xiv. 5). Joash
had become unpopular from his idolatries (2 Chr.
xxiv. 18), his oppression {ibid. 22), and, above all,
his calamities {ibid. 23-25). The explanation
given in the article Jozachar is doubtless tbe
true one, that the chronicler represents this riolent
death of the king, as well as the previous invasion
of the Syrians, as a Divine judgment against hira
for the innocent blood of Zechariah shed by him:
not that the assassins themselves were actuated by
the desire to avenge the death of Zechariah. They
were both put to death by Amaziah, but their
children were spared in obedience to the law of
Moses (Deut. xxiv. XQ). The coincidence between
the naraes ZechaHali and Jozachar is remarka
ble. A. C. H.
4. (Za;3a5 [Vat. Za^aSajS].) A layman of
Israel, of the sons of Zattu, who put away his for
eign wife at Ezra's command (Ezr. x. 27). He is
cjdled Sabatus in 1 Esdr. ix. 28.
5. ([Rom.] Za5oj3; [Vat. FA., with prec. word,
Afia^OjSeA; Alex.] Zafia^.) One of the descend
ants of Hashum, who had married a foreign wife
after the Captivity (Ez. x. 33): called Bannaia in
1 Esdr. ix. 33.
6. (ZttiSciS; [Vat. FA. 2e8e/t;] Alex, om.)
One of the sons of Nebo, whose name is mentioned
under the same circumstances as the two preceding
(Ezr. X. 43). It is represented by Zabadaias in
1 Esdr. ix. 35. W. A. W.
ZABADA'IAS [4 syl.] {Za^a^aias-^ Sab-
adii^s). Zabad 6 (1 Esdr. ix. 35; comp. Ez. x.
43). ZABADE'ANS [properiy Zabad^ans]
(ZajSeSaToi; [Sin. ZaBaSatoi\] Alex. Za^aUoi'
Zabadoei). An Arab tribe who were attacked and
spoiled by Jonathan, on his way back to Damascua
from his fruitless pursuit of the army of Demetrius
(1 Mace. xii. 31). Josephus calls them Nabatfleaim
{Ant. xiii. 5, § 10), but he is 'evidently in error
Nothing certain is known of them. Ewald {Gesch

ZABBAI
iv. 382 finds a trace of their name In that of the
dice Zabda given by Robinson in his lists; but
tliis is too far south, between the Ya.rniuk and the
Zurka. Michaelis wggests the Arab tribe Zo-
ieideh ; but they do not appear in the necessary
locality. Jonathan had pursued the enemy's army
as far as the river Eleutherus (Nalir el-Kebir), and
was ou his march back to Damascus when he at
tacked and plundered the Zabadeans. We must
!ook for them, therefore, somewhere to the north-
ivest of Damascus. Accoudingly, on the road from
Damascus, to Baalbek, at a distance of about Sj
hours (26 railes) from the fornier place, is the vil
lage Zebddny, standing at the upper end of a plain
af the same name, which is the very centre of An
ti-Libanus. Tbe name Zebddny is possibly a relic
(if the ancient tribe of the Zabadeans. According
to Burckhardt (Syria, p. 3), the plain " is about
three quarters of an hour in breadth, and three
hours in length; it is called Ard Zebdeni, or the
district of Zebdeni ; it is watered by the Barrada,
one of whose sources is in tbe midst of it; and by
the i-ivulet caUed .1/o-Je( Zebdeni, whose source is in
the mountain behind the village of the same name.''
The plain is " limited on one side by the eastern
part of the Anti-Libanus, called here DJebel Zeb
dtni." The village is of considerable size, contain
ing nearly 3,000 inhabitants, who breed cattle, and
the silkworm, and have some dyeing-houses (ibid.)
Not far from Zebddny, on the western slopes of An
ti-Libanus, is another village called Kefr Zebad,
which again seems to point to this as the district
formerly occupied by the Zabadeans. W. A. W.
ZAB'BAI [2 syl.] (''?1 [perh.pui-e, innocent] :
Zafioii. Zabba'i). 1. One of tbe descendants of
Bebai, who had married a foreign wife in the days
of Ezra (Ezr. i. 28). He is called Josabad in 1
Esdr. ix. 29.
2. (Zafioi ; FA. ZaSpov '¦ Zachai. ) Father of
Baruch, who assisted Nehemiah in rebuilding the
city wall (Neh. iii. 20).
ZAB'BUD (1^3T [given, bestowed], Keri,
"VtSl : ZafioiS ; [Vat. omits :] Zachur). One of
the sons of Bigvai, who returned in the second car
avan with Ezra (Ezr. viii. 14). In 1 Esdr. viii. 40
his name is coirupted into Istalcurus.
ZABDE'US [properly Zabd^us] (Zafibaios'-
Vulg. om.). Zebadiah of the sons of Imnier (1
Esdr. ix. 21; comp. Ez. i. 20).
ZAB'DI ('''=T2T [Jehovah gave]: Za/i^pi
[Vat. -fipei] ; Alex! ZaSpi in Josh. vii. 1 : Zabdi).
1. Son of Zerah, the son of Judah, and ancestor of
Achan (Josh. vii. 1, 17, 18).
2. (Za^Sl: [Vat. ZaBSei.]) A Benjamite, of
the sons of Shimhi (1 Chr. viii. 19).
3. ([Vat. Zaxpei'-] Zabdias.) David's officer
over the produce of tbe vineyards for the wine-cel
lars (1 Chr. xxvii. 27). He is called "the Shiph-
nite," that is, in all probability, native of She
pham," but his native place has not been traced.
4. ([Rora.] Vat. and Alex. om. ; FA. tbird hand,
ZiXpi' Zebedeiis.) Son of Asaph the minstrel
(Neh. xi. 17); called elsewhere Zaccuk (Neh. xii.
35) and ZicHUi (1 Chr. ix. 15).

ZACCH^us 3585
ZAB'DIEL (V«''??l [gift of God]: Za3-
Si^A [Vat. -5ei-] : Zabdiel). 1. Father of Jasho-
beara, the chief of David's guard (1 Chr. xxvii, 2)
2. (BaSi^jA; Alex. ZoxpiTjA! [FA.l ^a(iriK.])
A priest, son of the great men, or, as the raargin
gives it, " Haggedolim " (Neh. xi. 14). He had
the oversight of 128 of his brethren after the return
from Babylon.
3. (Zaj3Si^\; Joseph. z<^/3rjA.os: Zabdiel) An
Arabian chieftain wbo put Alexander Bal.as to
death (1 Mace. xi. 17; Joseph. Ant. xiii. 4, § 8).
According to Diodorus, Alexander Balas was mur
dered by two of the officei's who accompanied him
(Miiller, Fragm. Hist. ii. 16).
ZA'BTJD (1^3J [given]: Za$oie; Alex. Zo/3-
$ov8; [Comp. Za^oiiS:] Zabud). ' The son of
Nathan (1 K. iv. 5). He is described as a priest
(A. V. "principal officer; " Pkiest, iii. 2576), and
as holding at the court of Solomon the confidential
post of "king's friend," which had been occupied
by Hushai the Archite during the reign of David
(2 Sam. XV. 37, xvi. 16; 1 Chr. xxvii. 33). This
position, if it were an official one, was evidently dis
tinct from that of counsellor, occupied by Ahitho
phel under David, and had more of the character
of private friendship about it, for Absalom con
versely calls David the " friend " of Hushai (3
Sam. xvi. 17). In the Vat. MS. of the LXX. the
word " priest " is omitted, and in the Arabic of th©
London Polyglot it is referred to Nathan. The
Peshito-Syriac and several Hebrew MSS. for " Za
bud " read " Zaccur." The same occurs ia the
case of Zabeud.
ZAB'ULON (Za^ovXiv: Zabulon). The
Greek form of the name Zebulun (Matt. iv. 13,
15, Eev. vii. 8J.
ZAC'OAI [2 syl.J O'^l [pure, innocent]:
ZaKXov; [Vat. FA. Zadov in Neh.]; Alex. Zafc-
Yni in Ezra: Zachai). The sons of Zaccai, to the
number of 760, returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii.
9; Neh. vii. 14). The name is the same which
appears in the N. T. iu the familiar form of Zac-
CHMva. ZACCH^IJS [A. V. Zacche'us] (Zaie-
\dios : Zacchasus). The name of a tax-collector
near Jericho, who being short in stature climbed up
into a sycamore-tree," in order to obtain a sight of
Jesus as He passed through that place,* Luke
only has related the incident (xix. 1-10). Zacchse-
us was a Jew, as may be inferred fram his name,
and frora tbe fact that the Saviour speaks of him
expressly as "a son of Abraham " (vibs 'A^pad/i).
So tbe latter expression should be understood, and
not in a spiritual sense; fer it was evidently meant
to assert that he was one of the chosen race, not^
withstanding the prejudice of some of his country
men that bis office under tbe Koman government
made him an alien and outcast from tbe privileges
of the Israelite. '1'he term which designates this
office (lipxirehdipvs) is unusual, but describes him
no doubt as the superintendent of customs or trib
ute iu the district of Jericho, where he lived, as
one having a commission frota his Roman principal
(manceps, publicanus) to collect the imposts levied

0 • Thoy plant this tree in the East by the wayside,
ttid it is ensily a^scended because the branches start
»nt comparatively near tl-e ground. [Stoamoke, note
•.,] H.

b* The A. V. (l.uke xix. 1) has : « And [Jesus] en
tered and passed through Jericho,'' as if the incident
took plaoe after our Lord had left the city. But the
Terb is Si^pxero, was passing through, which place«
the occurrence in Jericho. "•

3586

ZACCH^US

•n the Jews b}' the Romans, and who in the exe
cution of that trust employed subalterns (the or
dinary T€\wi/ai), who were accountable to him, as
he in turn was accountable to his superior,
whether he resided at Rome, as was more com
monly the case, or in the province itself (see Winer,
Realw. ii. 711, and Did. of Ant p. 806). The
office must have been a lucrative one in such a
region, and it is not strange that Zacchaeus is raen
tioned by the Evangelist as a rich man {outos ^v
wAova-toi). Josephus states {Ant. xv. 4, § 2) that
the palm-groves of Jericho and its gardens of balsam
were given as a source of revenue by Antony to
Cleopatra, and, on account of their value, were af
terwards redeemed by Herod the Great for his own
benefit. The sycamore-tree is no longer found in
that neighborhood (Robinson, Bibl. Res. i. 559);
but no one should be surprised at this, since " even
the solitary relic of the palm-forest, seen as late as
1838 " — which existed near Jericho, has now dis
appeared (Stanley, S. 4- P. p. 307)." The eager
ness of Zacchaeus to behold Jesus indicates a deeper
interest than that of mere curiosity. He must
have had some knowledge, by report at least, of the
teachings of Christ, as well as of his wonder-work
ing power, and could thus have been awakened to
some just religious feeling, which would make him
the more anxious to see the announcer of the good
tidings, so important to men as sinners. The
readiness of Christ to take up his abode with him,
and his declaration that " salvation *' had that day
come to the house of his entertainer, prove suffi
ciently that "He who knows what is in man"
perceived in him a religious susceptibility which
fitted him to be the recipient of spiritual blessings.
John the Baptist must often have preached near
Jericho, and Zacch?eus may on some occasion have
been a hearer. Reflection upon his conduct on the
part of Zacchaeus himself appears to have revealed
to him deficiencies which disturbed his conscience,
and he was ready, on being instructed more fully
in regard to the way of life, to engage to " restore
fourfold " for the illegal exactions of which he
would not venture to deny (ejf tiv6s ti iavKo^dv-
TTjaa) that he might have been guilty. At all
events he had not lived in such a manner as to over
come the prejudice which the Jews entertained
against individuals of his class, and their censure
fell on him as well as on Christ when they declared
that the latter had not scorned to avail Himself of
the hospitality of " a man that was a sinner." The
Saviour spent the night probably {fi€7vai, ver. 5,
and KaTaKva-at, ver. 7,^ are the terms used) in the
house of Zacchaeus, and the next day pursued his
journey to Jerusalem. He was in the caravan from
Galilee, which was going up thither to keep the
Passover. The entire scene is well illustrated by
Oosterzee (Lange's Bibelwerk, iii. 285).
We read in the Rabbinic writings also of a Zac
chaeus who Uved at Jericho at this same period,
well known on his own account, and especially as
the father of the celebrated Rabbi Jochanan ben
Zachai (see Sepp's Leben Je^u, iii. 166). This per
son may have been related to the Zacch%us named
in the sacred narrative. The family of the Zacchcei
waa an ancient one, as well as very numerous.
a * Both tbese statementa now require correction.
The sycauioro and the palm-tree cannot be said to
flourish there, but it is found that they are not yet
extiuct. See Palu-Treb, vol. iii. p. 2326, note b, and.
5T0AKJ0BE, Tol. iv. p. 3131, note b. H

ZACHARIAH
They are mentioned in the books of Ezra (ii. 9
and Nehemiah (vii. 14) as among those who re
turned from the Babylonian Captivity under Zerub
babel, when their number amounted to seven hun
dred and sixty. It should be noticed that the
name is given as Zaccai in the Authorized Ver
sion of the Old Testament. (See Bishop Hall'g
discourse on Zacchaeus in his Coniemplattons on ihe
N, T. bk. iv. 3, and Archbishop Trench, ou Zac
chaeus, in hLs Studies in ihe Gospels.) H. B. H.
ZACCHEnjS [properly Zacch^us] (Zok-
Xa7os' Zachoeus). An officer of Judas i^^icca-
baeus (2 Mace. x. 19). Grotius, from a mistaken
reference to 1 Mace, v. 56, wishes to read koI rhv
TOO Zaxapiov- B. F. W.
ZAC^CHUR n^3I [mhuiful]: ZaKxo^p;
[Vat. omits:] Zachur). A Simeonite, of the
family of Mishma (1 Chr. iv. 26). His descend
ants, through his son Shimei, became one of the
ihost numerous branches pf the tribe.
ZACCUR ("l^3t [mindful]: Zaxo^p; [Vat.
ZaKxovp;] Alex. Zaxpov' Zechur). L A Keu-
benite, father of Shammua, the spy selected from
his tribe (Num. xiii. 4).
2. {l,aKXovp\ [Vat.] Alex- ^aKxovp'. Zachur.)^
A Merarite Levite, son of Jaaziah (1 Chr. xxiv.
27). 3. i^aKXOvp, ZaKxovpl [Vat. ^aKXOvs, Zax*
XovO;] Alex. ZaKxovp' Zachur, [Zechur.]) Son
of Asaph, the singer, and chief of the third division
of the Temple choir as arranged by David (1 Chr.
xx\'. 2. 10; Neh, xii. 35).
4. {ZaKxovp'i [Vat. Za^aoupO FA. Saxx""/''
Zachur. ) The son of Imri, who assisted Nehemiah
in rebuilding the city wall (Neh. iii. 2).
5. (ZaKx^P-) -^ Levite, or family of Levitesj
who signed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. x.
12). 6. (Zaxxoip.) A Levite, whose son or descend
ant Hanaii was one of the treasurers over the
treasuries appointed by Nehemiah (Neh. xiii. 13).
ZACHAKrAH, or properly Zechari'ah
(rP'ISTj " remembered by Jehovah: " ZaxapiWi
[Vat.' h^apias in 2 K. xiv. 29; Alex. Afapms in 2
K. xiv. 29, XV. 8, 11 :] Zacharias), was son of
Jeroboam II., lith king of Israel, and the last of
the house of Jehu. There is a difficulty aboul
the date of his reign. AVe are told that Amaziah
ascended the throne of Judah in the second year of
Joash king of Isi"ael, and reigned 29 years (2 K.
xiv. 1, 2). He was succeeded by Uzziah or Az*-
riah, in the 27th year of Jeroboam II., the successor
of Joash (2 K. xv. 1 ), and Uzziah reigned 52 years.
On the other hand, Joash king of Israel reigned 16
years (2 K. xiii. 10), was succeeded by Jerohosni,
who reigned 41 (2 K. xiv. 23), and he by Zach
ariah, who came to tbe throne in the 38th year
of Uzziah king of Judah (2 K. xv. 8). Thua we
have (1) from the accession of Amaziah to the 38th
of Uzziah, 29+38 = 67 years: but (2) from the
second year of Joash to the accession of Zechariah
(or at least to the death of Jeroboam) we have 15+
41 = 56 years. Further, the accession of Uzziah,
placed in the 27th year of Jeroboam, according to

i * Luke uses KaniXvnai elsewhere only in ix. 12
and evidently of a lodging tor tho night. The term oJ
itself may denote a shorter " breaking up," or halt
but <' for the night " is more probable here. H.

ZACHARIAS
the above reckoning occurred in the 15th. And
this latter synchronism is confirmed, and that with
the 27th year of Jeroboam contradicted, by 2 K.
xiv. 17, which tells us that Amaziah king of Judah
survived Joash king of Israel by 15 years. Most
'iironologers assume an interregnum of 11 years
between Jeroboam's death and Zacbariah's acces
sion, during which the kingdom was Buffering from
the anarchy of a disputed succession, but this seems
unlikely after the reign of a resolute ruler like Jero
boam, and does not solve the difference between 2
K. xiv. 17 and xv. 1. We are reduced to suppose
that our present MSS. have here incorrect numbers,
to substitute 15 for 27 in 2 K. xv. 1, aud to believe
that Jeroboam II. reigned 52 or 53 years. Jose
phus (ix. 10, § 3) places Uzziah's accession in the
14th year of Jeroboam, a variation of a year in
these synchronisms being unavoidable, since the
Hebrew annalists in giving their dates do not reckon
fractions of years. [Israel, Kingdom of, vol. ii.
1178 a.] But whether we assume an interregnum, or
an error hi the MSS., we must plaee Zacbariah's
accession b. c. 771-772. His reign lasted only six
months. He was killed in a conspiracy, of wbich
Shallum was the head, and by which the prophecy
in 2 K. X. 30 was accomplished. We are told that
duruig his brief term of power he did evil, and
kept up tbe calf-worship inherited from the first
Jeroboam, which his father bad maintained in
regal splendor at Bethel (Am. vii. 13). [Shal
lum.] G. E. L. C.
2. (Alex. ZaxX"""') The fether of Abi, or
Abijah, Hezekiah's mother (2 K. xviii. 2). Iu 2
Chr. xxix. 1 he is called Zeohakiah.
ZACUARI'AS ([remembered by Jehovah]:
Zaxapias: Vulg. om.). 1. Zechariah the priest
in the reign of Josiah (1 Esdr. i. 8).
2. In 1 Esdr. i. 15 Zacharias occupies the place
of Heman in 2 Chr. xxxv. 15.
3. (Zapaius \ Alex. Zapeas ; [Aid. Zaxar
ptosO Areores.) = Seraiah 6, and Azakiah
20 (1 Esdr. V. 8 ; comp. Ezr. ii. 2; Neh. vii. 7). It
is not clear from whence this rendering of tlie name
is derived. Our translators follow the Geneva
Vereion [and the Bishops' Bible. This form of
the name comes from the Aldine edition. — A.].
4. (Zaxapias: Zacharias.) The prophet Zech
ariah (1 l&dr. vi. 1, vii. 3).
5. Zechariah of the sons of Pharosh (1 Esdr.
viii. 30; comp. Ezr. viii. 3).
6. Zechariah of the sons of Bebai (1 Esdr,
viii. 37; [comp.] Ezr. viii. 11).
7. Zechariah,- one of " the principal men and
learned," with whom Kzra consulted (1 Esdr. viii.
44; comp. Ezr. viii. 16).
8. Zechariah of the sons of Elam (1 Esdr. ix.
27; comp. Ezr. x. 26).
9. Father of Joseph, a leader in the first cam
paign of the Maccabsean war (1 Mace. v. 18, 56-
62). 10. Father of John the Baptist (Luke i. 5, eto. ).
[John the Baptist.]
11, Son of Barachias, who, our Lord says, was
slain by the Jews between the altar and the Temple
(Matt, xxiii. 35; Luke xi. 51). There has been
much dispute who tbis Zacharias was. From the
time of Origen, who relates that the father of
John the Baptist was killed in the Temp'o, many
af the Greek Fathers have maintained that this is
4e person to whom our Lord alludes ; but there
on he little or no doubt that the allusion is to

ZADOK 3587
Zacharias, the son of Jehoiada (2 Chr. xxiv. 20
21). As the book of Chronicles — in which Uu
murder of Zacharias, the son of Jehoiada, occurs
— closes the Hebrew canon, this assassination was
the last of the murders of righteous men recorded
in the Bible, just as that of Abel was the first.
(Comp. Renan, Vie de Jesus, p. 353.) The name
of the father of Zacharias is not mentioned by St.
Luke ; and we may suppose that the name of Bara
chias crept into the text of St. M.itthew from a
marginal gloss, a confusion having been made
between Zacharias, the son of Jehoiada, and Zach
arias, the son of Barachias (Berechiah), the
prophet. [Comp. Zechariah, 6.]
ZACH'AKY (Zacharias). The prophet Zech
ariah (2 Esdr. i. 40).
ZA'OHER ("IST, in pause "1?! [memorial]:
Zaxxovpl [Vat. ZctxoupO Zacher). One of the
sons of Jehiel, the father or founder of Gibeon, by
his wife Maachah (1 Chr. viii. 31). In 1 Chr. ix.
37 he is called Zechariah.
ZA'DOK {p'^TS [just, upright] : ZaSiiic;
[Vat. Alex, also SaSSouK, SaSScoK, and other
forms:] Sadoc; "righteous"). 1. Son of Abitub,
and one of the two chief priests in the time of Da
vid, Abiathar being the other. [Abiathar.]
Zadok was^f the house of Eleazar, the son of Aaron
(1 Chr. xxiv. 3), and eleventh in descent from
Aaron. The first mention of him is in 1 Cbr. xii.
28, where we are told that he joined David at He
bron after Saul's death with 22 captains of hia
father's house, and, apparently, with 900 men
(4600-3700, vv. 26, 27). Up to this time, it may
be concluded, he had adhered to tbe house of Saul.
But henceforth his fidelity to David was inviolable.
When Absalom revolted, and David fled from
Jerusalem, Zadok and all the Levites bearing the
Ark accompanied him, and it was only at the
king's express command tbat tbey returned to Jeru
salem, and became the medium of communication
between the king and Hushai the Archite (2 Sum.
XV , xvii.). When Absalom was dead, Zadok aud
Abiathar were the persons who persuaded the elders
of Judah to invite David to return (3 Sam. xix
11). When Adonijah, in David's old age, set up
for king, and had persuaded Joab, and Abiathar
tbe priest, to join his party, Zadok was unmoved,
and was employed by David to anoint Solomon tc
be king in his room (1 K. i. ). And for this fidel
ity he was rewarded by Solomon, who " thrust out
Abiathar from being priest unto tbe Loi-d," and
" put in Zadok the priest " in his room (1 K. ii
27, 35). From this time, however, we hear little
of him. It is said in general terms in the enumera
tion of Solomon's officers of state that Zadok was
the priest (1 K. iv. 4; 1 Chr. xxix. 22), but no
single act of his is mentioned. Even in the detailed
account of the building and dedication of Solomon's
Temple, his name does not occur, so that though
Josephus says that " Sadoc the high-priest was the
first high-priest of the Temple which Solomon
built " (Ani. X. 8, § 6), it is very doubtful whether
he lived till the dedication of Solomon's Temple,
and it seems far more likely that Azariah, his son
or grandson, was high-priest at the dedication
(comp. 1 K. iv. 2, and 1 Chr. vi. 10, and see
Azariah 2). Had Zadok been present, it ia
scarcely possible that he should not have been
named in so detailed an account as that in 1 K.
viii. [HiQH-rKiEST, li. 1071.]

3588

ZADOK

Several interesting questions arise in connection
with Zadok in regard to the high-priesthood. And
first, as to the causes which led to the descendants
of Ithamar occup}'ing the high-priesthood to the
prejudice of the house of Eleazar. There is, how
ever, nothing to guide us to any ceiiain conclusion.
We only know that Phinehas the son of Eleazar
was high-priest after his father, and that at a sub
sequent period Eli of the house of Ithamar was
high-priest, and that the office continued in his
house till the time of Zadok, who was first Abia-
thar's colleague, and afterwards superseded him.
Zadok's descendants continued to be hereditary
high-priests till the tirae of Antiochus Eupator,
and periiaps till the extinction of the office. [High-
I'EIKST, ii. 1073.] But possibly some light may
be thrown on this question by the next which
arises, namely, what is the meaning of the double
priesthood of Zadok and Abiathar (2 Sam. xv. 29 ;
1 Chr. xxiv. 6, 31). In later times we usually find
two priests, the high-priest, and the second priest
(2 K. xxv. 18), and there does not seem to have
been any great difference in their dignity. So too
Luke iii. 2. The expression " the chief priest of
the house of Zadok " (2 Chr. xxxi. 10), seems also
to indicate that there were two priests of nearly
equal dignity. Zadok and Abiathar were of nearly
equal dignity (2 Sam. xv. 35, 36, xix. 11). Hophni
and Phinehas again, and Eleazar and Ithamar are
coupled together, and seera to have been holders
of the office as it were in commission. The duties
of the office too were in the case of Zadok and
Abiathar divided. Zadok ministered before the
Tabernacle at Gibeon (1 Chr. xvi. 39), Abiathar
had the care of the Ark at Jemsalem. Not, how
ever, exclusively, as appears from 1 Chr. xv. 11 ;
2 Sam. XV. 24, 25, 29. Hence, perhaps, it may be
concluded that from the first there was a tendency
to consider the office of the priesthood as somewhat
of the nature of a corporate office, although some
of its functions were necessarily confined to the
chief member of that corporation; and if so, it is
very easy to perceive how superior abilities on the
one hand, and infancy or incapacity on the other,
might operate to raise or depress the members of
this ooi-poration respectively. Just as in the Saxon
royal families, considerable latitude was allowed as
to the particular member who succeeded to the
throne. When hereditary monarchy was estab
lished in Judsea, then the succession to the high-
priesthood may have become more regular. Another
circumstance which strengthens the conclusion that
the origin of the double priesthood was anterior to
Zadok, is that in 1 Chr. ix. 11 ; Neh. xi. 11,
Abitub the father of Zadok seems to be described
as '* ruler of the House of God," an office usually
held by the chief priest, though sometimes by the
second priest. [High-priest, ii. 1069 a.] And
if this is so. it implies that the house of Eleazar
had maintained its footing side by side with the
house of Ithamar, although for a time the chief
dignity had fallen to the lot of Eli. What was
Zadok's exact position when he first joined David,
is impossible to determine. He there appears
niferior to Jehoiada " the leader of the Aaron-
ites." 2. [2a5rf)K: Sadoc] According to the gene
alogy of the high-priests in 1 Chr. vi. 12, there
was a second Zadok, son of a second Abitub, son
of Amariah; about the time of filing Ahaziah.
But it is highly improbable that the same sequence,
^Juariah, Ahitub, Zadok, should occur twice over;

ZADOK
and no trace whatever remains in history of thij
second Ahitub, and second Zadok. It is probable
therefore, that no such person as thia second Zadok
ever existed; but that the insertion of the two
nanies is a. copyist's error. Moreover, these two
names are quite insufficient to fill up the gap
between Amariah in Jehoshaphat's reign, and
Shallum in Aroon's, an interval of much above 200
years. 3. [Vat. in 2 Chr. xxvii. 1, :^a^ap.] Father
of Jerushah, the wife of King Uzziah, and mother
of King Jotham [2 K. xv. 33; 2 Chr. xxvii. 1].
He was probably of a priestly family.
4. [2o5c;J/c, 5o5ou/c; in Neh. x. 21, Vat. YA.
^aSSovK; iii. 4, FA. 2a5ouK, Alex, omits.] Son
of Baana, who repaired a portion of the wall in tlie
time of Nehemiah (Neh. iii. 4). He is probably
the same as is m the list of those that sealed the
covenant in Neh. x. 21, as in both cases his name
follows that of Meshezabeel. »But if so, we know
that he was not a priest, as his name would at first
sight lead one to suppose, but one of " the chief of
the people," or laity. With this agrees his patro
nymic Baana, which indicates that he was of the
tribe of Judah; for Baanah, one of David's mighty
men, was a Netophathite (2 Sam. xxiii. 29), i. e.
of Netophah, a city of Judah. The men of Teko^,
another city of Judah, worked next to Zadok.
Meshullam of the house of Meshezabeel, who pre
ceded him in both lists (Neh. iii. 4, and x. 20, 21),
was also of the tribe of Judah (Neh. xi. 24). In
termarriages of the priestly house with the tribe
of Judah were more frequent than with any other
tribe. Hence probably the name of Sadoc (Matt.
i. 14). 5. [SoSSouKi FA. SaSoux.] Son of Imnier,
a priest who repaired a portion of the wall over
against his owu house (Neh. iii. 29). He belonged
to the 16th course (1 Chr. xxiv. 14), which was
one of those which returned from Babylon (Ezr.
ii. 37).6. ['SaS^ic, SaSSoix; Alex, in Ezr. SaoSouni
FA. in Neh. SaSovic: Sadoch, Sadoc] In Neh.
xi. 11, and 1 Chr. ix. 11, mention is made in a
genealogy of Zadok, the son of Meraioth, the son
of Abitub. But as such a sequence occurs nowbeie
else, Meraioth being klways the grandfather of
Ahitub (or great-grandfather, as in Ezr. vii. 2, 3),<*
it can hardly he doubtful that Meraioth is inserted
by the error of a copyist, and that Zadok the son
of Ahitub is meant.
, It is worth noticing that the N. T. name Justus
(Acts i. 23, xviii. 7; Col. iv. 11) is the Uteral
translation of Zadok. Zedekiah, Jehozadak, may
be compared.
The name appears occasionally in the post-bibli
cal history. The associate of Judah the Gaulonite,
the well-known leader of the agitation against the
census of Quirinus, was a certain Pharisee named
Zadok (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 1, § 1), and the sect of
the Sadducees is reputed to have derived both iis

« Compare the following pedignes ; —
1 Chr. Ti. 6-U. a. 52, 53. Ezr. Tii. 1-S. Neh. xi. U, ai.4 1
Chr. ix. n.
Hetaioth. Meraioth. Meraioth. Abitub.
Axariah.
Ainanah. Amariah. Amariah. Meraioth.
Allitub. Ahitub. Ahitub.
Zadolc. Zadok. Zadok. Zadolc.
Shallum. Shallum. Meshullam.
Hilkiah. Hilkiah. Hilkiah.
Azariah. Azariah.
Seioioh. Seraiah, Seraiah. Azailtt

ZAHAM
name and origin from a person of the same name,
a disciple of Antigonus of Socho. (See the cita^
tions of Lightfoot, Hebr. and Talm. Exerc. on
Matt. iii. 8.) The personality of the last men
tiuned Sadok has been strongly impugned in the
article Sadducees (p. 2778 f.); but see, on the
other hand, the remark of M. £enan ( Vie de Jesus,
p. 216). A. C. H.
* 7. (SaStiJK; Vat. FA. SoSSouk: Sadoc.) A
Bcribe in tbe time of Nehemiah, one of the *' treas
urers" (Neh. xiii. 13). A.
ZA'HAM (Dn| [loathing] : Zaip. i [Vat.
PooAAojn;] Alex. ZoKslil: Zoom). Son of Reho
boam hy Abihail, the daughter of Eliab (2 Chr. xi.
19). As Eliab was the eldest of David's brothers,
it is more probable that Abihail was his grand
daughter. ZA'IR ("1"'^^ [small, few]: [Rom. 2iiip;
Vat.] Seiiiip; Alex, omits: Seii-a). A plaoe named
in 2 K.. viii. 21 only, in the account of Joram's
expedition against the Edomites. He went over to
Zair witb all his chariots ; there he and his force
appear to have been surrounded," and only to bave
escaped by cutting their way through in the night.
The parallel account in Chronicles (2 Chr. xxi. 9)
agrees with this, except that the words " to Zair "
are omitted, and the words " with bis princes "
inserted. This is followed by Josephus (Ant. ix. 5,
§ 1). Tbe omitted and inserted words have a cer
tain similarity both in sound and in their compo
nent letters, TT^'^V'2 and Ti^to'D^ ; and on
this it has been conjectured that tbe latter were
substituted for the former, either by the error of a'
copyist, or intentionally, because tbe name Zair was
not elsewhere known (see Keil, Comm. on 2 K.
viii. 21). Others again, as Movers ( Chronik, p. 218 )
and Ewald (Gesch. iii. 524), suggest that Zair is
identical with Zoar (~ll?2 or ~15J"!2). Certainly
ill the Middle Ages the road by which an army
passed from Judiea to tiie country formerly occu
pied hy Edom lay through the place which was then
believed to be Zoar, below Kerak, at the S. E.
quarter of the Dead Sea (Fulcher, Gesta Dei, p.
405), and so far this is iu favor of the identification ;
but there is no other support to it in the MS. read
ings either of the original or the Versions.
The Zoar of Genesis (as will be seen under that
head) was probably near the N.E. eud of the lake,
and the chief interest that exists in the identifica
tion of Zair and Zoar, resides in the fact that if
It could be established it would show that by the
time 2 K. viii. 21 was written, Zoar had been shifted
from its original place, and had come to be located
where it was in the' days of Joseph, Jerome, and
the Crusades. Possibly the previous existence there
of a place called Zair, assisted the transfer.''
A third conjecture grounded on the readings of
the Vulgate (Seira) and the Arabic version (Sa'ir,
vAaLw) is, that Zair is an alteration for Seir
("'"'VtO), the country itself of the Edomites (The-

« This is not, however, the jnterpreUtion of the
Jewish commentators, who take the word 2''3Dn
to refer to the neighboring parts of the country of
Worn. See Eashi on 2 Chr. xxi. 9.
6 • Under tht; heads Sodom and ZoAtt (Amer. ed.),

ZALMUNNA

3580

nius, Kurzg. Ex. Handb.). The objection to this
is, that the name of Seir appears not to have been
known to the author of the Book of Kings." G.
ZA'LAPH Cl^? [iruise, wound] : 'S.eKeip;
[Vat. 2eA.6; FA.] E\etp: Seleph). Father of
Hanun, who assisted in rebuilding the city wall
(Neh. iu. .30).
ZAL'MON (VIJS'P? [shady]: "E.\Kd,v\ Alex.
2€\Aio/i; [Comp. StA/ioly :J Selmon). An Abohite,
one of David's guard (2 Sam. xxiii. 28). In 1
Chr. xi. 29 he is called Ilai, which Kennicott
(Diss p. 187) decides to be the true readuig.
ZAL'MON, MOUNT, (]'"l!ab?--in [ikady
mount]: [ipos 2f\ijuiv ; Vat. A'lex.] opos Efr
p/avi mons Selmon). A wooded eminence in tba
immediate neighborhood of Shechem, from whioh
Abimelech and his people cut down the boughs with
which he suffocated and burnt the Shechemites wbo
had taken refuge in the citadel (Judg. ix. 48). It
is evident from the narrative that it was close to
the city. But beyond this there does not appear to
be the smallest indication either in or out of the
Bible of its position. The Rabbis mention a place
of the same name, but evidently far from tbe neces
sary position (Schwarz, p. 137). The name Suleimij-
jeh is attached to the S. E. portion of Mount Ebal
(see the map of Dr. Rosen, Zeitsch. der D. .1/. G.
xiv. 634); but without further evidence, it is hazard
ous even to conjecture that there is any connectiou
between this name and Tsalmon.
The reading of the LXX. is remarkable both in
itself, and in the fact that the two great MSS. agree
in a reading so much removed from the Hebrew;
but it is impossible to suppose that Hermon (at any
rate the well-known mountain of that narae), is re-
fen'ed to in the narrative of Abimelech.
Tbe possibility of a connection between this
mount and tbe place of tbe same name in Ps. Ixviii.
14 (A. V. Salmon), is discussed under the head of
Salmon, p. 2791 f.
The name of Daimanutha has been supposed to
be a corruption of that of Tsalmon (Otho, Lex.
iJaiS. " Daimanutha " ). G.
ZALMO'NAH {'r\2'Db''2 [shady]: SeA/xaim:
Snlmona). The name of a desert-station of the Is
raelites, which they readied between leaving .Mount
Hor and camping at Punon, although tbey must
have turned the southern point of Edomitish tem
tory by the way (Num. xxxiii. 41). It lies on tbe
east side of Edom; but whether or not identical
with Mann, a few miles E. of Petra, as Raumer
thinks, is doubtful. More probably Zalmonah
may be in the Wady Jthm, which runs into the
Arabah close to where Elath anciently stood. H. H
ZALMUN'NA {Vpph'^ [perh. shelter de
nied to one]: [Vat.] 2eAfiava, [exc. once, SaA.-;
Rom.] Alex. :£a\fi.avd, and so also Josephus: Sal-
mana). One of tbe two " kings " of Midian whose
capture and death by the hands of Gideon himself

the reader will find reasons for the belief that the lat
ter haa not been " shifted irom its original plai-e."' S. W.
c The variations of the MSS. of the LXX. (Uolmei
and Parsons) are very singular — ck 'Zitav, en STiaif, eis
Op. But they do not point to any difference ia the
Hebrew text from that now existine.

8590

ZAMBIS

formed the last att of his great conflict with Mid
ian (Judg. viii. 5-21; Ps. Ixxxiii. 11). No satis
factory explanation cf the name of Zalmunna
has been given. That of Gesenius and Fiirst
{'¦<¦ shelter is denied him "J « can hardly be enter
tained. The distinction between the "kings" 0D7^)
and the "princes" O^E?) of the Midianites on
tliis occasion is carefully maintained throughout the
narrative ^ (viii. 5, 12, 26). "Kings " of Midian
are also mentioned in Num. xxxi. 8. But when the
same transaction is referred to in Josh. xiii. 21,
they are designated by the title Nesie (*'S**tp3),
A. V. "princes." Elsewhere (Num. xxii. 4, 7) the
term zekinim is used, answering in signification, if
not in etymology, to the Arabic sheikh. It is dif
ficult, perhaps impossible, to tell how far these dis
tinctions are accurate, and how far they represent
fche imperfect acquaintance which the Hebrews must
have had with the organization of a people with
whom, except during the orgies of Shittim, they
appear to have been always more or less at strife
and warfare (1 Chr. v. 10, 19-22).
The vast horde which Gideon repelled must have
included many tribes under the general designation
of "Midianites, Amalekites, children of the East;"
and nofching would be easier or more natural than
for the Hebrew scribes who chronicled the events to
confuse one tribe with another in so minute a point
as the title of a chief.
In the great Bedouin tribes of the present day,
who occupy the place of Midian and Amalek, there
is no distinctive appellation answering to the melee
and sar of the Hebrew narrative. Differences in
rank and power there are, as between the great
chief, the acknowledged head of the parent tribe,
and the lesser chiefs who lead the sub-tribes into
which it is divided, and who are to a great extent
independent of him. But the one word sheikh is
employed for all. The great chief is the Sheikh
el-kebir, the others are min el-masheikh, *' of the
sheikhs," i. e. of sheikh rank. The writer begs to
express his acknowledgments to Mr. Layard and
Mr. Cyril Graham for information on this point. G.
ZAM'BIS {Za/jL^pl [Vat. -^pei]] Alex. Za/i-
jS/jis;' [Aid. Za/AjSi'?:] Zambris). The same as
Amariah (1 Esdr. ix. 34; comp. Ezr, a. 42).
Z AM.'Bm {Zaii$pi; [Qin.Zafifipei-] Zamri).
Zimri the Simeonite slain by Phinehas (1 Mace.
ii. 26).
ZA'MOTH {Zapd>Ql [Vat.] Alex. Zo^o0:
Zathoim) — Zattu (1 Esdr. ix. 28; comp. Ezr, x.
27). ZAMZUM'MIMS (D'^SJ^t [see below]:
[Rom.] ZoxofJip-iv [Vat. -^etj/] ; Alex. [Zojufo/i-
^€ij/:] Zomzommim). The Ammonite name for
fche people, who by others (though who they were
does not appear) were called Rephaim (Deut. ii.
20 only). They are described as having originally
been a pow^ful and numerous nation of giants, —
"great, many, and tall," — inhabiting the district

« The unintelligibility of the names is iu favor of
fcheir being correctly retained rather than the reverse.
\nd It should oot be overlooked that they are not,
like Oreb and Zeeb, attached alao to locaUties, which al
ways throws a doubt ou the name when attributed to
ft person as well.

ZANOAH
which at the time of the Hebrew conqueflt wm is
the possession of the Ammonites, by whom the
Zamzummim had a long time previously been de
stroyed. Where this district was, it is not per
haps possible exactly to define ; but it probably lay
in the neighborhood of Rabbatb-Ammon {Amman)
the only city of the Ammonites of which the name
or situation is preserved to us, and therefore east
ward of that rich undulating country from which
Moab had been forced by the Amorites (the mod
ern Belka), and of the numerous towns of that
country, whose ruins and names are stiU encoun
tered. From a slight similarity between the two names,
and from the mention of the Emim in connection
with each, it is usually assumed that the Zamzum
mim are identical with the Zuzim (Gesenius, Thes.
p. 410 a; Ewald, Gesch. i. 308, note; Knobel on
Gren. xiv. 5 )- Ewald further supports this by iden
tifying Ham, the capital city of the Zuzim (Gen.
xiv. 5 ) with Ammon. But at best the ideutificar
tion is very conjectural.
Various attempts have been made to expkin the
name: as by comparison with the Arabic **J0\]
" long-necked ; " or A-'ta^.^O^ '* strong and big "
(Simonis, Onom. 135); or as "obstinate," from
DDT (Luther), or as " noisy," from DTST (Gese
nius, Thes. p. 419 ), or as onomatopoetic,*' intended
to imitate the unintelligible jabber of foreigners.
Michaelis {Suppl. No. G29) playfully recalls the
likeness of the name to that of the well Zem-zem
afc Mecca, and suggests thereupon that the tribe
may have originally come from Southern Arabia.
Notwithstanding this banter, however, he ends his
article with the foUovring discreet words, "Nihil
historise, nihil originis populi novimus: faa sit etj-
mologiam seque ignorare." G.
Z ANO^AH (n'iDT [perh. marsh, bog] : Zafdv
in both MSS.; [Aid. Zavcfi; Comp. Zavoe'] Za-
noe) . In the genealogical lists of the tribe of Ju<^
in 1 Ch., Jekuthiel is said to have been the father
of Zanoah (iv. 18); and, as far as the passage cau
be made out, some connection appears to be intended
with " Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh." Zanoah
is the name of a town of Judah [Zanoah 2], and
this mention of Bithiah probably points to some
colonization of the place by Egyptians or by Israel
ites directly from Egypt, in Seetzen's account of
Samite (or more accurately Za'nviah), whieh is
possibly identical with Zanoah, there is a curious
token of the influence which events in Egypt still
exercised on the place {Reisen, iii. 29).
The Jewish interpretei*s considered the whole of
this passage of 1 Chr. iv. to refer to Moses, and in
terpret each of the names which it contains as titla
of him. " He was chief of Zanoach," says the
Targum, "because for his sake God pid, away
(n3T) the sins of Israel." G.
ZANO'AH (n*"lD| [marsh or bog]). The
name of two towns iu the territory of Judah,
1. {Tap(*>y ZayS; Alex. Za^w; [in Neh. xi. 30,

& Josephus inverts the distinction. He styles OreS
and Zeeb jSatrtAets, and Zebah aod Zalmunna ^yeftoys
{Ant. V. 7, § 5).
c In this sense the name was applied by oontroTe^
sialiBfcs of the 17th century aa a nickname for fen*****
who pretended to speak with tongues.

ZAPHN ATH-P A ANEAH
Bom. Vat. FA.i Alei:. omit, FA.s Zavae:] ZanoS,
[Zanoa.]) In tbe Shefelah (Josh. xv. 34), named
in the same group witb Zoreah and Jarmuth. It
is possibly identical with Zdnu'a,a a site which was
pointed out to Dr. Robinson from Beit Nettif
(BibL Res. ii. 16), and which in the maps of Van
de Velde and of Tobler (3tte Wanderung) is located
on the N. side of the Wady Ismail, 2 miles E. ot Za-
retih, and 4 miles N". of Yarmuk, This position is
sufficiently in accordance witb the statement of Je
rome (Onomast. " Zaiinohua"), that it was in the
district of Eleutheropolis, on the road to Jerusalem,
and called Zanua.
The name recura in its old connection in the lists
»f Nehemiah, both of the towns which were re-
inhabited by tbe people of Judah after the Captiv
ity (xi. 30 ''), and of those which assisted in repairing
the wall of Jerusalem (iii. 13). It is an entirely
distinct place frora
2. (Zalcai/aiV [Vat. -ei/i] ; Alex. ZavaaKeip: '^
ZanoeL) A town in the highland district, the
mountain proper (Josh. xv. 56). It is named in
the same group with JIaoii, Carmel, Ziph, and other
places Itnown to lie south of Hebron. It is (as Van
ile Velde suggests, Memoir, p. 354) not improbably
Identical with Sanute, wbich is mentioned by Seet
zen (Reisen, iii. 29 ) as below Seniila, and appears
to be about 10 miles S. of Hebron. At the time
of his visit it was the last inhabited place to the
south. Eobinson (BibL Res. ii. 204, note) gives
the name differently, !IJOyJ.£.'\, Za'ntdah; and
it will be obsen'ed that, like Zanu'ah just men
tioned, it contains the 'Ain, which the Hebrew
name does not. and which rather shakes the identi
fication. According to the statement of the genealogical
lists of 1 Chr., Zanoah was founded or colonized by
a person named Jekuthiel (iv. 18). Here it is also
mentioned with Socho and Eshtemoa, both of which
places are recognizable in the neighborhood of
Za'nutah. G.
ZAPH'N ATH - PAANB'AH {nXfS
nJVS [see below]; 'VovBo/iifiav))X'- Salvator
mmdi), a name given by Pharaoh to Joseph (Gen.
xii. 46). Various forms of this name, all traceable
to the Heb. or LXX. original, occur in the works of
the early Jewish and Christian writers, chiefly Jo
sephus, from diff'erent M.SS. and editions of whose
AnL (ii. 6, § 1 ) no less than eleven forms have been
collected, following both originals, some variations
being very corrupt ; but from the translation given
,. by Josephns it is probable that he transcribed
the Hebrew. Philo (De Nominum Mut. p. 819,
c, ed. Col. 613) and Theodoret (i. p. 106, ed.
Schulz) follow the LXX., and Jerome, the Hebrew.
The Coptic version nearly transcribes the LXX.,
ifGJtOCUJllc^^JIHK. In the Hebrew text the name is divided into two
parts. Every such division of Egyptian words be
ing in accordance with the Egyptian orthography,
as No-Ammon, Pi-beseth, Poti-pberah, we cannot,
if the name be Egyptian, reasonably propose any
chauge in this case; if the name be Hebrew, the
9ame is certain. There is no prima facie reason
for any change in the consonants.

ZAPHNATH-PAANEAH 3591
The LXX. forra seems to indicate the same divig
ion, as the latter part, (pavi]x^ ^s identical with
the second part of the Hebrew, while what pre
cedes is different. There is again no prima fac'M
reason for any change from the ordinary reading
of the name. The cause of the difference from
the Hebrew in the earlier part of the name must
be discussed when we come to examine its mean
ing. This name has been explained as Hebrew or
Egyptian, and always -as a proper name. It has
not been supposed to be an official title, but this
possibility has to be considered.
1. Tbe Rabbins interpreted Zapbnath-paaiieah
as Hebrew, in the sense "revealer of a secret."
This explanation is as old as Josephus (upvirTav
eupeTfju, Ant. ii. 6, § 1); and Theodoret also follows
it (tSjv anop^iiTwv epp.T]vevT-iiv, i. p. 106, Schulz).
Philo offers an explanation, which, though seem
ingly different, may be the same (^v dwoKpiaet
ffr6p.a Kpivov', but Mangey conjectures the true
reading to be ^v anoKpv^si aT6fui anoKpiv6fievov,
I. c). It must be remembered that Josephus per
haps, and Theodoret and Philo certainly, follow the
LXX. form of the name.
2. Isidore, though mentioning the Hebrew inter
pretation, remarks that the name should be Egyp
tian, and offers an Egyptian etymology : " Joseph
. . . , hunc Pharao Zaphanath Phaaneca appel-
lavit, quod Hebraice absconditorum repertorem
sonat .... tamen quia hoc nomen ab .^gyptio
ponitur, ipsius HnguEe debet habere rationem.
Interpretatur ergo Zaphanath Phaaneca jEgyptio
sermone salvator mundi " ( Or'ig. vii. c. 7, t. iii.
p. 327, Arev.). Jerome adopts the same render
ing. 3. Modern scholars have looked to Coptic for
an explanation of this name, Jablonski and othera
proposing as the Coptic of the Egyptian original
nccMT JUL c^ejteg, or ncoui^, etc.,
" the preservation " or " preserver of tbe age."
This is evidently the etymology intended by Isidore
and Jerome.
We dismiss the Hebrew interpretation, as un
sound iu itself, and demanding the improbable
concession that Pharaoh gave Joseph a Hebrew
name. It is impossible to arrive at a satisfactory result
without first inquiring when this name was given,
and what are tbe characteristics of Egyptian titles
and names. These points having been discussed,
we can show what ancient Egyptian sounds corre
spond to the Hebrew and LXX. forms of this name,
and a comparison with ancient Egyptian will then
be possible.
After the account of Joseph's appointment to be
governor, of his receiving the insignia of authority,
and Pharaoh's telling him that he held the second
place in the kingdom, follow these words: "And
Pharaoh called Joseph's name Zaphnath-paaneah ;
and he gave him to wife .isenath the daughter cf
Poti-pberah priest of On." It is next stated, " And
Joseph went out over [all] the land of Egypt"
(Gen. xii. 45). As Joseph's two sons were bom
" before the years of famine came " (ver. 50), it
seems evident that the order is here strictly chro
nological, at least that the events spoken of are of

*> This name, howevtr (c •jI'n)] exliibits the 'ain,
vhich ia not present in ihe Hebrew name

b Here the name is contracted to HST,
c These curious words are produced by joining
Zanoah to the name following it, Cain, or hac-Oiin

3o92 ZAPHNATH-PAANKAH
the time before the famine. It is scarcely to be
supposed that Pharaoh would have named Joseph
"the preserver of the age," or the like, when the
calamity, from the worst effects of which his ad
ministration preserved Egypt, had not come. The
name, at first sight, seems to be a proper name,
but, as occurring after the account of Joseph's ap
pointment and honors, may be a title.
Ancient Egyptian titles of dignity are generally
connected with the king or the gods, as SUTEN"-
SA, king's son, applied not only to royal princes,
but to the governors of KEESH, or Cush. Titles
of place are generally simply desci'iptive, as MER-
KET€, " superintendent of buildings " (" public
works " ?). Some few are tropical. Ancient Egyp
tian names are tjither simple or compound. Sim
ple names are descriptive of occupation, as MA,
" the shepherd," an early king's name, or are the
names of natural objects, as PE-MAY(?), "the
cat," etc.; more rarely they indicate qualities of
character, as S-NUFRE, " doer of good." Com
pound names usually express devotion to the gods,
as PET-AMEN-APT, "Belonging to Amen of
Thebes; " sorae are composed with the name of the
reigning king, as SHAFKA-SHA, •' Shafra rules; "
SESEIiTESEN-ANKH, " Sesertesen Uves." Oth
ers occur which are more difficult of explanation, as
AMEN-EM-HA, "Amen in the front," a war-
cry? Double names, not merely of kings, but of
private persons, are found, but are very rare, as
SNUFRE ANKH KE, " Doer of good, living one."
These double names are usually of the period before
the XVIIIth dynasty.
Before comparing Zaphnath-paaneah and Pson-
thomphanech with Egyptian nanies we must ascer
tain the probable Egyptian equivalents of the letters
of these forms. The Egyptian words occurring in
Hebrew are few, and the forms of some of them
evidently Shemiticized, or at least changed by their
use by foreigners: a complete and systematic alpha-
*bet of Hebrew equividents of Egyptian lettera there
fore cannot be drawn up. There are, on the other
hand, numerous Shemitic words, either Hebrew or
of a dialect very near it, the geographical names of
places and tribes of Pale.'Stine, given, according to a
system, in the Egyptian inscriptions and papyri,
from which we can draw up, as M. de Roug6 has
done {Revue Archeologique, N. S- iii. 351-35i), a
complete alphabet, certain in nearly all its details,
and approximatively true in the few that are not
determined, of the Egyptian equivalents of the He
brew alphabet. The two comparative alphabets do
not greatly differ, but we cannot be sure that in the
endeavor to ascertain what Egyptiim sounds are
intended by Hebrew letters, or then- Greek equiv
alents, we are quite accurate in employing the
latter. For instance, different Egyptian signs are
used to represent the Hebrew *^ and V, but it is
by no means certain that these signs in Egyptian
represented any sound but R, except in the vulgar
dialect. It is important to observe that the Egyptians bad
a hard "t," the parent of the Coptic Stand 6 ,
which we represent by an Italic T ; that they had
an "a" corresponding to the Hebrew 3?, which
we represent by an Italic ^1 ; and that the Hebrew
S may be represented by the Egyptian P, alao
pronounced P'h, and by the F. The probable
:)riginals of the Egyptian name of Joseph may be
ihus stated : —

ZAPHJfATH-PAANEAH

V: 3
T P
F

3 n
N T

P

s a n
^ N KH

V 0 v
PS N

e a p
T M

0 PF

" vr, X
N KH

The second part of the name in the Hebrew is
the same as in the LXX., although in the latter it
is not separate : we therefore examine it first. It
is identical with the ancient Egyptian proper name
P-ANKHEE, " the living," borne by a king who
was an Ethiopian ruling after Tirhakah, and prob
ably contemporary with the earlier part of the xewn
of Psammetichus I. The only doubtful point In
the identification is that it is not certain that tbe
"a " in P-ANKHEE is that which represents the
Hebrew 5?. It is a symbolic sign of the kind
which serves as an initial, and at the sarae time
determines the signification of the word it partly
expresses and sometimes singly represents, and it
is only used in the single sense "life," " to live."
It may, however, be conjectured from its Coptic
equivalents to have begun with either a long or a
guttural " a " ( iit^g B, S, ^Jlg B,
Oilig, OJlg S^ OJl^, CMJI^ M,
CUJl,5,g B, CWJlJIg S).
The second part of the name, thus explamed,
affords no clew to the meaning of the first part,
being a separate name, as in the case of a double
name already uited SNUFRE ANKHEE. The
LXX. form of the first part is at once recognized
in the ancient Egj'ptian words P-SENT-N, " the
defender " or " preserver of " the Coptic 11 CtlUT^
A^j "the preserver of." It is to be remarked
that the ancient Egyptian form of the principal
word is that found in the LXX., but that the
preposition N in -hieroglyphics, however pronounced,
is always written N", wbereas in Coptic Jt becomes
W. before IT. The word SENT does not appear
to be used except as a divine, and, under the Ptol
emies, regal title, in the latter case for Soter. The
Hebrew form seems to represent a compound name
commencing with T'ETEF, or TEF, " he says," a
not infrequent element in compound names (the
root being found in the Coptic 2tO, 25:OT '. S
XOO, 25:0T), or TEF, "incense, delight"?
the name of the sacred incense, also known to m
in the Greek form Kuipi (Plutarch, de Isid. et Osir.
c. 80, p. 383; Diosc. .M. m. I. 24, Spr.). But, if
the name commence with either of these words, the
rest seems inexplicable. It is remarkable that the
last two consonants are the same as in Asenath,
tbe name of Joseph's wife. It has been supposed
that in both cases tbis element is the name of the
goddess Neith, Asenath having been conjectured to
be AS-NEKT; and Zaphnath, by Mr. Osburn, we
believe, TEF-NEET, "the delight(?) of Neith."
Neith, the goddess of Sais, is not likely to have been
reverenced at Heliopolis, tbe city of Asenath. It
is also improbable that Pharaoh would have given
Joseph a name connected with idolatry ; for Joseph's
position, unlike Daniel's, when he was first called
Belteshazzar, would have enabled him effectually tc
protest against receiving such a name. The lattei
Bart of the name might suggest the possibility of

ZAPHON
the letters " aneah "' corresponding to ANKH, and
the whole preceding portion, Zaphnath and the
initial of this pai't, forming the name of Joseph's
Pharaoh; tbe forra being that of SESERTESEN-
ANKH, "Sesertesen Uves," already meutioned;
but the occurrence of the letter P shows that the
form is P-ANKHEE, and were this not sufficient
proof, no name of a Pharaoh, or other proper name
is known that can be compared witb tbe supposed
first portion. We have little doubt that the mon
uments will unexpectedly supply us with the infor
mation we need, giving us the original Egyptian
name, though probably not applied to Joseph, of
whose period there are, we believe, but few Egyp
tian records. K. S. P.
ZA'PHON (I'lQ? [northward] : :^a<l>dv ;
Alex, ^aipiov: Saphon). The name of a plaee
mentioned in the enumeration of the allotment of
the tribe of Gad (Josh. xiii. 27). It is one of the
places in " tbe valley " which appear to have con
stituted the "remainder" ("^0.*l) of the kingdom
of Sihon " — apparently referring to the portion of
the same kingdom previously allotted to Reuben
(vv. 17-21). The enumeration appears to proceed
from south to north, and from the mention of the
Sea of Chinneroth it is natural to infer that Zaphon
was near that lake. No name resembling it has
yet been encountered.
In Judg. xii. 1, the word rendered " northward "
(tsdphdndh) may with equal accuracy be rendered
" to Zaphon." This rendering is supported by the
Alex. LXX. (/c€(^eij/a) and a host of other MSS.,
and it has consistency on its side. G.
* Of the later critics, Ewald, Bunsen, Keil, and
Cassel make Zaphon a proper name. It is evident
from vv. 1 and 5 that the Ephraimites crossed the
Jordan, and tbe main direction of the march would
be from west to east. If they went northward it
would be for strategic reasons which are not appar
ent. . The known existence of a place of this name
(Josh. xiii. 27) fully justifies tbis conclusion (see
especially Cassel, Richter u. Rulh, in loc). Ber
theau (Richter, p. 166), De Wette (Uebersetz-
mig) and Perret-Gentil (version), prefer " north
ward." H.
ZATRA (Zapii: Zara). Zaeah [or Zekah]
the son of Judah (Matt. i. 3).
ZAR'ACBS (ZapiK-qs; [Vat. Zapaios:] Zar-
aceles). Brother of Joacini, or Jehoiakim, king
of Judah (1 Esdr. i. 38). His name is apparently
a corruption of Zedekiah.
ZA'EAH (rriT [nsing of light] : Zapd:
Zara). Properly Zerah, the son of Judah by
Tamar (Gen. xxxviii. 30, xlvi. 12).
ZARA'IAS [3 syl.] [Rom.] (Vat. omit; Alex.
Zapoias: Vulg. omits). 1. Zekahiah, one ofthe
ancestors of Ezra (1 Esdr. viii. 2); called Akma ui
2 ^sdr. i. 2.
2. (Zapaias: Zarceus.) Zekahiah, the father
of Elihoenai (1 Esdr. viii. 31).
3' (Zapdias; [Alex, omits :] Zarias.) Zeba-
DUH, the sou of Michael (1 Esdr. viii. 34).
ZA'fiEAH (n^'7^ [perh. place of hornets] :

" In 1 K. xvii. 9, the Alex. MS. has Zt^Sa, but in
the other two passages agrees with the Vat.
^ The name is given as Sarpiiand by Ibn Edris ;
Sar^hen by Maundeville ; and Sarphan by Maun-
IreU.

ZARETAN 3593
Vat. [Rom. Alex. FA.l] omit; Alex, [rather
FA.3] tapaa.: Saraa). The form in which our
translators have once (Neh. xi. 29) represented the
name, which they elsewhere present (less accu
rately) as Zoeah and Zoreah. G.
ZA'REATHITES, THB (\'l^n^n
[patr.] : oi XapaBaloi: Saraitce). The inhab
itants of Zareah or Zorah. T'he word occurs
in this form only in 1 Chr. ii. 53. Elsewhere the
same Hebrew word appears in the A. V. as thb
Zoeathites. G.
ZA'RED, THE VALLBY OF {1~}\ bm
[valley of thick foliage] : [Rom.] <j,dpayi ZapeS;
[Vat. ip.ZapeT^] Alex. (j>. Zape: torrens Zared).
Tlie name is accurately Zered ; the change in the
first syllable being due to its occurring at a pause.
It is found in the A. V. in this form only in Num.
xxi. 12 ; though in the Hebr. it occurs also Deut.
ii. 13. G.
ZAR'EPHATH (HQl^, i.e.Tsarfah [smeU-
ing house, Ges.]: ZapeirTd;" in Obad. plural:
Sarephtha, [Sarepla].). A town which derives
its claim to notice from having been the resi
dence of the prophet Elijah during the latter part
of the drought (1 K. xvii. 9, 10). Beyond stat
ing that it was near to, or dependent on, Zidon
(]^"T''i27\ the Bible gives no clew to its position.
It is mentioned by Obadiah (ver. 20), but merely
as a Canaanite (tliat is Phoenician) city. Josephus
(Ant. viii. 13, § 2), however, states tbat it was
" not far from Sidon and Tyre, for it lies be
tween them." And to this Jerome adds ( Onom.
" Sarefta ") that it "lay on the public road," that
is the coast-road. Both these conditions are im
plied in the mention of it in the Itinerary of Paula
by Jerome (EpiL PauhB, § 8), and both are ful
filled in the situation of the modern village of Stira-
fend^i {iXXiyt^), a name which, except in its
termination, is almost identical with the ancient
Phoenician. SHrafend has been visited and de
scribed by Dr. Robinson (B. R. ii. 475) and 7>r.
Thomson (Lund and Book, ch. xii.). It appeara
to have changed its place, at least since the llth
century, for it is now more than a mile from the
coast, high upon the slope of a hill (Rob. p. 474),
whereas, at the time of the Crusades, it was on the
shore. Of the old town, considerable indications
remain. One group of foundations is on a head
land called Ain el-Kentarah : but the chief remains
are south of this, and extend for a mile or more,
with raany fragments of columns, slabs, and other
architectural features. The Roman road is said to
be unusually perfect there (Beamont, Diary, etc.,
ii. 186). The site of the chapel erected by the
Crusaders on the spot then reputed to be the site
of the widow's house, is probably still preserved."^
(See the citations of Robinson.) It is near the
water's edge, and is now marked by a wely and
small khan dedicated to eUKhudr, the well-known
personage who unites, in the popular Moslem faith,
Elijah and St. George.
In the N. T. Zarephath appears under the Greek
form of Sarepta. G.
ZAR'ETAN CiniV' »• •=• 1'sarthan [cooU

<¦' A grotto (as usual) at the foot of the hill on which
the modem village stands is now shown as the resi
dence of Elijah (Van de Velde, S. ^ P. i. 102).

3594 ZAKETH-SHAHAK
ing] : LXX omits in both MSS. : Sarthan). An
inaccurate representation of the name elsewhere
more correctly given as Zarthan. It occurs only
in Josh. iii. 16, in defining the position of Adam,
tlie city by which the upper waters of the Jordan
remained during the passage of the Israelites:
'' The waters rushing down from above stood and
rose up upon one heap very far off — by Adam, the
city that is by the side of Zarthan." No trace of
these names has been found, nor is anything known
of the situation of Zarthan.
It is remarkable tbat the LXX. should exhibit
no « trace of the name. G.
ZA'RETH-SHA'HAR {T}*4T^ iT>!%,
i c. Zereth has-sbacbar [brightness of dxiwn] :
2epaS& KaX 'Xidiv [Vat. ^eitav] ', Alex. ^pB Kai
'Ziojp: Sereth Assahar). A place mentioned only
in Josh. xiii. 19, in the catalogue of tbe towns al
lotted to Reuben. It is named between Sibmah
and Beth-peok, and is particularly specified as
" in Mount ha-Emek " (A.. V. " in the Mount of
the Valley "). Frora this, however, no clew can be
gained to its position. Seetzen (Reisen, ii. 369)
proposes, though with hesitation (see his note), to
identify it with a spot called Sard at the mouth of
the Wady Zerka Ma'in, abont a mile from the
edge of the Dead Sea. A place Shakiir is marked
on Van de Velde's map, about six miles south of
es-Salt, at the head of the valley of tlie Wady
Seir. But nothing can be said of^ either of these
in tbe present state of our knowledge. G.
ZAR'HITES, THE Crn.-Til [patr.] : 6
Sapa't; [\'at.] Alex, o Zapan, [exc. Vat. Zapia in
1 Chr. xxvii. 11, Alex.] Zapiei in Josh : Ziirtitce,
Zare, stirps Zarahi and Zarai). A branch of the
tribe of Judah: descended from Zerah tbe son of
Judah (Num. xxvi. 13, 20; Josh. vii. 17; 1 Chr.
xxvii. 11, 13). Achan was of this family, and it
waa represented in David's time by two distin
guished warriors, Sibbechai tbe Hushathite and
Maharai the Netophathite.
ZART'ANAH (n2n"12 [cooling] : :Sf<ra-
edv, Alex. EtrKiavdav; [Comp. Aid. SapBav:]
Sarthana). A place named in 1 K. iv. 12, to de
fine the position of Beth-shean. It is possibly
identical with Zarthan, but nothing positive can
be said on the point, and the name has not been
discovered in post^biblical times. G.
ZAR'THAN dn"]^ [cooling]: Sfipd; Alex.
Siapap: Sarthan).
1. A place in the ciccar or circle of Jordan,
mentioned in connection with Succoth (1 K. vii.
46). 2. It is also named, in the account of the pas-
.lage of the Jordan by the Israehtes (.losh. iii. 16),
.¦s defining the position of the city Adam, which
was beside ("T'^p) it. The difference which the
translators of the A. V. have introduced into the
name in this passage (Zaretan) has no existence
in the original.
3. A place with the similar name of Zartanah
(which ill the Hebrew differs from the two forms
already named only in its termination) is men
tioned in tbe list of Solomon's commissariat dis
tricts. It is there specified as " close to " ( V^S)

a This Is not only the case in " the two principal
Mas. ; the edition of Holmes and Parsons shows it in
jne only, and that a cursive MS. of the 13th cent

ZEBADIAH
Beth-shean, that is, in the upper part of the Jor
dan Valley.
4. Further, in Chronicles, Zeredatiiah is sub
stituted for Zarthan, and this again is not impos
sibly identical with the Zererah, Zererath, or Zere-
ratbah, of the story of Gideon. AU these spots
agree in proximity to the Jordan, but beyond this
we are absolutely at fault as to their position.
Adam is unknown ; Scccoth is, to say the least,
uncertain; and no name approaching Zarthan
has yet been encountered, except it he Surtnbeh
(xaJSwic), the name of a lofty and isolated hill
which projects from the main highlands into the
Jordan Valley, about 17 miles north of Jericho
(Van de Velde, Memoir, p. 354). But Surtabeh,
if connected with any ancient name, would seem
rather to represent some compound of the ancient
Hebrew or Phcenician Tsar, which in Arabic is
represented by Sar (\yja), as in the name of the
modern Tyre. G.
ZATH'OB (ZaB6v: Zachues). This name
OCCUI'S in 1 Esdr. viii. 32, for Zattu, which ap
pears to have been omitted in the Hebrew text of
Ezr. viii. 5, which should read, " Of the sons of
Zattu, Shechaniah the sou of Jahaziel."
ZATHTJ'I (Zafloui; [Vat. Zarov^ Dema).
Zattu (1 Esdr. v. 12; comp. Ezr. ii. 8).
ZAT'THU (SWT [hvely, pleasant, Fiirst]:
Zafloum; Alex. Zaflflooia: Zelliu). Elsewhen
Zattu (Neh. x. 14).
ZATTTJ (SV^t [lovely, pleasant]: Zartovi,
ZaSoia, ZaBoulai Alex. ZadBoua; FA. Zoflouw,
ZaOousia: Zethua). The sons of Zattu were a
family of laymen of Israel who returned with Ze
rubbabel (Ezr. ii. 8; Neh. vii. 13). A second di
vision accompanied Ezra, though in the Hebrew
text of Ezr. viii. 5 the name has been omitted.
[Zathoe.] Several members of this family had
married foreign wives (Ezr. x. 27).
ZA'VAN = Zaavan (1 Chr. i. 42).
ZA'ZA (STt [p-ojeclim, Furst] : 'Ofa^; Alei-
Ofafa; [Aid. Zald.; Comp. ZifS:] Ziza). One
of the sons of Jonathan, a descendant of Jerahmeer
(1 Chr. u. 33).
ZBBADI'AH (n^T^T [jgifl af Jehomh,
Ges.]: Zo/8o5ia; [Vat. Afa/Sa^ia; Alex. Afa;8(r
5io :] Zabadia). 1. A Benjamite of the sons of
Beriah (1 Chr. viu. 15).
2. [ZaSaSia.] A Benjamite of the sons of FJ
paal (1 Chr. viii. 17).
3. [Vat. M. ZafiiSia..] One of the sons of Jfr
roham of Gedor, a Benjamite who joined the for
tunes of David in his retreat at Ziklag (1 Chr iii.
7). 4. (Za/3a5ios; [Vat. A/3S6ias;] Alex. Zafiiiai'-
Znbadias.) Son of Asahel tbe brother of Joab (1
Chr. xxvii. 7).
5. ([Rom. Alex, as in 4; Vat. Zo;8Scio:] •^«*^
dia.) Son of Michael of the sons of Shephatiah
(Ezr. viii. 8). He returned with 80 of his clan m
the second caravan with liira. In 1 Esdr. viii. 34
he is called Zaraias.
6. (ZajSSfo; [Vat.] FA. ZaflBeia.) A priest

[This MS., however. No. 58, is described by HolrnH
as " quantivis pretii " Comp. art. SEPTUiaDCT, p
2914. T je Comp. Polyglott also reads S<u)Wv. ~ A.'

ZEBAH
Df the sons of Immer who had married a foreign
wife after tlie return from Babylon (Ezr. x. 20).
Called Zabdeus in 1 Esdr. ix. 21.
7. Pnnaj : ZuSaSia; [Vat. Zaxapias:] Alex.
ZafiaSias'. Zahadias.) Tbird son of Meshelemiah
the Korhite (1 Chr. xxvi. 2).
8. (Zo^Sfas; [Vat. ZajSSeias.]) A Levite in
the reign of Jehoshaphat wbo was sent to teach
Ihe Law in the cities of Judah (2 Cbr. xvii. 8).
9. [As in 8.] The son of Ishmael and prince
of the house of Judah in the reign of Jehoshaphat
(2 Chr. xix. 11). In conjunction with .Amariah
the chief priest, he was appointed to the superin
tendence of the Levites, priests and chief men who
had to decide all causes, civil and ecclesiastical,
which were brought before them. They possibly
may have formed a kind of court of appeal, Zebe-
diah acting for the interests of the king, and Ama
riah being the supreme authority in ecclesiastical
matters. ZE'BAH (nnT [sacrifice]: Ze/See: Zebee).
One of tbe two " kings " of Midian who appear to
have commanded the great invasion of Palestine,
and who finally fell by the hand of Gideon him
self. He is always coupled with Zalmunna, and is
mentioned in Judg. viii. 5-21; Ps. Ixxxiii. 11.
It is a remarkable instance of the unconscious
artlessness of the narrative contained in Judg. vi.
33-viii. 28, that no mention is made of any of the
chiefs of the Midianites during the early part of the
story, or indeed until Gideon actually comes into
contact with them. We then discover (viii. 18)
that while tbe Bedouins were ravaging the crops
m the valley of Jezreel, before Gideon's attack,
three " or more of his brothers had been captured
by the Arabs, and put to death by the hands of
Zebah and Zalmunna themselves. But tbis mate
rial fact is only incidentally mentioned, and is of a
piece with the later references by prophets and
psalmists to other events in the same struggle, tbe
interest and value of which have been alluded to
under Oreb.
Ps. Ixxxiii. 12 purports to have preserved the
very words of tbe cry with which Zeba and Zal
munna rushed up at tbe head of their hordes from
the Jordan into the luxuriant growth of the great
plain, " Seize these goodly >> pastures ! "
While Oreb and Zeeb, two of the inferior lead
ers of the incursion, had been slain, with a vast
number of their people, by the Ephraimites, at the
central fords of the Jordan (not improbably those
near Jisr Damieh), the two kings had succeeded
ill making their escape by a passage further to the
uorth (probably the ford near Beth-shean). and
thence by the Wady Yabis, through Gilead, to
Karkor, a place which is not fixed, but which lay
doubtless high up on the Hauran. Here they
were reposing with 15,000 meu, a mere remnant of
their huge horde, when Gideon overtook them.
Had they resisted there is little doubt that they
might have easily overcome the little band of
" fainting " heroes who had toiled after them up
the tremendous passes of the mountains; but the
lame of Gideon was still full of terror, and the

n It is perhaps allowable to infer this from the use
9f the plural (not the dual) to the word brethren
'vei 19).
'' Such is tho meaning of " pastures of God " in
*e early idiom.

ZEBEDEE

3595

Bedouins were entirely unprepared for his attack
— they fled in dismay, and the two kings were
taken. Such was the Third Act of the great Tragedy.
Two more remain. First, the return down the
long defiles leading to the Jordan. We see the
cavalcade of camels, jingling the golden chains, and
the crescent-shaped collars or trappings hung round
their necks. High aloft rode the captive chiefs
clad in their brilliant kefiyehs and embroidered ab-
bayehs, and with their "collars" or "jewels" in
nose and ear, on neck and arm. Gideon probably
strode on foot by tbe side of his captives. They
passed Penuel, where Jacob had seen the vision of
the face of God; they passed Succoth; they
crossed the rapid stream of the Jordan ; they as
cended the highlands west of the river, and at
length reached Ophrah, the native village of their
captor (Joseph. Ant. iv. 7, § 5). Then at last the
question which must have been on Gideon's tongue
dm-ing the whole of the return found a vent. There
is no appearance of its having been alluded to be
fore, but it gives, as nothing else could, tbe key to
tbe whole pursuit. It was the death of his broth
ers, "the children of his mother," that had sup
plied the personal motive for that steady persever
ance, and had led Gideon on to his goal against
hunger, faintness, and obstacles of all kinds.
" What manner of men were they which ye slew
at Tabor'?" Up to this time the sheikhs may
have believed that they were reserved for ransom ;
but these words once spoken there can have been
no doubt what their fate was to be. They met it
like noble children of the Desert, without fear or
weakness. One request alone they make — tliat
they may die by the sure blow of the hero himself
— " and Gideon arose and slew them ; " and not
till he had revenged his brothers did any thought
of plunder enter his heart — then, and not till then,
did he lay bauds on the treasures which ornamented
tbeir camels. G.
ZEBA'IM (Q.''3?SrT, in Neh. D'';'2-?n [ga.
zelles]: [Ys.t.] -vioi' Aa-eSaeiv; [Rom.] Alex.
'AaePweifi.; in Neh. vi. ^aSdt/j. [Vat. Alex. FA.
-ei/ii] : Asebaim, Sabaim ). The sons of Pochereth
'of hat-Tsebaim are mentioned in tbe catalogue of
the families of " Solomon's slaves," who returned
from the Captivity with Zerubbabel (Ezra ii. 57 ;
Neh. vii. 59). The name is in the original all but
identical with that of Zeeoim," the fellow-city oi
Sodom; and as many of " Solomon's slaves " ap
pear to have been of Canaanite "^ stock, it is possible
that tbe family of Pochereth were descended from
one of the people who escaped from Zeboim in the
day of the great catastrophe in the Valley of the
Jordan. This, however, can only be accepted aa
conjecture, and on the other hand the two names
Pochereth hat-Tsebaim are considered by some to
have no reference to place, but to signify the
" snarer or hunter of roes ' ' (Gesenius, Thes. p
1102 b; Bertheau, Exeg. Handb. Ezr. ii. 57). G.
ZEB'BDEE O??! or nj"75T [Jehovah'
Sfifl] '• ZeSeSaios). A fisherman of Galilee, the
father of the Apostles James the Great and John

c Even to the double yod. This name, on the
other hand, is distinct from the Zebodi of Benjamin.
d See thJs noticed more at length under Msinnnu,
SiSEBA, etc.

3596

ZBBINA

(Matt. iv. 21), and the husband of Salome (Matt.
Kxvii. 56 ; Mark xv. 40). He probably lived either
at Bethsaida or in its immediate neighborhood.
It has been inferred from the mention of his "hired
servants " (Mark i. 20), and from the acquaint
ance between the Apostle John and Annas the
high-priest (John xviii. 15), that the family of
Zebedee were in easy circumstances (comp. John
xix. 27), although not above manual labor (Matt.
iv. 21). Although the name of Zebedee frequently
occurs as a patronymic, for the sake of distinguish
ing his two sons from others who bore the same
names, he appears only once in the Gospel narrative,
namely in Matt. iv. 21, 22, Mark i. 19, 20, where
he is seen in his boat with his two sons mending
their nets. On this occasion he allows his sons to
leave him at the bidding of the Saviour, without
raising any objection; although it does not appear
that he was hiraself ever of the number of Christ's
disciples. His wife, indeed, appears in the cata
logue of the pious women who were in constant
attendance on the Saviour towards the close of his
ministry, who watched Him on the cross, and
ministered to Him even in the grave (Matt, xxvii.
55, 56 ; Mark xv. 40, xvi. 1 ; comp. Matt. xx. 20,
and Luke viii. 3). It is reasonable to infer that
Zebedee was dead before thjs time. It is worthy
of notice, and may perhaps be regarded, as a
minute confirmation of the evangelical narrative,
that the name of Zebedee is almost identical in
signification with that of John, since it is likely
that a father would desire that his own name
should be, as it were, continued, although in an
altered form. [Jon^s the Apostle.] W. B. J.
ZEBFNA (W2'^?T [bought or sold] : Ze^ev-
vdsj [Vat. ZaupiV, l^A. (with next word) Za/i-
$eiyaSia ;] Alex, omits : Zabina). One of the
sons of Nebo, who had taken foreign wives after
the return from Babylon (Ezr. a. 43).
ZEBO'IM [or ZEBOriM]. This word
represents in the A. V. two names which in the
original are quite distinct.
1. (dp?, D"'lh^, a^toV, and, in the
Keri, n''1DS : [Eom. Se/Scof/j,] « SeiSme.V,
[l.e^oeifj.; Vat. Se/Swem ;] Alex. 'XeSaiip., 2e-
|3a)eijU, [Se^Sajetv :] Seooim ) One of the five
cities of the " plain " or circle of Jordan. It is
mentioned in Gen. a. 19, xiv. 2, 8; Deut. xxix. 23;
and Hos. xi. 8, in each of which passages it is
either coupled with Admah, or placed next it in
the lists. The name of its king, Shemeber, is
preserved (Gen. xiv. 2); and it perhaps appears
again, as Zebaim, in the lists of the menials of
the Temple.
No attempt appears to have been made to dis
cover the site of Zelioim, till M. de Saulcy sug
gested the Talda Sebdan, a name which he, and
he alone, reports as attached to extensive ruins on
the high ground between the Dead Sea and Kerak
CVoyage, Han. 22; il/np, sht. 7). Before however
this can be accepted, M. de Saulcy must explain
how a place which stood in the plain or circle of

a In Gen. x. 19 only, this appears iu Vat. (Mai),
Ze^wvieiu.. [The Vat. MS. does not contain this part
of Genesis. — A.]
b * The conjecture of M. de Saulcy has no appar-
tint basis ; but the present distance of the site from
the river is not a fatal objection to it. The explana-
^.ion asked for above, the reader will find from Mr.
Brove's own pen in the article Lor (ii. 1686). S. W.

ZEBUL
the Jordan, can have been situated on the high
lands at least 50 miles from that river. [Set
Sodom and Zoak.]
In Gen. xiv. 2, 8, the name is given in the A. V
Zeboiim, a more accurate representative of the
form in which it appears in the original both there
and in Deut. xxix. 23.''
2. The Valley of Zeboim (D'^ShSil •'3:
[Vat.] To; rnv 'Sapetv ; [Rom. Aid. 2ct)3iui
Comp. SaSdtv,] the passage is lost in Alex. : VaUit
Seboim). The name differs fi'om the preceding,
not only in having the definite article attached to
it, but also in containing the characteristic and
stubborn letter Ain, wbich imparts a definite char
acter to the word in pronunciation. It was a
ravine or gorge, apparently east of Michmash, men
tioned only in 1 Sam. xiii. 18. It is there de
scribed with a curious minuteness, which is u.n-
fortunately no longer intelligible. The road run
ning from Michmash to the east, is specified as
" the road of the border that looketh to the ravine
of Zeboim towards the wilderness." Tbe wilder
ness (midbar) is no doubt the district of uncultivated
mountain tops and sides which lies between the
central district of Benjamin and the Jordan Val
ley ; and here apparently the ravine of Zeboim
should be sought. In that very district there is
a wild gorge, bearing the name of Shuk ed^IkdAa'
()«A.«aj| iSpji)," "ravine of the hyena," the
exact equivalent of Ge hat-tsebo'im. Up this
gorge runs the path by which the writer was con
ducted from Jericho to Muklmas, in 1858. It does
not appear that the name has been noticed by
other travellers, but it is worth investigation. G.
* The name Zeboim (with the Ain) also occurs
in Neh. xi. 34 (Rom. Vat. Alex. FA.l omit; FA.8
Sefioeip, Comp. Sefiaieip), perhaps designating a
town near the ravine of the same name. It is
mentioned in connection with Hadid, Neballat,
Ix>d and Ono. A.
ZEBU'DAH (n^"'3T: Ken H'^^Dt [given,
bestowed] : 'U\Sd<p ; [Vat. leXXa ;] Alex. EieA-
.Saip: [Comp. Za$ovSd'.] Zebida). Daughter of
Pedaiah of Rumah, wife of Josiah and mother of
king Jehoiakim (2 K. xxiii. 36). The Peshito.
Syriac and Arabic ot the London Polyglot read
nTDT ' tlie Targum has ml^T.
ZE'BUL (^3! [habitation, cliamber]: Ze-
Soi\: Zebul). Chief man (It?, A. V. " ruler")
of the city of Shechem at the time of the contest
between Abimelech and the native Canaaanites.
His name occurs Judg. ix. 28, 30, 36, 38, 41. He
governed the town as the "oflicer " (T^pQ : Mir-
Koiros) of Abimelech while the latter was absent,
and he took part against the Canaanites by shut
ting them out of the city when Abimelech was
encamped outside it. His conversation with Gaal
the Canaanite leader, as they stood in the gate of
Shechem watching the approach of the armed
bands, gives Zebul a certain individuality amongst
the many charactei-s of that time of confusion.

c The ivriter was accompanied by Mr. Consul E. T.
Rogers, well known as one of the best living scholars
In the common Arabic, who wrote dovm (he name fot
him at tho moment. [Dr. Van Dyck writes the last
word without doubling the 6. — A.]

ZEBULOIJITE
ZEBTJLONITE C^i3b?i:3-|n, with the def.
irticie [patr.] : o Zai9oi;Aa.riT7?s'[Vat. -vei-] ; Alex.
In both verses, o Za^ovvn-qs- Zabuhnites), i. e.
member of the tribe of Zebulun. Applied only to
Eu>N, the one judge produced by the tribe (Judg.
xii. 11, 12). The article being found in the origi
nal, the sentence should read, " Elon the Zebulon-
ite." G.
ZEB'ULU]!? (l^baT, ib^nT, and ""I^b^^T
[ahode, dwelling] : Za$ov\(i)u ' Zabulon). The
tenth of the sons of Jacob, according to the order
in which their births are enumerated; the sixth
and last of Leah (Gen. xxx. 20, xxxv. 23, xlvi. 14;
1 Chr. ii. 1). His birth is recorded in Gen. xxx.
19, 20, where the origin of the name Is as usual
ascribed to an exclamation of his mother's, " 'Now
will my husband & dwell-with-me {izbeleni), fori
have borne him six sous ! ' and she called his name
Zebuluu." Of the individual Zebulun nothing is recorded.
The hst of Gen. xlvi. ascribes to him three sons,
founders of the chief families of the tribe (comp.
Num. xxvi. 26) at the time of the migration to
E^ypt. In the Jewish traditions he is named as
the first of the five who were presented by Joseph
to Pharaoh — Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher be
ing the others ( Targ, Pseudojon. on Gen. xlvii. 2).
During the journey fi-om Egypt to Palestine the
tribe of Zebulun formed one of the first camp,
with Judah and Issachar (also sons of Leah),
marching under the standard of Judah. Its num
bers, at the census of Sinai, were 57,000, surpassed
only by Simeon, Dan, and Judah. At that of
Shittim they were 60,500, not having diminished,
but not having increased nearly so rauch as might
naturally be expected. The head of the tribe at
Sinai was Eliab sou of Helon (Num. vii. 24); at
Shiloh, Elizaphan son of Paniach {ib. xxxiv. 25).
Ita representative amongst the spies was Gaddiel
flon of yodi (xiii. 10). Besides what may le im
plied in its appearances in these lists, the tribe is
not recorded to have taken part, for evil or good, in
any ofthe events of the wandering or the conquest.
Its allotment was the third of the second distribu
tion (Josh. xix. 10). Judah, Joseph, Beiyamin,
had acquired the south and the centre of the
country. To Zebulun fell one of the fairest of the
remaining portions. It is perhaps impossible, in
the present state of our knowledge, exactly to de
fine its limits ; ^ but the statement of Josephus
{Ani. V. 1, § 22) is probably in the main correct,
that it reached on the one side to the lake of Gen
nesaret, and on the other to Carmel and the Med
iterranean. On the south it was bounded by
Iflsachar, who lay in the great plain or valley of
ihe Kishon; on the north it had Naphtali and

ZEBULUN

359;

o Of these three forms the first is employed in
Qenesis, Isiiiah, Psalms, and Chronicles, except Gen.
xlix. 13, and 1 Chr. xxvii. 19 ; also occasionally in
Judges ; the second is found in the rest of the Penta
teuch, ia Joshua, Judgea, Ezekiel, and the above plaee
In Ghroniclfas. The third and more extended form is
found in Judg. i. 30 only. The first and second are
used indiscriminately : e. gr. Judg. iv. 6 and v. 18
exhibit the first ; J udg. iv. 10 and v. 14 the second
bim. ^ This play is not preserved in the original of the
< Blessine of Jacob," though the language of the A.
f implies it. The word rendered " dwell " in Gen.
Uix 18 is ]'"ltt?'^ with no relation to the name Zeb-

Asher. In this district the tribe possessed the
outlet (the *' going-out," Deut. xxxiii. 18) of the
plain of Akka; the fisheries of the lake of Galilee:
the splendid agricultural capabilities of the great
plain of the Buttauf {equal in fertility, and almosl
equal in extent, to that of Jezreel, and with the
immense advantage of not being, as that was, tho
high road of the Bedouins); and, last not least, it
iucluded sites so strongly fortified by nature, that
in the later struggles of the nation they proved
more impregnable than any in the whole country.**
The sacred mountain o^Tabok, Zebulun appears
to have shared with Issachar (Deut. xxxiii. 19),
and it and Rimmon were allotted to the Merarite
Levites (1 Chr. vi. 77). But these ancient sanc
tuaries of the tribe were eclipsed by those which
arose within it afterwards, when the name of Zeb
ulun was superseded by that of Galilee. Nazareth,
Cana, Tiberias, and probably the land of Gennesa
ret itself, were all situated within its limits.
The fact recognized by Josephus that Zebulun
extended to the Mediterranean, though not men
tioned or implied, as far as we can discern, in the
lists of Joshua and Judges, is alluded to in tha
Blessing of Jacob (Geu. xlix. 13): —
" Zebulun dwells at the shore of the seaa,
Even he at the shore of ships :
And his thighs are upon Zidon " —
a .passage whieh seems to show that at the
date at which it was written, the tribe was taking
a part in Phoenician ^ commerce. The '' way of
the sea " (Is. ix. 1), the great road from Damascus
to the Mediterranean, traversed a good portion of
the territory of Zebulun, and must have brought
its people into contact with the merchants and the
commodities of Syria, Phoenicia, and Egypt.
Situated so far from the centre of government,
Zebulun remains throughout the history, with one
exception, in the obscui-ity which envelops the
whole of the northern tribes. That exception,
however, is a remarkable one. The conduct of the
tribe during the struggle with Sisera, when they
fought with desperate valor side by side with theii
brethren of Naphtali, was such as to draw down
the especial praise of Deborah, who singles them
out from all the other tribes (Judg. v. 18); —
"Zebulun is a people that threw away its life even
unto death:
And NaphtaU, on the high places ofthe field."
The same poem contains an expression which seemi
to imply that, apart from the distinction gained by
their conduct in this contest, Zebulun was already
in a prominent position among the tribes: —
" Out of Machir came down governors ;
And out of Zebuluu those that handle the pen {oi
the wand) of the scribe ; "

uluu. The LXX. put a different point on the ex
clamation of Leah : " My husband will choose me '-
{alpeTisl tie). This, however, hardly implies any
difference in the original text. Josephus {Ant. i. 19,
§ 8) gives only a general explanation : " a pledge ol
goodwill towards her."'
c Few of the towns in the catalogue of Josh. xix.
10-16 have been identified. The tribe is omitted iu
the lists ofi Chronicles.
d Sepphoris, Jotapata, &c.
e Id the " Testament of Zabulon " (Fabricius,
Pseudepi^r. V. T.\. 630-45) great stress is laii on hii
skill in fishing, and he is commemorated as the first
to navigate a skiff on the sea.

3598 ZEBULUNITES
referring probably to the oflficers, who registered
and marshalled the warriors of the host (comp.
Josh. i. 10). One of these "scribes" may have
been Elo:v, the single judge produced by the tribe,
who is recorded as having held office for ten years
(Judg. xii. 11, 12).
A similar reputation is alluded to in the men
tion of the tribe among those who attended the
inauguration of David's reign at Hebron. The
expressions are again peculiar: "Of Zebulun such
as went forth to war, rangers of battle, with all
tools of war, 50,000 ; who could set the battle in
irray; they were not of double heart" (1 Chr. xii.
83). The same passage, however, shows that
while proficient in the arts of war they did not
neglect those of peace, but that on the wooded
hills and fertile plains of their district they pro
duced bread, meal, figs, grapes, wine, oil, oxen, and
sheep in abundance (ver. 40). The head of the
tribe at this time was Ishmaiah ben-Obadiah (1
Chr. xxvii. 19).
We are nowhere directly told that the people of
Zebulun were carried off to Assyria. Tiglath-
pileser swept away the whole of Naphtali (2 K. xv.
29; Tob. i. 2), and Shalmaneser in the same way
took "Samaria" (xvii. 6); but though the de
portation of Zebulun and Issachar is not in so
many words asserted, there is the statement (xvii.
18) that the whole of the northern tribes were
removed ; and there is also the well-known allusion
of Isaiah to the affliction of Zebulun and Naphtali
(ix. 1), which can hardly point to anything but
fche invasion of Tiglath-pileser. It is satisfactory
to reflect that the very latest mention of the Zebu-
lunites is the account of the visit of a large num
ber of them to Jerusalem to the Passover of Hez
ekiah, when, by the enlightened liberality of the
king, they were enabled to eat the feast, even
though, through long neglect of the provisions
of the Law, they were not cleansed in the manner
prescribed by the ceremonial law. In the visions
of Ezekiel (xlviii. 26-33) and of St. John (Rev.
vii. 8) this tribe finds its due mention. G.
ZEB'ULUNITES, THE (^'ib^nm, i. e.
"the Zebulonite" [patr.]: Za^ovXdiv' Zabulon).
The members of the tribe of Zebulun (Num. xxvi.
27 only). It would be more literally accurate if
spelt Zebulonites. G.
ZECHARI'AH (H^J^DT [Jehovah remem
bers]: Zaxapias- Zacharias). 1. The eleventh
in order of the twelve minor prophets. Of his
personal history we know but little. He is called
in his prophecy the son of Berechiah, and the
grandson of Iddo, whereas in the book of Ezra (v.
1, vi. 14 ) he is said to have been the son of Iddo.
Various attempts have been made to reconcile this
discre|>aiicy. Cyril of Alexandria {Pref. Com
ment, 'id Zech.) supposes that Berechiah was the
father of Zechariah, according to the flesh, and
that Iddo was his instructor, and might be re
garded ns Ilis spiritual father. Jerome too, accord
ing to some MSS., has in Zech. i. 1, " fihum
Barachice, filium Addo," as if he supposed that
Berechiah and Iddo were different names of the
game jierson : and the same mistake occurs in the
LXX. : Thv TOV Bapax'tov, vlhv 'ASSciS. Gesenius
{Lex. a. V. 15) and Rosenmuller {On Zech, i. 1)

a As Hczel<iab CTs. i. 1, Hos. i. 1) and Jehezekiah
^ K. xviii. 1, 9, 10), Coniah (Jer. xxii. 24. xxxvii. 1)

ZECHAKIAH
take "IS i^ *l^c passages in Ezra to mean "grand
son," as in Gen. xxix. 5 Laban is termed "th(
son," i. e. "grandson," of Nahor. Others, again
have suggested that in the text of Ezra no men
tion is made of Berechiah, because he was already
dead, or because Iddo wus the more distinguished
person, and the generally recognized head of the
family. Knobel thinks that the name of Berechiah
has crept into the present text of Zechariah from
Isaiah viii. 2, where mention is made of a Zecha
riah "the son of Jeherechiah,^"" which is virtually
the same name (LXX. Bapaxiov) as Berechiah."
His theory is that chapters ix.-xi. of our present
book of Zechariah are really the work of the older
Zechariah (Is. viii. 2); that a later scribe finding
the two books, one bearing the name of Zechariah
the son of Iddo, and the other that of Zechariah the
son of Berechiah, united them into one, and at the
same time combined the titles of the two, and that
hence arose the confusion which at present exists.
This, however, is hardly a probable hypothesis.
It is surely, more natural to suppose, as the prophet
himself mentions his father's name, whereas the
historical books of Ezra and Nehemiah mention
only Iddo, that Berechiah had died early, and that
there was now no intervening Hnk between the
grandfather and the grandson. The son, in giving
his pedigree, does not omit his father's name: the
historian passes it over, as of one who was but
little known, or already forgotten. This view is
confirmed if we suppose the Iddo here mentioned
to have been the Iddo the priest who, in Neh. xii.
4, is said to have returned from Babylon in com
pany with Zerubbabel and Joshua. He is there
said to have had a son Zechariah (ver. 16), who
was contemporary with Joiakim the son of Joshua;
and this falls in with the hypothesis that, owing
to some unexplained cause — perhaps the death of
hia father — Zechariah became the next repre
sentative of the family after his grandfather Iddo.
Zechariah, according to this view, hke Jeremiah
and Ezeldel before him, was priest as well as
prophet. He seems to have entered upon his office
while yet young ("^P?, Zech. ii. 4; comp. Jer. i.
6), and must have been bom in Babylon, whence
he returned with the first caravan of exiles uuder
Zerubbabel and Joshua.
It was in the eighth month, in the second year
of Darius, that he first publicly discharged hia
office. In this he acted in concert with Haggai)
who must have been considerably his senior, if, as
seems not improbable, Haggai had been carried
into captivity, and hence had himself been one of
those who had seen "the house" of Jehovah "in
her first glory" (Hag. ii. 3). Both prophets had
the same great object before them ; both directed
all their energies to the building of the Second
Temple. Haggai seems to have led the way in thia
work, and then to have left it chiefly in the hands
of his younger contemporary. The foundations of
the new building had already been laid in the time
of Cyrus; but during the reigns of Cambyses and
the pseudo-Sraerdis the work had been broken off
through the jealousies of the Samaritans. When,
however, Darius Hystaspis ascended the throne
(52L), things took a more favorable turn. He
seems to have been a lai^e-hearted and gracious
prince, and to have been well-disposed towards the

and Jeconiah (Jer. xxiv. 1, xxvii. 20), Aziel (1 Chr. x^
20) and Jaaziel (1 Chr. xv. 18).

ZECHARIAH
Jews. Encouraged by the hopes which hia ac-
tession held out, the prophets exerted themselves
to the utmost to secure the completion of the
Temple. It is impossible not to see of how greafc moraent,
under such circumstances, and for the discharge of
the special duty with whioh he was entrusted,
wnuld be the priestly origin of Zechariah.
Too often the prophet had had to stand forth in
direct antagonism to the priest. In an age wheu
fche service of God had stiffened into formalism,
and the priests' lips no longer kept knowledge, the
prophet was the witness for the truth which lay
beneath the outward ceremonial, and without which
the outward ceremonial was worthless. But the
fching to be dreaded now was not superstitious
formalism, but cold neglect. There was nc fear
now lest in a gorgeous temple, amidst the splen
dors of an imposing ritual and the smoke of
gacrifices ever ascending to heaven, the heart and
life of religion should be lost. The fear was all the
other way, lest even the body, the outward form
and service, should be suffered to decay.
The foundations of the Temple had indeed been
aid, but that was all (Ezr. v. 16). Discouraged
by the opposition which they had encountered at
first, the Jewish colony had begun to build, and
were not able to finish; and even when the letter
came from Darius sanctioning the work, and prom
ising his protection, tbey showed no hearty dis
position to engage in ifc. At such a time, no more
fifcting instrument could be found to rouse the
people, whose heart had grown cold, than one who
united to the authority of the prophet the zeal and
fche traditions of a sacerdotal family.
Accordingly, to Zechariah's influence we find
the rebuilding of the Temple in a great me.isure
ascribed. " And the elders of the Jews builded,"
it is said, " and they prospered fchrough the proph
esying of Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the
son of iddo" (lizr. vi. 14). It is remarkable tbat
in this juJtaposition of the two names both are not
styled prophets: not "Haggai and Zechariah the
prophet).," but "Haggai the prophet, and Zecha
riah ihe Mn of Iddo." Is it an improbable con
jecture thnt Zecliariah is designated by his father's
(or grandfather's) name, rather than by his office,
in order to remind us of his priestly character ?
Be this as it raay, we find other indications of the
close union which now subsisted between the priests
and the prophets. Various events connecfced wifch
the taking of Jerusalem and the Captivity in Baby
lon had led to tlie institution of solenm fast-days;
and we find that when a question arose as to the
propriety of observing theae fast-days, now that the
city and fche Temple were rebuilt, the question was
referred to " the priestii which were in the house of
Jehovah, and to the prophets," — a recognition, not
only of the joint authority, but of the harmony
Bubsiating between tbe two bodies, without parallel
iu Jewish history. The manner, too, in which
Joshua the high-priest is spoken of in this proph-

ZECHARIAH

3599

eey shows how lively a sympathy Zechariah fe'
towards him.
Later traditions assume, what is indeed very
probable, that Zechariah took personally an active
part in providing for the liturgical service of the
Temple. He and Haggai are both said to have
composed psalms wi|h this view. According to
the LXX., Pss. cxxxvii., cxlv.-cxlviii. ; according
to the Peshito, Pss. cxxv., cxxvi.; according to
the Vulg., Ps. cxi.; are psalms of Haggai and
Zechariah. ° The triumphant " Hallelujah," with
which many of them open, was supposed to be
characteristic of those psalms which were first
chanted in the Second Temple, and came with an
emphasis of meaning from the lips of those who
had been restored to their native land. The allu
sions, moreover, with which these psalms abound,
as well as their place in the psalter, leave us in no
doubt aa to the time when they were composed,
and lend confirmation to the tradition respecting
their authorship.
If the later Jewish accounts" may be trusted,
Zechariah, as well as Haggai, wa« a member of
the Great Synagogue. The patristic notices of the
prophet are worth nothing. According to these,
he exercised his prophetic office in Chaldsea, and
wrought many miracles there; returned to Jeru
salem at an advanced age, where he discharged the
duties of the priesthood, and where he died and
was buried by the side of Haggai."
The genuine writings of Zechariah help us but
little in our estimation of his character. Some
faint traces, however, we may observe in them of
his education in Babylon. Less free and inde
pendent than he would have been, had his feet trod
froQi childhood the soil, —
" Where each old poetic mountain
Inspiration breathed around,"
he leans avowedly on the authority of the older
prophets, and copies their expressions. Jeremiah
especially seems to have been his favorite; and
hence the Jewish saying, that " the spirit of Jere
miah dwelt in Zechariah." But in what may be
called the peculiarities ot his prophecy, he ap
proaches more nearly to Ezekiel and Daniel. Like
them he delights in visions; like them he use.«
symbols and allegories, rather than the bold figures
and metaphors which lend so much force and
beauty to the writings of the earlier prophets;
like them he beholds angels ministering before
Jehovah, and fulfilling his behests on the earth.
He is the only one of the prophets who speaks of
Satan. That some of these peculiarities are owing
to his Chaldsean education can hardly be doubted.
It is at least remarkable that both Ezekiel and
Daniel, who must have been influenced by the
same associations, should in some of the.se respects
so closely resemble Zechariah, widely as they differ
from him in others.
Even in the /wm of the visions a careful crit
icism might perhaps discover some traces of the

a Hence Pseud-Epiphanius, speaking of Haggai, says
icai auTo? li^oAAev €«et Trpiros aAAijA-ouia (in allusion
to the Hallelujah with which some of thfj^e Psalms
begin) Sib Ae'yojaei/" a\Xr}\oma 6 eariv vpvo^ 'Ayyai'ou
t<u Za;^api'ov.
b Tr. MegilH, foi. 17, 2. 18,1; Rashi ad Baba
Bathra, foL 15. 1.
t? Paeud-Epiph, rfe Proph. cap. 21, oCto? ^\6ev anh
f^K XoAcaiui' 1)6]? irpop^prjKm Ka.\ Uel S}v jroAAa T#

Xa<5 7rpoe0^Tev<rev, ktA. Dorofcheufl, p. 144 : " Hie Zach.
arias e Chaldsea venit cum aetate jam esset provecta
atque ibi populo multa vaticioatus est prodigiaque
probandi gratia edidit, et sacerdotio Hierosolymis func
tus est " etc. Isidorus, cap. 51. '" Zacharias de regione
Chaldiorum valde senex in terram suam reversus estj
in qua et morfcuus est ac sepultus juxta Aggtbom qui*
escit in pact

3600

ZECHARIAH

prophet's early training. Possibly the " valley of
myrtles" in the first vision may have been sug
gested by Chaldsea rather than by Palestine. At
any rate it is a curious fact that myrtles are never
mentioned in the history of the Jews before the
exile. They are found, besides this passage of
Zechariah, in the Deutero-Isaiah xii. 19, lv. 13,
and in Neh. viii. 15.« The forms of trial in the
third vision, where Joshua the high-priest is ar
raigned, seem borrowed from the practice of Per
sian rather than Jewish courts of law. The filthy
garments in which Joshua appears are those which
the accused must assume when brought to trial;
the white robe put upon him is the caftan or robe
of honor which to this day in the East is put upon
the minister of state who has been acquitted of the
charges laid against him.
The vision of the woman in the Ephah is also
oriental in its character, Ewald refers to a very
similar vision in Tod's Rnjasthan, t. ii. p. 688.
Finally, the chariots issuing from between two
mountains of brass nmst have been suggested, there
can scarcely be any doubt, by some Persian sym-
bolisnl. Other peculiarities of style must be noticed,
when we come to discuss the question of the In
tegrity of the Book. Generally speaking, Zecha
riah's style is pure, and remarkably free from
Chaldaisms. As is common with writers in the
decline of a language, he seems to have striven lo
imitate the purity of the earlier models; but in
orthography, and in the use of some words and
phrases, he betrays the influence of a later age.
He writes HS, and T'^1'^, and employs riHW
(v. 7j in its later use as the indefinite article, and
miijl!?? with the fem. termination (iv. 12). A
full collection of these peculiarities will be found in
Koster, Meletemata in Zech., etc.
Contents ofthe Prophecy. — The book of Zech
ariah, in its existing form, consists of three prin
cipal parts, chaps, i.-viii., chaps, ix.-xi., chaps.
xii.-xiv. I. The first of these divisions is allowed by all
critics to be the genuine work of Zechariah the son
of Iddo. It consists, first, of a short introduction
or preface, in which the prophet announces his
commission ; then of a series of visions, descriptive
of all those hopes and anticipations of which the
building of the Temple was the pledge and sure
foundation ; and finally of a discourse, delivered two
years later, in reply to questions respecting the ob-
Ber\-ance of certain established fasts.'
1. The short introductory oracle (chap. i. 1-6)
is a warning voice from the past. The prophet
solemnly reminds the people, by an appeal to the
experience of their fathers, that no word of God
had ever fallen to the ground, and that therefore,
if with sluggish indifference they refused to co-
a In the last passage the people are told to " fetch
olive-branches and cypress-branches, and myrtle-
branches and palm-branches .... to make booths "
for the celebration of the Fiast of Tabernacles. It is
Interesting to compare this with the original direction,
as given in the wilderness, when the only trees men
tioned are '" palms and willows of the brook." Pales
tine was rich in the olive and cypress. Is it very im
probable that the myrtle may have been an importa
tion from Babylon ? Esther was also called HacUissah
(the myrtle), perhaps her Persian designation (Esth. ii.
7) ; and the myrtle is said to be a native of Persia.

ZECHARIAH
operate in the building of the Temple, they mual
expect the judgments of God. This warning
manifestly rests upon the former warnings of Hag.
gai. ^
2. In a dream of the night there passed before
the eyes of the prophet a series of visions (chap.
i. 7-vi. 15) descriptive in their diflTerent aspects of
events, some of them shortly to come to pass and
others losing themselves in the mist of the future.
These visions are obscure, and accordingly the
prophet asks theh- meaning. The interpretation is
given, not as to Amos by Jehovah Himself, but by
an angel who knows the mind and will of Jehovah.
who intercedes with Him for others, and by whoni
Jehovah speaks and issues his commands: atone
time he is called " the angel who spake with me'*
[or "by me "] (i. 9); at another, "the angel of
Jehovah " (i. 11, 12, iii. 1-6).
(1.) In the first vision (chap. i. 7-15) the prophet
sees, in a valley of myrtles,'' a rider upon a roan
horse, accompanied by others who, having been sent
forth to the four quartera of the earth, had returned
with the tidings that the whole earth was at rest
(with reference to Hag. ii. 20). Hereupon the
angel asks how long this state of things shall last,
and is assured that the indifference of the heathen
shall cease, and that the Temple shall be built m
Jerusalem. This vision seems to have been partly
borrowed from Job i. 7, etc.
(2.) The second vision (chap. ii. 1-17, A. V. i.
18-ii. 13) explains how the promise of the firet is
to be fulfilled. The four horns are the symbols of
the different heathen kingdoms in the four quarters
of the world, which have hitherto combined against
.lerusalem; The four carpenters or smiths sym
bolize their destruction. What follows, ii. 5-9
(A. V. ii. 1-5), betokens the vastly extended area
of Jerusalem, owing to the rapid increase of the
new population. The old prophets, in foreteDing
the happiness and glory of the times which should
succeed the Captivity in Babylon, had made a great
part of that happiness and glory to consist m the
gathering together again of the whole dispersed
nation in the land given to their fathers. This
vision was designed to teach that the expectation
thus raised — the return of the dispersed of Israel
— should be fulfilled; that Jerusalera should be too
large to be compassed about by a wall, but that
Jehovah Himself would be to her a wall of fire —
a Ught and defense to the holy city, and destruc
tion to her adversaries. A song of joy, in prospect
of so bright a future, closes the scene.
(3.) The next two visions"(iii. iv.) are occupied
with the Temple, and with the two principal per
sons on whom the hopes of the retmned exiles
rested. The permission granted for the rebuilding
of the Temple had no doubt stirred afresh the
malice and the animosity of the enemies of the
Jews. Joshua the high-priest had been singled
out, it would seem, as the especial object of attack,

6 Ewald understands by HvSD nofc "a valley"
T \ :
or f' bottom," as the A. V. renders, but the heavenly
teut or tabernacle (the expression being chosen with
reference to the Mosaic tabernacle), which is the
dwelling-place of Jehovah. Instead of " myrtles " he
understands by D^'S^n (with the LXX. ova /lec*''
Twv opebif Twi' Ka.ra.vKCav) "mountains," and supposei
these to be the '¦ two mountains " mentioned vi. li
and which are there called " mountaioa o brass."

ZECHARIAH
ud perhaps formal accusations had already been.
laid against hira before the Peraian court.« The
prophet, in vision, sees him summoned before a
higher tribunal, and solemnly acquitted, despite the
chaises of tbe Satan or Adversary. This is done
with the forms still usual in an eastern, court.
The filthy garments in which the accused ts expected
to stand are talcen away, and the caftan or robe of
honor is put upon him iu token that his innocence
has been established. Acquitted at that bar, he
need not fear, it is implied, any earthly accuser.
He shall be protected, he shall carry on the build
ing of the Temple, he shall so prepare the way for
the coming of the Messiah, and upon the foun
dation-stone laid before him shall the seven eyes
of God, the token of his ever-watchful Providence,
rest. (4.) The last vision (iv.) supposes that all oppo
sition to the building of the Temple shall be re
moved. This sees the completion of the work. It
has evidently a peculiarly impressive character; for
the prophet, though his dream still continues,
seems to himself to be awakened out of it by the
angel who speaks to him. The candlestick (or
more properly chandelier) with seven lights (bor
rowed from the candlestick of the Mosaic Taber
nacle, Ex. xxv. 31 ff.) supposes that the Temple is
already finished. The seven pipes which supply
each lamp answer to the seven eyes of Jehovah iu
the preceduig vision (iii. 9), and this sevenfold
supply of oil denotes the presence and operation of
the Divine Spirit, through whose aid Zerubbabel
will overcome all obstacles, so that, as his hands
had laid the foundation of the house, his hands
should also finish it (iv. 9). The two olive-branches
of the vision, belonging to the olive-tree standing
by the candlestick, are Zerubbabel himself and
Joshua. The two next visions (v. 1-11) signify that the
land, in which the sanctuary has just been erected,
shall be purged of all its pollutions.
(5.) Eirst, the curse is recorded against wicked
ness in the lohole land (not in the whole earth, as
A. v.), V. 3; that due solemnity raay be given to
it, it is inscribed upon a roll, and the roll is repre-
eeiited as flying, in order to denote the speed with
which the curse will execute itself.
(6.) Next, the unclean thing, whether in the
form of idolatry or any other abomination, shall be
utterly removed. Caught and shut up as it were
in a cage, like some savage beast, and pressed down
with a weight as of lead upon it so that it cannot
escape, it shall be carried into that land where all
eril things have long made their dwelling (Is. xxxiv.
13), the land of Babylon (Shinar, v. 11), from
which Israel had been redeemed.
(7.) And now the night is waning fast, and the
morning is about to dawn. Chariots and horses
appear, issuing from between two brazen moun
tains, the horses like those in the first vision; and
these receive tbeir several commands and are sent
forth to execute the will of Jehovali in the four
quarters of the earth. The four chariots are images
of the four winds, which, according to Ps. civ. 3,
as servants of God, fulfill his behests; and of the
one that goes to the north it is particularly said
that it shall let the Spirit of Jehovah rest there —
ifl it a spirit of anger against the nations, Assyria,
Babylon, Persia, or is it a spirit of hope and desire
»f return m the heirts of those of the exiles who

ZECHARIAH

3601

0 So EwaUl. Uie Propheten, ii. 528.

still lingered in the land of their captivity ? Stahe-
lin, Maurer, and others adopt. the former view,
which seems to be in accordance wifch the preceding
vision : Ewald gives the lafcfcer infcerpretation, and
thinks ifc is supported by what follows.
Thus, then, tbe cycle of visions is completed.
Scene after scene is unrolled till the whole glowing
picture is presented to the eye. All enemies
crushed ; the land repeopled and Jerusalem girt ae
with a wall of fire; the Temple rebuilt, more truly
splendid than of old, because nioi-e abundantly filled
with a Divine Presence ; the leaders of the people
assured in the most signal manner of tbe Divine
protection ; all wickedness solemnly sentenced, and
the land forever purged of it: such is the mag
nificent panorama of hope which the prophet dis
plays to his countrymen. ^
And very consolatory must such a prospect have
seeraed to the weak and disheartened colony in Je
rusalem. For the times were dark and troublous.
According to recent interpretations of newly-di»-
covered inscriptions, it would appear thafc Darius I.
found it no easy task to bold his vast, dominions.
Province after province had revolted both in the
east and in the north, whither, according to the
prophet (vi. 8), the winds had carried the wrath
of God; and if the reading Mudraja, i. e. Egypt, is
correct (Lassen gives Kurdistan), Egypt must have
revolted before the outbreak mentioned in Herod.
vii. 1, and have again been reduced fco subjection.
To such revolt there may possibly be an aUusion
in the reference to "the land of the south" (vi.
6). It would seem that Zechariah anticipated, as a
consequence of these perpetual insurrections, the
weakening and overthrow of the Persian mon
archy and the setting up of the kingdom of God,
for which Judah in faith and obedience was to
wait.'' Immediately on these visions there follows a
symbolical aet. Three Israelites had just. returned
Irom Babylon, bringing with them rich gifts to
Jerusalem, apparently as contributions to the Tem
ple, and had ijeen received in tbe house of Josiah
the son of Zephaniah. Thither the prophet ia
commanded to go, — whether still in a dream or
not, is not very clear, — and to employ the silver
and the gold of their offerings for the service of
Jehovah. He is to make of them two crowns, and
to place fchese on the head of Joshua the high-
priest, — a sign that in tbe Messiah who should
build the Temple, the kingly and priestly offices
should be united. This, however, is expressed
somewhat enigmatically, as if king and priest
should be perfectly at one, rather than that tha
same person should be both king and priesfc. Thesa
crowns moreover, were to be a memorial in honor
of those by whose liberality they had been made,
and should serve at the same time to excite othet
rich Jews still living in Babylon to the like lib
erality. Hence their symbolical purpose having
been accomplished, they were to be laid up in tha
Temple. ¦3. From this time, for a space of nearly two
years, the prophet's voice was silent, or his wordi
have not been recorded. But in the fourth year
of King Darius, in the fourth day of the ninth
month,°fchere came a deputation of Jews to the
Temple, anxious to know whefcher the fast-days
whioh had been instituted during the seventy

i Stahelin, Einleit. in die Kan. Biich. p. 318.

3602

ZECHARIAH

years' captivity were still to be observed. On the
one hand, now that the Captivity was at an end,
and Jerusalem was rising from her ashes, such set
times of mourning seemed quite out of place. On
the other hand, there was still much ground for
serious uneasiness; for some time after their return
they had suffered severely from drought and famine
(llag. i. 6-11), and who could tell that they would
not so suffer again ? the hostility of their neigh
bors had not ceased; they were still regarded with
no common jealousy ; and large nurabtTs of their
brethren had not yet returned frora Babylon. It
was a question therefore, that seemed to admit of
much debate.
It is remarkable, as has been already noticed,
(hat this question should have been addressed to
priests and prophets conjointly in the Temple.
This close alliance between two classes hitherto so
separate, and often so antagonistic, was one of the
raost hopeful circumstances of the times. Still
Zechariah, as chief of the prophets, has the decision
of this question. Some of the priests, it is evident
(vii. 7), were inclined to the more gloomy view;
but not so the prophet. In language worthy of
his position and his office, language which reminds
us of one of the most striking passages of his great
predecessor (Is. Iviii. 5-7), he lays down the same
principle that God loves mercy rather than fasting,
and truth and righteousness rather than sackcloth
and a sad countenance. If they had perished, he
reminds them it was because their hearts were
hard while they fasted; if they would dwell safely,
they must abstain from fraud and violence and not
from food (vii. 4^14).
Again he foretells, but now in vision, the glori
ous times that are near at hand when Jehovah
shall dwell in the midst of them, and Jerusalem be
called a city of truth. He sees her streets thronged
by old and young, her exiles returning, her Temple
standing in all its beauty, her land rich in fruitful
ness, her people a praise and a blessing in the earth
(viii. 1-15). Again, he declares that " truth and
peace" (vv. 16, 19) are the bulwarks of national
prosperity. And once raore reverting to the ques
tion which had been raised concerning the observ
ance of the fasts, he announces, in obedience to the
command of Jehovah, not only that the fasts are
abolished, but that the days of mourning shall
henceforth be daya of joy, the fasts lie counted for
festivals. His prophecy concludes wiih a prediction
that Jerusalem shall be the centre oi religious wor
ship to all nations of the earth (viii. 16-23).
II. The remainder of the book consists of two
sections of about equal length, ix.-xi. and xii.-xiv.,
each of which has an inscription. They have the
general prophetic tone and character, and in subject
they so fer harmonize wjth i.-viii., that the prophet
seeks to comfort Judah in a season of depression
with the hope of a brighter future.
1. In the first section he threatens Damascus
and the sea-coast of Palestine with misfortune; but
declares that Jerusalem shall be protected, for Je
hovah himself shall encamp about her (where ix. 8
reminds us of ii. 5); her king shall come to her,
he shall speak peace to the heathen, so that all
weapons of war shall perish, and his dominion shall
be to the ends of the earth. The Jews who are
still in captivity shall return to their land ; they
ahall be mightier than Javan (or Greece); and
Ephraim and Judah once more united shall vau-
luish all enemies. The land too shall be fruitful
aa of old (ccmp. viii. 12). The Teraphim and the

ZECHARIAH
false prophets may indeed have spoken lies hut
upon these will the Lord execute judgment and
then He will look with favor upon his people and
bring back both Judah and Ephraim from then
captivity. The possession of Gilead and I^banon
is again promised, as the special portion of Ephraim •
and both Egypt and Assyria shall be broken and
humbled. The prophecy now takes a sudden turn. An
enemy is seen approaching from the north, who
having forced the narrow passes of Lebanon, the
great bulwark of the northern frontier, carries des
olation into the country beyond. Hereupon the
prophet receives a commission from God to feed his
flock, which God himself will no more feed because
of their divisions. The prophet undertakes the
office, and makes to himself two staves (naming tho
one Beauty, and the other Union), in order to tend
the flock, and cuts off several evil shepherds whom
his soul abhors; but observes at the same time tbat
the flock will not be obedient. Hence he throws
up .his office; he breaks asunder the one crook ui
token that the covenant of God with Israel was dis
solved. A few, the poor of the flock,, acknowledge
God's hand herein ; and the prophet denianduig
the wages of his service, receives thirty pieces of
silver, and casts it into the house of Jehovah. At
the same time he sees that there is no hope of union
between Judah and Israel whom he had trusted to
feed as one flock, and therefore cuts in pieces the
other crook, in token that the brotherhood between
them is dissolved.
2. The second section, xii.-xiv., is entitled,
" The burden of the word of Jehovah for Israel."
But Israel is here used of the nation at large, not
of Israel as distinct frora Judah. Indeed, the
prophecy which foUows, concerns Judah and Jeru
salem. In this the prophet beholds the near ap
proach of troublous times, when Jerusalem should
be hard pressed by enemies. But in that day Je
hovah shall come to save them: ^' the house of
David be as God, as the angel of Jehovah " (xii. 8),
and all the nations which gather themselves against
Jerusalera shall be destroyed. At the same time
the deliverance shall not be from outward enemies
alone. God will pour out upon them a spirit of
grace and supplications, so that they shall bewail
their sinfulness with a mourning greater than that
with which they bewailed the beloved Josiah hi tbe
valley of Megiddon. So deep and so true shall be
this repentance, so lively the aversion to all evil,
that neither idol nor false prophet shall again be
seen in the land. If a man shall pretend to proph
esy, "his father and his mother that begat him
shall thrust him through when he prophesieth,"
fired bythe same righteous indignation as Phinehas
was when he slew those who wrought folly iu Israel
(xii. 1-xiii. 6).
Then follows a short apostrophe to the sword of
the enemy to turn against the shepherds of the
people; and a, further announcement of searchmg
and purifying judgments; which, however, it must
be acknowledged, is somewhat abrupt. Ewald's
suggestion that the passage xiii. 7-9, is here out ol
place, and should be transposed to the end of chap.
xi. is certainly ingenious, and does not seem hn-
probable. The prophecy closes with a grand and stirring
picture. All nations are gathered together agamst
Jerusidem; and seem already sure of their prey.
Half of their cruel work has been accompUshed,
I when Jehovah hiraself appears on behalf of hii

zi!:OHARIAn
oeople. At his coming all nature is moved: the
^ount of Olives on which his feet rest cleaves
launder; a mighty earthquake heaves the ground,
and even the natural succession of day and night is
broken. He goes forth to war against the adver
saries of his people. He establishes his kingdom
over all the earth. Jerusalem is safely inhabited,
and rich with the spoils uf the nations. All nations
that are still left shall come up to .Terusalem, as
the great centre of religious worship, theiv ^j wor
ship "'the King, Jehovah of hosts," and the city
from that day forward shall be a holy city.
Such is, briefly, an outline of the second portion
of that book which is commonly known as the
Prophecy of Zechax-iah. It is impossible, even on
a cureory view of the two portions of the prophecy,
not to feel how different the section xi.-xiv. is from
the section i.-viii. The next point, then, for our
consideration is this, — Is the book in its present
form the work of one and the same prophet, Zecha
riah the son of Iddo, who Uved after the Babylonish
exile? IniegHiy. — Mede was the first to caU this in
question. The probabiUty that the later chapters
!rom the ixth to the xivth were by some other
t,rophet, seems first to have beeu suggested to him
by the citation in St. Matthew, He says (Epist.
xxxi.), " It may seem the Evangelist woiild inform
us that those latter chapters ascribed to Zachary
(namely, ixth, xth, xith, etc.), are indeed the proph
ecies of Jeremy ; and that the Jews had not rightly
attributed them." Starting from this point, he
goes on to give reasons for supposing a different
author. " Certainly, if a man weighs the contents
of some of them, they should in likelihood be of an
elder date than the time of Zachary; namely, before
the Captivity : for the subjects of some of them
were scarce in being after that time. And the
chapter out of which St. Matthew quotes may seem
to have somewhat much unsuitable with Zachary's
time; as, a prophecy of the destruction of the
Temple, then when he was to encourage them to
build it. And how doth the sixth verse of that
chapter suit with his time? There is no scripture
saith they are Zachary's; but there is scripture
saith they are Jeremy's, as this of the Evangelist."
He then observes that the mere fact of tbese being
found in the same book as the prophecies of Zecha
riah does not prove that ^they were his ; difference
bf authorship being allowable in the sarae way as
in the coUection of Agur's Proverbs under one title
\rith those of Solomon, and of Psalms by other
authors with those of David. Even the absence of
a iresh title is, he argues, no evidence against a
change of author. " The Jews wrote in rolls or
volumes, and the title w^ but once. If aught
were added to the roll, ob similitudinem argumenii,
or for some other reason, it had a new title, as that
of Agur; or perhaps none, but was avcttvup.ov.^''
Tile utter disregard of anything like chronological
order in the prophecies of Jeremiah, where " some
times aU is ended with Zedekiah; then we are
brought back to Jehoiakim, then to Zedekiah
again " — makes it probable, he thinks, that they
were only hastily and loosely put together in those
distracted times. Consequently some of them
Jiight not have been discovered till after the return
from the Captivity, when they were approved by
Zechariah, and so came to be incorporated- with his
prophecies. Mede evidently rests his opinion, partly
in the autliority of St. Matthew, and partly on the
Wntents of the later chapters, which "^e considei-s

ZECHARIAH

3603

require a date earlier than the exile He saj'
again (Epist. Ixi.): " That which moveth me more
than the rest is in chap, xii., which confcains a
prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, and a de
scription of the wickedness of the inliabitants, for
which God would give tliem fc.o the sword, and have
no more pity on them. It is expounded of the de
struction by Titus; but methinks such a prophec}
was nothing seasonable for Zachary's time (when
the city yet, for a great part, lay in her ruins, and
the Temple had not yet recovered hers), nor agree
able to the scope of Zachary's commission, who,
together with his colleague Haggai, was sent to en
courage the people lately returned from captivity to
build their temple, and to instaurate their common
wealth. Was this a fib time to foretell the destruc
tion of both, while they were but yet a building?
and by Zachary, too, who was to encourage tbem ?
would not this better befit the desolation by Neb
uchadnezzar? "
Archbishop Newcome went further. He insisted
on the great dissimilarity of style as well as subject
between the earlier and later chapters. And he waa
the first who advocated the theory which Bunsen
calls one of the triumphs of modern criticism, that
the lasfc six chapfcers of Zechariah are the work of
two distinct prophets. His words are; "The eight
first chapters appear by the introductory parts to
be the prophecies of Zechariah, stand in connection
with each other, are pertinent to the time when
they were delivered, are uniform in style and man
ner, and constitute a regular whole. But fche six
last chapters are not expressly assigned to Zecha
riah; are unconnected with those wbich precede:
tlie three first of them are unsuitable in many parfca
to the fcime whem Zechariah Uved; all of them
have a more adorned and poetical turn of composi
tion than the eight first chapters ; and they mani
festly break the unity of the prophetical book."
'• I conclude," he continues, " from interna]
marks in chaps, ix., x., xi., that these three chapfcers
were wi'itten much earlier than tbe fcime of Jere
miah and before the captivity of tbe tribes. Israel
is mentioned chaps, ix. 1, xi. 14. (But that tbis
argument is inconclusive, see Mai. ii. 11.) Ephraim,
chaps, ix. 10, 13, a. 7; and Assyria, chap. x. 10,
11  They seem to suit Hosea's age and
manner  The xiith, xiiith, and xivth chap
ters form a distinct prophecy, and were written
affcer the death of Josiah ; but whetiier before or
after tbe Captivity, and by wbat prophets, is uncer.
tain. Though I incline to think tbat the author
lived before the destruction of Jerusalem by the
Babylonians." In proof of tbis he refers to xiii. 2,
on which he observes that the "prediction that
idols and false prophets should cease at the final
restoration of tbe Jews seems to have been uttered
when idolatry and groundless pretensions to the
spirit of prophecy were common among the Jews,
and therefore before the Babylonish Captivity."
A large number of critics have followed Mede
and Archbishop Newcome in denying the later date
of the last six chapters of the book. In England,
Bishop Kidder, Whiston, Hammond, and more
recently Pye Smith, and Davidson; in Germany,
Fliigge, Eichhorn, Bauer, Bertholdt, Augusti,
Forberg, Eosenmiiller, Gramberg, Credner, Ewald,
Maurer, Knobel, Hitzig, and Bleek, are agreed in
maintaining that these later chapters are not the
work of Zechariah the son of Iddo.
On the other hand, the later date of these chap
ters has been maintained among ourselves by Blay

3604

ZECHARIAH

ney and Henderson, and on the continent by
Carpzov, Beckhaus, Jahn, Koster, Hengstenberg,
Havernick, Keil, De \yette (in later editions of his
Einleitung ; in the first three he adopted a differ
ent view), and Stahelin.
Those who impugn the later date of these chap
ters of Zechariah rest their arguments on the
change in style and subject after the viiith chapter,
but differ much in the application of their criticism.
RosenmiiUer, for instance {Schol. in Proph. Min.
vol. iv. p. 257), argues that chaps, ix.-xiv. are so
alike in style, that they raust have been written by
one author. He alleges in proof his fondness for
images taken from pastoral life (ix. 16, x. 2, 3, si.
3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, 17, xiii. 7, 8). From the
allusion to the earthquake (xiv. 5, comp. Am. i. 1)
he thinks the author must have lived in the reign
of Uzziah.
Davidson (in Home's Introd. ii. 982) in like
manner declares for one author, but supposes hira
to have been the Zechariah mentioned Is. viii. 2,
who Uved in the reign of Ahaz.
Eichhorn, on the other hand, whilst also assign
ing (in his Einleiiung, iv. 444) the whole of chaps.
ix.-xiv. to one writer, is of opinion that they are
the work of a later prophet who flourished in the
time of Alexander.
Others again, as Bertholdt, Gesenius, Knobel,
Maurer, Bunsen, and Ewald, think that chaps.
ix.-xi. (to which Ewald adds xiii. 7-9) are a dis
tinct prophecy from chaps, xii.-xiv., and separated
from them by a considerable interval of time. These
critics conclude from internal evidence, that the
former portion was written by a prophet who lived
in the reign of Ahaz (Knobel gives ix., i. to the
Feign of Jotham, and xi. to that of Ahaz), and
most of them conjecture that he was the Zechariah
the son of Jeberechiah (or Berechiah), mentioned
fa. viii. 2.
Ewald, without attempting to identify the prophet
with any particular person, contents himself with
remarking that he was a. subject of the Southern
kingdom (as may be inferred from expressions such
as that in ix. 7, and frora the Messianic hopes
which he utters, and in which be resembles his
countryman and contemporary Isaiah); and that
Uke Araos and Hosea before him, though a na
fcive of Judah, he directs his prophecies against
Ephraim. There is the same general agreement among the
last-named critics as to the date of the section
xii.-xiv. They all assign it to a period immediately pre-
rious to the Babylonish Captivity, and hence the
author must have been contemporary with the
prophet Jeremiah. Bunsen identifies him with
Urijah the son of Shemaiah of Kiijath-jearim (Jer.
xxvi. 20-23), who prophesied " in the name of Je
bovah " against Judah and Jerusalem.
According to this hypothesis we have the works
of three different prophets collected into one book,
and passing under one name : —
1. Chapters ix.-xi., the book of Zechariah I.,
a contemporary of Isaiah, under Ahaz, about 736.
2. Chapters xii.-xiv., author unknown (or per
haps Urijah, a contemporary of Jeremiah), aboufc
607 or 606.
3. Chapters i.-viii. the work of the son (or
grandscj) of Iddo, Haggai's contemporary, about
620-518. We have then fcwo distinct theories before us.
Fhe one merely affirms thafc the six lasfc chapters

ZECHARIAH
of our present book are not from the same author
as the firsfc eight. The other carries the dismem*
berrioent of the book still further, and maintains
that the six last chapters are the work of two dis
tinct authors who lived at two distinct periods of
Jewish history. The arguments advanced by the
supporters of each theory rest on the same grounds.
They are drawn partlj^ from the difference in style
and partly from the difference in the nature of the
contents, the historical references, etc., in the dif
ferent sections of the book; but the one sees this
difference only in ix.-xiv., as compared with
i.-viii. ; the other sees it also in xii.-xiv., as com
pared with ix.-xi. "We must accordiugly con
sider, —
1. The difference generally in the style and con
tents of chapters ix.-xiv., as compared with chap
ters i.-viii.
2. The differences between xii.-xiv., as compared
with ix.-xi.
1. The difference in point of style between the
latter and former portions of the prophecy is ad
mitted by aU critics. Rosenmiiller characterizes
that of the first eight chapters as " prosaic, feeble,
poor," and that of the remaining six as "poetic,
weighty, concise, glowing." But without admitting
so sweeping a criticism, and one which the verdict
of abler critics on fche former portion has contra
dicted, fchere can be no doubt that the general tone
and character of the one section is in decided con
fcrast with that of the other. " As he passes from
the first half of the prophet to the second," sayi
Eichhom, " no reader can fail to perceive how
strikingly differenfc are the impressions which are
made upon him by the two. The manner of writ
ing in the second portion is far loftier and more
mysterious; the images employed grander and
more magnificent; the point of view and the hori
zon are changed. Once the Temple and the ordi
nances of religion formed the central point from
which the prophet's words radiated, and to which
they ever returned; now these have vanished. The
favorite modes of expression, hitherto so often re
peated, are now as it were forgotten. The chrono
logical notices which before marked the day on
which each several prophecy was uttered, now ful
us altogefcher. Could a writer all at once have
forgotten so entirely his habits of thoughfc ? Conld
he so completely disguise his innermost feelings?
Could the world about him, the mode of expression,
the images employed, be so totaUy diflferent in the
case of one and the same writer ? ' ' {EiiiL iv. 443,
605). I. Chapters i.-viii. are marked by certain pecul
iarities of idiom and phraseology which do not
occur afterwards. Favorite expressions are — " The
word of Jehovah came unto," etc. (i. 7, iv. 8, vL
9, vii. 1, 4, 8, viii. 1, 18); "Thus saith Jehovah
(God) of hosts " (i. 4, 16, 17, u. 13, viii. 2, 4, 6,
7, 9, 14, 18, 20, 23); " And I Ufted up mine eyes
and saw " (i. 18, ii. 1, v. 1, vi. 1): none of these
modes of expression are to be met with in chapters
ix.-xiv. On the other hand, the phrase " In that
day " is entirely confined to the later chapters, m
which it occurs frequently. The form of the ui
scriptions is different. Introductions to the sep
arate oracles, such as those in ix. 1, xii. 1, do not
present fchemselves in the earUer portion. Zecha
riah, in several instances, states the time at which
a particular prophecy was uttered by him (i. 1» 7
vii. 1). He mentions his own name in these pas
sages, and als^ in vii. 8, and the names of contem

ZECHARIAH
poraries in iii. 1, iv. 6, vi. 10, vii. 2: the writer
(or writers) of the second portion of the book never
does this. Ifc has also been observed that after the
first eight chapters we hear nothing of "Satan,"
or of " the seven eyes of Jehovah; " that there are
no more visions; that chap. xi. contains an alle
gory, not a symboUc action; that here are no rid
dles which need to be solved, no angelus interpres
to solve them.
[I. Chapters ix.-xi. These chapters, it is al
leged, have also fcheir characteristic peculiari
ties:— (1.) In point of style, the author resembles
Hosea more than any other prophet: such is the
verdict both of Knobel aud Ewald. He delights
fco picture Jehovah as the Great Captain of his
people. Jehovah comes to Zion, and pitches his
camp there to protect her (ix. 8, 9). He blows the
trumpet, marches against his enemies, makes his
people his bow, and shoots his arrows (ix. 13, 14);
or He rides on Judah as his war-horse, and goes
forth thereon to victory (x. 3, 5). Again, he speaks
of the people as a flock, and the leaders of the peo
ple as their shepherds (ix. 16, x. 2, 3, xi. 4 ff.).
He describes himself also, in his character of
prophet, as a shepherd in the last passages, and
assumes to himself, in a symboUc action, which
however may have been one only of the imagina
tion, aU the guise and the gear of a shepherd. In
general he delights in images (ix. 3, 4, 13-17, x. 3,
5, 7, &c.), some of which are striking and forcible.
(2.) The notes of time are also pecuUar: —
1. It was a time when the pride of Assyria was
yet at its height (x., xi.), and when the Jews had
already suffered from it. This first took place in
the time of Menahem (b. c. 772-761).
2. The Trans-jordanic territory had already been
swept by the armies of the invader (x. 10), but a
stiU further desolation threatened it (xi. 1-3).
The firet may have been the invasion of Pul (1
Chr. V. 26), the second that of Tiglath-Pileser. «
3. The kingdoms of Judah and Ephraim are
both standing (ix. 10, 13, x. 6), but many Israel
ites are nevertheless exiles in Egypt and Assyria
- (k. 11, X. 6, 8, 10, &c.).
4. The struggle between Judah and Israel is
supposed to be already begun (xi. 14). At the
same time Damascus is threatened (ix. 1). If so,
the reference must be to the aUiance formed be
tween Pekah king of Israel and Rezin of Damas
cus, the consequence of which was the loss of Elath
(739). 5. E^ypt and Assyria are both formidable powers
(x. 9, 10, 11). The only other prophets to whom
these two nations appear as formidable, at ihe same
time, are Hosea (vu. 11, xn. 1, xiv. 3) and his con
temporary Isaiah (vii. 17, &c.); and that in proph
ecies which must have been uttered between 743
and 740. The expectation seems to have been that
the Assyrians, in order to attack Egypt, would
march by way of Syria, Phoenicia, and PhiUstia,
along the coast (Zech. ix. 1-9), as they did after-

ZECHARIAH

3G0i

wards (Is. xx. 1), and that the kingdom of Israel
would suffer chiefly in consequence (Zech. ix. 9-
12), and Judah in a smaller degree (ix. 8, 9).
6. The kingdom of Israel is described as " a
flock for the slaughter" in chap, xi., over which
three shepherds have been set in one month. This
correspouds with the season of anarchy and confu
sion which followed immediately on the murder of
Zechariah the son of Jeroboara II. (760). This son
reigned only six months, his'murderer ShaUumbut
one (2 K. xv. 8-15), being put to death in his
turn by Menahem. Meanwhile another rival king
may have arisen, Bunsen thinks, in some other part
of the country, who may have fallen as the nmr-
derer did, before Menahem.
The symbohcal action of the breaking of the two
shepherds' staves — ¦ Favor and Union — points the
same way. The breaking of the first sliowed that
God's favor had departed from Israel, that of the
second that aU hope of union between Judah and
Ephraim was at an end.
All these notes of time point in the same direc
tion, and make it probable that the author of chaps.
ix.-xi. was a contemporary of Isaiah, and prophe
sied during the reign of Ahaz.''
2. Chaps, xii.-xiv. — By the majority of those
critics who assign tbese chapters to a third author,
that author is supposed to have Uved shortly before
the Babylonish Captivity. The grounds for sepa
rating these three chapters frora chapters Ix.-xi.
are as foUows: — -
1. This section opens with its own introductory
formula, as the preceding one (ix. 1) does. This,
however, only shows that the sections are distinct,
not that they were written at different times.
2. The object of the two sections is altogether
different. The author of the former (ix.-xi.) has
bofch Israel and Judah before him; he often speaks
of thera together (ix. 13, x. 6, xi. 14, comp. x. 7);
he directs his prophecy to the Trans-jordanic terri
tory, and announces the discharge of his office in
Israel (xi. 4 ff.). The author of the second sec
tion, on the other hand, has only to do with Jndah
and Jerusalem : he nowhere mentions Israel.
3. The political horizon of the two prophets is
different. By the former, mention is made of
the Syrians, Phcenicians, PhUistines (ix. 1-7), and
Greeks (ix. 13), as well as of the Assynaus and
Egyptians, the two last being described as at that
time the most powerful. It therefore belongs to
the earlier tirae when these two nations were be
ginning to struggle for supremacy in Western Asia.
By the latter, the Egyptians only are mention»d as
a hostUe nation : not a word is said of the Assyr
ians. The author consequently must have Uved
at a time when Egypt was the chief enemy of
Judah. 4. The anticipations of the two prcphets are
ditferent. The first trembles only for Ephraum.
He predicts the desolation of tbe Trans-jordanic
territory, the carrying away captive of the Israel
ites, but also the return from Assyria and Egypt

a So Knobel suppo-ses. Ewald also refers, xi. 1-3,
to the deportation of Tiglath-Pileser, and thinks that
X 10 refers to some earlier deportation, the Assyrians
having invaded this portion of the kingdom of Israel
In the former half of Pekah 's reign of twenty years.
To this Bunsen ( Gott in der Ge!:ch. i. 450) objects
that we have no record of any earlier removal of the
nbabitantB from the land than tbat of Tiglath-Pileser,
ffluch occiured at thn close of Pekah's reign, and

which in jt. 10 is supposed to bave taken plac*
already. 6 According to Knobel, ix. and x. were probably
delivered in Jotbam's reign, and xi. in that of Aliaz
who summoned Tiglath-Pileser to his aid. Maurer
thinks that ix. and x. were written between tbe first
(2 K. XV. 29) and second (2 K. xvii. 4-6) Assyrian
invasions, chap. x. during the seven years' inteneg-
num which followed the death of Pekah, and xi td
the reign of Hoshea.

3606

ZECHARIAH

(x. 7, 10). But for Judah he has no cause of fear.
Jehovah will protect her (ix. 8), and bring back
those of her sons who in earlier times had gone
into captivity (ix. 11). The second prophet, on
the other hand, making no mention whatever of the
northern kingdom, is full of alarm for Judah. He
sees hostile nations gathering together against her,
and two thirds of her inhabitants destroyed (xiii.
6 ) ; he sees tbe enemy laying siege to Jerusalem,
takjjig and plundering it, and carrying half of her
people captive (xii. 3, xiv. 2, 5). Of any return of
tlie captives nothing is here said.
5. The style of the two prophets is different.
The author of this last section is fond of the pro-
phedc formulae: nTTl, "And it sball come to
pass" (xii. 9, xiii.^2, 3, 4, 8, xiv. 6, 8, 13, 16);
S^nil DV2, "in that day" (xii. 3, 4, 6, 8,
S, 11,' xiii. i, 2, 4, xiv. 8, 9, 13, 20, 21);
n'jiT; DM?, "saith Jehovah" (xii. 1, 4, xiii. 2,
7,8).' In the section ix.-xi. the first does not
occur at all, the second but once (ix. 16), the tbird
only twice (x. 12, xi. 6). "We have moreover in
this section certain favorite expressions : " all
peoples," "all people of the earth," "all nations
round about," " all nations that come up against
Jerusalem," " the inhabitants of Jerusalem," " the
house of David," "family" for nation, "the
families of the earth," " the family of Egypt,"
etc. 6. There are apparently fewnotes,of time in this
section. One is tbe allusion to the death of Josiah
in " the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley
of Megiddon ; " another to tbe earthquake in the
days of Uzziah king of Judah. Tbis addition to
the name of the king shows, Knobel suggests, that
he had been long dead ; but the argument, if it is
worth any tiling, would make even more for those
who hold a post-exile date. It is certahily remark
able occurring thus ih the body of the prophecy,
and not in the inscription as in Isaiah i. 1.
In reply to all these arguments, it has been urged
by Keil, Stahelin, and others, that the difference
of style between tbe two principal divisions of the
prophecy is not greater than may reasonably be
accounted for by tbe change of subject. I'be lan
guage in wbich visions are narrated would, from
the nature of the case, be quieter and less animated
than that in which prophetic anticipations of future
glory are described. They differ as the style of
tbe narrator differs from tbat of the orator. Thus,
for instance, how different is the style of Hosea,
chaps, i.-iii., from the style of the same prophet in
jhaps. iv.-xiv. ; or again, that of Ezekiel vi., vii.
from Ezekiel iv.
But besides this, even in what may be termed
the more oratorical portions of the first eight chap
ters, the prophet is to a great extent occupied with
warnings and exhortations of a practical kind (see
i.4-6, vii. 4-14, viii. 9-23); whereas in the subse-
\uent chapters he is rapt into a far distant and
glorious future. In the one case, therefore, the
language would naturally sink down to the level of
prose; in the other, it would rise to an elevation
worthy of its exalted subject.
o Maurcr's reply to this, namely, that the like
phrase, 13W1 ^nSl?, occurs in Ex. xxxii. 27, and
l^tyT "1DV in Ez. xxxv. 7, it must be confessed is
jf little force, because those who .argue for one author

ZECHAKIAH
In like manner the notes of time in the formet
part (i. 1, 7, vii. 1), and the constant reference to the
Temple, may be explained on the ground that the
prophet here busies himself with the events of his
own time, whereas afterwards his eye is fixed on a
far distant future.
On the other hand, where predictions do occur in
tbe first section, there is a general similarity be-
tween them and the predictions of the second. The
scene, so to speak, is the same; the same visiom
float before the eyes of the seer. The times of the
Messiah are the theme of the predictions in chaps.
i.-iv., in ix., x., and in xii.-xiii. 6, whilst the eveiita
which are to prepare the way for tbat time, and
especially the sifting of the nation, are dwelt upon
in chap, v., in xi., and in xiii. 7-xiv. 2.
(3.) The same peculiar forms of expression occur
in the two divisions of the prophecy. Thus, for
instance, we find 2tI?M "IS"'^?? not only in vii.
14, but also in ix." 8 ; "1^35!!, in the sense of
" to remove," in iii. 4, and in xiii. 2 — elsewhere
it occurs in this unusual sense only in later writ
ings (2 K. xvi. 3; 2 Chr. xv. 8) — "the eye of
God," as betokening the Divine Providence, in iii.
9, iv. 10, and in ix. 1, 8.
In both sections the return of the whole nation
after the exile is the prevailing image of happiness,
and in both it is similarly portrayed. As in ii. 10,
the exiles are summoned to return to their nativj
land, because now, according to the principles of
righteous recompense, they shall rule over their
enemies, so also a similar strain occurs hi ix. 12, &e.
Both in ii. 10 aud in ix. 9 the renewed protection
wherewith God will favor Zion is represented as an
entrance into his holy dwelling; in both his peo
ple are called on to rejoice, and in both there is a
remarkable agreement in the words. In ii. 14,
wa ''j:n •'3 ivs ra ^naw) '':-i, and m
ix. 9, nn •'5?nn 1V2 ro iwtt <h''i
-jb 813"' isba n:n ?btoTT'-
Again, similar forms of expression occur in ii. 9,
11, andxi. 11; the description ofthe increase in Je- ¦
rusalem, xiv. 10, may be compared with ii. 4; anii
the prediction in viii. 20-23 with that in xiv. 16.
Tbe resemblance which has been found in some
other passages is too slight to strengthen the ar
gument; and tbe occurrence of Chaldaisms, such as
W3^ (ix. 8), nasi («T. 10), bna (wMch
occurs besides only in Prov. xx. 21), and the phrase ¦
nt^r?. sVl? (ix. 13), instead of Hf p. TIl'T,
really prove nothing as to the age of the later chap
ters of Zechariah. Indeed, generally, as regards
these minute comparisons of different passages to
prove an identity of authorship, Maurer's remark
holds true: "Sed quse potest vis esse disjectorum
quorundam locorum, ubi res judicanda est ex
toto?" Of far more weight, however, than the argu
ments already advanced is the fact that the writer
of these last chapters (ix.-xiv.) shows an acquaint
ance with the later prophets of the time of the
exile. That there are numerous allusions in it to

build not only on the &at that the same forms of ex
pression are to be found in both sections of ths
prophecy, but that the second section, like the 6rst,
evinces a familiarity with other writings, and especiallj
with later prophets like Ezekiel. See below.

ZECHARIAH
Brlier prophets, such as Joel, Amos, Micah, has
been shown by Hitzig ( Comment, p. 354, 2d ed. ),
hut there are also, it is alleged, allusions to Zeph
aniah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the later Isaiah
(cc. xl.-lxvi). If this can be established, it is evi
dence that this portion of the book, if not written
by Zechariah himself, was at least written after the
exile. We find, then, in Zecli. ix. 2 an allusion to
Kz. xxviii. 3 ; in ix. 3 to 1 K. x. 27 ; in ix. 5 to
Zeph. ii. 4; in ix. 11 to Is. li. 14; in ix. 12 to Is.
xhx. 9 and Is. Ixi. 7 ; in x. 3 to Ez. xxxiv. 17. Zech.
xi. is derived from Ez. xxxiv. (comp. esp. xi. 4
ffith xxxiv. 4), and Zech. xi. 3 from Jer. xii. 5.
Zech. xii. 1 alludes to Is. li. 13; xiii. 8, 9, to Ez.
V, 12; xiv. 8 to Ez. xlvii. 1-12; xiv. 10, 11, to Jer.
xxxi. 38-40; xiv. 16-19 to Is. Ixvi. 23 and k. 12;
liv. 20, 21, to Ez. xliii. 12 and xliv. 9.
This manifest acquaiuLiuce on the part of the
writer of Zech. ix.-xu'. with so many of the later
prophets seemed so convincing to Ue Wette that,
after having in the first three editions of his Intro
duction declared for two authors, he found himself
compelled to change his mind, and to admit that
the later chapters must belong to the age of Zecha
riah, and might have been written by Zechariah
himself. Bleek, on the other hand, has donp his best to
weaken the force of this argument, first by main
taining that in most instances the alleged agree
ment is only apparent, and next, that where there
is a real agreement (as in Zech. ix. 12, xi. 3. xii. 1,
xiv. 16) with the passages above cited, Zechariah
raay be the original frum whom Isaiah and Jere
miah borrowed. It must be confbssed, however,
that it is more probable that one writer should
have allusious to many others, than that many
others should borrow from one; and tbis prob
abiUty approaches certainty in proportion as we
multjply the number of quotations or allusions. If
there are passages in Zechariah which are mani
festly similar to other passages in Zephaniah, in
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Deutero-Isaiah, which
is the more probable, that they all borrowetl from
him, or he from them? In ix. 12 especially, as
Stiilielin argues, the expression is decidedly one to
be looked for after the exile rather than before it,
and the passage rests upon Jer. xvi. 18, and has
an almost verbal accordance with Is. Ixi. 7.
Again, the same critics argue that the historical
references in tbe later chapters are perfectly con
sistent with a post-exile date. This had been
already maintained by Eichhorn, although he sup
poses these chapters to bave been written by a
Inter prophet than Zechariah. Stahelin puts the
case as follows : Even under the Persian rule the
pol.tical relations of the Jews continued very nearly
tbe same as they were in earlier tinies. They still
were placed between a huge eastern power on the
One side and Egypt on the other, tbe only difference
n.w being that Egypt ai well as Judaea was subject
to the Persians. But Egypt was an unwilling vas
sal, and as' in earlier tinies when threatened by
Assyria she had sought for alliances among her
neighbors or had endeavored to turn them to ac
count as a kind of outwork in her own defenses, so
now she would adopt the same policy in her at
tempts to cast off the Persian yoke. It would
toUow as a matter of course that Persia would be
sn the watch to check such efforts, and would

ZECHARIAH 3607
wreak her vengeance on those among her own
tributary or dependent provinces which should
venture to form an alliance with Egypt. Such of
these provinces as lay on the sea-coast must indeed
suffer in any case, even if they remained true hi
their allegiance to the Persians. Tht armies which
were destined for the invasion of Egypt would col
lect in Syria and Phoenicia, and would march by
way of the coast ; and, whether they came as friends
or as foes, tbey would probably cause sufficient dev
astation to justify tbe prophecy in Zech. ix. 1, &c.,
delivered against Damascus, Pbojnicia, and Philis
tia. Meanwhile the prophet seeks to calm the minda
of his own people by assuring tbem of God's pro
tection, and of tbe coming of the Messiah, wbo at
the appointed time shall again unite the two king
doms of Judah and Ephraim. It is observable
moreover that the prophet, throughout his dis
courses, is anxious not only to tranquillize the
minds of bis countrymen, but to prevent their en
gaging in any insuiTection against their Persian
masters, or forming any alliance with tbeir ene
mies. In this respect he follows the example of
Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and, like these two prophets,
he foretells the return of Ephraim, the union o'
Ephraim and Judah, and the final overthrow both
of Assyria (x. 11), that is, Persia,'* and of Egypt,
the two countries which had, more than all others,
vexed and devastated Israel. That a large portion
of the nation was still supposed to be in exile is
clear from ix. 11, 12, and hence verse 10 can only
be regarded as a reminiscence of Mic. v. 10; and
even if x. 9 must be explained of the past (with
De Wette, EinL § 250, 6, note «), still it appears
from Josephus (Ani. xii. 2, § 5) tbat the Persians
carried away Jews into Egypt, and frora Syncellus
(p. 486, Nlebuhr's ed.), that Ochus transplanted
large numbers of Jews from Palestine to the east
and north ; tbe earlier custom of thus forcibly re
moving to a distance those conquered nations who
from disaffection or a turbulent spirit were likely to
give occasion for alarm, having not only continued
among the Persians, but having become even more
common than ever (Heeren, Ideen, i.26i, 2d ed.).
This well-known policy on the part of their con
querors would be a sufficient ground for the as
surance which the prophet gives in x. 9. Even the
threats uttered against the false prophets and the
shepherds of the people are not inconsistent with
the times after tbe exile. In Neh. v. and vi. we
find the nobles and rulers of the people oppressing
their brethren, and fake prophets active in their
opposition to Nehemiah. In like manner "the
idols " (C'S???) in ''"¦• 1-5 may be the same as
the " Teraphim '' of x. 2, where they are mentioned
in connection with "the diviners " (D'^SDHpipn).
Malachi (iii. 5) speaks of " sorcerers " (D"'Dt?'?P),
and that such superstition long held its ground
among the Jews is evident from Joseph. Ant. viii.
2, § 5? Nor does xiv. 21 of necessity imply either
idol-worship or heathen pollution in tbe Temple.
Chapter xi. was spoken by the prophet later than
ix. and x. In ver. 14 he declares the impossibility
of any reunion between Judah and Ephraim, eithei
because the northern territory bad already been
laid waste, or because the inhabitants of it had
shown a disposition to league with Phcenieia in a

« Although the Persians had succeeded to the As- name of Assyria.
Ijriana, the land might still be called by its ancient iv. 120.

See Ezr. vi. 22 and Bivald, Gesai

3608

ZECHARIAH

vain effort to throw off the Persian yoke, which
would only involve them in certain destruction.
This difficult passage Stahelin admits he cannot
solve to his satisfaction, but contends that it may
have been designed to teach the new colony that it
was not a part of God's purpose to reunite the
severed tribes; and in this he sees an argument for
the post-exile date of the prophecy, inasmuch as
the, union of the ten tribes with the two was ever
one of the brightest hopes of the prophets who
lived before the Captivity.
Having thus shown that there is no reason why
the sections ix.-xi. should not belong to a time sub
sequent to the retuni from Babylon, Stahelin pro
ceeds to argue that the prophecy directed against
the nations (ix. 1-7) is really more applicable to tbe
Persian era than to any other. -It is only the coast
line which is here threatened ; whereas the earlier
prophets, whenever they threaten the maritime
tribes, unite with them Moab and Ammon, or
Edom. Moreover the nations here mentioued are
not spoken of as enemies of Judah ; for being Per
sian subjects tbey would not venture to attack the
Jewish colony when under the special protection of
that power. Of Ashdod it is said that a foreigner
("ITna, A. V. " bastard ") shall dwell in it. This,
too, raight naturally have happened in the time of
Zechariah. During the exile, Arabs had estab
lished themselves in Southern Palestine, and the
prophet foresees that they would occupy Ashdod ;
and accordingly we learn from Neh. xiii. 24 that
the dialect of Ashdod vvas unintelligible to tbe
Jews, and in Neh. iv. 7 the people of Ashdod ap
pear as a disthict tribe united with other Ai'abians
against Judah. The king of Gaza (mentioned
Zech. ix. 5) may have been a Persian vassal, as the
kings of Tyre and Sidon were, according to He
rod, viii. 67. A king in Gaza would only be in
conformity witb the Persian custom (see Herod, iii.
15), although this was no longer the case in the
time of Alexander. The mention of the " sons of
Javan " (ix. 13; A. V. " Greece ") is suitable to
the Persian period (which is also the view of Eich
horn), as it was then that the Jews were first
brought into any close contact with the Greeks.
It was in fact the fierce struggle between Greece
and Persia which gave a pecuUar meaning to his
words when the prophet promised his own people
victory over the Greeks, and so reversed the earlier
prediction of Joel iv. 6, 7 (A. V. iii. 6, 7). If,
however, we are to understand by Javan Arabia,
as some maintain, this again equally suits the
period supposed, and the prophecy wiU refer to the
Arabians, of whom we have ah-eady spoken.
We come now to the section xii.-xiv. The main
proposition here is. that however hard Judah and
Jerusalem may be pressed by enemies (of Israel
there is no further mention), stiU with God's help
they sball be victorious ; and the result shaU be
that Jehovah shaU be more truly worshipped both
by Jews and Gentiles. That tbis anticipation of
the gathering of hostile armies against Jerusalem
was not unnatural in the Persian times may be in
ferred from what bas been said above. Persian
hosts were often seen in Judaea. We find an in
stance of this in Josephus (Ant. xi. 7, § 1), and
Sidon was laid in ashes in consequence of an insur
rection against Persia (Diod. xvi. 45). On the
other hand, how could a prophet- in the time im
mediately preceding the exile — the time to which,
»n account of xii. 12, most critics refer this section

ZECHARIAH
— have uttered predictions such as these ? Since
the time of Zephaniah all the prophets looked upon
the fate of Jerusalem as sealed, whereas here, in
direct contradiction to such views, the preservation
of the city is announced even in tbe extremest
calamities. Any analogy to tbe general strain of
thought in this section is only to be found in Is.
xxix.-xxxiii. Besides, no king is here mentioned
but only " the house of David," which, according
to Jewish tradition (Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes
Jisrael, p. 378 ff.), held a. high position after the
exile, and accordingly is mentioned (xii. 12, 13) in
its different branches (comp. Movers, Das Phoniz.
Alterili. i. 531), together with the tribe of I..evi;
tbe prophet, like the writer of Ps. Ixxxix., looking
to it with a kind of yearning, which before the
exile, whilst there was stiU a king, would have been
inconceivable. Again, the manner in which Egypt
is alluded to (xiv. 19) almost of necessity leads us to
the Persian times ; for then Egypt, in consequence of
her perpetual efforts to throw off the Persian yoke,
was naturaUy brought into hostiUty with the Jews,
who were under the protection of Persia. Before
the exile this was ouly tbe case duriug the interval
between the death of Josiah and tbe battle of Car
chemish. It would seem then that there is nothing to
compel us to place tbis section xu.-xiv. in the times
before the exUe ; much, on the contrary, which can
only be satisfactorily accounted for on the suppoffl-
tion that it was written during the period of the
Persian dominion. Nor must it be forgotten that
we have here that fuUer development of the Messi
anic idea which at such a time might he expected,
and one whicb in fact rests upon all the prophets
who flourished before the exile.
Such are tlfe grounds, critical and historical, on
which Stahelin rests his defense of the later dat£ of
the second portion of the prophet Zechariah. We
have given his arguments at length as the ablest
and most complete, as well as the most recent, on
his side of tbe controversy. Some of them, it must
be admitted, are full of weight. And when critics
like Eichhorn maintain that of the whole section
ix. 1-x. 17, no explanation is possible, unless we
derive it from the history of Alexander the Great;
and when De "SA^ette, after having adopted the
theory of different authors, felt himself obliged to
abandon it for reasons already mentioned, and to
vindicate the integrity of the book, the grounds for
a post-exUe date must be very strong. Indeed, it 18
not easy to say which way the weight of evidence
preponderates. With regard to the quotation in St. Matthew,
there seems no good reason for setting aside the !¦»-
ceived reading. Jerome observes, " This passage ifi
not found in Jeremiah. But in Zechariah, who is
nearly the last of the twelve prophets, something
like it occurs ; and though there is no great differ
ence in the meaning, yet both the order and the
words are different. I read a short tirae since, in
a Hebrew volume, which a Hebrew of the sect of
the Nazarenes presented to me, an apocryphal book
of Jeremiah, in which I found the passage word
for word. But stJU I am rather incUned to thmk
that the quotation is made from Zechariah, in tie
usual manner of the Evangelists and Apostles, who,
neglecting tbe order of the words, only give the
general sense of what they cite from the Old Testa
ment." "
a Comment, in Eeang. Matth. cap. xxvii- 9, 10.

ZECHARIAH
Eusebius {Evangel. Demonsir. lib. x ) is of opin
ion that the passage thus quoted stood originally
in the prophecy of Jeremiah, but was either erased
subsequently by the malice of the Jews [a very im
probable supposition it need hardly be said] ; or
that the name of Zechariah was substituted for that
of Jeremiah through the carelessness of copyists.
Augustine {de Cons. Evangd. Vu. 30} testifies that
the most ancient Greek copies had Jeremiah, atid
thinks that the mistake was oriijinally St. Mat
thew's, but that tliis was divinely ordered, and that
the K\aiigelist would not correct the error even
when pointed out, in order that we might thus infer
that all tlie prophets spake by one Spirit, and that
what was the work of one was the work of all (et
singula esse onmium, et omnia singulorum). °
Some later writers accounted for the non-appear
ance of the passage in Jeremiah by the confusion
in the Greek WSS. of his prophecies — a confusion,
however, it may be reraarked, which is not confined
to the Greek, but which is found no less in our
present Hebrew text. Others again suggest that
in the Greek autograph of Matthew, ZPIOT niay
have been written, and that copyists may have
taken this for IPIOT. But there Is no evidence
that abbreviations of this kind were in use so early.
Epiphanius and some of the Greek Fathers seem
to have' read iv To?y irpocp'fiTats. And the most
ancient copy of the Latin Version of the Gospels
omits the name of Jeremiah, and has merely dic
tum est per Prophetam. It has been conjectured
that this represents the original Greek reading rh
^rjdev Sia tov trpofpiiToVf and that some early an
notator wi'ote 'lepcfiiov on tbe margin, whence it
crept into the text. The choice Hes between this,
and a slip of memory on the part of the Kvangelist
if we admit the integrity of our present book of
Zechariah, unless, indeed, we suppose, with Eich
horn, who follows Jerome, that an apocryphal
hook of Jeremiah is quoted. 'J'heophylact proposes
to insert a Kai, and would read dia 'lepefiiov Ka\
TOV wpotpTjTov ¥syovv Zaxapiov. He argues that
the quotation is really a fusion of two passages ;
that concerning the price paid occurring in Zecha
riah, chap, xi.; and that concerning the field in
Jeremiah, chap. xix. But what N. T. writer would
have used such a form of expression " by Jeremy
and the prophet " ? Such a mode of quotation is
without parallel. At the same time it must be
l)ome in mind that the passage as given in St. Mat
thew does not represent exactly either the Hebrew
text of Zechariah, or the version of tbe LXX; The
other passatres of the prophet quoted in the N. T.
are ix. 9 (in Matt. xxi. 5; John xiii. 15); xii. 10
(in John. xix. 37; Kev. i. 7); xiii. 7 (in Matt.
xxvi. 31; Mark xiv. 27); hut in no instance is the
prophet quoted by name.'^
Literature. — 1. Patristic Commentaries. — Je
rome, Comment, in xii. Mlnm^es Prophetas. Opp-
" Thia extraordinary method of solving the difficulty
has been adopted by Dr. Wordsworth in his note on
the passage in St. Matthew. He says ; " On tbe whole
there is reason to believe .... that the prophecy
which we read in Zech. (xi. 12, 13) had, in tlic first in-
stance, been delivered by Jeremiab ; aud that by refer
ring here not to Zech. where ive read it, but to Jer.
where we do not read it, tbe Holy Spirit teaches us not
to regard the prophets as the authors of their proph
ecies," etc. And again: "He intends to teach, that
alt prophecies proceed from One Spirit, and tbat those
by whom they were uttered are not sources, but only
channels of the same Divine truth." But if so, why, it
227

ZECHARIAH

3t>09

ed. Vallars. (Veron. 173i), tom. vi. Theodoret,
Irderprttatlo in xii Proph. Min. Opp. ed. Schulze
(Hal. 1769-74:), vol. ii. pars 2.
2. Later Exegetical Works. — Der Prophet
Zachaiiiis aus(,elegt durch D. Mart. Luthem. Vit-
emberg, 1528. (Also in the collected works of
Luther in German and Latin.) Phil. Melancthonia
Comm. in Proph. Zach., 1553 (Opp. ii. 531). J.
J. Gryntei Comm. in Zach., Genev. 1581. Caspar
Sanctii Comm. in Zach., Lugd. 1016. C. Vi
tringa, Comment, ad lib. Proph. Zich., 1734. K.
Venema, Strmones, Acad, in lib. Proph. Zach..
1789. 3. Writers who have discussed the question of
the Integrity of Zechariah. Mede, Works, Ixiiid.
1664, pp. 786, B8-4. Bishop Kidder, Demonsirn-
tion of the .Uesshis, Lond. 1700, vol. ii. p. 199.
Archhp. Newcon)e, Minor Prop/iii.<, Lond. 1785.
Blayney, A'e'f Translation of Zech., Oxf. 1797-
Carpzov, Vindic. Crit., Lips. 172L Fliiffge, Die
Wei^sagungen, zcelche bey den Schnften des
Proph. Zach. beygehogen sind, u. s. w., Hamb
1784. Bertholdt, Hisior. krii. Einl. in die Biicher
des a: u. .V. Test., iv. 1762 fF., 1712 ff. Eichhorn,
ffebr. Propheten, iii. 327-360, 380-92, 415-28,
515-18; Einl. iv. 427 ff. ^4th edit. 1824). Bauer,
fun!., p. 510 ff. Beckhaus, die Inteqritdt der
Proph. Schrift. des A. B., p. 337 ff. Jahn, Eiid.
ii. 675 ff. Kuster. Me/efeniata Crit. et Exeget. in
Zach. Proph. pari, post Gi'itting. 1818. Forberg,
Comm. Cril. ei Exeget. in Zach. Vaiicc. pari
po^t. Cob. 1824. Gramberg, Krit. Gesch. der
Religionsideen, ii. 520 ff. Kosenmiiller, Scholvj,
vii. 4, 254 ff. Credner, der Prophet Joel, p. 67 ff.
Hengstenbercr, Beitrdge, i. 361 ff., and Christo-
logie, iii. De AVette, Einl. (Edit. 1-3, against the
Integrity, later editions in favor of it). Keil, Einl.
Hiivernick, Einl. j\raurer, Commeni. in Vet. Test.
ii, 621 ff. Ewald, dia Prophtien, and Gesch. iv.
Bleek, Einl. Stahelin, Einl. in die kanon. Bucher
des A. T, 1862, p. 315 ff. Hitzig, in Stud, und
Krii. 1830, p. 25 ff., and in Prophet. Henderson
on the Minor Prophets, 1830. Davidson, in
Second Vol. of fforne's Jntrod., 10th edit. 1856,
and more recently in his Inirodtiction to the G. T.
[vol. iii. 1863], Bunsen, Bibelwerk, 2ter Hand,
Ite Abtheil. 2ter Theil; [and Bd. vi. 272 ff, 498
ff. (1870);] Goii in der Geschichte, i. 449.
J. J. S. P.
* Addiiional. — R. David Kimchi, Comm, on ihe
Proph. of Zech., trans, from ihe Hebreio by A.
Jf'Cnu?, Lond. 1837. J. Stonard, Comm. on the
Vision of Zech., Lond. 1824. J. D. F. Bfirger,
Etudes exeg. et cHi. sur le proph. Zach., Strasb.
1841, 4to. F. Bleek, Ueber d. Zeitalter von Sach.
Kap. 9-14, in the Theol Stud. u. Krit. 1852, pp
247-332. M. Baumgarten, Die Nachigesichie
Sacharia's, 2 Theile, Braunschw. 1854-55. H. L.
Sandrock, Prioris et post. Part. Vaiicin. ab uno

may be asked, do the writers of the Sacred Books ever
give their names at all ? Why trouble ourselves with
the question whether St. Luke wrote the Acts, or
whether Sb. Paul \rrote the Ep. to the Hebrews or the
Pastoral Epistles ? What becomes of the argument,
usually deemed so strong, derived from the testimony
of the .Four Evangelists, if, after all, tht, four are but
one? It would not be too much to say that such a theory
is as pernicious as that against which it is directed.
6 * On this question of the apparent citation from
Zechariah, instead of Jeremiab, see Aceli>am.\, vol
i. p. 10 ; aod Judas, vol. ii. p. 1503, Amer. ed. 11.

8610

ZECHARIAH

eodemque Auiore profecta, Vratisl. 1856. E. F.
J. von Ortenberg, Die Hestandtheile d. Bushes
Sacharja, Gotha, 1859. W. Neumann, Die Weis-
tagungen d. Sakharjah, Stuttg. 1860. A- Kohler,
Die nachexiL Proph. erkldrt, Abth. ii., iii , Erl.
1861-63, and art. Zacharias in Herzog's Keal-
Kncyk. xviii. 353-360 (1861). Th. Kliefoth, Der
Proph. Sacharjnh, iibers. u. ausgelegf, Schwerin,
1862. C. F. Keil, Bib. Comm. iib. d. 12 kleinen
Proph., pp. 517-662, Leipz. 1866, Eng. trans. 1868
(Clark's For. Theol Libr.). E. Schrader, in De
Wette's EinL in d. Bucher d. A. T., S" Ausg., Berl.
1869. T. V. Jloore, Prophets ofthe Reslorntion,
N. Y. 1856. G. K- Xoyes, New Trans, of the
neb. Prophets, 3d ed., Bost. 1866. H. Cowles, The
.\liiior Prophets, with Notes, N. Y. 1866. Pusey,
Minor Prophets, Part iv. (1870). It should also
be noted that the valuable Introductions of Keil and
Bleek are now (1870) translated into English. A.
2. (Zaxaptas; [in 1 Chr. xvi. 2, Vat. Zaxapiov:]
Zacharias.) Son of Meshelemiah, or Shelemiah, a
Korhite, and keeper of the north gate of the taber
nacle ofthe congregation (1 Chr. ix. 21) in the ar
rangement of the porters in the reign of David. In
1 Chr. xxvi. 2, 11, his name appears in the length
ened form irfntlT, and in the last quoted verse
he is described as " one counselling with under
standing." 3. (ZaKxovp; [Vat. Sin. Zaxapia;] Alex.
Zaxxoip- ) *-'"^ "f '''^ ^""^ °^ Jehiel, the father or
founder of Gibeon (1 Chr. ix. 37). In 1 Chr. viii.
31 he is called Zacher-
4. (Zaxapias.) A Levite in the Temple band
as arranged by David, appointed to play "with
psalteries on Alamoth " (1 Chr. xv. 20). He was
of the second order of Levites (ver. 18), a porter or
gatekeeper, and may possibly be tbe same as Zech
ariah the son of Meshelemiah. In 1 Chr. xv. 18 his
name is written in the longer form, •in^'75.^.
5. One of the princes of .Judah in the reign of
.Tehoshaphat who were sent with priests and Levites
to teach the people the law of Jehovah (2 Chr. xvii.
7). 6. ('A^apias.) Son of the high-priest Jehoiada,
in the reign of Joash king of Judah (2 Chr. xxiv.
20), and therefore the king's cousin. After tbe
death of Jehoiada Zecbariab probably succeeded to
ilis office, and in attempting to check the reaction
in favor of idolatry which immediately followed, he
fell a victim to a conspiracy formed against hini by
the king, and was stoned with stones in the court
of the Temple. The memory of this unrighteous
deed lasted long in Jewish tradition- In tlie Jeru
salem Talmud ( Taanith, fob 69, quoted by Light
foot, Temple Sfrviciu c. xxxvi.) there is a legend
told of eighty thousand young priests who were
slain by Nebuzaradan for the blood of Zechariah,
and the evident liold which the story had taken
upon the minds of tlie people renders it probable
that *' Zacharias foii of Barachias," who was slain
between the Temple and the altar (Matt, xxiii. 35),
is the sanie with Zechariah the son of Jehoiada,
and that the name of Hiu-achias as his father crept
into the text from a marginal gloss, the writer con
fusing this Zechariah either with Zechariah the
prophet, who was the son of Berechiah, or with
another Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah (Is. viii.
2). 7. (Zaxapias.) A Kohathite Levite in the
reign of .losiah, who was one of the overseers of the

ZECHARIAH
workmen engaged in the restoration of tbe Templfl
(2 Chr. xxxiv. 12).
8. The leader of the sons of Pharosh who re
turned with Ezra (Ezr. viii. 3).
9. [Vat. Afapm.] Son of Bebai, who came up
from Babylon with Ezra (Ezr. viii. 11).
10. (Zacharia in Neh.) One of the chiefs of
the people whom Ezra summoned in council at ihe
river Ahava, before the second caravan returned
from Babylon (Ezr. viii. 16). He stood at Ezra's
left hand when he expounded the Law to the [leople
(Keh. viii. 1).
11. (Zaxapia: Zacharias.) One of the familj
of Elam, who had married a foreign wife after tbe
Captivity (Ezr. x. 26).
12. Ancestor of Athaiah, or Uthai (Neh. xi. 4),
13. (Zaxapias; [Vat. Qijfeia; FA. 0i)Selo.]l
A Shilonite, descendant of Perez (Neh. xi. 5).
14. (Zaxapia.) A priest, son of Pashur (Nell.
xi. 12).
15. (Zacharia.) The representative of tbe
priestly family of Iddo in the days of Joiakim th«
son of Jeshua (Neh. xii. 16). Possibly the same
as Zechariah the prophet the son of Iddo.
16. ([Zaxapias; ver. 41, Rom. Vat. Alex. FA.1
omit:] Zacharias, Zacharia.) One of the priests,
son of Jonathan, who blew with the trumpets at
the dedication of the city wall by Ezra and Nehe
miah (Neh. xii. 35, 41).'
17. (^n^l?? : Zaxapia.) A chief of the Reu
benites at the time of the captivity by Tiglath-Pi
leser (1 Chr. V. 7).
18. [.ilex. Zaxapiar.] One of the priests who
blew with the trumpets in the procession wbich ac
companied the ark from the house of Obed-edom
(1 Chr. XV. 24).
19. [Zaxapia.] Son of Isshiah, or Jesiah, a
Kohathite Levite descended from Uzziei (1 Chr.
xxiv. 25).
20. (Zaxapias.) Fourth son of Hosah of the
children of Merari (1 Chr. xxvi. 11).
21. (ZaSaiaj; [Vat. ZaSSeias.] Alex. Zo/3-
Siay.) A Manassite, whose son, Iddo was chief of
his tribe in Gilead in the reign of David (1 Chr.
xxvii. 21).
22. (Zaxapias.) The father of Jahaziel, a Ger
shonite Levite in the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Chr.
XX. 14).
23. One of the sons of Jehoshaphat (2 Chr. xxi.
24. A prophet in the reign of Uzziah, who ap
pears to have acted as the king's counsellor, hut of
whom nothing is known (2 Chr. xxvi. 5). The
chronicler in describing hira makes use of a most
remarkable and unique expression, "Zechariah,
who understood the seeing of God," or, as our A.
V. has it, " who had understanding in the visionB
of God " (comp. Dan. i. 17). As no such term is
ever employed elsewhere in the description of any
prophet, it has been questionecl whether the raid
ing of the received text is the true one. The
LXX., Targum, Syriac, Arabic, Rashi, and Kira
chi, with many of Kennicott's MSS., read HM"! 3,
" in the fear of," for niWnD, and their readuij
is most probably the correct one.
25. [Vat. Zaxapia (gen.).] The father of Abi
jah or Abi, Hezekiah's mother (2 Chr. xxix. l)i
called also Zach A uiaii in the A. V.
26. [Vat. ACapiat.] One of the famUy ol
Asaph the minstrel, who in the reign of HezekiaS

ZEDAB
look part with other Ixvites in the purification of
ihe Teimle (2 Chr. xxix. 13).
27. One of the rulers of tbe Temple in the reign
of Jgsiah (2 Cbr. xxxv. 8). He was probably, as
Bertheau conjectures. " the second priest " (comp-
2 K. xxv. 18).
28. The son of Jeberechiah, who was taken by
the prophet Isaiah as one of tlie " faithful witnesses
to record," when he wrote concerning i\Iaher-sha-
Ul-hash-baz (Is. viii. 2). He was not the same as
Zechariah the prophet, who lived in the time of
Uzziah and died before that king, but he may have
been the Levite of that name, who in the reign of
Hezekiah assisted in the purification of the Temple
(2 Chr. xxix. 13). As Zechariah the prophet is
called the son of Berechiah, with which Jeberechiah
is all but identical, Bertholdt (Einl. iv. 1722,
1727) conjectured that some of the prophecies at
tributed to him, at any rate cc. ix--xi., were
leilly the production of Zechariah, the contempo
rary of Isaiah, and were appended to the volume of
the later prophet of the same name (Gesen. Der
Proph. Jesaia, i. 327). .Another conjecture is that
Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah is the same as
Zechariah the father of Abijah, the queen of Ahaz
(Poh, Synopsis, in loc): the witnesses summoned
by Isaiah being thus men of the high&st ecclesias
fcical and civil rank. W. A. W.
ZEDAD (^^? [mountain -side, or steep
fkce]: SapaSaK, '}ipaa-e\Sd)j.; Alex. SaSaSa/c,
EA.5a/i; [Comp. Aid. SaSaSa, 27)5a5a:] Sedada).
One of the landmarks on the north border of the
laud of Israel, as promised by Moses (Num. xxxiv.
8) and as restored hy ICzekiel (xlvii. 16), who prob
ably passed through it on his road to Assyria as a
captive. In the former case it occurs between " the
entrance of Hamath " and Ziphron, and in tbe
latter between the " road to Hethlon " .and H.-^
math. A place named Sadad exists to the east of
the northern extremity of the chain of Anti-Li banus,
about 60 niijes E. N. E. of Baalbec, and 35 S- S. E.
of Hums. It is possible that this may ultimately
turn out to be identical with Zedad ; but at present
the passages in which the latter is mentioned are so
imperfectly understood, and this part of the coun
try has heen so little explored with the view of ar
riving at topographical conclusions, that nothing
can be done beyond directing attention to the co
incidence in the names (see Porter, Fice I'ears,
etc., ii. 354-356). G.
ZEDBCHI'AS (SeSiKias: Sedec'ias). Zkd-
EKUH king of Judah (1 Ksdr. i. 46).
ZEDEKI'AH. 1. (nn»|7-JlJ, Tsidkiyyahu,
and thrice n^i^lV," Tsidkiyyah [justice of Je-
limih] : SeSeKia,'' SeSeKias: Sedecias.) The
last king of Judah and Jerusalem. He was the

n Jer. xxvii. 12, xxviii. 1, xxix. 3- In this form it
is identical with the name which appears in the A. V.
(in (mnnection with a different person) as ZlDKIJAH. A
Bimilar inconsistency of our translators is Ftiown in the
cases of Hezekiah, Uizkijah, and Hizkiah ; Ezekiel anij
Jebezfkel. & The peculiarities of the name, as it appears in the
fatican LXX. (Mai), may be noted : —
(a.) It is SiSeKi'a in 2 K. xxiv. 17; 1 Chr. iii. 16 ;
ler- xxxiv- 4 only.
(b.) The genitive is SeSeKi'ou in 2 K. xxv, 2 ; Jer- li-
59, Ui. 1, 10, 11 ; but SeSsKi'a in Jer. i. 3, xxviu 1,
txxix. 1 ; and Se5e/ceia in xxxix 2 only.

ZEDEKIAH 36H
son of Josiah by his wife Hamntal, and therefore
own brother to Jehoahaz (2 IC. xxiv. 18; comp.
xxiii. 31). His original name had been Matta-
MIAH, which was changed to Zedekiah by Nebu
chadnezzar, when he carried off his nephew Jehoi-
achim to Babylon, and left hira on the throne of
Jerusalem. Zedekiah was but twenty-one years
old when he was thus placed in charge of an im
poverished kingdom, and a city which, though still
strong in its natural and artificial impregnability,
was bereft of well-nigh all its defenders. But Je^
rusalem might have remained the head of the Bab
ylonian province of Judah, and the Temple of
Jehovah continued standing, had Zedekiah pos
sessed wisdom and firmness enough to remain true
to his allegiance to Babylon. This, however, he
could not do (Jer. xxxviii. 5). His history is con
tained in the short sketch of the events of his reiffn
given in 2 K. xxiv. 17-xxv. 7, and, with some
trifling variations, in Jer. xxxix. 1-7, Iii. 1-11, to
gether with . the still shorter summary in 2 Chr.
xxxvi. 10, &c. ; and also in .Jer. xxi., xxiv., xxvii.,
xxviii., xxix., xxxii-, xxxiii., xxxiv., xxxvii., xxxviii.
(being the chapters containing the prophecies d&
livered by this prophet during this reign and hia
relation of various events more or less affecting
Zedekiah), and Ez. xvii. 11-21. To these it is in
dispensable to add the narrative of Josephus (Ant.
X. 7, 1-8, § 2), which is partly constructed hy
comparison of tlie documents enumerated above,
but also contains information derived from other
and independent sources. From these it is evident
that Zedekiah was a man not so much bad at heart
as weak in will. He was one of those unfortunate
characters, frequent in history, like our own
Charles I. and Louis XVI. of France, who find
themselves at the head of aiSiirs during a great
crisis, without having the strength of character to
enable thein to do wliat they know to he right, and
whose infirmity becomes moral guilt. The princes
of his court, as he himself pathetically admits in
his interview with Jeremiah, described in chap.
xxxviii., had him completely under their influence.
" Against them,'' he complains, " it is not the king
that can do anything." He was thus driven to
disregard the counsels of tbe prophet, which, as the
event proved, were perfectly sound; and he who
might have kept the fragments of the kuigdom o(
Judah together, and maintained for some genera
tions longer the worship of Jehovah, brought its
final ruin on liis country, destruction on the I'eni-
ple, death to bis family, and a cruel torment and
miserable captivity on himself.
It is evident from Jer. xxvii.^^ and xxviii. (ap
parently the earliest prophecies delivered during
this reign), that the earlier portion of Zedekiab's
reign was marked by an agitation throughout the
whole of Syria against the Babylonian yoke. Jeru-

(c.) The name is occasionally omitted where it is
present in the Hebrew texfc, t. g. Jer. xxxviii., Iii. 6,
8 ; but on the other hand is inserted in xlvi. 1, v7ere
also Elam is put for " gentiles."
N. JB- The references nbove given to Jeremiah are
according to the Hebrew capitulation.
c There can be no doubt that ver. 1 of xxvii., as it
at present stands, confcains an error, and that for Je
hoiakim we should read Zedekiah. The mention oi
Zedekiah in vv. 3 and 12, and in xxviii. 1, as well aa
ofthe captivity of Jeconiih in ver. 20, no less than
fche whole argument of fche latter part of the chapter,
renders thij" evijeut.

3612 ZEDEKIAH
Balem seems to Iiave taken the lead, pince in the
fourth year of Zedekiah's reign we find ambassa
dors from all the neighboring kingdoms — Tyre, Si
don, Edom, and Moab — at his court, to consult as
fco tbe steps to be taken. This happened either
during the king's absence or immediately after his
return from Babylon, whither he went on some er
rand, the nature of which is not named, but which
raay have been .an attempt to blind the eyes of
Nebuchadnezzar to his contemplated revolt (Jer. li.
59). The project was attacked by Jeremiah wiih
the strongest statement of tbe folly of such a course
— a statement corroborated by the very material
fact that a man of Jerusalem named Hananiah,
who had opposed bim with a declaration in the
name of Jehovah, that the spoils of the Temple
should be restored within two years, had died, in
accordance with Jeremiah's prediction, within two
months of its delivery. This, and perhaps also the
impossibility of any real alliance between Judab and
the surrounding nations, seems to have put a stop,
for the time, to the anti-Babylonian movement.
On a man of Zedekiah's temperament the sudden
death of Hananiah must have produced a strong
impression; and we may without improbability ac
cept this as the time at which he procured to be
made in silver a set of the vessels of tbe Temple, to
replace the golden plate carried off witb hia prede
cessor by Nebuchadnezzar {Bar. i. 8).
The firet act of overt rebellion of which any rec
ord survives was the formation of an aUiance with
Egypt, of itself equivalent to a declaration of en
mity with Babylon. In fact, according to the
statement of Chronicles and Ezekiel (xvii. 13),
witb tbe expansion of Josephus, it was in direct
contravention of tbe oath of allegiance in the name
of Elohim, by which Zedekiah was bound by Neb
uchadnezzar, namely, that he would keep the king
dom for Nebuchadnezzar, make no innovation, and
enter into no league with Egypt (Ez.'xvii. 13; 2
Chr. xxxvi. 13; Jos- Ani. x. 7, § 1). As a natu
ral consequence it brought on Jerusalem an imme
diate invasion of tbe Chaldseans. The mention of
this event in the Bible, thougli sure, is extremely
slight, and occurs only in Jer. xxxvii. 5-11, xxxiv.
21, and Ez. xvii. 15-20; but Josephus (x. 7, § 3)
relates ifc more fully, and gives the date of its oc
currence, namely the eighth year of Zedekiah.
Probably also the denunciations of an Egyptian
alUance, contained in "Jer. ii. 18, 36, bave reference
to the same time. It appears that Nebuchadnez
zar, being made aware of Zedekiah's defection,
eifcher by the non-payment of the tribute or by
other means, at once sent an army to ravage Ju
daea. This was done, and the whole country re
duced, except Jerusalem and two strong places in
the western plain, Lachish and Azekali, which still
held out (Jer. xxxiv. 7). In the panic which fol
lowed tbe appearance of tbe Chaldaians, Zedekiah
succeeded in inducing the princes and other inhab
itants of Jerusalem to abohsh the odious custom
which prevailed of enslaving their countrymen. A
solemn rite (ver, 18), recalling in ita form that in
which the original covenant of tbe nation had been
raade with Abram (Gen. xv. 9, &c.), was per
formed in the Temple (ver. 15), and a crowd of Is
raelites of both sexes found themselves released
(ron% slavery.
In the mean time Pharaoh had moved to the
assistance of his ally. On hearing of his approach
llie Chaldees afc once raised the siege and advanced
'O meet him. Tbe nobles seized the moment of

ZEDEKIAH
respite to reassert their power over tbe king, auJ
their defiance of Jehovah, by reenslaving those
whom they had so recently manumitted ; and the
prophet thereupon utters a doom on those migcre-
ants which, in the fierceness of its tone and in some
of its expressions, recalls those of Elijah on Ahab
(ver. 20). This encounter was quickly followed by
Jeremiah's capture and imprisonment, which l)ut
for the interference of the king (xxxvii. 17, 21)
would have rapidly put an end to his life (ver. 20).
How long the Babylonians were absent from Jeru
salem we are not told. It must have required at
least several months to move a large army and
baggage through the difficult and tortuous country
which separates Jerusalem from the Philistine
Plain, and to effect the complete repulse of the
Egyptian army from Syria, which Josephus affirms
was effected. All we certainly know is that on the
tenth day of the tenth month of Zedekiah's ninth
year the Chaldaeans were again before the walls
(Jer. Iii. 4). Erom this time forward the siege
progressed slowly but surely to its consummation,
with the accompaniment of both famine and pesti
lence (Joseph.). Zedekiah again interfered to pre
serve the life of Jeremiab from the vengeance of the
princes (xxxviii. 7-13), and then occurred tlie in
terview between the king and the prophet of which
mention has already been made, and which affbrda
so good a clew to the condition of abject depend
ence into which a long course of opposition had
brought the weak-minded monarch. It would seem
frora this conversation that a considerable desertion
had abeady taken place to the besiegers, proving
tbat the prophet's view of the condition of thmga
was shared by many of his countrymen. But the
unhappy Zedekiah throws away the chance of pres
ervation for himself and the city which the prophet
sefc before him, in his fear thafc he would be mocked
by those very Jews who had already taken tbe step
Jeremiah was urging him to take (xxxviii. 19).
At the same time his fear of tlie princes wbo re
mained in the city is not diminished, and he even
condescends to impose on the prophet a subterfuge,
witb the view of concealing the real purport of hia
conversation from these tyrants of bis spirit (w.
2-4-27). But while the king was hesitating the end was
rapidly coming nearer. The city was indeed re
duced to the last extremity. The fire of the be
siegers had throughout been very destructive (Jo
seph.), but it was now aided by a sevea'e famine.
The bread had for long been consumed (Jer.
xxxviii. 9), and all the terrible expedients bad been
tried to whicb the wretched inhabitants of a be
sieged town are forced to resort in such cases.
Mothers had boiled and eaten the flesh of tbeir own
infants (Bar. ii. 3; Lam. iv. 10). Persons of the
greatest wealth and station were to be seen search
ing the dung-heaps for a morsel of food. The
effeminate nobles, whose fair complexions had been
their pride, wandered in the open streets like black
ened but living skeletons (Lam. iv. 5, 8). StiU
the king was seen in public, sitting in the gate
wbere justice was administered, that his people
might approach him, though indeed he had uo help
to give them (xxxviii. 7).
At last, after sixteen dreadful months had
dragged on, tbe catastrophe arrived. It was on
the ninth day of the fourth month, about the raid-
die of July, afc midnight, as Josephus with careful
minuteness informs us, that the breach in thoss
stout and venerable walls was effected. The moon,

ZEDEKIAH
nine days old, had gone down below the hills which
form the western edge of tbe basin of Jerusalem, or
was, at any rate, too low to illuminate tbe utter
darkness which reigns in the narrow lanes of an
eastern town, where the inhabitants retire early to
rest, and where there are but few windows to emit
light from within the liouses. The wretched rem
nants of tbe army, starved and exhausted, had left
fche walls, and there was nothing to oppose the
entrance of tbe Chaldfeans. Passing in through
tbe breach, fcbey made their way, as their custom
waa, to the centre of the city, and for the first time
the Temple was entered by a hostile force, and all
the princes of the court of the great king took tbeir
Beats in state in the raiddle gate of the hitherto
virgin house of Jehovah. The alarm quickly
spread tlirough the sleeping city, and Zedekiah,
collecting bis wives and children (Joseph.) and
siuTOunding himself with tbe few soldiers who had
survived the accidents of the siege, made his way
out of the city afc the opposite end to that at which
the Assyrians bad entered, by a street whicb, like
the Bein es-Surein at Damascus, ran between two
walls (probably tbose on the easfc aud west sides of
the so-called Tyropoeon valley), and issued at a
gate above the royal gardens and the Fountain of
Siloam. Thence he took the road towards tbe
Jordan, perhaps hoping to find refuge, as David
had, at some fortified place in tbe mounfcLiins on its
eastern side. On the road they were met and
recognized by some of the Jews who bad formerly
deserted to the Chaldaeans. By them the intelli
gence was communicated, with the eager treachery
of deserters, to tbe generals in the city (Joseph.),
and, as soon as the dawn of day permitted it, swift
pursuit was made. Tbe king's party must have
had some hours' start, and ought to bave had no
difficulty in reaching the Jordan; but, either from
their being on foofc, weak and infirm, while the
pursuers were mounted, or perhaps owing to fche
mcumbrance of the women and baggage, they were
overtaken near Jericho, when just within sight
of the river. A few of the people only remained
round the person of the king. The rest; fled in all
directions, so tbat he was easily taken.
Nebuchadnezzar was then at Riblah, afc the
upper eud of the valley of Lebanon, some 35 miles
bejond Baalbec, and therefore about ten days'
journey from Jerusalem. Thither Zedekiah and
his sons were dispatched; his dauEjhters were kept
at Jerusalem, and shortly after fell into the hands
of the notorious Ishmael at Mizpah. When he
was brought before Nebuchadnezzar, tbe great
king reproached him in the severest terms, first for
breaking his oath of allegiance, and next for ingrat
itude (Joseph.). He then, with a refinement of
cruelty characteristic of those cruel times, ordered
his sons to he killed before him, and lastly his own
eyes to he thrust out. He was then loaded with
hrazen fetters, and at a later period taken to Baliy
Ion, where he died. We are not told whether he
was allowed to communicate with his brother Je
hoiachin, who ai, that time was also in captivity
there; nor do we know the time of his death; but
from the omission of his name in the statement of
Jehoiakini's releiise by Kvil- Merodach, 26 years
fter the fall of Jerusalem, it is natural to infer
ihat by that time Zedekiab's sufferings had ended,
Tlie fact of his interview with Nebuchadnezzar
^t Rililah, and his being carried blind to Babylon
reconciles two predictions of Jeremiah and Ezekiel,
vhich at tbe time of their delivery must have

ZEDEKIAH 3613
pnpeared conflicting, and which Josephus indeed
particularly states Zedekiah alleged as his reason
for not giving more heed to Jeremiah. The formei
of the=-e (Jer. xxxii. 4) states that Zedekiah shall
speak with the king of Babylon mouth to mouth,
and his eyes shall behold his eyes; " the latter (Ez.
xii. 13), that " he shall be brought to Babylon, yet
shall he not see it, though he die there." The
whole of this prediction of Ezekiel, whose prophe
cies appear to have beeu delivered at Babylon (Ez.
i. 1-3, xl. 1), is truly remarkable as describing
almost exactly tbe circumstances of Zedekiah's
flight. 2. (^n^pl? and nji7"T:5 « : ^eSeKfos; [Vat.
in 1 K. xxii. 24, '^eBeKiov'^ Sedecias.) Son of
Chenaanah, a prophet at the court of Ahab, head,
or, if not head, virtual leader of the college. He
appears but once, namely, as spokesman when the
prophets are consulted by Ahab on the result of his
proposed expedition to Kamoth-Gilead (1 K. xxii,;
2 Chr. xviii.).
Zedekiah bad prepared himself for the interview
with a pair of i"on horns affcer tbe symbolic custom
of tbe propheta (comp. Jer. xiii., xix.), the horns
of the reeni, or bufi^alo, which was the recognized
emblem of the tribe of Ephraim (Deut. xxxiii. 17).
W'ith tbese, in the interval of Micaiah's arrival, he
illustrated the manner in which Ahab should drive
the Syrians before bim. When Micaiah appeared
and had delivered his prophecy, Zedekiah sprang
forward and struck him a blow on the face, accom
panying it by a taunting sneer. For this he is
threatened by Micaiah in terms which are hardly
intelligible to us, bufc which evidently allude to
some personal danger to Zedekiah.
The narrative of the Bible does not imply that
the blow struck by Zedekiah was prompted by
more than sudden anger, or a wish to insult and
humiliate the prophet of Jehovah. But Josephus
takes a very different view, which he develops afc
some length {Ant. viii. 15, § 3). He relates thafc
after Micaiah had spoken, Zedekiah again came
forward, and denounced him as false on the ground
that his prophecy contradicted the prediction of
Elijah, thafc Ahab's blood should be licked up by
dogs in the field of Nabofch of Jezreel; and as a
further proof that he was an impostor, he struck
hira, daring him to do what Iddo, in somewhat
similar circumstances, had done to Jeroboam
namely, wither his hand.
This addition is remarkable, but ifc is related
by Josephus with great circumstantiality, and was
doubtless drawn by him from tbat source, unhap
pily now lost, from which he has added so many
admirable touches to the outlines of the sacred
narrative. As to the question of what Zedekiah and his
followers were, whether prophets of Jehovah or of
some false deifcy, it seems hardly possible to entei
tain any doubt. True, they use the name of
Jehovah, but that was a habit of false prophets
(Jer. xxviii. 2, comp. xxix. 21, 31), and there is a
vast difference between the casual manner in which
they mention the awful Name, and the full, and aa
it were, formal style in which Micaiah proclaims
and reiterates it. Seeing also thafc Ahab and his
queen were professedly worshippers of Baal and
Ashtaroth, and that a few years only before tbis
event they had an establishment consisting of two
<i Ohce only, namely, 1 K. xxii. 11.

8614

ZEEB

ZELOPHEHAD

bodies — one of 450, the other of 400 — prophets
of fchis false worship, ifc is difficult to suppose that
fhere could have been also 400 prophets of Jehovah
at his court. But the inquiry of the king of Judah
seems to decide the point. After hearing tbe pre
diction of Zedekiah and his fellows, he asks atonce
for a prophet, of Jehovah : " Is there not here be
sides (1*12?) a prophet of Jehovah that we may
inquire of hlmf^' The natural inference seems
to be that the others were not prophets of Jehovah,
but were the 400 prophets of Ashtaroth (A. V.
"the groves") who escaped the sword of Elijah
(comp. 1 K. xviii. 19 with 22,40). They, had
spoken in His name, but there was something
about tbem — some trait of manner, costume, or
gesture — which aroused the suspicions of Jehosh
aphat, and, to the practiced eye of one who Uved at
the centre of Jehovah-worship and was well verspd
in the marks of the genuine prophet, proclaimed
them counterfeits. With these few words Zede
kiah may be leffc to fche oblivion in which, excepfc
ou this one occasion, he remains. G.
3. (^n*i71V.) The son of Maaseiah, ^ false
prophefc in Babylon among the captives who were
taken with .leconiah (Jer. xxix. 21, 22). He was
denounced in the letter of Jeremiah for having,
with Ahab the son of Kolaiah, buoyed up the peo
ple with false hopes, and for profane and flagitious
conduct. Their names were to become a by-word,
and their terrible fate a warning. Of this fate we
have no direct intimation, or of the manner in
which they incurred it: fche prophet simply pro
nounces that they should fall into the hands of
Nebuchadnezzar and be burnt to death. In the
Targum of li. Joseph bn 2 Chr. xxviii. 3, the story
is told that Joshua the son of Jozadak the high-
priest was cast into tbe furnace of fire with Ahab
aud Zedekiah, but that, M'hiie they were consumed,
he was saved for his righteousness' sake.
4, The son of Hananiah, one of the princes of
Judah who were assembled in the scribes' chamber
of the king's palace, when Micaiah announced tbat
Baruch had read the words of Jeremiah in the ears
of the people from the chamber of Gemariah the
scribe (Jer. xxxvi. 12). W. A. W.
ZE'EB PKT [seebelow]: 6 Z-f}^: Zeb). One
of tbe two " princes " (^)?Ci?) of Midian in the
great invasion of Israel — inferior to the " kings "
Zebah and Zalmunna. He is always named with
Oreb (.ludg. vii. 25, viii. 3; Ps. Ixxxiii. 11). The
name signifies in Hebrew " wolf," just as Oreb
does '*crow," [or "raven"] and the two are
appropriate enough to the customs of predatory
wan-iors, who delight in conferring such names on
their chiefs.
Zee!) nnd Oreb were not slain at tbe first rout
of tho ArMl)S helow the spring of Harod, but at a
later sta^e of fclie struggle, probably in crosshig
the -lordan at a ford further dovm the river, near
the pnssfs wliich descend from Mount I'^pbraim.
An eiioniions mass of tlieir followers perished with
them. [Okkk.] Zeeb, tbe wolf, was brought to
bay in a wine-press which in later times bore his

n The Dieaniiig is slightly altered by the change in
the vowel-points. In the former case it signifies an
'addition'* {a'/han:^), in the latter a '' rib ¦' (Fiir.st,
Hiob. ii 275 a). Compare the equivjileuts of tbe
\jXX. aud A'ulg iu Stimuel, as i!,ive\i above.

name — the " wine-press of Zeeb " (3WT P\\}^
'Ia«6</)f^^; Alex. laK€<p(r,fi: Torcular Zeb). '
G.
ZE'LAH (3?b? and 2?b^,a Le. Tsela [^ib
side] : in Josh. [Rom.] Vat. omit [or read 2eA7?-
Kav'ji Alex. :$ri\a[\€tf>; [Sarrav. 2eAo;] in Sam.
ev TT? 7rAeo/)a in both : Sela, in latere). One of
the cities in fche allotment of Benjamin (Josh, xviii.
28). Ifcs place in the list is between Taralah and
ha-Eleph. None of these places have, however,
been yet discovered. The infceresfc of Zelah reaidea
in the fact thafc ifc contained the family tomb of
Kish the father of Saul ^2 Sam. xxi. 14), in which
the bones of Saul and Jonathan, and also appar
ently of the two sons and five grandsons of Saul, '
sacrificed to Jehovah on the hill of Gibeah, at last
found their resting-place (comp. ver. 13). As
containing their sepulchre, Zelah was in all proba
bility the native place t> of the family of Kish, and
therefore his home, and the home of Saul before
his selection as king had brought him into .promi
nence. This appears to have been generally over
looked, but it is important, because it gives a dif
ferent starting-point to that usually assumed for
the journey of Saul in quest of his father's asses,
as well as a different goal for his return after the
anointing; and although the position of Zelah is
not and may never be known, still it is one step
nearer the solution of the complicated difficultiea
of that route to know that Gibeah — Saul's roya]
residence after he became king — was nofc neces
sarily the point eitber of his departure or hia
return. The absence of any connection between the naniea
of Zelah and Zelzah (too frequently assuraed) is no
ticed under the latter head. G.
ZBXEK (pb^ [chfi]: 'EAte' [Vat. EAeie],
SeA-Jj; Alex. S^Aeyi, SsAAtjk:: Zelec). An Am
monite, one of David's guard (2 Sam. xxiii. 37;
1 Chr. xi. 39).
ZBLOPH'EHAD (IPlpb^ [perh. frsirbom,
Ges.]: XaXiradd, [exc. Josh. xvii. 3, Alex. 2aA-
«^aaS; 1 Chr. vii. 15, Rom. Vat. 5air(/)0(iS:] S(d-
phaad). Son of Hepher, son of Gilead, son of
Machir, son of Manasseh (Josh. xvii. 3). He waa
apparently the second son of his father Hepher (1
Cbr. vii. 15), though Simonis and others, following
the interpretation of the Rabbis, and under the
impression thafc the etymology of his name indi
cates a first-born, explains the terra "*3^n as
meaning that his lot came up second. Zelophehad
came out of Egypt with Moses: and all that we
know of him is that he took no part in Korah'a
rebellion, but that he died in the wilderness, as did
the whole of that generation (Nura. xiv. 35, xxvii.
3). On his death without male heirs, hia five
daughtei-s, just after the second numbering in the
wilderness, came before Moses and Kleazar to claim
the inheritance of their father in the tribe of
Manasseh. The claim was admitted by Divine
direction, and a law was pronmlgated, to be of
general application, that if a man died without
sons his inheritance should pass to his daughters
(Num. xxvi. 33, xxvii. l-ll ), which led to a further
enactment (Num. xxxvi. ), that such heiresses should

& In like manner the sepulchre of the fiunily (rf
Jesse was at Bethlehem (2 Sam. il. 32).

ZELOTES
lot marry out of their own tribe — a regulation
which the five daughters of Zelophehad complied
ivifch, being all married to sons of Manas-seh, so
ihat Zelophehad's inheritance continued in the tribe
of Manasseh. The law of succession, as exempli-
tied in the case of Zelophehad, is treated at length
liy Selden {De Success, capp. xxii., xxiii.).
The interest of the case, in a legal point of view,
has led to the careful preservation of Zelophehad's
genealogy. Beginning with Joseph, it will be seen
that the daughters of Zelophehad are fche sevenfch
geherafcion. So are Salmon, Bezaleel, and Zophai
(apparently the first settler of his family), from
their patriarchal ancestors; while Caleb, Achan,
and Phinehas are the sixth; Joshua seems to have
been the eighth, [Shuthelah.] The average,
therefore, seems to be between 6 and 7 genera
tions, which, at 40 years to a generation (as suited
to the length of life at that time),gives between
240 and 280 years, wbich agrees very well witb the
reckoning of 215 years for the sojourning of the
Israelites in Egypt -f- 40 years in the w^derness
= 255 (Joseph, Ant, iv. 7, § 5 ; Selden, De Suc
cess, xxii., xxiii.). A. C. H.
ZELO'TES {Zt]\(ott]s' Zelotes). The epithet
giveu to the Apostle Simon to distinguish him from
Simon Peter (Luke vi. 15). In Matt. x. 4, he is
called " Simon the Canaanite," the last word being
a corruption of the Aramaic term, of which " Ze
lotes" is the Greek equivalent. [Canaanite;
Simon 5.]
ZEL'ZAH (n?b^: i. e. Tseltsach [shadow,
Ges.; or, double shmoio, Eiirst] : aKKQp.4vovs"-
jue-yciAa, in both MSS.: in meridie). A place
named once only (1 Sam. a. 2), as on the boundary
of Benjamin, close to (22?) Kachers sepulchre.
It was the first point in the homeward journey of
Saul after his anointing by Samuel. Rachel's
sepulchre is still shown a short distance to the
north of Bethlehem, but no acceptable identifica
tion of Zelzach has been proposed. It is usually
considered as identical with Zelah, the home of
Kish and Saul, and that again with Beit^jala.
But this is not tenable; at any rate there is noth
ing to support it. Tbe naraes Zelah and Zelzach
are not only nofc idenfcical, bufc they have hardly
anything in common, still less have H^^^ and
JfL^; nor is Beit-Jala, close enough to the Kud-
bet Rahil to answer to the expression of Samuel.
[Ramah.] G.
ZEMARA'IM (D^r'P? [double forest-mount,
Fijrst]: 'Xdpa: Alex, '^e/xptp: Semarnim). One
of the towns of the allotment of Benjamin (Josh.
xviii. 22). It is named between Beth ha-Arabah
wid Bethel, and therefore on the assumption that
Arabah in the former name denotes as usual the
Jordan Valley, we should expect to find Zemaraim
either in the valley or in sorae position on its
western edge, between it and Bethel. In the
former case a trace of fche name may remain iu

ZEMARITE, THE

36K

Chiirbet elSzdmra, which is marked in Seetzen's
mnp {Reisen, vol. iv. map 2) as about 4 miles
north of Jericho, and appears as es-SHmrah^ in
those of Rot)inson and Van de Velde.*^ (See also
Rob. Bibl. Res, i. 569.) In the latter case Zema
raim raay be connected, or identical, with Mount
Zesiaraim, which must have been in the highland
district. In either event Zemaraim may have derived its
name from the ancient tribe of the Zemarim or
Zemarites, who were related to the Hittites and
Amorites; who, like them, are represented in the
Biblical account as descendants of Canaan, but,
from some cause or other unexplained, have left
but very scanty traces of their existence. The
list of the towns of Benjamin are remarkable for
the number of tribes wbich tbey commemorate.
The Avites, tbe Ammonites, the Ophnites, the
Jebusites, are all mentioned in the catalogue of
Josh, xviii. 22-28, and it is at least possible tbat
the Zemarites may add another to the Ust. G.
ZEMARAIM, MOUNT (D'l'D?? "TJ
[see above]: t5 opos ^opSpwv'. mo7is Semeron).
An eminence mentioned in 2 Chr. xiii. 4 only. It
was " in Mount Ephraim," that is to say within
the general district of the highlands of tbat great
tribe. Ifc appears to have been close to tbe scene
(if tbe engagement menfcioned in the narrative,
which again may be inferred to have been south
of Bethel and Ephraim (ver. 19). It may be said
in passing, that a po.sition so far south is no con
tradiction to its being in Mount Ephraim. It bas
been already shown under Ramah [iii. 2670 b'\
that the name of Mount Ephraim probably ex
tended as far as er-Ram.^ 4 miles south of Beitin,
and 8 of Taiyibeh, the possible representative of
Ephraim. Whether Mount Zemaraim is identical
with, or related to the plaoe of the same name
mentioned in tlie preceding article, cannot Ije ascer
tained. If they prove to be distinct plaees they
will furnish a double testimony to the presence of
the ancient tribe of Zemarites in this part of the
country. No name answering to Zemaraim has
been yet discovered in the maps or information of
travellers on the highland.
It will be observed that in the LXX. and A'ul-
gate, tbis name is rendered by the same word
whicb in the former represents Samaria. But tbis,
though repeated (with a difference) in the case of
Zemarite, can hardly be more than an accidental
error, since the names have lifctle or no resemblance
in Hebrew. In the present case Samaria is be
sides inadmissible on topographical grounds. G.
ZEM'ARITE, THE C^"!»-^rT [patr.]: d
:Zap.apa7os; [in 1 Chr. Rom. Vat. omit:] Sama-
rceus). One of the Hamite tribes who in tht
genealogical table of Gen. x. (ver. 18), and 1 Chr.
i. (ver. 16), are represented as "sons of Canaan."
It is named between the Arvadite, or people of
Ruad, and the Hamathite, or people of Hamah.
Nothing is certainly known of this ancient trilie.

a Appavently reading 715 V^, The Talmud has
numerous explanations, the favorite one being that
Belzah waa Jerusalem — " the shadow ( V^) of God."'
Something of this kind is at the root ol the meridie
rf the Vulg.
f> The name Sumrah occurs more than once else

where in the Jordan Valley. It v^ found close to the
" Round Fountain " in the Plain of Gennesareth ; also
at tbe S. E. end of the Lake of Tiberias.
c In tbe 2d ed. of Robinson (i. 569) the name ia
given as es-SUmra; but tbi.s is probably a misprint.
See the Arabic Index to ed. i., the tfixt, ii. 305, and
the maps to both editioas.

3616

ZEMIRA

rhe old interpreters (Jerusalem Targum, Arabic
Version, etc.) place them at Emessa, the modem
Hums. Michaelis {Spicilegium, ii. 51), revolting
\t the want of similarity between the two names
(which is perhaps tbe strongest argument in favor
Df the old identification), proposes to locate them at
Sumra (the Simyra of the classical geographers),
which name is mentioned by Shaw as attached to
a site of ruins near Arka, on the west coasfc of
Syria, 10 or 11 miles above Tripoli.
On the new French map of the Lebanon ( Carte
du Lihan, etc, 1802) it appears as Kobbet oum
S' ounna, and lies between Arka and fche Mediter-
lanean, 2 kiloniHres from the latter, and 5^ from
tlie former. Beyond, however, the resemblance in
the names, and the proximity of Rund and Arka,
the probable seats of the Arvadites and Arkites,
and the consequent inference that the original seat
of the Zvimarites must have been somewhere in this
direction, tbere is nothing to prove that Sumra or
Shoumra have any connection with the Tsemarites.
of the ancient records.
Traces of their having wandered to the south are
possibly afforded by tbe name Zemaraim, formerly
attached to two places in the topographical lists of
Central Palestine — a district which appears to have
been very attractive to the aboriginal wandering
tribes from every quarter. [Zemaraim; see also
Avim, Ophxi, etc.]
The LXX. and Vulgate would connect the Zem
arites with Samaria. In this they have been fol
lowed by some commentators. But the idea is a
delusion, grounded on the inabiUty of the Greek
alphabet to express the Hebrew letters of both
names. G.
ZEMI'RA (nn'^D^ [song, Gea.]: Zep.ipd\
[Vat. A-papiasx] Alex. Zapipias' Zamira). One
of fche sons of Becher the son of Benjamin (1 Chr.
viL 8).
ZE'NAN (P^ [place of flocks]: -Zevvd-., Alex.
^evvap. Sanan). One of the towns in the allot
ment of Judah, situated in the district of the
Shefelah (Josh. xv. 37). It occurs in the second
group of the enumeration, which contains amongst
others Migdal-gad and Lachish. It is probably
identical with Zaanan, a place raentioned by the
prophet Micah in the same connection.
Schwarz (p. 103) proposes to identify it with
"the village /Zan-abra, situated 2J Enghsh miles
southeast of Maresbah" By this he doubtless in
tends the place which in the lists of Robinson
{Bibl. Res. Ist ed., vol. iii., App. 117) is called e»-
Sendbirah, SoLa-wJi, and in Tobler's Driiie
J
Wanderung (p. 149), es-Senndbereh. The latter
traveller in his map places it about 2^ miles due
eri.st of Marash {.'ifaresha). But this identifica^
tion is more than doubtful. G.
ZE'NAS {Z-rivas, a contraction from Zr)v6-
Bwpos, <<5 'ApTc^as from *ApT6jui5wpos, NujU.0as
from Nvfi<}>6diopo9, and, probably, 'Epp,as from
'EppS^capos), a believer, and, as may be inferred
from the context, a preacher of fche gospel, who is
mentioned in Tifc. iii. 13 in connection witb Apol
los, and, together with him, is there commended
hy St. Paul to the care and hospitality of Titus
*nd the Cretan brethren. He is further described
OS " the lawyer" (rin/ vopiKSv). It is impossible
to determine with certainty whether we are to infer
£rom this designation that Zenas was a Roman

ZEPHANIAH
jurisconsult or a -Tewish doctor. Grotius accept4
the fonner alternative, and thinks that he was a
Greek who had studied Roman Law. The N. T.
usage of voptK6s leads rather to the other infer
ence. Ti-adition has been somewhat busy with the
name of Zenas. The Synopsis de Vita ei Morte
Pnphetai'um Apostolorum ei Discipulorum Domini
ascribed to Dorotheus of Tyre, makes him to have
been one of the "seventy-two*' disciples, and sub
sequently bishop of Diospolis in Palestine {Bibl
Patr. iii. 150). The "seventy-two" disciples of
Dorotheus are, however, a mere string of names
picked ont of salutations and other incidental no
tices in the N. T. Tbe Greek Moiologies on the
festival of SS. Bartholomew and Titus (Aug. 25)
refer to a certain Life of Titus, ascribed to Zenas,
which is also quoted for the supposed conversion
of the younger Pliny (compare Fabricius, Codex
Apocr. N. T. ii, 831 f.). The association of Zenas
witb Titus, in St. Paul's epistle to the latter, suffi
ciently accounts for the forgery. W. B. J.
ZEPHANI'AH (n^?5^: So^ovfas : 5o-
phonia. These forms refer to another punctuation,
rr^S^^, a participial form). Jerome derives the
name from Hdi, and supposes it to mean speair'
latoi' Domini, " watcher of the Lord," an appro
priate appellation for a prophet. The pedigree of
Zephaniah, ch. i. 1, is traced to his fourth ancestor,
Hezekiah : supposed by Aben Ezra to be the cele
brated king of that narae. This is not in itself
improbable, and the fact that the pedigree termi
nates witb that narae, points to a personage of rank
and importance. Late critics and commentatora
generally acquiesce in the hypothesis, namely,
Eichhorn, Hitzig, F. Ad. Strauss ( Vaticinia Zeph-
anicB, Berlin, 1843), Havernick, Keil, and Bleek
{Einleitung in das Alte Testament).
Auidysis. Chap. i. The utter desolation of
Judaea is predicted as a judgment for idolatry, and
neglect of the I^rd, the luxury of the princes, and
the violence and deceit of their dependents (3-9).
The prosperity, security, and insolence of the peo
ple is contrasted with the horrors of the day of
wrath ; the assaults upon the fenced cities and high
towers, and the slaughter of the people (lft-18).
Ch. ii., a call to repentance (l-3\ with prediction
of the ruin of the cities of the Philistines aud the
restoration of the bouse of Judah after the visita
tion (4—7 ). Other eneraies of Judah, — Moab, Am
mon, — are threatened with perpetual destniction,
Ethiopia with a great slaughter, and Nineveh, tbe
capital of Assyria, with desolation (8-15). Ch. iii.
The prophefc addresses Jerusalem, which he reproves
sharply for vice and disobedience, the cruelty of the
princes and tlie treachery of the priests, and for
their general disregai'd of warnings and visitations
(1-7). He then concludes with a series of prom
ises, the destruction of the enemira of God's people,
the restoration of exiles, the extirpation of tbe
proud and violent, and the permanent peace and
blessedness of the poor and afflicted remnant whe
shidl trust in the name of the Lord. These exhorta
tions to rejoicing and exertion are mingled with in
timations of a complete manifestation of God's
righteousness and love in the restoration of his
people (8-20).
'i'be chief characteristics of this book are the
unity and harmony of the composition, tbe grace.
energy, and dignity of its style, and the rapid and
effective alternations of threats ard promises. Itl

ZEPHANIAH
prophetical import is cliiefly sliown in tlie accurate
predictions of tlie desolation whi'cli has fallen upon
eacli of the nations denounced for their crimes;
Kthiopia, which is menaced with a terrible invasion,
being alone exempted from the doom of perpetual
ruin. The general tone of the last portion is Mes
sianic, but without any specific relerence to the
I'erson of our Lord.
The date of the book is given in the inscription ;
iiaiiielj, the reign of .Josiah, from 642 to 611 B. c.
Tliis date accords fully with internal indications.
Nineveh is represented as in a state of peace and
prosperity, wliile the notices of Jerusalem touch
upon tho same tendencies to idolatry and crime
wliich are condemned by the contemporary Jeremiah.
it is most probable, moreover, that the prophecy
waa delivered hefore the JSi.h year of Josiah, when
the reformation, for which it prepares the way, was
carried into effect, and about the time when the
Scythians overran the empires of western Asia, ex
tending their devastations to Palestine. The no
tices which are supposed by some critics to indi
cate a somewhat later date are satisfactorily
explained. The Iting's children, who are spoken
')f, ill ch. i. 8, as addicted to foreign habits, could
uot have been sons of Josiah, who was but eight
years old at his accession, but were probably his
brothers or near relatives. The remnant of Baal
(ch. i. 4) implies that some partial reformation had
previously taken place, while the notices of open
idolatry are incompatible with the state of Judah
after the discovery of the Book of the Law. F. C. C.
* Literature. — ¦ Among the special writers on
Zephaniah are J. H. Gebhardi, ErUdrung des
Proph. Zephiinjah (1728); U.' G. C. von Colin,
Spicileg. Observatt. exeg. -crit. ad Zephanice
Vaticinia (1818); P. Ewald, Der Prophet Zeph-
(mio(1827); i'r. A. Strauss, Vaticinia Zephanice
Comm. illustr. (1843); and L. Reinke, Der Proph.
Zephanja (1868). On particular topics, J. A. Nol-
Uti, Diss. exeg. in Prophetiam Zephanice (1719);
C. F. Cramer, Scylliische Denkmaler in Pal-
06i»7!(t, with a Commentary (1777), and C. Th.
¦\iiton, Versio c. iii. Projyh. Ziph. etc. (1811). The
later writers on Zephaniah are Kosenmiiller, Hitzig,
Theiner, Maurer, Ewald, Umbreit, Keil (1866),
Kleinert (1866, in Lange's Bibelioerk), Henderson,
Noyes, Cowles, and Pusey (1870), in their well
known commentaries on the minor propheta. For
works relating to the overthrow of Nineveh, so dis
tinctly foretold by Zephaniah, see the additions to
Namum and Nisevkh. See also the art. Zephanja
by Delitzsch in Herzog's Real-Encyk. xviii. 493-
501 (1864). H.
2. ('Safavia; Alex. 'S.aipavias: Sophonias.)
A Kohathite Levite, ancestor of Samuel and He-
man (1 Chr. vi. 36 [-21]).
3. (7.o(}>oi'ias. ) The son of Maaseiah (Jer. xxi.
I), and siigan or second priest in the reign of
Zedekiah. He succeeded Jehoiada (Jer. xxix. 25,
26), and was probalily a ruler of the Temple, whose
office it was among otliers to punish pretenders to
tbe gift of prophecy. In this capacity he was ap
pealed to by Shemaiah the Nehelamite, in a letter
trom Babylon, to punish Jeremiah (Jer. xxix. 29).
Twice was he sent from Zedekiah to inquire of
Jeremiah the issue of the siege of the city by the
Ubaldsans (Jer. xxi. 1), and to implore him to in
tercede for the people (Jer. xxxvii. 3). On the
*pture of Jerus-ilem by Nebuzaradan he was
Bken with Seraiah tlie high-priest and others, and

ZEPHATHAH, VALLEY OP 3617
slain at Riblah (Jer. Iii. 24, 27; 2 K. xxv. 18, 21).
In 2 K. xxv. 18, Jer. xxxvii. 3, his name is writ
ten in the longer form ^iT^PC?.
4. Father of Josiah 2^(Zecii. vi. 10), and of
Hen, according to the reading of the received text
of Zech. vi. 14, as given in the A. V.
W. A. W.
ZB'PHATH (nQ'2 [watch-tower]: [Rom.
26<f>efl; Vat.] [Serpen; Alex. 'Seipep: Sephaath).
The earlier name (aecording to the single notice of
Judg. i. 17) of a Canaanite town, which after its
capture and destruction was called by the Israelitea
HoEMAn. Two identifications have been pro
posed for Zephath : that of Dr. Robinson with
the well-known pass es-Sufd (sLs-oJI), by
which the ascent is made from the bordera of the
Arabah to the higher level of the " South country "
(BibL Mes. ii. 181), and that of Mr. Rowlands
(Williams's Iluly Cily, i. 464) with Sebdta, 2^
hours beyond Khnltisa, on the road to Suez, and
1 of an hour north of Rohebeh or Ruheibeh.
T'he former of these, Mr. Wilton ( The Negeb,
etc., pp. 199, 200) has challenged, on account of the
impracticability of the pass for the approach of the
Israelites, and the inappropriateness of so rugged
and desolate a spot for the position of a eity of any
importance. The question really fornis part of a
much larger one, which this is not the place to dis
cuss — namely, the route by which the Israelitea
approached the Holy Land. But in the mean
time it should not be overlooked that the attempt
in question vvas an unsuccessful one, which is so far
in favor of the steepness of the pass. The argu
ment from the nature of the site is one which
might he brouglit witli equal force against the ex
istence of many others of the towns in this region.
On the identification of Mr. Rowlands some doubt
is thrown by the want of certainty as to the name,
as well as by the fact that no later traveller haa
.succeeded hi finding the name Sebuia, or the spot.
Dr. Stewart ( Teut and Khan, p. 205) heard of the
name, but east of Khalasa instead of south, and
this was in answer to a leading question — always
a dangerous experiment with Arabs.
It is earnestly to be hoped that some means may
shortly be found, to attempt at least the examina
tion and reconcilement of these and the like contra
dictory statements and inferences. G.
ZEPH'ATHAH, THB VALLEY OF
(nriD? S''2 [watcli-tower] : ij ipapay^ Kara
Soppavj" in hoth MSS. ; Joseph. (/>. SaipSd. : Vallis
Septwtn). The spot in which Asa joined battle
with Zerah the Ethiopian (2 Chr. xiv. 10 only). It
was "at" or rather "belonging to" Maresbah
(ntfntS^ • Joseph, ooic ^iruiBev). This would
seem to exclude the possiljility of its being, as sug
gested hy Dr. Robinson (ii. 31), at Tell es-SaJieh,
which is not less than 8 miles from Marash, the
modern representative of Maresbah. It is not im
probable that an examination of the neighborhood
might reveal both spot and name. Considering
the enormous number of the combatants, the valley
must be an extensive one. G.
* Maresbah has not been identified by name, but

a Probably reading n31D!J. It will be observed
that Josephus here forsakes the LXX. for the H»
brew text.

SCl8 ZEPHI
is probably marked by " the foundations on the
southeastern part of the remarkable TeU" south
of Beit Jibrin (Robinson). There is a deep valley
which runs past the Tell down to Beit Jibiin and
tfaenee into the plain of Philistia. Mr. Porter sug
gests (if Tell es-Safeh he too far from the sup
posed site of Maresbah) that this valley may be
Zephathah (Kitto, CycL of BibL Lit., iii. 1156). H.
ZE'PHI C'Q? [watch-tower]: 'Sai^dp: Sephi),
1 Chr. i. 36. [Zepho.]
ZE'PHO ('lD!J [watch-tower]: Saxfuip:
Sephu). A son of Eliphaz son of Esau (Gen.
xxxvi. 11), and one of the "dukes," or phylarchs,
ofthe Edomites (ver. 15). In 1 Chr. i. 36 he is
called Zephi. E. S. P.
ZB'PHON ii^tV [almking out]: Sa<\>iiv\
Alex, omits: Sephon). Ziphion the son of Gad
(Num. xxvi. 15), and ancestor of the family of the
Zephonites. ZE'PHONITES, THECaiDKn [patr.]:
& Xaipuyi [Vat. -yet] : Sephonitce). A branch of
the tribe of Gad, descended from Zephon or Ziphion
(Num. xxvi. 15).
ZEE, (12 [flint]: Tipos: Ser). One of the
fortified towns of the allotment of Naphtali (Josh,
xix. 35 only). From the names which succeed it
in the list it may be inferred that it was in the
neighborhood of the S. W. side of the Lake of
Gennesareth. The versions of the LXX. and of
the Peshito, both of this name and that which
precedes it, are grounded on an obvious mistake.
Neither of them has anything to do with Tyre or
Zidon. Ziddira may possibly be identified with Hattin ;
but no name resembling Ts^r appears to have been
yet discovered in the neighborhood of Tiberias. G.
ZE'RAH (niT [rising, origin] : Zape, [Zapd. :]
Zara, [Zare] ). A son of Reuel son of Esau (Gen.
xxxvi. 13; 1 Chr. i. 37), and one of the "dukes,"
or phylarchs, of the Edomites (Gen. xxxvi. 17).
Jobab of Bozrah, one of the early kings of Edom,
perhaps belonged to his family (xxxvi. 33 ; 1 Chr.
i. 44). E. S. P.
ZE'RAH, less properly, Za'kah (H jT, with
the pause aecent, H"!^ [ rising] : Zapd ; [in 1
Chr. ix. 6, Vat. Zapae:] Zara). Twin son with
his elder brother Pharez of judah and Tamar
(Gen. xxxviii. 30.; 1 Chr. ii. 6; Matt. i. 3). His
descendants were called Zarhites, Ezrahites, and
Izi'ahites (Num. xxvi. 20; 1 K. iv. 31; 1 Chr. xxvii.
8, 11 ), and continued at least down to the time of
Zerubbabel (1 Chr. ix. 7; Neh. xi. 24). Nothing
is related of Zerah individually, beyond the pecul
iar circumstances of his birth (Gen. xxxviii. 27-
30), concerning which see Heidegg. Hist. Patri
arch. x\iU. 28. A. C. H.
2. (Zapes: Alex. Zapae: Zara.) Son of Simeon
',1 Chr. iv. 24), called Zohar in Gen. xlvi. 10.
3. (Zapa [Vat. laapa], Zaapat, Alex. Zapa,
K^apias-) A Gershonite Levite, son of Iddo or
Vdaiah (1 Chr. vi. 21, 41 [Heb. vi. 26]).
*• (ni). : Zape: Zerah.) The Ethiopian or
Cushite, ''ti''."l3rT, an invader of Judah, defeated
ay Asa [2 Cbr. xiv. 9].

ZERAH
1. In its form the name is identical with th<
Hebrew proper name above. It has been supposed
to represent the Egyptian USARKEN, possiljj
pronounced USARCHEN, a name almost certaiiilj
of Shemitic origin [Shishak, ii. 1289], The
difference is great, but may be partly accounted
for, if we suppose tbat the Egyptian deviates from
the original Shemitic form, and that tbe Hebrew
represents that form, or that a further deviation
than would have been made was the result of the
similarity of the Hebrew proper name Zerah. So
SID, even if pronounced SEWA, or SEVA, ia
more remote from SHEBEK or SHEBETEK than
Zerah from USARKEN. It may be conjectured
that these forms resemble those of Memphis, Moph,
Noph, which evidently represent current pronun
ciation, probably of Shemites.
2. The war between Asa and Zerah appeara to
have taken place soon after the 10th, and shortly
before the 15th year of Asa, probably late in the
14th, as we shall see in examining the narrative.
It therefore occurred in about the same year of
Usarken II., fourth king of the XXIId dynasty,
wbo began to reign about the same time as the
king of Judah. Asa's reign, as far as tbe 14th
year inclusive, was u. c. cir. 953-940, or, if iSIa-
nasseh's reign be reckoned ot 35 years, 933-920.
[Shishak, pp, 3010 ff.]
3. The first ten years of Asa's reign were un
disturbed by war. Then Asa took counsel witb bis
subjects, and walled and fortified the cities of Ju
dah. He also maintained an army of 580,000 men,
300,000 spearmen of Judah, and 280,000 archere
of Benjamin. This great force was probably the
whole number of men able to bear arms (2 Clir.
xiv. 1-8). At length, probably in the 14tb year
of Asa, the anticipated danger came. Zerah, tbe
Ethiopian, with a mighty army of a million,
Cushim and Lubim, with three hundred cbariola,
aivaded the kingdom, and advanced unopposed in
the field as far as Maresbah. As the invaders af
terwards retreated by way of Gerar, and Maresbah
lay on the west of the hill-country of Judab, where
it rises out of the Philistine plain, in the line of
march from Egypt to Jerusalem, it cannot be
doubted that they came out of Egypt. Between
the border on the side of Gerar and iMaresbab, lay
no important city but Gath. Gath and Maresbah
were both fortified by Kehoboam before the invasion
of Shishak (xi. 8), and were no doubt captured and
probably dismantled by that king (comp. xii. 4),
whose list of conquered towns, etc, shows that he not
only took some strong towns, but that he subdued
the country in detail. A delay in the capture of
Gath, where the warlike Phihstines may have op
posed a stubborn resistance, would have removed
the only obstacle on the way to Jlareshah, thus se
curing the retreat that was afterwards made by
this route. From Maresbah, or its immediate
neighborhood, was a route to Jerusalem, presenting
no difiiculties but those of a hilly country; for not
one important town is known to have lain between
the capital and this outpost of the tribe of Judah.
The invading army had swanned across the border
and devoured the PhlHstine fields before Asa could
march to meet it. The distance from Gerar or tbe
southwestern border of Palestine, to Maresbah, waa
not much greater than from Maresbah to Jerusa
lem, and considering the nature of the tract*,
would have taken about tbe same time to traverse
and only such delay as would have been caused In

ZEKAH
the sieges of Gath and Mareshat could have en
abled Asa bi«tily to collect a levy and march to
relieve the beleaguered town, or hold the passes.
" In the Valley of Zephathah at Maresbah," tbe
two armies met. We cannot perfectly determine
the site of tbe battle. Maresbah, acconling to the
Onomasiic(>n, lay within two miles of Kleutherop-
%ii, and Dr. Robinson has reasonably conjectured
its position to be marked liy a remarl^able -^ tell,"
or artificial mound, a mile and a half south of the
site of tlie lattei' town. Its signification, *• tbat
which is at the head," would scarcely suit a posi
tion at the opening of a valley. But it seems that
il narrow valley terminates, and a broad one com
mences at the supposed site. The VaUey of
Zephathah, " the watch-tower," is supposed by Dr.
Robinson to be tbe latter, .1, broad wady, descend
ing from Eleutheropolis in a northwesterly direc
tion towards Tell es-Sdfieh, in which last name he
is disposed to trace the old appeUation {Bibl. Res.
ii. 31). The two have no connection whatever, and
Il(ibinson*s conjecture is extremely hazardous. If
this identification be correct, we must suppose that
Zerah retired from before Maresbah towards the
plain, that he might use his " chariots and horse-
luen ¦' with effect, instead of entangUng them in
the narrow valleys leading towards Jerusalem.
From the prayer of Asa we may judge that, when
he came upon the invading army, he saw its huge
ness, and so that, as he descended through a valley,
it lay spread out beneath him. The lCg\ptian
nionunients enable us to picture the general dispo
sition of Zerah's army. The chariots formed the
first corps in a single or double line; behind them,
massed in phalanxes, were heavy armed troops;
prohably on the flanks stood archers and horsemen
in hghter formations. Asa, marching down a
valley, must have attacked in a heavy column; for
none but tbe most highly disciplined troops can
form line from column in the face of an enemy.
His spearmen of Judah would have composed this
column: each bank of tbe valley would have been
occupied by the Benjamite archers, like those who
came to David, " helpers of the war, armed with
bows, and [who] could nse both the right hand
and the left in [hurling] stones and [shooting]
arrows out of a bow " (1 Chr. xii. 1, 2). No doubt
the Ethiopian, confident \n his numbers, disdained
to attack the Hehrews or clear the heights, but
waited in tbe broad valley, or the plain. Asa'
prayer before the battle is full of the noble faith of
the age of the Judges: "Lord [it is] ahke to
Thee to help, whether the strong or the weak: help
us, 0 Lord our God ; for we rest on Thee, and in
Thy name we go against the multitude. 0 Lord,
Thou [art] our God ; let not man prevail against
Thee." From the account of Abijah's defeat of
Jeroboam, we may suppose that the priests sounded
theh trumpets, and the men of Judah descended
with a shout (2 (Jhr. xiii. 14, 15). The hills and
mountains were the favorite camping-places of the
Hebrews, who usually rushed down upon their
more numerous or better -disciplined enemies in tbe
plains and valleys. If the battle were deliberately
aet in array, it would have begun early m the
morning, according to the usual practice of these
times, when there was not a night surprise, as
ffhen Goliath challenged the Israelites (I Sam, xvii,
20-23), and when Thothmes III. fought the Cana-
Miites at Megiddo, and as we raay judge from the
long pursuits at this period, the sun would have
>een in the eyes of the army of Zerah, and its

ZERAH af519
archers would bave been thususelesa. The chariots
broken by the charge and with horses made un
manageable by flights of arrows, must have been
furced back upon the cumbrous host behind. '• So
the Lord smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and
before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled. And Asa
and the people that [were] v/ith him pursued them
unto Gerar: and [or ''for"] the Ethiopians were
overthrown, tbat they could not recover themselves."
This last clause seems to relate to an iiTOmediable
overthrow at tbe fii'st; and, indeed, bad it not been
so, the pui-snit would not have been carried, and,
as it seems at once, beyond the frontier. So com
plete was the overthrow, that tbe Hebrews could
capture and spoil the cities around Gerar, whicb
raust have been in alliance with Zer.vb. From these
cities they touk ver} much spoil, and they also
smote " the tents of cattie, and carried away sheep
and camels in abundance" (2 Chr. xiv. 9-15).
More seems to have been captured from the Arabs
than from the array of Zerah : probaldy tbe army
consisted of a nucleus of regular troops, and a
great body of tributaries, who would have scattered
in all directions, leaving their country open to re-
pnsals. On bis return to Jerusalem, Asa was met
by Aziriah, who exhorted him and the people to be
faithful to God. Acconlingly Asa made a second
reformation, and coUected his subjects at Jerusalem
in the 3d month ofthe 16th year, and made a cov
enant, and offered of the spoil "seven hundred
oxen and seven thousand sheep" (xv. 1-15).
From tbis it would appear that tbe battle was
fought in the preceding winter. Tlie success of
Asa, and the manifest blessing that attended bim,
drew to him Ephraimites, i\Ianassites, and Sim
eonites. His father had already captured cities in
the Israelite territory (xiii. 19), and he held cities
in Mount I'^phraira (xv. 8), and then was at peace
with Israel. Simeon, always at the mercy of a
powerful king of Judah, wonld bave naturally
turned to him. Never was the house of David
stronger after the defection of tbe ten tribes; but
soon the king fell into tbe wicked error, so con
stantly to be repeated, of calling the heathen tc
aid bim against tbe kindred Israelites, and hired
Benhadad, king of Syria-Damascus, to lay their
cities waste, when Hammi the prophet recalled
to him tbe great victory he bad achieved when
he trusted in God (xvi. 1-9)- The after years of
Asa were troubled with wars (ver. 9); but they
were with Baasha (1 K. xv. 16, 32). Zerah and
bis people had been too signaUy crushed to a-ttack
liim again.
4. The identification of Zerah has occasioned
some difference of opinion. He has been thought
to have been a Cushite of Arabia, or a Cushite of
Ethiopia above Egypt. But lately it has been su^v
posed that Zerah is tbe Hebrew name of Usarken
I., second king of the Egyptian XXIId dynasty;
or perhaps more probably Usarken IL, his second
successor. This question is a wider one than seems
at first sight. We have to inquire whether the
array of Zerah was that of an Egyptian king, and,
if the reply be affirmative, whether it was led by
either Usarken I. or II.
The war of Shishak had reduced the angle of
Arabia tbat divided Egypt from Palestine. Proba
bly Shishak was unable to attack the Assyrians,
and endeavored, by securing this tract, to guard
the approach to Egypt. If the army of Zerah were
Egyptian, this would account for its connection
with the people of Gerar and the pastoral tribes of

3620

ZERAH

the neighborhood. The sudden decline of the
power of Egypt after the reign of Shishak would
be explained by the overthrow of the Egyptian
army about thirty years later.
The composition of the army of Zerah, of Cushim
and Lubim (2 Clir. xvi. 8), closely resembles tbat
of Shishak, of Lubim, Sukkiim, and Cushim (xii.
3): hoth armies also hatl chariots and horsemen
(xvi. 8, xii. 3). The Cushim might have been of
an Asiatic Cush, but the Lubim can only have been
Africans. The army, therefore, must have been
of a king of Egypt, or Ethiopia above Egypt. The
uncertainty is removed by our finding tbat the
kings of thi XXIId dynasty employed mercenaries
of the MASHUWASHA, a Libyan tribe, which
apparently supplied tbe most important part of
their hired force. The army, moreover, as con
sisting partly, if not wholly, of a mercenary force,
and with chariots and horsemen, is, save in the
horsemen, exactly what the Egyptian army of the
empire would have been, witb the one change of
the increased iraportance given to the mercena
ries, that we know to have marked it under the
XXIId dynasty. [Shishak, p. 3012.] That the
army was of an Egj'ptian king therefore cannot be
doubted. As to the identification of Zerah with an Usar
ken, we speak diffidently. That he is called a
Cushite must be compared with the occurrence of
the name NAMURET, Nimrod, in the line ofthe
Usarkens, but that hne seems rather to have been
of eastern than of western Ethiopians (see, how-
aver, SmsHAK, p. 3012). The name Usarken
has been thought to be Sargon [Shishak, I. c],
in which case it is unlikely, but not impossible,
that another Hebrew or Shemitic name should
have been adopted to represent the Egyptian form.
On the other hand, the kings of the XXIId dynasty
were of a warlike family, and their sons constantly
held military commands. It is unlikely that an
important army would have been intrusted to any
but a king or prince. Usarken is less reraote from
Zerah than seems at first sight, and, according to
our computation, Zerah raight have been Usarken
IL, but according to Dr. Hincks's, Usarken L
5. The defeat of the Egyptian array by Ajsa is
without parallel in the history of the Jews. On
no other occasion did an Israelite army meet an
army of one of the great powei*s on either side and
defeat it. Shishak was unopposed, Sennacherib
was not met in the field, Necho was so met and
overthrew Josiah's army, Nebuchadnezzar, Uke
Shishak, was only delayed by fortifications. The
defeat of Zerah thus is a solitary instance, raore
of the power of faith than of the bravery of the
Hebrews, a single witness that the God of Israel
was still the same who had led his people throus:h
the lied Sea, and would give them the same aid if
they trusted in Hira. We have, indeed, no dis
tinct statement that the defeat of Zerah was a
miracle, but we have proof enough that God provi
dentially enabled tbe Hebrews to vanquish a force
greater in number, stronger in the appliances of
war, with horsemen and chariots, more accurate in
discipline, no raw levies hastily equipped from the
king's armory, but a seasoned standing militia,
strengthened and raore terrible by the addition of
Bwarms of hungry Arabs, bred to war, and whose
whole life was a time of pillage. Tbis great deliV'
erance is one of the many proofs that God is to
tis people ever the same, whether He bids thera
Itaud StiU and behold his salvation, or nerves them

ZEREDA
with that courage ^that has wrought great 4hiDv|
in his name in our later age; thus it bridges ovei
a chasm between two periods outwardly unlike,
and bids us see in history the immutability of the
Divine actions. R. S. P.
ZERAHI'AH (n^n"]T [Jehooah caused to
spHng forth]: Zapaia, ' 'Sapaia, Zapata; Alei.
Zapata?, Zapias, Zapata: Zaraias. Zarahia). A
priest, son of Uzzi, and ancestor of Ezra the scribe
(1 Chr. vi. 6, 51 [Heb. v. 32, vi. 36] ; Ezr. vii. 4
[where tbe A. V. ed. 1611 reads Zekaiah]).
2. (Sopata; [Vat. Zapeta;] Alex. Zapom:
Znrehe.) Father of Elihoenai of the sons of
Pabath Moab (Ezr. viii. 4): caUed Zaraias in ]
Esdr. viii. 31.
* ZERA'IAH (3 syl.), Ezr. vu. 4 (A. V. ed.
1611). [Zerahiah 1.]
ZE'RED CrrP.lf [dense forest]: [^om.] Zape%
[Vat.] Zaper, [Alex. Zape, Zaper:] Zared). The
name of a brook or valley running into the Dead
Sea near its S. E. corner, which Dr. Robinson
{Bibl. Res. ii. 157) with some probabiUty suggeata
as identical with the Wady el-Ahsy. It lay be
tween Moab and Edom, and is the Umit of the
proper term of the Israelites' wandering (Deut. ii.
14). Laborde, arguing from the distance, thinks
that the source of the Wady Ghurundel in the
Arabah is the site; as from Mount Hor to el^Ahs^
is by way of Ezion-geber 65 leagues, in which only
four stages occur : a rate of progress quite beyond
their power. This argument, however, is feeble,
since it is clear that the march-stations mentioned
indicate not daUy stages, but more permanent
encampments. He also thinks the palm-trees of
Wady G. would have attracted notice, and that
Wady Jethum {el- Jthm) could not have been the
way consistently with the precept of Deut. ii. 3.
Tbe camping station in the catalogue of Num.
xxiii., which corresponds to the " pitching in the
valley of Zared " of xxi. 12, is probably Dibon-Gad,
as it stands next co Ije-Abarim ; compare Num.
xxxiii. 44, 45 with xxi. 12. The Wady ei-Aksy
forms the boundary between the districts of Jebal
and Kerek. The stream runs in a very deep
ravine and contauis a hot spring which tbe Arabs
caU the " Bath of Solomon, son of David " (Irby,
May 29). [Zared.]
The Jewish interpreters translate tbe name in
the first case " osiers," and in tbe second "bas
kets " (Targum Pseudojonathan), which recalls the
"brook of tbe wiUows" of Isaiah (xv. 7). Tbe
name Sufsnf (willow) is attached to the valley
which runs down from Kerak to the Dead Sea;
but this appears to be too far north for the Zered.
[Willows, brook of the.] H. H.
ZER'EDA {T^'r^¦4r}, i. «. the Tserfidah,
with the def. article [cooling] : ^ Sop^pa [Vat.
-pet-]; Alex. 7} :ZapiSa- Sareda). Tbe native
place, according to the present Hebrew test, of
Jeroboam, the leader of the revolt of the nortiiera
tribes, and the first kuig of the " Kingdom of
Israel." It occurs in 1 K. xi. 26 only. The
LXX. (in the Vatican Codex) for Zereda substitute
Sareira, as will be seen above. This is not in itself
remarkable, since it is but an instance of the ex
change of r and d, which is so often observed both
in the LXX. and Syriac Versions, and wbich has
not impossibly taken place in the Hebrew text
itself of Judg. vii. 22, where the name Zererah
appears attached to a place which is perhaps else-

ZEREDATHAH
»bere caUed Z<;redathah. But it is more remark-
ible that m the long addition to the history of
Jeroboam which these translators insert between
1 K. xii. 21 and 25 of the Hebrew text, Sarira is
fequently mentioned. In strong contrast to the
merely casual mention of it in the Hebrew narrative
S3 Jeroboam's native place, it is elevated in the
narrative of the LXX. into great prominence, and
becomes in fact the most important and, it may
naturally be presumed, the raost impregnable for
tress of Ephraim. It there appears as the town
which Jeroboam fortified for Solomon in Mount
Ephraim; thither he repairs on his return from
Egypt; there he assembles the trihe of Ephraim,
and there he builds a fortress. Of its position
nothing is said except that it was " in Mount
Ephraim," but from the nature of the case it must
lave been central. The LXX. further make it
the residence of Jeroboam at the time of the death
of his child, and they substitute it for Tirzah (not
Hily on the single occasion on which the latter
lame occurs in the Hebrew of this narrative, but)
three times over. No explanation has been given
)f this change of nS"nri into HI"!?. It is
Qardly one which would naturally occur from the
3orHiptions either of copyists or of pronunciation.
The question of the source and value of these sin
gular additions of the LXX. has never yet been
fully examined ; but in the words of Dean Milman
(Hist, of the Jews, 3d ed. i. 332), " there is a
circumstantialiiess about tbe incidents which gives
fchem an air of authenticity, or r.ather antiquity,"
and which it is to be hoped will prompt some
scbolar to a thorough investigation.
Zeredab has been supposed to be identical with
Zeredatiiah (2 Chr. iv. 17) and Zarthan or
Z,^TANAH. But even if the two last of these
names were more similar to it than they are, there
would remain the serious topographical difficulty
to such an identification, that they were in the
ralley of the Jordan, while Zeredah was, according
to the repeated statement of the LXX., on Mount
Ephraim. If, however, the restricted statement of
tbe Hebrew Bible be accepted, which names Zeredah
merely as the native place of Jeroboam, and as not
concerned in the events of his mature life, then
there is no obstacle to its situation in that part of
the tribe of Ephraim which lay in the Jordan Val
ley. G.
ZERBDA'THAH (nnin;? [cooling]:
[Vat.] SipSaflai; [Rom. SapijSafla ;] A'lex. SaSafla :
Saredatha). Named (in 2 Chr. iv. 17 only) in
specifying the situation of the foundries for tbe
brass-work of Solomon's Temple. In the parallel
passage in 1 K. vii. 46, Zarthan occupies the
place of Zeredathah, the rest of the sentence being
literally the same; but whether the one name is
merely an accidental variation of the other, or
whether, as there is some ground for beheving,
there is a connection between Zeredah, Zeredathah,

ZERUBBABEL

3021

*> The ih terminating the name in tbe A. T. is the
Hebrew mode of cormecting ifc wifch the particle of
moHoD : Zererathah, i. e. to Zererah
^ The Ta at the commencement of this barbarous
fford no doubt belongs to the preceding name, JBeth-
ihittah ; and they should be divided as tbllows, Bt)0-
mtm Tapayaea. The Vatican Codex appears to be
^e only MS. which retains any trace of the name.
I^be others quofced by Holmes and Parsous either sub
stitute eus K«t>ovs for it, or exhibit some variation of

Zererah, and Zarthan, we have now no means o
determining. It should be observed that i'.ercdah
has in the original the definite article prefixed to it,
which is not the case with either Zeredathah or
Zerera. q_
ZER'ERATH (H-nV," ,. «. Tsererah: Ta-
yapayaBd;'' Alex, koi auvitjixevr)' ^u'a:. omits).
A place named only in Judg. vii. 22, iu describing
the flight of the Midianite host before Gideon.
The A. V. has somewhat unnecessarily added to
the original obscurity of the passage, which runs
as follows: "And the host fled iuto Beth has-
shittah to Zererah,c unto the liriuk of Al« 1 'ue-
holah upon Tabbath " — apparently describing the
two lines of flight taken by the two portions of the
horde. It is natural to presume that Zererah is the same
name as Zeredathah.'' They both appear to ha\e
been in the Jordan Valley, and as to the diiference
in the names, the termination is insignificant, and
the exchange of 1 and "1 is of constant occurroncn.
Zeredathah, again, appears to be equivalent to Zar
than. It is also difficult not to suppose that Zererah is
the same place with the Sarira which the I.XX.
present as the equivalent of Zereda and of I'ii-zab.
But in the w.ay of this there is the difficulty wliich
has been pointed out under Zereda, that the two
last-named places appear to have been in the high
lands of Ephraim, while Zererah and Zeredathah
were in the Jordan Valley. G.
ZE'RESH (E?3 [Pers. goU]: Zaaipa;
[.Alex] Sioa-apa; Joseph. Zapafa: Zares). The
wife of Haman the .Agagite (Esth, v, 10, 11, vi.
13), who counselled him to prepare the gallows for
Mordecai. but predicted her husband's ruin as soon
as she knew tbat Mordecai was a Jew. A. C. H.
ZE'RBTH (n^S [perh. splendm-]: SepeB;
[Vat. Apefl;] Alex. Sapefl: Seretli). Son of Ashur
the founder of Tekoa, by his wife Helah (1 Chr. iv.
T). ZE'RI C^"!? [patr., Jezek] : Sovpi [Vat, -ps,] :
Sori). One of the sons of Jeduthun iu the reign
of David (1 Chr. xxv. 3). In ver. 11 he is called
IzRi. ZE'ROR ("111? [pebble]: 'lapeS; Alex.
ApeS; [Comp. Sixpiip:] Seror). A Benjamite,
ancestor of Kish the father of S.aul (1 Sam. ix. 1).
ZERU'AH (nS^n^ [leprous] : [Rom.] Vat.
omit; Alex. Sapova: Sarua). The mother of
Jeroboam the son of Nebat (1 K. xi. 26). In tho
additional narrative of the LXX. inserted after 1
K. xii, 24, she is called Sarira (a corruption of
Zereda), and is said to have heen a harlot.
ZERUB'BABEL (^5?!!^!, dispersed, oi

the words quofced above from tbe Alex. MS. Tbe Vul
gate entirely omits the name.
c Or possibly the two first of these four names
should be joined, Befch-bas-shittab-Zererathah.
d Zererah appears in Judg. vii, 22, nHT^S,
wifch fche parfcicle of mofcion afctached, wliich is all bul
identical with nmiV, Zeredathah.
T T " ; '

£622

ZERUBBABEL

begotten, in Babylon: ZopoSdBeK: Serubahel).
The head of the tribe of Judah at the time
of the return from tlie Babylonish Captivity in
the first year of Cyrus. His exact parentage is a
little obscure, from his being always called the son
of Shealtiel (Ezr, iii. 2, 8, v. 2, &c.; Hag. i. 1, 12,
14, &c.), and appearing as such in the genealogies
(Matt. i. 12; Lnke iii. 27), whereas in 1 Chr. iii. 19,
he is represented as the son of Pedaiah, Shealtiel or
Salathiel's brother, and consequently as Salathiel's
nephew. Probably the genealogy in 1 Chr. exhibits
his true parentage, and he succeeded his uncle as
head of the house of Judah — a supposition which
tallies with the facts that Salathiel appears as the
first-born, and that no children are assigned to him.
There are two histories of Zerubbabel : the one,
that contained in the canonical Scriptures: the
other, that in the apocryphal books and Josephus.
The history of Zerubbabel in the Scriptures is as
follows : In the first year of Cyrus he was living at
Babylon, and was the recognized prince (S''H173)
of Judah in the Captivity, what in later times was
called nniban tr'^n or n^^yi (Rhesa),
"the Prince of the Captivity," or "the Prince."
On thfi issuing of Cyrus's decree he immediately
availed himself of it, and placed himself at the head
of those of his countrymen " whose spirit God had
raised to go up to build the House of tbe Lord
which is in Jerusalem." It is probable that he
was in the king of Babylon's service, both from his
having, like Daniel and the three children, received
a Chaldee name [Sheshbazzak], and from his
receiving from Cyrus the office of governor (rTHQ)
of Judsea. The restoration of the sacred vessels,
which Nebuchadnezzar had brought from the Tem
ple, having been eflfected, and copious presents of
silver and gold, and goods, and beasts, having been
bestowed upon the captives, Zerubbabel went forth
at tbe head of tbe returning colony, accompanied
l^y Jeshua the high-priest, and perhaps Ijy tbe
prophets Haggai and Zechariah, and a considerable
number of priests, Levites, and heads of houses of
Judah and Benjamin with their followers. On ar
riving at Jerusalem, Zerubbabel's first care was to
build tlie altar on its old site, and to restore the
daily sacrifice. [JJ':shit.v.] Perhaps also they
kept the l''east of I'aliernaeles, as it is said they did
in Ezr. iii, 4: but there is some reason to suspect
that vv. 4, 5, and the first half of \er. 6, are in
terpolated, and are merely an epitome of Neh. viii.,
which belongs to very diff'erent times. [Ezra,
Book ov; Nkiiejiiah, Book of.] But his great
work, wbich he set about immediately, was the re
building of the Temple. Being armed with a grant
from Cyrus of timber and stone for the building,
and of money for the expenses of the builders (I^^zr.
vi. 4), he bad collected the materials, including
cedar-trees brought from Lebanon to Joppa, ac
cording to the precedent in the time of Solomon (2
Chr. ii. IC), and got together masons and carpen
ters to do the work, by the opening of the second
year oftheir return to Jerusalem, And accordingly,
in the second month of the second year of their re
turn, the foundation of the Temple was laid with
all the pomp which they could command: the
priests in their vestments with trumpets, and the
ions of Asaph with cymbals, singing the very same
psalm of praise for God's unfailing mercy to Israel
which w.'LS sung when Solomon dedicated his Tem-
[ile (2 Chr. v. 11-14); while the people responded

ZERUBBABEL
with a great shout of joy, " because the foundation
of the house of the Lord was laid." How stranee
must have been the emotions of Zerubbabel at thij
moment! As he stood upon Mount Zion, and be
held from its summit the desolations of Jerusalem
the site of the Teraple blank, David's palace a heap
of ashes, his fathers' sepulchres defiled and overlaid
with rubbish, and the silence of desertion and
emptiness hanging oppressively over the streets and
waste places of what was once the joyous city
and then remembered how his great ancestor David
had brought up the ark in triumph to tbe very
spot where he was then standing, how Solomon had
reigned there in all his magnificence and power,
and how the petty kings and potentates of tho
neighboring nations had been his vassals and tribu
taries, how must his heart alternately have swelled
with pride, and throbbed with anguish, and sunk
in humiliation ! In the midst of these mighty
memories he was but the officer of a foreign heathen
despot, the head of a feeble remnant of half-emanci
pated slaves, the captain of a band hardly able to
bold up their heads in the presence of their hostile
and jealous neighbors; and yet there he was, tbe
son of David, the heir of great and mysteriouB
promises, returned by a wonderful Providence to
the home of his ancestors. At his bidding the
daily sacrifice had been restored after a cessation of
half a century, and now the foundations of the
Temple were actually laid, amidst the songs of the
Levites singing according to David'js ordinance,
and the shouts of the tribe of Judah. It was a
heart-stirring situation; and, despite all the dis
couragements attending it, we cannot doubt that
Zerubbabel's faith and hope were kindled by it into
fresh life.
But there were many hindrances and delays to
be encountered before the work was finished, fhe
Samaritans or Cutheans put in a claim to join with
tbe Jews in rebuilding the Temple; and wbeii
Zerubbabel and his companions refused to admit
them into partnership, they tried to hinder them
from building, and hired counsellors to frustrate
their purpose. They probably .contrived, in the
first instance, to intercept the supplies of timber
and stone, and the wages of the workmen, which
were paid out of the king's revenue, and then by
misrepresentation to calumniate ibem at the court
of Persia. Thus they were successful in putting a
stop to tbe work during the seven remaining years
of the reign of Cyrus, and through tbe eight yean
of Cambyses and Smerdis. Nor does Zernbbabel
appear quite blameless for this long delay. Tbe
difficulties in the way of building the Temple were
not such as need bave stopped the work: and dur
ing this long suspension of sixteen years Zerub.
babel and the rest of the people had been busy hi
building costly houses for themselves, and one might
even suspect that the cedar-wood which had been
brought for the Temple had been used to decorate
private dwellings (comp, the use of '|Sp in Hag.
i. 4, aud 1 K. vii. 3, 7). They had, iu fact, ceased
to care for tbe desolation of the Temple (Hag. i.
2-4), and had not noticed tbat God was rebuking
their lukewarmness by withholding his blessing
from their labors (Hag. i. 5-11). But ui tba
second year of Darius light dawned upon tbe dark
ness of tbe colony from Babylon. In that year —
it was the most memorable event in Zerulihabel'i
life — the spirit of prophecy suddenly blazed op
with «. most brilliant light amongst the retuineil

ZERUBBABEL
captives; and the long silence which was to ensue
till the muiistry of John the Baptist was preceded
by the stirring utterances of Haggai and Zechariah.
Their wards fell Uke sparks upon tinder. In a mo
ment Zerubbabel, roused from his apathy, threw
his whole strength into the work, zealously seconded
by .leshua and all the people. [Jeshua.] Unde-
ten-ed by a fresh attempt of their enemies to hinder
the progress of the building, they went on with
the work even while a reference was being made to
Darius; and when, after the original decree of
Cyrus had been found at Ecbatana, a raost gracious
and favorable decree was issued by Darius, enjoin
ing Tatnai and Shetbarboznai to assist tbe Jews
«ith whatsoever they had need of at the king's ex-
lieiise, the work advanced so rapidly that on the
tbird day of the month Adar, in the sixth year of
Darius, the Temple was finished, and was forthwith
dedicated with much pomp and rejoicing. It is
difficult to calculate how great was the effect of the
prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah in sustaining
the courage and energy of Zerubbabel in carrying
bis work to completion. Addressed, as many of
them were, directly to Zerubbabel by name, speak
ing, as they did, most glorious things of the Temple
which he was building, conveying to Zerubbabel
himself extraordinary assurances of Divine favor,
and couplhig with them magnificent and consola
tory predictions of the future glory of Jerusalem
and Judah, and of the conversion of the Gentiles,
they necessarily exercised an immense influence
upon his mind (Hag. i. 13, 14, ii. 4-9, 21-23; Zech.
iv. 6-10, viii. 3-8, 9, 18-23). It is not too much
to say that these prophecies upon Zerubbabel were
the immediate instrument by whieh tbe ehurch and
commonwealth of Judab were preserved from de
struction, and received a life which endured till the
coming of Christ.
The only other works of Zerubbabel which we
learn from tbe Scripture bistory are the restoration
of fche courses of priests and Levites, and of the
provision for their maiiifceiiaiice, according to the
mstitution of David (Ezr. vi. 18; Neh. xii. 47);
the registering the returned captives according to
their genealogies (Neh. vii. 5); and the keeping of
a Passover iu the seventh year of Darius, witb
which last event ends all that we know of the life
of Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel: a man inferior
to few of the great characters of Scripture, whether
we consider the perilous undertaking to which he
devoted himself, the importance, in the economy
of tbe Divine government, of his work, his coura
geous faith, or the singular distinction of being the
object of so many and such remarkable prophetic
utterances. The apocryph.al history of Zerubbabel, which,
as usual, Josephus follows, may be summed up in a
few words. The story told in 1 Esdr. iii. -vii. is,
tbat on the occasion of a great feast made by
Darius on his accession, three young men of his
Iwdy-guard had a contest who should write the
wisest sentence. That one of the three (Zerubba
bel) writing " Women are strongest, bnt above all
things Truth beareth away the victory ; " and after
wards defending his sentence with much eloquence,
was declared by acclamation " to be the wisest,
>nd claimed for his reward, at the king's hand,
that tbe king should perform his vow which he

" 'ffith the shout, " dlagua est Veritas, et prseva-
«bit!"

ZERUBBABEL

362il

had vowed to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple
Upon which the king gave him letters to all bis
treasurers and governors ou the other side the river,
with grants of money and exemption from taxes,
and sent him to rebuild .Jerusalem and the Temple,
accompanied by the families of which the hst is
given in Ezr. ii.. Neb. vii.; and then follows, in
utter confusion, the history of Zerubbabel as given
in Scripture. Apparently, too, the compiler did
not perceive tbat Sanabasar' (Sbeshbazzar) was
the same person as Zerubbabel. Josephus, indeed,
seems to identify Sbeshbazzar with Zerubbabel,
and tries to reconcile the story in 1 Esdr, by say
ing, " Now it so fell out that about this time
Zorobabel, who had been made governor of the
Jews that had been in captivity, came to Darius
from Jerusalem, for there had been an old friend
ship between him and the king," etc. (Ant. xi. 3).
But it is obvious on the face of it that this is sim
ply Josephus's invention to reconcile 1 ICsdr. with
the canonical Ezra. [Esdras, Fihst Book op,]
Josephus has also another story (Ant. xi. 4. § 9)
which is not found in 1 Esdr,, of Zorobabel going
on an embassy to Darius to accuse the Samaritan
governors and bipparchs of withholding from the
Jews the grants made by Darius out of the royal
treasury, for the offering of sacrifices and other
Temple expenses, and of his obtaining a decree
from the king commanding his officers in Samaria
to supply the high-priest with all that he required.
But tbat this is not authentic history seeras pretty
certain from the names of the governors, Sambabns
being an imitation or corruption of Satiballat,
Tanganes of Tatnai (or Tbauthanai, as in LXX.),
Sadraces of Satbrabouzanes, confused with Sha
drach, Bobelo of Zoro-babei ; and the names of the
ambassadors, wbich are manifestly copied from the
list in 1 Esdr. v. 8, where Zorobabel, bjienius, and
Mardocheeus, correspond to Zorobabel, Ananias,
and Mardochceus of Josephus. Moreovir the letter
or decree of Darius, as given by .losephus, is as
manifestly copied from the decree of Darius in Ezr.
vi. 6-10. In all probability, therefore, the docu
raent used by Josephus was one of those numerous
apocryphal religious romances which the Hellenis
tic Jews were so fond of about the 4tb and 3d cen
tury before Christ, and was written partly to
explain Zorobabel's presence at the courfc of Darius,
as spoken of in 1 Esdr,, partly to explain that of
Mordecai at the court of Ahasuerus, though he was
in the list of those who were Zoroliabel's compan
ions (as it seemed), and partly to give an opportu
nity for reviling and humiliating tbe Samaritans.
It also gratified the favorite taste for embellishing,
and corroborating, and giving, as was thought,
additional probability to the Scripture narrative,
and dwelling upon bygone times of Jewish tri
umphs. [Esther, Book of.]
It only remains to notice Zerubbabel's place in
the genealogy of Christ. It has already been ob
served that in the genealogies Matt i. 12, and Luke
iii. 27, he is represented as son of Salathiel, though
the book of Chronicles tells us he was the son of
Pedaiah, and nephew of Salathiel. It is of more
moment to remark tbat, while St. Matthew deduces
bis Une from Jechonias and Solomon, St. Luke
deduces it through Neri and Nathan. Here then
we have the head of the nation, the Prince of

fr ^vaPatrap is merely a corruption of Saj-a^ao-ao.

.3G24

ZERUIAH

Judah, the foremost man of his country, with a
double genealogy, one representing him aa descend
ing from all the kings of .Judah, the other as the
descendant indeed of David, but through a long
line of private and unknown persons. We find
him, too, filling the position of Prince of Judah at
a time when, as far as the history informs us, the
royal family was utterly extinct. And though, if
descended from the last king, he would have been
his grandson, neither the history, nor the contem
porary prophets, nor Josephus, nor the apocryphal
books, give the least hint of his being a near rela
tive of Jeconiah, while at the same time the natural
interpretation of Jer. xxii. 30 shows Jeconiah to
have been childless. The inference from all this is
obvious. Zerubbabel was the legal successor and
heir of Jeconiah's royal estate, the grandson of Neri,
and the lineal descendant of Nathan the son of
David. [Salathiel; Genealogy of Christ.
For Zerubbabel's descendants see Hananiah 8.]
In the N. T. the name appears in the Greek
form of ZoROitABEL. A. C. H.
ZERUI'AH (n^^-12, and once « nn'4 :
Sapovia; [Alex. 1 Sam. xxvi. 6, Sapoveia'-] Sal
via). A woman who, as long .as the Jewish records
are read, will be known as the mother of the three
leading heroes of David's army — Abishai, Joab,
and -isahel — tbe "sons of Zeruiah." She and
Abigail are specified in tbe genealogy of David's
family in 1 Chr, ii. 13-17 as "sisters of the sons
of Jesse" (ver. 16; comp. Joseph. AnL vii. 10, §
1). The expression is in itself enough to raise a
suspicion that she was not a daughter of Jesse, a
suspicion which is corroborated by the statement
of 2 Sam. xvii. 25, that Abigail was the daughter
of Nahash. Abigail being apparently the younger
of the fcwo women, it is a probable inference that
they were both the daughters of J^ahash, but
whether this Nahash be — as Professor Stanley has
ingeniously conjectured — the king of the Ammon
ites, and the former husband of Jesse's wife, or
gome other person unknown, niust forever remain
a mere conjecture. [David, vol. i. p. 5,52,] Other
explanations are given under Nahash, vol. iii,
p. 2053 f. Her relation to Jesse (in the original
Ishai) is expres,sed in the name of her son Ab
ishai. Of Zeruiah's husband there is no mention in the
Bible. Josephus (Ani. vii. 1, § 3) explicitly states
his name to have been Souri (^oupi), but no cor
roboration of the statement appeal's to have been
discovered in the -lewish traditions, nor does .lose
phus himself refer to it again, I'lie mother of such
remarkable sons must herself have been a remark
able woman, and this may account for the fact,
unusual if not unique, that the family is always
called after her, and that her husband's name has
not been considered worthy of preservation in the
sacred records, G.
ZE'THAM (DHT [^erh. olive-lree]: ZfiBdr
LVat. Ztflo/i], Ze66ij.; Alex. ZaiBon, Zo8o/x; Ze-
ihan, Zntlian). The son of Laadan, a Gershonite
Invite (1 Cbr, xxiii. 8). In 1 Chr. xxvi. 22 he
appears as the son of Jehiel, or Jehieli, and so the
grandson of Laadan.
ZE'THAN (in\T : ZoietJi-; Alex. nSav: Ze-
ikan). A Benjamite of the sons of Bilhan (1 Chr.
rii. 10).

ZIBEON
ZETHAR iT^nt. [perh. star]: 'Afiaraia.
Zelhar). One of the seven eunuchs of Ahasuerai
who attended upon the king, and were commanded
to bring Vashti into his presence (Esth. i. 10).
ZI'A {T'l ¦ Zoue; [Comp. Ztd:] Zie). One
of the Gadites who dwelt in Bashan (1 Chr. v
13). ZI'BA (S3''^, once Sn? t ; [Rom. 5,(3^,
Vat.] SeiySa; Alex. 2i/3ci, and in ch. xvi. [1,] 2
[A, 3, 4,] 2iSSa; Joseph. Si0ds: Siba). A
person who plays ;i prominent part, thougli with
no credit to himself, in one of the episodes of
David's history (2 Sam. ix. 2-12, xvi. 1-4, xij.
17, 29). He had been a skve (15?) of the house
of Saul before the overthrow of his kingdom, and
(probably at the time of the great Philistine incur
sion which proved so fatal to his master's family)
had been set free (Joseph. Ant. vii. 5, § 5). The
opportunities thus afforded hini be had so far im
proved, that when first encountered in the history
he is head of an establishment of fifteen sons and
twenty slaves. David's reception of Mephibosheth
had the effect of throwing Ziba with Ms whole
establishment back into the state of bondage from
which be had so long been free. Ifc reduced hira
from being an independent landholder to the posi
tion of a mere dependent. The knowledge of this
fact gives tbe key to tbe whole of his conduct
towards David and towards Mephibosheth. Be
yond this the writer has nothing to add to his
remarks on Ziba under the head of Mephibo
sheth. G.
* Tbe adverse judgment here expressed, though
it may rest on a probability, strikes us as more
decisive than the record warrants. In Ziha's " con
duct towards David " we fail to discover evidence
of anything but kindness in feeling and act. If an
explanation of his course is necessary, we do noi
find " the key " to liis supposed treachery in any
derogatory service to which the king had sub
jected hira. His relation to the survivor of the
royal faraily that he bad served, in which he re
tained his own servants, was a token of David's
confidence in hira ; and we think that au Oriental
of his standing, at tbat day or tbis, would regard
it in the light of a responsible, honorable, remuner
ative trust. rMnPHiuosuETH, Amer. ed.] S. W.
ZIB'EON (l'"137?V [dyed]: %e^ey<iv: Seb-
eon). Father of Anab, whose daughter Aholiba-
niah was Esau's wife (Gen. xxxvi. 2). Although
called a Hivite, he is probably the same as Zibeon
the son of Seir the Horite (vv. 20, 24, 29; 1 Chr.
i. 38, 40), the hitter signifying "cave-dweller," and
the fornier being the name of bis tribe, for we know
nothuig of the race of the Troglodytes; or more
probably ''^nn (the Hivite), is a mistranscription
for ''¦pni!' (the Horite).
Another difficulty connected with this Zibeon is,
that Anab in ver. 2 is called his daughter, and in
ver. 24 his son ; but this difficulty appears to be
easily explained by supposing that DS refers^ to
Aholibamah, and not to the name next precedtag
it: the Samaritan, it should be observed, has ]3.

o 2 Sam. xiv. 1.

b 2 Sam. xvi, 4.

ZIBIA
An allusion is made to some unrecorded fact in the
history of the Horites in the passage, " this [was
that] Anah that found the mules.in the wilderness,
as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father " (Gen.
xxxvi. 24). The word rendered " mules " in the
A. V. is the Heb. D^^.'], perhaps the Emiius or
giants, as in the reading of the Sam. D*^D^Hn, and
80 also Onkelos and Pseudojonathan. Gesenius pre
fers "hot-springs," following the Vulg. rendering.
Zibeon was also one of the dukes, or phylarchs, of
the Horites (ver 29). For the identification with
Beeri, father of Judith the Hittite (Gen. xxvi. 34),
lee Beehi, and see also Anah. E. S. P.
ZIB'IA («;?? [roe]: 2e3m; [Vat. U^m:]
Sebia). A Benjamite, apparently, as the text now
itands, the son of Shaharaim by his wife Hodesh
(1 Chr. viii. 9).
ZIB'IAH (n^?? [roe] : 2a;8«£ , [Vat.]
Alex. A;8m: Sebia). A native of Beer-sheba,
and mother of king Joash (2 K. xii. 1; 2 Chr.
xxiv. 1).
ZIOH'RI C'TPt [remembered, famous] :
Zexfei- Zechri). 1. Son of Izhar the son of
Kohath (Ex. vi. 21). His name is incorrectly
giveu iu modern editions of the A. V. " Zithri,"
though it is printed Zichri in the ed. of 1611.
2. (Zaxpi [Vat. -pei] ; Alex. Zexpi-) A Ben
jamite of the sons of Shirabi (1 Chr. viii. 19).
3. (Zexpi [Vat. -pei]; Alex. Zoxpi.) A Ben
jamite of the sons of Shashak (1 Cbr. viii. 23).
4. (Zexpi; [Vat. ZaxP^'-]) A Benjamite of the
sons of Jeroham (1 Chr. viii, 27).
5, [Zexpii Vat. Zaxpei.] Son of Asaph, else
where called Zabdi and Zaccur (1 Chr. ix. 15).
6. [Zexp^i Vat. Zexpei.] A descendant of
EUezer the son of Moses (1 Chr. xxvi. 25).
7. The father of Eliezer, the chief of the Reu
benites in the reign of David (1 Chr. xxvii. 16 ).
8. (Zap(; [Vat. Zopei;] Alex. Zaxpi.) Ofthe
tribe of Judah. His son Amasiah commanded
200,000 men in Jehoshaphat's army (2 Chr. xvii.
16). 9. (Zaxapias; [Comp. Zexpi-]) Father of
Ullishaphat, one of the conspirators with Jehoiada
(2 Chr. xxiii. 1).
10. (Zexpii [Vat. ECeXP"!] Alex. Efexpi.)
An Ephraimite hero in the invading army of Pekah
the son of Bemaliah (2 Chr. xxviii. 7). In the
battle which was so disastrous to the kingdom of
Judah, Maaseiah the king's son, Azrikam, the
prefect of the palace, and Elkanah, who was next
to the king, fell by the hand of Zichri.
11. (Zexpi; [Vat. FA. Zexpei.]) Father or
ancestor of Joel 14 (Neh. xi. 9). He was prob
ably a Benjamite.
12. [Vat. Alex. FA.l omit.] A priest of the
htaWy of Abijah, in the days of Joiakim the son
of Jeshua (Neh. xii. 17). W. A. W".
ZID'DIM (D"''^2n, with the def. article
[liecfa'd'es, Dietr.]: Toic Ti/pitoj': AsseiSm). One
of tbe fortified towns of the allotment of Naphtali,
according to the present condition of the Hebrew
text (Josh. xix. 35). The translators of the Vat.
LXX. appear to have read the word in the original,
D'^l^n, " the Tyrians," while those of the
Peshito-Syriac, on the other hand, read it as
I M^j Zidon. These readings were probably both

ZIDON

3625

influenced by the belief that the name next fol
lowing that in question, namely, Zer, was that of
Tyre. But this is more than doubtful, and indeed
Tyre and Zidon were included in the allotment,
not of Naphtali, but of Asher (xix. 28, 29). The
Jerusalem Talmud (Megillah, i.) is probably nearer
the mark in identifying hat-Tsiddim with Kefr
Chiltai, which Sobwai-z (p. 182) with much prob
ability takes to be the present Hattin, at the north
ern foot of the well-known Kurn Ratlin, or " Horns
of Hattin," a few miles west of Tiberias. This
identification falls in with the fact that tbe thre»
next naraes in the list are all known to have been
connected with the lake. G
ZIDKI'JAH (n*i7'72 [justice of Jehovah]:
'SeSeKias : Sedecias). A priest, or family of priests,
who signed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. x.
1). The name is identical with that elsewhere in
the A. V. rendered Zedekiah.
ZI'DON or SI'DON (flT'? and I'T'? =
SiStiv; [Vat. generally SeiSuy; Judg. xviii. 28,
^iSdivtoi, Vat. XeiSuvioi', Ezr. iii. 7, oi ^iSi^rioi,
Vat. SvSapeiV, 1 K. xvii. 9, ^ SiSiima, Vat. 2ei-
Samia; Is. xxiii. 2, ^oivikti; Is. xxiii. 12, Alex.
Siay:] Sidon). Gen. x. 15, 19; Josh. xi. 8, xix.
28; Judg. i. 31, xviii, 28; Joel iii. 4 (iv. 4); Is;.
xxiii. 2, 4, 12; Jer. xxv. 22, xxvii. 3; Ez. xxviii.
21, 22; Zech. ix. 2; Matt. xi. 21, 22, xv, 21; Luke
vi. 17, X. 13, 14; Mark iii. 8, vii. 24, 31. An an
cient and wealthy city of Phcenieia, on the easfcern
coast of the Mediterranean Sea, in latitude 33°
34' 05" N., less than twenty English miles to the
north of Tyre. Its Hebrew name, Tsidon, signi
fies " Fishing," or " Fishery" (see Gesenius, s. v.).
Its modern name is Saida. It is situated in the
narrow plain between the Lebanon and the sea,
to which it once gave its own name (Joseph. Ant.
V. 3, § 1, Tb fieya ireSioy ^tSaJvos ir6\ea}s) at a
point where the mountains recede to a distance of
two miles (Kenrick's Phcenieia, p. 19). Adjoin
ing the city there are luxuriant gardens and or
chards, in which there is a profusion of the finest
fruit trees suited to the climate. " The plain is
flat and low," says Mr. Porter, author of the
Handbook for Syiia and Palestine, " but near
the coast line rises a little hill, a spur from which
shoots out a few hundred yards into the sea in a
southwesteru direction. On the northern slope
of the promontory thus formed stands the old
city of Zidon. The hill behind on the south is
covered by the citadel" (Enc. Britannica, Sth
edition, s. v.).
From a Biblical point of view, this city is infe
rior in interest to its neighbor 'I'yre, with which
its name is so often associated. Indeed, in all the
passages above referred to in which the two cities
are mentioned together. Tyre is named first — a
circumstance which might at once be deemed acci
dental, or the mere result of Tyre's being the
nearest of the two cities to Palestine, were ifc not
that some doubt on this point is raised by the
order being reversed in two works wbich were
wi-itten at a period after Zidon had enjoyed a long
temporary superiority (Ezr. iii. 7; 1 Chr. xxii. 4).
However this may be, it is certain that, of the two.
Tyre is of the greater importance in reference to
the writings of the most celebrated Hebrew proph
ets; and the splendid prophecies directed against
Tyre, as a single colossal power (Ez. xxvi., xxvii,,
xxviii. 1-19; Is. xxiii.), have no parallel in the

3626

ZIDON

shorter and vaguer utterances against Zidon (Ez.
xxviii. 21-23). And the predominant Biblicid in
terest of Tyre arises from the prophecies relating
to its destiny.
If we could believe Justin (xviii. 3), there would
be no doubt that Zidon was of greater antiquity
than Tyre, as he says that the inhabitants of
Zidon, when their city had been reduced by the
king of Ascalon, founded Tyre the year before the

ZIDON
capture of Troy. Justin, however, is such a weak
authority for any disputed historical fact, aud his
account of the early history of the Jews, wherein
we have some means of testing his accuracy, seeaig
to he so much in the nature of a romance (xxxvi.'
2) that, without laying stress on the unreasonable
ness of any one's assuming to know the precise
time when Troy was taken, he cannot be accepted
as an authority for the early history of the Phce-

i« «v'*ins;a .

>- ,SJ-

«*

•• >-r ..^

' ^^ Sv ^*t

Modem Saida — Zidon or Sidon (Eitto).
nicians. In contradiction of this statement, it has
been further insisted on, that the relation between
a colony and the mother-city among the Phoeni
cians was sacred, and that as the Tyrians never
acknowledged this relation towards Zidon, the sup
posed connection between Tyre and Zidon is morally
impossible. This is a very strong point ; but, per
haps, not absolutely conclusive, as no one can prove
that this was the custom of the Phcenicians at the
very distant period when alone the Zidonians would
have built Tyre, if they founded it at all ; or that
it would have applied not only to the conscious
ind deliberate founding of a colony, hut likewise
to such an almost accidental founding of a city,
as is implied in the account of Justin. Certainly,
there is otherwise nothing improbable in Zidonians
having founded Tyre, as the Tyrians are called
Zidonians, but the Zidonians are never called Tyr
ians. And at any rate this circumstance tends
to show that in early times Zidon was the most
influential of the two cities. This is shadowed
forth in the book of Genesis by the statement that
Zidon was the first-born of Canaan (Gen. x. 16),
and is implied in the name of "Great Zidon," or
" the Metropolis Zidon," whicWis twice given to it
in Joshua (xi. 8, xix. 28). It is confirmed, like-
ZIDON
irise, by Sidonians being used as the generic name
of the Phcenicians or Canaanites (Josh. xiii. 6 ;
Judg. xviii. 7); and by the reason assigned for
there being no deliverer to Laish when its peace
able inhabitants were massacred, that " it was far
from Z'idon; " whereas, if Tyre had been of equal
importance, it would have been more natural to
mention Tyre, which professed substantially the
same religion, and was almost twenty miles nearer
(Judg. xviii. 28). It is in accordance with the
inference to be drawn from these circumstances
tbat in the Homeric poems Tyre is not named,
while there is raention both of Sidon and the
Sidonians (Od. xv. 425; IL xxiii. 743); and the
land of the Sidonians is called "Sidonia" (Od.
xiii. 285). One point, however, in tbe Homeric
poems deserves to be speciaUy noted concerning
the Sidonians, that they are never here mentioned
as traders, or praised for their nautical skill, for
which they were afterwards so celebrated (Herod.
vii. 44, 96). The traders are invariably known by
the general name of Phoenicians, which would,
indeed, include the Sidonians; bnt still the special
praise of Sidonians was as skilled workmen. When
Achilles distributed prizes at the games in honor
of Patroclus, he gave as the prize of the swiftest
runner, a large silver bowl for mixing wine with
water, which had been cunningly made by the skill
ful Sidonians, but which Phcenicians had brought
over fche sea (IL xxiii. 743, 744). And when
Henelaus wished to give to Telemachus what was
most beautiful and most valuable, he presented
him with a similar mixing-bowl of silver, with
golden rim, a divine work, the work of Hephsestus,
which had been a gift to Menelaus hiraself from
Phsedimus, king of the Sidonians ( Od. iv. 614—018,
and Od. XV. l. c). And again, all the beautifully
embroidered robes of Andromache, from which she
selected one as an offering to Athene, were the pro
ductions of Sidonian women, which Paris, when
coming to Troy with Helen, had brought from
Sidonia (IL vi. 289-295). Bufc in no case is any
thing mentioned as having been brought from
Sidon in .Sidonian vessels or by Sidonian sailors.
Perhaps at this time the Phoenician vessels were
prmcipally fitted out at sea-ports of Phoenicia to
the north of Sidon.
Frofu the time of Solomon to the invasion of
Nebuchadnezzar Zidon is not often directly men
tioned in the Bible, and it appears to .have been
snbordinate to Tyre. When the people called
"Zidonians" is mentioned, it sometimes seems
that the Phoenicians of the plain of Zidon are
meant, as, for example, when Solomon said to
Hiram that there was none among the Jews that
could skill to hew timber like the Zidonians (1 K.
1. 6); and possibly, when Ethbaal, the father of
Jezebel, is called their king (1 K. xvi. 31), who,
iccording to Menander in Josephus (Ant. viii. 13,
§ 2), was king of the Tyrians. This may likewise
lie tbe meaning when Ashtoreth is called the God
dess, or Abomination, of the Zidonians (1 K. xi.
5, 33; 2 K. xxiii. 13), or when women of the
Zidonians are mentioned in reference to Solomon
(1 K. xi. 1 ). And this seems to be equally true
)f the phrases, "daughter of Zidon," and "mer
chants of Zidon," and even once of " Zidon " it-
lelf (Is. xxiii. 2, 4, 12) in the prophecy of Isaiah
•gainst Tyre. There is no doubt, however, that
Zidon itself, the city properly so called, was threat
ened hy Joel (iii. 4) and Jeremiah (xxvii. 3).
Still, all that is known respecting it during this

ZIDON 3627
epoch is very scanty, amounting to scarcely more
than that one of its sources of gain was trade in
slaves, in which the inhabitants did not shrink
from selling inhabitants of Palestine [Phceni
cians, iii. 2518 b] ; that the city was governed by
kings (Jer. xxvii. 3 and xxv. 22); that, previous
to the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar, it had fur
nished mariners to Tyre (Ez. xxvii. 8); that, at one
period, it was subject, ui some sense or other, fo
Tyre; and that, when Shalmaneser king of Assyria
invaded Phoenicia, Zidon seized the opportunifcy to
revolt. It seems strange to hear of the suljection
of one great city to another great cifcy only twenty
miles off, inhabited by men of tbe same race, lan
guage, and religion ; but the fact is rendered con
ceivable by the relation of Athens to its allies after
the Persian war, and by the history of the ItaUan
republics in the Middle Ages. It is not improb-
ble that its rivalry with Tyre may have been in
fluential in inducing Zidon, more than a century
later, to submit to Nebuchadnezzar, apparently
without offering any serious resistance.
During the Persian domination, Zidon seems to
have attained its highest point of prosperity; and
it is recorded that, towards the close of that period,
it far excelled aU other Phcenician cities in wealth
and importance (Diod. xvi. 44; Mela, i. 12). It
is very probable that the long siege of Tyre by
Nebuchadnezzar had tended not only to weaken
and impoverish Tyre, but likewise to enrich Zidon
at the expense of Tyre; as it was an obvious ex
pedient for any Tyrian merchants, artisans, and
sailors, who deeraed resistance useless or unwise, to
transfer their residence to Zidon. However thia
raay be, in the expedition of Xerxes against Greece,
the Sidonians were highly favored, and were a
preeminently important element of his naval power.
When, from a hiU near Abydos, Xerxes witnessed
a boat-race in his fleet, the prize was gained by
tbe Sidonians (Herod, vii. 44). When he reviewed
his fleet, be sat beneath a golden canopy in a
Sidonian galley (vii. 100); when he wished to
examine the mouths of the river Peneus, he in
trusted hiraself to a Sidonian galley, as was his
wont on similar occasions (vii. 128); and when
the tyrants and general officers of his great expedi
tion sat in order of honor, the king of the Sidonians
sat first (viii. 67). Again, Herodotus states tbat
tbe Phcenicians suppUed the best vessels of fche
whole fleet ; and of tbe Phosnicians, tbe Sidonians
(vii. 96). And lastly, as Homer gives a vivid idea
of the beauty of Achilles by saying that Niieus
(thrice-named) was the most beautiful of all the
Greeks who went to Troy, after the son of Peleus,
so Herodotus completes the triumph of the Sido
nians, when he praises the vessels of Artemisia
(probably for the daring of their crews), by saying
that they were the most renowned of the whole
fleet, " after the Sidonians " (vi. 9).
The prosperity of Sidon was suddenly cut short
by an imsuccessful revolt against Persia, which led
to one of the mosfc disastrous catastrophes recorded
in history. Unlike tbe siege and capture of Tyre
by Alexander the Great, which is narrated by sev
eral writers, and whicb is of coramanding interest
through its relation to such a renowned conqueror,
the fate of Sidon is only known through the his
tory of Diodorus (xvi. 42-45), and is mainly con
nected with Artaxerxes Ochus (b. c. 359-338), a
monarch who is justly regarded with mingled aver
sion and contempt. Hence the calamitous over
throw of Sidon has nofc, perhaps, attracted so much

3628 ZIDON
attention as it deserves. The principal circum
stances were thrae. While the Persians were mak
ing preparations in Phoenicia to put down the revolt
in E2:ypt, some Persian satraps and generals be
haved oppressively and insolently to Sidonians in
the Sidonian division of the city of Tripolis."
On this, the Sidonian people projected a revolt;
and having first concerted arrangements with other
Phoenician cities, and made a treaty with Neetanfr-
bus, they put their designs into execution. They
commenced by committing outrages in a residence
and park {irapoLSeia-os) of the Persian king; they
burnt a large store of fodder which had been col
lected for the Persian cavalry ; and they seized and
put to death the Persians who had been guilty of
insults towards the Sidonians. Afterwards, under
their King Tennes, with the assistance from Egypt
of 4,000 Greek mercenaries under Mentor, they
expelled the Persian satraps from Phoenicia; they
strengthened the defenses of their city, tbey
equipped a fleet of 100 triremes, and prepared for
a desperate resistance. But their King Tennes
proved a traitor to their cause — and in perform
ance of a compact with Ochus, he betrayed into
the king's power one hundred of the most dis
tinguished citizens of Sidon, who were all shot to
death with javelins. Five iiundred other citizens,
who went out to the king with ensigns of supplica^
tion, shared tlie same fate; and by concert between
Tennes and ilentor, the Persian troops were ad
mitted within tbe gates, and occupied the city
walls. The Sidonians, before the arrival of Ochus,
had burnt their vessels to prevent any one's leav
ing the town; and when they saw themselves sur
rounded by the Persian troops, they adopted t&e
desperate resolution of shutting themselves up with
their families, and setting fire each man to his
own house (b. cf. 351). Forty thousand persons
are said to have perished in the flames. Tennes
himself did not save his own life, as Ochus, not
withstanding his promise to the contrary, put hira
to death. The privilege of searching the ruins
was sold for money.
After this dismal tragedy, Sidon graduaUy re
covered from the blow ; fresh immigrants from
other cities must have settled in it; and probably
many Sidonian sailors sumved, who had been ply
ing their trade elsewhere in merchant vessels at the
time of the capture of the city. The battle of Is
sus was fought about eighteen years afterwards (b.
c. 333), and then the inhabitants of the restored
city opened their gates to Alexander of their own
accord, from hatred, as is expressly stated, of Da
rius and the Persians (Arrian, Anab. Al. ii. 15).
The impolicy, as well as the cruelty of Ochus in
his mode of dealing with the revolt of Sidon now
became apparent ; for the Sidonian fleet in joining
Alexander was au essential element of his success
against Tyre. After aiding to bring upon Tyre as
great a calamity as had afflicted their own city.

a In an excellent account of this revolt, Bp. Thirl
wall seems to have regarded Diodorus as meaning
Sidon itself by the words iv rp StStovio)!', xvi. 41 (His
tory of Greece, vi. 179) ; and Miot, in his Fi'ench traus-
latioD of Diodorus {Bibliothdgue Htstorigue de Diod ore
de Sid/f, Haris, 1837, tom. v. 73), actually translates
the words by "Sidon." The real meaning, however,
seems to be as stated in the text. Indeed, otherwise
there was no tjufflcient reason for mentioning Tripolis
fts speciaUy connected with the causes of the war.
b Pliny elsewhere {Hist, Nat, xxxvi. 65 [26]) gives

ZIDON
they were so far merciful that they saved the lives
of many Tyrians by concealing them in their ships,
and then transporting them to Sidon (Q. Curtius
iv. 4, 15). From this time Sidon, being dependeut
on the fortunes of war in the contests between the
successors of Alexander, ceases to play any impor
tant political part in history. It became, however
again a flourishing town — and Polybius (v. 70)
incidentally mentions that Antiochus in his war
with Ptolemy Philopator encamped over against
Sidon (b. c. 218), but did not venture to attack it
from the abundance of its resources, and the great
number of its inhabitants, either natives or refii-
gees. Subsequently, according to Josephus {Ant.
xiv. 10, § 2), Juhus Csesar wiote a letter respecting
Hyrcanus, which he addressed to the " Magit-
traies, Cornidl, and Demos of Sidon." This sliowg
that up to that time the Sidonians enjoyed the
forms of liberty, though Dion Cassius saya (Ixiv
7) that Augustus, on his arrival in tbe East, de
prived them of it for seditious conduct. Not long
after, Strabo, in his account of Phoenicia, says (A
Tyre and Sidon, " Both were illustrious and spleiv-
did formerly, and now ; but which should be calleii
the capital of Phoenicia, is a matter of dispute be
tween the inhabitants " (xvi. p. 756). He adds that
it is situated on the main-land, on a fine naturally-
formed harbor. He speaks of the inhabitants ai
cultivating the sciences of aiithmetic and astron
omy; and says that the best opportunities were af
forded in Sidon for acquiring a knowledge of thesi
and of all other branches of philosophy. He adds,
that in his time there were distinguished philoso
phers, natives of Sidon, as Boethus, with whom h«
studied the philosophy of Aristotle, and his brothet
Diodotus. It is to be observed that both thes*
names were Greek; and it is to be presumed that
in Strabo's time, Greek was the language of tha
educated classes at least, both in Tyre and Sidoo.
This is nearly all that is known of the state of Si
don when it was visited by Christ. It ia about
fifty miles distant from Nazareth, and is the moat
northern city which is mentioned in connection
with his journeys. PHny notes the manufacture ol
glass at Sidon {Hist. Nat. v. 17, 19); & and during
the Roman period we may conceive Tyre and Si
don as two thriving cities, each having au exteu-
sive trade, and each having its staple manufaotiirej
the latter of glass, and Tyre of purple dyes from
shell-fish. ¦
There is no Biblical reason for following mi
nutely the rest of the history of Sidon. It shared
generally the fortunes of Tyre, with the exceptioit
that it was several times taken and retaken during
the wars of the Crusades, and suflered aecordmglj
more than Tyre previous to the fatal year 1291 A
D. Since that time it never seems to have fallei
quite so low as Tyre. Through Fakhr ed-Din,
emir of the Druses between 1594 and 1634, anrf
the settlement at Sayda of French commercial

an account of the supposed accidental invention ol
glass in Phoenicia. The story is that some merchants
on the gea-shore made use of some lumps of natron to
support their cauldrons ; and that, wheo the natron
was subjected to the action of fire in conjunction witb
the sea sand, a translucent vitreous stream was Been
to flow along the ground. This story, however, ia
now discredited j as it requires intense furnace heat
to produce the fusion. See article « Glass " in thi
Encyctopadia Britanniea, 8fch edition.

ZIDO^S
houses, it had a revival of trade in the 17th and i
part of the 18th century, and became the principal
city on the Syrian coast for commerce between the
east and the west (see Memoires du Chevalier
ftArvieztx, Paris, 1735, tom. i. p. 294-379). This
was put au end to at the close of last century by
violence and oppression (Ritter's Erdkunde, sieb-
zehnter Theil, erate Abtheilung, drittes Buch, pp.
405, 406 ), closing a period of prosperity in which
the population of the city was at one time esti
mated at 20,000 inhabitants. The population, if
it ever approached such a high point, has since
materially decreased, and apparently does not now
exceed 5,000; but the to\vn still shows signs of
former wealth, and tbe houses are better con
structed and more solid than those at Tyre, being
many of them built of stone. Its chief exports are
silk, cotton, and nutgalls (Robinson's Biblical Re
searches, iii. 418, 419). As a protection against
the Turks, its ancient harbor was filled up with
atones and earth by the orders of Fakhr ed-Din, so
that only small boats can now enter it ; and larger
vessels anchor to the northward, where they are
only protected from the south and east winds
(Porter's Handbook for Syria and Palestine, 1858,
p. 398). The trade between Syria and Europe
uow mainly passes through Beyrout, as its most
important commercial centre; and the natural ad
vantages of Beyrout in this respect, for the pur
poses of modem navigation, are so decided that it
is certain to maintain its present superiority over
Sidon and Tyre.
In conclusion it may be observed, that while in
our own times no important remains of antiquity
have been discovered at or near Tyre, the case is
different with Sidon. At the base of the moun
tains to the east of the to\vn there are numerous
sepulchres in the rock, and there are likewise se
pulchral caves in the adjoining plain (see Porter,
Encyclop. Britann. 1. c). "In January, 1855,"
says Mr. Porter, " one of the sepulchral caves was
accidentally opened at a spot about a mile S. E. of
the city, and in it was discovered one of the most
. beautiful and interesting Phoenician monuments in
existence. It is a sarcophagus .... the lid of
which was hewn in the form of a mummy with the
fiace bare. Upon tbe upper part of the lid is a per
fect Phcenician inscription in twenty-two lines, and
on the head of the sarcophagus itself is another al
most as long." This sarcophagus is now in. the
Nineveh division of the Sculptures in the Louvre.
At first sight, the material of which it is composed
raay be easily mistaken ; and it has been supposed
to be black marble. On the authority, however,
of M. Suchard of Paris, who has examined it very
closely, it may be stated that the sarcophagus is of
black syenite, wbich, as far as is known, is more
abundant in Egypt than elsewhere. It may be
added that the features of the countenance on the
lid are decidedly of the Egyptian type, and the
head-dress is Egyptian, with the head of a bird
sculptured on what might seem the place of the
right and left shoulder. There can therefore be
Uttle reason to doubt that this sarcophagus was
sither made in Egypt and sent thence to Sidon, or
that it was made in Phoenicia in imitation of simi-
ar works of art in Egypt. The inscriptions them-
lelves are the longest Phoenician inscriptions which

ZIDONIANS

3629

" • The translation of this epitaph by Mr. Dentsch
tf tile British Museum, on the basis of that of Munk

have come down to our tiraes. A translation ol
them was published by Professor Dietrich at Mar-
bm'g in 1855, and by Professor Ewald at Gottingen
in 1856.'" The predominant idea of them seems to
be to warn all men, under penalty of the monarch's
curse, against opening his sarcophagus or disturbing
his repose for any purpose whatever, especially in
order to search for treasures, of which he solemnly
declares there are none iu his tomb. The king's
title is "Kingot the Sidonians"; and, as is the
case with Ethbaal, mentioned in the book of Kings
(1 K. xvi. 31), there must remain a certain doubt
whether this was a title ordinarily assumed by
kings of Sidon, or whether it had a wider signifi
cation. We learn from the inscription that the
king's mother was a priestess of Ashtoreth. With
regard to the precise date of the king's reign, there
does not seem to be any conclusive indication.
Ewald conjectures that he reigned not long before
the llth century B. c. E. T.

Coin of Zidon.
* ZiDOS or Sidon has points of contact also
with the N. Testament. The Saviour himself in
all probability visited that city (certainly if we read
5ia %iSii>vos, Mark vii. 31, according to the best
opinion), and at all events passed near it in his e36-
cursion across the southern spur of Lebanon and
back thence into Decapolis (Matt. xv. 21 fF. ; Mark
vii. 24 ff.). The Apostle Paul touched at this port
on his voyage to Rome, and found Christians there
whom the courtesy of Julius permitted him to visit
(Acts xxvii. 3). Very possibly a church had ex
isted there from the time of the dispersion of the
disciples from Jerusalem after the death of Stephen,
some of whom went into Phoenicia (Acts xi. 19).
Among the antiquities of Zidon may be men
tioned " the immense stones which form the north
west angle of the inner harbor, each one some ten
feet square . . . and columns, sarcophagi, broken
statuary, and other evidences of a great city found
everywhere in the gardens, with the oldest trees
growing in a fertile soil many feet thick above
them " (Thomson, Land and Book, i. 154 f.).
Greek and Roman coins are not uncommon, having
on them the commercial emblem of a ship. Zidon
has become in our own day the seat of a flourishing
mission from this country, with outposts at various
points in that part of S)Tia. H.
ZIDO'NIAKS 0?1?, Ez. xxxii. 30, Q"'?!"?,
CaiTS, ta''?!?, and once (1 K. xi. 33)
'J"'21S: SiSiSi/ioi, rVat. SeiSavioi,] exc. Ez.
xxjdi.'so, arparnyoX 'Kaaoip: Sidonii, exc. Ez.
xxxii. 30, venatores). The inhabitants of Zidon.
They were among the nations of Canaan left to
practice the Israelites in the art of war (Judg. iii. 3),

and Levy (Inserted in Kitto's BibL Cyclopadia, ii
1161), is no doubt as trustworthy as any other. H.

3630 ziF
and colonies of tbem appear to have spread up into
the hill country from Lebanon to Misrephoth-maim
(Josh. xiii. 4, 6), whence in later times they hewed
cedar-trees for David and Solomon (1 Chr. xxii. 4).
They oppressed the Israelites on their first entrance
into the country (Judg. x. 12), and appear to have
lived a luxurious, reckless life (Judg. xviii. 7); they
were skillful in hewing timber (1 K. v. 6), and were
eraployed for this purpose by Solomon. They were
idolaters, aud worshipped Ashtoreth as their tute
lary goddess (1 K. xi. 5, 33; 2 K. xxiii. 13), as
well as the sun-god Baal, from whom their king was
named (1 K. xvi. 31). The term Zidonians among
the Hebrews appears to have been extended iu
meaning as that of Phcenicians among the Greeks.
In Ez. xxxii. 30, the Vulgate read D''!''", the
LXX. probably 1W nE7, for "lEJ^ ''3'TJ.
Zidonian womeu (m"?"!? : 2,vpai: Sidon'ice) were
in Solomon's harem (1 K. xi. 1).
ZIF" (11 [bloom]: [Rom. Zioii; Vat.] veiaa>;
Alex. Zeiov: Zio), 1 K. vi. 37. [Month.]
ZI'HA (Wn''S [dry, thirsty]: ^ovBia, li-qi;
Alex, tovaa, %iaa: Siha, Soha). 1. The chil
dren of Ziba were a family of Nethinim who re
turned with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 43; Neh. vii. 46).
2. (Vat. [Rom. Alex. FA.l] omit; [FA.^] Siad:
Soaha.) Chief of the Nethinim in Ophel (Neh.
xi. 21). The name is probably that of a family,
and so identical with the preceding.
ZIK'LAG (2b|7!J and twice Obp'^S [a wind
ing, bending, Fiirst]: 2eKeA(i/f, once SiKeKaK; in
Chr. [Vat.] SaKha, 2tay\a/j.; Alex. SiKsKay, but
also Si/teAe-y, [SiKeXa,] SeKeXa; Joseph. SeireAoi:
Siceleg). A place which possesses a special inter
est Irom its having been the residence and the pri
vate property of David. It is first mentioned in
the catalogue of the towns of Judah in Josh, xv.,
where it is enuraerated (ver. 31) amongst those of
the extreme south, between Hormah (or Zephath)
and Madmannah (possibly Beth-marcaboth). It
next occurs, in the same connection, amongst the
places which were allotted out of the territory of
Judah to Simeon (xix. 5). We next encounter it
in the possession of the Phihstines (1 Sam. xxvii.
6), when it was, at David's request, bestowed upon
him by Achish king of Gath. He resided there
for a year <^ and four months (xxvii. 7, xxx. 14, 26 ;
1 Chr. xii. 1, 20). It was there he received the
news of Saul's death (2 Sam. i. 1, iv. 10). He
then relinquished it for Hebron (ii. 1). Ziklag is
finally mentioned, in company with Beer-sheba, Ha-
zar-shual, and other towns of the south, as being
reinhabited by the people of Judah after their re
turn from the Captivity (Neh. xi. 28).
The situation of the town is diflicult to deter
mine, notwithstanding so many notices. On the
one hand, that it was in " the south '* (negeb)
seems certain, both fi-om the towns named with it,
and also from its mention with "the south of the
Cherethites" and "the south of Caleb," some. of
whose descendants we know were at Ziph and Maon,
perhaps even at Paran (1 Sam. xxv. 1). On the
other hand, this is difficult to reconcile with its
»nneotion with the Philistines, and with the fact

» The only instance in the A. V. of tho use of F in
% proper name.
b 1 Chr. xii. 1 and 20.

ZILLAH
— which follows from the narrative of 1 Sam. xxx
(see 9, 10, 21) — that it was north of the book
Besor. The word employed in 1 Sam. xxvii. 5, ^
11, to denote the region in which it stood, is pecul
iar. It is not iias- Shefelah, as it must have been
had Ziklag stood in the ordinary lowland of Philis
tia, but has-Sddeh, which Professor Stanley (S, ^
P. App. § 15) renders " the field." On the whole,
though the temptation is strong to suppose (as
some have suggested) that there were two places of
the same name, the only conclusion seems to be
that Ziklag was in the south or Negeb country,
with a portion of which the Philistines had a con
nection which may have lasted from the time of
their residence there in the days of Abraham and
Isaac. It is remarkable that the word sadeh is
used in Gen. xiv. 7, for the country occupied by
the Amalekites, which seems to have been situated
far south of the Dead Sea, at or near Kadesh. The
narae of Paran also occurs in the same passage.
But further investigation is necessary before we can
remove the residence of Nahal so far south. Hia
Maon would in that case become, not the Main
which lies near Zif and pCUrniul, but that which
was the headquarters of the Maonites, or Me
hunim. Ziklag does not appear to have been known to
Eusebius and Jerome, or to any of the older tray-
ellers. Mr. Rowlands, however, in his journey from
Gaza to Suez in 1842 (in Williams's Holy (My, i.
463-468 ) was told of " an ancient site called Asloodg,
or Kasloodg, with some ancient walls," three houn
east of Sebdta, which again was two hours and a
half south of Khalasa. This he considers as iden
tical with Ziklag. Dr. Robinson had previously
(in 1838) heard of 'Asluj as lying southwest of
l\Iilh, on the way to Abdeh (BibL Res. ii. 201), a
position not discordant with that of Mr. Row
lands. The identification is supported by Mr.
Wilton (Negeb, p. 209 ) ; but it is impossible at
present, and until further investigation into the
district in question has been made, to do more than
name it. If Dr. Robinson's form of the name is
correct — and since it is repeated in the Lists of
( _, ^JLa^A , App. to vol. iii. of Ist
ed. p. 115 a) there is no reason to doubt this — the
similarity which prompted Mr. Rowlauds's con
jecture almost entirely disappears This will be
evident if the two naraes are written in HebiBW,
abpis, ^bwv. G.
ZIL'LAH (nb^ [shadow]: SeWi: Sella).
One of the two wives of Lamech the Cainite, to
whom he addressed his song (Gen. iv. 19, 22, 23).
She was the mother of Tubal-Cain and Naamah. Dr.
Kalisch (Comm. on Gen.) regards the nanjes of L»-
mech's wives and of his daughter as significant ofthe
transition into the period of art which took place in
his time, and the corresponding change in the position
of the woman. " Naamah signifies the lovely, beauti
ful woman ; whilst the wife of the first man was sim
ply Eve, the lifegiving. . . . The women were,
in the age of Lamech, no more regarded merely as
the propagators of the human family ; beauty and
gracefulness began to command homage. . .<
Even the wives of Lamech manifest the transition

Dr. Eli Smith

^ Josephns (Ant. vi. 13, § 19) gives this as oM
month and twenty davs.

ZILPAH
iito this epoch ot beauty; for whilst one wife,
Zillah, reminds still of assistance aud protection
inbS, 'shadow'), the other, Adah, beai-s a
name almost synonymous with Naamah, and like
wise signifying ornament and loveliness."
In the apocryphal book of Jashar, Adah and
Zillah are both daughters of Cain.an. Adah bare
children, but Zillah was barren till her old age, in
consequence of sorae noxious draught which her
husband gave her to preserve her beauty and to
prevent her from bearing. W. A. W.
ZIL'PAH (HB^T [ilropf]: [Ze\4,dy.] Ze\-
^i: Zelpha). A Syrian given by Laban to his
daughter Leah as an attendant (Gen. xxix. 24),
aTid by Leah to Jacob as a concubine. She was
the mother of Gad and Asher (Gen. xxx. 9-13,
xxxv. 26, xxxvii. 2, xlvi. 18).
ZIL'THAI [2syL] {'^r^'^ [shady] i-ZaKaii;
[Vat. 2aA.flei;] Alex. SaAei: Selethai). 1. A
Benjamite, of the sons of Shimhi (1 Chr. viii.
20). 2. (Sa/jiael; [Vat.] FA. Sepiaeei; [Comp. Aid.
iaKadi:] Salatlii.) One of the captains of thou
sands of Manasseh who deserted to David at Zik
lag (1 Chr. xii. 20).
ZIM'MAH (nat [plan, purpose]: Zafi^iie;
[Vat. Zeyiijita;] Alex. Zaij.iia : Zammci). 1. A
Gershonite Levite, son of Jahath (1 Chr. vi. 20).
2. (Zappidij.; [Alex. Zaii/xa; Corap. Aid. Z6,ii-
jxa.]) Another Gershonite, son of Shimei (1
Chr. vi. 42); possibly the same as the preceding.
3. (Zefifidd; [Comp. Aid. Zepfid :] Zemma.)
Father or ancestor of Joah, a Gershonite in the
reign of Hezekiah (2 Chr. xxix. 12). At a much
earlier period we find the same collocation of names,
Zimmah and Joah as father aud son (1 Chr. vi. 20).
Compare " Mahath the son of Amasai " in 2 Chr.
xxix. 12 with the sarae in 1 Chr. vi. 35; "Joel the
son of Azariah " in 2 Chr. xxix. 12 and 1 Chr. vi.
36; and " Kish the son of Abdi " 2 Chr. xxix. 12
with " ICislii the son of Abdi " in 1 Chr. vi. 44.
Unless these names are tlie names of families and
not of individuals, their recurrence is a little re
markable. ZIM'RAN (T^Pt [s""^'! celebrated] : Zoji.-
Ppav, ZeiiSpap, [Vat. -pac] ; Alex. *'XeSpav,
**ZepSpav, Ze/jpav: Zanirau, [Zamram]). The
eldest son of Keturah (Gen. xxv. 2; 1 Chr. i. 32).
His descendants are not mentioned, nor is any hint
given that he was the founder of a tribe : the con
trary would rather appear to be the case. Some
would identify Zimran with the Zimri of Jer. xxv.
25, but these lay too far to the north. The Greek
form of the name, as found in the LXX., has sug
gested a comparison with ZaSpdfj., the chief city of
the Cinasdocolpitee, who dwelt on the Red Sea,
west of Mecca. But this is extremely doubtful, for
thia tribe, probably the same with the ancient
Kenda, was a branch of the Joktanite Arabs, who
in the most ancient times occupied Yemen, and
may only have come into possession of Zabram at
a later period (Knobel, Genesis). Hitzig and
Lengerke propose to connect the name Zimran with
Zimiris, a district of Ethiopia mentioned by Phny
(xxxvi. 25); but Grotius, with more plausibility,

ZIMKI

3631

« Hie word is ]la'nN, whioh Ewald (after J. D.
Jlichaelis), both here and in 2 K. xv. 26, insists on

finds a trace of it in the Zamereni, a tribe of tha
interior of Arabia. The identification of Zimran
with the modern Beni Oraran, and the Bani Zo-
maneis of Dio-lorus, proposed by Mr. Foretei
(Geogr. of Arabia, i. 431), cannot be seriou.slj
maintained. \y. x, \y.
ZIM'RI C'^pT [sung, theme of song]: Zapi-
Spi [Vat. -Spei] : Zambri). 1. The son of Salu,
a Simeonite chieftain, slain by Phinehas with the
Midianitish princess Cozbi (Nuuj. xxv. 14). When
the Israehtes at Shittim were smitten with plagues
for their impure worship of Baal-peor, and were
weeping before the Taberuacle, Zimri, with a shame
less disregard to his own high position and the
suffijriugs of his tribe, brought into then: presence
the Midianitess in the sight of Hoses and in tbe
sight of the whole congregation. The fierce anger
of Phinehas was aroused, and in the swift ven
geance with which he pursued the ofTenders, he
gave the first indication of that uncompromising
spirit which characterized him in later life. The
whole circumstance is much softened in the nar
rative of Josephus (Ant. iv. 6, §§ 10-12), and in the
hands of the apologist is divested of all its vigor
and point. In the Targura of [Pseudo-] Jonathan
ben Qzziel several traditional details are added.
Zimri retorts upon iMoses that he himself had
taken to wife a Midianitess, and twelve miraculous
signs attend the vengeance of Phinehas.
In describing the scene of this tragedy an un
usual word is employed, the force of which is lost
in tlie reuderiiig "tent" of the A. V. of Num.
xxv. 8. It was not the ohel, or ordinary tent of
the encampment, but the HSp, kubbdh (whence
Span, nfcown, and ournfcoi'e), or'dome-shaped tent,
to which Phinehas pursued his victims. Whether
this was the tent which Zimri occupied as chief of
his tribe, and which was in consequence more
elaborate and highly ornamented than the rest, or
whether it was, as Gesenius suggests, one of the
tents which the Midianitess used for the worship of
Peor, is not to be determined, though the latter is
favored by the rendering of the Vulg. lupanar.
The word does not occur elsewhere in Hebrew. In
tbe S} riac it is rendered a cell, or inner apartment
of the tent. W. A. W.
2. ("'lat : Zai^Spi \y^^- -Ppei] ; Joseph. Ani.
viii. 12, § 5, Zapdpns: Zambri.) Fifth sovereign
of the separate kingdom of Israel, of which he oc
cupied the throne for the brief iieriod of seven daya
in the year u. c. 930 or 921J. Originally in com
mand of half the chariots in the royal array, he
gained the crown by the murder of king Elah son
of Baasha, who, after reigning for something more
than a year (compare 1 K. xvi. 8 aud 10), was in
dulging in a drunken revel in the house of his
steward Arza at Tirzah, then the capital. In the
midst of this festivity Zimri killed him, and im
mediately afterw.ards all the rest of Baasha's family.
But the army which at that tirae was besieging the
I'hilistine town of Gibbethon, when they heard of
Elah's murder, proclaimed their general Omri
king. He immediately marched against Tirzah,
and took the city. Zimri retreated into the inner-
raost part of the late king's palace," set it on fire
and perished in the ruins (1 K. xvi. 9-20).
translating " harem," with which word he thinks thai
it is etymologically connected, and hence seeks con
firmation of his view that Zimri was a voluptuous

36B2

ZIN

Ewald's inference from Jezebel's speech to Jehu (2
K. ix. 31), that on Elah's death the queen-mother
welcomed his murderer with smiles and blandish
ments, seems i'ather arbitrary and far-fetched.
[Jezkeel.] G. E. L. C.
3. {Zamri.) One of the five sons of Zerah the
wn of Judah (1 Chr. ii. 6).
4. [Alex, twice, 1 Chr. viii. 36, Za/xpi-] Son
of Jehoadah and descendant of Saul (1 Chr. viii.
3G, ix. 42).
5. (Om. in LXX.: Zamh'i.) An obscure name,
mentioned (Jer. xxv. 25) in probable connection
with Dedan, Tema, Buz, Arabia (111^)^ the min
gled people " 'ereb " (D*^3^n), all of which im
mediately precede it, besides other peoples; and
followed by Elam, the Medes, and others. The
passage is of wide comprehension, but the reference,
as indicated above, seems to be a tribe of the sons
of the East, the Beni-Kedem. Nothing further is
known respecting Zimri, but it may possibly be the
same as, or derived from Zimran, which see.
E. S. P.
ZIN (]**!? [huj palm-tree, Gea.Ji^iV; [Vat.
2etv ; -N"um. xxvii. 14 a, Alex. "Ziva ; Josh. xv. 1, Alex.
'Zip.'i Josh. XV. 3, Rom. Alex. Seva, Vat.^ 'E.vvaKi 2.
m. ©evvaK- Sin.]) The name given to a portion
of the desert tract between the Dead Sea, Ghor, and
Arabah (possibly including the two latter, or portions
of them) on the E., and the general plateau of the
Tih which stre'tches westward. The country in ques
tion consists of two or three successive terraces
of mountain converging to an acute angle (lilie
stairs where there is a turn in the flight) at the
Dead Sea's southern verge, towards which also they
slope. Here the drainage finds its chief vent by
fche Wady el-Fikreh into the Ghor, the remaining
waters running by smaller channels into the Ara
bah, and ultimately by the Wady el^eib also to
the Ghor. Judging from natural features, in the
vagueness of authority, it is likely that the portion
between, and drained by these wadies, is the region
in question; but where it ended westward, whether
at any of the above named terraces, or blending
imperceptibly with that of Pai'an, is quite uncer
tain. Kadesh lay in it, or on this unkno\vn
boundary, and here also Idumsea was conterminous
with Judah; since Kadesh was a city in the border :
of Edom (see Kadesh; Num. xiii. 21, xx. 1, xxvii.
14, xxxiii. 36, xxxiv. 3; Josh. xv. 1). The re
searches of Williams and Rowlands on this sub
ject, although not conclusive in favor of the site
eLKudeis for the city, yet may indicate that the
"wildern^s of Kades," which is indistinguishable
from that of Zin, follows the course of the Wady
Murreh westward. The whole region requires
lurtber research; but its difficulties are of a very
formidable character. Josephus (Ant. iv. 4, § 6)
speaks of a "hill called Sin " {l;ly), where Miriam,
who died in Kadesh, when the people had *' come
to the desert of Zin," was buried. Thie " Sin "
of Josephus may recall the name Zin, and, being
ipplied to a hill, may perhaps indicate the most
singular and wholly isolated conical acclivity named
Moderah {Madura, or Madara), standing a little
S. of the Wady Fikreh, near its outlet into the

slave of women. But its root seems to be D*lS. " to
- t'
be high " (Geseuius) ; and in other passages, especially
E'roT. xviii. 19, the meaning is -'a lofty fortress,"

ZION
Ghor. This would precisely agree with the tra*
of country above indicated (Num. xx. 1, Seetzen.
Reisen, iii. Hebron to Madara ; Wilton, Neoeh
pp. 127, 134). H, jf. '
ZFNA (M3''t [^voh. abundance]: Zi^di Ziza).
ZizAH the second son of Shimei (1 Chr. xxiii. 10
comp. 11) the Gershonite. One of Kennicott's
MSS. reads N''^''', Ziza, like the LXX. and Vulg
* ZI'ON (?V?, mnny, from nPTS : ^^^y-
Vat. Seiojv, exc. Am. i. 2, and 21 places in Psalms;
Sin. or FA. Se/wy hi Ps. ii. 6, xlviii. 2, Ixix. 35,
Ixxxiv. 7, Ixxxvii. 2, 5, xcix. 2, cxlvii. 12, cxlix. 2; Is.
i. 8, iii. 16, 17, viii. 18, x. 32, xii. 6, xviii. 7, xxviii. 16,
xxxi. 4, 9, xxxvii. 22, 41. 9, xii. 27, li. 3, 11, Iix. 20,
Ixi. 3, Ixiv. 10; Jer. xxvi. 18 (so Alex.); Joel iii. 21;
Obad. 17 ; Zech. ii. 10, ix. 13 ; elsewhere Ziwy; in
Cant. iii. 11 Vat. and Sin. omit: Sion). In the
Apoc. and N. T. the A. V., following the Greek.
uses Sum as a variation of Zion [Sion, Mouut,
2J ; but the latter is an essentially different name
from the Sion of Deut. iv. 48 [Sion, Mount, 1].
Mount Zion is the southem terminus and west
ern tongue of the high table-land, or double prom
ontory, on which Jerusalem was built, and is the
highest of its hills. Elevated, and surrounded by
deep, trench-like ravines on the west, south, and
east, with a deep depression, or valley, in the ridge
on the north, it was a position of great natural
strength. It first appears in sacred history as a
stronghold of the Jebusites who had fortified it,
and who held possession of it long after the Israel
ites had gained the rest of the territory. (Josh. xv.
63). It was assaulted at length, ajid captured by
king David (1 Chr. xi. 4-7), who built both a
palace and a citadel upon it, and subsequently
brought to it the ark of the Lord.
As the seat not only of regal dominion, but of
sacred worship until the Temple was built, this emi
nence came to be designated as the " holy hill of
Zion " (Ps. ii. 6) and as the " chosen habitation "
of Jehovah (Ps. cxxii. 13), and this naturally led
to its employment by the N. T. writers as a type
of heaven (Heb. xii. 22; Rev. xiv. 1). It being
the royal residence, it was called the Ciiy of David
(2 Sam. vi. 12); and its prominence in the city
led to the frequent use of its name as the synonym
of Jerusalem (Is. x. 24); as, also, to the draigna-
tion of the inhabitants of the city collectively, as
Zion, or the daughter qf Zion (Is. xlix. 14; Ps. ix.
14; Zech. ii. 10).
The summit of the ridge presented a broad level
tract, the southern portion of which hes outside
of the modern walls. This is now occupied, in
part, by the cemeteries of different Christian sects,
including the Protestants, and among them is the
stone building, once a Christian church, which
covers the traditional site of the sepulchre of king
David. Mushm jealousy has, hitherto, prevented
a thorough exploration of the locality. A part of
this ground has been cultivated — literally fulfill
ing the remarkable prediction tbat Zion should be
"ploughed like a field" (Is. xxvi. 18; Mic. iii.
12). Zion was a natural rocky terrace, and hence
the force of the Scriptural comparisons which asso
ciate with its strong foundations the safety of be-

rather fchan "a harem." Ewald, in his sketch of
Zimri, is perhaps somewhat led astray by the desirl
of finding a historical parallel with Sardanapalus.

ZION
lievere and the stability of Christ's kingdom (Is.
xxviii. 16).
Until a late period, the site of Zion was un
questioned. A glance at the gi'ound of the city,
or at a plan of it, shows that the southwest hill
was the largest and most important of the hills on
which it was built. The position of this hill accords
so fully with almost all the traditional and histor
ical notices which have reached us, that it has been
accepted without dissent as the Zion of David. A
few years since, Mr. Fergusson started the theory
that Zion was identical with the southeast hill, or
Moriah. The present writer in a preceding article
has stated the grounds of dissent from this view
(Jekusalew, ii. 1330-1332; see also BibL Sacra,
xxiv. 116-140).
Quite lately, still another theory, as novel, has
been started, afiirniing the identity of Zion with

ZION

3633

Akra, the hill on the north ; and this we will briefly
examine here. (See also Bibl. Sacra, xxvii. 565-
569.) This originated with Captain Warren, the
British engineer who has made such important and
interesting subteri'anean explorations iu Jerusalem,
and who appears to have enlivened his labors below
ground with historical researches above, which are
quite independent of his professional work. It is
propounded by him in Quarterly Statement, No.
III., of the Palestine Exploralion Fund, under the
title : " The Comparative Holiness of Mounts Zion
and Moriah " (pp. 76-88). It is expanded and de
fended by Eev. John Forbes, LL. D., Edinburgh, in
the Bibl Sacra (xxvii. 191-196). Both writera
concede the baselessness of ilr. Fergusson's theory,
which will not, probably, be put forward again;
and the new theory, we apprehend, will be as
transient.

PLAiTOT
jeeusal:bm

(Palestine Exploration Fund.)

A decisive test which does not appear to have
occurred to these writers, is the ascertained course
of the ancient walls, respecting which Josephus has
given us the desired information. He says: "The
city was fortified by three walls wherever it was
not encircled by impassable valleys; for in that
quarter there was liut one wall" (B. J. v. 4, § 1).
He then describes the configuration of the city, —
its hills and valleys, — and in the next section
traces the courses of these walls, respecting the first
and oldest of which there is no disp.ute. Beginning
Jt Hippicus, on the north, it ran southward, and
then eastward, along the western and southern brow
of the southwest hill, and thence across to Ophel
and the eastern side of the Temple on Jloriah. The
latter part of its course is not definitely known ;
but all are agreed that from Hippicus it followed
the brow of the southwest hill, forraing, with the
lieep valleys below, ample protection in this quarter.
From Hippicus eastward this wall ran along the
northern brow of the southwest hill to the Xystus,
»n open place on the eastern crest of this hill op
posite the Temple, and thence across the valley to

the western side of the Temple-area. This is un
disputed. And this part of the first and oldest
wall, from Hippicus eastward, was tho strongest
wall in Jerusalem, and the last which was taken in
every siege. Josephus describes it as difficult to be
taken, and assigns two reasons. The first is its
natural position, built on the brow of a hill ; and
recent excavations have strikingly confirmed his
statement, and vindicated Robinson's theory of the
course of the Tyropoeon Valley, disclosing, below
the present surface, depths at different points of
from thirty to nearly eighty feet along the ancient
cliff (Jerusalem, ii. 1221). His second reason
is the extraordinary strength of the wall itself,
through the zeal which David and Solomon and
the kings who succeeded them took in the work
(B. J. V. 4, § 2). AU are agreed that this oldest
and strongest of the walls of Jerusalem protected
the southwest hill, and was constructed for thia
special purpose. This part of the city, having the
highest area and the most precipitous sides, offered
the strongest natural advantages for defense ; aud
king David and his successors took advantage of

3634

ZION

its natural position, and threw around it a wall
which made it well nigh impregnable.
Now, the advocates of the new theory must give
some consistent explanation of the royal zeal, shown
through successive reigns, in fortifying this broad
and goodly summit. They take pains to explam
that Zion was not an isolated fortress, but im:luded
a considerable part of the city — the palace of the
king and the dwellings of the people; and the up
per city was, confessedly, larger than the lower.
The most commanding spot in tbe capital, by na
ture and art combined made the most secure, and of
ample extent, withal, — the royal palaces (accord
ing to their theory) were not here; the royal treas
ures were not here; the royal sepulchres were not
here ; the citadel was not here ; the Tabernacle and
the ark of the covenant, before the building of the
Temple, were not here; and the wise monarchs of
Israel fortified this elevated quarter of their capital,
until it could bid defiance to almost any assault,
and then built their own residence outside of it,
looking up with admiration to its strong bulwarks,
congratulating the inhabitants who dwelt withiu
its fastnesses, but depriving themselves, their fami
lies, and their possessions, secular and sacred, of
tbe benefit of their own defenses !
There succeeded a period of prolonged peace, in
which the monarch could have his summer resi
dence in the country, and build a palace for his
queen in the unwalled suburbs. But from the first
conquest it was necessary to have a point of as
absolute security as possible; and what conceivable
point would naturally be guarded with more jealous
care than the principal seat of the royal family —
the seat of empire? For a considerable period
(we know not how long) the wall around the south
west hill was the only wall of the city. Josephus
repeatedly refers to it as, by way of distinction,
" the old wall." Aud the interval in which it
served as the sole protection of the capital was not
a season of peace, but a period of incessaiit war
with the tribes and nations on every side of Israel.
And when new walls were afterwards erected, new
defenses were added to this.
Capt, Wai-ren says: "If we place three round
shot close together we have a rough model of Jeru
salem in the time bf Solomon — the shot to the
north being Mount Zion; that to the southeast,
Moriah ; and that to the southwest, the remainder
of Jerusalem " (p. 81). Accepting this " mode!,"
we call the north shot Akra; the southeast, Moriah ;
and the southwest (wbich to Warren is nameless),
2ion. The north hill was subsequently protected
on its exposed side by a strong wall — the second
wall of Josephus; and at a still later day, in the
reign of king Herod Agrippa, a fourth hill, on the
n(Ttheast (Bezetha), was protected on its exposed
side by the third wall of Josephus. Jerusalem was
never attacked from the south. The point of
menace and peril, in every siege, was in the high
lands on the north. These three walls on the north
were successive breastworks against a foreign foe.
When the hill represented by Warren's north shot
was protected by one wall, the southwest hill was
protected by two walls; when the former was
protected by two, the latter was protected by three.
And the security enjoyed by the upper city, on the
southwest hill, above that of the lower city, con
sisted, besides its natural defenses on the south, in
the strength of the old wall on the north, in the
construction of which successive kings had taken
»n enthusiastic interest. Consequently, as we have

ZION
said, this part of Jerusalem held out the Ungest in
every siege, " No attack or approach is ever de
scribed as made against the upper city of Zion until
after the besiegers had broken through the second
wall, and had thus got possession oHhelower city"
(Itob. Bibl. Res. 1852, p. 214). When the city
was invested by Titus after he had stormed and
carried every part but the southwest hiU, the couree
of the siege is thus stated by JMr. Grove: " The
upper city, higher than Moriah, inclosed by tbe
original wall of David and Solomon, and on all
sides precipitous, except on the north, where it
was defended by the wall and towei-s of Herod, waa
still to be taken  It took eighteen days
to erect the necessary works for the siege. The
four legions were once more stationed on the west
or northwest corner, where Herod's palace abut
ted on the wall, and where the three magnificent
and impr^nable towers of Hippicus, Phasaelus, and
Mariamne rose conspicuous. This was tbe main
attack" (Jkkusalkm, ii. 1307). The wall thua
strengthened by Herod for the protection of that
part of the city which embraced his own palace was
the old wall, which ran from Hippicus eastward to
the Xystus. " The interior and most ancient of
the tbree walls on the north was, no doubt, the
same wall which ran along the northern brow of
Zion," or the southwest hill. (Kob. BibL Res. i.
413.) For whose protection, as more important
than their own, was this wall built and streugth-
ened by David and Solomon and thdr immediate
successors ?
The reasons offered by these writers for their
hypothesis are not based on recent discoveries, nor
are they new. These speculations have not the
remotest connection with Capt. M^an-en's explora
tions in Jerusalem. The argument rests mainly
on two or three passages in Josephus and the first
book of Maccabees, relating to the Akra or castle
which Antiochus Epiphanes built on the hill sus
taining the lower city, and which are familiar to all
who have studied the topography of the city. These
parallel narratives involve a perplexity which Prof.
Robinson fully examhied, and, we think, satisfac
torily explained, almost a quarter of a century ago
{Bibl. Sacra, iii. 629-634). His suggestion is,
that in process of time " the City of David," at
first restricted to the Hill of Zion, came to be used
by synecdoche for the whole city, so as to be synony
mous with Jerusalem ; and he cites evident traces
of such usage from Isaiah, the Maccabees, and
Josephus. This is a much simpler solution of the
difficulty than the transfer of site by these writers.
The immemorial conviction, which has not
merely survived centuries of observation, but been
confirmed by the investigations of keen-eyed
witnesses, will, we are confident, abide. The
southwest hill, fortified beyond the rest, and its
dwellings more carefully protected ; the raost im
portant strat^ic point in the city, and the last
rallying-point in memorable sieges; the hill for
which the propounders of the new theory have no
name — Forbes contenting himself with applying
the epithet " pseudo " to the current appellation,
and Warren designating it as " the remainder of
Jerusalem," — this historic hill has borne, and viill
continue to bear the sacred and classic name of
Zion. Every Christian reader has felt— what every
Christian visitor to the holy city wbo has stood on
its southwest hill has felt more — the force and
beauty of such passages as these, in the Psalms o

ZIOR
David: "Beautiful for situation, the joy of the
whole earth, is Mount Zion, on the sides of the
north, the city of the great King " (Ps. xlviii. 2);
" They that trust in the Lord shall be as Mount
Zion, which cannot be removed, but abideth for-
3ver " (Ps. cxxv. 1). From strains like these the
transition is abrupt and startling to such sentences
as the following: " The site where Zion once was,
and is not" (Warren, p. 85); '' Mount Zion, once
60 holy, was at lengtii razed to the ground and ob
Uterated " (Forbes, p. 195). We take comfort in
the undoubting conviction that the grand similes
of the sacred writers have not been thus emptied
of their significance. The Zion of the psalmist and
the prophet still stands, with its rocky, precipitous
sides, and the deep valleys sweep around its base,
as of old. Its " palaces " have disappeared; and
in its desolation, literal and moral, it is no longer
"the joy" which it once was. But "beautiful for
situation " it still is; and, to the eye of the traveller
who approaches it from the south, it still hfts itself
in strength, though not hi the ancient grandeur,
" on the sides of the north." [Gutter; Jebus;
Jekusalem; Tykopceon.] S. VV.
ZI'OK ("13?*^^ [smallness]: ^tapaid; Alex.
Stftip: Sior). A town in the mountain district of
Judah (Josh. xv. 54, only). It belongs to the
same group with Hebron, next to which it occurs
in the list. By Eusebius and Jerome {Onom. ^ic^p)
it is spoken of as a village between .^Elia (Jerusa-
iem) and Eleutheropolis {Beiijibmn), in the tribe
of Judah. A small village named SaHr (wAJLui)
lies on the road between Tekua and Hebron, about
sis miles northeast of the latter (Rob. Bibl. Res.
i. 488), which may probably be that alluded to in
the Onomasticon; and but for its distance from
Hebron, might be adopted as identical with Zior.
So httle, however, is known of the principle on
which the groups of towns are collected in these
lists, that it is impossible to speak positively ou the
point, either one way or the other. G.
ZIPH (^''^ [batilement, pinnacle, Ges. ed.
1863; melting-place, Fiirst]). The name borne
by two towns in the territory of Judah.
1. {Ulaivap.-, Alex. ieva](i<p: Ziph.) In the
south {negeb); named between Ithnan and Telem
(Josh. XV. 24). It does not appear again in the
history — for the Ziph of David's adventures is an
entirely distinct spot — nor has any trace of it been
met with. From this, from the apparent omission
of the name in the Vatican LXX., and from the
absence of the "and" before it, Mr. Wilton has
been led to suggest that it is an interpolation

ZIPH

363£;

{Negeb, 85); but his grounds for this are hardly
conclusive. Many names in this list have not yet
been encountered on the ground; before several
others the "and" is omitted; and though not
now recognizable in the Vat. LXX., tbe name is
found in the Alex, and in the Peshito {Zib). In
our preseut ignorance of the region of the Negeb it
is safer to postpone any positive judgment ou the
point. 2. ([Rom. 'O03, Zi>; Vat.] OC^i^, Zei(p, ij
Z€L$; Alex. Zi(^, Zei<l>: Ziph,) In the highland
district; named between Carmel and Juttah (Josh.
XV. 55). The place is immortalized by its connec
tion with David, some of whose great^t perils and
happiest escapes took place in its neighborhood
(1 Sam. xxiii. 14, 15, 24, xxvi. 2). These pas
sages show, that at that time it had near it a wil
derness {midbar, i. e. a waste pasture ground) and
a wood. The latter has disappeared, but the for
mer remains. The name of Zf is found about
three miles S. of Hebron, attached to a rounded hill
of some 100 feet in height, which is called Tell
Zif About the same distance still further S. is
Kdrmul (Carmel), and between them a short dis
tance to the W. of the road is Yutta (Juttah).
About half a mile E. of the tell are some consid
erable ruins, standing at the head of two small
wadies, which, commencing here, run off towards
the Dead Sea. These ruins are pronounced by Dr-
Robinson {Bibl. Res. i. 492) to be those of the
ancient Ziph, but hardly on sufficient grounds.
They are too far from the tell for it to have been
the citadel to them. It seems more probable that
the tell itself is a remnant of the ancient place
which was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chr. xi. 8).'*
" Zib " is mentioned in the Onomasticon as 8
miles east of Hebron; "the viUage," adds Jerome,
" in which David hid is still shown." This can
hardly be the spot above referred to, unless the
distance and direction have been stated at random,
or the passage is corrupt both in Eusebius and
Jerome. At 7 Roman miles east of Hebron a ruin
is marked on Van de Velde's map, but it does not
appear to have been investigated. Elsewhere
(under " Zeib " and "Ziph ") they place it near
Carmel, and connect it with Ziph the descendant
of Caleb.
From Eusebius to Dr. Robinson no one appears
to have mentioned Zif Yet many travellers must
have passed the tell, and the name is often in the
mouths of the Arab guides (Stanley, S. f P. p.
101 6).
There are some curious differences between the
text of the LXX. and the Hebrew of these pas
sages which may be recorded here.

Hebrew.
1 Sam. xxiii. 14. . . remained
in the moontaiQ in the wilderness
of Ziph.
15  in the wilderness of
Ziph in the wood.

19. And Ziphltes came to Saul.

Vatican LXX. (Mai).
£Ka0ijTo €1/ Tfl epij/xw ev tw opei

ev T^ opei TU av)Qi(a8ei ev rp
KaLV^ Zei0, yy Katvfi [Kaivrj =z
Win read for tt7"in].
T T
Kal ave^Tjo-av ot Zei^atoi eK njs
airxp-utSovs n-pbs 2-

Alex. LXX.
. , . . €V TO) Op€t €V TI} ep1\yM
Zet<^ eis opos TO a.v)(ji.oi5es €V yi)

Zei^ ev TT] KatvT}.

a • In his Index to Clark's Bible Atlas, p. Ill, Mr.
Srove withdraws this objection and speaks of Ziph as
''now Zif, 3 miles south of Hebron," H-

6 See a remark curiously parallel to this by Mar
mont in his Voyage between Naplouse and Jerusft'
lem.

3636 ZIPH
Hebrew.
1 Sam. xxiii. 24. And they arose
Uld went to Ziph before Saul.
xxvi. 1. And the Ziphites uame
unto Saul.

ZIZ, THE CLIFF OF
Vatican LXX. (Maij. | Alex. LXX.

Koi avevTT\iTav ol Zet^oToi, ical
ejropeufli)(raj' l/xTrpotrflev %,
K. eftxQVTOJ. dl Zei^atot e/e t^s
av-)(}x.<iiSavfi TTphs tov 1,.

etropevBriaav ot Zu^oiot

The recurrence ofthe word auxuds, " dried up," " parehed," would almost suggest that the LXX. under
stood the aph of the negeb to be intended. Q.

ZIPH (^*'t' Zi^; [Vat. omits;] Alex. Zt<l>\i'-
Siph), Son of Jehaleleel (1 Chr. iv. 16).
ZrPHAH (np'^T: z^<pi; [Vat. Za0(f ;]
Alex. Zat<f>a'- Zipha). One of the sons of Jeha
leleel, whose family is enuraerated in an obscure
genealogy of the tribe of Judah (1 Chr. iv, 16).
ZIPH'IMS, THB (D^'P'^-Tn : tous Zeitpai-
ovs- Ziphmi). The inhabitants of Ziph (see the
foregoing article. No. 2). In this form the name is
found in the A. V. only in the title of Ps. liv. In
the narrative it occurs in the more usual <* form of
ZIPHITES, THE OWH: ot Zt<pa7ot
[Vat. Zei<j}'] : Ziphcsi), 1 Sam. xxiii. 19,^
xxvL 1. O.
ZIPH'ION (V'l^'P?: 5o</)£6»': Sephim,). Son
of Gad (Gen. xlvi. 16); elsewhere called Zefhon.
ZIPH'RON (V"'?T [fragrance] : Ae<^pajj/{£; <^
Alex. Zeippaiva'. Zephrona). A point in the north
boundary of the promised land as specified by
Moses (Num. xxxiv. 9). It occurs between Zedad
and Hatsar-Enan. If Zedad is Sud&d, and Hatsar-
Enan Kurietein, as is not impossible, then Ziphron
must be looked for somewhere between the two.
At present no name at all suitable has been discov
ered in this direction. But the whole of this
topography is in a most unsatisfactory state as
regards both comprehension of the original record
and knowledge of the ground ; and in the absence
of more information we must be content to abstain
from conjectures.
In the parallel passage of Ezekiel (xlvii. 16, 17)
the words " Hazar-hatticon, which is by the border
of Hauran," appear to be substituted for Ziphron.
The Hauran here named may be the modern village
Hauiodnn, which lies between SudOd and Kurie
tein, aud not the district of the same name many
miles further south. G.
ZIP'POR ("1*15?, and twice "* "IS^ [spar-
rom]: 'ZeTr<p<ip' Sephoi'). Father of Balak king
of Moab. His name occui's only in the expression
" son^ of Zippor" (Num. xxii. 2, 4, 10, 16, xxiii.
18; Josh. xxiv. 9; Judg. xi- 25). Whether he
was the "fonner king of Moab" alluded to in
Num. xxi. 26, we are not told, nor do we know
that he himself ever reigned. The Jewish tradi
tion already noticed [Moab, iii. 1981] is, that
Moab and Midian were united into one kingdom,
and ruled by a king chosen alternately from each
In this, connection the similarity between the names
Zippor and Zipporah, the latter of which we know
to have been the name of a Midianitess, pur sang,
is worthy of notice, as it suggests that Balak may
have been of Midianite parentage. G.

ZIPPO'RAH (nnb? [fem. sparj-ow] : :Sew-
(tpa; Joseph, ^atrtpipa' Sephora). Daughter
of Reuel or Jethro, the priest of Midian, wife of
Moses, and mother of his two sons Gershom and
Eliezer (Ex. ii. 21, iv. 25, xviii. 2, comp. 6). The
only incident recorded in her Ufe is that of the cir
cumcision of Gershom (iv. 24-26), the account of
which has been examined under the head of Moses
(iii. 2019. See also Stanley's Jewish Church,
p. 114).It has been suggested that Zipporah was the
Cushite (A. V. " Ethiopian ") wife who furnished
Miriam and Aaron with the pretext for their attack
on Moses (Num. xii. 1, &c.). The chief ground
for this appears to be that in a passage of Habakkulc
(iii. 7) the names of Cushan and Midian are men
tioned together. But in the immense interval
which had elapsed between the Exodus and the
period of Habakkuk (at least seven centuries), the
relations of Cush and Midian may well have altered
too materially to admit of any argument being
founded on the later passage, even if it were certain
that their being mentioned in juxtaposition implied
any connection between them, further than that
both were dwellers in tents and enemies of Israel;
and unless the events of Num. xii. should be proved
to be quite out of their proper place in the narra
tive, it is difBcult to believe that a charge could
have been made against Moses on the ground of his
marriage, after so long a period, and when the
children of his wife must have been several years
old. The most feasible suggestion appears to be
that of Ewald ( Geschichte, ii. 229, note), namely,
that the Cushite was a second wife, or a concubine,
taken by Moses during the march through the
wilderness — whether after the death of Zipporah
(which is not mentioned) or from other circum
stances must be uncertain. This — with the utmost
respect to the eminent scholar who has supported
the other alternative — the writer ventures t» oifer
as that which commends itself to him.
The similarity between the names of Zippor and
Zipporah, and the possible inference from that sim-
ilaiity, have been mentioned under the former head.
[Zippor.] ^'
ZITHIII 0~inp [Jehovah's protection]:
:Seypei; [Vat. Sep-J^tl;] Alex. Seflpei: Setliri).
Properly " Sithri; " one of the sons of Uzziei, the
son of Kohath (Ex. vi. 22). In Ex. vi. 21, " Zithri"
should be " Zichri," as in A. V. of 1611.
ZIZ, THE CLIFF OP (V^H ^l??^
[ascent ofthe]: ^ avaSturis 'Airaf [Rom. 'Air(r«s]
in both MSS.: dims nomine Sis). The pass
(such is more accurately tbe meaning of the word
madleh; comp. Adummim; Gdb, etc.) by which

a Examples of the same inconsistency in the A. V.
sire found in Avni, Avites ; Hobim, Hobttes ; Pmus-
TM, Philistines.
h In tbis passage there is no article to the name in
the Hebrew.

¦-¦ The final a in LXX. and Vulgate is due to tht
Hebrew particle of motion — " to Ziphron."
d Num. xxii. 10, xxiii. 18.
e In LXX. vibs S., except in Josh. xxiv. 9,o roir Z

ZIZA
the horde of Moabites, Ammonites, and Mehunim,
made their way up from the shores of the Dead
Sea to the wilderness of Judah near Tekoa (2 Chr.
XX. 16 only; comp. 20). There can be very little
doubt that it was the pass of 'Ain Jidy — " the
very same route," as Dr. Eobinson remarks,
" which is taken by the Arabs in their marauding
expeditions at the present day ; along the shore as
tar as to '.Aiii Jidy, and then up the pass, and so
northwai'ds below Tekua " (BibL Pes. i. 508, 530).
The very name (which since it has the article pre
fixed is more accurately haz-Ziz than Ziz) may
perhaps be still traceable in el-ffiisds'ih, which is
attached to a large tract of table-land lying imme
diately above the pass of Ain Jidy, between it and
Tekia, and bounded on fhe north by a wady ofthe
same name (BibL Pes. i. 527). May not both
haz-Ziz and Hiisasah be descended from Hazezon-
tamar, the early name of En-gedi ? G.
ZI'ZA. (Wpt [/""'' breast, abundance]: Zoufo;
[Vat. corrupt:] Ziza). 1. Son of Shiphi a chief
of the Simeonites, who in the reign of Hezekiah
made a raid upon the peaceable Hamite shepherds
of Gedor, and smote them, '' because there was
pasture there for their flocks " (1 Chr. iv. 37).
2. (Zijfci; [Vat. Zeifa; Alex. Zifa.]) Son of
Rehoboam by Maachah the granddaughter of Absa
lom (2 Chr. xi. 20).
ZrZAH (ntlT [full bi-east]: Zi^i'. Ziza).
A Gershonite Levite, second son of Shimei (1 Chr.
xxiii. 11) ; called ZiNA in ver. 10.
ZO'AN" CiT^: Tavis: Tanis, [Ez. xxx. 14,
in Taphnis] ), an ancient city of Lower Egypt. It
is raentioned by a Shemitic and by an Egyptian
name, both of the sarae signification. Zoan, pre
served iu the Coptic 2S:<5,JIH, 2t^JtJ, S.
Z.i.^ne, 2S:<J-«5,JIJ, the Arabic ^jLfl
(» village on the site), and the classical Tdvis, Tanis,
whence the Coptic transcription X^vflGCHC,
eomes from the root ^3^55, " he moved tents " (Is.
xxxiii. 20), cognate with IV^t " h^ loaded a beast
of burden ; " and thus signifies " a place of de
parture," like D''35??) Zaanannim (Josh, xix
33), or Ql????, Zaanaim" (Judg. iv. 11), "re-
movings " (Gesen.), a place in northernmost Pales
tine, on the border of Naphtali near Kedesh. The
place just mentioned is close to the natural and
constant northern border of Palestine, whether
under the spui's of Lebanon or of Hermon. Zoan
lay near the eastern border of Lower Egypt. The
sense of departure or removing, therefore, would
seem not to indicate a mere resting-place of cara
vans, but a place of departure from a country.
The Egyptian name HA-AWAE, or PA-AWAR,
Avaris, Aouopu, means " the abode " or " house "
of "going out" or "departure." Its more pre
cise sense fixes that of the Shemitic equivalent.'
Tanis is situate in N. lat. 31°, E. long. 31° 55',
on the east bank of the canal which was formerly
the Tanitic branch. Anciently a rich plain extended
due east as far as Pelusium, about thirty miles dis
tant, gradually narrowing towards the east, so that
ai a southeasterly direction from Tanis it was not

ZOAN

3037

a Keri, as in Joshua.

more than half this breadth. The whole of this
plain, about as far south and west as Tanis, wxi
anciently known as "the Fields" or "Plains,"
JlJlieajCyCUT , " the Marshes," ret "EA.fl,
'F,\eapxia, or " the pasture-lands," BouKo\ia.
Through the subsidence of the Mediterranean coast,
if is now almost covered by the great Lake Menzeleh.
Of old it was a rich marsh-laud, watered by four ol
the seven branches of the Nile, the Pathmitic,
Mendesian, Tanitic, and Pelusiac, and swept by the
cool breezes of the Mediterranean. Tanis, while
Egypt was ruled by native kings, was the chief town
of this territory, and an important post towards the
eastern frontier.
At a remote period, between the age when the
pyramids were built and that of the empire, seem
ingly about B. c. 2080, Egypt was invaded, over
run, and subdued, by the strangers known as the
Shepherds, who, or at least their first race, appear
to have beeu Arabs cognate with the Phcenicians.
How they entered Egypt does not appear. After a
tirae they made one of themselves king, a certain
Salatis, who reigned at Memphis, exacting tribute
of Upper and Lower Egypt, and garrisoning tho
fittest places, with especial regard to the safety of
the eastem provinces, which he foresaw the Assyr
ians would desire to invade. With this view, find
ing in the Suite (better elsewhere Sethroite) nome,
on the east of the Bubastite branch, a very fit city
called Avaris, he rebuilt, and very strongly walled it,
garrisoning it with 240,000 men. He came hithei
in harvest-time (about the venial equinox), to give
corn and pay to the troops, and exercise them so iis
to terrify foreigners. This is Manetho's accouut ol
the foundation of Avaris, the great stronghold of
the Shepherds. Several points are raised by it.
We see at a glance that Manetho did not know
that Avaris was Tanis. By his time tbe city had
fallen into obscurity, and he could not connect the
HA-AWAR of his native records with the Tanis oi
the Greeks. His account of its early history raust
therefore be received with caution. Throughout,
we trace tbe influence of the pride that raade the
Egyptians hate, and affect to despise tbe Shepherds
above all their conquerors, except the Persians.
The motive of Salatis is not to overawe Egypt but
to keep out the Assyrians ; not to tenify the natives
but these foreigners, who, if other history be cor
rect, did not then form an important state. The
position of Tanis explains the case. Like the other
principal cities of this tract, Pelusium, Bubastis,
'and Heliopolis, it lay on the east hank of the river,
towards Syria. It was thus outside a great line or
defense, and afforded a protection to the cultivated
lands to the east, and an obstacle to an invader,
while to retreat from it was always possible, so long
as the Egyptians held the river. Bnt Tanis, though
doubtless fortified partly with the object of repell
ing an invader, was too far inland to be the frontier
fortress. It was near enough to be the place of de
parture for caravans, perhaps was the last town in
the Shepherd-period, but not near enough to com
mand the entrance of Egypt. Pelusium lay upon
the great road to Palestine, — it has been until
lately placed too far north [Sin], — and the plain
was here narrow, from north to south, so that no
invader could safely pass the fortress; but it soon
became broader, and, by turning in a southwesterly
direction, an advancing enemy would leave Tanis

b The IdentiQcation of Zoan with Avaris ia due tg
M. de Roug^.

3688 ZOAN
far to the northward, and a bold general would de
tach a force to keep its garrison in check and march
upon HeUopolis and Memphis. An enormous
standing militia, settled in the Bucolia, as the
Egyptian militia afterwards was in neighboring
tracts of the Delta, and with its headquarters at
Tanis, would have overawed Egypt, and secured a
retreat in case of disaster, besides maintaining hold
of some of the most productive land in the country,
and mainly for the former two objects we believe
Avaris to have been fortified.
Manetho explicitly states Avaris to have been
older than the time of the Shepherds ; but there are
reasons ior questioning his accuracy in this matter.
The name is more likely to be of foreign than of
Egyptian origin, for Zoan distinctly indicates the
place of departure of a migratory people, whereas
Avaris has the simple signification " abode of de
parture." A remarkable passage in the book of Numbers,
not hitherto explained, " Now Hebron was built
seven years before Zoan in Egypt " (xiii. 22), seems
to determine the question. Hebron was anciently
the city of Arba, Kiijath-Arba, and was under the
rule of the Anakim. These Anakim were of the
old warlike Palestinian race that long dominated
over the southern Canaanites. Here, therefore, the
Anakim and Zoan are connected. The Shepherds
who built Avaris were apparently of the Phoenician
stock which would be referred to this race as, like
them, without a pedigree in the Noachian geo
graphical Ust. Hebron was already built in Abra
ham's time, and the Shepherd-invasion raay be
dated about the same period. Whether some older
village or city were succeeded by Avaris matters
little : its history beghis in the reign of Salatis.
What the Egyptian records tell us of this city
may be briefly stated- Apepee, probably Apophis
of the XVth dynasty, a Shepherd-king who reigned
shortly before the XVIIIth dynasty, built a temple
here to Set, the Egyptian Baal, and worshipped no
other god. According to Manetho, the Shepherds,
after 511 years of rule, were expelled from all Egypt
and shut up in Avaris, whence they were allowed
to depart by capitulation, by either Amosis or
rhummosis (Aahmes or Thothmes IV.), the first
ind seventh kings of the XVIIIth dynasty. The
.iionuments show that the honor of ridding Egypt
of the Shepherds belongs to Aahmes, and that this
went occurred about b. c. 1500. Rameses II. em-
lellished the great temple of Tanis, and was fol-
bwed by his son Memptah.
• It is within the period from the Shepherd-inva
sion to the reign of Memptah, that the sojourn and
Exodus of the Israelites are placed. We believe
that the Pharaoh of Joseph as well as the oppressors
were Shepherds, the former ruUng at Memphis and
Zoan, the latter probably at Zoan only; though in
the case of the Pharaoh of the Exodus, the time
would suit the annual visit Manetho states to have
been paid by Salatis. Zoan is mentioned in con
nection with the Plagues in such a manner as to
Itave no doubt that it is the city spoken of in the
[laiTative in Exodus as that where Pharaoh dwelt.
The wonders were wrought " in the field of Zoan "
tPs. Ixxviii. 12, 43), 1?':£"niC;|;, which may
either denote the territory immediately around the
city, or its nome, or even a kingdom (Gesen. Lex.
9. V. n^tp). This would accord best with the
Shepherd -periodj but it cannot be doubted that

ZOAN
Rameses II. paid great attention to Zoan, and maj
have made it a royal residence.
After the fall of the empire, the first dynasty ih
the XXIst, called by Manetho that of Tanites. Itg .
history is obscure, and it fell before the stronger
line of Bubastites, the XXIId dynasty, founded by
Shishak. The expulsion of Set from the Pantheon,
under the XXIId dynasty, must have been a blow
to Tanis : and perhaps a religious war occasioned
the rise of the XXIIId. The XXIIId dynasty is
called Tanite, and its last king is probably Sethos,
tbe contemporary of Tirhakah, mentioned by He
rodotus, At this time Tanis once more appears in
sacred history, as a place to which came ambassa
dors, either of Hoshea, or Ahaz, or else, possibly,
Hezekiah : " For his princes were at Zoan, and his
messengers came to Hanes " (Is. xxx. 4). Aa
mentioned with the frontier town Tahpanhes, Tanis
is not necessarily the capital. But the same
prophet perhaps more distinctly points to a Tanite
line where saying, in " the burden of Egypt," « the
princes of Zoan are becorae fooLs; the princes of
Noph are deceived " (xix. 13). The doom of Zoan
is foretold by Ezekiel: "I will set fire in Zoan"
(xxx. 14), where it occurs among the cities to be
taken by Nebuchadnezzar.
" The plain of San is very extensive, but thinly
inhabited : uo village exists in the immediate vicin
ity of the ancient Tanis; and, when looking from
the mounds of this once splendid city towards the
distant palms of indistinct villages, we perceive the
desolation spread around it. The ' field ' of Zoan,
is now a barren waste: a canal passes through it
without being able to fertilize the soil; 'fire' has
been set in * Zoan ; ' and one of the principal capi
tals or royal abodes of the Pharaohs is now the
habitation of fishermen, the resort of wild beasts,
and infested with reptiles and malignant fevers."
It is " remarkable for the height and extent of its
mounds, wbich are upwards of a mile from N. to
S., and nearly | of a mile from E. to W. The
area in which the sacred inclosure of the temple
stood is about 1,500 ft. by 1,250, surrounded by
mounds of fallen houses. The temple was adorned
by Rameses II. with numerous obelisks and most
of its sculptures. It is very ruinous, but its re
mains prove its former grandeur. The number of
its obeUsks, ten or twelve, all now fallen, is uu
equaled, and the labor of transporting thera from
Syene shows the lavish magnificence of the Egyptian
kings. The oldest name found here is tbat of Se
sertesen HI. of the Xllth dynasty, the latest that of
'Tirhakah (Sir Gardner Wilkinson's Handbook^ pp.
221, 222). Recently, M. Mariette has made ex
cavations on this site and discovered remains of the
Shepherd-period, showing a markedly-characteristic
style, especiaUy in the representation of face and
figure, but of Egyptian art, and therefore after
wards appropriated by the Egyptian kings. R. S. P.
* The past ten years have been rich in discoveries
of historical value at Sdn, the site of the ancient
Avaris, Tanis, or Zoan. M. Mariette's excavations
have brought to light a colossal statue of Amen-
emhe I. founder of the XHth dynasty; a colossal
statue of Osirtasen I. represented as Osiris; a third
of S^vekhotep III. of the Xlllth dynasty; a fourth
of another S^vekbotep, not fully identified, but hav
ing the prefix of Osirtasen II. ; and a fifth colossus
of a sovereign whose name is not yet known from
any list of kings.
In addition to these, u number of sphinxes of

ZOAR
fine workmanship have been unveiled. From a
personal inspection of these monumente, Count de
Roug^ states that the art has all the vigor, the
nicety, the perfection of the time of the old em
pire, but the type cannot be confounded with any
Egyptian type; so characteristic is its impress that
the difference of races at once strikes the eye of the
obsen-er. The god Soutekli or Set is also promi
nent upon tbese monuments. Here then are indu
bitable traces of the Hyksos or " Shepherds," who
do not appear to have been such ruthless iconoclasts
as Egyptian historians have represented them.
The papyrus '* Sallier I." estabUshes the fact
that a Shepherd-king built to Set a substantial
temple at Avaris, and established in his honor festi
vals and sacrificial days; and a religious feud aris
ing from the attempt to force tliis hostile divinity
apon the Egyptiaus seems to have prompted the
expulsion of tbe Shepherds.
There are serious objections to the theory that
the Hebrews were in Ei,^.ypt under the Hyksos. If
the Pharaoh of Joseph's time was a Hyksos, how
could the name " Shepherd " have been an " abom
ination" to him, and how could Joseph have se
cured the isolation of his brethren by introducing
them as shepherds V What motive could have led
these foreign invaders, if then in power in Egypt,
to suppress a kindred people, strangers and shep
herds like themselves, and who would have been
their natural allies against Egypt, in a civU war?
The narrative of the Exodus forbids the supposition
that the Hebrews were driven out with the Hyksos,
and it is not easy to conceive that they were suf
fered to remain, if they were in the country at the
Hyksos period.
For a full discussion of this question, see Ebers,
jEgypien und die Bucher Jfose^s; Chabas, Les
Pasieurs enEyypie, and the Bibl. Sacra, vol. xxvi.
p. 581.
Tanis has recently furnished a valuable help to
Egyptian philology in a stone containhig an in
scription of Ptolemy HI. Euergetes I. in thirty-
seven lines of hieroglyphics, foUowed by seventy-six
of Greek. The complete disinterment of the stone
has also very recently brought to light a third, or
demotic text of the inscription, also completely
preserved. (See Proceedings of ihe Amer. Orien
tal Society, May, 1870, p. viii.) This Tablet of
Canopus remarkably confirms the general system of
Champollion. See Dns bllingue Dekret von Kano-
pus, von R. Lepsius (Berl. 1867) ; Die zivei-
sp}'nchige Inschrift von Tanis, von Reinisch und
Roesler (Wien, 1867); also Bibl. 6"ac/-a, vol. xxiv.
p. 771. J. P. T.
ZO'AR ("ly'S, and twice « "ip'l^ [smallness] :
Samar. throughout Hl?^ : z6yopa, 'S.riydjpi Zo-
y6pi Joseph. Zod>p, ra ZSapa, or Zdfapa- Segor).
One of the most ancient cities of the land of Canaan
[Moab. — S.W.]. Its original name was Bela,
and it was stiU so called at the time of Abram's
first rraidenee in Canaan (Gen. xiv. 2, 8). It was
fchen in intimate connection with the cities of the
"plain of Jordan " — Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah,
and Zeboiim (see also xin. 10; but not x. 19) —
and its king took part with the kings of those
sowns in the battle with the Assyrian host which
snded in their defeat and the capture of Lot. In

ZOAR

3639

o Gen. xix. 22, 30.
i In the Targura Pseudojonathan, to vv. 22,

23,

the general destruction of the cities of the plain,
toar was spared to afford shelter to Lot, and it was
on that occasion, according to tbe quaint statement
of the ancient narrative, that the change in its
name took place (xix. 22, 23, 30).'' It is men
tioned in the account of the death of Moses as one
of the landmarks which bounded his view from
Pisgah (Deut. xxxiv. 0), and it appears to have been
known in the time both of Isaiah (xv. 5) and Jere
miah (xlviii. 34). These are aU the notices of Zoar
contained in the Bible.
1. It was situated in the same district with the
four cities already mentioned, namely, in the Ciccar^
the " plain " or " circle " " of the Jordan," and the
naiTative of Gen. xix. evidently implies that it was
very near to Sodom — sufficiently near for Lot and
his family to traverse the distance in the time be
tween the first appearance of the morning and the
actual rising of the sun (vv. 15, 23, 27). The
definite position of Sodom is, and probably wUl al
ways be a mystery, but there can be little doubt
that the plain of the Jordan was at the north of the
Dead Sea, and that the cities of the plain must
therefore have been situated there instead of at the
southern end of the lake, as it is generaUy taken
for granted they were. The grounds for this con
clusion have been already indicated under Sodom
(p. 3068), but it wiU be weU to state them here
more at length. They are as follows: —
{a.) The northern and larger portion of the lake
has undoubtedly existed in, or very nearly in ita
present form since a date long anterior to the age
of Abraham. (The conviction of the writer is that
this Ls true of the whole lake, but every one wiU
agree as to the northern portion, and that is aU
that is necessary to the present argument.) The
Jordan therefore at that date discharged itself into
the lake pretty nearly where it does now, and thus
the "plain ofthe Jordan," unless unconnected
with the river, must have lain on the north of the
Dead Sea.
(6.) The plain was- within view of the spot from
which Abram and Lot took their survey of the
country (Gen. xiii. 1-13), and which, if there ia
any connection iu the narrative, was " the mountain
east of Bethel," " between Bethel and Ai," with
" Bethel on the west and Ai on the east " (xii. 8,
xiii. 3). Now the lower part of the course of tbe
Jordan is plainly visible from the hills east of
Beitin — the whole of that rich and singular valley
spread out before the spectator. On the other
hand, the southern half of the Dead Sea is not only
too far off to be discerned, but is actuaUy shut out
frora view by intervening heights.
(c.) In the accouut of the view of Moses from
Pisgah the Ciccar is more strictly defined as'* the
Ciccar of the plain of Jericho " (A. V. " plain of
the valley of Jericho"), and Zoar is mentioned in
immediate connection with it. Now no person who
knows the spot from actual acquaintance, or from
study of the topography, can believe that the " plain
of Jericho " can have been extended to the southern
end of the Dead Sea, The Jerusalem Targum (not
a very ancient authority in itself, but stUl valuable
as a storehouse of many ancient traditions and ex
planations), in paraphrasing this passage, actually
identifies Zoar with Jericho — '* the plain of the

the name of Zoar is given 'H^yiT* and the play on tm
" smaUuess " of the town \s suppreawit

3640

ZOAR

vaUey of Jericho, the city which produces the
pahns, that is Zeer " 0>V'$),a
These considerations appear to the writer to
render it highly probable that the Zoar of the
Pentateuch was to the north of the Dead Sea, not
far from ite northern end, in the general parallel
of Jericho. That it was on the east side of the
vaUey seems to be implied in the fact that the de
scendants of Lot, the Moabites and Ammonites, are
in possession of that country as their original seat
when they first appear in the sacred history. It
seems to foUow that the "mountain " in which Lot
ajid his daughters dwelt when Moab and Ben-
Amnii were born, was- the "mountain" to which
he was advised to flee by the angel, and between
which and Sodom stood Zoar (xix. 30, compare 17,
19). It is also in favor of its position north of
the Dead Sea. that the earUest information as to
the Moabites makes their original seat in the plains
of Heshbon, N. E. of the lake, not, as afterwards,
in the mountains on the S. E., to which they
were driven by the Amorites (Num. xxi. 96).
2. The passages in Isaiah and Jeremiah in which
Zoar is mentioned give no clew to its situation.
True they abound with the names of places, ap
parently in connection with it, but they are places
(with only an exception or two) not identified.
StiU it is remarkable that one of these is Elealeh,
which, if the modem el-Aal, is in the paraUel of
the north end of the Dead Sea, and that another
is the Waters of Nimrim, which may turn out to
be identical with Wady Nimrin, opposite Jericho.
Wady Seir, a short distance south of Nimtin, is
suggestive of Zoar, but we are too iU-informed of
the situations and the orthography of the places
east of Jordan to be able to judge of this.
3. So much for the Zoar of the Bible. When
however we examine the notices of the place in the
post-Biblical sources, we find a considerable dififer
ence. In tbese ite position is indicated with more
or less precision, as at the S. E. end of the Dead
Sea. Thus Josephus says that it retained ite
name {Zo^p) to his day {Aut. i. 11, § 4), that it
was at the further end of the Asphaltic Lake, in
Arabia — by which he means the country lying
S. E. of the lake, whose capitel was Petra {B. J.
iv. 8, § 4; AtU. xiv. 1, § 4). The notices of Euse
bius are to the same tenor : the Dead Sea extended
from Jericho to Zoar {ZQOpav\ Onom. ®aXaaaa t)
aXvKT]). Phaeno lay between Petra and Zoar {lb.
^Lvdiv)- It stiU retauied ite name {Za>apd\ lay
close to (irapaKeifietrri) the Dead Sea, was crowded
with inhabitente, and contained a garrison of Ro
man soldiers; the palm and the balsam stiU flour
ished, and testifi^ to ita ancient fertiUty {Jb.
Ba\d). To these notices of Eusebius St. Jerome adds
Uttle or nothing. Paula in her joiumey beholds
Segor (which Jerome gives on several occasions as
the Hebrew form of the narae in opposition to
Zoora or Zoara, the Syrian form) from Caphar
Borucha (possibly Beni Naim, near Hebron), at
the same time with Engaddi, and the land where
once stood the four cities ; ti but the terms of the

a The Samaritan Text and Version afford no light
on this passage, as they, for reasons not difficult to
livine, have thrown the whole iuto confusion.
t None of these places, however, can be seen from
Benx Naim (Bob. i. 491),

ZOAR
statement are too vague to allow of any iiifereucs
as to its position (EpisL cviii. § 11). In his com
mentary on Is. xv.^ 5, he says that it waa " iu the
boundary of the Moabites, dividing them from the
land of the Philistines," and thus justifies his use
of the word vectis to translate nrT*12 (A. V.
"his fugitives," marg. "borders; " Gesen. jtfucA(-
linge). The tefi^'a Philisihiim., unless the words
are corrupt, can only mean the land of Palratinec
— i. e. (according to the inaccurate usage of later
times) of Israel — as opposed to Moab. In his
ClucBstiones Hebraicce on Gen. xix. 30 (comp, xiv.
3) Jerome goes so far as to afiorm the accuracy of
the Jewish conjecture, that the later narae of Zoar
was Shalisha: "Bale primum et postea Salisa ap
pellate" (comp. also his comment on Is. xv. 5 J.
But thia is probably grounded merely on an inter
pretation of shalishiyeh in Is. xv, 5, as connected
with bela, and as denoting the "third" destruction
of the town by " earthquakes." <*
In more modern times Zoar is mentioned by the
Crusading histoiians. Fulcher {Gesta Dei, p. 405,
quoted by von Raumer, p. 239 ) stet^ that " having
encircled {yirato) the southern part of the lake on
the road from Hebron to Petra, we found there a
large village which was said to be Segor, in a
charming situation, and abounding with dates.
Here we began to enter the mounteins of Arabia."
The palms are mentioned also by William of Tyre
(xxii. 30) as being so abundant as to cause the
place to be caUed Villa Palmai-um, and Palmer
{i. e. probably Paumier). Abulfeda (cir. a. u.
1320) does not specify ite position more nearly than
that it was adjacent to the lake and the Ghw, but
he testifies to ite then impoilance by caUing the
lake after it — Bahretz^hor (see, too, Ibn Idris, in
Reland, p. 272). The natural inference from the
description of Fulcher is, that Segor lay in the
Wady Kerak, the ordinary road, then and now,
from the south of the Dead Sea to the eastem
highlands. The conjecture of Irby and Mangles
(June 1, and see May 9), that the extensive ruins
which they found in the lower part of this wady
were those of Zoar, is therefore probably accurate.
The name Di'd'a or Derd'ah (Xfrj(i), which they,
Poole {Geogr. Journ. xxvi, 63), and Burckhardt
(July 15), give to the vaUey, may even without
violence be accepted as a corruption of Zoar.
Zoar was included in the province of Palestina
Tertia, which contained also Kerak and Areopolis.
It was an episcopal see, in the patriai-chate of Jeru
salem and archbishopric of Petra; at the Couucil
of Chalcedon (a. d. 451) it was represented by ita
bishop Musonius, and at the Synod of Constanti
nople (a. d. 536) by John (Le Quien, Oriens
Christ, iii. 743-746).
4. To the stetemente of the mediieval traveUers
just quoted there are at least two remarkable ex
ceptions. (1.) Brocardus (cir. A. D. 1290), the
author of the Descriptio Tei-ras Sancias, the stand
ard " Handbook to Palestine " of the Middle Ages,
the work of an able and intelligent resident iu the
country, states (cap. vii.) that "five leagues'^

c Similarly, Stephanus of Byzantium places Zo«
ev IIaAaKrTiin7 (quoted by Belaud, p. 1065).
d See Bah'mer, Die Hebr. Tradit. in Hieronytnut
(Breslau, 1861), p. 29.
c The distance from Jericho to En-gedi is under
stated here. It is really about 24 BngUsh miles.

ZOAR
vleucse) to the south of Jericho is the city Segor,
situated beneath the mountain of Engaddi, between
which mountein and the Dead Sea is the statue of
salt." « True he confesses that all his efforte to
visit the spot had been frustrated by the Saracens;
but the passage bears marks of the great-est desire
to obtein correct information, and he raust have
nearly approached the place, because he saw with
his own eyes the "pyramids" which covered the
"wells of bitumen," which he supposes to have
been those of the vale of Siddira. This is in curi
ous agreement with the connection between En-gedi
and Zoar impUed iu Jerome's Itinerary of Paula,
(2.) The stetement of Thietmar (a. d. 1217) is
even more singular. It is contained in the llth
and 12th chapters of his Peregrinatio (ed. Laurent,
Hamburg!, 1857). After visiting Jericho and GU
gal he arrives at the "fords of Jordan " (xi. 20)j
where Israel crossed and where Christ was baptized,
and where then, as now, the pilgrims bathed (22).
Crossing this ford (33) he arrives at "the field
and the spot where the Lord overthrew Sodora and
Gomorra." After a description of the lake come
the following words : "On the shore of this lake,
about a mile {ad miliare) from the spot at which
the Lord was baptized, is the stetue of salt into
which Lot's wife was turned" (47). "Hence I
came from the lake of Sodom and Gomorra, and
arrived at Segor, where I^ot took refuge after the
overthrow of Sodom ; which is now caUed in the
Syrian tongue Zora, but in Latin the city of palms.
Ll the mountain hard by this Lot sinned with his
daughters (xu. 1-3). After this I passed the vine
yard of Benjamin (?) and of Engaddi 
Next I came into the land of Moab and to the
mountain in which was the cave where David hid
.... leaving on my left hand Sethim (Shittim),
where the children of Israel tarried. . . . At
last I came to the plains of Moab, which abound
in cattle and grain  A plain country, de-
lightfuUy covered with herbage, but without either
woods or single trees ; hardly even a twig or shrub
(4-15). . . After this I came to the torrent
Jabbok *' (xiv. 1).
Making aUowance for the confusion into which
this traveUer seems to have fallen as to Engaddi
and the cavern of David, it seems almost certain
from his description that, having once crossed the
•Jordan, he did not recross it,^ and that the site of
Sodom aud Gomon-ah, the pillar of salt, and Zoar,
were all seen by him on the east of the Dead Sea
— the two first at its northeast end. Taken by
itself this would not perhaps be of much weight,
but when combined with the evidence which the
writer has attempted to bring forward that the
" cities of the plain *' lay to the north of the
lake, it seems to him to assume a certain signif
icance. 5. But putting aside the accounts of Brocardus
wid Thietmar, as exceptions to the ordinary me-

ZOAR

3641

« In the map to the Theatrum Terrcs Sanctce of
Adricbomius, Sodom is placed "within the lake, at its
N. W. end ; Segor near it on the shore ; and the
Statua Salis close to the mouth of the torrent (ap
parently Kidron).
'' Thietmar did not return to the west of the Jor
dan. From the torrent Jabbok he ascended the moun
tains of Abarim. He then recrossed the plain of
Heshbon to the river Arnon ; and passing the ruins
If Robda (Rabba), and Crach (Kerak), and again cross
ing the Arnon (probably the Wady el-AJisy), reached
the top of a very high moUDtain, where he was half
229

diffival belief which placed Zoar at the Wady ed-
Dra'a, how can that belief be reconciled with the
inference drawn above from the statements of tlie
Pentateuch ? It agrees with those statements in
one particular only, the position of the place on
the eastern side of the lake. In everything else it
disagrees not only with the Pentateuch, but with
the locality ordinarily = assigned to Sodom. For
if 'Usdum be Sodom, at the S. W. corner of the
lake, its distance from the 'Wady ed^Dra'a (at
least 15 miles) is too great to agree with the re
quirements of Gen. xix.
This has led M. de Saulcy to place Zoar in the
'Wady Zuweirah, the pass leading from Hebron to
the Dead Sea. But the names Zuweirah and Zoar
are not nearly so similar in the originals as they
are in their western forms, and there is the fatal
obstacle to the proposal that it places Zoar on tbe
west of the lake, away from what appears to have
been the original cradle of Moab and Amnion.''
If we are to look for Zoar in this neighborhood, it
would surely be better to place it at the Tell um-
Zoghal,' the latter part of whioh name (JkA.j)
is almost Uterally the same as the Hebrew Zoar.
The proximity of this name and that of Usdum,
so like Sodom, and the presence of the salt moun
tain — to this day splitiing oif in pillars which
show a rude resemblance to the human form — are
certainly remarkable facts ; but they only add to
the general mystery in which the whole of the
question of the position and destruction of the
cities is involved, and to which the writer sees at
present no hope of a solution.
In the A. V. of 1611 the name Zoar [2aap:
Isaar, or et Sahar, ed. 1590] is found in 1 Chr.
iv. 7, following (though inaccurately) the Keri
("TISI). The present received text of the A. V.
follows (with the insertion of "and") the Cethib
OnS'*). In either case the name has no con
nection with Zoar proper, and is more accurately
represented in English as Zohar (Tsochar) or
Jezohar. [Jezoak.] Q.
* The theory offered above, " that the Zoar of
the Pentateuch was to the north of the Dead Sea,
not far from its northern end, in the general par
allel of Jericho," is, we believe, original with its
author; and we present some reasons for discarding
it, and in favor of the received opinion that it lay
southeast of the sea.
Zoar was a frontier town of Moab. The " bur
den " or waU of Moab which appears in the proph
ecy of Isaiah (xv.) and is repeated in that of Jere
miah (xlriii.) both possibly derived from a nioie
ancient common source, associates the town with
the territory, and Mr. (jrove includes it in his list
of the towns of Moab. The borders of Israel and
Moab touched, as we know (Num. xxiv. 3), near
the sodtheast corner of the Salt Sea. Zoar, then,
killed by the cold. Thence he journeyed 'to Petra
and Mount Hor, and at length reached the Red Sea
His itinerary is full of interest and intelligence.
c Though incorrectly, if the writer's argument for
the position of the plain of Jordan is tenable.
d Dr. Robioson's arguments against this proposal
of De Saulcy (BiiL Res. ii. 107, 517). though thoy
might be more pleasant in tone, are unanswerable in
substance. e The Redjam et-Mezorrhel of De Saulcy. The i^/i
and rrh each strive to represent the Arabic ^'^iit
which is pronounced like a guttural rolling t.

3642 ZOAR
was east of the boundary, and Sodom west of it,
and both were near it.
The first allusion to the spot (Gen. xin. 10) ac
cords entirely with the position which we advocate,
and does not readily admit of any other construc
tion. The sacred writer refers to the extent of the
watered and fruitful plain of Jordan, before the
Lord destroyed the cities, "as thou comest unto
Zoar." Like a later description, in which Zoar is
a terminus, the reader naturally understends a ref
erence to the southern extremity of the plain. If
Zoar had been east of the Jordan, on a line with
Jericho, the description would be unnatural. It
might still be claimed to be an allusion to the breadth
of the valley divided by the Jordan, but it would
exclude the more pertinent and raanifest allusion to
ite length. So far is this "narrative in Genesis "
from seeraing to "state positively" that the site
" lay at the northern end of the Dead Sea," that
it becomes unintelligible to us on any other hypoth
esis than that it lay at the southern end. And 'the
description is perfectly natural, though the terminus
was not actually visible.
The above interpretation, which Mr. Grove sete
aside as impossible, he has himself put forward as
unquestioned and unencumbered, and in previous
articles it stands as his own. .His exposition (see
Lot, vol. ii. p. 1685 a) reads thus: —
"The two Hebrews looked over the comparatively
empty land in the direction of Sodom, Gomorrah,
and Zoar (xiii. 10). And Lot Ufted up his eyes
toward the left, and beheld all the precinct of the
Jordan that it was weU-watered everywhere; like a
garden of Jehovah, like that unutterably green and
fertile land of Egypt he had only lately quitted.
Even from that distence through the clear air of
Palestine, can be distinctly discovered the long and
thick masses of vegetation which fringe the numer
ous streams that descend from the bills on either
side, to meet the central stream in its tropical
depths. And what it now is immediately opposite
Hethel, such it seems then to have been ' even to
Zoar,' to the furthest extremity of the sea which
MOW covers the ' valley of the fields * (' VaUey of
Siddim,' Siddim fields), the fields of Sodom and
Gomorrah. So Lot ' chose all the precinct of the
Jordan, and journeyed east,' down the ravines
which give access to the Jordan YaUey; and then
when he reached it, turned again southward and
atlvanced as far as Sodom (11, 12)." See also
Bethel, vol. i. p. 289.
Besides the passages in Genesis and the two in
the prophecies which have been referred to, Zoar is
named in but one other place in the Bible (Deut.
xxxiv. 3), and that is decisive agahist Mr. Grove's
tlifory. Moses had ascended "the mountain of
Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, that is over against
.lericho," to take his view of the Promised l,,and.
Tlie Lord showed him its different sections, and
among others " the plain of the valley of Jericho,
the city of palm-trees unto Zoar." Mount Nebo
has been identified, if we accept Mr. Tristram's se
lection, and if we do not, Mr. Grove has steted pre
cisely where, on the testimony of the Bible, and also
of Josephus {Ani. iv. 8, § 48) and the Fathers, it
must be, '¦ facing Jericho on tbe east of Jordan." If,
now, •* the Zoar of the Pentateuch was to the north
of the Dead Sea, not far frora ite northern end, in
the general parallel of Jericho," "on the east sideof
the valley," it must have lain between Jericho and
Neho, near fhe liase of the latter, » supposition
ivhich renders uiiiiitellii;ible the dfjscriptive sketch

ZOAR
just quoted, as also Mr. Grove's own declaration
that the site which, on this theory, thus lay directW
below the prophet-leader, was " one of the landmarks
which bounded his. view from Pisgah."
The two definite references in the Penti»,teuch to
the extent of the plain obviously mean the same.
They both describe it as seen lengthwise from
northern summite, the one on the one side, and the
other on the other side of the vaUey. The incred
ible feature of Mr. Grove's theory is, that it makes
Lot and Moses look across the plain of the Jordan
eastward and westward on the same paraUel, ex
tending in both cases " unto Zoar," though one
viewed it from the western hills, and the other fix)ni.
the eastem.
Has Mr. Grove considered, withal, the relation
of the river Jordan to this theory ? Lot was ad
monished uot to tarry in the plain, but escape with
aU haste to the mountein — flee, that is, from the
plain west of the river in the territory of Canaan^
where Mr. Grove places Sodom, to the mountain on
the further border of the plain east of the river in
the territory of Moab, near which he places Zoar,
crossing with his family, without any apparent
faculties, the deep and rapid river.
Lot subsequently ascended the mountein and
dwelt in a cave with his daughters; and thence
sprung the mountein-tribes of Moab and Ammon,
The heights southeast of the Dead Sea have been the
traditional seat and radiating " centre," as stated
by Mr. Grove, of these " brother tribes." They.
pushed northward and eastward and spread over a
large territory, keeping distinct, and the former
were afterwards dispossessed of theirs as far south
as the Une of the Arnon by the Araorites, but re
tained their original fastnesses (Num. xxi. 26).
This natural interpretetion of the sacred record is
sustained by Ritter, who has sketehed with great
clearness the territories and courses of conquest of
the "tribes outside of Canaan" {Geog. of Pales
tine, ii. 149, 151).
The argument adduced above, " that the earliest
inforraation as to the Moabites makes their origin^
seat in the plains of Heshbon, northeast of the lake,
not as afterwards in the mountains on the south
east, to which they were driven by the Amorites
(Nura. xxi. 26)" has been refuted by Mr. Grove
himself in a preceding article (MoAE, vol. iii. p.
1980 6): "The warlike Amorites, either forced
frora their original seate on the west, or perhaps
lured over by the increasing prosperity of the youug
nation, crossed the Jordan, and overran the richer
portion of the territory on the north, driving Moab
back to his original position behind the natural
bulwark of the Arnon."
In the former of these passages, the "original
seat " of the Moabites is represented to have been
northeast of the sea. In the latter their " original
position " is represented to have been southeast of
the sea, and again, in the same article, " the south
eastern border of the Dead Sea " is spoken of as
" their original seat." In the former they are said
to have been driven by the Amorites out of their
original seat; and in the latter they are said to have
been driven by the same into their original position.
We accept the second interpretetion as that
which Ues on the face of tbe sacred narrative, and
has been received by aU BibUcal studente until now.
And in the highlands above what we claim to have
been the site of Zoar. are identified, at this day, the
ruins of the sttonghoMs, Kir of Jloab and Ar of
Moab. To remove the cradle ofthese tribes north

ZOAR
ivard is to disturb and' dislocate tbe associations
and allusions of the_ sacred writers, as universally
understood by their readers.
Mr. Grove suggests that "if Usdum be SAdom,
its distance irom the Wady ed-Dra'a (at least 15
railes) is too gre."it to agree with the requirements
ot Gen. xix." — assuming the necessity of the pres
ent circuitous route. While we recognize in the
name of this singular mountain a memorial of an
cient Sodom, it is not necessary to suppose. that it
designates the exact site of the city, nor is it cer
tain that Zoar lay at the mouth of Wady Kerak.
We only claim that both places lay not very far
from a point southeast of the Dead Sea, and this
we think demonstrable. We would suggest that a
fugitive family might even reach Wady ed-Dra'a
from near the site of Kliashm Usdum with less
difficulty and in less time (especially in the direct
Ime which may then have been practicable) than
they could cross the Jordan and reach the base of
the eastern mountains on the parallel of Jericho.
The allus'ons to this site hy Josephus are explicit.
He says: " It is to this day called Zoar" (Ani. i.
11, § 4). In describing the lalte Asphaltites, he
says: " It extended as far as Zoar in Arabia " (B.
J, iv. 8, § 4) by which he plainly designates its
southern point; conformably with his own defini
tion. " Arabia is a country tbat borders upon
Judsea " (Ant. xiv. 1, § 4). Ritter, with his usual
thoroughness, collates the early post-Biblical testi
mony, and says : " Zoar can only be looked for at
the southern extremity of the Dead Sea." Of the
two " mediaeval travellers " quoted above as apparent
exceptions to this general current of testimony and
belief, only one wrote from personal observation,
aud both are nearly unintelligible. Their confused
testimony, on which no stress is laid, is not worth
sifting; and that it has no weight with the writer
is evident from his admission in another place:
" that the Zoar of Josephus, Jerome, and the Cru
saders probably lay where Dr. Robinson places it "
(Sodom, p. .3069 (i). The cautious Professor, who
devoted a special paper to the site of Zoar (Bibl.
Res. ii. 648-651), speaks of it without references in
his latest work as an ascertained site : " Zoar, as
we know, was in the mouth of Wady Kerak, as it
opens upon tlie neck of the penmsuh," (Phys.
Geog. p. 2-33). While this may have been the ex
act site of Zoar, we hav.? no data which gives us
absolute knowledge, and probably never shall have.
His earlier conclusion was impregnable : "All these
circumstances seem to be decisive as to the position
of Zoar on the, eastern side of the Dead Sea, at the
foot of the mountains near its southern end " (Bibl.
Res. ii. 649). This is not more positive than Mr.
Grove's original statement: " There is no doubt
that it [Zoar] was situated on the southeastern
border of the Dead Sea." (Moab, vol. ii. p. 391
b, 1st Eng. ed.; comp. iii. 1980 o, Amer. ed., for
a later alteration.)
Mr. Tristram offers » still stranger theory re-
ipecting the site of Zoar. He proposes to place it
jn the west side of the valley, south of Jericho.
He suggests this location without any trace of name
,ir ruin, or any hint of history or tradition, as cor
responding with the view granted to Moses from
llie top of Pisgah. " If we place Zoar, as it nat
urally would be placed according to the narrative
uf Lot's escape, at the foot of the hill, between
Wady Dabdr and Ras Feshkhah, we see that here
ivas just the limit of Moses's view, in accordance
irith the record." (Land nf hr-ieL p. 366,

ZOBA 3643
No one can have imagined that the southeast bor-
der of the Dead Sea and the walls of Zoar at that
point were visible to the prophet from the top of
Pisgah, unless, as suggested by Mr. Melvill in his
sermon on the "Death of Moses," his vision was
aided by God who was with his servant on that
lonely summit. The suggestion of Dean Stanley
on this point commends itself to us. He says;
" It was a view, doubtless, wbich in its full extent
was to be imagined, rather than actually seen.
The foreground of the picture alone was clearly dis
cernible; its dim distances were to be suppUed by
what was beyond, though suggested by what was
within the range of the actual prospect of the seer "
(S. # P. p. 295).
Mr. Tristram's own description is as full a con
firmation of the sacred record as we could have an
ticipated from a visitor who should identify the lo
caUty and describe the scene. In selecting this
site, without any indication, local or traditional, he
sets aside, without answering it, the array of evi
dence convincing to Mr. Grove, as to the writers of
note who preceded him, which makes the Zoar of
the Pentateuch a town of Moab on the east side of
the valley. And by no possible interpretation can
the plaintive cry and panic flight, recorded in " the
burden of Moab," be associated with a city off on
the northwestern shore of the sea: " My heart shall
cry out for Moab ; his fugitives shaU flee unto Zoar,
an heifer of three years old ; for by the mounting
up of Luhith with weeping shall they go it up; for
in the way of Horonaim, they shaU raise up a cry
of destruction" (Is. xv. 5). "From the cry of
Heshbon even unto Elealah, and even unto Jabaz,
have they uttered their voice, from Zoar even unto
Horonaim, as an heifer of three years old ; for the
waters also of Nimrim shaU be desolate" (Jer.
xlviii. 34).
A fuller examination of Mr. Tristram's positions
may be found in B'lbL Sac. (1868), xxv. 136-143.
In a private letter since written, Mr. T. intimates
his rehnquishment of his pubUshed theory. For
further argument against the theory that the Pen-
tapolis lay north of the sea, as appUed to the other
cities, see under Sodom (Amer. ed.). S. W.
ZO'BA or ZO'BAH («3"lS, n3"l2 [statue,
public place]: ^ovSd; [2 Sam. viii. 12; 2 Chr.
viii. 3, Alex. 2w/3a; 1 Chr. xix. 6, Eom. Vat.
2to;8aA, FA. SaSa; 2 Chr. viii. 3, Rom. Vat.
BaJo-m/So; Ps. Ix., title, :So$d\, Sin. 2ioSa>~; 2
Sam. xxiii. 36, no\u5vmpeo>s, Alex. ttoWvs Swa-
aeas:] Soba, [once] Stdia, [once Sobal]) is the
name of a porUon of Syria, which formed a sep.v
rate kingdom in the time of the Jewish monarchs,
Saul, David, and Solomon. It is difBcult to fix
its exact position and limits; but there seem to be
grounds for regarding it as lying chiefly eastward
of Ccele-Syria, and extending thence northeasi
and east, towards, if not even to the Euphrates.
[Syria.] It would thus have included the east^
ern flank of the mountain-chain which shuts in
Cffile-Syria on that side, the high land about
Aleppo, and the more northern portion of the
Syrian desert.
Among tiie cities of Zobah were a Hamath (2
Cbr. viii. S), which must not be confounded with
" Hamath the Great " (Hamath-Zobah); a place
called Tibhath o- Betah (2 Sam. vin. 8; 1 Chr.
xviii. 8), which is perhaps Taibeh, between Pal
myra and Aleppo; and another caUed Berothai,
2d"ed.)lwhich b<is '^n supposed to be Beyrut. See

3644

ZOBA

Winer, Realwbrierbuch, vol. i. p. 155.) This last
supposition is highly improbable, for the kingdom
of Hamath must have intervened between Zobah
and the coast. [Berothah.]
We first hear of Zobah in the time of Saul, when
we find it mentioned as a separate country, gov
erned apparently by a number of kings who own
no common head or chief (1 Sara. xiv. 47). Saul
engaged in war with these kings, and " vexed
them," as he did his other neighbors. Some forty
years later than this, we find Zobah under a single
ruler, Hadadezer, son of Rehob, who seems to have
been a powerful sbvereign. He had wars with Toi,
king of Hamath (2 Sam. viii. 10), while he lived in
close relations of amity with the kings of Damas
cus, Beth-Rehob, Ish-tob, etc., and held various
petty Syrian princes as vassals under his yoke (2
Sam. X. 19). He had even a considerable influ
ence in Mesopotamia, beyond the Euphrates, and
was able on one occasion to obtain an importent
auxiUary fcrce frora that quarter {ibid. 16 ; com
pare title to Ps. Ix.). - David, having resolved to
teke full possession of the tract of territory orig
inaUy promised to the posterity of Abraham (2
Sam. viii. 3; compare Gen. xv. 18), attacked Ha
dadezer in the early part of his reign, defeated his
army, and took from him a thousand chariote,
seven hundred (seven thousand, 1 Chr. xviii. 4)
horsemen, and 20,000 footmen. Hadadezer's aUies,
the Syrians of Daraascus, having marched to his
assistance, David defeated them in a great battle,
in which they lost 22,000 men. The wealth of
Zobah is very apparent in the narrative of this
campaign. Several of the officers of Hadadezer's
army carried "shields of gold" (2 Sam. viii. 7),
by which we 'are probably to understand iron or
wooden frames overlaid with plates of the precious
metal. The cities, moreover, which David took,
Betah (or Tibhath) and Berothai, yielded him
" exceeding' much brass" (ver. 8). It is not
clear whether the Syrians of Zobah submitted and
became tributary on this occasion, or whether,
although defeated, they were able to maintain their
independence. At any rate a few years later, they
were again in arms against David. Tbis time the
Jewish king acted on the defensive. The war was
provoked bythe Ammonites, who hired the' ser
vices of the Syrians of Zobah, araong others, to
help them against the people of Israel, and obtained
in this way auxiliaries to the amount of 33,000
men. The aUies were defeated in a great battle by
Joab, who engaged the Syrians in person with the
flower of his troops (2 Sam. x. 9). Hadadezer,
upon this, made a last effort. He sent across the
Euphrates into Mesopotamia, and " drew forth the
Syrians that were beyond the river " (1 Chr. xix.
16), who had hitherto teken no part in the war.
With these allies and his own troops he once more
renewed the struggle with the Israelites, who were
now commanded by David himself, the crisis being
such as seemed to demand the presence of the king.
A battle was fought near Helam — a place, the
situation of which is uncertam (Helaji) — where
the Syrians of Zobah and their new allies were
defeated with great slaughter, losing between 40,000
and 50,000 men. After this we hear of no more
hostilities. The petty princes hitherto tributary
to Hadadezer transferred their aUegiance to the
king of Israel, and it is probable that he himself
became a vassal to David.
Zobah, however, though subdued, continued to
lause trouble to the Jewish kings. A man of Zobah,

ZOHELETH, THE STONE
one of the subjecte of Hadadezer — Rezon, son of
Eliadah — having escaped from the battle of Helam,
and " gathered a hand " {i. e. a body of irregular
marauders), marched southward, and contrived
to make himself master of Damascus, where lie
reigned (apparently) for some fifty years, proving
a fierce advei-sary to Israel all through the reign
of Solomon (1 K. xi. 23-25). Solomon also was
(it would seem ) engaged in a war with Zobah itself.
The Hamath-Zobah, against which he " went np ''
(2 Chr. viu. 3), was probably a town in that
country which resisted his authority, and which
he accordingly attacked and subdued. This is the
last that we hear of Zobah in Scripture. The
name, however, is found at a later date in thi
Inscriptions of Assyria, where the kingdom of
Zobah seems to intervene between Hamath and
Damascus, falling thus into the regular line of
march of the Assyrian armies. Several Assyrian
monarchs relate that they took tribute irom Zobah,
while others speak of having traversed it on their
way to or from Palestine. 6. R.
ZOBE'BAH (n^^lS [shtD-moving]: Sr.
3o0ii; Alex. ^u$7]$a: Soboba). Son of Coz, in
an obscure genealogy of the tribe of Judah (1 Chr
iv. 8).
ZOPHAR ("ITO [whiteness]: -Zaap: Seor). 1.
Father of Ephron the Hittite (Gen. xxiii. 8, xxv. %)•
2. {Sohar, Soar.) One ofthe sons of Simeon
(Gen. xlvi. 10; Ex. vi. 15); caUed Zekaii in ]
Chr. iv. 24.
* 3. Incorrectly printed Zoar (A. V, ed. 1611,
later eds. Jezoar), 1 Chr. iv. 7. [Zoak, p. 3641 b.]
A.
ZOHEXETH, THE STONE (l^ij
ri^n-Tn [see below] : At^^ tov Z.aeXeei [Vat
-06i];Alex. rov Kidov tou Zwe\e0: hpis Zok^
leth). This was " by En-Rogel " (1 K. i. 9); and
therefore, if En-Rogel be the modern Um-ed-.Dernj,
this stone, " where Adonyah slew sheep and oxen,"
was in aU likelihood not far from the WeU of the
Virgin. [En-Rogel.] The Targumists translate
it '-the rolUng stone; " and Jarchi affirms that it
was a large stone on which the young men tried
their strength in attempting to roU it. Othera
make it " the serpent stone " (Gesen.), as if from
the root vHt, " to creep." Jerome simply says,
" Zoelet tractum sive protractum." Others con
nect it with running water: but there is nothing
strained in making it " the stone of the conduit "
(Hv^nTD, Mazchelah), from ite proximity to
the great rock-conduit or conduits that poured into
SUoani. Bochart's idea is that the Hebrew word
zohel denotes " a slow motion " {Hieroz. part i. bk.
1, c. 9): " the fullers here pressing out the water
which dropped from the clothes that they had
washed in the weU called Rogel." If this be the
case, then we have some relics of this ancient cus
tom at the massive breastwork below the present
Birket el-Hamra, where the donkeys wait for their
load of skins frora the weU, and where the Arab
washerwomen may be seen to this day beating theii
clothes."

o "We give the foUowing Rabbinical note on Zoh»
leth, from the Arabic commentary of Tanchum of
Jerusalem, translated by Haarbrucker : —
¦' Ver. 9. nbnTn Verbum bPlT significationea

ZOHELETH, THE STONE
The practice of placing stones, and naming them
Irom a person or an event, is very common. Jacob
lid so at Bethel (Gen. xxviii. 22, xxxv. 14; see
Bochart's Canaan, pp. 785, 786); and he did it
egain when parting from Laliaii (Gen. xxxi. 45).
Joshua set up stones in Jordan and Gilgal, at the
comraand of God (Josh. iv. 9-20) ; and again in
Shechem (Josh. xxiv. 26). Near Beth-shemesh
there was the Eben-gedolah (" great stone," 1 Sam.
vi. 14), called also AbeLgedolah (" the great weep
ing," 1 Sam. vi. 18). There was the Eben^Bohan,
south of Jericho, in the plains of Jordan (Josh.
XV. 6, xviii. 17), "the stone of Bohan the son
of Reuben," the Ehrenbreitstein of the Ciccar, or
"plain" of Jordan, a memorial of the son or
grandson of Jacob's eldest born, for whioh the
writer once looked in vain, but which Felix Fabri
in (he 15th century (Evagat. ii. 82) professes to
have seen. The Eabbis preserve the memory of
this stone In a book called Eben-Bohan, or the
touchstone ( Chron. of Rabbi Josepli, transl. by
Bialloblotzky, i. 192). There was the stone set up
by Samuel between Mizpeh and Shen, Eben^Ezer,
" the stone of help " (1 Sam. vii. 11, 12). There
was the Great Stone on which Saniuel slew tbe
sacrifices, after the great battle of Saul with the
Philistines (1 Sam. xiv. 33). There was the Ebeur-
Ezel (" lapis discessus vel abitus, a discessu Jona-
thanis et Davidis," Simonis, Onom. p. 156), where
David hid himself, and which some Talmudists
identify with Zoheleth. Large stones have always
obtained for themselves peculiar names, from their
shape, their position, then- connection with a person
or an event. In the Sinaitic Desert the writer
found the Hajar el-Rekab (" stone of tbe rider "),
Hajar el-Ful (" stone of the bean " ), Hajar Musa
(" stone of Moses "). The subject of stones is by
no means uninteresting, and has not in any respect
been exhausted. (See the Notes of De Sola and
Lindenthal in their edition of Genesis, pp. 175,
226 ; Bochart's Canaan, p. 785 ; Vossius de Idol-
atr. yi. 38; Scaliger on Eusebius, p. 198; Heral-
das ou Arnobius, bk. vii., and Elmenhorstius ore
Arnobius ; also a long note of Ouzelius in his edi
tion of Minucius Felix, p. 15; Calmet's Frag
ments, Nos. 166, 735, 736 ; Kitto's Palestine.
See, besides, the works of antiquaries on stones and
stone circles; and an interesting account of the
curious Phcenician Hajar Chem in Malta, in Tal-
la«k'8 recent volume on that island, pp. 115-127) H. B.
* It should be added that M. Clermont-Gan-
ueau, connected with the French consulate at Jeru-

trepidatlonis haTlet et reptationis et cunctationis in
iscessu. Inde Saturnum A^V appeUaverunt
propter multos ejus regres.'ius incessusque retrogrados.
Eaque BcntenUa est in verbis NT'N'I \'nbnT (iK.
82, 6) i. e. euDctabar vobis respondere consiliumque
mourn vobi.scum communicare, propterea quia vos
verebar et gravitatem astatis vestrse admirabar. Ser-
pentes 15^ "'^niT appellantur, quia in terra ser-
punt. et ob iacessum suum quasi trepidantem cunctan-
temque. Inde porro dicunt : (Sa66. foi 65,6.) NbCJ?
pbmtn hv T'sraian la-i'* (vid. »«*«.
micaoth, cap. 6), 7'<HS''"i ]*bnT: ?"ant
I. e. aqua leniter fluens in terra. Fortasse igitur
l7niTn ]12S similiter explicandum est, nimirum

ZOPHIM, THE FIELD OF 3645
salem, reports the supposed recovery of Zoheleth i*
the present Ez-Zehwele, the name of a rocky
plateau nearly in the centre of the line along which
stretches the village of Siloam (which see) : the
western face, cut perpendicularly, slightly over
hangs the valley. He assumes this to be the stone
of Zoheleth, near (b;;;S) Eu-Eogel (1 K. i. 9),
though the Hebrew and tbe Arabic names differ,
as Zohelet and Zehoelet. He proposes also to iden
tify En-Rogel with the Virgin's Fountain, and not
with Bir Eyub : the former being only 60 metres
from Zehwele, while the latter is 700 metres and
the Pool of Siloam 400. He suggests further, that
on this supposition we can more easily trace tlie
line which separated the territories of Benjamin
and Judah as stated in Josh. xv. 7, xviii. 16. He
maintains that thefellahhi divide tlie valley of the
Kedron into three sections, the second of which,
extending from the southeast angle of the Haram
to the confluence at the north of Bir Eyub, they
call Wady Fer'aun, Pharaoh's Valley, i. e., as
the name imports in that application, " Valley of
the King; " and the front of the valley so desig
nated is precisely that which the King's Gardens
(Garden, i. 870) used to occupy ( Quarterly
Statement of Oie P. E. Fund, No. v., pp. 251-
253). H.
ZCHETH (nn'lT [corpulent, strong, Furst] :
Z£0£tc;,Alex. ZaxaS: Zohelh). Son of Ishi of the
tribe of Judah (1 Chr. iv. 20).
ZO'PHAH (riD'lS [a cruse]: Zaipi; [Vat.
in ver. 35, ZaixaSQ Alex, [in ver. 35] Zaiipap:
Supha). Son of Heleni, or Hotham, the son of
Heber, an Asherite (1 Chr. vii. 35, 36).
ZO'PHAI [2 syl.] CQ'IS [patr.]: Zovfi;
[Vat. Zooipet:] Sophai). A Kohathite Levite,
son of Elkanah and ancestor of Samuel (1 Chr. vi.
26 [11]). In ver. 35 he is called Zufh.
ZO'PHAR ("IQI^ [perh. spaiTow]: Zaipip:
Saphar). One of the three friends of Job (Job ii.
11, xi. 1, XX. 1, xHi. 9). He is called in tbe He
brew " the Naamathite," and in the LXX. " the
Miusean," and " the king of the Minseans."
ZO'PHIM, THB FIELD OF (a^iQij Hltt?
[prob. fieid of droppings, i. e. fertile] : &ypov
OKOTTitiv: locus svblimis). A spot on or near the
top of Pisgah, from which Balaam had his second
view of the encampment of Israel (Num. xxiii. 14).

lapis volutatus et hie illic tractus, quem siepe quasi
ludentea volvebant ; aut sensus est eum per se fuisse
teretem (volubilem) acclivitatis instar, cujus latus
alterum elatius, alterum depressius esset in modum
pontis exstructi, in quo ad locum altiorem sine gradi-
bus ascendatur ; quem ti?23 vocaverunt qualemque
ad altare struxerunt, ut eo ascendereut, quum ad
altare per gradus ascendere Don liceret (Ex. xx. 23).
Nee absurdum mihi videtur euodem luisse hunc lapi
dem atque eum, qui in Davidis Jonathanique historia
vTSn 1!3M vocatus est, quem interpretantur lapi
dem viatorum, ad quem videlicet viatores devertebant.
Targum h. 1. SlTlDD ]3K transtullt, !. c. altua .
fortasse enim lapis altus fuit et eJatus, quem viatore#
e longiuquo coospicerent."

3646

ZORAH

If the word sadeh (rendered " field ") may be taken
in its usual sense, then tbe " field of Zophim " was
a cultivated spot ° high up on the top of the range
of Pisgah. But that word is the almost invariable
term for a portion of the upper district of Moab,
and therefore may have had some local sense which
haa hitherto escaped notice, and in which it is
employed in reference to the spot in question. The
position of the field of Zophim is not defined, it is
only said that it commanded merely a portion of
the encampment of Israel. Neither do the ancient
versions afford any clew. The Targum of Onkelos,
the LXX., and the Peshito-Syriac take Zophim in
the sense of "watchers" or "lookers-out," and
translate it accordingly. But it is probably a He
brew version of an aboriginal name, related to that
which in other places of the present records appears
as Mizpeh or Mizpah.** May it not be the same
place which later in the history is mentioned (once
only) as JIizPAH-MoAB ?
Mr. Porter, who identifies Alidivs with Pisgah "
mentions (Handbook, p. 300 a) that the ruins of
Main, at the foot of that mountain, are surrounded
by a fertile and cultivated plain, which he regards
as the field of Zophim. G.
* The gently sloping and turf-clad brow, a mile
and a half west of Main, and eight miles north of
'Atidrus, which Tristram proposes as the site of
Nebo, he also suggests as the probable -'field
of Zophim." (Land of Israel, p. 540, 2d ed.)
[Nebo, Amer. ed.] S. W.
ZO'RAH (nyi2 [perh. sinking down, low
ground] : S.apde, Sapaa [Vat. Josh. xiii. 2,
^pa\] ; Alex. Sapaa, ^apa, Apaa ; Joseph.
'Sapiaaa: Saraa). One of the towns in the allot
ment of the tribe of Dan (Josh. xix. 41). It is
previously mentioned (xv. 33) in the catalogue of
Judah, among the places in the district of the She
felah (.\. V. ZoKKAii). In both lists it is in imme
diate proximity to Eshtaol, and the two are else
where named together almost without an exception
(Judg. xiii. 25, xvi. 31, xviii. 2, 8, 11; and see 1
Chr. ii. 53). Zorah was the residence of Manoah
and the native place of Samson. The place both
of his birth and his burial is specified with a curi
ous minuteness as " between Zorah and Eshtaol; "
"in Mahaneh-Dan " (Judg. xiii. 25, xvi. 31). In
the genealogical records of 1 Cbr. (ii. 53, iv. 2),
the " Zareatliites and EshtauUtes " are given as
descended from (i. e. coloniied by) Kirjath-jearim.
Zorah is mentioned amongst the places fortified
by Rehoboam (2 Chr. xi. 10), and it was re-inhab
ited by tlie men of Judah after the return from the
Captivity (Neh. xi. 29, A. V. Zareah).
In the Onomasticon (^apSa and " Saara") it is
mentioned as lying some 10 miles north of Eleu
theropolis on the road to Nicopolis. By the Jew
ish traveller hap-Parchi (Zunz's Benjamin of Tud.
ii. 441), it is specified as three hours S. E. of Lydd.
These notices agree in direction — though in neither
is tlie distance neaily sufHcient — with the niodern
village of SUr'ah ixAyfO), which has been visited
by Dr. Robinson (BibL Res. iii. 153) and Tobler
(3t<i Wand. 181-183). It lies just below the brow of

a See Stanley, S. ^ P., Appendix, § 15.
& The Targuui treats tbe names Mizpeh and Zophim
u identical, translating theni both by Mn-IDD,
c * Mr. Porter disavow.s this inference from the
language (Handb, p. 300 a) as well as the opinion itself

ZUPH, THE LAND OF
a sharp-pointed, conical hill, at the shonlder of the
ranges which there meet and form the north sideof
the Wady Ghurab, the northernmost of the two
branches which unite just below SUr'ah, and form
the great Wady Surnr. Near it are to be seen
the remains of Zanoah, Beth-shemesh, Timnath
and other places more or less frequently mentioned
with it in the narrative. Eshtaol, however, has not
yet beeu identified. The position of S&r'ah at the
entrance of the valley, which forms oue of the ui-
lets from the great lowland, explains its fortifica
tion by Rehoboam. The spring is a short distance
below the village, " a noble fountain " — this was
at the end of April — " walled up square with
large hewn stones, and gushing over with fine water.
As we passed on," continues Dr. Robinson, with a
more poetical tone than is his wont. " we overtook
no less than twelve women toiling upwards to the
village, each with her jar of water on her head.
The viUage, the fountain, the fields, the mountain,
the females bearing water, all transported ua back to
ancient times, when in all probability the mother of
Samson often in like manner visited the fountain
aud toiled homeward with her jar of water." .
In the A. V. the name appears also as Zareah
and Zoreah. The first of these is perhaps most
nearly accurate. The Hebrew is the same in all. 6.
ZOTIATHITES, THE (Tl^'ISn: „i;
'ApaOi [Vat. -Bei] ; Alex. t. SopaSi : Sarathi), i. e.
the people of Zorah, are mentioned in 1 Chr. iv.
2 as descended from Shobai, one of the sons of Ju
dah, wbo in 1 Chr. ii. 52 is stated to have founded
Kiijath.jearim, from which again " the Zareathites
and the EshtauUtes " were colonized. G.
ZO'RBAH (nV"!2 : 'pda; Alex. Sapao: So.
rea). Another (and slightly more accurate) form
of the name usually given in the A. V. as Zokah,
but once as Zareah. The Hebrew is the same in
all cases. Zoreah occurs only in Josh. xv. 33,
among the towns of Judah. The place appears,
however, to have come later into the possession of
Dan. [Zorah.] G.
ZO'RITBS, THE OVl^n [patr.] : 'Hiraf 1
[Vat. -pEi];Alex. Ha-apaei; [Comp. i :Sapdi:]
Sarai), are named in* the genealogies of Judah (1
Chr. ii. 54), apparently (though the passage is
probably in great confusion) amongst the descend
ants of Salma and near connections of Joab. The
Targum regards the word as being a coutraction
for " theZorathites; " but this does not seera likely,
since the Zareathites are mentioned hi ver. 52 of
the same genealogy in another coimection.
ZOROB'ABEL (Zopo'0dSe\: Zorobcd)^, 1
F.sdr. iv. 13, v. 5-70, vi.2-29; Ecclus. xlix. llj
Matt. i. 12, 13 ; Luke iii. 27. [Zekubbabel.]
ZU'ARi'iyiS [smallness]: ^aryip: Suar).
Father of Nethaneel the chief of the tribe of Issa
char at the time of the Exodus (Num. i. 8, ii. 5,
vii. 18, 23, i. 15).
ZUPH, THE LAND OF (^^2 V"??
[honey-comb]: eis T^iv [2i^, Vat.] ieif,'' Alei.

that Attains is Pisgah. (Sea Kitto's £iU. Cyd. vol.
iii. p. Ilfi6.) fl-
d As if reading ?)''S (Tsiph), which the oligiDSl
text (Cethib) of 1 (Jhr. vi. 35 still exhibits for Zopk

ZUPH, THE LAND OF
tu Yn" 'ieiip; Syr. Peshito, Jo.. Tsur : \ uig.
teira Suph). A district at which Saul and hia
jervant arrived after passing through those of Shal
isha, of Shalim, and of the Benjamites" (1 Sam.
ix. 5 only). It evidently contained the city in
which they encountered Samuel (ver. 6), and that
•gam, if the conditions of the narrative are to be
accepted, was certainly not far from the " tomb of
Rachel," probably the spot to which that name is
still attached, a short distance north of Bethlehem.
The name Zuph is connected in a singular maimer
with Samuel. One of his ancestors was named
Zuph (1 Sam. i. 1; 1 Chr. vi. 35) or Zophai (ibid.
26); and his native place was called Eamathaim-
Eophim (1 Sam. i. 1).
But it would be unsafe to conclude that the
" land of Zuph " had any connection with either
of these. If Ramathaira-zophim was the present
Neby Samwil, — and there is, to say the least, a
strong probabiUty that it was, — then it is difficult
to imagine that Ramathaim-zophim can have been
iu the land of Zuph, when the latter was near
Rachel's sepulchre, at least seven miles distant
from the former. Neby Samwil, too, if anywhere,
is in the very heart of the territory of Benjamm,
whereas we have seen that the land of Zuph was
outside of it.
The name, too, in its various forms of Zophim,
Mizpeh, Mizpah, Zephathah, was too common in the
Holy I^md, on both sides of the Jordan, to permit
of much stress being laid on its occurrence here.
The only possible trace of the name of Zuph in
modern Palestine, in any suitable locaUty, is to be
found in Soba, a weU-known place about seven
miles due west of Jerusalem, and five miles south
west of Neby Samwil This Dr. Robinson (BibL
Res. ii. 8, 9) once proposed as the representative of
Ramathaim Zophim ; and although on topograph
ical grounds he virtuaUy renounces the idea (see the
foot-note to the same pages), yet those grounds
need not similarly affect its identity with Zuph,
provided other considerations do not interfere. If
ShaUm and Shalisha were to the N. E. of Jerusa^
\em,nea.T' Taiyibeh, then Saul's route to the land
of Benjamin would be S. or S. "W., and pursuing
the same direction he would arrive at the neighbor
hood of Soba. But this is at the best no more
than conjecture, and unless the land of Zuph ex
tended a good distance east of Soba, the city in
which the meeting with Samuel took place could
hardly be sufficiently near to Rachel's sepulchre.
The signification of the name of Zuph is quite
doubtful. Gesenius explains it to mean "honey; "
while Fiirst understands it as " abounding with
water." It will not be overlooked that when the
LXX. version was made, the name probably stood
in the Hebrew Bible as Ziph (Tsiph). Zophim is
usuaUy considered to signify watchmen or lookers-
out; hence, prophets; in which sense the author
of the Targum has actually rendered 1 Sam. ix.

ZUZIMS, THE

3647

(see margin of A. Y.}. This is a totally distinct name
irom Ziph (?|''T).
« If indeed the " land of Yemiui " be the territory
tf £eiijamiu.
* " Sensum magis quam verbum ex verbo trans-
ferentes " (Jerome, QmbsI. Hebr. in Gen.). Schumann
[Genesis, p. 237) suggests that for D^T^-Tin they read
3'^T^T37, The change in tlie initial letter is the

5, — " they came into the land in which was a
prophet of Jehovah." G.
ZUPH (S^^S : [in 1 Sam., Alex. 2ora-, Comp.
2ii<p; Rom. Vat. corrupt;] 2oi5</)in 1 Chr.: Suph).
A Kohathite Levite, ancestor of Elkanah and Sam
uel (1 Sam. i. 1; 1 Chr. vi. 35 [20]). In 1 Chr.
vi. 26 he is called Zophai.
ZUR (*^2 [rock]: Soip: Sur). 1. One ofthe
five princes of Midian who were'slain by the IsraeUtes
when Balaam fell (Num. xxxi. 8). His daughter
Cojibi waa kUled by Phinehas, together with her
paramour Zimri, the Simeonite chieftain (Num.
XXV. 15). He appears to have been in some way
subject to Sihon king of the Amorites (Josh. xiu.
21). 2. [In 1 Chr. viii. 30, Alex. Iiroiip; in ix. 36,
Vat. Sin. Alex, laeip.] Son of Jehiel the founder
of Gibeon by his wife Maachah (1 Chr. viu. 30
ix. 36).
ZU'RIEL (b«''-1^!J [my rock is God] : Zou-
pi-ilK: Suriel). Son of AbihaU, and chief of the
Merarite Levites at the time of the Exodus (Num.
in. 35).
ZURISHAD-DAI [4 syl.] (•''lt£7n^!J
[my rock is the Almighty]: XovpiiraSai [Vat. in
Num. i. 6, -pel-] : Surisaddai). Father of Shelumiel
the chief of the tribe of Simeon at the time of the
Exodus (Nura. i. 6, ii. 12, vii. 36, 41, x. 19). It is
remarkable that this and Ammishaddai, the only
names in the Bible of which Shaddai forms a part,
should occur in the same list. In Judith (vn. 1)
Zurishaddai appears as Salasadai.
ZU'ZIMS, THE (D1W-Tn : ^evt, lirxvpd in
both MSS.: Zuzim; but Jerome in QiuesL Hebr.,
gentes fortes). The name of an ancient people
who, lying in the path of Cbedorlaomer and his al-
Ues, were attacked and overthrown liy them (Gen.
xiv. 5 only). Of the etymology or signification of
the name nothing is known. The LXX., Targum
of Onkelos, and Sam. Version (with an eye to some
root not now recognizable ^) render it " strong
people." The Arab. Version of Saadiah (in Wal
ton's Polyglott) gives ed-Dakakin, by which it is
uncertain whether a proper name or appellative is
intended. Others understand by it " the wander
ers " (Le Clerc, from T^T), or " dwarfs " (Mi
chaelis, Suppl. No. 606).*^ Hardly more ascertain
able is the situation which the Zuzim occupied.
The progress of the invaders was from north to
south. They first encountered the Rephaim in
Ashteroth Karnaim (near the Leja in the north
of the Hauran); next the Zuzim in Ham; and
next the Emim in Shaveh Kiriathaim. The last
named place has not been identified, but was
probably not far north of the Arnon. There
is therefore some plausibiUty in the suggestion

same which Ewald proposes iu identifying Ham (Gen.
xiv. 5) with Ammon.
(which however Gesenius, Thes. p. 510 a, resiets) and al
tering the points of ^HS to nnSj ^ i' is plain
the LXX. and Vulg. read them, Michaelis ingeniously
obtains the following reading : " They smote the
giants in Ashteroth Karuaim, and the people of
smaller (t. e. ordinary) stature, who were with them.''

3648 ZUZIMS, THE
of Ewald (Gesch. i. 308, note), provided it is
etymologicaUy correct, that Ham DPT, is Q2^,
Am, i. e. Ammon ; and thus that the Zuzim inhab
ited the country of the Ammonites, and were iden
fcical with the Zamzummim, who are known to
have heen exterminated and succeeded in their
land by the Ammonites. This suggestion bas been

ZUZIMS, THE
already mentioned under Zamzummim, but at the
best it can only be regarded as a conjecture in
respect to which the writer desires to say with E*.
land — and it would be difficult to find a fitter
sentence with which to conclude a Dictionary of
the Bible — " eonjecturae, quibus non delectumur." S.

APPENDIX.

NOTES ON THE ART. "WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING."
BT TUE EEV. F. W. HOLLAND, FELLOW OF THE BOYAL GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY OF LONDOJI.

[The foUowing notes were received too late for
insertion in their proper place, but are too valuable
to be omitted. Mr. HoUand here gives the results
of personal observation, having four times visited
the Sinaitic Peninsula and spent many months in
wandering over it on foot. — A.]
Page 3513 a, Une 35, >' the wilderness of Etham."
— It is not necessary to suppose that the wUderness
of Etham extended on both shores of the gulf.
" The edge of the wildemess " probably refers not
to the limits of vegetation, but to the boundary of
the desert east of the gulf, marked by the higher
ground which divides the Bitter Lakes from the sea.
This would form, then as now, the natural road from
Egypt to the Peninsula of Sinai, and thither Moses
would lead the Israelites. A deviation from the
natural road seems to be implied in the command
to turn and encamp before Pihahiroth.
Page 3513 b, 1. 17, " The wilderness hath shut
them in." — Pharaoh seeing that the Israelites had
missed the road leading round the head of the gulf,
would naturally exclaim " The wilderness hath shut
them Ul." The sea was on their left, the high range
of Jebel Attakah on their right, and beyond them
a narrow road along the shore leading only to a yet
more barren desert. Escape was impossible unless
God had opened a way for them through the sea.
Page 3513 b, 1. 2'from bottom, " Wady Ahthi."
— The proper name is Wady el-Alidhd (»t\».l),
derived from hadhwali, impression of a horse's foot.
Page 3513, note c. — The excavations of the Pal
estine Exploration Fund at Jerusalem have proved
that the language of Josephus concerning the height
of the buildings of the Temple was not extravagant.
Page 3514, note a. — The warm spring mentioned
by Mr. HaniUton is situated near Tor, and has no
reference to the Aydn Musa near Suez ; it is that
referred to in the following note. The springs of
Hummam Pharaiin have a tiemperature of 160°, and
emit a firong sulphurous smeU. I have never seen
any warm spring among those at AyHn Musa, al
though I have several times examined them. Water
is found there by digging, and the water-holes are
increased at the pleasure of the gardener.
Page 3514 a, I. 37, " Shur ' before Egypt,' " etc.
— The name Shur means " a wall," and was perhaps
given to the wilderness of Etham, whioh lay on the
east of the Isthmus of Suez and of the head of the
julf, from the wall-Uke range of mountains, Jebel er-
Rahah, by which it is bounded. When seen from a
•listance this range presents the appearance of a long
^ne of white cUffs, with a remarkable tabular outline.
The Arabe know many places in the Peninsula by

two names, — one being the proper name, the other
a name derived from some characteristic feature.
Page 3514 b, I. 20, "Debbet er-Ramleh." — Thii
tract of sand does not run uninterruptedly across
the Peninsula. It is divided by the rocky plateau at
the head of Wady el^Akhdar aud Wady el-Osh.
The name appears to be applied more particularly
to the belt of sand near Wady Nusb and Serdbii
elrKh&dim. Page 3514 b, I. 36. — El-Kaa cannot be Sin,
which lay north of Wady Feirdn, the most south
erly road that the Israelites can have taken to
Mount Sinai. The name eUKda is only applied to
the plain south of Wady Feiran. The plain to tbe
uorth is called el-Murkhah, and that probably cor
responded with the WUderness of Sin. The Wady
Hibrdn south of Jebel Serbdl was pronounced by
the Sinai Survey Expedition to be an impossible
route for the Israelites to have taken.
Page 3515 a, 1. 10. — Um Shaumer is not the
highest raountain. Mount CatheHne . is consider
ably higher, and fornis the true Omphalos of the
Peninsula. Jebel Zebir is the highest peak of
Mount CatheHne, and therefore the highest point
in Sinai.
Page 3515 b, 1. 6 from bottom, " Three passes
through the et-Tih range," etc. — Besides the
three passes mentioned by Robinson, there is a road
leading over Jebel Odjmeh from the head of Wady
es-Sik, a pass to the east of Jebel Dlielel, and an
other further eastward at the head of Wady eLAin.
Page 3516 6, note/'. — The sound produced by
the sand at Jebel NakHs is not caused by its pour
ing over the cUf&, but by the friction of its grains
when set in motion. The sand is drifted up into a
steep bank in a recess in the mountain side, aud
when set in motion, either artificially, or by the
wind, roUs down like a cascade, and then the sound
is produced. It resembles tbe noise made by rub
bing the finger round a glass, but is so loud as to
be heard sometimes at a distance of several hundred
yards. It causes a great vibration, which often sets
in motion the surrounding sand. Tbe Arabs sup
pose that the sound is caused by the nakiis (wooden
boards used for bells) of a monastery, which was
swallowed up by the earth in consequence of the
wickedness of the monks. See Proceedings of the
Royal Geog. Soc. vol. xiii. p. 215 f.
Page 3517 b, 1. 11. — The Mecca pilgrims are
previously provided for, stores of corn being sent on
to the various stations on the Hai^' road, and tanks
prepared for water. Their case, therefore, is quit*
different from that of the IsraeUtes.

3650

APPENDIX.

Page 3517 b, note c. — I have measured acacia
trees upwards of nine feet in circumference. The
trees grow to a large size, when they are not stunted
by having their shoots annuaUy cut off to feed the
goats of the Arabs.
Page 3518, 1. 2, " the Wady er-Raheh.'' — I have
myseff seen the Wady er-Rahah " a vast green
plain," so that looking up its slope it appeared com
pletely covered by herbage. It is never entirely
bare, being thickly studded with low plants, which
after a few showers of rain in spring quickly be
come green. I have even seen blades of grass
springing up in every direction upon it. But I
have also seen the er-Rahah after a long dry season
fco all appearance from a Uttle distance a barren
plain. Page 3518 b, 1. 1. — Quicksands in Debbet er-.
Ramleh are merely caused by the sand drifting into
ihe hollows, which catch the rain-water. They are
not real quicksands.
Pages 3517-3521. — Supply of Waier and Pas
turage. — Large tracts of the northern portion of
the plateau of the Tih, .which are now deserfc, were
evidently formeriy under cultivation. The Gulf of
Suez (probably by means of an artificial canal con
necting it with tbe Bitter Lakes) once extended
nearly fifty miles further north than it does at pres
ent, and the mountains of Palestine were well clothed
with trees. Thus there formerly existed a i-ain-
making area of considerable extenfc, which musfc
have aSded largely to the dews and rains of Sinai.
Probably, also, the Peninsula itself was formerly
much more thickly wooded.
The amount of vegetation and herbage in the
Peninsula," even at the present time, has been very
much underrated; and a slighfc increase in fche
present ¦rain-fall would produce an enormous addi
tion to the amount of pasturage. I have several
times seen fche whole face of the country, especially
the wadies, marvelously changed in appearance by
a single shower.
It is a great mistake to suppose that the con
vent gardens at the foot of Jebel Musa, and those
In Wady Feirdn, and at Tor, mark the only three
spots where any considerable amount of cultivation
could exist in the Peninsula. Hundreds of old
monastic gardens, with copious wells and springs,
are scattered over the moimtains throughoufc the
granitic districts; and I could mention at least
twenty streams which are perennial, excepting per
haps in unusually dry seasons.
It has been said thafc fche present physical con
ditions of fche counfcry are such as to render it ut
terly impossible that the events recorded in the
book of IDxodus can ever have occurred there. Ifc
is wonderful, bowever, how apparent difficulties
melt away as one's acquaintance with the country
increases. I see no difficulty myself in the provis
ion of sufficient pasturage for the flocks and herds,
if, as I have shown, there are good reasons for sup
posing the rain-fall was in former days larger than
it is at preeenfc; and with regard to the cattle, I
will point out one imporfcanfc fact, which appears to
me to have been overlooked, namely, that they were
probably used as beasts of burden, and, in addition

a W. Ethai is its real name, so called firom Ethel,
a spacies of tamarisk.
6 * It is important to notice here that Mr. Holland
has altered tho opinion respecting the route of the
Israelites which he had preseuted in a paper read be
fore the Roy. Geog. Society in 1868, already referred
ko iu this Dictionary under the arts. Sm, Wildebnsss

to other things, carried their own water, su£cicnt
for several days, slung iu water-skins by their side
just as Sir Samuel Baker found tbem doing at tbe
present day in Abyssinia. — See paper On Rectnl
Explm^ation in the Peninsula of Sinm, read [by
Mr. Holland] afc the Liverpool Church Congress
Ocfc. 1869. [See also arfc. Sinai, p. 305*1, Amer. ed.]
Page 3521 a, 1. 34. — "Min el^ Hawara:' — The
water varies much in bitterness. I have found it at
one time so bitter that I could not eveu hold it m
my mouth, at another more plraisant fco drink than
the water I had broughfc in water-skins from Suez.
The size of the spring is very small, but the mass
of calcareous deposit which surrounds it seems to
prove fchat the water-supply from it was formerly
larger than at the present time.
'I'here appears to be a sfcrange confiision of places
here by the writer of the article. My own obser
vations, made at several dififerent times, and ¦con-
fii-nied by those of the Sinai Survey Expedition in
1868, have led me to the following conclusions.
'Abl Hawdra is not a brook, bufc a spring standing
on an elevated plateau at fche head of Wad^
Amdra, which does not contain auy other water,
alfchough a little to fche north of its mouth are the
Ayun Abu Szouweirah, two water-holes about 8
feet deep, supplied, I think, by the drainage from
Wady Warddn. A few stunted palms grow near
them. The water-holes raight be increased by
digging. The water is slightly brackish but drink
able. Wady Tdl^ lies to the south of Wa^
Ghurundel, ninning into the gulf a few miles to
the norfch of Wady Tayibeh. The Arabs obtwii
rock-salt from it. At Jebel Bisher, commonly,
but wrongly, known as Taset es-Sudr, there is a
good supply of water. This mountain lies much
nearer to Suez. It is known In the ch^ts as
" Barn Hill," and forms a prominent landmark.
Page 3521 b, 1. 2 from bottom. — By " water
courses" Stanley evidently does not intend to
imply the presence of water; he especially mentiouB
their being dry. Wady Useit does not connect
Ghurimdel with Tayibeh; ifc is entirely s^arate
from both, but drains the plateau fchafc lies between
thera. The hofc springs near it, visited by Nie
buhr, are fchose of the Hummdm Pharaun. Wady
Useit drains an elevated plateau at fche back of
Jebel Hummdm. Wady Tayibeh runs from the
soufch of the same plafceau. Wady GhuitiJidel, as
it approaches the sea, is certaiuly one of the best
watered and wooded valleys in the whole Penin
sula. Page 3522 a, 4th par. *' Tur."" — The advantages
of this spot for an encampm^it have been much
exaggerated. The water is bi-ackish and unwhole
some, and it is the most unhealthy spot in the
Peninsula. It is true that there are large groves
of palms and fchickefcs of tamarisk, bufc tbe ground
is impregnated wifch salt, and is not otherwise par
ticularly fertile. At the mouth of Wady Tayibeh
is the plain of Ras Abu Zelimeh, which probably
was the spot where the Israelites encamped ; it is
divided from el-Murkhah by a narrow strip of
deserfc, and might almost be considered as a por
tion of the Wilderness of Sin.^

OF, p. 3049, note a, and Sinai, p. 3054. He now re
gards el-Murkhahy and not the plain of es-Seyh, aa tht
" Wilderness of Sin," and supposes the Israelites fifoni
this point to have journeyed up the Wady Feiran.
See his paper On Recent Explorations in the PsTinwofa
of Sinaif read at the Liverpool Church Congrasfl, Oct
1869. A.

APPENDIX.

3651

Page 3522 b, 1. 12.— ^i-A'da. — This name is
ecnfined to the plain south of Wady Feirdn. The
whole of the northern plain is, I beheve, known by
the general name of el-Miirkhah.
Page 3522 b, 2d par. — Manna. — I have now
(1870) some pots of manna that I brought from
Sinai in 1861. It remains perfectly good, but be
comes liquid like honey in hot weather. Wlien I
first obtained it, it still remained, as when collected
from the trees, in the shape of hardened drops.
It is sold in Egypt for medicinal purposes, or to pil
grims as a rehc from the desert.
Page 3523 a, near end of 1st par. — The height
of the Sinaitic iuscriptions has been much exagger
ated. I have not seen one tbat I have failed to
reach without difficulty, except in a few cases,
where there were evident traces of a lower ledge
of rock having fallen down. See Proceedings R.
G. Soc, vol. xiii. p. 213 f
Page 3523 a. — RejMdhn. — On the site of
Kephidim, where the battle with the Amalekites
was fought, my opinion differs from that of Captain
Wilson and Mr. Palmer. They beUeve the battle
to have beeu fought in the Wady Feirdn, near the
site of the ancient city of Paran, and that Jebel
TahAnah (not the hill on which the old church
stands, which the Uean of Westminster advocates,
but one opposite it on the other side of the valley)
was the hill on which Moses sat, with Aaron and
Hur supporting his arms.
The road up this hill, and the churcties and
chapels on its summit and sides, certainly mark
this hill as a very sacred spot in the eyes of the
old inhabitants of Paran. I have little doubt that
they beheved it to be the site of Kephidim, when
Serbdl, as was once certainly the case, was held to
be the traditional Mount Sinai. But I have no
&ith in monastic traditions, either ancient or mod
ern, as far as the monks of the convent of St.
Catherine are concerned.
Besides, it appears to me that Rephidim is clearly
spoken of in tbe Bible as within a day's journey
of Mount Sinai; and this spot is two days' jour
ney fi-om Jebel Miisa, even by the short cut of the
Nukb Ham).
I am strongly of opinion that the Israelites
marched up the Wady es-Slieikh, and that the
narrow dehle of el-Watiyeh, about twelve miles
from Jebel Miisa, marks the site of the battle of
Rephidim. From the head of Wady Hibrdn there stretches
across the western side of the Peninsula a remark
able hne of precipitous granite mountains," through
which are found only three passes, leading to the
high and well-watered central group ijf mountains,
•which includes Jebel Miisa. The two western
passes of Wady Tldh and Nukb Hdwy are too
narrow and rugged to have afforded a road for the
mass of the Israelites.
They are altogether out of the question, if the
Israelites had wagons with them at this time.
We know that tbe princes presented six wagons
for the use of the Tabernacle at'Mount Sinai, and
we can hardly suppose them to have been built
there. The remaining pass of el-Watiyeh is a narrow
ieSk, with perpendicular rocks on either side, and

a This formed, probably, tbe northern limit of
the Wilderness of Sinai, the high central cluster of
mountains to the soutii bearing the district name
«f Horeb. S. W. H.

the holding of this defile by the Amalekites would
render them secure.
AU the requirements of the account of the bat
tle are found at this spot. There is a large plain,
destitute of water, for the encampment of the Israel
ites J a conspicuous hiU on the north side of the
defile, commanding the battle-ground, and present-
hig a bare cliff, such as we may suppose the rock
to have been which Moses struck.'
There is another plain on the south of the pass
for the encampment of the Amalekites, with abun
dance of water within easy reach ; and, curiously
enough, at this very spot, at the foot of the hill on
which Moses sat, if this be Rephidim, the Arabs
point out a rock, which they call " the seat of the
prophet Moses." — See paper read before the Liver
pool Church Congress, pp. 7, 8; also paper read
before R. G. S., May llth, 1868, p. 17.
Page 3523 rt, 2d par. — Horeb. — X name giveii
probably to the central granite mountains (includ
ing Jebel Miisa, SL Catherine, Fureiah, etc.),
which Ue to the south of the remarkable line of
cUffs stretching eastward from the head of Wady
Hebran. The country between this Une and Wady
es-Sheikh, hicluding the low mountains of Jebel
eir- Orf, is .comparatively open, and contains several
plains or broad wadies of considerable size. No
trace of the name Horeb now remains, unless Jebel
^Aribeh, the central portion of Jebel ed-Deir, be a
corruption of it. The Arabs, however, say that this
mountain is so called from a plant that grows tbere.
Page 3524 b, end of 1st par. — Jebel Feiran. —
The Arabs often caU the mountains by the names
of the adjoining wadies.
Page 3524 b, 2d par. — Summit of Serbal. —
Dr. Stewart's " circle of loose stones," and Dr. Stan
ley's '* ruins of a building, granite fragments ce
mented with lime and mortar," refer to the same
ruins. The latter description is the true one. There
are a considerable number of inscriptions on the
summit, some painted under an overhanging rock
covered with whitewash, which seems to connect
them with this building, similar whitewash beiug
found upon its stones. For a description of Jebel
Serbal, see Proceedings R. G. Sue, vol. xiii. p. 212.
Page 3525 a, 2d par. — Jebel jVIHsa. — For
description see Proceedings R. G. Soc, vol. xiii. p.
210. The approach from the W. by Nukb Ha ivy 'is
not so difficult as represented. I have several times
ascended the pass with lightly-laden camels.
W. Solam should be written Soldf. The Rds
Sufsafeh is not a mountain interposed between the
slope of Jebel MUsa and the plain," but the north
ern portion of Jebel Miisa itself
Page 3525 b, I. 10. — Jebel Fureid. — There is
properly speaking no mountain of that name. The
name el-Fureiah is applied to the high and fertile
mountain plateau that Ues between Wady er-
Rahah and the upper part of Wady es-Sheikh
The surrounding peaks each have a separate name.
Page 3525 b, note c — It is a mistake to think
that tlie dendrites have become .scarce — at the top
of Abbas Pasha's road they especially abound.
Page 3527 a, 1. 38. — The " ofierings of the
princes " included wagons (Num. vii. 3), a proof
that the route followed by the IsraeUtes did not
lead over any very difficult passes,' and therefore
a help in tracing out their course.
Page 3527 a, I. 4 from bottoni. " Over its south-

6 This would be " in Horeb '
the preceding note is correct.

if the suggestion In
C VV. H.

3652

APPENDIX.

em face," etc. — There are several passes over the
southern face of the Tih range; if the Israelites
did not march down to the Gulf of Akaba, they
probably crossed by one or more of these, if not too
steep for their wagons. The direct road from
Jebel Musa northward to the JVi range presents
no difficulty, a rising expanse of hard desert lead
ing gradually up to the plateau of Teranik, where
there is plenty of vegetation, and good water at
Ain el-AJchdhar, The wadies leading down to
the Gulf of Akaba are somewhat narrow and rocky ;
a stream of good water is found at the lower Wady
el-Ain. There is an upper el-Ain at 'the bottom
of Wady Zellegei further to the northwest. The
two, I believe, are connected.
Page 3527 6, I. 29. — Dahab appears to me too
far to the south to be identified with Dizahab; it
is also inclosed by mountains on the north. The
road to it lies down Wady Nusb, which rises south
of Jebel Catherine. There is another road across
the plain of Senned which joins Wady Nusb.
Page 3527 b, 1. 36.— El-Hudlierd. — Tbis copi
ous spring is situated at the head of the wady of the
same name, which forms a cul-de-sac surrounded
by high cU£^. Two narrow paths, so steep that a
laden camel cannot well descend them, lead down to
it. It is difficult to identify this with Hazeroth,
where the whole host of the IsraeUtes encamped
for seven days. If they marched straight north from
Mount Sinai we misht place Hazeroth in the open
plateau near el^Aklidhar. Here numerous very an
cient inclosures and ruins of nnmus are found.
The namus, or in the plural nudmis, " mosquitos,"
are the dweUings or storehouses of the ancient in
habitants of the Peninsula. Their style of architect
ure is the oldest that is known, resembUng the
"Beehive Houses "hi Scotland. They were perhaps
built by the Amalekites. (See Proceedings R. G.
Soc. vol. xiii. p. 211 ; paper read before R. G. S., May
11, 1868; and paper read at Liverpool Church
Congress, Oct. 1869.)
Page 3527, note a. — The edible locusts invade
the Peninsula in great numbers about every third
year. I have seen the ground covered with them.
The Arabs in Sinai do not eat them. Partridges
of two kinds are very common. Quails are met
with occasionaUy. Vast fiocks of storks annually
cross northwards from Egypt. I have counted
them by hundreds on several occasions.
Page 3532 a, I. 4. — El-' Ain. — When tracing
up Wady el-Ain, my Arabs pointed out a route
leiding northwai'ds to Palestiue. They said the
road was good, and the pass over the Tih range
uot difficult.
P. 3534 b. — Zoology. — There are no Uons, I
believe, in Sinai. Hyenas are common; so also
are foxes, of which there are two kinds. Leopards
are found on the higher mountains; wolves in Wady
Feirdn, and other places. The ibex is very com
mon. I have sometimes seen as many as 40 or 50
in a day; and have occasionally found 30 or 40 in
one herd. The flesh is excellent, and when sta
tionary for a few days the traveller can generaUy
employ an Arab to shoot him some. They are
quite contented with five or six shilUngs for each
ibex. The young are killed in considerable num
bers for the sake of their skins, which are used for
sewing dates in. The ibexes are commonly known
by the name of beilru, but other names are given
them according to their age and the length of their
horns. Hares are common. Amongst other ani-
mak which are often seen may be mentioned the

gazeUe, coney (Hyrax Syriacus), caUed by the
Arabs webr, jerboas, mice of several kinds, lizards,
and snakes, of which I have caught five or six
different kinds. Amongst the birds, vultures of
two kinds, kites, hawks, storks, wild ducks, teal,
snipe, herons, partridges, sand-grouse, quaU, pig
eons, turtle-doves, Drymcecas, stonechata, plovers,
ravens, crows, owls, bats, red-starts, larks, swaUows,
seargulls, etc., etc. Porcupines and hedgehogs are
found, but they are rare. SmaU fish are found
in the warm springs near Tiir. One cannot, of
course, compare the amount of life found in a
desert with that in other countiies, which supply a
larger amount of food, but I have frequently seec,
and have shot or caught most of the animals and
birds which 1 have mentioned, besides others the
names of which I cannot now remember.
Page 3536 a. — Vegetation. — The statement
that " the palms are almost always dwarf," is not
correct. The dwarf trees are the exception, not the
rule. Many of the trees at Tiir and Wady Feirdn
are particularly fine.
Roses of Jericho are found at the mouth of
Wady Ghurundel, Wady Mokatteb, and many
other places.
The Lusof, or caper plant, is found in Tayibeh,
and is very common in the wadies south of Jebel
Miisa. 'the fruit, which is of the size and shape
of a moderate sized pear, is eaten by the Aiabv
It has a pungent and very pleasant taste.
The Ban^lree (Balsamum Aaronis) abounds in
some of the wadies near Serbdl.
The Osher I have found in Wady Nusb, S. E.
of Jebel Miisa and also near Wady el-Ain. A
large blue kind of locust feeds upon it.
The Butm (Pistachia terebinlhus f) occurs on
the -west ot Jebel Sei'bdl on the higher slopes; it
does not appear to grow on the east of the moun
tain. Page 3537. — The name Serbdl is not derived
from Ser; the word serbal (JLs^au) signifies a
"shirt" or "coat of maU," and the name has
reference to the manner in which a storm clothes
the smooth summit of the mountain, and perhaps
to the sheet of ice with which it is sometimes cov
ered, when it shines in the sun like a coat of
mail. F. W. H.
* We ought perhaps to mention here, as at
least a curiosity, a new theory of the route of the
IsraeUtes, set forth with no Uttle learning and
ingenuity by a writer in Lawson and Wilson's
Cyclopcedia of BibL Geography, etc., vol. ii. pp.
59-199 (Edin. 1866), under the title Exode, Alter
native Ir'iew of the. We can only indicate his
chief results, without discussing the arguments
by whioh they are supported. This writer main
tains that the Gulf of Akaba is' the "Red Sea"
of our version, and was of much larger dimen
sions in the days of Moses and Herodotus, extend
ing across modern Arabia to the Pereian GuK;
that Mizraim is improperly rendered •' Egypt " m
our version, being really applied to a part of Aro-
bia near Egypt; that the water in which Moses,
as an infant, was laid, was not the Nile, bnt a
sweet water channel connecting, in early times, the
isthmus of Suez with the Mediterranean Sea; that
Goshen was the high region known to the ancient!
as Mount Casion ; that the Horeb of Scripture was
the ridge of the Tih, and Mount Sinai Jebel el.
Ajmah (or Ojmeh). A.

INDEX

PRINCIPAL PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE ILLUSTRATED.

Ifote — Passages whioh would be readily found without the ^d of this Index are for the most part omitted

GENESIS.
11  i.631h
.2  iv.3406b
i.5  i.567b
i.7  i.63Ib
i.l4  iv.3405a
i.21  i.828a
ii.2  iv. 2922 a
ii. 4....i. 888 b, 891 a,ra.
ii.5  i.891b, n.
ii.6  i. 825 a, M.
U. 7  i. 25b, ii. 1411a,
iv. 3406 a
ii. 14  i. 636 b
ii.18  iii. 1793 b
ii.24  iv. 3407a
iii. l....iv. 2928b, 2931a
iii. 1-14  i. 421b
iii. 5  iv. 8406a
iii. 7  i.624b
iu.8  iv.3406b
iii. 12  i. 26 b, n.
iii. 14  iv. 2928b
iu. 14, 15  iv. 2929 b
iii. IB  iii. 1906 a, iv.
3426 a, n.
iii. 17-24  iv.3418a,f.
iii. 19... 1.323 a, ii. 1411 a
iU. 24. .i. 420 a, 423 a, iv.
2961a
iv.3  iv.3490a
iv. 7  i.5a, 341 a b
iv. 8. . . . iv. 2809 a, 2923 a
iv. 15  i. 341a
iv.20  It. 2989b
iv.ia  ii. 1485a
iv. 22. ...1.490 a, ii. 992 a
iv. 23, 24  ii.l583a
iv.24  iii. 2640b
V. 1  i. 888 a
V. 1, 2  i. 26 a
v.22-24..i.737b,iv.2708a vi. 1-4.. ..ii. 910a, iii. 2175
b, 2360 b,iv. 3317 a
vi.2  ii.lSOeb
vi. 3  iii. 2177 a
vi. 9. ..  i. 888 a
vi. 14, 16  ii. 993 a
vi. 15  iii. 2178 a
vi. 16  iii. 2177 b
vi. 17  ii. 1485 a
vii. 2  iii. 2179a
TU. 2, 8, 9. ..iii. 2179b, n.
vii. 11  i.631b
vii. 22  ii. 1411a
viii. 4  iii. 2181 a, n.
viii. 6  iii. 2178 a, n.
viii. 7  iii. 2678 a
riU. 10  iv. 3490 a
viii. 14  iii. 2004 b
viU. 17  iii. 2181b
viii. 20  iv. 3346 b
Hii. 21  iv. 34(J5a, 3416 b
X.8  iv.!i347a
X, 6  iv. 3408 a
lx.9  iv.3213b
ix. 13... iii.2188a, 2667 b

ix. 20, 21  iv. 3445 b
ix. 26,27  ui. 2188 b
ix.26  iv. 2968b
ix. 27  iv.3406b
X.2  ii.966a,ui.2677b
X. 5  i. 383 a
X. 11,12  ii. 984 b
X. 14  iii. 2496 a, n.,
2496 b
X. 17  ii. 1083 a
X. 18, 19  i. 35Sb
X.19  iv.3067a,n.
X. 21-29  iii. 2516 a, n.
X. 30  i. 140 a, 275 a
xi. 2  i. 146 b
xi. 3  i. 221b
xi. 4  i. 222 b
xi. 5  iv. 3405 a
xi. 26  i. 442 a
xi. 29  i. 13 b, n.
xii. 1  iv. 3113b
xii. 6  ii. 968 a, 985 a,
iii. 1888 a, 2012 b, 2416
b, 2547 b
xii. 7  iii. 2011 a
xii. 9  iv. 3211 b
xii. 14  iv. 3370 a
xii. 16.. i. 743 b, iii. 2462a
xiii. 7  ii. 985 a
xiii. 10  i. 636 a
xiii. 10, 11, 12. .iv. 2697 a
xiii. 11  i. 146 b
xiii. 18. . i. 15 a, ti. , ii. 968 a,
iii. 2417 b, 2547 b
xiv. .i. 79 a, iii. 1987 b, n.
xiv. 1  ii. 898 b
xiv. 5  iii. 2654 a
xiv. 6  iii. 2200 a
xiv. 7  i.79a
xiv. 13  iii. 2547 b
xiv. 14  i. 535 b, 636 a,
iii. 2417 b
xiv. 16  i. 329 a
XV. 1  iii. 2598b
xv.2,3  i. 701a
XV. 9  ii. 1044 b
XV. 10  i. 68 b
XV. 12  iii. 2592 b, n. iv.
3318 b
XV. 13, 14  i. 442 b
XV. 15  iv. 2708 b
XV. 17  ii.l5S9a
XV. 19  ii. 1388a
xvi. 7  iv. 3508 a, n.
xvi. 12  i. 183 a
xvii. 1  iv. 2938 b
xvii. 22  iv. 3406 b
xviii. 1. . . .i. 15 a, n., iii.
2547 b
xviii. 2  i. 873 a
xviii. 3  ii. 1675 b
xviii 6  i.323h
xviii. 8  i. 336 b, 833 b
xviii. 16  i. 328 b
xviii. 18  ii. 1018 b
xviii. 23-33. . .ii. 1686 a, re.
xviii. 25  iv. 3405 a
xix. 3S  i. 274 b

XX. 3  iv.3406b
XX. 7  iii. 2392 b
XX. 12  ii.l415 b
XX. 16  i. 504 b, 505 a,
iii. 1994 b
xxi. 14  iu. 2636b
xxi. 20  iv. 3406 b
xxi. 26  iv. 3569 a
xxi. 31  ii. 1224 b, n.
xxi. 33  ii. 968 a
xxii. 1  iv. 3207 a
xxii. 2  iv. 3406a
xxii. 2ff.  ii. 901b
xxii. 11, 12  i. 95b
xxii. 13  iv. 3408 a
xxii. 14  iii. 2012 a
xxii. 21  i. 145 b, iii.
2663 b
xxiii. 2  iv. 3572 a
xxiii. 2-4  i. 335 a
xxiii. 3-18  i. 756 b
xxiii. 4   iv. 3121b
xxiii. 6  i. 332 a
xxiv. 10  i. 145 a, 636 a
xxiv. 21  iv. 3551b
xxiv. 22  i. 837 b
xxiv. 22. 63. .iii. 2267 a, re.
xxiv. 25  ii. 1045 b
xxiv. 53  iv. 3041b
xxiv. 64  iv. 2795 b
xxiv.65. ...i.619a, 622 b,
iii. 180.1 a, lv. 3370 a
xxiv. 67  iv. 3211a
xxv. 16  ii. 1169 a, re.
xxv. 17,18. ..ii. 1170 a, re.
xxv. 18.. iv. 3514 a, 3649 a
xxv. 19  i. 888a
xxv. 27  i. 518 a
xxv. 28  ii. 1146 a
xxvi. 19  ii. 1062 b
xxvi. 20-22. ...i. 769 a, re.
xxvi. 34  i. 53 b, 91a
xxvii. 3  iii. 2662 b
xxvii. 9  ii. 1533 b
xxvii. 19, 37  ii. 1035 b
xxvii. 23  iv. 2795 a
xxviii. 14  i.634a
xxviii. 18  i. 68 b, n.
xxviii. 19  i. 288 a
xxix. 14  iii. 2004 b
xxix. 27  iv. 3490 b
xxx. 11  i.848b
xxx. 13  i. 172 a
xxx. 20  i. 73oa
xxx. 27  ii. 1122 b
xxx. .37  i. 478 a
xxx. 37, 38  iii. 2532 b
xxxi. 1-3, 17-23. . ii. 1000 a
xxxi. 10  i- 478 b
xxxi. 13  i.lOla
xxxi. 19, 30,32-35 ff....ii. 1743 a
xxxi. 33  iv. 3211a
xxxi. 34  i. 846 b
xxxi. 46  i. 603 a
xxxi. 47  i. 142 a
xxxi. 48, 49  ii. 1225 a
xxxi. 52  i. 68, n.

xxxi. 55  ii. 1497 b, ».
xxxii. 2  ii. 1627 a
xxxii. 15  i. 347 a. n.
xxxiii. 12  iv. 3211b
xxxiii. 17. . . .ii. 1509 b, n.
xxxiii. 18. ... iii. 1877 b , iv.
3123 b
xxxiii. 19  i. 229 a
xxxiv. 2  ii. 1082 b
xxxv. 2  iii. 2606 b
XXXT.4. .1. 89 b, 630b,ii. 1476 a
xxxv. 8 ... i. 69 a, re., iv.
3166 b
xxxv. 9  i. 576 a
xxxv. 13-15  i. 288 a
xxxv. 19, 20. ...iii. 2660b
xxxv. 21  iv. 3211b
xxxv. 27  ii. 15 6 a
xxxvi. 2  iv. 3o24 b
xxxvi. 2,3  i.252a
xxxvi. 2, 14, 20. . . i 90 b
xxxvi. 15  i. 663 b
xxxvi. 16, 40  i. 626 b
xxxvi. 20-25  ii. 133Sb
xxxvi, 24.. i. Ola, iii. 2036
b, iv. 3624 b, 3625 a
xxxvi. 31  iii. 2417 a
xxxvi. 33  ii. 1407 b
xxxvi. 37  iv. 2947 a
xxxvi. 40-43  i. 63 b
xxxvii. 3, 23  i. 619 a
xxxvii. 22  i. 466 a
xxxvii. 25  iii. 2046 b
xxxvii. 28, 26.. iii. 1347 b
xxxvii. 35  iv. 2708 b
xxxvii. 36 ... i. 790 b, iii.
2567 a
xxxviu. 14, 19. ...i. 619 a,
022 b
xxxviii. 14, 21  i. 732 a
xxxviii. 18. .ii. 1661 b, iii.
2267 b re.
xxxviii. 18, 25. . i. 322 b,
ii. 1578 b
xxxviii. 21, 22. .iv. 3074 a
xxxix. 1  i. 385 b, iii.
2667 a
xxxix. 8  iv. 3559 a
xl. 3, 4  i. 385 b
xl. 16  i. 253 a, 321 b
xii. 2, 18. .ii. 1465 b, re.,
iu. 1841 b
xii. 14... i. 230a, 268 a,
466 a
xii. 42.... i. 143 b, 625a,
iii. 2267 b, re., iv. 3489 a
xii. 44  iv. 341)7 b
xliii. 11. . .i. 40 b, 834 b,
ii. 1085 b, iii. 2ii4o b.iv.
3 44a
xliii. 16  iii. 1842 b
xliii. 21  ii.936b
xliii. 23  ii. 936 a
xliii. 33  i. 678 a
xliii. 34  iii. 1845 a
xliv.5  i.320b, 608a
ii. i745a

3654xIlv. 8, 15  iv.3362a
xliv. 15.  iv 3.i59 a
XlV. 6  i. 629 b
xiv. 8  ii. 1109 a, re.
XlV. 12  iv. 3406 b
XlV. 26  iii. 1865 b
xlvi. 1  iv. 3211b
xlvi. 21... 1.151 a, 276 b,
ii. 1223 a
xlvi. 30  iv. 3406 b
xlvii. 3  ii. 1102 b
xlvii. 7, 10  iv. 2795 a
xlvii. 9....  iv.3211b
xhii. 11  ii.940a
xlviii. 22  iv.3404b
xlix. 5-7  ii. 1638 a
xlix. 6  ii. 1636 a, iv.
3430 a
xlix. 10  iii. 1906 a,
3430 a
xlix tl..iv.3095b,3370a
xlix 12  iv. 3543 a
xlix 13  iv. 3597 b
xlix. 17  i.30a
xhx. 19  iii. 1984 a. n.
xlix. 21  ii. 1077 b
xlix. 22  iv. 2958 a
xlix. 26  iii. 2074 b, n.
1.1  ii. 1185b
1. 3  i. 335 a, re.
1.11  i. 363 a
1.23  ii. 1467 a, re.
1.26  i. 424 a, 475b
EXODUS.
1. 11  ii. 941 b
1.15,18,19  iii. 2636 a
I. 16.... iii. 1870a, 1929a
i. 19  iii. 1929 a, re.
i. 20,21  iii. 1929 a
ii. 1  i.45ib
ii. 3  i. 673 a
ii. 3, 6. .1.830 b, iii. 2682 b
ii. 4  iv.3651 b
li. 14. . . . i. 1508 b, 1509 b
ii. 16, 18  iii. 2662 b
ii. 18  ii. 1388 a
iii. I..ii.l388a,iii. 2662a,
iv. 3406 b
iii. 5. .ii. 1104 a, iv. 2837b
iii. 6  iv. 2707 b
iii. 13, 14  iii 2415a
Iii. 14. .ii. 1240 b. ii 1244b
iii. 21, 22  iii. 2539 b
iii. 22  iii. 2268 a, re.
iv. 16  iv. 2922 a
iv. 22  i. 310 a
iv. 22,23  iv. 3087 a
iv. 22, 23, 24. ...iii. 2019 b
iv. 24-26  ii 1388 a
iv. 26  iii. 2019 a, re.
V. 2  iv. 34iJ6b
V. 9  iv. 3.i60b
V. 12  i. 406-b
v.2,3  iii. 1415a
vi. 3. ...ii. 1244 a, b, 1245
a, re., iii. 2415 b
vi. 12,30  i. 465 a
vi. 20  i. 450 b
vi. 24  i. 6a
vii. 10-12  iii. 253i) b
vii. 19  iii. 2693 a
vii. 24  iii. 2540a
viii. 1-15  iii. 2640 b
viii. 16-19  iii. 2540 b
viii. 16-31  i. 674 b
viii 20-32  iii. 2641a
ix. 1-7  iii. 2541 b
Ix. 8-12  iii. 2642 a
ix. 10  iii. 1865 b
ix. 13-35  iii. 2542 b
ix. 15  iii. 2465a
IX. 35  ii.l"75a
X. 1-20  iii. 2642 b
X. 16.'  ii. 1045 a, re,
X.21  iii 2.543 b
xi. 4-10  iii. 2544 b
li. 5  iii. 1935 b
£ii. 6. .iii. 2341 b, n., 2342
a, re.
rii 7  ii. 1102b
iii 8, 39  iii. 2354 b

INDEX.

xii. 13  iv. 3405a
xu. 19  iii.26('3 a, iv.
3121 b, re.
xii. 27. .....iii. 2340 b, re.
xii. 29, 30  iii. 2644 b
xii. 34  i 323 b, 624 a
xii. 38, 44  iii. 2356 a
xii. 40  i. 460 a
xii. 40, 41  i. 442 b
xii. 46  ii. 1379 b
xiii. 2-4  iii. 2365 a
xiii. 17, 18  i. 795 a
xiii.20...iv.3211b,3513a, 3514 a, 3649 a
xiv. 3  IV. 3513 b,
3649 a
xiv. 11  iii. 2152 a
xiv. 19  iv. 2961a
xiv. 21  iii. 2691 a, iv.
3513 b, 3540 a
xv.ll..ii.l708b,iv.3406a XV. 16. .i. 6.i6 b, ii. 1463 b
XV. 20. .i. 539 a, iii. 1968 b
XV. 20, 21  iii. 2037 a
XV. 25  iv. 3636 b
XV. 27. ..i. 56a, iv. 3622a
xvi. 15  iv. 3551 a
xvi. 33-36 .... iii. 2416 b
xvii. 2, 7  iv. 3"i07 a
xvii. 9  i. 1 a
xvii. 14  iii. 2412 a, re.,
iv. 3569 b
xvii. 14, 16. . . . 'ii. '^97 b
xvii. 16  iii. 2023 a
xviii. 2  ii. 1388 a
xviii. 14-24. . . . ii. 1508 a
xviii. 15  ii. 1509 a
xix. 4  i. 629 a
xix. 9, 16, 18. .iv. 2960 a
xix. II)  iii. 2606 b
xix. 13  ii. 1484 b
XX. 5  iv. 3107 a
XX. 11  iv.3207 a, re.
XX. 24  i. 74 b
XX. 26  iii. 2579 a
xxi. 9  ii. 1509 a
xxi. 22  iii. 1865 b
xxi. 24  ii. 1356 a
xxi. 28  iii. 2277 b
xxi. 32  ii. 1464 a, re.,
1603 b
xxii. 8  i. 689 b, re.
xxii. 15, 16... 'ii. 1803 a. re.
xxii. 16  i. 735 a
xxii. 17  iii. 1803 a , re.
xxii. 26  i.e24a
xxii. 27  i.624a
xxii. 28  i. 315 b
xxu 29  iv. 3541 a
xxii. 31  iv.8099b
xxiii. 17  ii. 1675 b
xxiii.l7,18,19....iii.'.!343 b, re.
xxiii. 19... i. 489 b, 835 a,
u. 1129 a, 1533 b, iii.
1934 b, 2474 b, re
xxiii. 25  iii. 2474 a
xxiii. 28  ii. 1091 a
xxiv. 4. . .ii. 1077 a, 1364 a
xxiv. 6  ii. 1638 b, iii.
2577 b
xxiv. 9  ii. 1510 a, re.
xxiv. 10  i. 824 b
xxiv. 16  iv. 2960 a
xxv. 5..i. 480 a, iii 2876 b
xxv. 8  iv. 2959a
XXV.25  i.512b
xxv. 31-37.. i. 354 b., 355 a,
356 a
xxv. 38  i. 76 a, 824 a
xxvi. 20  i. 633b
xxvi. 28  iv. 3196 b
xxvi. 31  ii. 929 b
xxvii. 2  i. 74 b
xxvii. 9  i.634a
xxvii. 12  ii. 1047 a
xxvii. 18  i.63
xxviii. 4,89  i. 729 b
xxviii 8  ii. 929 b, iii.
1969 a
xxviii. 14,22,24 ..i. 492 a
xxviii. 18  ii.l218a

xxviii. 19  ii. 1192 a
xxviii. 21;  .ii. 1364 a
xxviii. 28, 37  ii. 1578 b
xxviii. 30  ii. 1067 a. iv.
3357 a
xxviii. 33  i. 272 b
xxviii. 36  iv. 3117 b
xxviii. 39  i. 396 a, ii.
929 b
xxviii. 42  iii. 2578 b,
2579 a
xxix. 9, . . . li. 1017 a, iii.
2578 a, re.
xxix. 23.  i. 324a
xxix. 45, 46  iv. 2959 b
xxx. 13  ii. 1510 a
xxx. 19, 21. . . . iv. 3486 a
xxx. 26-28  i.lOla
xxx. 34  ii. 1136 a
xxx. 35  i. 488 a, iv.
2793 b
xxxi. 18  iv. 3362 b, re.
xxxii. 1  iv. 3559 a
xxxii. 4  i.344b
xxxii. 18  iii. 2023 a
xxxii. 20  iii. 1940 a
xxxii. 35  iv. 3405 b
xxxiii. 6 . . . .iv. 3624 a, re.
xxxiii. 7-11  iv. 2960 b
xxxiii. 11  iii. 2063 a
xxxiii. 20  ii. 1775 b
xxxiii. 22,23  iv. 3406 a
xxxiv. 21  i. 629 b
xxxiv. 22  iv. 3681a
xxxiv. 23  ii 1675 b
xxxiv. 26  i. 835 a, ii.
1129 a, 1533b, iii. 1934b,
2474 b re.
xxxiv. 28  iii. 2023 a
xxxiv. 29, 30, 35. .ii. 1090a
xxxiv. 33  iii. 2022 b
xxxiv 34,35. .iii. 2923a, re.
xxxv. 12  ii. 998 a
xxxv. 22. ...i. 322 b, iii.
1804 a, 2268 a, re.
xxxv. 29  ii. 1075 a
xxxv. -35  i. 736 b, iv.
3489 b
xxxvii. 17-24. ...i. 364 b,
355 a
xxxvii. 23  i. 824 a
xxxviii. 8. . . .iii. 2268 a, re.
xxxviii. 23  1. 736 b
xxxviii. 24  iii. 2208 a
xxxix. 3  ii. 1578 b
xxxix. 15, 17  i. 492'a
xxxix. 21,31  ii. 1578 b
xxxix. 28  ii. 1017 a
xxxix. 29  ii. 929 b
xxxix. 30  i. 143 a, iv.
3559 b
xxxix. 34  ii. 998 a
xl. 20  i. 156 b
xl. 21  ii. 998 a
xl. 34, 35  iv. 2960 a
LEVITICUS.
ii. 1-15  iii. 1846 a
ii.7  i.325b
ii. 13  iv. 2793 b
u. 14  1. 478 a
iv. 3  i. 100 b
vi 12,13  .i. 76 a
viii. 13  ii. 1017 a
ix. 6, 23  iv. 2980 b
ix. 24  i. 76a
X. 1  1. 824a
x.l, 2. ..i. 823b, iii. 2051b
X. 6  ii. 981 a, 1069 a
X. 9,11)  i. 2 a
Xi. 14. ..ii. 932 b, iv. 3343a
xi. 16  iii. 2148 b
.xi. 17  ii. 922a
xi. 18  ii. 922 a
xi. 18,30  iii. 1990 b
xi. 21  iv. 3343 b
xi. 21, 22....ii. 1669 b, re.
xi. 22  ii. 1671a
ifi. 30  iii. 199011
xi.35  i. 325 a, ii. 1017 b
xiii. 10  ii. 1631 a, n.
xiu. 18-23... iii 1865b, re.

xiii. 45  ii. 1016h
xiii. 55  1. 842 b
xiv. 6   i. 400a
xiv. 6, 7. . . . ; . .i. 198 b, n.
xiv.10-32  i.2a,tt.
xv.2,3  iii. ISeib
XV. 19  iii.l864«
xvi. 3-10  i. 196 a
xvi. 10  i. 196 b, f.
xvi. 12  i. 403 b, 824a
xvi. 14  i. 196 a, n.
xvi. 18, 20. . . i. 195 b, n.
xvi.26  i.l97b
xvii. 3,4  ii.l064a
xvii. 7  iii. 180Tb
xvii. 11  ii. 1660b
xviii. 6  iii. 1797 a, »(.
xviii. 6-18. ..iii. 1797 b, f
xviii. 9  iii. 1798 a,n.
xviii. 11  iii. 1798 a, «.
xviii. 18. . . .ii. 1650 a, n.,
iii. 1798 a, «.
xviii. 28  ill. 2417 b
xix. 12  ii. 1356a
xix. 19  iv. 3568 b
xix. 23  i. 466™
xix. 28  ii. 1129.a
xix. 29  iv. 3460 b
xix. 31  iv, 2708a
XX. 6  iv. 2708™
XX. 12  iii. 1798 b, B.
XX. 17  iii. 1798 b, «.
XX. 21  iu. 1798 b,.n.
XX. 23-26  u. 1129 a
xxi. 9  ii. 1008 a
xxi. 10  iii 1065 b
xxi. 12  iii. 2074 b
xxi. 20  iii. 1863 b
xxii. 4 (marg.). .iii. 1863 b
xxii. 8  iv. 30S9b
xxii. 22  iii. 18631)
xxii. 24  iii. 2277 a
xxiii. 5  iii. 2342 a, n.
xxiii. 5, 6.... iii. 2352 b, II.
xxiii. 11, 15, 16, 32  iii.
2432 a, n.
xxiii. 14  i.478»
xxiii. 15  i. 435 a, n.
xxiii. 32  i.434a
xxiii. 36  iii. 2343 a, n.
xxiii. 40  i. 18Db
xxiii. 43  iv. 3162 b, n.
xxiv. 6  iv. 2992 b
xxiv. 9  i. 7a
xxiv. 11  i. 600 a
xxiv. 16  i. 316*
xxv. 5  iii. 2077 a, n.
XXV.9  ii. 1483 b,jl
xxv. 16,16. ..ii. 1484 a, m.
xxv. 23  iv. smb
xxv. 49  U. 1537 b, iii
1797 b, n
xxvi. 1  ii. 1120 b, iv.
xxvi. 19  1323 a, iii
2667 a
xxvi. 30  ii. 1127a
xxvi. 41  i. 466,1
xxvii. 5  ii. 1464 a, n
NU5IBERS.
iii. 4  i.623b
iii. 47  in. 1610 a
iv. 5  ii. 998 a
iv. 7.... iv. 2992 b, 2993 b
iv.9  i.82*»
V. 11-29  i.86«
V. 15  i. 247 a, 328 a
V. 18  ii. 1016 b
V. 23  iv. 3569 b
vi. 3  iv. 3544 a
vi. 22  iv. 3136 b
vii. 3  iv.Sealb
vii. 89  iv.©60b
ix.3,5  iii. 2342 a, i»
ix. 16, 16  iv. 296i>'8
X. 1-10  iii. 2037 b
X. 11,12  iv.3638b
X. 11-13, 3-3i...iv. 3627 b
X. 12  iv. 3527 b
X. 29  ii. Ii88a,iii. 2662 1

INDEX.

ti 20, 21  iii. 2004 b
sU. 1  ii. 1388 a, iii.
1804 b, re., iv. 3636 b
xii. 1,2  iii. 1988 b,
2196 b
xii. 8  iii. 2024 a
xii. 6-8  iii. 2597 b
xii. 8  iii. 2599 a
xii. 12  iii. 2641b
xiii. 8  ii. 1098 b
xii. 17, 22  iv. 3528 b
xiii. 22  iii. 1978 a, iv.
3638 a
xiii. 23, 24  iv. 3446 a
xiv. 10  iv. 2960 b
xiv. 43-45  i. 134 b
xiv. 45. .iii. 2196 b, 2418 a
XV. 20, 21  i. 324 a
XV.38  ii. 1578b
xvi. 6 ff  i. 8^24 a
xvi. 13  ii. 1608b
xvi. 17  i. 403 a, re.
xvi 30,33  iii. 2535 b
xvi. 46  i. 403 b
sviii. 19  i. 68 b, 593 a,
iv 2793 b
xix. 6  i 480 b
XX. 6  iv. 2960 b
XX. 15  iv. 3445 a
xxi. 1  iii. 2195 b
xxi. 1, xxxiii. 40. .1. 144 b
xxi. 2, 3  iv. 3530 a, re.
xxi. 4  i. 135 a
xxi. 6, 8  iv. 2929 b
xxi. 9  ii. 1067 b
xxi. 11  iii. 1981a
xxi. 14  iii. 1831b
xxi. 14, 15  iii. 2197 b
xxi. 16-18  i. 264 a, re.
xxi. 17, 18  iii. 2197 b
xxi. 22  iv. 3508 a
xxi. 27  ii. 1565 b
xxi. 27-30  iii. 2198 a,
2651b
xxii.-xxiv  ii. 1748bf.,
iii. 1987 b, 2197 a
xxii. 4  il. 1045 a, n.
xxii. 5  ii. 1737 b
xxii. 24  iv. 3484 a
xxii. 41  i. 231b
xxiii. 3  i. 231 a, re.
xxiii. 7  ii. 1737 b
xxiii. 9  iv. 3508 a, re.
xxiii. 10  ii. 1345 a
xxiii. 2i  ii. 1067 a
xxiv. 1  i. 734 b
xxiv. 2  ii.l015a
xxiv. 4, 16  i. 227 b
xxiv. 6  i 72 b
xxiv. 10  iii. 1938 a
xxiv. 17  ii. 1738 b, iii.
1981a, re., iv. 2991 b
xxiv. 17-19  iii. 1906 b
xxiv. 25  ii 1497 b, re.
xxv. 4  iii. 1889 a, re.
xxv. 7, 8  ii. 1364 b
xxil. 8  iv. .3631b
xxv. 14  ii. 1508 a, re.
xxv. 15  iii. 1926 a
xxv. 17, 19  iv. 3508 a
xxvi. 3, 63  i. 702 b,n.
xxvi. 38  ii. 1223 ;i
xxvi. 59  i. 450 b
xxvi. 61  i. 823 b
xxvii. 11  ii. If 37 b
xxvii. 21  iv. 3357 a
xxxi. 6  iii 2664 b, re.,
iv. 33-58 a, re.
xxxi. 23  iii. 1909 b
xxxi. 30, 47. .iii. 1875 a. ii
xxxi. fiO  i. 99 a
xxxi. 50,62. .iii. 2268 a, re.
xxxiii... iii. 2935 b, 3528 b
«xiii. 1  iii. 2023 ;i
txxiii. 9  iii. 2323 b
sxxiii, 38, .'iO  iv. 3530
b, re.
txxui. 40  i. 144 b
xxxiii 48  i. 752 b. n.
xxxiii 53  ii. 1120 b I
nxxiv. 4  ii. 1056 b
xxxiv 8  ii. 1622 a'

xxxiv. 11. i. 66 a, ii. 1458 b
xxxv. 4  i. 4'i9 a
xxxv. 24  ii. 1510 b, re.
xxxv. 25  ii. 1065 b
xxxvi. 4  ii. 1483 b,re.,
1486 b, re.
xxxvi. 11  iv. 3057 a
DEUTERONOMY.
1 1  iv. 3633 a
i. 2  i. 570 a
i. 6-18  i. 593 a
i. 7,19,20  iii. 20^i9a
i.l9  iv. 3529b
i.2i  i.593a
i. 44  1. 134 b, 262 a, re.,
593 b
i. 46  iv. 3520 b, 3530 a
ii. 2-8  i.593b
ii. 23  i. 383 b, re.
ii. 36  i. 165 a
ii. 49  i. 172 a
iii. 9  i. 87 b, 161 b, ii.
1046 b
iii. 11.... iii. 2210 a, 2654 a
iii. 14  ii. 1010 b
iii. 17  i. 172 a
iii. 19  ii. 1045b
iv. 13  iv. 3213 b
ic. 18  i. 828 a
iv. 34  iv. 3207 b
iv. 41,43. ...iv. 3530b, re.
iv. 48...i. 161 b, ii. 1047a
V. 15  iv. 3207 a, re.
vi. 4  iv. 3088 a
vi.4, 9  iii. 2474b
vi. 8  i. 90 a
vi. 16.  ii. 1351a
vi. 18  ii. 1215 a
vii. 19  iv. 3207 b
viii. 3  ii. 1350 b
viii 7  i. 56 b
viii 15  iv. 2929 b
X. 6. 7..i.593b,iv. 3530 b
xi. 10 .1.33 a, 40 b, 836 b,
868 b, iv. 3090 b
xi. 10, 11  i. 671a
xi. 30  iii. 2647 b
xi. 30,31  i. 639 a
xii. 2....i. 477b,ii. 1047 b
xii. 11-14  ii. 1064 a
xii. 15. 22  iv. 3163 a
xiii. 1-5  ii. 1447 b
xiii. 1-11  iv. 3090 a
xiv. 1  ii. 980 a
xiv. 5  ii. 934 a
xiv. 15  iii. 2148 b
xiv. 16  hi. 1990 b
xiv. 17  ii. 922a
xiv. 21.. i. 835 a, ii. 1129 a
iii. 1533 b, 1934 b, 2474
b, re.
xiv.24  iv.3266a
xvi. 2  iv. 2924 a
xvi. 3  iii. 2354 b
xvi. 6  i. 434 b
xvi. 8  iii. 2343 a,re
xvi. 12  iii. 2433 b
xvi. 21  ;.ii. lU64a
xvii. 3  ii. 1126 b
xvii. 7  iii. 2643*
xvii. 8  ii. 1611b
xvii. 8, 9  i. V.i9a
xvii. 8-11... iii. ¦2473a, re.
xvii. 12  ii. 1510 a
xvfl. 14-20  ii 1541 a
xvii. 15  il 1053 b, re.
xvii. 18, 19..ii. 151ub,iii. 2112 b, re.
.xviii. 9-11  iv. 2708 a
xviii. 9-14  ii. 1748 a
xviii. 11  i. 734 b
xviii. 18  ii. 1417 a, iii.
1906 b
XX 5  i. 162 b
xxi. 4  i. 629 b
xxi. 6-8  iv.3348a
xxi. 10-14  iii. 1797 a
xxi. 12. .i. 350b, iii. 2058 a
xxi. 18-21  ii. 1602 b
xxi. 23  U. 1379b
xxii. 10  i. 182 a

xxii. 11  lv. 85B3b
xxii. 19, 20  iii. 2526 a
xxii. 30  i. 603 a
xxiii. 2  iii. 1797 b
xxiii. 13  iii. 2279 a
xxiv. 6  ii. 1606 b
xxiv. 12, 13  i. 624 a
XXV.9  iv. 2838a
xxvi. 5-10. . .iii. 2355 a, re.
xxvii. 2,4  iii. 2548 a
xxvii. 3, 8  iv. 3560 a
xxviii. 5,17. .i. 253 a, 323 b
xxviii. 13  iv. 3405 b
xxviii. 23  iii. 1969 b
xxviii. 23, 24  iii. 2667 a
xxviii. 26  i. 842 b
xxviii. 27  i. 730 a, iii.
1863 b
xxviii. 27,35  iii. 1864 b
xxviii. 35  iii. 1864 a
xxviii. 66  iii. 1865 b
xxviii. 68  ii. 1775 a
xxix. 3  iv. 3207 b
xxx. 6  i. 465 a
xxxi. 9-12, 24. . iii. 2412 b
xxxi. 15  ,.iv. 2960 b
xxxi. 26  i. 155 b
xxxii. 10.1. 131 b,ii. 1343 b
xxxii. 11  i. 629 a
xxxii. 12  iii. 2107 b
xxxii. 13  i. 262 b
xxxii. 14  iv. 3511 a
xxxii. 32  iii. 2561b
xxxiii  iii. 2074 b, re.
xxxiii. 2  iv. 2961a
xxxiii. 7  ii. 1215 a
xxxiii. 8  ii. 1067 b, iv.
3357 a
xxxiii. 9  iv. 3405 b
xxxiii. 12  i. 279 a, iv.
3408 a
xxxiii. 14  iii. 2008 a
xxxiii. 17. . . ii. 1769 b, re.,
iv.3351a
xxxiii. 18, 19  i. 860 b
xxxiii. 19  ii. 932 a, iv.
3185 a
xxniii. 22  ii. 1459 a
xxxiii. 24  i. 172 b, lv.
3406 a
xxxiii. 25  i. 322 b
xxxiv. 1  ii. 1343 b
xxxiv. 1,2, 3. iii. 2083 a, re.
xxxiv. 1-3  iv. 3420 a
xxxiv. 6  ui. 2083a
JOSHUA.
ii. 15  iv. 3540 a
iii. 4  iv. 2767 a
iii. 16  i. 27 a, iv. 3594 a
iv.3  ii.l:i64a
V.2  ii. 1673 b
v.2,3  i. 159 b
v. 5, 9  i.464a
v.ll  iii. 2432 a, re.
V.14  iv. 3568 b
V. 15..ii.ll04a,iv. 2837 b
vi. 4  ii. 1483 b, re., iv.
2961b
vi.4, 5  ii. 1090 a
vi.25  iii. 2663b
vii. 14,18  ii. 1687 b
vii. 21.... i. 618 b, iii. 1909
b,iv. 3003 b
vil 25...i. 20 b, iii. 2642 a
viii. 9  ii. 1047 a
viii. 15  ii. 1759 b
viii. 18  i.424b
viii. 22  iii. 2273 a
viii. 32..iii.2413>i, 2548 a
ix. 5  i. 472b
ix. 5, 12  i.325b
ix. 27  iii. 2109 a
xi. 2  ii. 897 a
xi. 8  i. 245 b
xl 16,21  iii. 2029 a
xii. 23  ii. 893 b
xiii. 2,3  i. 200 b
xiii. 3  i. 172 a
xiii. 4  iii. 1845 b
xiii. 6  iii. 1972 a
xiii. 9, 16  i. 165 a

3655
xiii 17  i. 287a
xiii 21  i.6'26b, iii, 1926
a, n.
XV. 9  ii.l077a
XV. 10  i. 423 b
XV. 18  iii. l)a)5b,re.
XV. 19  ii. 1035 b
XV. 25. . .ii. 1016 a, 1364 b,
1493 b, iv. 3189 b
XV. 33, 43  iv. 3017 a
XV. 36  iv. 3028 a
XV. 45-47  iii. 2498 a, re.
XV. 46  ii. 1190 a, re.
xvii. 18  i.413b
xviii, 8  iv 3559 b
xviii. 12  i.286b
xviii. 13  ii. 1699 a, re.
xviii. 16  i. 149 b, re.
xviii. 18  i. 133 a
xviii. 23  i. 201»
xviii. 23,28  i. 277 a, re.
xix. 1  ii. 1492a
xix. 7  iv. 3191 a
xix. 11  ii. 1569 b
xix. 27  ii. 1394 b
xix. 33  i. 68b
xix. 34..ii. 1488 a, 1491 a, re.'
xix. 41, 42  ii 1492 a
XX. 7  iii. 2029 a
xxi. 36  1.302 a
xxii. 84  i. 654 a
xxiv. 3  iv. 3296 b
xxiv. 26  iii. 1888 a
xxiv. 27  iii. 2532 a
xxiv. 30  ii. 1573 b
xxiv. 30, 33  ii. 1070 b
xxiv. 32...i. 229a, ii. 1476
a, iv. 2938 b
xxiv. 11  ii. 1487 b
JUDQES. -
i.l  iv.3484a
i. 14  iu. 1805 b, re.
i. 16  ii. 1015 a, 1265 a,
1388 a, 1488 b, iii. 2603 b
i. 18  iii. 2499 a, re.
i.l9....i.413b,ii.l092a, iii. 2679 b
i. 23  i. 590 a
i. 31  1.53 a
i. 34, 35  i.54 b, re.
iii. 3  ii. 1047 b
iii. 9, 15  iv. 2858 a
iii. 10  ii, 1250 b
iii. 13  ii. 1265 a
iii.l6...i.622a,iv. 3601b
iii. 19,26. ...ii. 1121a, iii.
2651 a
iii. 20  i.667b
iii. 20,23  ii. 1105 b
iii. 31  ii. 933 a
iv. 5  i.69a
iv. 11.. i. 68b,69a, ii. 968
a, 1194 b, 1530 a, re., iii.
2547 b, 2662 a
iv. 13  ii. 1570b
iv. 19  i. 347 a, re„ iii.
1934 a
V. 1-10  iv. 3414 a, f.
V. 3,15  ii. 1508 b, re.
V. 4  iv. 3530 b
V. 7,16  i. 327 b
V. 10  i. 182 a, 478 b
v.ll  iii. 2687b
V. 14. .iv. 2863 b, 2866 a,
3560 a, 3597 b
V. 16  ii. 1180 a, re.
V. 17  i.534b
V. 18. .iii. 2066 a, iv. 3597 b
V.19  1245 a
V. 20, 21  i. 141 b, iv.
358 J a
v. 21. .u. 1569 a, re., 1570 b
V. 23  i. 787 b
V. 25...i. 833 b, iii. 1934 a
V. 28  iv. 3539 b
V. 30  i. 619b
vi. 11  iv. 3545 b
vi. 15  ii. 962 b,ii, 1769
b, re.
vi. 19  ii 1533 b
vi.25  ii. 1044b

3656
vi.25, 26  ii. 1064a
vi.32  ii. 1271a
vi, 33-viU, 28. . .iv. 3595 a
vi. 34  ii. 1230 b
vii, 1  iii. 2011 a, re,, iv.
3508 a, re.
vii. 1,3  ii. 1393a
vu. 9-15  i. 142 «
vii, 12  iii. 1926 b, re
v'i. 13  i. 247 a, 323 a
vii. 16, 20  ii. 1589a
vii. 18  11. 920 b, re.
vii. 20  ii. 1243b
vii. 22  iv. 3621b
vil. 25  iii. 1927 a, re.
viii. 10  i. 274 b, 275 a
viii. 14  ii. 1509 b, iv,
3559 b
vui. 21, 26  i. 347 b
viii, 24  i. 89 b
viii. 25  i.624a
viii. 26. . .i. 630 b, iii. 1910
a, 2268 a, re.
viii. 35  ii. 1167 b
ix. 6  iii. 1888 a
ix. 6  iv. 2955a
.X. 6, 37...U. 968 a, 2548 a
li. 7ff.  iv. 2935 b, re,
ix. 31  1.167 a
ix. 37. ..i. 607 a, 633 b, iii,
1888 a
ix. 53.. i. 10, re., iii. 1935 a
X. 7  iii. 2500 a, re.
xi. 20  i. 474 a
xi.29  ii. 1260b
xi. 31, 40  U. 1251a
xi 34  ii. 1260b
xi 39  iv. 3415 a
xii 1  iv.3593a
xii. 4  ii. 927 a
xii. 5  i. 852 b, re.
xii. 14  iv. 3057 a
xiii. 15  ii. 1533b
xiii.25  iii. 1914a
xiv. 3  iii. 1797 a
xiv. 6  ii. 1250 b
xiv.8  i.263a
xiv. 11  iii. 1805 a
xiv. 12, 13....i. 621b,iv. 2964 a
XlV. 18  ii. 1034b
XV. 1  ii. 1105a
XV.4  i.840b
XV. 14  ii. 1250 b
XV. 19  ii. 1627 b, re.
xvi. 7  i.491 b
xvi. 7, 8  i. 478 a
xvi. 9  ii. 1678 b
xvi. 11  iii. 2208 a
xvi. 14  iv. 3489 b
xvi. 21. .i. 407 b, iii. 1935 b
xvii. 7, 9  li. 1491 b, re.
xvii. la  iii. 1913 a, re,
xviii, 1  1, 534 a, n., iii
1914 a, re.
xviii. 3'  ii. 1769 b, iii,
1913 b
xviii, 32.. ii. 1306 a, re., iii.
1914 a
xviii. 14  iii. 1913 a, re.
xviu. 21  i. 392 a
xviii. 30.,i, 534 b, re.j 535
b, re., iv. 3o72 a
xviii. 31  iv.3000a
xix. 1  ii. 1491 b, re.
XX. 4-7  ii. 1510 b, re,
XX. 10  i. 877a
XX. 18, 26.. 11.916 a, 1106b
XX. 18, 26, 31  i. 288 b
XX. 26  iv.3215a
XX. 27,28. ..ii. 1070 b,iv.
3484 a
XX. 29  iii. 1842a
xx.33...i.8'20b,877a,ii. 914 a, re., iii. 1841b
XX. 43  iii, 1887 b
xxi. 2  1. 288h
xxi. 2.... ii. 1106b, 1070b
KUTH.
i.l7  i.332a
1.20  iii. 2062 b

INDEX.

i.22  iv.2756a
ii. 3....i. 820 b, IT. 2756 a
ii. 14. ..i. 833b,iv. 2756 b
ii. 17  iv. 2756 b
iii. 3. . .iii. 1805 a, iv. 3347
iii. 3,6  iv. 2756 a
iii, 9  i. 624 a
iii. 12  iv. 3450 a
iii. 15  i. 622 a, 624 a, ii.
997 a, iv, 2766 b, 3539 b
iv, 1  iv.3450a
iv. 2  ii. 1511b
iv.Sf.  ii. 1486a, re.
iv.3, 4  ii. 1484 a, re.
iv. 7, 8.i. 143 b, iv. 2838 a
iv. 10  iii. 1803b
iv. 12  iv. 3171a
1 SAMUEL.
13,9,24  ii. 1070b
i. 9... iv. 3000 a, re., 3240 a
i. 12  iv.3370a
i. 22  iii. 2592b, re.
ii.,iii  ii. 1071 a
ii.1-4  iv. 3415a
ii.8  1 627b
ii. 1-10  ii. 937 b
ii. 11, 18  ii. 2592 b, re.
ii, 16  iii. 2576 a
ii, 19  iv. 3489 a
ii. 30  i.2b
ii. 36  i. 324a
iii. 3  i.355b.
iv.3, 4  ii. 1070b
iv. 13  iii. 1976 a, re.
iv. 18  ii, 1510 a, re.
V. 6  i. 474 a
V. 9  iii. 1862 a, re,
vi.5  iii. 2033a
vi. 5, 11, 18. .iii. 1862 a, re.
vi. 18 ....i. 5 a, ii. 1060a
vi. 19..ii. 1642b,iv.3872a
vii. 4  ii. 1044 b
vii, 6, 17  iii. 2692 b, re.
vii. 9  iv.3484b
vu.lO  ii. 1064a
vii. 12  iv. 3017 a
vii. 17  iii. 2670 b
viii. 5,20  ii. 1610 a
viii. 12  i. 629 b
viii. 15,17  iv. 3266 a
ix. 1  u. 1225 b
ix.4  iv.3021a
ix. 5  iv. 3239 a, 3647 b
ix. 5, 12  iii. 2671 a
ix. 7  i.225b
ix. 9  iii. 2591 a, re., iv.
3363 a
ix. 11  ii. 1077 b
ix. 22  ii. 1510 a, re.
x.l.i. 320 b, iii. 2592 b, re.
X. 2, 3, 5  iii. 2671 b
x.3....i.69a,ii.968a,iii. 2548 a
X. 5.ii. 1064 a, iii. 2499 a, re.
X. 10  iii. 1866 a, re.
X. 27. .ii. 922 b, iv. 3183 b
xi. 6  i. 277 a, re.
xi. 7  ii. 1044 b
xi. 8  iv. 3190 a, re.
xii. 3  ii. 1511 b
xii. 11  i. 4 a, ii. 1513 a
xii. 17  i. 42 a
xiu. 3. .iii. 1922 a, re., 2499
xiii. 6..i. 286 b, iii. 2500 bj re.
xiii, 9.ii. 1064 a, iv. 3184 b
xiii. 11  iu. 2592 b, re.
xiii. 16  i. 877 a
xiv. 3  ii. 1070 b
xiv, 14.1, 160 b, iv,358ab
xiv, 18.i. 49b,ii. 915 a, re.
xiv. 19  iv. 3362 a, re.
xiv. 24-27  iii. 1865 b
xiv. 35  U. 1064 a
xiv.38  i.49b
xiv. 87  iv.3184a
XV.6  ii. 1388a
XV. 12..i. 391 b, iii. 2631 b
XV. 28  ii. 1130 are., iv.
335? a

XV.27  i,621 a
xv,29  iv,2865b
xvi, 5  ii, 1U64 a
xvi, 12  i,553 a,»,
xvi. 14-23,. 1,653 b, 665a
xvi 16  i,518a
xvii. 2, 19  i.690a
xvii, 5  ii, 973 a
xvii. 5,38,  i. 161a
xvii, 6  i. 161b
xvn,6, 45  i. 160 a
xvii. 7. .1.161 b,ii. 1187 b
xvii. 8  iv. 3415 b, f.
xvu. 20  i. 392 a, 733a
xvii. 22.. i. 392 a, 663 a, re,
xvii. 25  iv.3183b
xviii. 4  i. 621 a, 625 a
xviii. 6  iii. 2040 b
xviii. 10  iii. 1943 b
xviii, 10, 11  i, 160 a
xviii, 23  iii, 1804 a
xviii. 25  iii. 1920 b, re.
xix. 9, 10  i.lSOa
xix. 13. .i. 261 a, 567 a, 608
a, 624 a, ii, 1745 a, n.,
iii. 1921 a, re., 2532 b
xix. 13, 16  i. 318 b
xix. 21-24  ii. 1733 b
xix. 24. i. 620 b, iv. 3318 b
XX. 2, 12  n.981 a
XX. 5-24  iu. 2111b
XX. I9..i. 802 a, iii. 2531 b
XX. 29  ii, 1603 a, re,
XX, 33  i. 160 a
XX. 40  i.l67a
XX. 41  i.802a
xxi.4r<  iv.2992b
xxi. 9  i.6Ma
xxi. IS  ii.968a
xxi, 13-15  ii. 1733 b
xxii. 1  i. 35 b
xxii, 6  ii 1002 a
xxii, 6  ii, 968 a
xxii, 8  ii. 981 a
xxii. 14  ii. 969 a
xxiii. 2  iv. 3484 a
xxiii, 6,9  iv. 3363 a
XMV. 4  i. 621 a
XXV.20  iii. 2030a
XXV.22  i. 624b
XXV.23  iv. 2795b
XXV.25.  iii. 2062 b
xxv. 41  iv. 3059 b, re.
xxvi. 5, 7  i. 733 a
xxvi. 20  U. 1011 b.iv.
3099 a,
xxvii. 3  ii. 1183 b
xxvii. 5  i. S20a
xxvii. 6  ii. 1492 a
xxvii. 10  iv. 2738 b
xxviii  iv, 2708 a
xxviii 3-25. . .ii. 1749 a, f.
xxviii. 6  iv. 3357 a
xxviii. 14  i. 621 a
xxix. 1.... 1,120 b,298b,
ii, 1393 a
xxix, 4-11  u, 1453 b
xxx, 8 , U, 1399 b , iv, 3484 a
2 SAMUEL.
i.21  u. 1048b
i.23  lv.3484b
ii.10,11  i.l2a
ii.l4  i. 864a
ii.18  iv. 3163 a, 3484 b
ii. 25  ii. 1394 b, re.
ui. 7  i,486b
iii. 8  iv.3002a
iii, 12  iv,3191a
iii. 14  iii.l803a, n,
iii. 22  iii. 1984 b, re.
iii. 80-37  u. 1541 a
33  iii. 2050 b
iii. 88, 34  i. 12 b
iv.6  i.498a
iv, 7  u, 1168 a
T. 6-8  ii. 970 a f.
V. 6-9  ii. 1220b
V. 8  ii 1282 b,n,
V. 9  iii, 1987 a
V. 17-25  iii. 2o00b. n.
V. 23  i. 485 b,834a

"•Z"  illBBBb
Ti.o-22  i.5Sga
T>.8  iii.a436a
Ti.l4  i.568a,b,h.
vi,19  i, 831 a, 836a
vi,20.i, 620 b, iii. 1921 b,ii,
vii. 2  i.619a
viii.l  iii, 2501»
viii. 6, 14  A8701(
viii. 12  ii, 1705B,n,
viii. 13  iv. 3485b
viii.'17  i. 6 b
viii 18.i, 561b, iii, 2575 b
X 4  i, 624b
X.18  iv. 3o72a
xi.ii  iv. 3484a
xi. 14  iv. 3560 a
xi. 21  iii. 1936a
xii. 17  i. 693 b
xii 24, 23  iv.8075a
xii. 25  i.561a,B,
xii, 30,.. iii. 1910 a, 1991b
xii. 30, 31  il 1762 b
xii. 31  iii. 1993*
xiii. 6,8,10  i. 324 b
xiii. 9  i. 326 a
xiii. 18  ii, 1463a,B,
xiii 21  i. 16b
xiv. 2  iii. 198Ba
xiv. 7  i. 473»
xv.1-4  il 1610b
xv,3  ii.l510b,B.
XV, 7  i.l7a
XV. 30 . iii . 2242 b, iv. 2838a
XV. 32  i. 663a,n.,ia 2243 a, B,
xvi. 1. .1834 a, iv. 3542 b
xvi 5  1 260b
xvi. 9  iv. 3002a
xvii. 19  ,L498a
xvii. 23  iv.3539b
xvii. 25,,. 1 8 a, ii. 1183 a,
1387a
xvii. 28  i.834a
xvii. 29.... i.833b,ii. 1044
b, n.
xvii. 18  i.391b
xviii. 23  iv.2697b
xix. 18  ii. 14S8a,B
xix. 24  iii. 1890 a, ii.,
1988 a
xix. 37, 38  u. 1138 b
xix. 41-43  ii. 1491b
8  1 622»
14..14b,n.,i.282a
XX. 15  iv. 3484 b
23  iii. 2497 a, B.
XX. 26. .1661 b,ii. 1140 b
xxi  i. 35»
xm. 6  ii. 915 b, fl
xxi. 8  iii. 1892 b
.9  iv.2738a
xxi. 9, 13  iii. 1889 b
xxi. 15-22  iii. 2501a
xxi. 19. .1.554 a, re., 696 b
xxii. 6  iv.3064b
xxii. 6, 19  iii. 2575a
xxil 8  i.631b
xxii. 9, 13  i.472b
xxil 16  1603a
xxii. 30  iii. 1984 a, B,
xxii. 35  iii, 1909 a iv,
3110 a
xxiii, 1  i, 564 b, n
xxiii. 8  n. 1217a
xxiii. 11. . . .ii. 1628 a, iv
3002 «
xxiu. 15  1 295 b
xxiii. 20  i. 154 a
xxiii. 36  ii.980a
xxiv. 9.ii. 1544 b.iii. 1910b
xxiv. 11  iii. 2691a
xxiv, 13  iv,35728
xxiv. 23.... i. 148 a, 664 »
xxiv. 24  ill 1910s
xxiv,25  iv,3216»
1 KINGS.
i.l  i. 624 »
i 23  iii. 2068»
1.31  iv. 279511
i. 33  iv.2997 a,B.

INDEX.

il.3  iii. 2418b
ii.5  iv. 2837 a, re.
ii. 19  ii. 1540 b
ii. 19 £E.  iii 2651b
n. 21-24  i. 486 b
iii. 1  iii. 2466 b
iii. 2  iv. 3001) a
iii. 7  ii. 1254 a
iv. 7  ii. 1364 a
iv. 12  i. 299 a
iv. 16  i. 73a
iv. 19  iii. 1922 a, re.
iv 21  iii. 2501 a, re.
iv. 23  1. 839 b
iv. 25...iT, 3446 b, 3447 b
iv.26  iv. S572a
iv. 28  i. 626 a
V. 18  iii. 2515 a
Ti. 13  iv, 2969 b
vi. 21, 22  i. 77 a
Ti.23..iii. 2213 a, re., 2241
b, re.
Tii. 2, 6  iii. 25-31 b
vii. 8  ii. 1105a
Til 25  ii. 1364 a
Til 26  IT. 2992 b
vii. 29  i. 421 a, re.
vii. 33  i. 415 a, n.
Tii. 39  ii. 1191b
Tiii. 9  i. 155 b
viil 10, 11  iv. 2960 a
Tiii. 12, 13  iv. 2959 b
viii. 66  iv. 2795 a
ix. 16  iii. 2467 a
ix. 18  iv. 8167 a
ix.22  i. 163a
X 2  1. 140 a
1.15  iii 1941b
X.16  iii. 2525b
x.19  iv. 3240 a
X. 22,..l 119 a, iii. 2402 b
X.27  ii. 1619a
X. 28.... ii. 1492 b, 1663 a,
iv. 3578 b
x,28,29  1, 67 b
xi, 5-8  ii. 1044 b
Ii. 7.. ii. 1064 b, iii 2243b,
iv. 3039 a, 304.) b
xi. 19  iii. 2651b
xi. 24, 25  iii. 1984 a, re.
xii  iv. 3012 b
,xii. 11, 14  iv. 2865 a
xii. 16  iii. 2620 a
xii. 21-24  ii. 1640 a
xiii. 4-6  iii. 1866 a
xiii. 6  iii. 1859a
xiii. 31  i. 332 a
xiv. 3  1 325 b, 505 b
xiv. 10  i. 624 b
xiv. 12  iii. 1859 a
xiv. 27, 28  1. 837 a
xiv.81  i. 8b
XV. 8  ii. 1540 b
XV. 13  i. 168 a
XV. 16,32  iv.301Ob,re.
XV. 23  iii, 1866 a
xvi. 18  iv. 3631a, re.
xvi. 24  iii. 2029 a, re.
XVl 31  ii. 1044 b
rvii. 1  iv. 8263 b.f.
xvii. 3, 5. . .1. 418 b, 419 a
xvii. 4, 6  iii. 2678 a
xvii. 6  i. 704a
xvii. 12  1704 b, re.
xvii. 12, 14, 16. . . .i. 248 a
xvii. 17  iii, 1859 a
xvii, 19  11. 1105 b
xvii. 21-24  iv, 2708 a
xviii, 7, 9  i. 705 a, re.
xviii. 19  145 b
xviii. 26  iv. 2705 a
xviii. 26, 28  ii. 1733 b
xviii. 28  1 160a
xviii. 30  ii, 1064 a
xxiii. S3  i.248a
xviii. 42  1 703 b, re.
xviii. 46  iv. 3362 b, re.
xix, 3  ii, 1492 a
xix. 4 tf.  j. 571a
xix. 6  1.326 a, 473 a
Xlx.i9  i. 706 a, n.,ii.
1675 a
230

xix. 11-13  iv. 8416 a
xix. 13  iv. 2926 b
xix, 19.. i. 706 a, re., b, re,,
714 a, re.
XX., xxi  45b
XX. 10  1. 840 a,b
XX. 14  iii. 2587 a
XX. 14,15, 19. ..ill 2617 a
XX. 23  ii. 1064 a
XX. 23, 25  ii. 935 b
XX. 30  ii. 1105 a
XX. 31  1. 492 a
XX. 34  iv 3123a
xxi. 1  ii. 1483 b, re.
xxi. 8-14  ii. 1511b
xxi. 9  iii. 2051 a, re.
xxi. 19  i. 46 a
xxi 21  i. 624 b
xxii. 6  iv.3484a
xxii. 11  ii. 1090 b
xxii. 25  ii. 1106 a
xxii. 27  i. 324 a
xxii. 28  iii.259Bb
xxii. 35  ii. 1688 a
xxii. 38  U, 1003 b, iv.
3074 a, re.
xxii. 39  i. 298 b, re.
xxii. 48  iii, 2687 b
2 KINflS,
1, 2  ii, 1105 b
i. 4  iii, 1859 a
i, 8  i, 347 a^ 618 a,
703 a, re.
i. 9..i. 707 a, >.., ii. 1077a
i. 9-15  i. 390 b
ii. 1  ii. 927 b
ii. 2  i. 709 a, re.
ii. 5  i. 709 a, re.
ii. 8  i. 703 b, re.,
709 a, re.
ii. 9  1 310 a, 709 a, re.
715 a, re.
u.ll  1 709 a, re,
ii, 12  1709 b, re,, iii.
2679 b
ii,18  i.714b
ii. 19  i. 716 b
11. 21. .11,1784 a, iii. 1859 a
ii. 23  1. 716 b, re.
iii, 1  i, 708 b. re.
iii. 6  1. 717 a
iil9  i.485b
iii. 15  iii. 1943 a, re.
204O a, iv. 3362 b
iii. 21  iii. 1983 a, re.
ill 25  i. 161a
iv. l0..ii. 1105 a, «., iii.
1843 a, n.,iv. 3240 a
iv.10,11  ii, 1105b
iv. 16  il 971a
iv. 19  iii. 1866 a
iv.23  iii. 2593a
iv.24  ii.932b
iv. 27. . .i. 390 b, 717 a, re.
ii. 1077 a
iv. 29  iv. 2795b
iv. 32-36  iu. 1859 a
iv,39  1 622 a, 717b
ii. 961 b
iv. 39-41  iii. 1859 a
iv. 42  1. 718 a, re,, b, re.
V. 1  iii. 2048 a
V. 2..i. 718 b, re., iii. 1984
b, re.
T,3  i. 718 b, re.
v. 4  i, 718 b, re., iii.
2048 a, re.
V. 5  i, 718b,re.jiii. 2625 b
v.14  ui. 1859 a
V.17... .1,631 a, iii, 2048b
V. 21  iv. 2795 b
V. 23.... i. 344 b, ii. 982 b
V.24  iii. 2258a
vi. 6  i. 719 a, re.
vi. 9  i. 719 b, re,
vi. 22  1 719 b, re.
vi.25  i. 182 b, 614 b
vii. 6  ii. 1082a
vii. 10  1733b
viii. 1  ii, 1234 a, re.

viii. 3  1. 720 a, re.
viii. 13  i. 721a, re., ii.
1012 b
viii, 16  1. 275 b, 721
a, re., iii. 1359 b
viii. 26  iv. 3572 a
ix. 1, 3  i. 320 b
ix.8  i.624b
ix. 11  ii. 1733 b
ix. 22  ii. 1390 b, iii.
1807 b, re.
ix. 26  iii. 2051b, re.
Ix. 27  i. 49 a, 785 b, ii.
1558 b
ix. 30  11.982 a, 1391
a, re., iii. 2280 a
ix. 36  ii. 1391b, re.
X.14  iii. 2679 a, re.
X.22  ii. 1128a
X. 26  lv. 3117 a
x.27  i. 627 b
xi.l  ii. 961a
xi. 1, 3  ii. 1640 b
xi.4  i.837a
xi. 6  i. 193 b
xi. 12  iii. 2418b
xi.18  ii. 1044b
xii. 9  i. 384 b
xiii. 14  iii. 2679b
xiii. 20. ... i. 721 b, re., iii.
1983 b, re.
xiii 21  i. 721 b,re.
xiv. 5  iii. 2639 a, re.
xiv. 7  ii. 1523 b
xiv. 13  1. SOb
xiv. 23  ii. 1178 b
xiv. 25ff  ii. 1094 b
XV. 1  11. 1178 a, b
XV. 7  ii, 1279 b
XV, 10  iii. 1885 a, re.
XV. 16  iii 2639 b
XV. 19  ill 2639 b
XV.25  i.l63b
XV.27  ii. 1178 b
xvi. 2  1 47 b
xvi. 6  i. 48 a, 146 b,
662 b
xvi. 10-15  ii. 1124 b, re.
xvi. 10-16  1. 190 b
xvii. 6  iv. 2942 a, re.
xvii. 9  ii. 1064 b
xvii. 10,11  il 1047 b
xviii. 8  iii. 2601b
xviii 9, 10. .iv. 2845 a, re,
2942 a, re.
xviii. 13  ii. 1058 b
xviii. 17 £f  ii. 1060 a
xviii. 17  iv. 3430 a
xviii. 21.. i. 669 a, ii. 997 b
xviii. 24  iv. 3312 b
xviii. 26,28  ii. 985 b
xix. 1,2;  ii. 1072 a
xix.9  1 636a
xix. 14  iv. 3575 b
xix. 23  1. 820 a
xix. 28  ii. 1092 b
xix. 32  iv. 3484 b
xix. 37  i.636a
xx.l  iv.3539 b
XX. 2,3  ii. 1771b
xx.l  ii. 1013 b, re.
XX. 7  iii. 1869 a,
1863 b
XX. 11  ii. 1477 a
xxvi. 14  i. 161a
XX. 13  ill 1897 b,iv.
3102 b
xxi. 3  iii 2008 b
xxi. 7  i.45b, 173b
xxi. 13  i. 58 a, 492 a
xxii. 1  i. 25 a
xxii. 8,10  ii. 1076 b
xxii. 12-14  ii. 1072 a
xxii. 14  i.476a, b
xxiii. 6  i, 45 b, 173 b,
332 a, ii. 967 b
xxiii. 7..il 998 a,1064b, iv.3451a
xxiii. 8  i. 74 a
xxiii. 12  148 a
xxiii, 13  iv, 3039 a,
3040 b

8657
xxiii. 24  iv. 3358 a
xxiv, 12  ii. 1708 a
xxiv. 12, 15  ii. 1640 b
xxiv. 14  iv. 3062 a, re,
xxiv. 15  ii. 1105 a
xxv. 1  iv. 3484 b
xxv. 3  ii. 1156 a, re.
xxv. 8  iii. 2089 b
XXV.19  i. 162 b
xxv. 25  il. 991b
xxv, 27  i. 446 b, re., iii
2005 a, re.
1 CHRONICLES.
i. 41. ...i. 89 a, il. 1043 a
i. 51  i. 78 b
ii. 7  i. 21a
ii. 18  iii. 1794 b, re.
ii.23..ii. 1197 b, 1529 b, re.
ii. 24. ...i. 177 b, 844 a, b
ii.54, 55  iii. 2681a
ii. 55.. ii. 1190 a, iii. 2679 b
iii. 1  1. 8 a
iii. 5  i. B2b
iii. 17  i. 184 b
iii. 24  ii. 1487 b
iv. 1  i. 391b
iv. 2  ii. 1190a
iv. 7  iv. 3641b
iv. 13, 14  iii. 1888 b
iv. 17-19  ii. 1249 a
iv.l8  iii. 1969a
iv. 21  iv. 3489 a
iv. 22  ii. 1399 b
iv. 32  i. 66 a
iv.38  ii, 15USb,re.
iv, 40-42  iii. 1874 b
V. 20  i. 743 b
V. 23.. i. 208b,ii.l047a.b
vi. 11, 12  1. 53 a
Ti. 22  i. 83 b
vi. 28  iii. 2592 b, re.
vi. 44  i. 3 b
vi. 37  i. 6 a
vii. 12  1. 49 a
vii. 14  1. 181b, ii.
1467 a, re.
vii. 20-23  i. 281a
viil 1  ii. 1223 a
viii. 6, 7  iii. 2049 a
ix. 2-34  iii. 2099 b
ix. 11  iv. 3045 a
ix.27  ii, 1675 a
ix. 30  iv. 3368 a
xi.ll..ii.l217a,iv.3166bxi. 22  i. 154 a
xi. 42  1. 31b
xii. 2  1.160 b, 698 b
xii. 2,3  ii. 1271a
xii 3. .1. 205 a, ii. 1399 b
xii. 8  iV. 3484 b
xii. 21  ii. 1399b
xii. 23  ii. 1180 b, ».
xu. 27  ii. 1069 a
xii. 33  iv. 3598 s
xiii. 1  iii. 1932 a, re.
xiii. 3  i. 155 b
xiii. 8  iii. 2038 b
xiv. 8  i. 558 a, re.
xiv. 14  1. 834 a
XT.2  ii. 1642b
xv.10-12  i.83b
XV. 18  iii. 2043 b
XV. 19.  iii. 2038a
XV. 22  ii. 1154 b, re.
xvi. 1-7, 87  il 1070 b
xvi. 3.. i. 831 a, iv. 3642 b
xvi. 7-36. . . .ii. 1713 a, re.
xvi. 22  ii. 1347b
xvii. 1  i. 519a
xviii 8  1 283 b
xviii. l2  1. 11 a
xviii. 13  i. 870 b
xviii. 17  i, 561b, iii.
2575 b
xix, 18  iv. 3572 a
XI. 2  ii. 1183 b
XX. 3  i. 201 b
XI, 5......ii. 1187 b.iil.
1910 b
xxi. 12  iv. 3672 a
xxi. 25  iii. 1911) a

3658
d. 26  11 1064a
mi. 14  iii. 1910 a
mil. 21, 22  1. 695 a
xxiv. 7  u. 1383b
xxiv. 12  ii. 1073 a
XIV. 2,3  ii. 1642 a
XIV.3  ui. 2592a
xxvi. 15, 17  iv. 3239 b
xxvi. 16, 18  1. 396 b
xxvi. 30  ii. 1032 a, re.
xxvii. 28  ii. 1399 b
xxvu. 32  ii. 1452 a
xxvii. 33  iv.2697a
xxviii. 18  1. 420 a
xxviii. 19  iv. 3559 b
xxix. 2  iii. 2280 b
xxix. 2-4  iii. 1910 a
xxix. 29  ii. 1552 b, iii.
2590 b
2 CHRONICLES.
1,6  il 918b
1,16  il 1663 a, iv,
3578 b
iii. 2  ii. 1545a
ix. 21  iii. 2402 b
ix,25  iv. 3572a
I. 11,14  iv. 2865 a
Ii. 7  i. 300 b
xi. 10  i. 34 a, re., ii.
1492 a
xi.18  1. 698 b
xii. 10,11  1837 a
xiu. 2  i. 9a
xiii. 5  i. 68 b, 603 a,
iv. 2793 b
xiii. 9  iii. 2578 a re.
xiii. II  iv. 2992 b
xiii. 19  ii. 1492 a
xiv. 8  i. 168a
xiv. 10  iv. 3617 b
XV  ii. 1072 a
XV. 8. ...i. 75b, ii. 1492a
XV. 16  iv. 3433b
XV, 19  iv. 3010 a
ivi. 1..1.168b, iv. 3010a
ivi. 7  ii. 1493 a
xvi. 10  iv. 3115 b
xvi. 12. .iii. 1859 b, 1866 a
xvii. 2.... i. 168 b, 870 b,
ii. 1492 a
xviii  ii. 1072 a
xviii. 5  iv. 3484 a
ivm.33  i. 161b
XI. 1  i. 85, are.
XI.1, 10,22. ...Iii. 1874b
XX. ^  ii. 1520 a
XX. 14,15  ii. 1072 a
xxi, 3, 4.  ii. 1540b
xxi. 16  i. 875 a
1X3.20  i. 591a, il.
1279 b, iv. 3572 a
nii. 2.. i. 48 b, iv. 3572a
xxii. 5  i.l45 b
txil 6  L48b,203a
xxil 7-9  11. 1558b
xxiii.13  i. 743 b
ixiii. 20  ii,963a
xxiv. 25  ii. 1279 b,
iv. 3035 a, re.
xxvi. 6  iv. 3610 b
xxvi. 6  i. 875 a
xxvi. 8  i. 85 a, re.
xivi. 11,13. .iii. 1984b, re.
xxvi. 14  i. 161a
xxvi. 15  i. 736 b
lxviiL7  ii. 963 a 1172
a, re., 1399 b
xxviii. 15  ii. 1530 a
xxviii. 18  i. 875 a
xxix, 13  iii. 2619 b
IXX. 21  i. 558 a, b, re.
xnii. 4  ii. 1534 b
xxxii. 9 ff.  il 1060 a
xxxii, 22  iii, 2273 a
mil. 28  i.498b,
iii. 2675 a
xixii. 30  ii. 1287 a,
iv. 3039 b
xxxii. 31  1 598 a
xxxii. 32  ii. 1168 b, re.
xxxiii. 3, 5. . . . ii 3327 a

INDEX.

xxxiii. 11  , .11. 1086a
xxxiii. 18  iii. 2591 a
xxxiv  ii. 1076 b
mlv. 4  ii. 1120 a
xxxiv. 14  ii. 1075 a
xxxiv, 14-19, 30  iii.
2421a
xxxiv. 22  i. 476 b
xxxv. 3  i. 156 a
xxxv. 6  ii. 1075 a
xxxv. 13  ii. 1531b
xxxv. 15  Hi. 2619 b
xxxv. 25  ii. 1588 a
xxxvi. 21  1 437 b
EZRA.
i. 1-4  ii. 1736 a
ii.5  iii. 2097a
ii.6  ii. 1397 a
ii.26  iii. 2670 a
ii. 34  ul. 2663 b
ii.o3  ii. 1004b
11.63  iii. 2101 b, iv.
3357 a
ii.64  i.404b
iii. 4, 5, 6  iv. 3622 a
iu. 9. ...11. 1344 b, 1416 a
iv. 7-23  iii. 2095 b
iv.l4  ii.963b
iv. 17-24  ii. 1736 a
T, 1,2  li, 1736a
V. 6  iv, 2701a
vi, 2  i.642a
vi. 7,8  ii. 1736 a
vi. 9  iv. 3542 a
vi.ll  1. 627b
vl 14  iv. 3699 a
vii. 1-5  i. 433 b
vii. 22  iv. 8542a
viii. 15  ii. 1185 a
viii. 18,19,24,30  iu.
1894 a
viii.27. .1.490 b,iv, 3110 a
viii. 32  iii. 2091b, re.
LX.5  i.812b
3  ii. 1509b
3  iv, 3122 b
1,15  u. 991b
X. 23,31  11.1450 a
x.25  i.l79a
1.31  ii. 1456a
NEHEMIAH.
ii. 10  ii. 906 a
ii. 11  ill. 2091b, re
ii. 13  iii 2666 b. iv.
3508 a, re.
ill 2  ill. 2663 b
iii. 8  1. 129 a, ii. 1066 a
iii. 11  i. 323 b, 846 a
iii. 14  iii. 2681 a, iv.
3447 b
iii. 26  iv.3041a
iv. 2  ii. 1289 a
V. 1-13  ii. 1668 a
T. 5  iv. 3059 b
vii. 2, 3  ii. 992 a
vii. 5, 6  iii. 2098 b
vii. 7  iii. 2094b
vii. 11  ii. 1397 a
¦vii. 30  iii. 2670 a
vii. 36  iii. 2663 b
vii. 46-59  ill. 2604 a
vii. 65,70  iii. 2101b
viii. 9  iii. 2101b
viii. 15  ill. 2212 b, iv.
3600 a, re.
viii. 17  ii. 1290 a, re.
ix. 2  iv. 3122 a
ix.27  iv. 2858a
X. 1  ill 2101 b
X. 29  ii. 1075 a
X. 37  i. 324 a
xl.9  i.476b
xi. 10  ii. 1222 b
xi.26  ii.l56Sa
xi.26  i.56a
xi.33  iii. 2670a
xii. 10, 26  ii. 1897 a
xii. 16  iii. 1896a
xii. 24  ii. 1344 b

xii. 25..i. 191 b, iv. 3239 t
xii. 28  iii. 2681a
xu. 38  1. 323 b, 846 a,
ii. 1280 b
xiii. 1  iii. 2095 a
xiii. 3  iv. 3122
xiii. 6  il 1762a
xiii, 23, 24  ii. 1490 b
xiii. 24  11 985 b
xiii. 28  ii. 1291 a, re,
ESTHER.
1,5,6  iT,3027a
1,6  1261b, 478 a,
501 a, re.
i.9  It. 3026b
i.lO  i.308b
1.10,14  iv. 2934 b
i. 11  i. 597 a
i. 14  iii. 1896 a
ii. 9, 11  It. 3026 b
ii. 17  i. 597 a
ii. 21. . .1. 308 b, iv. 3026 b
iii. 7  ii. 1687b
iii. 10  iii. 2267 b, re.
iv. 6..iv. 3122 b, in. 2645 b
V. 1  iv. 3026 b
vi.2  i. 308 b
vi. 8. 9, 12  ii. 1067 a
viii. 2  iii. 2267 b, re.
viii. 10  i.626a
viii. 10, 14.. .iii. 2035 b, re.
viii. 15  i. 624 a, 625 a
ix. 24r^  ii. 1687 b
JOB.
i.l, 8  i.762b
i. 6  u.910b
i. 15  iv. 3354 b
i. 17  1 636 a, ii. 1156
i.l9  iv.sSoa
1.20  1. R21a
ii. I  u. 910 b
il. 3  i. 762 b
ii.l2  1621a
iii.8..i.674a,re.,ii 1636b
iii. 11-19  iv. 2708 b
iii. 12  iii. 2575 a
It. 15-21  iT. 3465
It. 19  iii. 2028 a
iv. 21  i. 491b
vi. 4. . . 1. 161 a, iii. 2561 a
vi. 5  ii. 1045 b
vl.6  i.834b
vi. 12  i.323a
vi. 15 ff.  i. 577 a
vi. 16  ii. 1533 b, re.
vi. 19  iv.3192a
vii. 7  iv. 3541 a
viii. 11. . .ii. 1466 a, re., iii.
1841b
viii. 12  ii. 1045 a, re.
viii. 16  i.478a
ix.l9  ii. 1511b
ix. 25, 26  i. 570 a
ix. 30  iv.3066b
XV. 2  lv.8541a
XV.27  i. 476b
XV.33  ill 2242a
xvi. 14  i.837a
xvi. 15  ii. 1091a
xvi. 21  il. 1512a
xvii. 16  iii. 2535 b
xviii. 9  ii. ]108a
xviii 10  ii. 1108 a
xviii. 10, 11  iii. 2152 a
xviii. 16  i.328a
xviii. 17  iv.8123a
xviii 19  iv. 3057 b
xix. 19  ii. 1140 a
xix. 23-27  iv. 2709 a
xix. 24  ii. 1619 a, b,
iv. 3574 b
xix. 26  iv.3558a
11.17  1. a36b
XI. 24. .1,490 a, iii. 1909 a,
iv. 3110 a
xxi. 18  i.406b
xxi. 24  iii. 1934 a, re.
xxii. 6  1 624 a
xxii. 14  i. 631b

nil. 34,25, .iU. 1939 a. ».
ixiil 6,9  1687»
ixiT,7  i.624a
xxiv. 24  iil2273«
xxtI, 5, . .1 575 a, il 912 b
xivl. 5, 6  ii. 912«
nvi. 7  1633*
xxvi. 11  i. 631b
xxvi. 12  HI 2666 a
xxvi. 32  ii.l090a,B.
ixrii. 16  i. 625 a
nvil 18  iii. 2028 a
iiTii.2I  iT.3540»
nviii. 1-11  ill. 1938 «
nviii. 17  i.617a
nviii. 17, 18  11. 931 a
nvlii. 18  1. 491a
iiii 6  1336 b
xxix. 7-9  111509 6
xxix. 12, 13  11. 1612 a
XXI. l...iT. 2961b, 3099b
xxx. 4..1. 834a, ii. 1518 b
xxx. 6, 7  ii. 1089 b, iv.
3364 b
IXX. 7  iii. 2111a
HI. 11  1491b
HI. 18  i.476a
xxx. 27. .iii. 1865 a, 2575 a
XXI. 29. .1. 329 a, iii. 2271 b
xxxi. 22  1412 a
xxxi. 26-28  i. 141b
xxxiii. 18, 24, 28, 30.. ..iii,
2S38a
miii. 21  iii. 1865 a
xxxvi. 19. . . .ill. 1939 a, n,
mvil 3, 11, 15  ii.
1090 a, B,
xxxvii. 9  iv. 3511, a
Hxvii. 17  iv. 3540 b
xHvii. 18  1. 824 a, iii.
1969 a, b
xxxvii. 22  i. 634 a, il >

iii. 7  ii. 910 b, ifl,
2176 a, iv, 3482 a, b
xxxviii. 14  i. 478 b
xxxviii. 24  It. 3540 a
iHviii. 31. . . .i. 141 b, ill,
2548 b,iT, 3580 a
1  il 1007a
13.. ..iii. 2272 a, It.
3118 b
ixxix. 14  ii.l658b
mix. 19  It, 3240b
mix. 23  i. 160a
mil. 26  ii. 1010 b
xl. 16  u. 1045a,n,
xl. 15-24  1268a,b,
269 a b, ii. 1079 b
xl.24  111086 8,
111  i. 674a
iU.2.,..i. 829 a, ii. 1086a
ill. 2693 b
ili. 7  i.829a
ili. 10  i. 674 a, B.
ili.U  iu. 2675b
xii. 15  1696b
xU. 20  11 1631b
Ili. 31  ill. 2160b
xlilU  i.229»
xUi. 15  U,1035»
PSALMS
ii.2  ii. 1539b
ii.7  IT. 3087a
iii. 4  u.lOTTa
lT.2  ii, 1620b
T,6  ii,1620b
Til. 14  ill 18661
viii  ii.l384»
viil 4-6  lv.3462
ix. 6,15,17  ii- 1019 »
ii. 16  U. 1068 b
1.16  ii. 1019b
xii. 6  i, 846 a, iii, 2696
a,B.
ivi.6  iT.33Wb
ivi. 6  1416 a, 492 «
ivi. S-U  iv. 3462
ivi. 10  iv.2928»
iviii. 2  11.1090 b,B,
iviii. 5  iv.3064b

INDEX.

3659

iviii. 5, 18  iii. 2375 b
iviii. 7-14  i, 562 a, re.
xviii. 12  ii. 1020 a
xviii. 34  i. 490 a, iii,
1909 a
xviii 34, 35  iv. 3110 a
xix. 4  ii. 1661a
xix. 6  1 837a^iv. 3462
xxi. 3. . .1. 562 a, ill. 2,575 a
xxii., title  i. 55 a
xxil  ii, 1453 b
xxii. 13  iii. 2277 b
Illi. 17  iv. 2923a
xxii. 20  i. 550b
iiiu. 4  i. 224 a
xiiil 6  i.lOOb
Xliv  1. 558 b,re.
xxiv. 3  ii. 1077 a
xxviii. 1  iii. 2536 a
xxviii. 2  iv. 3135 a, re.
xxix  i. 558 b, re.
Xlix. 3-9  lv. 3208 a
xxuE. 9  1603a
xxx  ii. 1290 b, re.
xxxi. 21  11. 1528 b, re.
xxxiii. 2  iii. 2629 b
ixxiii. 14  ii. 1275 a
xxziv., title.... i. 21b, 51b
xxxiv. 12-16  iv. 3462
xxxiv. 20  ii. 1379 b
xxxv. 7  iii. 2535 b
xxxv. 17  1. 550 b
xxxvii. 35  1. 256 a
xxxii  ii. 1224 a
xxxix. 1-4  iv, 3462
xl,6  iv,3058b
xl, 6-8  iv, 3462
xl.7  iv.3575b
111, 9  i.52b
xUi, 1, , ,u, 1006 b, 1011 b,
1077 b
xiii, 4  i, 538 a,b
xiii, 7(6)  ii.l047a
xliii. 3  iv. 3362 a, re.
xlv.l  i. 377a
xlv,6, 7  iv, 3087 b
xiv, 7  i. 101 a
xlv.8....i. 72b, iii. 2040 b
xlT. 13  iv. 3490 a
xlviii. 7  iv. 3540 a
xlix. 14, 15, 19. ..n. 912 b
1118,19  i. 662 b, re.
lv. 21  1 336 b
Iviil4,5....1179b.l80aIviii. 6  iv.2933a
lviil9  lv. 3064 b
lix.5  il 1019b
Itx. 10  iii. 2575 a
lx.3  i. S62a
Ix. 8  iv.2838a
Ixii  ii. 1224 a
Ixiil 10  1 840 a
Uvui  1 558 b, 562 a,
ii, 1290 b, re,
Ixviii, 1, 24  iv. 3484 a
Ixviii. 7  ii. 1343 b
Ixviu. 13 .,.,1,478 b,614
Ixviii. 14  iv.3065a
Ixviii. 15  ii. 1077 a
tiviii. 20  iv 2857 b
Ixviii. 25..,, iii. 1921b, re.
Ilviil29  ii. 922 b
Ixviii. 30  iii. 2526 a
Ixviii 31  i. 393 b
Ixxii. 10, 15  ii. 1738 a
Ixxii. 20  iii. 2619 b
liiiv. 2  iv, 2959 b
iHiv. 4  i. 743 a
iHiv. 8  ii. 1064b
iHiv. 9  iii. 2620 b
lliiv.13,14  i.674a
ixxiv. 14  ii. 1637 a
Iiiiv.l7  i.436b
bcxlv.20  iv. 3213 b
lixv. 8  ii. 1627 a, lv,
3542 a, 3543 a, 3544 a
Ixxvii, 2... li. 1271b, re.,
ill. 1984 b, re.
Ixxvi. 10  ili. 2206 b
Ixxvi. 11  ii. 922b
ixxyii  ii. 1224a

Ixxvii. 15-20. . . ui. 2692 a
IxxvH. 16  iv. 2960 a
Ixxvii. 18  iv.3511a
Ixxvu. 20  iv. 2961b
Ixxviii  ii. 1331b
Ixxviii. 9  1. 752 b
Ixxviii. 18, 41, 56  lv.
3207 a
Ixxviii. 23  1 631b
Ixxviii. 27  iii. 2649 b
Ixxviii. 39. .... .iv. 3541 a
Ixiviii. 40  ii. 1343 b
Ixxviii. 60  ii. 1070 b
ixxviii. 63  iii. 1805b,re.
ixxix. 6  iii. 2620 b
lull. 8  iii. 2575 a
Ixxix. 12  1. 622 a
Ixxx  i. 67 a, 386 b
Ixxx. 8, 10  iv. 3446 b
Ixxxi. 9  ii. 1130 b, re.
Ixxxi. 16  1 262 b
Ixxxii. 1, 6  1509 a
Ixxxii. 6  iv. 3087 a
Imiii. 12  iv. 3595 a
Ixxxiii. 13  iv. 3122 b
Ixxxiv. 3  i. 840 a, iv.
3097 b
Ixxxiv. 6  ill 2035 a
Ixxxvii. 4  in. 2664 b
Ixxxvii. 5. . . .iii. 2606 a, re.
Imvii. 7  iii. 2038 b
Ixxxviii. 10  i. 575 a
Ixxxviii. li  1. 127 a
Ixxxviii. 13  iii. 2575 a
Ixxxix. 8  il 1196 a
Ixxxix. l2  ii. 1047 a
Ixxxix. 27  i. 310 a, 11.
1275 a
xc. 2  ....iii. 2264b
xc. 10  iu. 2023 b
icil3. .ill. 2040 b, 2629 b,
iv. 2996 a
xcii. 4  1110636
xcH. 10  1. 100b
xcix. 1  iii. 1895 a
cil. 6  iii. 2275 b
cil. 7  iv. 3098a
cii. 17  11. 1018 a, re.
cii. 26  1624b
cm. 5  i. 629 b
ciii 16  iT.3541a
civ. 2  1. 519 a
civ. 3  1. 824 b
civ. 4  lv. 3541 a
civ. 12  iv. 3098b
civ. 17  iii 2107 b,lv.
3120 a
civ. 26. . .fl. 1636 a, 1637 b
cv  1 136 a
cv. 15.U. 1347 b, iii. 2592 b
cvl 14  ii. 1343b
CVL20  1345 b
cvl 28  ii. 1127 b
cvii. 4  u. 1343b
cvii. 38  iv. 3520 b
cviii. 9  iv. 2838 a
ex. 1  iv. 3090 a, re.
ex. 4  iii. 1877 a
cxi. 1  ii. 1345 a
cxi. 5, 10  IiL 1846 b
cxiii.-cxviii  1 67 a
cxiii.-cxiT  ii. 1376 a
cxiii  ii. 998 a
cxiil7  i.627b
cxv.-civiil  ii. 1376 a
civiii.22  1499b
cxviu. 25  il. 1093 b
cxix. 83  1 319 b
cxix. 147, 148... ill 2575a
cxix. 166  iii. 2209 a
cxx. 4  i. 161 a, 473 a
cxxi. 6  iii. 2008a
cxxiT. 7  iv. 3099 a
cxxvi. 6  iv.3096a
cxxvii. 1  iv. 3486 b
cxivili. 3. . . .11, 1104 b, iv.
3446 b
CHii. 6, 7  il 1108 a
cixxii. 6  il 1566 b
cmiii, 2  ii, 1066 a
cmiil S,il. 1047 a, 1048 b
omiv,, , ,., , .ii, 1644 b, re

i.l5  iu.2465a
cixxvii, 2  iv, 3538 a
cxxxii, 24  iv. 3488 b
oil. 3  129a
cxli. 6  U, 1391b, re.
cxliii. 7  iii. 2586 a
cxliv. 9  iii. 2629 b
cxlviii. 4  1 631b
cxlii., heading  iv. 3437
a, n.
PROVERBS.
1. 9  Hi. 2269 a
117  m. 2108 a, re.
H. 16. ...lv. 3074 a, 3121 a
ii. 17  iii. 1804 b, re
ii.18  i.575a
iii. 10  iv.3545a
iv. 9  Hi. 2269 a
T. 16  iv. 3123a
V. 19  u. 1195 b
vi.5  iv.3163a
vi. 30, 31  iv. 2739 a
vu. 6  iv. 3639 b
vil 12  iv. 3123 a
vii. 22  iv. 3115 b
viil, ii  H. 1409 a, re.
viil 2  11 1138 b
viil. 23  ill 2264 b
ix. 1-3  iv. 3081b, re.
ix.2,6  iv.3544a
ix. 14  It. 3240 a
ix. 18  1. 575 a
xi. 22  '.in. 2269 a
111 12  iii. 2107 b
XV. 17.U. 1045 b, iu. 1842 b
XV.24  H. 1038a
xvi. 11.. 1 229 b,u. 1619 a
xvi. 15  1471b
ivi. 33  u. 1687b
xvu. 3  iu. 1940a
xvii. 18  n. 1668 a
xvu. 23  1. 622 a
xviu. 19  iv. 3632 a, re.
xix. 13  11 1106 a
xix. 24. .1490 a, 616 b, ill
1344 b
XX. 15  iii. 2269 a
xxll  i.868b
xxi. 14  i. 622 a
xxi. 16  H.912a b
xxii. 13  iv.3123a
xxu. 23  n. 1512 a
ixH. 26  n. 1668a
xxu. 29  iii. 1845b
xxiii. 11  ii. 1512 a
xxui. 30. .iv. 3542 a, 3544 a
xiui. 34, 35. .ui.2616 a, re.
xxiv. 31  ii. 1034 a
xxv. 11  in. 2525b
xxv. 12  iii. 2269a
xxv. 13  iv. 3065a
XIV, 18  ii. 988 b
XXV.20  IH. 2174b
XXV.22  i.473a
xxv. 23  iv.3640
xxvi. 3  ii. 1092 b
xxvi. 8  iv. 3062 b
xxvi. 10  iv. 2731b
xxvi. 15.1 516 b, Hi. 1844"b
xxvi. 21  1. 473 a
xxvii. 15.1. 626a, ii. 1106 a
xxvii. 21  IH. 1940 a
xxvii. 22  iu. 2015 b
xxx. 1... iii. 1829 b, 2614 b
xxx. 4  1. 624 a
xxx. 8  i. 489a
xxx. 25  1 102 b
. 31  111093 a
xxx. 33  i. 336 b
 1255 b
xui. 1  iv. 3075 a, re.
.6  i.862a
xxxi. 9  u. 1612 a
. 13, 19, 24. .iv. 3489 a
mi. 21  iv. 3066a
XHi. 22  ii. 1662 a, iv.
3035 a, re.
.24  iv.2964a
ECCLESIASTES.
ii.7  iL 1018b

ii. 8  iK. 2040 b
xl. 1  1 246 b, 247 a
xii  iiL 1867 a
xH. 3  iv, 3539 b
xii. 4. .1 551a, ui, 1935 a,
iv. 3098 b
Iii. 5  il 981b, 1525 b
xii. 6  i. 320 b, 491b
xH. 11  Ui. 1830 a
CANTICLES.
i.5  1 519 a, iv. 3210 a
1.9  u. 1092 a
L 10  i. 407 a
110,11  iu. 2268 b
i. 13  Ui. 2436 b
1 14. ...i. 350 a, iu. 2280 b
i. 17  L862t
u. I  .'. ...1. 478 b
il 3  i.lSla
u. 5. ...L831a, iv. 3542b
ii. 7  ii. 1077 b
n. 9  iv. 3539 b
ii. 11-13  Hi. 2667 a
U.13  1.478a
iu. 5  H. 1077 b
HI 6  iii. 2436 b
iv. 1, 3.U. 981b, iv. 3370 a
iv. 4, 5  H. 1632 b, re.
iv. 4, 9  in. 2268 b, re.
iv. 8. ...1. 79 b, H. 1046b,
1088 b, 1624 a
iv.9  H. 982»
iv. 13  L 350a
iv. 16  lv. 3540 a
V.7  1 622b
v.ll  H.981b
V. 12,14  iii, 2268 b, re.
v.ll  1283 a, 322 b
vi. 4  iv. 2796 a
vi. 7. ..U. 981 b, iv. 3370 a
vi. 10. iu. 2007a, re., 2008 a
vi. 12... i. 83 b, iu. 2264 b
vi.l3  L538b
vH. I  iu. 2268 b, re.
vii. 2. . 1. 498 a, u. 1666 b,
iv. 3542 a
viL 4....i.828b, H. 1056b
ViL 5... 1.479 b, 862 b, u.
981 b, 982 a, b
vUl. 6. .L 158 a, in. 2263 b
ISAIAH.
i.l  U. 1149a
i. 8  1, 261b, 518 a
1.17  iL 1612a
1.18  i. 480 b
L22  iv. 3543 b
i. 25.Ui. 2696 b. It. 3066 b,
3260 b
u. 2-4  U. 1151 b
u. 6  L 607 a
ii. 9  Hi. 1845 b
U. 10, 19, 21  L397b
iL12  u. 1243 b
u. 20  iU. 1991a
ui. 6,7  i.625a
iU. 16  iii. 2280 b
in. 16, 18, 20,23. .1.407 a
iH. 18. . .1. 347 b, re., 396 a
in. 18, 22  ii. 982 b
ui. 18-23. . . .ill. 2269 a, re.
iu. 19. . i. 630 b, iv. 3370 a
ill. 20  1 99 a, 630 b, ii
929 a, 982 b, ui. 2436 a
in. 21.... i 89 b, iH. 1804 a
Hi. 22. .i. 225 b, 508 a, 622
a, b, 625 a, iv. 3539 b
iiL 23. .1.622 b, U. 1016 b,
in. 1971 a, iv. 2964 a
in. 24. ,.1 622 b, H. 929a,
982 a, iu, 2437 a, iv.
3116 a
iv,l  in, 1802b
lv, 5  It. 2960a
T. 2  It. 3030 a, 8095 b
T.5  11 1034b
T. 10  iT. 3582 b
T.15  iu 1845b
T.22  iv.3544a
V. 24....i.406b,ii.l012a
vi.l....  ii, 1775t

8660rt.2  i.624b
Ti. 6  1.473 a
Ti.13  ill 2200b
Tii. 15-22  i.336b
Tii. 18  1 263 a, 669 a
yii. 20 . .1. 258 b, u. 982 b
Tii. 22  iH.1934a
Tiii. 1  iii. 1971 a. It.
2740 a
Tiii. 14  IH. 2209a
Tin. 19  in. 2404 a. It,
2708 a, 3310 a
Tin. 21. .1283 a, 11 1762 b
ix. 1.... It. 2799 a, 3246 a,
re., 3445 a, 3697 b
ix. 1, 2  It. 8464
ix. 3. .Hi. 2227 a, iv. 2924 b
ix. 6  H. 1532 b
ix. 9-19  U. 1546 a
lx.l4  i.331b
X.5  n, 1059a
X. 14...HL2404a, It. 3310
a, re.
X. 17  1327 b
1.18  1. 743 a, 820 a
I. 28  L 392a
I. 28-32. . .1. 877 a, U. 916
a, ui. 2669 b
X.29  u. 1675a
X.30  1285a,«.,u. 1581b
xi  u.l059a
li.4  LlUb
il. 7  ii. 1045 b
li. 16. . . . ,Hi. 2153 a, 2685
a, iT. 2837 a, re.
iii. 2  iL 1195b
liii 4  i.634a
xiu. 14  Hi. 1941b, re.
xiu. 21  1120 a
xiT.l  iT.3121b,n.
liv. 4  i. 271 a, re., iii.
2608 a
xiv. 5  ii. 1512 a
xiv. 9  u. 933 a, b. It.
2708 b
xiT.22  iv.3057b
xiv. 29  lv. 2929 b
XV. 2  1231b, 283 b
IV.3  il 1106a
IV. 6.. 1.270 b,H. 1034b,
1044 b, iv. 3640 b
IT. 7  iv. 3538 b
ivi.l  H. 1523b
ivi. 5  iu; 1984 b, re.
xvi. 6  Hi. 1985 a, n.
xvi. 8  L 820 a
itL 9,10  iT. 3541a
iTi. 10. . .i. 820 a, lu. 1985
a, re,
XTlU  U. 1005b
ivH. 2  L165b
xvii. 8  li. 1120 b
ivU. 9  L837b
ivin. 1. .1. 780 a.ui. 2160a
iviu. 2  i. 8l a, 673 a,
780 a, ui. 2160 b, 2632 b
lviU.7  H.922b
xix. 5... ui. 2150 b, 2153 a,
2682 b, re., 2685 a
lii. 7. .1. 673 a, n. 1465 b,
n., iii. 2153 a, 2327 b,
2695 a
xix. 8  in. 2108 a
xii. 8,10  iu. 2153 b
xli.9  iv, 3035 a, re,,
3489 a
III, 10... i. 829b, iu. 2562
b, iv. 3062 b
xix. 15  1. 331 b
xix. 18... n. 985 b, 1390 a,
iU. 2262 a, 2502 a, iv,
2975 a
ill. 18,19  iii 2634 b
III. 22  L 743b
XI. 2. .1.620 b, iv. 2838 a
Xii, 5  i. 101 a
xxi 7  i.347a
xxji.ll, 12  lv. 2922 a
xxi. 13  i. 636 b
III, 14  m, 2575 a
)Lill.l,6  ii 1078a

INDEX.

IXU. 1-7  ii. 1059 b
xxiL 2  u. 1156 a, re.
IXU, 8  i,158b,.603a
xilL 12-14  n. 1059 b
nil 15  L699a, b,iv.
3081a
HU. 15-25  n. 1540b
ixii 16,18  H. 1058 a
ixH. 18  i.393 b
IXU. 21. .1.625 a, U. 929 b
xxii. 24  iii. 2629 b
ixHi. 4  iu. 1840 b
xxiii 8  1. 351 b
xxiU. 11  L 351b
xxiii. 17  iii. 1807 a, n.
xxiv. 18  1. 631b
xxiv. 20. ...1261 b, 601 b
xxiT. 23  Hi. 2007 a, re.
XXT. 2  ilL 1985b
XXT.IO  ii. 1733a
xxv. 12  in. 1971 a
xxvi. 4  n. 1195 b
xxvi. 14, 19  ii. 912 a, b
xxvi. 18  in. 1866 b
Hvil, 1  1 674 a, «., ii.
1637 b
xxvii. 1, 13  n. 1156 a
xxvii. 3  u. 1411 a
Hvii. 4  i.327b
Hvii. 8. .It. 3540 a, 3541 a
xxvii. 9  iU. 2648 a, re.
xxvu. 13  u. l485 a, re.
xxviii. 14  u. 1057 b
xxviii. 16  iv. 3465
xxviu. l7  1492 a
xxvUi. 21. .1 209 a, 658 a,
re., iii. 2435 b
ixvUi. 25  i. 498 a, iv.
3096 b, 3511 a
xxix. 1  iu. 1984 b, re.
xxix, 1, 2, 7,,n. 1271b re.
xxix. 4  It. 3310 a
xxix. 11  iT. 3575 b
xxix.l7  1820a
XH. 6. . . .It. 2929 b, 3535
b, re.
HI, 7  iii. 2665 a
xxx. 9  u. 1158 a, re.
XH. 20  i. 324 a
xxx. 24. . , ,i. 182 b, 629 b,
ii. 1045 b
xxx. 26  UL 2007 a, re.
XH. 33  i. 328 a, iu.
1991b
mi. 1  ii. 1775 a
xxxi. 8  IH. 1845 b
mil. 14  in. 2257 b
IHU. 15,16  1.820 a
xxxu. 20. ...1.42 a, 246 b,
247 a. It. 3096 b, 3511 a
xxxni. 11  i. 406 b, ii.
1012 a
miu. 12. . , .ii. 1661 a, iv.
3238 b
Hxiu. 22  It. 3416 a
xxxlT. 5  i. 636 b
 H. 1243 b
It. 11  i. 492 a. Hi.
2406 b
¦ .13  U. 1626 a, re.,
iii. 2271b
miT. 14. . . Ui. 2149 a. It.
3430 a
miT. 15. . .ill. 2276 a, It.

 n. 1060 a
2  in. 2659 a
6.,,, 1.669 a, n, 997
b, in. 2467 b
9  It. 3312 b
11  iT.3430a
11, 13. . . .11. 985 b,
iv. 2975 a
15,16.U. 1153 b, re.
22-36. . . .H. 1640 a
24  i. S20a
25  i. 327 a
27  i. 820 a,iL
1045 a, «., 1106 a
29  u. 1092 b
30. ...ii. 1485b, re.
33  It. 8484b

xxxvi.ixxvi,xxxvi.xxxvi. xxxvii
xxxvii. xxxvii.xxxvU.

mvii. xxxvu.

mviii. 1  iv. 3539 b
iHTiH, 8  i, 598 a, u,
1101 b
HiTni. 12. . .11. 1013 b. It.
3211b
mrUi. 14. , , ,1 505 b. It,
3310 b, re.
xxiriu, 21  in. 1859 a
mix. 2  It. 3102 b
xl,3  iT,3167b
xl. 12  1229 b, 840 b
xl.16  i, 229a
xl, 22  i. 631b, 633b
111, 2  il 1737 b, iT,
3122 b
xii. 14  ii, 1767 a
ilL19  Hi, 2213b
iliii, 1  iu, 2063 a
xliH. 20  uL 2271b
xliT.5  1522a
xliv. 12  1.4738
xliv. 13  U. 1661a
lUv. 14  L523a
lUv. 26, 28  iv, 3338 a
xliv. 28  u. 1736 a
ilv. 1  i.lOla
XlV. 13  iv.3338a
xlvi. 1  1392 a
xlvi. 6  i. 229 b, iiL
1995 b
xlvi. 11. . . .i. 629 b, 637 a;
u. 1737 b
xlvU. 2. ...1 622 b, 624 b,
H. 981 b, iv. 3370 a
ilvii. 5, 6  iv. 3338 a
ilviL 12,13  u. 1751b
lUi. 22  1425 a
IL 3, 11, 17-23... iv. 3338 a
U.8  iv. 3557b
Iii. 2, 9  It. 3338 a
liii  in. 2235 a
liiL 4  Ui. 2464 b, iv,
3464
liu.9  U, 1474b
liU.lO  i,112b
liv, 2  1. 519 a
liv. 11  iu, 2280b
Hv, 11, 12, 14,17  U.
1067 b
liv. 12  L387b
llv.13  U. 1067a
liv. 16  i. 473 3
lv. 1  It, 3543 a, re,
1T,3  iu. 2620a
It. 12  uL 1887 b
It. 13  13-27b
1tL7  U. 1360a
Ivi. 10  iv.S099b
ivii, 6  iv, 3116 b
Ivii. 7  ii, il29 a
IvH. 9  iU. 1991 b
Iix. 11  i. 258a
Iix. 17  n.973a
Iix. 19  1. 748 a
ix. 1  H. 1067 a
Ix. 6. . . .1 348 a, H. 1738 a
li,7  iv,3017a
li, 8  i, 614b
li,13  Ui, 2213b
Ix. 16  iu. 1934 a
lx.22  ii.962b
Ixi.l  iL 1362a
W. 1, 2  iv. 3465
Ixi. 3  U. 1016b
Id. 10  u. 1016 b, HI
1864 b
Ixii. 1, 2  U. 1067 a, Ui.
2063 a
Ixii. 3.... iL 1016b, 1067 a
Ixii. 4,5  U. 1772 a
IxlL II  iT. 2857 b
Mu. 1  i.480b
lxiU.9  iT.2993b
liiT. 6  iT.3541a
Mt. 10, 11  It, 3338 a
liT, 3  L 77a
liT.4  L606b
liT. 6, 7  i. 622 a
liT, li. ,..!. 141b, 850b,
Ui. 1886 b, iT. 3542 a
liT. 16  ui.2063a
liT.ie  182a

IxT, 17-22, , ,1U, 2478 a, b.
lxv,25  111045b
Ixvi. 12  i, 425a
ixvi. 17  uL 2033 a, b
Ixvi. 20  1348b
Ixvi. 24  iv. 3568b
JEREMIAH.
111,12  170a
iL2  iT.3518b,B.
H. 14-16  il 1776a
U.21  iT. 3095b
il23, ,,,i.348a,ii,1078a
H. 32... n. 929 a, m. 1805 a
Hi. 6  u. 1064 a
HL16.  i.l55b
iiL 24  iL 1167b
iT.4  L465a
iT. 11  It. 3541 a
iv,20  1619a
iv.26  i.820a
iv.30  iii. 2280b
v.l  iv. 31234
V. 27,,,, 1840b, 839 b.iv,
3098 b
Ti,l  iT,8447*
tL6  L 736b
Ti. 10  L466a
Ti.20  iu,269Bb
Ti.28  i.323B
Ti.29  iH. 2696b
Tl.30  iT.3042a
TlLIl  U. 1360a
Tii. 18  iU. 2008 b
tH. 31  1110646
tH.32  n. 1279b
ViL 33  i.842b
TU. 34  UL 1806 b,»,
TiU. 7  i. 505 b
Tin. 14  1862a
vui. 16  iL 1581b
vni. 19  iv. 3121a
Ix. 21  iv.3128s
ix.24  i 464b
Is. 26  U. 1128b
ix.9  Ui. 2258b
1. 11  iv. 3416 a
1.20  L 5191.
ii.l3  iL 1167b
Ii. 23  U. 1486 a
xii. 9  illlUa
XiiL 18  iii 2687b
xUL 22  i.622b
XiiL 22, 26  L624b
xiu. 24  iv. 3540a
IV.9  i.664a
XV. 12  iu. 1909a
IV. 18  i. STTb
xvL7...i.325b,U.1681b, 1682 a, B.
xvi. 9  iL 972a
xvH.l  i.27b
xvn. 11  Ui, 2839b
xvU.21  H. 1363a
iviU. 3  Ui. 1870 a, B.
iviu. 14  iv. 3065 a
iviill7  iv. 3541a
H. 1  u. 1069 a
xxi, 1,2  «.1072»
xxlLa)  1S»
xxin. 8  iv. 3167 b
Hin. 10  Ui 2203b
XXUL33 ff.  L331b
ndv. 2  U. 1631b
Hv.l  1539 a, re.
XXV. 23.... U. 981 a, 1128b
XXV.30  iv. 8641a
xxv,38  L614b
IXVL23  U, 1634a
xxvii, 1, ,..Ui, 1986 a, ».,
iv. 3611b, fl.
IHX.2  H. 1708a
Hlx, 26  U. 1733 b, iv,
3318 b
IH.6  1478«
XH.9  iU. 2620a
IH.13  iL1612»
xxxi. 15, .,,iu, 2669 b, B,,
2670 a, iv. 3464
mi. 27  U, lS93b
mi. 31-34  ii.l681t
Hii,SS  iT,82181:

INDEX.

mi 40. ...1174 a, 820 a,
U. 1078 a, 1534 a
xxiiL4  iv.3613b
mu, 6-12  U, 1486 a
xxxii. 10 S  i. 786 b
xxxu. 14  i. 471 a
HxiL18  i. 622 a
xxxii. 24  i. 736 b, n.
1283 b
xhHL 4  U. 1288 b
xxxiv. 5  ii. 1481 a
xxxiv. 8-16. . .11. 1603 b, re.
xxxiv. 12-17 . . . .11. 1609 b
mlv. 14  iv. 3058 b
xxxv. 3,4, 19:.. HL 2680 b
IXXV. 6  iT. 3544 b
xxxv. 19  ui. 2594 a, re.,
2681b
xxxtL 14, 21. ...ii. 1516 a
ixxTl. 18  iv. 3576a
xxxvL23....iv.2740b,re., 3575 b
xxxvii. 15  Hi. 2589 a
XHviL21....i, 323b,324
a, il. 1792 b
XHvUi. 4, 2, 14-27. , , ,ii.
1540 a
IHVUI. 6  1 466 a
xl,4  L489a
II, 7,13  11. 1172 a, re.
lU, 6.,.. U. 1289b, iv. 2955
b, 3000 a
lU. 7,,. H. 1013 b, re., 1172
b,re.
Xii. 17.. L 294 a, 426 a, re.,
11. 1138 b
xlui. 6, 7  iu. 2635 a
xUU. 10  UL 2402 b
xlui. 12  L 624b
xliiL13  iL 1141a,
Hi. 2252 a
xliv. 17  iH. 2008 b
xliv. 18, 19  Hi. 2652 a
xlvLl  iv. 3611b, re.
xlvi. 2  1. 339 b, re.
xlvi. 15  i. 345b
xlvL20  H. 1034b
xlvi. 25  1.86 a
xlviLl, 2. ...ilL2152b,re.
Ilvii. 4  UL 2497 a, re.
xlTui, 11  ii, 1627 a
xlTiiL 29. .,,iii. 1985 a, re.
xlviu. 33  1. 820 a, in.
1985 a, re., It. 3541a
ilvUi. 34  1. 270 b, IL
1034 b, 1044 b, lv. 2940 b
XlviiL 37  in. 1988 a
xlvUi. 45. , , .iu, 1981 are.,
It. 2934 a
xlix, 1,3  iL 1762 b
xUi.28  i,275a
xUx,29  L519a
xUx.32  u, 981a
1,1  il 1075a
Lll  n,965a
L23  u,98
L34  iL 1512a
L88  1. 219b
li. 20. .U. 988 b, IH. 1840 a
li. 32. ,1, 785 a, iH, 2693 b
U,36  U. 1512a
11 68  u. 972a
lu, 4  iv. 3484 b
In. 18  i. 253 a
IiL 21  It. 2992 b, re.
IU.29  1 446a, re.
lu. 31  i. 446 b, re.
Hi, 2005 a, re.
LAMENTATIONS.
L6  u. 1006b
11,8  U, 1091a
U.4  ii. 1289a
116  iu. 1984 b, re.
H.8  i. 492a
H.13  L 769a
fl,19  j. 434 b,n.
UL62  iL 1063b
'v.l  H. 936a
V. 4  n. 1682 a, re.
It. 5  1. 627 b
T, 7,,..l. t78b.iT,3l)65a

IT. 7, 8  iU, 2076 a
iT, 8  L 473 a
It. 20  U, 1539b
V, 13  IH. 1935 b
EZEKIEL.
L3  It. 3362 b, re.
L4, 27  in. 1909 a
15 ff  It. 29^27 a
i. 22. . , .1 517 a, U. 931 a
U.6  i.327b
Ui. 9  i. 27 b
in. 14  iv. 3332 b, re.
ill 15  iv. 3318 b
iv. 2  ill 2659 a, iv.
3484 b
It. 12, 15  i. 325a
T.2  It. 3212a
TU. 21  U. 1019a
Tiii.2  Hi. 1909a
Tin. 3..n. 982 a, lv. 3318 b
ViU. 7-12  H. 1752 a
vHL 12. .U. 1120 b, 1133 a
viH.16  iii. 2565b
TiiL 17  iL 1129 b
lx.2  IL 929b
ix. 2, 3  It. 3576 a
ix.3  It. 3239 b
il. 4  1. 522 a
ii.4,5.6  1 837a
I. 4. 18  It, 3239 b
X. 12  iv. 2927 a
X. 13  iv. 3511a
x.14  1421a
xi. 15, 16... iv. 3134 b,re.
xii. 13  iv.3613b
xu. 25  iL 972 a
xiu. 10  UL 2016 a
xiu. 11, 13  ill. 2403 a
xiii. 17 ff  ii. 1752 a
xiii. 18  H. 1017a
xlH. 18, 2l  ul. 2532 b
XiiL 18, 21  iv. 3370 a
xiii. 19  i. 247 a, 840 b
XVl. 3, 45  n. 1081b
itL8  L 624 a
ITi. io  u. 1017 a. It.
2837 a
ITi, 12  L 837 b
ITi, 16  U. 1064b
XTi.31  H. 1064 b
XTL36. .,,L323a, 490 b,
in, 1995 b
ivlL5  L 820a
ivH. 17  iv. 3484 b
IVU, 19  H, 1144 a
xviU. 6  iL1064a
ilx.4  IL 1086a
xii. 11, 12  iv. 3447 a
H. 29  1231a
Hi. 2  UL 2590 b
xxi. 19-22  il 1745 a
Hi. 21.. L 607 b,u, 1687 b,
1752 a
xxi. 22  iv. 3484 b
Hi. 27  iT, 2998 b
xxu. 28  H. 1752 a
xxllL 12. ,,,1480 a, 619 b
HiU. 14  u. 1133 b
xxiH.15..,,i. 597 b, 619 b
xxiH. 40  HI 1805 a
xxiu. 41  H. 1129 a
Hiv. 17  L 844 b, ii.
981 a, 1681 b
Hiv, 17, 23. . . ,ii, 1016 b,
iv, 28.38 a
Hiv. 23, 24. ...iU. 2620a
xxv. 4  Hi. 1934 a, lv.
2989 b
Hv.4,10  L 275a
IXVL8  i. 736b,iv. 3484 b
Hvi. 9  i. 736a
ixTi.U  1 870b
XXVU, 5  L 400 a,
u. 1048 b
HTu, 6. , , ,i, 321 b, 427 a,
iT, 3019 a
HTii. 9  i. 693 b, Ui.
2208 a
ixvii. 12  i, 809 b
HvU. 13  U, 1417 a

HvH.14  1157b
HVU. 16  1. 491 a, 729
a, b. Hi. 2203 a
xivil 17  i. 834 b, U.
1085 b, iu. 2519 a, re.,
iv. 3544 a
HvU, 19  L 394 b, ii.
1143 a, It. 3385 a
ixvii. 19, 21, 22.111. 2208 a
HV1L22, 23. ...lv. 2951a
xxviL23  i.426a
Hvii. 26  iv. 3540 a
xxviL27  in. 2208 a
HvlH. 4, 39. . . .iv. 3489 b
Hviil 13  iv. 3230 a, b
ixviU. 14, 16. .1. 421 b, re.
xxix. 3, 4, 5  i. 674 a
xxix, 3, 9  iu, 2684 a
xxix. 6  1 669 a
Hil. 18  UL 2532 b
HX. 2  iv. 3552 a
XH. 14, 16  lv. 3216 a
XH. 21  ui. 1870a
xxxi. 3  1. 837 b
xxxi. 14, 16  iH. 2336 a
xxxi. 14-18. .u. 1164 a, re.
xxxii. 18, 24  in. 2536 a
XHii. 18-32. .H. Iie4a, re.
xxxvi. 9, 10. . . ,ii. 1393 b
xxxviu, 5  ii, 1691b
xxxvui, 11  U. 1016 a
xxxviu. 12  L 633 b
xxxviii. 22  Hi. 2403 a
xL3  IL 1578b
xl.24  i. 633b
xll. 11  iu.22'26b
xii. 15  1.852 b
xii. 22  L 76b
xiu. 3, 5, 6  L862b
xlU. 10  u. 1034 a
iIHi. 7, 9  iv. 2959 b
XliH. 7-9  iv. 3204 a
xliv. 16  174 b
xUv. 30  L 324 a
xiv. 12  U. 1510 a
xlvi. 23  U. 1106 b
xlvu. 19. . . .iv. 3172 a, re.
DANIEL.
1. 1  1. 446 a, re.
1.4  i.410a
1.10  u. 1658b
i.n, 16  iU. 1881a
L 17  UL 2598a
iL 5  L 627b
H.31  L787a
iu. 2  u. 165Sa
iU. 6, 15  1. 434 a
ill. 19  iv.3173a
Ul. 21. . .1 597 a, 623 b, H.
1017 b
iu.25,,iiL2176a,iv,3087 b
iH.29  i.627b
iv. 16  iiL208Sb, re.
iv. 33. . iii.'1866 a, 2087 b , re.
V. 1 ff  iv. 3542 a
T.2  L273b
V. 5  iU. 2548 a
v. 7, 16, 29  1, 479 b
v,16  1 603b
T. 27  1 229 b
v. 31  1. 219 a
vi. l..iL 1658 a, in. 2587 b
vi. 3, 16, 26  il 1736 a
vi. 18  iu 2040b
vi.24  UL 2264b
vU, 1  UL 2398 b
vn, 9  U. 981b
vii. 13. .iL 1384 a, iv. 3092 a
vn, 25.. 1.435 b,iv. 2935b
viiL3  U. lOaia
viu. 5-7  L6Ib
vin. 7  1. 116 a
vUL 14. .1. 4-34 a, 632 b, iv.
2935 b
vUi. 21.,.L 61b, 636 a, n.
1219 a
lx.4r^  iv. 3454
Ix. 11, 13  ui. 2419 a
ix. 26.... U. 1065b, 1.539b
Ix. 27  iv. 2935 b
1.5  uL 2258 b

3661
x. 13, 20, 21. . , .ul. 2587 b
1.20  n. 1219a
xi. 2  u, 1219 a
xi, 5  in. 2031 a, a re
xi. 6  iiL 1505 b,n.
xi. 6-19, 21. . . .1. 115 a, b,
116 a.
xi. 8  Ui. 2632a
xi. 14  iu. 2633 a
ii.24  L116a
li. 26,34,37,40,41-.. i.llOb
xi. 29-35  il 1714 a
xl. 30  lv. 3008 a, re.
xi.SlS  iL 1516t
xl. 37  1 117 a. b
xiLl  in. 2587 b
xii. 2,3  iv. 2709 a
xu. 4  iv 3575 b
xii. 5, 6  IH. 2684 a
IU. 7. . .1. 435 b, iv. 2935 b
m. 11, 12  iv. 2935 b
HOSEA.
L7  iv.3367b
1. 10  lv. 3465
U.13  1 89 b
U.15  1. 21b
U, 16,,. 1.207 b, 210a, ii,
1130 a,
il22  u. 1393b
H. 24  iv. 3465
Hi. 1...1 831a, iv. 3542b
Ui. 2. . .1. 247 a, Ul. 1803 b
IH. 3  iv. 3367 b
Ui. 5  IH. 2620 a
iv. 2  Ui. 2203 b
lv. 11  lv.3543a
iv. 13. . .m. 2200 b, 2201 a
iv. 14  iv. 3074 a
iv.l5..L8b,286b,U.927b iv. 16  u. 1034 b
lv. 18  lv. 3543 b
T.l  iT.3165a
T. 12  Hi. 2028 a,
vi.2  U. 1447a
vi.6  u. 1363b
vU. 4  1. 324a
ViL 5  It. 3543a
vH. 8  1 326 a
ix.4  11 1681b
ix. 7  iv. 3310 b
Ix. 10. ..1. 769 b, U. 1167 b
LX. 13  U.927b
x.3, 7  H. 1546a
I. 11  U.965a
Ii. 1  Hi. 2600 a, re.
xi.4  1491b
xu. 1  iv. 3541a
xfl. 4,5  1288»
xH. 7  1. 351b
xii. 11  U.927b
xUi. 3  iv. 3539 b
xlU. 14  iv. 3465
xiv. 2  1331b, 346 »
JOEL.
1 18  iv. 3513 a, «.
L20  U. 1418 a
U. 2  U. 1418 a
H. 7  i, 837a
H. 10, 31  1. 664 a
U. 11, 25  u. 1416 b
u. 15  1500 5,301 a
U. 17  Ui. 2365 b
U. 23. ...L4Ia, Ul. 2667 a
U. 28-32  U. 1418 a
U. 28  iU. 2598 a
H. 32  U. 1237 a
Ui. 1,6, 16,17, 18. .il. 1237 a
Hi. 2, 12  i. 156 b
Hi. 4  UL 2518 b
Hi, 6  Hi. 2518 b, re,
iU. 15  1 654 a
Hi. 18  iv. 3019 a, re.
vU. 18  Ui. 1988b
AMOS.
Ll  HI 1901a
L5, 8  11 1512 a
i. 9, 10  Ui. 2518 b
U.7  1 6281
U.8  L 624 a, U, 1129

3662
B.16  16206
Hi. 5  U. 1108 a
Ui.6  U. 1219 a, re.
iU. 12. .1 332 b, il. 1106 a,
re,,Ui. 1843 a, iv. 3035 b
iv.l  U. 1034b
iv,4  H.927b
iv, 7  U1.2667a
iv. 10,11  Ui. 2539 a
iv. 13  u. 1412 b
T,6  -...u.927b
T. 8... U. 1412 b, Ui. 2648 b
T.U  1 499a
T, 16  It, 3123 a
T, 26. . .u. 1064 b, 1762 b,
Ui. 1841 a, 1991b, 1992 b,
iv. 2703 b
vi, 10. . L332 b,lT. 2832 b, re.
vL 13  U. 1090 b, re.
vi, 14. , .nl. 1984 b, re., iv.
3539 a
vu, 1, .U. 1012a, ui. 2034 a
vH. 7  1. 492 a, U. 1661 a
vU. 7, 8  U. 1619 a
vu.9,16  u. 1148b
vii. 13. ..1412a, 503 a, Ul.
1991b
VU.14  Ui. 2593b
vU.16  Ui 2590b
viH.6  1499a
vUl. 9  1 654a
vUi. 14..L 535 b,iv. 3488 b
ix.l  u. 1373b
tx. 6  U. 1412 b
ix. 7  L384a
li. 10  Hi. 2575 b
11.13  iv. 3096 a
OBADIAH.
1,2, 8,19,20, 21.. Hi. 2206a
n  U. 1687b
JONAH.
i.s  U. 1464 b
i.6  iv. 3007a
n.l  i. 828a
u. 5  1 830 b, H. 1017 a
m, 6  i.618b
iv. 7  iv. 3558a
iv.ll  Hi 2158b
MICAH.
16  1. 603a
18  ui. 2272a
110  1121 a
lll....i 291 b,iT. 3583 b
L13. ...L 626 a, U. 1092 a
i. 14  L 22 a
116. ...1.628 b,iT. 3482 b
U, 5  L 492 a
H. 6, 11  ,..U1. 2590b
u,12  L 322a
m. 6  i. 654 a
iv.1-3  U. 1151b
iv. 13  iv. 3461a
T.2  u. 962 b, iv. 3464
vi.4  iv. 3416 b
Ti,5  L227b
Tl.5-8  U. 1748a
tU.4  H, 1034a
NAHUM,
U. 3  Ui. 1909 a
u.3[4]  iv.SllOa
U.4  iv. 3123a
U. 5  iU. 2167 a
U, 6. ,..1. 327 a, in 2167 b
u. 7  iv. 3151b
Ui. 4  HL 1807 b, re.
fli. 5  1.624 6
m. 8. ..1383 a, iU. 2161' b,
2682 b
Ifl. 19  1.189 b,331b
HABAKKUK.
1 2-4  il 971b
U. 6. . . .i. 624 a, iii. 2608 b
Hi.l  iv.2998b
1U.4  H.ll'9ia
Ui. 5  i.473a
In. 7  i.6I9a
IU. 17  1.820 a

INDEX.

ZEPHANIAH.
17  U.972a
18...U. 1128 a, iv. 3554a
i. 10. .1476 a, b,U. 1288 a,
1774 a, re.
1 11.. L 351 b,u. 1534 a, re.
L 12  u.1627 a
U.4r-7  iU. 2602a
U. 6  iv. 2989 b
u. 14. .u. 1574 a, Ui. 2406 b
HAGGAI.
1 4,9  U. 1290 a
18  iv.2959b
u.12  1 622a
U. 16  iv. 3545 b
ZECHARIAH.
1 8. .1 479 a, iv. 3600 b, re.
1 18  u. 1091 a
1 21  L 842 b
U. 10  iv. 2959 b
Hi. 1 ff.  U. 1067a
ui. 1,2  Ul. 1919 b, re.
ul. 4  L 625 a
Ui. 5  U. 1016b
V. 1,2  iv. 2740 a
V.3  iv. 3601a
vl. 1  i. 323 a
vi. 2,3  L479a
vi.3,6  i. 478b
tL9,14  U. 1481b
VU.12  L27b
vlU.3  iv. 2959b
ix. 1,2  U. 976b, re.
ix. 5-7  UL2501 b, re.
Ix. 6. .Hi. 1797 b, iv. 3608 a
ix.9  iv. 3465
ii. 13, .U. 1219 a. iv. 3608 a
11.15  lv.3062b
I. 2. .u. 1752 b, iv. 3212 b
I. 3  iL933a
X. 9  u. 1393 b
xi. 8  Ui. 1885 a, re., iv.
2941a
xl.12,13  u. 1503b
11.15,16  i. 225 b
iU.2  Ui. 1866b
xu. 3  iv. 3117 a
xu. 6  Ul. 2327 a, re.
xu. 10  iv. 3423a
xH. 11  U. 1481 a
IiL 11-14  Ui. 1872 b
xui. 1-4  n. 1752 b
xiii. 4. .1 618 a, 703 b, ».,
u. 1783 a
xiii. 6  1. 522 a
xiv. 4  i. 636 b
ilv. 6  i. 654 a
iiv.l5  L733b
xiv. 20. .1. 272 b, 523 a, H.
1091b
MALACHI.
11  U. 1762a
L7, 12  .¦..174 b
U.3  1 627b
U,12  Ui, 1830a
ULI  iv,3213b
HL 3  n. 1645 a
in. 4  u. 1427a
iv, 2  U. 1045b
iv. 5  1 709b

APOCEYPHA. 1 ESDRAS.
L28  U. 1481b
vni.32  H. 1196b
VHL36  U. 1481b
viH. 43, 44  ul. 1829 a
2 ESDRAS,
H,9  lv,3068b
vU.28  112Sa
XVL42  fli. 2208 a
TOBIT,
i. 2..,, 1702 b, re, lv. 8235
i.7, 8  iv. 3265 b
iv. l5  iv. 2.870 b, re.

lv.17  fl. 1681b
vi.2ff  1 828a
vi. 12  U. 1035 a
vu. 13  U. 1035 a
xui. 17  iv. 3123 a
JUDITH.
U.24  i.I6 8,148b
Ui.9  L613b
V. 14, marg. .iv. 3051 a, re.
vU. 3  i. 522 a
ix.7  iv,3062a
x.3  U. «82a
xin. 9  i. 376 a
xiu. 16-23  u. 1064 a
xvi. 8  U. 1016 b
xvi, 13,19  U.982a
ESTHER,
xvi  i,124b
¦OTSDOM.
iL 12-20  iv, 3548 a, re,
V.22  iv, 3116b
vi.13  iU. 2575a
ix.8  iv. 3197 b, re.
1.4  iv. 3321b
I. 7  It, 3068 b
ii,22  i,229a
XTi. 28  iU. 2675 a
xvi.-iii  i, 124 a
xviU. 15,16  It. 3554 b
XTiu.25  i.l79a
ECCLESIASTICUS,
iv, 17  U. 1538 b, re.
xi. 30... i. 253 b. 340 b, H,
1108 a, Hi. 2339 8, lv,
3098 b, 3099 a
xii. 5  1. 70 a, b
xxJU. 20  in. 2264 b
Hiv. 27  in. 2149 a, re.
xxviu. 24  u. 1034 b
xxTiiL25  u. 932 b
xxxviu. 28  iv. 3062 b
XHviH. 30  ii. 1619 b
xl. 16  H. 1466 a, re.
XlV. 10. ...iv. 3357a, 3357
b, re.
xlvi. 19  U. 1347 b
ilvu. 18  It. 3260 a
xlix, 10  L543b
xUx. 12  IL 1344 b
Llff.  iL 1292a
I, 26. .Ui. 2011 a, re.. It.
2955 b
BARUCH.
iL12  H. 1538 b, re.
It, 18  U, 1538 b, re.
T.2  u. 1016b
Ti.22  L395b
Tl43  iT,3450b
1 MACCABEES,
i,4S,53  n. 1389a
¦ 38  iH, 2630a
ui 41  ii, l4l7a
iv,23  1479b
v.3  i. 57b
T. 15  It. 2799 a
T. 43  in. 2676 a
Ti. 7,26  H. 1294 b, re.
Ti.13  iH. 2267 b, re.
Ti,18  n, 1294b
Ti. 51. . . iT. 3062 a, 3116 b
vn. 16, 17  iU. 2620 b
vil 31  iv. 3445 b
viU. 8 . .1 781 b, ii. 1140 a
ix.ll  iv, 3062a
ix. 73  iU. 2635 a
xl. 10  HL 2634a
xi. 32  U. 1109 a, re,
xii. 20, 21  1 124b
xu. 36  iii 2029 a
xiii. 27-30. . .iU. 1989 b, re.
XiU. 43  iv. 3484 b
xUL 51  U. 1094 a
2 MACCABEES.
1  i. 124b
1.10  iii 2635b
1.24  U. 1347 b

132  lii.2066
LS4  iii.2066h
u. 14  lS58a, B,
iH,4  iT,3045b
Hi, 32  It, 2857 b
iT,2  iv,3210a
iv,12  il 1017b
iv.27  Ui. 2587b
iv,38  i,625a
T. 9, 10, 13  U. 1019 a
tL2  H. 1618b
TUl. 8, 9  UL 26308
Tlu. 10, 11  It, 3059 b
Tlu, 22  u, 1419 b
vUi,23  L6958
ii.5-10  ui. 1865a
ii.,ii  1 124b
X. 6,7  11 10948
xi.2  H. 1019a
XiL 9  U. 12768
xU.35  i. 6248
IT. 36  iU. 2646, a, n.
3 MACCABEES.
iT,20  iT,3575a,b
NEW TESTAMENT.
MATTHEW,
L3  iT,3171a
L 5.. Ul 2663 5,2664 a, B,
L7,8  i.l69a
L8  L433b
L17  L888a
119  L36a
i,21  iT,2857b
i, 22, 23  ul2595a
125  1330b
H. Iff,  i,275a
ILU  iT.21328
U.15  Hi. 2600 a, n.
U. 16  iL 1381b
ii. 16-18  H. 1051a
U.22  i.l49a
23  Ui. 20708
iiL2  1234a
in. 4... U. 929 a, B., 1673 b
iU.5  iT.2697b
iu. 6  iv.34278
UL 7  1.8888
iU.9  U, 1360b
iH. 11. .L 239 b, iv, 28388
iiL 12  L44a
iU. 14, 15  1235 8
l-Il  il 1384b
lv.3  1324a
lv. 5  u. 1271 b, re., ifl.
25388
iv.lSff.  194a
 iv,3459b
v,13  :,.,iv,2793a
v,17  B. 13588
V, 18.,,. lv, 2985 8,3266a
T.21  iT.8138b,B,
T,22  It. 34278
V. 26  U. 1668b
V. 29,30  iU. 22098
v.Sl,32  1610a
V. 32. .iu. 1796s re., 18028
v.39-41  flL25tOb
V. 40... 1624 a, iv. 3638 8
V.41  L96a
V. 42. .111668 a, Ui. 2570 a
vi. 1  1 71s
vl2  J.71b
vi. 7..U. 1019 a, iv. 2705a
vLll  L324b,569a
vi. 13  ui. 2127b
vi.l9  16268
vL19, 20..,,Ui, 2028 8,iv.
2754 b
vl26,27,28,31,34....iv. 32398
vi.80  18268
vi. 33  U. 1080 b
vH. 8-6  In. 20288
vH.9  L321a
vu. 10  i-829b
viu. 2  iv. 3350 b
Tlu. 6  iU.1888»

INDEX.

fiflll  ui. 1844 a, re.
ViH.16  1. 568 b
vHL 20  ui. 2107 a
viu. 23-27  iv. 300
viu. 28  ii. 900 a
vui. 30  1. 853 a, re.
ix. 2, ixvi. 64. .1 108 a, re.
ix. 6  iv. 3163 b
ix. 15  Hi. 1806 a
IX. 17. . i. 319 b, iv. 3543 b
X, 3. .U. 1504 a, iv. 3214 a
X. 4  i 332 a, b
X. 9  Ui. 2003 a, 2647 b
X.9, 10  u. 1498
X 10  iv. 2873 a
x.14  L 62
x.16  iv. 2928 a
X 17  iv. 3138 b
X 19  iv. 32398
X. 27. . . .iv, 2871 b, 3398 a
xi, 2 ff.  U. 1728 b
ii,5  Ui, 2374b
li. 7-11  u. 13o5 a
Ii. 14, 27  iv 3538 a
Ii. 25  H. 1436 b
xi,27. .u.l436b,Hi.2114a
xU. 1  i. 44 b
xu. 1-8  U. 1363 a
xH. 10-13  ul. 1866 a
xH. 24-26  It. 2849 b
iU,27  1. 796b
xU. 28  u. 1542 b
in. 31  iv.3104b
lU. 32  L315b
lii. 40  u. 1434 b
iiL45  ui. 1813 a
iHi. 2  u. 1393 b
xHi. 4  L 820 b
xUL 8  iv. 3511a
ml. 10-18  U, 1355 a
iHl. 11  Ul. 2047 a
xUi. 13  in 2329 a
xUi.21  iu. 2209 a
xiu. 32  UL 2042 b
xiU. 55  H. 1475 a
iiv.2  u. 1398a
liv. 6  L309b
liv. 8,11  L413a
liv.36  H. 1042a
IV 2....iv. 3349 a, 3485 b
XV. 5  L491b
XV. 5, 6  U. 1366 a
IV. 15  U. 1788 a
IV.22  It. 3445a
IV.26  L 612b
xvi. 1  lv. 3207 b
ivi. 6  H. 1366 b
xvi. 14  L124a
xvi. 17-19  u. 1788 a
xvi. 18. ..L128b,iL 1039
b, Ui. 2459 b, iv. 3092 b
xvi. 23  u. 1496b, re,,
Hi. 2209 a, lv. 2863 a
xvi. 24, 25  iv. 3538 a
xvH, 1, 2  iv 3166 a
xvu, 1-13. . . .It. 3319 a, fl.
iviL 10  1. 234 a
xvu. 24. .L 688 b, iv. 3183
b, 3322 a, f.
xvii. 24-27  Hi. 2003 a
xvlL 25  ui. 2575 a
xvU. 27 ..,,Ui. 1998b, lv,
3109 b
xvU.61  Ui. 2586 a, re.
xvfli. 6. ,,L182a,Ui. 1935
a, b
xvui. 6-9  ui. 2209 a
xvfli. 10  i. 97 b
xvHi. 26  iv. 3558 b
ivUi. 34  u. 1668 b
xix. 1  U. 1488 a
xix. 3, 9  i. 609 a
xix. 7, 8  n, 1602 b
six. 9  iu. 1802 a
xix. 12  1 783 a
xix. 19  iv, 3558 b
xix. 20  u. 1042 a
xix. 24  1 349a
XU,28  U. 1788a
H.2  lv. 3483a
XX. 22  1237a
IX. 26, 27  It. 3538 s

XX. 29-34  i. 248 b, f.
xxi. 1-17  U. 1373 a
xxi. 2  It. 3445 b
xxi. 7  L 624 a
xxi. 9 15  iv. 2858 a
Hi. 33  lv. 3447 b
xxi. 36  i 88 b, re,
HiL 4  in. 1805 b, re.
xxlL 6  L 743 b
xxu. 11  U. 922 b
xxU. 15-21  Hi. 2003 a
xxu. 16  iv. 2870 a, re.
xxu. 23-30  Hi. 1800 a
xxu. 31, 32  H. 1608 b,
iv. 2707 b, 2781 b
xxH. 35  iv. 8207 b
xxu. 41 ff  U. 1436 b
xxui. 5  1.843 b, 844 a
xxiii. 6  ul. 1843 b,
1844 b, re., lv. 2751 b
xxiH. 9  iv. 2872 b
HiU. 14  iv. 2872 b
xxui. 23  L 98 b
xxui. 24  iv. 2120 b,
3120 b
xxUi. 27  i. 332 b
xxiu. 29  i 333 s
xxui. 35... u. 1220 b, 1229
a, 1398 b, lv. 3587 a,
3610 a
xxiv. . . .1. 103 a, u. 1417 a
xxiv 10  ui. 2209
xxiv. 17  iL 1116 a
xmv. 18  1 624 b
HIT. 20  iv 2767 a
xxiv. 24  It. 3089 a
xxiv. 28  1 629 b
xxiv. 41  iu. 1934 b
xxv. 1  u. 1589 a
xxv. 7  Ui. 1805 a, re.
xxv. 25  1. 589 a, re.
HV, 27  Hi. 2004 6
xxvi. 6  U. 1613 a
xxvi. 7  u. 1617 a, iU.
1814 a
ixvi. 15  ul 2626 a
xxvi. 23  1 603 a
xxvi. 30... 1. 67 b, U. 1376
s. re.. Hi. 2345 b
HvL 31,33  Hi. 2209 a
xxvi. 53  H. 1627 a,
iu. 2673 a
xxvi. 63  iv. 3089 b
Hvl. 63, 64  iv. 3092 6
xxvi. 64  It. 2961 a
xxvi, 69.. 1 503a, U. 983b
xxvi. 71  11 984 a, IH.
2565 a
xxvU. 2  U. 964 a, ui.
2527 a
xxvlLS, 5,6,9..UL 2526a
xxTiL4  U. 1384 b
xxvH. 6  1. 491 b. Hi.
2527 b, re.
xxvii. 6, 7  U. 1502 a,
xxvii. 7  L332b
xxvu. 8  i.l9b
xxvii. 9..i. 20 a. Hi. 22,39 b
xxvii. 9,10  H. 1503 a
Hi. 2667 b, lv.' 3608 b
xxvlL 15  Ui. 2347 a
xxvii. 17  i. 245 a, iu,
2115 a
Hvii. 19  ui. 2617 b
Hvii. 19, 24-54. .iL 1384b
Hvn. 26  i. 513 b, Ui.
2570 b
xxvii, 28  1624 a
xxvu, 34  i. 862 a, iv.
3449 a
xxvu. 38  1. 514 a, re.
xxvii, 45  1. 550 a
xxvii. 51  ul. 2338 b
HvU. 52, 53. . . .iv. 2;85 b
xxvii. 53. . . .11. 12n b, re.
xxvii. 56  U. 1475 a
xxvii. 65. ...Hi. 2529b, re,
xxvu. 66  L471a
MARK.
i. 7  iv. 2838a
LIO  1. 241a, re.

1.29  194a, re.
132  L 568 a, re.
u. 1  1. 381a
H. 14  i. 73b,u.l504a
ii. 22  iv. 2139 b
n. 26  i. 6b,f.
u. 27  i. 668 b, re.
HL 16 ff  L94a
iii. 17  iL 14'21 b
IU. 18  i. 352 a, b, U.
1504 a, iv. 3214 a
iH. 20, 21, 31. ...U. 1205 b
in. 21  iU. 1812 b, 1820
HI 28  i. 316 b
iv. 17  IH. 2209 a
iv. 36-41  iv 3008 a
iv. 36  iv. 3008 a, re.
iv. 38...i.261a, iiL2632b
V, 3, 4  1. 407 b
V. 9....U. 1627 a, Ui. 1813 a
V. 14  1. 820 b
V. 23  U. 1599 a
V. 34  iv. 2795 a, re.
V.43  h. 1616 b
vi. 3  u. 1475 a, 1487 b,
iii. 2215 a
vi. 8..iH. 2647 b, iv. 2873 a
vi. 11  i. 628 a
vi. 15  Ui. 2130 a, re.
vi. 21, 22  H. 1427 a
vi.25.  1.337 b
vi. 26,28  1.413 a
tI.27  1790 b
vi. 36, 56  1. 820 b
¦vii. 3. . . .iU. 2643 a, re., iv.
3485 b
vH. 4....L237b, re.,265a,
iv. 8163 a
vn. ll..i. 491b, iH. 2527 b,
re., iv. 3209 a
vii. 27  i. 612 b
vii. 81.. ..ui. 2515 b, re,, iv.
3629 b
viu. 15  n. 1.366 b
ViH. 22  i.298a
ViH. 23  i. 316 a
viu. 27  iv. 3445 b
ViU. 34,33  iv. 3338 a
ix. 6  iv. 3361 a
ix. 17,18  in. 1865 b
ix. 17-26  U. 1699 b
ix. 42  iu. 193Db
ix. 42, 48, 45, 47  iu.
2209 a
ix. 44, 46  iv. 3558 a
ix. 44-49  It. 3456
x.l  n. 1488a
x.3  H. 1504a
X. 13  It. 3135 b, re.
X. 17,18  iU.1830»,
X. 39  i.237a, n. 1424
X. 43, 44  It. 3538 a
X. 60  L 624b
xi. 1-11  U 1373 a
xi. 13  i. 821a
xii. 26  i. 306 a, 336 b
xH. 35ff.  u. 1436 6
xii. 39  iT. 2731b
xu. 41....i. 71 a. It. 3.321 s
xiH. 1  iv. 3116 a
xill 3  lL1342a
xiii. 9  iv. 3138 b
xiu. 21  i.337b
xiu. 35..i. 435 a, iv. 3486 b
xiv. 3  i. 58 b, 59 a, H.
1613 a, 1617 a, ill 1814 a
xiv. 12  UL 2347 b
xiv. 15  Hi. 1843 b
liv. 20  i.603a
liv. 26  H. 1376 a, re.
liv. 27, 29  Hi. 2209 a
xiv. 36..., 1. 3 b, H. 1390 a
xiv. 51  iv. 2964 a
xiv. 51, 52. . ..ii. 1422 a, re.
xiv. 61,62  iv. 3092 b
ilv. 66  603 a, n. 983 b
liv, 68  H, 983 b, iu,
2565 b
IV, 15  U, 1699 a
IV. 16  i 503s

3663
IV. 21...i. 95 a, It. 2746a
XV. 23..i. 862 a, iii. 2045 a,
iv. 3449 s, 3544 a
XT. 40  iH. 1813 a
xvi. 9  iu. 1813 a
xvi. 9-20. ,,, Hi. 2128 s, b,
iv. 3305 b
xvi. 16  1 633 a
LUKE,
i, 3  1, 787 a
i. 5. ..u. 1883 b, in. 2585 b
L 26  u. 1383b
L28  Hi. 1818 a, b,
iv. 3430 a
i.39  H. 1619 b
i. 39, 65  ii. 1077 b
i.48  iu. 1818b
i.63  i v. 3163 a, 3375 b
L69  H. 1090 b, re.
u. 2. ..,i.525a, f.,ii. 1348
b, iU. 2617 b
ii. 7  i. 295 a, 507 b
ii. 8  1, 295 b,re
u. 9  iv. 2960 b
ii. 29-32  iv. 3044 b
H. 33. ...IH. 1819a, 1826b
U. 43-45  i. 266 a
U. 48, 49  in. 1819 b
UL 1  in. 2589b
iu. 2  H. 1069 a
iu. 3  iv. 2697 b
in. 11  1.621b
Ui. 14  Hi 2570 a
iu. 23-28  It. 30948
iU 27  UL2107a
iii. 33  i. 145 b
iT. 17...i. 306 a, iv. 3575 b
iv. 19  U. 1487 s
lv. 20  1. 571b, IU.
1942 b
iv. 25  iv.2935b
V. 18  iU. 1860 a, re.
V. 19....  iv.3249b
V. 27  U. 1504 s
vl. 1  iU. 2433 s, re.
vi. Iff  i. 820 b
Tl. 15  i. 73b
vi. 17  u. 1355 b
vi. 19  iu. 1860 a
vi. 22  1.93 s, 788 a
vi. 38  1. 6^22 a
vi. 41, 42  iH. 2028 a
vu. 4  111139 6
vH. 11-16  UL 2059 a
vii. 14  i. 475 b
vH. 18,20  H. 1728 b
vii. 24-28  ii. 1365 a
vu 36  Ui. 1844 a, re.
ViL 37-50  iU. 1814 a
vU. 38  U. 1104 a, iv.
2837 b
vu. 38, 44  iv, 3486 a
ViL 42  i.842b
vu, 45  1.232 6
vu. 46  LlOOb
vU. 50  iv. 2795 s, re.
vUl. 1  iv. 3445 b
viu. 10  IL 1365 8
viii 22-25  iv. 3008 a
viii. 31  1. 579 a, il.
1038 b
viiL43ff.  iv. 3350 b
viU. 44  H. 1042 a, iii.
1860 a
viU. 51  U. 1420 8, re.
vHL 54  il. 1591 a
vUL 35  Ui 1860 a
ix.5  i. 628a
ix. 7  U. 1398 8
ix.lO  L 298a
lx.12  iv.3586b,re.
ix. 23,24  iv. 3538a
ix. 28, 37  n. 1077b
ix. 31  Hi. 2025 a
ix. 32  iv. 8319 b
ix. 33  ih. 2025 b
ix 37  IL 1048 a
ix. 51-50  1 707 b
ix. 52 ff.  H. 1099 a, re.
ix. 58  IH. 2107 a
ix. 62  iv. 3096 b, re

3664
X, 4. ,,  fli, 2647 b.iv.
2795 b
X.11  L628a
1.18  It. 2848b
1.22  It. 3538a
X, 29,313  i.329a
X. 31  IiL 2585 b
X. 36  iv. 3122 a
X. 38  It. 3445 b
xi.3  1323b
xi. 5  i. 324 a
xi. II  1829b
xi.l6  H. 1351b
xi. 28  Hi. 1820a
xi.33  iT.3485b
xi. 44-46  n. 1612 b
xi-49  iT. 3550 b
XI. .52  iv. 2872a
xii. IS  u. 1035b
xu. 17  iv. 2751a, re.
xU. 33  HL 2647 b, iv.
2873 a
xii. 50  i. 237a
xii. 55  iv. 3540 b
xiii. 8  1. 627 b
xuLll  Ui. 1866b
xiii. 15  1 507 b
XU116  iv. 2850a
xUi.19  iU. 2041b
XiU. 31  H. 1398 a, iv.
3533 a
XiU. 33  U. 1359 a
xiv. 7,8  iT.2751b
xiv. 10  iv. 3558 b
xiv,12  HL 1842b
xiv. 15-24  Ui. 1843 a
XT. 8, 9  ui. 2526 a
XT. 11-32  i. 67 s
xv,16  H. 1110a
XT. 22  i. 625 8
XTi, 8  i.888a
xvi. 12  i.389s
ivH. 1  iU. 2209 s
IVU, 2. ..1.182 8, iU. 1935b
xvii. 6  i, 834 s
xvii, 7  1. 337 b
xvii. 21  H. 1542 b
xvu. 37  L 629b
xviU. 18, 19  iU. 1830 a
iviU. 35-43. ...L 248 b.f.
xvui, 38  1.249 8
xix.l  iv. 3585 b. re.
xix, 2  Ui, 2637b
Its, 4  1 834 s
xix. 5, 7  iv. 3586a
xix. 12-27  Ui. 2569 a
xix. 13  Hi. 2208s
xix, 17,19  i.468a
Iix. 20  iU. 2067b
xix. 29-44  U. 1373 a
H.ll  i.743b
H. 19-25  in. 2003 s
H. 36  i,96a
H,41ff  U. 1436b
H, 46  iv. 2751b
xxi. 1  iv.'3321a
xxi. 5  i. 150 b
xxi. 9  i.337b
Hii. 4  i. 384 b
HU. 19, 20  U. 1357 b,
1696 b
xxii. 25  i, 781a
xxH. 28. . . .u. 1384 b, iv.
3207 b
xxii. 35,36  Ui. 2647 b
xxu. 51  ii. 1764 a
xxii. 52 .... u. 1645 b, re..
iu, 2570 a, iv. 3233 b
HiU 5  H. 1488 b
xxiu. 22-47  iL 1384 b
xxin. 23  U. 11-39 b
xxiu. 32  IH. 2273 a
xxiu. 33  L 346b
ixiv.13  i. 730b
xxiv. 18  L 73 b, H,
1786 b
xxiv, 27-32, 45 , . . ii. 1447 b
xxiv, 60  U, 907 8
JOHN,
.1^.  iH.2114 8
.14  iv.2960b

INDEX.

1. 17.. Ui. 2415 b,iT. 3428 b.
i. 18  1. 16 a, iU. 1844
a, re., It. 2135 b, re,
L25  Hi, 2607a
L27  iT,2838a
L28  L284a
1,29  iT,2860a
L 37-40  H. 1421a
1,40(39)  u, 1102a
L43  UL 2486b
1.44  iT.3445b
1. 47  U, 1389 8
L51  i.96s
ii.l  L 284b
U.4  UL1819 b
H.8  UL 1845 a
U. 9  U.964a
U. 15. . .1. 492 a. Hi. 2004 b
U.19  IL 1436b
n.20  H. 1051b
U.23  H. 1351b
iu.l  Ul. 2145 b
iu. 3-5. . .H, 1433 b, and re.
Hi. 5  L239b
in. 8  lT.3541a
ui, 10  U, 1360 b, Ui,
1830 a, 2607 a
Ui. 14,15  It. 2859 a,
2931s
iii. 23  i. 37 a
iiL33  i.l43b
iT. 6  i. 8 b, H. 1470 b.
It. 2956 a
It. 6, 12  lv. 2957 b
iv. 6,52  iL1102a
iv.20  U. 1064 s, It.
2958 a, re.
iT. 35  HL 2646 b, re.
iT.46, 47  in. 2191b
T.l  UL 2646b
T. 1-6  It. 3456
T.2  i.233s
v.3, 4  u. 1430 a. re.
v. 4  iv. 3039 b
v.17  L893 a, n.
V.18  iv.2780a
V, 40  iv. 3638 a
V. 46  IH. 1906 b, 2025 a
vl  iv. 3460b
vi.4  liL2647s
vi. 16-25  iv. 3008 s
vi. 32-58  H. 1681b
vi.51,53  iv.2859b
vl. 66  U. 1355 a
vi. 71  IL 1495 b
viL5ff  L 329 b
vii. 17  Ui. 2597 a, re.,
iv. 3538 a
viL 19  iv. 3160 b, re.
vH. 31  H. 1351b
vu. 35.. .1:337 a, U. 1019a
vU. 37,38  iv, 3161a
vU,39  Hi, 2415b
viL 49  U. 1610b
TiL50  U.1360b
vH. 5S-viu. 12.... H. 1430
a, re., Ui. 2128 a b
viii. 1-11  iv. 3317 a
ViH. 1-12  iv. 3161a
viiL12  1.356a,b
vui. 20  iv. 3321a
TiU. 39  U. 1425 b
Tiii. 41  iii. 1797 a, re.
TiU. 44  It. 2848 b,
3538 a
TiiL46  H. 1384 b
viii. 56  1. 15 b, iu.
1906 a
ix. 2  ifl. 2477 a, re.
ix.22  i.93s
ix. 22, 23, 34, 35. .1, 787 b
ix.27  iv.3538a
x.1-16  iv, 2961b
x.3  Ui. 2565b
X. 3,4  iv. 2990 a
X.4  iv. 2961b
1.16  iT. 2963 8
I. 22....U. 1294 b,n.,iT, 2966 s
X.83  i. 108 a,n.
X. 40  1 284 b
xi.2  m. 1814b

xi.18  fl. 1436b
xi. 39  iT. 3277 b
xi. 44  ui. 2067 b
xi.51  fl. 1066b
xi. .55. .1. 233 a, fli. 2645 a
xU. 3..Hi. 1814 b, 2436a,
It. 3486 a
xu. 6. ..1226 b, Hi. 2647 b
xu. 7  L333b
xu. 12-19  U. 1373 a
xU.13  Ui. 2324 b
xU.22.  i. 94a
xH. 22, 28  fli. 2487 a
XU, 24, 26  U. 1436 b

xU. 31  It. 2850 a
lU. 32  H. 1436 b
lUl. 1, 2, 29. .Ui. 2343 a ff.
lUi, 1-15  n. 1683 a
1UI.4  1624b
iHi.5  L253a
xHi. 5, 6  iv. 2837 b
xUi. 10. .1 255 a, iv. 3486 a
xUi. 16, 20  u. 1436 b
iHl.23  i.l6a
xUi. 23-26. . .Hi. 1844 b, re.
lUi. 26  Hi. 1844 b
xifl. 29  ui. 2647 b
xiv. 26  U. 1355 6
xiv. 27  iv. 2795 a
Ht. 31  U. 1436 b
IT. 1-8  L 67a
XV. 4r-10  U. 1347b
xvi. 1  Hi. 2209a
xvU. 17-19  It. 2859 b
xvui. 28-3dx. 16. . .Hi. 2529
8, re.
xviH. 1. . .1. 401 b, U. 908 b
xvUl. 3  iL 1589a
xviu. 12  Hi. 2449 a, re,
xviH. 15. .1 503 a, H. 983 b
xviH. 18  1 473 b
xviu. 28. .U.983 b. Hi. 2348
s, ff., iv. 2924 s
xvUl. 31 . .ui. 2617 b, iv.
2839a
ivHl. 33, 34  Hi. 2328 a
xix. 14  a. 1102 b
xix. 14, 31... Hi. 2348 s. ff.
xix. 17, 20  i 733 a
xix. 19  Hi. 2571 a
III. 23  1. 620 a
xix. 25. .1, 73 b, 329 b, 471
b, iU. 1813 a, iv, 2792 b
xix. 26  1330b
xix. 27.11. 1617 s. Hi. 1820 b
xx.l  lv. 3278s
XX. 7  IH. 2067b
XX. 14,15  Ul 1813 b
XX. 16  Ui. 2637 s
H, 17  iU. 1813b
xxi. 1-8  lv 3008s
Ili. 7.... i. 620b, 621a, IL
898 a
xxi. 9  i.473b
xxi. 12  Hi. 1842b
xxi. 18-22. . .IH. 2480 a, n.
ACTS,
14r-26  iv, 3460 b
112  H.907S
i, 13..1. 73b, iL 1420 8, re.
L16-20  U. 1503b
L18  U. 1502a
119  i.l9b
i. 21-23  iT.293>ib
H  U. 14i7a
H. 1  Ul 2433b
H,2  Iv.354l8
U 5  in. 2605b
U. 7  U. 1495b
U. 10  It. 2751 b, 8122
a, n., b, n.
H. 13. ,,.fl. 1733 b, It. 3541
8, 8544 s
il 23  11 1610b
H. 31  U. 1038s
1136  It, 3090 8
H.38  i.241a,b
H. 42, 46, 47  U. 1682 b
11.47  It. 3436 b, re.
iiL14. ...fl. 1878a, 1384b

iu.17  iT.8060b
It 1,6  iiL26868
It. 1,26  U.1645b,B,
It. 13  ULii446«
iT.16  U. 1616a
iT.36  L623b
T, 15. ,..1.468 8, iT. 3163b
v,17  UL 2586a
v. 30  1. 19 b, It. 33218
Ti.2  iT.3163a
Ti. 7. . .U, 1645 b, iU. 2586 a
Ti.8  iT.SUOb
Ti. 9ff.  il 13398
Ti. 11  iT.3110b
TU. .iT.311l8,f.,3113b, f,
Tii. 2  IH. 2606b
TU. 2-53.... It. 3111 a, b;
tH. 3  i. 7o
tH.4  113b,B.
TiLlS  11 1516a
vH. 16  1 7b, iT. 2956a
tH.19  L743b
TiL22, 23, 30.... fl. 1506b
tH. 38. .1489 a, iU. 2264 b
Til. 43.iH. 1992 b, ir. 2703b
vii. 46  iv, 3152 a, B,
vH. 58. .1 624 b,iT. 3449 b
Tin. 3  fli.23648.B,
TiU. 5  fl. 1362a
TiU. 9  U. 1737b
Tfli. 16  L24l8,b
TiU. 26  300 b, sola
TiU. 27  L 780 b, B,
vliL 37. Ui. 2128 a, 2488 8, B.
vUi. 39  L 241b,B,
ix., xiiL, Hvi, . .UL 2364b
ii. 1 ff.  u. 14848
ix. 1,14  H. 1073b
ix. 2.. i. 267a, n.,iv. 3488b
ix.S-19  in. 2364b
ix. 5  U.932b
ix,9  L3I6a
ix, 11  iv.3123a
ix.l7  iH.2865s
ix.23  Ul 23668
I.l  i.l648
x.25  i,34b
1.47  1237b
X.48  1241a,b
xi. 19, 20  U. 1690b
xi.20  H.1039b
xi.!i8  137b
xu, 1.. .U. 1201b, iv.344S8
xu. 4..,.1637b,iT.3486b
lU. 6.. ..1164s, Hi. 2651b
xfl. 6, 7  L407b
IU.8  L 624b
iH.13  Ui. 2565b
xlL20  L 4108,7838
iH. 21  u. 1053b
xii. 21-23  iv, 3216 b
xiU.l  fl. 1398a
xiu. 6  iiL 1942b
xiU. 6, 8  U. 1737 a, b
lin. 7  Ui. 2617b
iuL9  iv. 2857a
xiu, 20,., U, 1514a, 1546a
xUi, 21  u. 1538a,fl.
xUi. 25,.1866a,iv.2838a
iHi. 42  Hi. 2605 b
liU. 43,50  Ul 2607 b
xUi. 50  IU. 2370 a, b.
xui. 51  1 6288
xiT. 11  U. 1700 a,".,
Hi. 1895 8
liT. 12, 13  fl. 1518 b
liv. 13  1 870 b
xiv. 15  It. 3369 a
XV.3  1328b
XV. 3ff.  fli. 2633 8, B.
1V.7  i.498b
IT. 10  fl. 16088
IT.20  18368
IT, 23  It. 2796 b
IT. 23-29  L759 8,!«.
IV. 23, 41  i.462b,«.
IV. 29  B. HXBb
XV.36  L2474
XV, 41  i. 463 b, n
ivi. 2, 3,4. .It. 3ffi38,b
xvi. 6  1 178«
xtL7  :•! 2378 b.B

INDEX

rrl, 11, 12  iT. 3006 b
XTL12  Ul. 2490 b, re.,
2493 b, re,
xvi. 13  Ui. 2490 a, re.
xvi 13, 14  U. 1727 b
xvi. 18-37  Ul 2490 a
xvi. 16-18  U. 1748 b
xvL19, 20  L 477 a
xvL 19-22. .i...iv. 8321b
xvi. 22  Hi. 2617 b
xvi. 25  U. 1376 b.re,
XVL85  It. 2927a
ivi. 86  iv. 2795 a,ji.
ivii. 4  iu. 2370 a, re,
ivii. 6. . .U. 1653 b, 1792 a
IVU. 7  iv. 3224 b
xvU.9  fl. 1599a
xvu. 11  U. 1727 b
xvU. 15, 16  iii. 2376 b
xvii. 16-34  iv. 346U b
xvU. 17  L 152
xviL 19-81... Ul. 1808 a, b
xvU. 21  1.194 b
xvU.22  1. 194b,Ui 2376 a
xvfl. 23  177 b, 596 b,
Ul. 2376 a
xvU. 26  U. 1019
xvu. 24ff.  U. 1705 b
ivH. 26  iv. 3285 b
xvUi. 2  i. 131 b, 132 a
ivHi. 5. . .iv. 3223 a, 3253
b, re.
xvfli. 6  L 628 a
xvliL 12....1. 20b, 863b,
Ul. 2589 b, 2617 b
xvUi. 12-17  lv. 3321b
xvfli. 18  ii. 981 a, iU.
2076 a, »., 2378 a, re.,
iv. 3451 a
xvUi. 24-28  L 65 a
xix. 1-6  i. 234 b
xix. 3, 4  il 1426a
its. 4  U. 1350a
ill. 5  1. 241 a, b
ill. 9,28  iv. 3488 b
xix. 12  fl. 1017 a
xix. 16  iv. 2864 a
xix. 19  1. 90 a
xix. 24  1 582 a
III. 24, 25  1 749 s
ilx. 28, 39  iv. 2705 s
xix. 36  U. 1519a, re.,
iv. 3558 b
xix. 37  L 462 a
xix. 88, .L 749 b, Hi. 2617
b,iv. 3322 a
XX. 2  iu. 2380 a
XX. 3-6  iv. 3254 a
XX. 6  IL 1454 b, re.
XI. 7  H. 1677 a
XX. 8  H. 1589a
XX. 9  iv.3540a
H.ll  il 1684a
XX. 13, 14  i. 185 a
H. 17-35  iv. 3254 a
H. 18-35  iU. 2385 a, re.
XX. 24  i. 866a
XX. 28  iv. 3437 a, re.
XX. 35. .1 311 b, iv. 3317 a
xxi. IS  1.392 8
xxi. 24  L 413 s, in.
2075 s, iv. 3451 a
xxi. 24, 28  Ui. 2645 a
xxi.27ff.  U. 1591b
Hi. 27-30  iU. 2338 b
xxi. 31  L 164a
Hi. 33  i.407b
XXl 34  1.870 b
xxi. 39  iU. 1845 b
xxu. 4  It. 3488 b
txii 14  Hi. 2365 s
xxii. 15, 20  iU. 1811a
xxiLlO  L238b
ctH. 22  UL 2387 s, re.
xxU. 23  L628a
xxui. 2  u. 1069 s, Ui.
2643 b
xxliL8-6  ifl. 2387 b
xxiiL6..Ui. 2888 s, 2478 a
xxiU. 6-11  UL23S8a
ixiU. 8  iT.2782b

xxui. 16  Bi. 2264b
xxui, 23  i, 164 a
HiU. 26  1 787 s
xxIt, 6  iT, 2784 a
xxlT. 10  Ul. 2590 a
xxiv. 14  iv. 2901a
xxiv. 14, 22. . . . iv. 3488 b
xxiv. 17  iH. 2386 s, re.
xxiv. 24  HL 2817 b
xxiv. 25  Hi. 2389 a, re.
XXV.9  i.l29a
xxv. 11  L 129 s, 469 b
xxv, 12  Hi. 2617 b
xxv. 23  Ui. 2590 b, re.
xxv. 26  1. 818 b, Hi,
2617 b
xxvi. 4, 5. ..UL 2363 b, re.
xxvi. 7  U. 1139 b
xxvi. 9  ii. 1494 s
xxvi. 10  iv. 3449 b
xxvi. 14. .U. 932 b, 1691b
xxvi. 28, 29. . . .in. 2390 b
xxvii. (passim) iv. 3004 ff.
xxvii. i  1. 164 a
xxvu, 3  1. 743 b
HvH. 9  1 813b
xxviLll  in. 1830 a
ixvH. 13  i. 185 b
xxvii. 13, 14  1. 507 s
HvU. 14. . . .Ui. 2391 a, re,,
iv, 3541 a
ixvii. 16  i. 484 a
ixvii. i7  1. 35 a. Hi.
2391b, 2652 b
Hvii. 27  i. 36 s
xxvii. 27-29  HL 1878 s
xxvii. 35  H. 1684 s
xxvH. 38  Hi. 2391 a, re,
xxviL39  IH, 1878 a
xx^vU. 41  iv. 2876 s
xxviu.1,2, 10. .HL 1879 a
xxvUi. 2  L246a
xxviu. 2, 3  iu. 1878 b
xxviu. 3  iv. 2930 b
ixviii. 4  i. 246 a
xiviH.7  UL 2638 a
xxvlH. 8  i.316b
xxviii. il  i. 395 a
xxviu. 13  1. 485 b
xivlH, 15  1. 130 a
HviH. 16  1 164 a, 338
a, 384 b, 385 a, iU. 2392
xxvUi. 16,20  i.40'7b
xxviH. 22  iv. 2901a
xxxu, 39  in. 1878 b
xxxiu. 2 ff.  111049 a
ROMANS.
1.13-15  iv. 3460 b
L14  1.245b
Lie  H. 1389a
1. 19ff.  U. 1706 b
1.28  i.489a
i.31  lv.3325b
H.9,10  IL 1389a
H, 16  H. 1696 b
U. 29. ...IL 1476 b, 1494 a
IH, 25, 26  lv. 2861b
lv. 18  IL 1501b
V, 1  iL 1209 a
V, 6-8  iv, 2861b
T.8  u, 1380b
T,12ff  U 13848
T. 15-20  It. 3094 a
tL 4  i.240a,b
tH. 6  It. 2132 b
TU. 14-24  iT. 2831b
viiL5  iv. 2863 a
viu. 13  Hi, 2016 b
viu. 15  1. 33 b
VliL 23  Hi. 2356 a
viil. 29  i. 310 a
viu. 32  h. 1380 b
Ix. 3  L 789 b
lx.4  It. 2960 b
X. 7  1, 579 a
1,12,13  il 1417 a
1,14  Ui, 2574 b
I, 15  11125746
X. 18  U, 1661a
xi. 2  L 7v08

xi. 16  Ui, 2356 a
xi, 16-25  m, 2240 b
xi.26  iv. 3090a
xu.3,16  iv.2863a
xU. 12  IL 1139 b
xU. 20  1. 473 a, b
xlH. 1-3  iU. 2369 b
liu. 2  i. 533a
xiu. 3  iv. 3538 a
XiiL 9  iv. 3209 a, re.
XiU. 13  U. 1085a
liv. 20  Hi. 2209 a
xiv. 21  Hi. 2209 a
xiv. 23  i.533a
IV. 8  U. 1476 b
XV. 19  U. 1727 b
xv,24  L328b
XV. 28  IH. 2395 a
xvi. 1,2  iu. 2514 a
xvi. 5  i. 20 b
xvi. 10  i. 155 a
XVL13  iv. 3046 a
xvi. 21  iv. 3231b
XVL23. .1.783 a, Ui. 2651s
xvL25,27  U. 1506b
xvi.26  lv. 2874a
1 CORINTHIANS.
1.14  lv. 3253b
i. 22  Ui. 2381a
il9..1 711 a, ii. 1684 b, re.
iv.3  ....i. 369a
iv. 4  i. 337 a
iv. 9. ..i.865a,iv. 3215 b
T. 1  UL 1796 a, re.
T.l, 9, 11  U. 1003b
v.3-5  U. 1112a
V. 6-8  Ul. 2354 b
vi.ll  1. 238b
vlL8  iv. 3449 b
vu. 10-16  1.610 a
vU.12  UL 1797b
vU. 18  1. 464 b
viiL4ff  iv. 3369 a
ix. 5..U. 1604b, iu. 1813a
ix. 21  u. 1610 b
ix, 24. .1. 866 b. Hi, 2573 b
ix. 23  U, 1186 a
ix. 25,27  1. 865 a
ix. 26  i. 57 a
ix. 27. .1 866 b.iv. 2707 a
X. 1, 2, .1 236 b, 237 a, re.
X. 2  iU. 2692 a
X. 4. ...1 124 b, 264b, iv.
3317 a
X. 4^29  It. 3461a
X.12  U. 1377a
X. 16  Hi. 2345 a, It.
3544 b
X. 16,21  111683 8
X. 25  iT. 2942b
X. 32  U. 1019 s
Il 2  It. 3316 b
ii.5-15  iv. 3370b
xi. 10  ill 1805 a
xi.18, 19  It, 2901b
xi.20  U. 1680a, re.
xi. 23-25  U. 1698 b
xi.25  U. 1681b
xi. 29  1 533 a
xi, 30, 33, 34. ...U. 1683 b
lL34  iL1684a
xii.

xii. 5  U. 1041b
xfl. 8-11  Hi. 2592 a
IU.13  12408
iiL28  LSUb
lUL 1  iv. 3309a
liiL 2  UL 2047 a
liU. 12  UL 1971s
xUL13  i, 243b
xiv. 2  IH. 2047 a
xiv. 9  L 57s
xiv.ll  L 246s
liT. 16..i. 82 a. It. 3138 a
x1t,21  lv.3310a
xiT.26  ,  U, 1113s
xiT,35  It, 3538a
XV.8  ilL 2365a
XT.18  fl, 1347b
IT. 27  H. 1384 a
XV. 29  i. 241b

3665
IV. 32..i, 864 b, IH, 2380 b
IT. 55. ...H. 1038 a, 1039 b
XTi. 1,2  u. 1677s
xvL2  U.1683b,iv, 3135 b, re.
xvi. 6  1. 328 b
xvi. 10,11  lv. 3254 a
xvi, 22  i.789a
2 CORINTHIANS.
L9  1.865 a
i. 19  iv. 3223 s
i. 21  L 244 a, b
L 22... 1. 630 a, Hi. 2549 b
iL 1  Hi. 2380 a
iu,3  iv. 3576a
iu. 7  iL1612a
Ui. 11-18  It. 3461a
iH.13, 14  IH. 2023 a
lu. 14  It. 3213 b
iT.4  It. 2850a
T.l  iv, 3211b
T, 5  1. 630 s, Hi. 2549 b
T. 14-21  iv. 2861b
v.18  u. 1880b
V.21  IL 1384b
vi. 12  L -320 s
vi.l4, 17  Ui. 1797 b
vL15  U. 1138a
vUi. 1. .L 614 a, iT. 3551 b
viu. 16-24  iv. 3325 a
viii. 18  U. 1693 b
ix. 11  lv. 3253 b, re
X. 16  u. 1661b
xi.9  iv.3225b
xi. 22. ...U. 1022b, 1389 a
xi. 23-28  Hi. 2383 a
xL25. .L 434 a, iv. 3007 b
xi.27  iU. 2079b
xi. 29  iU. 2209 a
xi. 32. , , ,1, 144 b, 871 a,
U. 964a,1728b,iu 2366 b
xl. 33. .1 253 b, iv. 3540 a
xu. 1-4  iv. 3319 a
xn. 2  H. 1020 a, 1347 b
XiL 4  iiL2333a,re.
xlL 7. .Hi. 2383 a, iv. 2850 a
xli.9  iv. 2960 b
xU. 21  u. 1003 b, Ui,
2380 a
xui, 2  UL 2380a
xui. 6, 7  iv,2707a
GALATIANS.
18  1789 b
114  iv. 3316 b
1 17f.  u. 978 b
119  U. 1422b
i. 21.. L 462 b, re., Ui. 2366
b, re.
u  124b
U. 1-15  Ul, 2452 b
H. 2.. 1593b, iU. 2371 8, re.
H, 3  iv. 3263 b
H. 11-14. . . .ui. 2372 b, iv.
3339 b
11 13  i. 247 a, re.
iu «  iU. 2574b
HL 13  iv.2860b
IU. 14  iL 1019a
ifl. 14-25  iv.3461a
Ui. 16  u. 1018 b
iU. 19. ..L la, 7b,H. 1075
a, 1306 b
Hi. 23-28  L239b
iv. 2. . .U. 964 a, U. 1035 a,
re., iv. 3330 a
iv.3,9  L695b
iv.4  iv.2743a
lv. 10  Ul 2111b, re.
iv.l3  iU. 23738
iv. 15  Ui. 2373 b, re.
iv. 22 ff  fl.978a
iv.24  1 67a
lv. 25  Hi. 2366 a, re.
iv. 25ff.  U. 1170 b, re.
iv. 29  U. 1143a
V.6  iiL2026>i
T. 19-21  It. 2901b
T. 20. .iU. 2561b,iT.2901a
Ti. 11  L75ab

3666
Ti. 17  152
EPHESIANS. ,
110  U. 1380b
i. 13  L244b
i.l4....1630a,U12549b
121  Ui. 2588 a
112  1.56 b, Hi. 2569 8,
It. 2850 b, re.
iL14  iU, 2338b
U,22  i.454b
in, 10  iu. 2688a
iT.8  iT.3105a
iT.ll  iT.3I368
iv. 18  iv. 3050b
lv.30  1244b
T 4  i.489a
T. 14 ...1 711a, U. 937 a,
1684 b, re.
V. 23  iv, 2857 b
V. 26  L237b,f.
V. 26, 27  Ul. 1805 a
vi. 6  i. 796 b
vi. 12  1. 57 a, fli. 2587 b
vi. 20  L407b
PHILIPPLANS.
1.1  UL 1943a
1.13  L 838 a, iv. 2750 b
L25  Ui. 2394 a, ff.
U. 1  L320a
U. 2-30  iv. 3461a
u, 3  Ui. 2273 a
iL17....Ui. 1942b, 2491b
fl. 24  nl. 2394 a, ff.
U,26  Ui. 2491b
U. 30  UL 2491b
Ui.2  i.485b
iU. 2, 3  1. 465 a, Ui.
2491b
iu. 8  1.628a
iU.12,18  i.lSlb
IU. 12-14  1. 866 a, b
Hi. 14  iU. 2575b
Ui. 19  iv. 2863a
iU. 20  L489a
iU. 20, 21  It. 2857 b
iT.2,3  H. 1727b
It. 3  L783s, U. 1703
8, ifl. 2278 a, 2492 a, re.,
2493 a, re., iv. 3383 a
It. 14-16  It. 3225 b
iT. 16  iT.3253b
It. 22. . .1. 338 b, iv. 3116 a
COLOSSIANS.
116  Hi. 2688a
i.20  11 1380b
127  L239 8
U.1  1 481b
H. 2....1 289 a, Ui. 2047 a
H.8  Hi. 2311b
U.8, 20  1695b
U. lO  Hi. 2588 a
U.ll  1.237 a
iL12  L240a, b
fl.14,15  fli. 2587b
B, 16  U. 1679a
H.18  i.481b
ifl 2  iv. 2863 a
Ui 6  Hi. 2016 b
Ui, 11  H. 1389 a
HL 15  i.865a
iU, 22  1. 796 b
iv, 7,9  HL 2483b
iv. 10..L 164 b, It. 3057 a
iv. 14  Hi. 2493 s
iT.16  H. 1695a
iT.17. .U. 1696 a, iu. 2483 a
1 TBfflSSALONLANS.
111.2  i.280a
It, 8  U 1003b
lT.12  fl.l085a
lT.16  in. 2675a
2 THESSALONIANS.
IL 1-12  It. 3228 b, f.
H. 6  i. 103 b
H. 6  i.UOa
U.15  It. 3316 b
IIL 17  i.768b

INDEX.

1 TIMOTHY.
14  1 808 b, iv. 3257 b
L8  It. 3257 b
110  U. 1003b
112  L732a
i. 13  u. 1494 a
119,20  L788b
120  11 UUs
U. 7  H, 1044 s, 1347 b
U. 9  1 328 b, U. 982, a.
It. 2942 b
Hi. 1-12  It. 3461a
iH. 1-13  It. 3257 a, b
1112  L 610 b,lT. 3545a
iU. 2, 12  Ui. 1302 a
in. 3  It. 3545 a
iu.4  IL 1085a
UL 6  It. 2848
in. 8-13  m.l943a
iU.13  1579b
iH. 16  1239 a
iu.l8  Ui. 2126b
It. 1-7.. 1. 808b, Ui. 2511b
iT. 8  i.866b
It. 14  L311a
lT.15  u. 15168
T.3-10  L673b
T.4  ui.2526b,iT. 3057 b
T. 8  iL 11388
T. 9  i. 573 b, fli. 1802a
T. 10  It. 3486 a
T.U  iT.3538a
T,17  iT,3136a
T.22  i. 311a
T. 23  Ui. 2210 b., iT.
3545 a
vi.l2  i. 241a. 865a
vL20  iiL2511b,iv.
2864 a, 3257 b
2 TIMOTHY.
Ill  H. 1044a
113  i.241a
1.16  1. 311s, 407 b
L 16-18  iv. 3258b
1.18  UL 2253 b
U. 5... .L865a,UL1830b
n.8  iL 1696b
U. 11  in. 25618
H. 16-18  in. 2511 b
H. 17, 18  U. 1111 a
H.18  iv.8257b
iU.3  iv. 3325b
Ui.8  1. 124 b,H. 1506b
HL 8,9  U. 1746 b
Hi. 10, 11  iL 1705 a
iU. 11  H. 1701 a
IH. 12  iv. 3538 a
Ui.l6  iv. 2873b
iv.7,8  L865a.,L867a
iv. 10  L854 b.iv.
3258 b
lv.18  1624 a, HL
2394 s, re., iv. 3259 a
iv. 14  i. 490 b
iv. 14, 15  iv. 3269 a
iv.l6  H. 1693b
iv.l7  1 865a
It. 18  H. 1541b
It. 20  Ui. 1933 b, It,
3259 s
iT,21  L470s
TITUS.
16  i.eiOb
U.3  It. 3545 s
U.7  il 1086s
u. 14  iT. 2862 a
in. 6  1 238 a
Ui.9  i. 441a
Hi. 12  L167a
PHILEMON.
1  Ui. 2488b
1,2  U. 1595b
2  1129 b, 149b
7,12, 20  1820a

9  139b
11,18  i.759a
14,21  IU. 2484b

19  i. 759 a, iU. 2483 a
22  i. 481b
24  Hi. 2493 a
HEBREWS.
i.2-8  iL 1384a
1.6  i.aiOa
L7  iT.3541a
i.9  i.lOla
U.2  u. 1506b
H.IO  i.384b
11.12  H. 1376 b, re.
It. 2  UL 25,74 b
iT.8  u. 1476 b, 1477 a
It. 8-10.  It. 2766 a
iv.9  ..U. 1680a
It. 15  U. 1384 b
Ti.1,2  i. 243 a
Ti.2  i. 311a
Ti.4  i. 238b
Ti.9  H. 1102 b
Ti,16  L 589a
vi. 19  iv, 3005 b
VU.19  H. 1609b
vii. 26  U. 1384 b
ix. 4. .1. T/b, 155 b, 403 b
ix.5  1 420b
ix, 7  iv. 3050b
ix. 11  i. 65 s
ix. 16, 17  1.503 b, It.
3213 b
ix. 23  Ul, 2362 a
x.19, 29  H, 1379 a
1,22  H, 1683a
1.23  Ul 2127 b, re.
1.25  U, 1677 a
X.26  It. 3050b
X. 28  ifl. 2641b
X.32  i.238b
X. 33  L865 a
X.38  It. 3436 b, re.
xL24  u. 1506 b
xi. 24-26  iU. 2464 a
xi.28  iH. 2354 s
xi. 33, 34  iv. 2939 a
xi. 35  i. 88 b, re.
xl. 37  ii. 1258 b, iv.
3317 a
xu. 1. .i. 865 a, iv, 3216 a
xn. 1,2  1. 866 a
xH. 23  iv. 3185 a. re.
xiii. 12  ii. 1686 a
xiU. 7  11 1207 b, It.
3136 a
XiiL 12  1. 733a
iiH.18  iL 1086s
lUi. 23  iT. 3254 b

Ll.

JAMES.

Lll  iT.3540b
H.2  iT.2734s
U. 14r-26  U. 1209s
iu. 4... a. 964b, It. 3007 8
HL 7  It. 2932 b
It. 6-10  u. 1151b
iT.13  U. 1792b
T, 2  L625a
T, 3  It. 2754 b
T, 14, 15  U. 1209 b
T.17  fl. 1506b
1 PETER.
11. ...1. 387 a, 111442 a
1,10-12  iiL 2599 b
1.14  It. 3050b
1.17  L787a
118,19  iT.2861b. U.
1384 b
U. 2  ill 2434 a, re.
U.5  n. 1666b
U. 16  U. 1684 b, re.
u.22  U. 1384 b
U.24  iT, 2860 6,2861
a, 8321b
Ui,3  iL982s
in, 5  It. 2785 b
in. 11  i.743b, 762 b
Hi. 18  H. 1384 b
Hi, 19  U. 1038 b, iU.
2574 b
iu.20  iU. 2126b

ifl, 21  i. 286b,241i
iT.17,.,,,  IL 1416b
v.l  H. 1442a
V. 5-9  H, 1161 b
T, 13  iv. 2761a
2 PETER,
i. 1  U. 1442 a, iv.
3044b
11-11  Hi. 24588, n.
i.l4  U. 1427b
115  Ui. 20258
i. 16  i. 808b
i.20  iv.2874a
111  iv. 29ula
H.3  L 633 s
U.4  iv.2848b
U.5  fl, 1044a
fl.6-9  U. 1686a
fl. 13  fl. 1682 a, B.
U.15  1,223, 226 b, UL
2146 b.B.
ifl. 2  i.SOSs
iU.15  U. 1023 a
Hi. 16  i.303a
iU.18  iu, 2468a, re,
1 JOHN,
H.M  U. 1360b
U.18  L lost
H.20  1244 8,t
H. 23  fl. 1440 8,b
H.29  U. 1384b
iH.8,7  U. 1384b
iiL9-12  iv.2848b
iT.2,3  It. 33Ub
iT.3  i.lOSb
It. 9  U. 1380b
T. 6  1. 235 b
T. 7,8  H. 1440 s, b,
iU. 2129 b, 2130 b, 2134
b, n.
T.8  1 236b
T.16  L 315b
2 JOHN.
12  iT. 3575 a, 3576 a
8 JOHN,
10  1789a
13  It, 3575 b, 3576 a
JUDE.

6  iv.2848b
 1. 124 b, iU. 2026 a
12...1 471b,U.1682a,B
23  U. 1634s
RETE LATION.
1. 2  u. 1428b
i.8  i.73b
LIO  fl.l676a,f.
1.13;  U. 1069b
i.l4  '  iL981l
L15  1. 3238,490b,iiL 1909 b
120  iv.3136b
U.l  iT.3136b
U.1-7  It. 3266 a
U.9  iT.30648
U.14  12276
iL17  iL llOO b, iu
2063 a, It. 3117 «
U. 18. . .U, 1703 a, iU, 1909
b. It. 8242 a
U.20  u. 1390b
U.20,21  lT.3242a
HL7.  IL 1532b
Ui.8  iU. 2482b
Ul. 12  Ui. 2063 8
iU. 14  i.828
iU.18  LlOla
iT.S  1478a
It, 7  U, 1424b
iT. 7,8  iv. 2961»
lv.8.  iv.29278
T.l  It, 3676b
T,8  1518b
T.9  :t.34458
tL 1,3, 5,7  14238
Ti. 2. ...1 179 s,U. 1093a

INDEX.

vl.4  L479a
Ti.8  1478 8
TlL3  1. 522 a, 837 a
tU.9  iH. 2325b
vHi.l  U. 1136b
viiL3,4  L403b
VliL 13  iv. 2934 b
ix.l, 2  iU. 2636 s
ix. 1,2,11  i.679a,b
lx.4  L8378
lx.7  1.597b
lx.8  iie82b
Is U  1.127 a

xi.5  iv. 3538 s
xu. 1  iU. 2008 b
lU. 3  L 479 a, 597 b
xu. 7, 9  iv. 2848 b
xiu. 1  i. 597 b
xUi.5  iv. 2935 b
xiu. 11  i. 109 a
xiH. 16  .1. 522 a
xUi. 16, 17  i. 837 s
xiii. 18  It. 3081 s, re.
xiv. 1  1, 887 a
xiv. 4  in. 2366 a
xiv.9  1837a

xiv. 10  iv. 3542 b
xv.2,3  ui. 2028s
XV. 7  1.518 b,iT.
3445 s
xvi. 2  1. 518 b
xvi. 14  H. 1243b
xvu. 5  i. 522 a, 837 s
xvU. 6  iU. ISiia
xviii 2  1. 340 b
xviH. 12  lv. 3035 b
xviU. 13  i. 85 b
xix  .11. 14i7 a
xix. 1-6  i. 67 b

3667
xii. 8, 14  u. 1662 b
Iix. 11,14  H. 1093 a
ill. 12  L 597 b
xix. 20  i. 109 a, 522 a
XX. 4  1 837 a
XX. 13  n. 1038 a
Hi. 3  iv. 2961 a
xxi. 11, 19-21... 111067 a
xxi. 21  iv. 3123 a
xxU. 2  lv. 2993 a
xxu 3,4  H. 1246 a
xxU 4  L887a
xxii 13  l.TI"

3 9002 08844 0855

IHV

¦€-:^

*i:

s.-i»*

¦M'

&»^

','^^^i'^-^i^:0f,'^?'